Site banner

 

 

One of the revelations from the Nicky Hager book, ‘Dirty Politics’ was Family First’s apparent continuing interest in overturning the 2007 law change.

This is an update of a blog post published on Pundit on 27/5/13.

I see it said quite often nowadays that the law forbidding parents from hitting their children was passed against the popular will. I don’t see it that way.

 In 2007, Parliament amended S59 of the Crimes Act 1961 to no longer permit parents to strike their children. The old law had been specifically intended and used to provide parents with a defence against a charge of assault. Public argument for and against the law change had been heated and prolonged. Now, looking back, the fact of the change is being used in some public policy writing as an example of government frustration of the popular will. How true is this? Some evidence is as follows.

The passage through Parliament: When the amendment Bill came before Parliament it was passed at its first reading by 63 votes to 54. At the select committee stage, 1718 written submissions were received, 247 from organisations and 1471 from individuals. A majority of the submissions from organisations were in favour of amendment. A majority of individual submissions were against. At the final stage of its passage through Parliament, the Bill was passed with an overwhelming majority of 113 to 8. Parliament does not necessarily reflect the popular will but MPs are foolish to ignore it and rely on repeated focus groups and their own party polls to supplement their understanding of what it is.  

The 2009 referendum: In August, 2009 a New Zealand-wide citizen-initiated referendum was held on the question, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” The question was a leading question, ambiguous, and only obliquely related to the law change, casting doubt on the validity of the result. Did a ‘Yes’ answer mean a smack should be a criminal offence or that good parental correction should be? What response should be given if the respondent didn’t believe a smack was “part of good parental correction”?

The doubts about the validity of any outcome led to a public movement to boycott the referendum, initially supported by some members of the Green Party. In the event, 44% of eligible voters did not vote. Of those who voted, 87% said no and 12% yes. It is primarily on these statistics that the belief is based that the passage of the law is an example of frustration of the popular will. But, even if all those who voted ‘No’ meant that they opposed the law change that is 49% of eligible voters. Because of the ambiguity of the question and its lack of a direct relationship to the S59 amendment, many of these people might not have been opposed to the law change.       

The 2009 street rally: In November 2009, on a mild spring day up to 5, 000 people marched up Auckland’s main street in a protest against the 2007 law change. Mr Craig, an Auckland businessman and leader of the march had spent an estimated $500,000 on a marketing campaign that included daily coloured full-page advertisements in Auckland’s main newspaper, advertisements in other papers and magazines, television advertisements, billboards and free buses. The rally had something of a carnival atmosphere and an unknown number of the participants carried signs supporting other causes or lampooning Mr Craig.

It is difficult to call such a rally either a success or a failure although Mr Craig had said he was expecting many more to be there. In any event, it was hardly a popular endorsement of the call for repeal of the new law in a city of a million people.

The 2008 UMR survey: A 2008 UMR survey found 43% of respondents supported the law change  and 28% opposed it.

Conclusion: It would appear that New Zealanders have been and continue to be roughly equally divided between supporters and opponents of the amendment to S59 of the Crimes Act 1961. If anything, supporters are in a majority. The belief that the passage of the law is an example of frustration of the popular will is unjustified.    

Update 20/8/14: One of the revelations from the Nicky Hager book, ‘Dirty Politics’ was Family First’s apparent continuing interest in overturning the 2007 law change. On pages 102 and 157 reference is made to a poll conducted by the National Party’s pollster, David Farrar in April this year which included a number of questions inserted at the request of Family First. They included:

...Do you think the anti-smacking law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law?  And

....If a political party promised that amending the law to allow light correctional smacking was a non-negotiable policy at the next election, would that make you more likely to vote for them, or less likely, or make no difference to your likely vote?

 

It seems likely that this is part of the preparation for trying to get the National Party to make reversal of the 2007 amendment to S.59 a bottom line for a coalition agreement with Mr Craig’s Conservative Party or perhaps other parties.

Hitting children

 
 
 
+ Text Size -
Original generation time 1.0148 seconds. Cache Loaded in: 0.0113 seconds.