Hot Topic: Anti-Smacking Bill

New Zealand has a ridiculously high child abuse rate. While the most highlighted case in the New Zealand media is undoubtedly that of the Kahui twins, evidence suggests that in the first 5 years of this decade, 35 children died of maltreatment. That's an average of 7 children dying each year from being abused and it doesn't take into account the ones who have been abused but managed to survive.

Further, when UNICEF surveyed OECD countries about their child abuse statistics it found that New Zealand came 25th out of 27 countries - behind only Mexico and the United States.

The so-called "Anti-Smacking Bill" is actually a substitution of section 59 of the Crimes Act. This section reads as follows:

Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

The thing that really got under people's skin about this act was subsection 2. Particularly the words "Nothing [...] justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction" To put this another way - if a child is trying to cross a busy street during rush hour and the parent smacks him or her with reasonable force (i.e. a smack on the bum, not a punch to the face) in order to stop the child from being run over then they are covered by subsection (1)(d). The child can also be smacked for trying to walk out of Pak'n'Save with a packet of M&M's under subsection (1)(b). However, if a child comes home late from school because they found a pond with tadpoles that they wanted to look at, the parent isn't able to use force to punish that child under subsection (2).

Contrary to popular opinion, it does not make smacking illegal, merely removes the defense of "reasonable force" for cases of child abuse. However, as a friend of mine pointed out last night, a death is still a crime even without the amendment, as is murder and if a child is in hospital it is clearly assault. However when it was introduced there was concern about the ability to plead 'reasonable force' when a parent was charged with murder, manslaughter or assault against a child.

The bill was put forward by Sue Bradford who is a member of the Greens. Only seven MPs voted against it.

The big issue surrounding the bill now come from the Kiwi Party - a new entry to the Edulection arena. The Kiwi Party want a referendum on the 'Anti-Smacking Bill' and it's been confirmed they have enough signatures on their petition to get one. So, with that in mind, a year after it became law, it's now up to you to decide if you want to keep it.

What you think about this topic is much more valuable than what the main political parties think about it because you are the one who will decide in the referendum whether it stays or goes. It's on this website because it's still a political debate.

You still need to know that this bill originated with the Greens, that it needed significant change for it to be passed at all (section 4 was included in order to get the main political parties to agree to it) and is still ambiguous and, some would argue, entirely pointless.

For the record: Independent MPs who voted against the repeal are Gordon Copeland and Phillip Field. They are joined by ACT's Rodney Hide and Heather Roy, NZ First's Ron Mark, Pita Paraone and Winston Peters and Judy Turner from United Future.

For more coverage of the bill have a look at Scoop.

Nuclear-Free Status

Our nuclear-free status is something that most Kiwi's are deeply proud of. The only terrorist act to actually occur in New Zealand territory, the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, was over this issue. One of our most-loved ex-Prime Ministers, David Lange, famously argued to the Oxford Union why we are nuclear-free. We stood up to the most powerful country in the world and said 'no' to bringing nuclear warships into New Zealand waters - a move which, until recently, has meant we were not officially considered 'allies' of the United States. We know that nuclear power is a relatively green solution in that there are no emissions, yet we still worry about the effect radioactive waste may have on our children and our children's children. We are nuclear free and we love it.

Because this is such a passionate issue for many Kiwis I thought I'd take a look around and see what the New Zealand political parties stood for when it comes to being nuclear free. I wanted to know how they felt about nuclear power and what they thought of letting nuclear warships into New Zealand territory or cooperating in war efforts with nuclear capable countries. To do this I checked out Defence Policy, Environment Policy and Energy Policy.

Given that Labour were the ones to introduce (and defend) the nuclear-free policy back in 1987 it's no surprise that their (2005, the only policy currently available on their website) policy is anti-nuclear. Their Defence Policy states that, unless it is a UN-sanctioned or humanitarian effort, New Zealand will not cooperate in military tasks with countries whose involvement may involve nuclear weaponry (and this is the main reason we were never involved in the "War on Terror" except in peacekeeping roles).

Looking at their Energy Policy Labour are clear - they don't want nuclear power. In regards to sustainable energy they list other methods such as wind and solar.

Within National's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Discussion Paper (PDF) they state that New Zealand's nuclear-free policy is "iconic" and will stay in place. This is good news, but those of us with political memories will remember Don Brash's gaffe in 2004 where he famously mentioned the policy would be "gone by lunchtime". Arguably this comment lost National the 2005 election so you can be pretty sure they're going to toe this line. There is no mention of nuclear energy - National is yet to launch it's energy policy - but their staunch anti-nuclear stance suggests it won't happen.

New Zealand First's Defence and Veteran's Affairs Policy states they are "committed" to New Zealand's anti-nuclear status.

An interesting addition to New Zealand First's policy is their pledge to "take positive action to assist the veterans of the nuclear testing at Christmas Island and their families in their legal action to achieve compensation for the negative effects on their health". A quick Google search revealed the story to me. Back in the 1950's and 1960's the American and British Governments undertook a series of nuclear tests at Christmas Island. The servicemen who were present consequently suffered from DNA mutations which were passed onto their children. Quite a nice touch from NZ First.

The Energy Policy emphasises the need for continuing research in the production of electricity but does not specifically mention nuclear power.

I don't think it's going to come as any surprise to anyone that the Greens are staunchly anti-nuclear. They have introduced an amendment to the current nuclear-free policy, which would extend the nuclear-free area in New Zealand waters (currently nuclear material can't be carried within 12 miles of the country).

Their Defence and Peacekeeping Policy clearly states the Greens will not stand for nuclear armament by the New Zealand Defence force but the Trade and Foreign Policy makes no mention of it. While the Greens say a lot about their anti-nuclear status, there is very little mention of it in actual policy. I don't honestly see the Greens changing their stand on the nuclear issue but the lack of policy on it is a little strange.

In regards to clean energy, the Green Party are clear - they support renewable energy, not nuclear energy.

The one thing that hinders this site is the fact that many parties simply do not have policy. The Maori Party is one of these parties. There is no official 'line' on nuclear policy but from speeches and quotes I have found it's possible to assume that the Maori Party are also anti-nuclear. An example of these quotes is below.

“The anniversary of the New Zealand Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act, passed twenty years ago today on 8 June 1987; is a day this whole nation should celebrate"

Tariana Turia

There is no mention of nuclear power or defence. The best a voter can do in regards to this issue and the Maori Party is assume that, because every mention of being nuclear-free on their website comes with expressions of pride and happiness in our status, the Maori Party is anti-nuclear.

United Future's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Policy states, very clearly, that not only do United Future support current legislation but they want to "actively striv[e] to achieve a world free from nuclear weapons". Their Energy Policy makes no mention of nuclear energy, but it also makes no mention of any other specific energy type.

First of all I need to preface this particular section with two pieces of information: firstly, there is no recent reporting on Act's stand on the nuclear-free status of New Zealand. Secondly Act has only one policy - a "20 point plan" aimed at increasing the weekly income of the average New Zealander by $500. Act are, however, the only party to actively omit saying in one form or another that they are anti-nuclear.

A quick key-word search on their website turned up the following quotes:

“Ambassador Swindells all but spelt it out in his speech last night, the only way we can have the type of relationship Australia enjoys with the US is to drop the unnecessary and foolish ban on nuclear-powered ships visiting New Zealand ports."

Ken Shirley (ACT Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesman, 06/07/2005)

"And we have this ban because?"

Act website, 08/03/2006

And the They Said It award goes to:

"There's now only one party prepared to stand up and argue against the nonsense of banning nuclear-powered ships: ACT!"

Act website, 09/02/2006

Because being nuclear-free is such an integral part of being a New Zealander, it seems all the major parties are in favour of keeping it that way. The main comment I have is that many of the parties - most notably the Green Party - have not actually written this down in policy. As for Act... well, we'll keep an eye on this. It certainly doesn't seem to be an integral policy this time around and I can't find any reference to Ken Shirley still being a party member on the website and Wikipedia reports he has moved into the public sector