Child Discipline Act

Infobox NZ Legislation
short_title=Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007
long_title=The purpose of this Bill is to stop force, and associated violence, being inflicted on children in the context of correction and discipline.
introduced_by=Sue Bradford
date_introduced=9 June 2005
date_passed=16 May 2007
royal_assent=21 May 2007
commencement=21 June 2007
amendments=
related_legislation=Crimes Act 1961
status=CurrentThe Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (formerly the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill) was a widely controversial amendment to the New Zealand Crimes Act which was introduced to the New Zealand Parliament as a private members bill in 2005, and passed overwhelmingly in 2007. It is colloquially referred to by several of its opponents as the "anti-smacking Bill".

Introduction

In 2005, Green Party Member of Parliament Sue Bradford's Private Member's Bill was drawn from the ballot. The Bill amended section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 to remove the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents prosecuted for assault on their children. The Bill became law after it passed its third reading on 16 May 2007 with only seven MPs voting against it. [cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = Anti-smacking bill becomes law | work = | pages = | publisher = NZPA | date = 2007-05-16 | url = http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10440080 | accessdate = 2007-05-16 ] The Governor-General of New Zealand granted the Bill Royal Assent on the 21 May 2007, and according to section two of the Act, the commencement clause, it came into force on the 21 June 2007.

Contrary to the messages put forward by the opponents of the law, the New Zealand Police has reported that there has been no significant change in the number of child abuse complaints arising from parental discipline. However, the first conviction under the act occurred on 22 November 2007. [cite news|url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10477661|title=Judge tells smack father: 'You can't get away with that now'|date=22 November 2007]

Reactions

A broad selection of organisations - including child welfare groups churches, womens groups and businesses - publicly endorsed the Bill and made submissions in support of its repeal. [cite web|url=http://www.barnardos.org.nz/AboutUs/BriefingSheet_Hands%20up%20for%20crimes%20amendment%20bill_April07.pdf|title=Hands up for the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill|date=March 2007|accessdate=2008-08-25]

Gordon Copeland resigned from United Future over the Bill since he did not agree with the party leader Peter Dunne's support for it. [cite news | last = Tait | first = Maggie | coauthors = | title = United Future MP quits party over smacking bill | work = | pages = | publisher = New Zealand Herald | date = 2007-05-16 | url = http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10440050 | accessdate = 2007-05-22]

Public opinion

There was considerable public opposition to the Bill, especially from conservative Christian groups, in the belief that it made even light smacking of children illegal. [cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = Churches take to streets over smacking bill | work = | pages = | publisher = | date = 2007-05-02 | url = http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10437411 | accessdate = 2007-05-16 ] The success of the bill only became assured when an additional clause was added stating that the bill did not remove police discretion on whether to prosecute in inconsequential cases when it was not in the public interest to do so. [cite news | last = Colwill | first = Jennifer | coauthors = | title = The smacking bill - what it says | work = | pages = | publisher = New Zealand Herald | date = 2007-05-02 | url = http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10437332 | accessdate = 2007-05-16 ] The New Zealand Herald held an ongoing discussion on its website, with 85% of respondents being against the Bill. [cite web|url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=10431340|title=So far, your views are 85% against the smacking bill|author=New Zealand Herald|accessdate=2007-06-28|]

During the debate on the bill a poster on the "CYFSWatch" website threatened to assassinate Bradford. Google removed the website soon after from its Blogger service.

Referendum proposals

There is a movement for two referenda on the law by way of a Citizens' Initiated Referendum. [cite news
last =
first =
coauthors =
title = 150,000 signatures on smacking referendum petition
work =
pages =
publisher = Stuff/NZPA
date = 2007-04-16
url = http://s59news.blogspot.com/2007/04/150000-signatures-on-smacking.html
accessdate = 2008-08-04] The proposed question is:quotation|Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?cite web|url=http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/53678/cat/41/Default.aspx|title=Anti-smacking law petition handed to Parliament|publisher=TV3|date=25 April 2008|accessdate=2008-04-25] Supporters of the referenda claim that they have collected enough signatures.cite web|url=http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0802/S00268.htm|title=300,000 and still counting!|publisher=Scoop.co.nz|date=2008-02-21|accessdate=2008-02-21|author=The Kiwi Party] If 300,000 valid signatures were collected by 1 March 2008 for each of the referendum petitions, the referenda would be expectedly held on the same date as the 2008 general election.cite web | title=Referendum looms on smacking law | url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4375611a6005.html | date=2008-01-27 | accessdate=2008-02-21 | author=Ruth Laugesen | publisher=Sunday Star Times]

The petition is supported by Family First New Zealand, the ACT Party [ [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0802/S00024.htm Scoop: ACT Pushes Anti-Smacking Referendum ] ] and The Kiwi Party. Both Family First and the Kiwi Party promote the Judaeo-Christian argument supporting smacking. There is also contention within Christianity around this argument.

There is questionable success over the referendum, given both Prime Minister Helen Clark and Leader of the Opposition John Key have said the results of the referendum will not commit them to repealing the law. [cite news
last = 3 News
first =
coauthors =
title = Anti-smacking petition close to forcing citizen's referendum
work =
pages =
publisher = TV 3
date = 2008-01-28
url = http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/44473/cat/41/Default.aspx
accessdate = 2008-03-13] Supporters of the referendum claimed that they have collected enough signatures.cite web|url=http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0802/S00268.htm|title=300,000 and still counting!|publisher=Scoop.co.nz|date=21 February 2008|accessdate=2008-02-21|author=The Kiwi Party]

The petition was presented to the Clerk of the House of Representatives on 29 February 2008, who vetted the signatures along with the Chief Electoral Officer. Of 280,275 signatures required to force a referendum, only 269,500 were confirmed—a shortfall of 10,775. A number of signatures were excluded because they were illegible, had incorrect date of birth information, or appeared more than once.cite web|url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/4501944a10.html|title=Smacking petition falls short|publisher=The Dominion Post|accessdate=2008-04-29|date=29 April 2008|author=Tracey Watkins]

The petitioners were required to collect and confirm the requisite number of signatures within two months, to be presented to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. This occurred on the 23 June 2008, when Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock handed over a petition which claimed to have over 390,000 signatures.cite web|url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10517989 |title=Smacking petition runs out of time |date=2008-06-24|accessdate=2008-06-24 |publisher=The New Zealand Herald] The Office of the Clerk of the House had two months to verify the signatures. On the 22 August 2008 the Clerk certified that there was enough signatures, the Government will have one month to name a date for a referendum. Under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 Cabinet could delay a vote on the issue for up to a year. The Prime Minister has stated that it is now unlikely the referendum will be held in conjunction with the election.

ee also

* New Zealand blogosphere#CYFS Watch

References

External links

* [http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/2/4/b24fba96f2224b1985bc254efac71c63.htm Parliament of New Zealand - Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill]