Last week the result of the child discipline referendum came out.

There is no question that the number of those voting ‘no’ was stunningly high.

However, I would have a lot more respect for the outcome of the refendum if the question originally asked had been a lot clearer.

In the last few days of the referendum period I increasingly came across people who said they totally supported the law change we achieved two years ago, but who also voted ‘no’.

I genuinely believe that the ambiguous and confused question put to voters has resulted in an ambiguous and confused answer.

It is also a fact that when the number of people who didn’t vote at all (46%) is added to the number of those who voted ‘yes’ or who spoilt their ballot papers, a slight majority of New Zealanders did not support a law change, whatever the interpretation of ‘no’.

And of course children and young people don’t get to vote, even though they are the people most affected. When you take this factor into account, 33% of New Zealanders voted ‘no.’

I am therefore pleased that earlier this week the Prime Minister John Key reaffirmed his Government’s position of sticking with the law as it is

He confirmed that until or unless there is evidence of New Zealand parents being criminalized for trivial or inconsequential assaults on their children, he plans to leave things as they are.

Mr Key also announced three measures he hope will allay the fears some parents have that they will be criminalized for trivial assaults on their children.

He is asking the Police and CYFS to take a look at processes around how they deal with those who abuse children; bringing forward an MSD review of how the child discipline law change is working in practice; and asking Police to continue 6 monthly reports on the operation of the law.

All of these steps are quite sensible in an environment where people continue to be so anxious about the ramifications of the new law.

I hope that despite the pressure now bearing down on them that John Key and the National Government will continue to stick to their principles.

After all, in 2007 they voted for a law change which finally gave children the right to the same legal protection from violence as we parents have.

I hope no New Zealand Government ever buckles to demands coming from some of the supporters of the ‘No’ vote campaign to reinstate a law allowing for parents to legally beat their children, including with implements.

This debate around child discipline has been raging for four years now.

It would be good to have some breathing space for a while to allow the law to bed in, and for rational reviews and research to take place so we can all understand what is really going on.

I also hope the Government will put more resources into some of the things that can really make a difference – for example, by increased access to parenting education, and lifting funding to groups which help support families and children.

As I am sure everyone is excruciatingly well aware, we are right now in the middle of the postal referendum on the physical discipline of children.

Voting started on 31 July and finishes on 21 August.

At a cost of $9 million to the taxpayer, the referendum asks:

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

I reckon this question is both misleading and ambiguous.

A lot of people tell me they have no intention of voting, or are going to spoil their ballot paper, because they are angry about money being wasted on such a confused proposition.

Other people are keen to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ because they have strong views on the issue and want to vote regardless.

This includes me of course. I will be voting ‘Yes’ and encouraging others to do the same, as I see that voting ‘Yes’ is a vote for keeping the law as it is.

Parents are not being prosecuted in their droves for giving their children a ‘smack’.

There is actually no offence called ‘smacking’ in New Zealand law.

There is, however, an offence of ‘assault’ which has always been there.

What the law change in 2007 achieved was simply the removal of the defence of ‘reasonable force for the purpose of correction’ which in the past allowed some parents to get away with quite badly beating their children.

The ‘reasonable force’ defence also meant parents felt they had a state-sanctioned right to use physical force as a way of disciplining their children.

New Zealand made a huge step forward two years ago when Parliament voted by a huge majority to take away this defence and give our children the same legal protection from violence as we adults enjoy.

I hope that despite the anger people justifiably feel at the way in which money is being wasted on this confused referendum question, some of you at least will consider voting ‘yes’ as an expression of support for the law change.

People often ask me, ‘If you think this question is so ambiguous, what should the question have been?”

Of course it could have been any number of things, but I believe a much fairer question would have been something like ‘Should the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction be available to New Zealand parents?’

At least people would then have been a lot clearer on what they were voting for or against.

I have put a member’s bill forward seeking to ensure that in future when someone comes up with a proposal for a citizens’ initiated referendum, the Clerk of the House – who approves these questions – has more legal guidance on what should go forward.

I am suggesting that questions that are ambiguous complex, leading or misleading should not be accepted, and that the proposer keeps working on the question with the Clerk until it is clear and simple.

I am in discussions with the Minister of Justice about this at the moment, and hope the Government may change the law in this area as a result.

Meanwhile, the debate on whether our kids deserve a childhood free from violence continues, and will for a while yet, whatever the result on 21 August.

Little has been said about what children think about the issue, despite New Zealand having ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 12 of that Convention states:

1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

So it’s great to see that the child helpline 0800WHATSUP has conducted a survey of children and young people to find out their thoughts on this issue.

Here are the results:

The full report on the survey is available here (PDF).

Maybe if children and young people had drafted the referendum question it would have been worded more sensibly too.

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

I initially wondered if it was asking whether I should get the bash if I don’t look after the tadpoles properly.

I see John Key and Phil Goff have both said they think the wording is ambiguous and confusing.

And the Act Party’s intellectual heavyweight John Boscawen seems very confused too.  In a questionnaire response published by The Hand Mirror, Boscawen replied:

Multi-choice questions (candidate’s answer is in bold):

In the forthcoming Child Discipline referendum New Zealanders should:
Vote Yes OR Vote No or Abstain
Candidate comment: Because I beleive (sic) parents should be able to correct their children’s behaviour. I have a private members bill promoting a change.

And we’re spending almost $9 million on this nonsense that is so badly worded that even the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition can’t understand it.

Well done Sue Bradford for putting forward a Member’s Bill to ensure questions in citizens initiated referenda are not ambiguous, complex, leading, or misleading. The child discipline one would fail on three of those four counts.

Let’s hope Sue’s bill is drawn in today’s ballot, or if not, the Government is prepared to take it up, as John Key indicated yesterday he is considering.

Aotearoa New Zealand can be a place where children are secure, confident, understand limits and boundaries and behave well – without physical punishment.

In 2007, by an overwhelming majority of 113 to 8 votes, Parliament granted children protection from assault by their parents. The law is working well but is under threat from an upcoming referendum, to be held by postal ballot in July and August 2009.

We urge you to take action.

A ‘yes’ vote is a vote to retain a law that is working well.
A ‘yes’ vote is a vote to protect children from assault.
A ‘yes’ vote is a vote for positive parenting.
A ‘yes’ vote is supported by Barnardos, Plunket, Save the Children, Unicef and many other respected child-focussed organisations.

Let’s try and avoid the usual personal attacks and focus on the real issue behind the poorly worded referendum. Most importantly, make sure you vote!

 But now I find out why thanks to Roger Douglas’s blog:

The cost of doing business in New Zealand is in many ways, beyond belief.

•   Resource Management Act.
•   Nutty regulation (dogs); anti-smacking legislation.
•   Emissions Trading Scheme.

Yup, section 59 is increasing the cost of doing business in New Zealand.  Maybe it’s because if you haven’t given your child a good beating with a hosepipe in the morning you’re not feeling at your most productive when you get to work?  Or maybe violence against children was being used as a productivity measure by parents who employed their own children in their businesses? Who knows. Anyway it is somehow linked to the impact dogs and nuts have on business expenses. And these guys claim they know about the big issues facing the economy. 

Apparently, not only did Lochore leave his babies (not children, but three week old babies) outside in the mud while he was boozing, but he actually attempts to justify the fact that he assaulted other people’s children. WTF?

Meanwhile, also on s 59 related issues, Ari wants to know how the word ‘good‘ made its way into the referendum question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?”

The essential recurring problem here is that the pro-section 59 lobby have given us no objective legal way of qualifying what “good parental correction” means in relation to smacking and the charge of assault. They insist that it’s a common-sense test, which would be fine if there were evidence of good parents being convicted for, say, losing their temper once or twice.

Toad has a been having a few laughs at the expense of National and their $50 a week road toll policy.

Jackhumm notes in Southland that:

We’re enthusiastically importing palm kernal extract, to feed our dairy cows (what’s wrong with our over-abundance of grass??) and in the process, encouraging the Indonesians to fell more jungle to make space to plant out their cash-crop.

Stevedore is angry at Wellington’s attempt to get rid of STV from it’s local body voting system

Prendergast and her supporters are currently trying to get rid of STV.  Who can blame her – STV has replaced of some of her close supporters and confidants with people like this and made life difficult for those who have liked things the way they used to be (Prendergast needed 9 iterations of transfered votes to cross the 50% barrier last election).  And her newly named successor/predecessor Blumsky never had to win under STV.  So she’ll try to remove that obstacle to the dynasty’s well being next month while everyone is worrying about politics of a different sort.

And Kakariki has applied the reduce, reuse, recycle ethic to birthday presents

I recently had a birthday and it was very interesting the conversations that arose when I requested that people give me something handmade (by them or someone else) or nothing at all. Not only did some of my friends surprise me with their hidden creativity, but we had some great chats about the old saying ‘it’s the thought that counts’. After all, what do you think you’re saying you think about your friend, if you give them a cheap, plastic, throw away trinket made in a sweatshop? Personally, I’d rather get no gift.

Thus his commentary in The Press yesterday morning [off line] is enlightening.  It seems we do not currently have an anti-smacking law but a law with more circumstances when the use of force is permissible than under the previous law. (Although now those circumstances are more tightly defined and less likely to allow for abuse)

In truth we have a law that allows for smacking in four defined circumstances compared to the one circumstance of the past.  Mum and Dad must be careful not to smack for the purpose of ‘correction’. But Mum and Dad can lawfully use ‘reasonable force for the purpose, for instance, of ‘preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour’.  That’s probably the motivation behind a lot of parental smacks.  In brief our referendum is about whether Mum and Dad need five, rather than four, circumstances in which they can smack with lawful protection   

Of course it seems to suit some to continue to treat this as if it is a issue of removed parental rights, even though they have not lost any right, just a unwarranted defence against beating children.

Yup, next year we all get to vote on the following topic:

“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

…and the answer is, ‘it always was’.  What has changed is that the defence of reasonable force has been removed for parents. Which is not to say that there are no other defences.  There are all the remaining defences laid out in section 59 along with all the defences that keep you safe from day to day as you go about assaulting non-children-type people by patting them on the back, pushing past them on the bus and squeezing in next to them on the elevator.

Anyway, should the referendumers get their way it will make for interesting court cases around the definition of ‘good’ parental correction.  (How ‘good’?  ‘Good’ like icecream that brings a smile to your face or ‘good’ like christians who want to do unto others as they would have done unto themselves?)

First his views on Peak Oil:

Yeah, I’m not sure I entirely buy the peak oil argument. I guess, if it’s real, and demand really is greater than the world’s ability to supply, then you’ll certainly see technology being invoked that will make things more competitive…

I’m of a view that these kind of sustained oil prices will see all sorts of reserves around the world opened up. From New Zealand’s point of view I think we all accept there is a fair bit of oil around New Zealand but it is expensive to get out. At a hundred dollars a barrel however, it’s competitive…

I think the supply side will respond

Why is it the peak oil deniers (or should I say ‘sceptics’) always settle for the ‘don’t worry if things get too bad we’ll just invent a new gizmo to solve the problem’ solution?

Then he traverses climate change:

But look, I think climate change is a long term problem and needs long term solutions. It is right for New Zealand to play its part in the world, it’s crazy for New Zealand to lead the world if that means massive drop in jobs and economic growth, and that’s what it does mean.

So, at least no longer any scepticism here. But this ‘slowly slowly’ response needs to be contrasted with the IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

Of course it’s hard for Key to say much else when he believes in unlimited growth at all costs. If you’re in debt, the answer is just grow your way out of it:

New Zealand doesn’t have a debt problem it has a growth problem and a competitiveness problem.

And, finally on an unrelated topic, watch Key try to extract himself from the s59 bill that he previously lauded and voted for.

I think the last straw was really smacking. While we put up a compromise, and it was the right thing to do because it delivered something that was half workable, I think for a lot of new Zealanders it was the final straw.

She noted that at the moment, it is a criminal offence for ordinary god-fearing cat owners to hit, kick or otherwise beat their cats as a part of good pet correction. New Zealand has an appalling rate of cat abuse in this country and it can be traced to the breakdown in the pet owner-cat relationship. The government’s response has been to criminalise good pet owners who correct their disobedient cats with a light smack.

The real causes of pet abuse are that too many cats come from single parent families. Their mothers are often promiscuous, and young. Cat attendance at church has been falling for decades and the government has turned a blind eye.

So, now you can do something about it. Join my new lobby group, Cats First. Sign our petition calling on the government to restore the right of pet owners to hit their cats, by adding your support in the comments section below.

I, Frog, am calling on our community of bloggers and blog readers to pick up Dyson’s cause. 300,000 signatures and we can have the first blog-driven citizens’ initiated referendum. All Cats First needs is your support.

So, what is it that Family First’s petition wants?

Well, first off it has two petitions not one.

The first one asks ‘Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’

The answer in the current post s59 era is no, not in all cases. It’s useful to remember that smacking a child, just like smacking an adult, has always has been, technically, an assault (both before and after the repeal of s59 of the Crimes Act). Repealing s59 was not about removing parent’s right to discipline their children, it was about protecting our children from violence.

The second asks: ‘Should the government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?’ 

To which the answer is clearly yes.  Clearly the government should invest heavily in improving the quality, quantity and access to housing for all New Zealanders.  It should ensure that all New Zealanders have the opportunity for meaningful, well paid, secure work.  It should remove the financial barriers to education and opportunity.

So, what is it we’re voting on again?