NZ's Anti-Family Madness

A Huge Failure Born of State Overreach

In 2007 the NZ Parliament passed a law which made the parental smack of a child a crime.  It represented at the time a gargantuan sledgehammer to crush a nut.  But the do-gooders meant well. They were convinced that violence against children perpetrated by adults was endemic in New Zealand.  In this they were right.  They were convinced that passing the law would set a bright line in societal consciousness--violence against children was never to be tolerated.  In this they were completely wrong.

But politicians exist to make laws.  For the vast majority, if not all, of them making laws, rules, and regulations are they only tools they have to "change things".  Adult violence against children was endemic in New Zealand; passing a law would fix things up.  Three politicians stand out (there were many others) as believing most passionately that the anti-smacking law would stop violence against children.

Serial protester, Sue Bradford had increased her sense of self-righteousness and self-worth over many years campaigning to make the parental smack of children for purposes of training and disciplining them a crime.  In Parliament at the time, she seized the opportunity to introduce just such a bill to the House.  She promised, she vowed, she gave solemn oaths that if her bill became law, the tidal wave of abuse against children in this country would begin to recede.  She misled the nation.


Serial Maori co-redemptrix,Tariana Turia promised that if the nation passed the bill the disproportionate violence of Maori against their allegedly beloved tamariki would stop.  Maori, she declared, needed to stand up against the plague of domestic violence against Maori children.  She threw her support behind the bill and led her party with her.  She misled her people.

Finally, the Prime Minister at the time, Helen Clarke sensed the time was opportune.  Despite having opposed such a law in the past, she now thought it had a chance of passing, so she who had hunted with the hares, now joined the ranks of the hounds.  She threw her formidable support behind Bradford's bill.  Having declared once that a ban on parental smacking would defy human nature, she removed her cloak when the time was right.  She is guilty of deceptive and misleading conduct.

A petition was raised opposing the bill.  Eighty seven percent of the adult population signed that petition.  But our demi-god politicians knew better.  No politician supported violence against children and smacking for purposes of training and correction was violence, so it had to go.  Like simplistic rubes from a bygone era they actually believed passing Bradford's law would make a difference. Village idiots.

How's it been going then?  Family First have published a report, entitled Defying Human Nature, on how the levels of violence against children have reduced substantially.  Children are safer now in New Zealand homes: much safer than they were before 2007. (Sarcasm warning).  

This paper examines the social indicators relating to child abuse affecting our children and families in the years leading up to the ban on smacking and then since the law was passed. Has there been any improvement? Have the warnings about the anti-smacking law targeting the wrong parents been proved right? Is it time for politicians to respond to the concerns of law-abiding parents? 

What has been the outcome?

Key findings include:

• Notifications of abuse to Child Youth and Family ["CYF"] have increased more than six-fold since 2001.  There is no evidence that this can be attributed simply to increased reporting or public awareness. Cases requiring further action have more than doubled since 2001 which has created a huge workload for CYF. In addition, substantiated cases of abuse found by CYF have increased from approximately 6,000 in 2001 to as high as 23,000 in 2013. While the past two years has seen a decrease in substantiated abuse found by CYF, this decrease is not matched by police convictions for abuse.

• While physical child abuse found by CYF continued its climb from 2001 right through to 2013 but dropped very slightly in the past two years, police statistics show a 200% increase since 2000 and a 136% increase since the anti-smacking law was introduced. The increase in serious physical abuse resulting in injury has increased by 86% since the law change. The government admits that numbers are projected to rise further.

• Sexual offences recorded by police and by CYF continue to rise but, once again, while the CYF rates have started to decrease in the past 48 months, there has been no matching decrease in police rates, with a 43% increase since the law change.

• Emotional abuse found by CYF has decreased since 2013 but is still 360% higher than 2001.

• Rates of neglect and ill-treatment of children have decreased in the past two years but are still unacceptably high each year, with a 45% increase in police rates since the law change.

• Child homicides continue to be a blot on NZ’s image. New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse deaths in the OECD.

• There has been a statistically significant increase in children diagnosed with emotional / behavioural problems (including depression, anxiety disorder, and ADHD) – a 132% increase since the smacking law was introduced.

The proposal to ban smacking was motivated by a commendable desire to reduce child abuse – a desire we all share.  The government admits that numbers are projected to rise.  There has been a statistically significant increase in children diagnosed with emotional / behavioural problems.

• The mental wellbeing of youth in terms of suicide and self-harm continues to be a huge concern.  [Emphasis, ours.]

So, the "law to end child abuse" has failed miserably.  Worse, it has so undermined parents and the family home that it is causing a further serious deterioration of the family unit.  In this sense, the law is not just a failure in stopping child abuse, but it has positively done significant damage to NZ society.

• A survey in 2011 – four years after the law was passed - found that almost a third of parents of younger children say that their children have threatened  to report them if they were smacked. Also, almost one in four parents of younger children say that they have less confidence when dealing with unacceptable behaviour from their children since the anti-smacking law was passed. There has been a number of organisations expressing concern about children physically threatening their parents.

• Two out of three New Zealanders say they would flout the law, and three out of four New Zealanders want the law amended.

• The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders reject the notion that the anti-smacking law will reduce rates of child abuse in any significant way.

• Australia, with five-times the population of NZ, has just over double the incidence of child abuse – without a smacking ban. 

The anti-smacking law has done positive harm.  It's critics--those who understood what family life is all about--knew that this would be the case.  They told the politicians what would happen.  But our statist eunuchs, who believe that every sin can be redeemed by passing just another law, were deaf.  Our "betters" knew better than everyone else.

In summary, there is not a single social indicator relating to the abuse of children that has shown significant or sustained improvement since the passing of the law. They’ve continued to get worse, in some cases a lot worse.  Those working on the frontline in our communities are not seeing any significant improvement – in fact, they’re concerned about the ongoing unacceptably high levels of abuse, and believe that child abuse is still significantly under-reported. [Emphasis, ours.]

One of the worse outcomes has been to turn good parents into criminals.

The anti-smacking law has targeted law-abiding parents. An independent legal analysis at the end of 2014 of court cases involving prosecutions for smacking since the anti-smacking law was passed found that the anti-smacking law is complicated, difficult to apply, and lower courts are getting it wrong.

The analysis by public law specialists Chen Palmer also said that statements made by politicians to the effect that the new section 59 does not criminalise ‘good parents’ for lightly smacking their children are inconsistent with the legal effect of section 59 and the application of that section in practice.

New Zealanders predicted all of this before the law was passed, but their concerns were ignored. The politicians and anti-smacking lobby groups linked good parents who smacked their children with child abusers – a notion roundly rejected by Kiwis. John Key was right - linking light smacking with child abuse was “bloody insulting”.

The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their children in a manner that was so harmful that they would now be considered criminals. This undermines the confidence of parents in disciplining their children, fails to understand the special relationship and functioning of families, and has communicated to some children that they are now in the ‘driving seat’ and parents should be ‘put in their place’.

Our advice?  This law's an ass.  Ignore it.  Work constructively around it.  We hear of many Christian parents quietly ignoring this law and going about raising their children according to the commands and instruction of the Living God who has given them their children.  He commands that parents conscientiously train and discipline their children to do good.  As has always been the case, we Christians must obey God, rather than men.

Is this law likely to be repealed?  No.  Rather we expect that, given the entirely predictable bad outcomes and the massive increase in child abuse in this country since the passing of Bradford's Folly, our statist eunuchs will reflexively double down and increase the draconian powers of the state over families.  After all, they have no other god to bow down before.

We are very thankful for Family First's report.  The title, Defying Human Nature is well chosen.  Our politicians now have no place to hide.  They have sown to the wind; the nation is reaping the whirlwind.  They cannot say they were not warned.