Bitter Fruit

Desiccation of the Family Into an Empty Husk

Family First has published an extensive review of the Anti-Smacking law, entitled A Dog's Breakfast: New Zealand's Anti-Smacking Law 13 Years On.  The law has failed.  It has ended up doing far more harm than good.  

Below is the Executive Summary of the Review. 

At this stage it would appear that not only has the ban failed to reduce the harm perpetrated against
children, but it has increased the harm inflicted by children.

It is crucial to assess whether the law may in fact be doing more harm than good. Notifications of abuse to government agencies continue to increase at alarming rates.  Key findings of this report include the following:

• Parents are confused by the law, both by the way it is worded and by conflicting messages from politicians who promoted it

• Notifications of abuse to government agencies  continue to increase at alarming rates

• Successive governments have failed to reduce physical abuse as promised, and any government targets appear to have been abandoned altogether

• Child homicides continue to fluctuate with no sign of any long-term, sustained improvement. New Zealand has one of the worst abuse rates in the OECD, and Maori are disproportionately represented

• We have more children in care (especially Maori children)

• Rates of physical abuse (including serious physical abuse) found by both the police and Oranga Tamariki (OT) have increased significantly since the law was passed

• There are significant, warranted concerns around increasing levels of violence in schools, including bullying and physical violence targeting principals and teaching staff

• There are disturbing trends in the wellbeing of children, including the high rates of self-harm, suicide, and emotional and behavioural problems

• While politicians claim the new law does not criminalise “good parents” for lightly smacking their children, a legal analysis finds this is inconsistent with the actual legal impact of the new Section 59

• Law firm Chen Palmer has not been able to find any decision where the courts have, at sentencing, explicitly balanced the long-term effect of the prosecution or conviction on the parent-child relationship against the level of the physical discipline with which the parent is being charged

• Recent polling finds a significant proportion of the public continues to reject and disregard the law

After an extensive review of the failures of the "Anti-Smacking Law", the Report provides conclusions.

How do we know if a law is ‘good’ or not? A good law is clear and succinct to the public, especially to those whose behaviour may be criminalised. Its necessity and purpose is clearly presented by those promoting it; it directly targets the problem at hand; there is at least some improvement as a result of the law; and it has public support.

On all counts, the anti-smacking law fails. Even the current Minister for Children Tracey Martin has admitted that the law has had a chilling effect on parents and that she wants to improve the legislation to make it clearer.

Child abuse continues to be a dark stain on the fabric of New Zealand society, and New Zealanders are disturbed with the high rates of child abuse in Aotearoa. Yet the anti-smacking law has not proven to be effective or warranted.

There are certain family structures in which children will be far more vulnerable.

Suspension of fact is an abrogation of our collective responsibility to children. 

It is clear to many that supporters of the smacking ban were driven by political ideology rather than common sense, good science and sound policy-making. 

The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their children in a manner so harmful they should now be considered criminals. This undermines the confidence of today’s parents in disciplining their children. It fails to understand the special relationships within families and the unique ways in which families function, and has communicated to some children that they are now in the driving seat: parents should be ‘put in their place’.

The fact that so many social indicators around the welfare of children continue to worsen – rather than improve, or even abate - proves we simply are not tackling the real causes of child abuse. It demonstrates that the law has been completely ineffective in terms of tackling the problem it was supposed to confront. It is consistent with a lazy legislative approach: create a law to deal with a small minority and apply it universally.

The anti-smacking law has communicated the message that many politicians don’t trust New Zealand parents to raise their own children responsibly. The government should amend the law to give certainty and clarity to parents, and to target real child abuse, not real parents. We can solve the scourge of child abuse, but we must be willing to confront the real issues.

Criminalising good parents who simply want to raise lawabiding and responsible citizens is bad law-making.  At this stage it would appear that not only has the ban failed to reduce the harm perpetrated against children, but it has increased the harm inflicted by children. 

New Zealand has collectively despised God, our Creator.  Instead, it has sown into the wind.  Now it is reaping the whirlwind.