Episode 42 Anti Smacking Bill Fallout
Hello and welcome to episode 42 of Jay Wont dart's podcast, where I talk about being one of the Invercargill 1915. I'll explain that later. My intro was a youtube video called Flight of the Hummingbird, I just ordered the book, about doing whatever you can, no matter how small, to make the world a better place.
Its been over for a while now, I'd decided to hold off covering the results of the Anti Smacking Bill Referendum, in hope that an answer would come at the end of it. So far, nothing has changed, the referendum has been for nothing.
To go over the Anti Smacking Bill again quickly, Sue Bradford, an MP of the minor Green Party proposed a bill, that the defense of "reasonable force for the purpose of correction"could be used by parents charged with assaulting their children. This was very upsetting to many parents who believed in physical discipline of their children, they were for smacking, and saw the law as taking away their right as parents to smack their children. The bill went into law 2007, a petition was to be held in 2009 once enough signatures were reached.
Ok, so that was simplified, but it gets us to this year at least. The question being asked was "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
People have been very confused about what this actually means, and people against physical discipline have said that the question is very loaded, its designed to make you vote NO, that a smack is part of good parental correction, not something that parents should be recieve a lethal injection over. I totally agree, I think the question is over the top, its literally saying that something good parents do could now be turned into a "criminal offense", making good parents equal to murderers. I think a question like "do you think physical discipline of children is acceptable" would have been much better, although I guess people for smacking could say that "physical discipline" sounds scary, and that they would prefer smacking. I dont like the word smacking, because I see it as another loaded thing, in NZ, smacking generally means a light slap on the hand or the bottom of a child, people who believe in smacking dont agree that its violent, they see it as a correction thing and quite acceptable. The word smacking is a way of hiding the violent aspect of hitting another person, I think, so I'd prefer not to use the word "smacking". "Prime Minister John Key said of the question [The question] "could have been written by Dr Seuss - this isn't Green Eggs and Ham, this is yes means no and no means yes, but we're all meant to understand what the referendum means. I think it's ridiculous myself."
The referendum went ahead, and most of the country seemed very angry their right to smack their children was being taken away, most polls had about 80 percent support for smacking. I'll mention that people FOR the law change say that you could still smack your children, but others focus on moving away from physical discipline, so even I am confused as to whether smacking is banned or not banned! Sue Bradford, who came up with the bill, has been quoted mentioning "this doesnt make smacking illegal" but also "this makes smacking illegal" type comments, so who really knows what the bill means. For this episode, Im focusing on the "anti smacking bill" as meaning its against smacking full stop, as its physical discipline, and thats what the bill is focused on.
Most of this episode will be clips.
The first things I'll play will be people asking you to vote for their side in the referendum. I'll play two, this is Sue Bradford who wrote the law change, and Deborah Morris-Travers of Barnardos, a New Zealand child welfare group.
Here I have a radio debate I quite liked, remember, the Yes side is essentially against smack...