Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is back before the House today, and we're seeing more last minute wobbles, with Labour MPs apparently proposing an amendment "to reassure parents they will not be prosecuted for minor smacking".
I haven't seen the amendment yet, but my initial reaction can be summed up in one word: "chickenshits". By allowing force to be used against children, no matter how minor, it will both undermine equality under the law in its most important area (protection from violence), and effectively reintroduce section 59 by the back door. And in a bill whose stated purpose is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction, that is simply Orwellian.
Such an amendment is not even necessary - the bill presently has the numbers. Instead, it is purely about spin control, about Labour trying to limit the political damage it has taken. But the damage has already been done, and the votes already lost. Backing down at the last minute will not get them back. Instead, it will simply reconfirm the fundies' belief that they have a right to assault their kids.
Finally, it would be nice if, just for once, Labour put its principles first. Instead, it seems that the one thing they can be relied upon to do is betray you.
Update: The amendment, via the Herald:
To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
So, essentially a statement of the existing situation, and which doesn't weaken the bill. It's strictly redundant, and it shouldn't be necessary to say it at all were it not for the fearmongering of the fundies and the National Party (and to anyone who thinks that is unfair - go read their speeches in Hansard and then try saying it with a straight face). Importantly, it has Sue Bradford's support, and seems likely to improve the chances of the bill sticking - so, actually an improvement. I'll leave the post in place as a reminder of the perils of blogging on breaking news.
Update 2: The Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Peter Dunne, with explanatory note,is up here.
I think they added a phrase from the solicitor general guideline on prosecution as clause 4, but I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteTo avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
ReplyDeleteAnon: yes - its strictly redundant, but harmless. And if it means the law sticks, then its an improvement.
ReplyDelete"I'll leave the post in place as a reminder of the perils of blogging on breaking news."
ReplyDeleteHeh.
Let the spinning commence:
"It's what Clark/Bradford always said" versus "It's what Borrows wanted".
But if everybody's happy, is it a clear law, and is it a meaningful change?
My take - Key has signalled a major shift from the Brash/Crosby/Textor/Maxim divide-and-exploit 2005 billboard approach. And although (from the left) I'm glad he has, I'm not sure it's going to keep the right happy for very long. He's given away a stick to, er, beat (lovingly smack) Clark with.
Simon
Winner: All the children on New Zealand
ReplyDeleteLoser: Flip-flopper Keys, who has been backed into a corner and forced to support a bill that he said he couldn't support because it makes criminals of parents who lightly smack their children.
Simon: My take - Key has signalled a major shift from the Brash/Crosby/Textor/Maxim divide-and-exploit 2005 billboard approach. And although (from the left) I'm glad he has, I'm not sure it's going to keep the right happy for very long. He's given away a stick to, er, beat (lovingly smack) Clark with.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if you're right - I like it when parties say what they want, fight their corner, and regard the government adopting their policies not as a threat which justifies secrecy, but as the goal. But yes, I'm not sure that the right will be keen on getting with MMP (so we'll see a revival of ACT?)
OTOH, you can also regard this as cynical political innoculation. Opposing the bill was digging a hole over repeal if National becomes the government in the future. Given the sudden about-face, its clear that many in National weren't serious about their opposition. Instead, they seem to have been mostly aimed at "letting (making) the government take the hit", while being perfectly willing to live with it in the long-term. The last thing they wanted was to face the same shitfight in a couple of years time, and be regarded as traitors by all the voters they'd just attracted. We'll really have to wait and see whether National pursues the same strategy in other policy areas.
AJ: John Key has kept relatively quiet on this for a reason, and when he spoke up in the last few weeks, it was to seek "compromise" (which wasn't). The real losers are people like Judith Collins, who is on the record as spewing her support for beating and saying that she's proud that she beat her children.
I'm going to do a trawl through Hansard next week just to point out the flip-flops from some of these people. Though if National has any sense, they'll put up completely different speakers.
Keys on Natrad - almost laughable, doing a Tango and a Foxtrot on the head of a pin. His fundy mates will not be pleased.
ReplyDeleteAnd some think the Government has lost its touch! This was a piece of strategic brilliance from HC and team. The bill hasn't changed. Their arugment's havn't changed (that police will use discretion). The only thing that has changed is that National are now supporting the bill (despite attacking for months the idea that police will use discretion).
ReplyDeleteYet I see Key trying to claim some victory - laughable. The only positive for Natoinal on this is that they'll be able to distance themselves from Destiny Church today when they march for their God given right to beat children with rods.
Tony: he only positive for Natoinal on this is that they'll be able to distance themselves from Destiny Church today when they march for their God given right to beat children with rods.
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty big positive. But worth it to ensure the bill sticks.
Simon said at 11am:
ReplyDelete"Key has signalled a major shift from the Brash/Crosby/Textor/Maxim divide-and-exploit 2005 billboard approach."
I'd feel more reassured about that if Crosby Textor weren't in NZ right now working for National again.
National probably strategically wanted the fight to go on till the election - but they backed themselves into a corner in order to take a solution. At the same time in exchange for a gaping wound in labour key managed to make himself look like a guy who can make deals that are reasonable to the majority. Something that Key needs if he wants to win an election.
ReplyDeleteGNZ
I believe that you are wrong in saying that this clause is redundant. The Police have discretion as to whether to enforce laws except in the case of domestic violence where they have no discretion (due to abuse of discretion in domestic abuse cases). The police have said that the anti-smacking bill would fall under the domestic violence rubric and therefore they would not have been able to use discretion prior to this amendment.
ReplyDelete