|
Skip to comments |
Skip to comment form |
 Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
11
August 2007
The
Politics of Law Making
|
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View
>>> |
It
is the trait of governments that don’t know what to do about
a difficult problem to simply pass a law. They do this knowing
that the law will not work, but at least they will be seen to
be doing something. The difficulty is that not only does such
knee-jerk legislation rarely solve the problem it invariably
creates serious unintended consequences.
This
hasty law-making also prevents genuine solutions being found
as we saw last week when the government’s microchipping of
dogs - a knee-jerk response to a dreadful dog attack back in
2003 - failed to prevent another child being badly mauled.
Another
case in point is the “anti-smacking” bill that was
recently passed by Parliament in the midst of grave concerns
about child abuse following the deaths of the Kahui twins.
Proponents of the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act
told a disbelieving public that the law change would stop
child abuse. The disbelieving public responded by saying that
the people who abuse children would take no notice of the law.
They said that child abusers would still abuse children but
law-abiding parents would face being criminalized and would
become fearful of disciplining their children.
Their
pleas were ignored, even though before the 2005 election Helen
Clark had publicly stated: “I do not support a ban on
smacking. I’m opposed to that because I think it defies
human nature”. (To view click here>>>)
Unfortunately
MMP politics changed the Prime Minister’s mind: after the
election, Labour needed to support of the Greens, and the
Greens wanted her to support their smacking ban. The rest is
history. In spite of 80 percent of the public being opposed to
this blatant piece of social engineering, the anti-smacking
law - which makes New Zealand parents regulated by some of the
most draconian restrictions in the world - was passed by a
majority of Parliament.
Meanwhile,
more and more children are being killed and maimed because the
government has refused to tackle the real problem and replace
the Domestic Purposes Benefit, which is not only encouraging
women to have children they can’t care for, but pushes a
child’s natural protector - their father - away.
This
week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator is Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a
Swedish lawyer who visited New Zealand last year in order to
dispel the fabrication being promoted by Sue Bradford and her
supporters that child abuse had virtually disappeared in
Sweden as a result of their smacking ban. Deeply disappointed
that the Select Committee ignored her warnings, in her
article, “Smacking – those Kiwis must be crazy!” Ruby
explains that a smacking ban may only be a first step:
With
11 000 reports of “child abuse" per year and
"only" ten percent being prosecuted there seemed to
be a need for more stringent laws to guarantee the success of
the Swedish smacking ban. So, in 1998 - 2000 the law
"gross disturbance of the peace" - which initially
was drafted to protect battered women - came to include child
smacking. Since then parents are being prosecuted for
"gross disturbance of the peace" and their children
are taken into compulsory care. The difference between being
prosecuted for "child abuse" and "gross
disturbance of the peace" is that in the former one had
to present times and dates, but in the latter the charges do
not have to be substantiated.
One
would hope that the government’s hastily launched domestic
violence campaign - $11 million to question sick women in
hospital coupled with a $14 million advertising campaign –
is not a forerunner to even more Swedish inspired laws!
In
her article Ruby highlights the dangerous unintended
consequences of anti-smacking laws: The
ideological "child protection" advocates claim that
they are acting in the child's best interest when they call
for a total ban on smacking and heavy penalties for smacking
parents. However, they fail to realise that they are the very
ones who are exposing children to severe abuse. Normally, the
vast majority of parents talk to their children and try to
make them comply. A smack is usually administered when words
and admonition have failed to have the desired effect. So, if
a child is smacked for something that he/she did or failed to
do, subjecting the parents to police investigations and
subsequent social investigations and separating the child from
its parents will be double punishment for the child. This will
not only expose the child to severe trauma but also damage the
child's relations to its parents - maybe permanently.
(To read the article click the sidebar link>>>)
Dr
Robert Larzelere, a leading expert on child discipline from
Oklahoma State University, also came to New Zealand to try to
talk sense into our politicians. He describes our new law as
“the most extreme and unproven social experiment in history”.
He
explains: New
Zealand’s smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden's ban in
three ways. [Firstly], using force to correct children will be
subject to full criminal penalties, although the government's
politically clever but inconsequential concession gives police
the discretion not to prosecute mild offences. Sweden's ban
had no criminal penalty. [Secondly], New Zealand's bill bans
the mildest use of force to correct children, not just
smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents
have used for generations, especially for the most defiant
youngsters. [Thirdly], the required change in disciplinary
enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on
parents. (To read the article “New Zealand’s
Anti-Smacking Law Most Extreme in the World” click here>>>)
Already
reports are emerging of children calling 111 to report their
parents to the Police after learning about their rights at
school. Given that the law has only just come into force, this
is undoubtedly the tip of what is destined to become a very
large iceberg! (To read the article “Boy's
111 'parent assault' call unfounded” click
here >>>)
Writer
and economist Thomas Sowell states the obvious truth when he
says, "Each
new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization
by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too
late." However, by repealing section 59, our government
has made the job of socialising and training children to
become the hard working, contributing citizens of tomorrow
even more difficult.
Meanwhile
a
new report from the Ministry of Justice, which shows
that violent crime committed by teenagers has increased by 39
percent over the last decade, should act as a warning. Rather
than discouraging
the disciplining of children, we should be giving parents
and teachers more powers to encourage them to do all they can
to ensure young people understand consequences and learn to
take responsibility for their actions and their lives. (To
read the report, click
here >>>)
When
governments continually introduce stupid laws and useless
regulations, the end result is a general malaise within the
government agencies that are charged with trying to make the
unworkable work. This results in the loss of public confidence
in government.
The
on-going fiasco over the NCEA has damaged public trust in
schools. Setting traffic fine quotas for Police has seriously
undermined their role. Incompetence in Corrections has plunged
public confidence to rock bottom. Dumping people off hospital
waiting lists has eroded faith in the health system. The
on-going and blatant abuse of benefits by people who could and
should be working has undermined the integrity of welfare. The
death and abuse of children who are known to the department of
Child Youth and Family, continually erodes confidence in that
department, and the recent scandal involving the State
Services Commissioner is casting a shadow over the whole
government service.
The
problem is that Labour has lost sight of its purpose as a
government. Governments should not be agents of social change.
Instead, their role is to create a framework for citizens to
prosper.
In
the early days of Labour’s rule, their target was to lift
New Zealand’s living standards up into the top half of the
OECD. That was a very worthwhile goal. We can only look back
with disappointment that they did not vigorously pursue that
objective for we would have all been far better off if they
had!
The
poll this week asks: Do you believe New Zealand children
are now more protected from abuse as a result of the repeal of
section 59? And: Do you have suggestions of what should be
done to stop child abuse? Go
to Poll >>>
Skip to top |
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Reader's
comments will be posted on the NZCPR Forum page click
to view >>>.
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
To
leave a comment:
NOTE: The forum moderator
reserves the right to edit material that may be objectionable
or offensive.
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll
Skip to comment form
Send this
page to a friend:
|
