NZ – Smacking Debate – Key continues to play games – Is he hiding a deal with HelenGRAD to damage our **Whole Natural Biological FAMILIES** MORE?

NZ – Smacking Debate


Key continues to play games


Is he hiding a deal with HelenGRAD to damage our **Whole Natural Biological FAMILIES** MORE?


For the original Articles and Videos click these 2 LINKS


  1. TV1 – GO –


  1. TV3 – GO –—Key/tabid/419/articleID/117843/cat/68/Default.aspx


Many Comments and Credits below



The Prime Minister is moving to protect worried parents from the law designed to protect kids.

The anti-smacking law is here to stay but cabinet will on Monday consider changes to appease the 88% of voters who called for its repeal in the referendum.

“I think it would be totally inappropriate for a New Zealand parent to be prosecuted for lightly smacking a child,” Key says.

The Prime Minister revealed his options on TVNZ’s Q+A programme.

The first is requiring formal police reports to allow parents to track whether the law is working.

Key is also considering advising police and Child Youth and Family not to prosecute parents for light smacking.

“There is a degree of independence that obviously the police have and so they would have to be willing to step up and make those changes and I’d invite them to do that,” Key says.

Opponents of the anti-smacking law say this simply creates confusion.

“Well it begs the question: If you’re telling police not to prosecute, if you are telling CYFs not to prosecute, why have the law in the first place?” says Family First director Bob McCoskrie.

According to Bob McCoskrie, CYF’s attention is more frightening to parents than police-attention and telling social workers to back off is crucial.

“With the police at least you had your day in court and you can defend yourself. With CYFs social workers can just come in and remove children,” he says.

In just over two years, police have only prosecuted smacking 13 times.

Campaigners for the law admit the proposed changes might reduce that number further.

“If the police have new instructions then it may be that those numbers will reduce further, so long as that doesn’t result in children being at risk then I think that that’s entirely appropriate,” says Yes Vote campaigner Deborah Morris-Travers

Go to No1 LINK for many Comments and video




Veely ; 2009-08-24 @ 12:18 NZDT  

It intrigues me that the repeal of the s.59 legislation, which was intended to remove the defence in a court of law for beating / killing your child as a part of good parental discipline has morphed into this extreme left to right view of whether or not the state has a legislated right to interfere in our day to day parenting. You’ve all been whipped into a frenzy over nothing at huge expense to the taxpayer. Get over yourselves. Bad people hurt/kill children regardless of what the law says!

add to this thread  post new comment

klemon ; 2009-08-24 @ 12:01 NZDT  

At 87.6% the “question is too confusing” argument is out the window. Either that or the No voters are intelligent to read and comprehend English and the Yes voters are not.

add to this thread  post new comment

ljyoung ; 2009-08-24 @ 11:23 NZDT  

The sad thing is that some parents find themselves at a loss when trying to remedy unacceptable behaviour. Education in parenting skills would go a long way to helping less competent people to cope. There are better and more enlightened methods of correcting childrens’ behaviour than lashing out.

add to this thread  post new comment

NickiM ; 2009-08-24 @ 08:26 NZDT  

I grew up in an abusive hme, this law will not prtect kids. Abuse is about addiction, dysfunction & mental health issues. Abusers dont stop because a law tells them to. They will just be more careful where the abuse happens & who can hear it. They will then terrify their poor victims into a prison of silence, iknow, i’ve been there. This law will push abuse further under the carpet. More children will die, because abusers will b more careful, and children to terrified to say anything.

add to this thread  post new comment

mwatsonnz ; 2009-08-24 @ 07:50 NZDT  

What part of 88% are you do gooders missing? No means no; haven’t I heard that somewhere before? Parent’s don’t want to be criminslised for lightly smacking a child. End of story – no debate – no other interpretations. It really doesn’t matter if you are part of that loosing 12% – that’s the joy of democracy. You swallow that bitter pill and take the change.





Parents not being criminalised, no need to change law – Key

15 comments | Post Comment

Email Share Print Text Size:





Related Articles

·           Kiwi parents give smacking a ‘time out’

·           Key dragged into centre of smacking debate

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 8:47a.m.

Proposals to Cabinet today should give parents more confidence they will not be criminalised for smacking their children, Prime Minister John Key says.

Mr Key yesterday revealed he would be taking a series of proposals to Cabinet following Friday’s resounding referendum victory for opponents of the 2007 child discipline law change.

Preliminary results found 87.6 percent of those who voted ticked no to the question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

NZPA reported yesterday the proposals would set out for police and welfare staff that they should not investigate or prosecute parents who had lightly smacked their children.

“I’ve always said if the law doesn’t work I would change it, so its important we make sure that we can understand clearly and without bias whether the law is working or not,” Mr Key told NewstalkZB.

“You can’t ignore when such a large number of New Zealanders express their view. They didn’t necessarily say they wanted the law changed.”

Statistics for the past year showed parents were not being prosecuted for light smacking, he said.

“There were 33 cases where there were complaints about smacking, one that almost led to a prosecution but was withdrawn – in the same time period 83,000 complaints about domestic or family violence.

“I think we need to put it in perspective.”

The measures to go before Cabinet were unlikely to placate those who supported the right to smack, and who wanted the law changed to explicitly allow light smacking.

The referendum was organised after Green MP Sue Bradford’s member’s bill was passed in 2007. That law change amended the Crimes Act to remove the defence of reasonable force when an adult was charged with assaulting a child.

Mr Key did not want Parliament’s time consumed relitigating the “explosive” smacking debate.

“You’d have to go through an enormous process that would completely derail Parliament.”

Mr Key preferred putting in “additional safeguards”.

Voter turnout on referendum’s initial results was 54 percent, with just over 1.6 million votes cast.

The final result will be declared tomorrow.
Go to No2 LINK for many Comments and video



24 Aug 2009 2:20p.m.

As I said “Diana”
The people in this country are continuously subjected to social engineering at the whims of our Politicians and the UN.
And do you think that Bradford and a like were ever going to listen to any public submissions against her bill.
You may also like to know that the Police have investigated over 200 cases since the adoption of Bradford’s law wasting tax-payers money and needlessly be-littling otherwise good people in the community for such minor acts as pulling or pushing a child. These enquiries, which can drag on over many months and cost thousands of dollars in legal fees, can have a devastating effect on the family especially if children are removed into foster care!!!


24 Aug 2009 1:37p.m.

Lisa T, you, like so many pro-smakers are a in a no-win position of knowing that democratic rights exist, yet fail to show understanding or involvment in the processes and responsibilities preceeding these rights. Note that voting is only one expression of democracy. Yet it is only democratic if the voter is informed of these processes and responsibilities. You, and others may find it insightful to know of the following points: First, lengthy consultation with the public and organisations on the repeal of section 59, did occur following its first reading in June 2005. Did you or your like-minded friends get involved in this process? Resulting submissions were summarised and recommended ammendments announced by the Justice & Electoral select committee in its second reading in November, 2006. The third reading in Parliament (May 2007) preceeded three further months of discussion & debate. How could you have made an informed democratic choice without knowing or being involved in the substance of these developments? Your accusation about ‘no consultation’ suggests a considerable misunderstanding in your choice of vote.

Second, no one has, or will ever, be prosecuted for “lightly” smacking their child. The police have discretion; with well-defined guidelines. The 13 cases who have already been prosecuted since May 2007 have gone way beyond the boundaries of the ‘light smacking’ that you and your pro-smacking friends advocate as a ‘right’. Our crimes Act, past and present, has NEVER permitted the physical punishment of children; the repeal of section 59, from its introduction in the House in 2005, to its inclusion in the crimes Act in 2007, simply removed a loophole in the legal defence of using physical force to justify physical abuse.

Third, the actual intent of Section 59 is among one of many attempts to sow the seeds of alternatives to violence in nurturing our children. Seeds take time to germinate, emerge and grow strong. A generation, perhaps two. Who would want to stomp all over and destroy the potential to mature toward a more solution-focused and constructive society?


24 Aug 2009 1:27p.m.

Hey Jim
So what was wrong with the old 1959 Crimes Act which said “parents could smack their children for the purposes of correction, but they could not assault them”. This law worked fine and still hunted out those who assaulted their children.
Our Social Engineering Bradford and Co changed the law to suit an agenda being run from the UN onto NZ. You will also find that our Social Engineers are pushing several issues on NZ with the attitude of:
NZ is small and insignificant and if it doesn’t work there we won’t push it on the rest of the world. Who knows what next they will expose us too.
It should also be noted that we are the only English speaking country that has gone down this road (probably as a test case as I stated earlier).
We, as a country of people, are spineless and naive if we keep on allowing our social engineers to poison our minds against each other rather than us standing up to them for not giving us credit for having common-sense!!!

Craig Young

24 Aug 2009 1:27p.m.

Hello? It was a non-binding referendum,
as set out in the CIR Act 1993. That’s
funny, I don’t recall earlier cases of
National disregarding CIRs as being
harangued excessively as this one.

Please go away and stop whingeing about
this, belters. The country has more important
things to worry about, and you’ve already wasted
nine million dollars worth of taxpayers money as
it is.

Hey Russ

24 Aug 2009 1:21p.m.

The referendum didn’t address the law, so how can it be considered a mandate for a law change? Smacking is not currently illegal – read the law. It was also possible to agree with the current law and still vote ‘no’ – if you interpret the law as it actually is, not how the child-beating lobby says it is.

Russ F

24 Aug 2009 1:13p.m.

John Key YOU cannot ignore this result as the voters have called for a law change, not a PM ‘I know what’s best’ re-direction of liberal PC nanny state minded interfering CYFS and Police personnel. Your National government must move immediately to amend the law or face the wrath of over 1 Million voters in 2 years time. We will not forget of forgive your disdain of or vote. To put 87.6% in perspective, at the general election last year 45% voted for National, 34% voted for Labour and 6.7% voted for the Greens. 87.6% is more than these three combined. The attempt by you and other politicians to dismiss the Referendum as ‘ambiguous’ and irrelevant has been clearly rebuked by the vast majority of caring voters. A 54% response rate in the Referendum is still significant especially when compared to just 47% voting in the recent Mt Albert by-election, an average of just over 40% voting in the recent local body elections for their mayors and city councils, and a 55% response rate which changed our whole voting system to MMP. GET REAL JOHN AND BEHAVE AS A ELECTED SERVANT IN A DEMOCRACY… were the majority voice rules!

Hey Jim

24 Aug 2009 12:34p.m.

I know plenty of people – I just choose not to associate with knee-jerk mouthbreathers. The fact is it is not illegal to smack. That’s not emotion, that’s fact – read the law. I’m also a parent, and not concerned about the law – because a) I don’t smack, and b) know what the law actually says.


24 Aug 2009 12:32p.m.

Hey Lisa T
Get out a bit. You obviously don’t know many people.
Thank God
Your statement is full of emotion and starved of fact. We are not child beating lobbyist’s just concerned parents unlike the “Curtis’s etc in this world who abuse the privilege of child raising (RIP Nia Glassie)!!!

Patrick B

24 Aug 2009 12:17p.m.


Hey Lisa T

24 Aug 2009 12:14p.m.

If that’s the case, then why do you think the law banned smacking? It doesn’t, at all. Read it, and tell me where it outright bans smacking. If you still believe it does, you’re either being wilfully ignorant or just plain stupid. Most people I know, including parents, voted yes – because good parents don’t need to smack their kids. If you have to resort to violence, you’ve already failed.

Go to No1 and 2  LINKS above for many Comments and video


Onward – Javan and his 24X7 Dad since 16Aug09 – Jim Bailey – Story bottom LINK

WINZ – NZ Social Welfare – Destroyed our FAMILY Court Ordered **Equal Parenting**

Ration Shed – Founder

Supporting ** a father’s coalition ** and working within the mission of Ration Shed

6 Lancaster Rd – Beach Haven – North Shore City

Auckland – New Zealand (+64) – 027-429-0055 -/- 09-482-296


FAMILY Orientated Authors are WELCOME


Ration Sheds prime objective is to drive back to good old fashion FAMILY, giving ALL Children Mum, Dad and all 4 Grand Parents where possible and the support of their **Whole Natural Biological FAMILY** by ENSHRINEING  **Preferential Equal Shared Parenting** deep within GLOBAL FAMILY Law and Social Policy. We gladly join all with similar objectives and help build **Equal Parenting** based Orgs where there are none.


§      Invite Go

§      Ration Shed HQ –

§      Equal Parenting @ Ration Shed – BLOG –  –  4,385 hits during July

§      Ration Shed Communique – Yahoo Egroup – members

§      FaceBook – 1,446 members

§      PLAXO – FFDB? – FAMILY Friendly Data-Base? – contacts

§      Petition for Equal Parenting – Go – 720+ Signees

§      a fathers coalition – Yahoo Egroup –

§      SkypeHandsOnEqualParent –

§      A Father of the Coalition – Proud to say I was one of the founding FATHERS 




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: