Clinical psychologist Nigel Latta, Police Commissioner Howard Broad and Ministry of Social Development chief executive Peter Hughes are to undertake a review of policies and procedures used by police and CYFS when dealing with smacking.
For the record, and this is something I have commented on publically in a number of contexts, my personal view on S59 is that I did not agree with the original law change. I also voted no in the referendum. I do not believe that a parent smacking their child, in the ‘common sense’ understanding of what that means, should be subject to criminal prosecution or investigation.
It would be my view that the “anti-smacking debate” has become needlessly polarised from the very beginning into a position whereby you are either “for child abuse”, or you are “against child abuse”. This tendency of both sides of the debate to reduce a complex social/moral issue into rather simplistic extremes has resulted in our being plunged into an argument that has consumed a great deal of time, energy, and money, when ultimately everyone agrees with that we need to do more to protect children from abuse and neglect.
The terms of reference for this review are very clear. I see my role as first and foremost to look at the evidence and to ensure that the law does not result in good parents either being criminalised, or being needlessly subjected to investigations that are intrusive and/or traumatic. This is a responsibility I hold directly to the everyday mums and dads of New Zealand, and one that I take very seriously.
That is a sensible stance to take when dealing with an issue which has been debated with more emotion than facts.
Whether people want the law to stay as it is or to change the law or the way it is applied, their best ammunition is hard data not rhetoric.
The terms of reference for the review are here.
Homepaddock 
John Key never fails to surprise.
Asking Dr Latta to particpate in the review is a stroke of genius as it will mean that many of the people who voted no, includng me, will have their concerns that the review is white-wash ameliorated.
LikeLike
From the terms of reference:
“The Government does not want to see good parents criminalised for a light smack
and does not believe the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 intends for this to occur.”
All right then, how do they explain this: subsection 1 spells out how, when, and why a paren/caregiver may smack a child
Then there is subsection (2), which says: “Nothing in subsection (1) justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.” Subsection (3) says: “Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).”
So, a plain contradiction there. On a plain reading, it IS illegal to smack a child.
Then there is subsection 4: ” … the police have a discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent, when the offence is so inconsequential that there is no public interest in prosecuting”. What on earth does that mean?
I don’t expect that Nigel Latta will have any effect on the result of this review, which has been set up to ‘park’ the issue, come up with the answers the Government wants, and when the Government wants — just before Christmas.
LikeLike