Child Discipline Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dates
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007
Parliament of New Zealand
Long title	The purpose of this Bill is to stop force, and associated violence, being inflicted on children in the context of correction and discipline.
Introduced by	Sue Bradford
Date passed	16 May 2007
Date of Royal Assent	21 May 2007
Commencement	21 June 2007
Other legislation
Related legislation	Crimes Act 1961
Status: Current legislation
This box: view • talk • edit

The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (formerly the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill) was a widely controversial amendment to the New Zealand Crimes Act which was introduced to the New Zealand Parliament as a private members bill in 2005, and passed overwhelmingly in 2007. It is colloquially referred to by several of its opponents as the anti-smacking Bill.

1 Introduction
2 Reactions
- 2.1 Public opinion
3 Referendum proposals
4 See also
5 External links
6 References

[edit] Introduction

In 2005, Green Party Member of Parliament Sue Bradford's private members bill was drawn from the ballot. The Bill amended section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 to remove the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents prosecuted for assault on their children. The Bill became law after it passed its third reading on 16 May 2007 with only seven MPs voting against it^[1]. The Governor-General of New Zealand granted the Bill Royal Assent on the 21 May 2007, and according to section two of the Act, the commencement clause, it came into force on the 21 June 2007.

While contrary to the messages being put forward by the opponent's of the law, the New Zealand Police have reported that there has been no significant changes in the number child abuse complaints arising from parental discipline. However, the first conviction under the act occurred on 22 November 2007.^[2]

[edit] Reactions

Gordon Copeland resigned from United Future over the Bill since he did not agree with the party leader Peter Dunne's support for it. ^[3]

[edit] Public opinion

There was considerable public opposition to the Bill, especially from conservative Christian groups, in the belief that it made even light smacking of children illegal.^[4] The success of the bill only became assured when an additional clause was added stating that the bill did not remove police discretion on whether to prosecute in inconsequential cases when it was not in the public interest to do so.^[5] The New Zealand Herald held an ongoing discussion on its website, with 85% of respondents being against the Bill^[6].

During the debate on the bill a poster on the CYFSWatch website threatened to assassinate Bradford. Google removed the website soon after from its Blogger service.

[edit] Referendum proposals

There is a movement for two referenda on the law by way of a Citizens' Initiated Referendum^[7]. If successful the referenda will not cause the law to be repealed. Supporters of the referenda claim that they have collected enough signatures^[8]. If 300,000 valid signatures were collected by 1 March 2008 for each of the referendum petitions, the referenda would be expectedly held on the same date as the 2008 general election^[9].

The petition is supported by Family First New Zealand, the ACT Party^[10] and The Kiwi Party^[8]. Both Family First and the Kiwi Party promote the Judaeo-Christian argument supporting smacking. There is also contention within Christianity around this argument.

There is questionable success over the referendum, given both Prime Minister Helen Clark and Leader of the Opposition John Key have said the results of the referendum will not commit them to repealing the law^[11].