Open Writing

New Zealand has a shameful record when it comes to statistics for child abuse. The Ministry of Social Development figures for the first 4 months of 2006 reveal the number of substantiated cases of child abuse had approached 6006, 40% of these were Maori.

Unfortunately Maori children are twice as likely to be abused, than children from other groups. When viewing these figures, it should be kept in mind, New Zealand has a population of just over 4 million of which only 15% are Maori. Furthermore, the majority of cases of abuse against Maori children do not get reported, as families invariably invoke a pact of silence.

There are also statistically significant differences in the rate of homicide of Maori and non-Maori children and these differences have widened over the past years
In 2001 the Police released figures that showed of the 103 children killed in the previous 12 years, the overall rate of deaths per 100,000 children was 12.2, but Maori had double the overall rate at 24.4. The figures for other groups were Asian 11.8, European 8.6 and Pacific Islander 5.1.

It is heart wrenching to read the details of the miserable, violent existences of the children who have been killed by those who they should have been able to rely on to love and care for them.

In 2007, in response to these statistics Green Party politician Sue Bradford presented a private members bill before Parliament seeking to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act which allowed parents the defence of reasonable force if they were charged with assaulting their children. This came to be known as the anti- smacking bill. Ms Bradford said the law as it stood was barbaric as it let parents get away with beating their children. Her supporters argued that if the bill became law, it would make all use of force for correction illegal, placing children in the same legal situation as adults in regard to assault.

However, there was also tremendous opposition from those who argued that should this bill become law, it would make criminals of good parents and banning smacking would not stop child abuse. Good parents knew the difference between a smack and a beating.

Such legislation, it was argued, would have done nothing to protect children like
2 year old, Delcelia Witika, who died of peritonitis as a result of blows to her stomach inflicted by her mother’s boyfriend. The subsequent post mortem found Delcelia also suffered from malnutrition, had burns to 15% of her little body, a broken jaw, and massive sexual abuse injuries. Nor would it have helped 23 month old Hinewaoriki Karaitiana-Matiaha killed by her caregivers. Her post mortem revealed she had been sexually violated and had received blows to her head and stomach and suffered severe scalding to her face before she died.

Seven year old Craig Manukau’s step father would still have kicked him to death while his mother turned up the radio to drown out the noise, and 6 year old Kelly Ray McRobert’s father would still have beaten him with a stick for soiling his pants. Kelly died in pain, cold and alone after being locked in a sleep out for 48 hours with no heating even though it was the winter.

Legislation would not have stopped the 3 month old Kahui twins dying from the result of fractured skulls and ribs inflicted by their father and 3 year old Nia Glasie would still have died after family members kicked, beat, slapped and jumped on her, held her over a burning fire, spun her around on clothes line and put her in a clothes drier spinning at top speed.

Not for one minute would these people give any thought to the consequences, before abusing their children, as they have no respect for the law and clearly do not love their children.

As the anti-smacking bill passed through all the various Parliamentary processes to become law, it was amended to make provision for the reasonable use of force for preventative action in a number of circumstances, but not for mere correction. A proviso was also added which gave the police discretion not to prosecute complaints where the offence was so inconsequential that there is no public interest in prosecution.

Nevertheless, the ground swell against this Act gained momentum. There was a consensus of thought that the government had no right to tell parents how to discipline their children. By August 2008 the anti-smacking law lobby managed to get enough signatures on a petition asking that the law be repealed, to force the government to hold a referendum. The then Prime Minister, Helen Clark ruled out holding the referendum at the same time as the 2008 November election. Instead a postal ballot would be held in 2009.

The referendum held between July 31 and August 21 this year asked: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
Over 54 per cent of eligible voters returned their ballot papers and the result was unanimous; 87.4 per cent voted no while only 11.81 per cent voted yes. However, although the referendum has cost the New Zealand taxpayer $9 million, it is non-binding.

Despite admitting he had smacked his two children, “very lightly and in moderation when they were younger”, the Prime Minister, John Key reiterated that the law will not be repealed. “Another law change would consume and derail Parliament when there were more important issues to deal with,” he said. He added there were other measures that fell short of changing the law that could be introduced.

Since then the government has moved to reassure parents that both social workers and the Police had been told to change the way they deal with parents referred to them for smacking, so they should have no fear of being hauled before the court or have the authorities knocking on their door.

Pro-smacking campaigners are not giving up. As far as they are concerned, all good, loving parents have been disempowered and they want the authority to discipline their children as they see fit reinstated.

The debate continues. Incidentally in the 25 months since the anti-smacking bill became law 13 more New Zealand children have been killed by those who are supposed to care for them.