Episode 36
<intro>

Anti Smacking Bill

Hello and welcome to another episode of Jay Wont dart's podcast, where I mention my opinion on the Trademe Message Board and made fun of for being vegan.

This episode, I'll talk briefly about the Anti Smacking bill thats caused grief in New Zealand.

My intro was from No Agenda 104.

Before I forget, hi to anyone from the TradeMe Message Board who's listening, I wish I could have gotten some recordings from you to play, no matter what side you are on. Hi to wayne472, merrigj, mikey853nz, and anyone else who is listening from New Zealand.

I could be wrong about details I mention in this episode, so feel free to correct me, I'll give out my email address at the end of this episode.

A little background about New Zealand politics for international listeners. In New Zealand we have MMP, which is a system in which several small-ish parties can band together and become a government, its not "X vs Y", if party X doesnt have enough votes to govern alone, it can get support from party gamma, so it has enough votes to be the government.

In New Zealand, we do have two major parties, one centre left, one centre right, Labour on the left, and National on the right. Labour had been in power forever, but had increasingly been under siege from National gaining more votes each election, Labour would rely on smaller left wing parties to hand it extra votes to cross the line into power again. Generally both major parties get 80 odd percent of the votes, roughly 40 percent each for Labour and National. Labour, the major left wing party normally campaigns on more healthcare and more education, with more liberal ways to get ahead in life, more benefits, welfare and affirmative action for minority races. National, the major right wing party normally campaigns on law and order, lowering taxes and keeping a more old fashioned, work hard to get ahead in life and dont complain attitude.

The Green party is a fairly large small party, probably the third largest party overall. The Greens focus on climate change, pollution, helping people break the cycle of poverty and affirmative action. They are quite left wing overall. The Green party is quite interesting, I think, always having two leaders, one male, one female! The Green's often have crazy and well known MP's, dope smoking rastafarians who ride skateboards, people who get tears in their eyes at the thought of Genetic Modification, or radical feminists who spend most of their adult life on welfare, get arrested in protests, and tell others how to live their lives. I'm being bit mean with my descriptions of the Greens, but they are normally the most crazy MPs in parliament.

Theres also the Maori party, which normally focuses on getting more state assets given to Maori tribes and helping the Maori race, affirmative action. The Maori party is very modern, it was formed in 2004. The Maori party can be either left or right wing, but I often think of it as more Left wing aligning with Labour over National.

Those are the parties I think are the most important ,we have a handful of other large-ish small parties, but they dont matter as much to me personally and dont get a large percentage of the votes at election times.

The labour government, with help from smaller parties, had been in power for three terms , up until the 2008 election when National got in, with help from two minor parties.
Under the Labour government, green party member Sue Bradford had her private members bill about child discipline put into law. It changed Section 59 of the crimes act 1961 to now remove the defence of "reasonable force" for parents charged with assault on their children. This has been known as the "anti smacking bill" as it basically bans smacking your children, it is now a violent act that is not allowed. 113 Mps voted the bill in, only 7 voted against it, so all the politicians were basically fine with smacking being banned.

I have seen people stating that this law DOES NOT make smacking illegal, but in fact only prevents bad parents from beating their children. For this episode Im going along with the mainstream belief that this is a "Anti smacking bill" that wants all physical discipline from parents to be banned, that includes smacking.

National was initially against this bill, but with an addition of part 4, that police investigating claims of smacking could decide if what was done to the child was "inconsequentially" or not. If the police officer thought the child was no worse off from being smacked, they could choose not to prosecute the parents. This was sort of allowing smacking, althought it would be up to a police officer to judge whether the child had been hurt or not which could be risky for parents who wanted to smack their children.

The full section 59 now reads

<alex clip section 59>

All that makes my head hurt, I could never be a politician with all those confusing words. The parts I would think would let a parent hit a child are ruled over by other additions at the end. Parents ARE allowed to physically grab a child if they are about to walk into a busy street, they can hold them back from doing something dangerous, but they cannot hit a child afterwards, "bad child, im going to smack you". I've seen people who support the bill saying that smacking is actually fully allowed by this bill, and that what the bill known as the "anti smacking bill" is actually about is stopping parents giving an old fashioned "good hiding" to their children after some time, instead of smacking the child on the hand to stop them hitting another child, it actually means "wait till daddy comes home to hit you with his belt". Like I said before, Im going to focus on smacking, I'll assume this bill is to be against smacking children outright.

Theres been massive public outrage, with around 80 percent of the public apparently for smacking children, and only 20 or so percent against smacking children.

Labour had to have fears people would turn against it because of the anti smacking bill, it had been labelled too "politically correct" and also as a "nanny state", that wanted to control everything people could and couldnt do. Labour had ideas about banning normal incandescent light bulbs, and only having compact florescent bulbs that use quarter the electricity, the sort I use, as well as ideas about making showers have to be run at a lower pressure, they wouldnt have a lovely strong pressure, instead using less water to save on the amount of water used nationwide. People were very angry about both of these ideas, and the anti smacking bill certainly annoyed them even more. National ended up gaining power from Labour, National was against Labours ideas about banning bright light bulbs and strong showers.

National however, is keeping the anti smacking bill, which effectively prevents parents from smacking their children. A referendum was initiated by upset voters, which is happening at the moment, I got my voting paper yesterday. This referendum is going to cost the taxpayer over 8.9 million New Zealand dollars, I have no idea where the money is going, its just bits of paper that get a yes or no tick.

The question thats being asked is "Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" which I think is confusing as hell. I've asked people who are for smacking, and who are against smacking, and people on both sides think its a bad question. It says "good parental correction" as if a smack can be that, something good parents do, but its also "a criminal offense". I think its a loaded question designed to make people vote No, that they are for smacking children, because the question makes it seem like you are making "good parents" commit a "criminal offense". I would think most people also feel a right they have is being taken away by The Man.

You've been very good putting up with my voice for so long, so I'll use a clip of someone else talking for a change, this is a Guide to the anti smacking bill I found on a anti smacking website I'll mention later on, I got this from youtube, its from before the referendum had been issued.

<your guide to anti smacking bill clip>


I liked that part "like it or not the bill is here to stay so adopting these techniques is the best way to stay out of jail", well actually a referendum is being held which could overturn the "anti smacking bill" and let parents smack their children again.

I'll play a 3 news story about the anti smacking bill and then the full debate that was on Campbell Live, afterwards I'll tell you my personal feelings about smacking, if I'm voting that parents should be able to smack their children, or not.

<3 news clip>
<campbell live debate clip>

Ok, as promised, I'll tell you how I myself am voting on the anti smacking bill referendum. I personally am voting Yes, I am against smacking children as I believe it to be an act of violence, calling it "smacking" does not change that it is essentially just hitting another person to make them do what you want. I know many people who are for smacking will be angry that I consider smacking to be hitting, but if its not hitting, if its not physical discipline, then what is it? Its like the people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish! They consider fish not to be meat! They see a fish has eyes, a mouth, they eat and go to the toilet, they breed and have more baby fish, they feel pain, they see, hear, they can sense in ways we cannot, such as feeling disturbances in the water around them, but, "oh no, a fish is not an animal, a fish is a vegetable or something, its not meat!"

No