Many of New Zealand's most reputable child and family advocacy organisations are united in the campaign to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. Repeal gives a clear message that hitting children is not OK.

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 currently states:

“Every parent of a child or...every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances”.

Section 59 is used exclusively in the courtroom, as a defence used by parents against prosecution.

The repeal of section 59 would eliminate this protection.

Full repeal is necessary because:

Hitting children is a risk factor in poor child and adult outcomes

Hitting children is the least effective way to improve child behaviour

Section 59 breaches New Zealand's international obligations in relation to Article 19 of UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child

We all have the right to live in families and communities that are free from violence.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Can't handle the stats...family integrity shift the goalposts

Just typical.


Family Integrity had a poll on their website:



"Should parents be allowed to use reasonable force to discipline their children?"



Which got themselves an immediately supportive response, with over 80% of around 200 people saying yes. Then the poll (according to their website):



“…has been hijacked by the anti-smacking lobby, who have been urging people, on the basis of lies, to go to the poll and register a negative vote. We have quoted, below, the email being sent around by them, and have put their slander in bold.” (Click here for the remainder of their statement)


And so they removed the poll. Barnardos was nice enough to release a statement showing that this hijacking still could not overtake the yes vote (but got to around 40%). Would have been smarter to release the statement, but keep the vote open, so as to counter this so called attack back on these groups.



Were they afraid that they would eventually lose?



Would that be because the majority of people are ‘secretly’ in support?


Who are they to presume which way the public support goes? To put up a poll, then drop it when things aren’t going your way is another stain to their credibility. In the end, the wiser option would have been to let the poll run its course: have some faith. That’s if they had any to start off with.

You are vistor number