Colin Espiner: Reality biting for petition on “smacking”

STUFF.CO.NZ – ON THE HOUSE BLOG: Sometimes I think God really does have a sense of humour.

On the same day as the Christian far Right marches into Parliament to re-deliver a petition seeking a referendum on the right to return to beating their children, the police release statistics on the operation of the first year of Sue Bradford's S59 Amendment Act.

This is the law, you'll remember, that Family First, failed politician Larry Baldock, radio show host Simon Barnett, and the now defunct Destiny Church political wing decried as "criminalising" ordinary parents. It would, they declared, lead to mums and dads around the country thrown in the slammer for delivering so much as a tap on little Johnnie's bottom.

Such was the hue and cry around this bill that it has been credited with sealing Labour's fate at the polls once and for all. I haven't seen any figures to back this up, but I know even Labour admits privately that it took a big hit to its support by voting for Bradford's bill. (It's ironic that National has escaped unscathed despite also voting for it, but that's another matter.)

So it was with considerable interest that I opened the police report on the number of prosecutions for smacking in the past year. Let's see, the number was…oh yes, here it is. None. That's right, none. How many Mr Baldock? None. Mr Barnett? None. That's right. Police prosecuted no one for smacking their child in the past year.

There was, as was expected, an increase in the number of smacking complaints investigated by police as people tested the new law. It wasn't terribly onerous, however. There was no "home invasion" as Mr Barnett foretold. In total over the past six-month review period of the law, police investigated 13 complaints of smacking. All were determined to be inconsequential.

A further 69 acts of "minor physical discipline" were investigated by police, of which all but four were not prosecuted. Of the four that were, one was withdrawn and three others are proceeding.

How does this compare with before the law took effect? Police haven't released the full-year figures yet so it's not quite an apples-with-apples comparison. But for smacking, the last three months saw one more complaint than in the three months prior to the enactment of the bill.

There were 17 more cases of minor physical discipline and 11 more of child assault than in the three months before the bill was enacted. We need to wait three more months to see the corresponding period last year to exclude "seasonal variations" (apparently these exist according to the police).

So the sky hasn't fallen in and law-abiding parents haven't been prosecuted. So why do we need a referendum? Proponents will say that the relatively high proportion of cases not proceding to prosecution shows many parents have been unnecessarily troubled by the police. They will also say that there is no sign of the bill actually working as intended, which was to stop people beating their children.

It's true that while there is no sign of the police acting heavy-handedly, we don't yet know whether or not the law has led to a reduction in child abuse. It will be some years before enough data is in to make such a call one way or another. Has the act caused people to think twice before smacking their children in public? Some say it has. Again, there are no statistics on this.

Electoral authorities say it's probably too late for this referendum, if it is approved, to take place at this year's election. That means it will have to be held separately. A conservative estimate of the cost of a separate referendum would be $1 million.

Personally I can think of better ways of spending taxpayers' money than a referendum on a law that, while not perfect, closed a defence used by child abusers to avoid prosecution and has not led to any sensible parents being prosecuted.