The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (formerly the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill) is an amendment to New Zealand's Crimes Act 1961 which removed the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents prosecuted for assault on their children.
The law was introduced to the New Zealand Parliament as a private member's bill by Green Party Member of Parliament Sue Bradford in 2005, after being drawn from the ballot. It attracted intense debate, both in Parliament and from the public. The bill was colloquially referred to by several of its opponents and newspapers as the "anti-smacking bill".[1] The bill was passed on its third reading on 16 May 2007 by 113 votes to eight.[2][3] The Governor-General of New Zealand granted the Royal Assent on 21 May 2007, and the law came into effect on 21 June 2007.
A citizens-initiated referendum on the issues surrounding the law was held between 30 July and 21 August 2009, asking "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Despite widespread criticism of the question's wording, the referendum was returned with an 87.4 percent "No" vote on a turnout of 56.1 percent.
Legal context
Prior to the amendment bill, Section 59 read as follows:
59 Domestic discipline (1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3), 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. (2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact. (3) Nothing in subsection (1) justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.
Section 139A of the Education Act 1989 is the enactment criminalising school corporal punishment, so the third clause prohibited teacher-parents from using force on their own children if it could be interpreted as school corporal punishment.
59 Parental control (1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction. (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1). (4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
A consequential amendment was also made to Section 139A of the Education Act 1989 by removing the exemption of parents (who are not school staff) administering corporal punishment to their children at school.
Adults assaulting children no longer have the legal defence of "reasonable force" but "force ... may ... be for the purposes of restraint ... or, by way of example, to ensure compliance", according to the police practice guide.[5]
Social context
Prior to the amendment of section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, there were cases of parents who had disciplined their children using a riding crop in one case, and a rubber hose in another, who were not convicted because of the legal justification of "reasonable force".[6] When the law was changed in 2007, some proponents of the change said it would stop cases of abuse from slipping through the gaps and reduce the infant death rate.[7]
Political context
When the private member's bill was first proposed by Sue Bradford in 2005, it was known as the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. It was subsequently renamed to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill at the Select Committee stage.[8] The bill was later backed by the Labour Party and for a time it 'faced a rocky passage through parliament with the main opposition party, National, giving its members a conscience vote on the issue'.[9] A new section, Clause 4, was added as part of a political agreement with the Leader of the Opposition, John Key, and the amendment passed by 113 votes to 8 with both major parties voting for the bill.
Debate and aftermath
Bradford considered that smacking was illegal even before the Act was passed.[10] When an illegal activity is reported to the Police or to Child Youth and Family (CYF), they are required to investigate the reported abuse. Under subsection 4, The police have the option of not prosecuting the parents 'where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.'
Many of the groups who originally supported the change to the Act also said that a law change was not a fully adequate response to protect children from abuse. The New Zealand Anglican Bishops said 'It is essential that changes to section 59 go hand in hand with increased access to high quality public educational programmes, which encourage non-violent discipline and child rearing.'[11] The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) also put pressure on the New Zealand Government for education and promotion of changing attitudes and parenting practice.[12]
In the 2008 Budget the then Labour Government said it was 'providing $446.5 million over the next four years to improve our partnership with community-based social services to help deliver essential services to support children and families, including parenting and family violence programmes, and mentoring at-risk youth.'[13] This included the "Are you OK?" anti-family-violence campaign.[14]
The law change has been described by supporters as aimed at making 'Aotearoa New Zealand […] a place where children are secure, confident, understand limits and boundaries and behave well – without physical punishment' and to 'protect children from assault'.[15]
The first conviction under the new law occurred on 22 November 2007.[16] In the first five years following the law change (June 2007 – June 2012) there were eight prosecutions for smacking.[17][18]
Reactions and opinions
A broad selection of organisations – including child welfare groups, churches, women's groups and businesses – publicly endorsed the bill and made submissions in support of it.[19]
Most public opposition to the bill came from conservative Christian groups, who believed that it made even "light smacking" of children illegal.[22] Multipartisan passage of the bill occurred after 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.[23]
During debate on the bill a poster on the CYFSWatch website threatened Bradford. Google removed the website from its Blogger service soon afterwards.[24]
A survey carried out between May and June 2008 showed that more people supported the Act than those who did not.[25] The survey, carried out by UMR Research for the Office of the Children's Commissioner, polled 750 people, of whom 91% were aware of the law change and 72% professed to know "a lot" or "a fair amount" about the legislation.
Results of the questions were:
89% of respondents agreed that children are entitled to the same protection from assault as adults. 4% disagreed and 5% were neutral.
43% supported the law regarding physical punishment of children, 28% opposed and 26% were neutral.
58% agreed there are certain circumstances when parents may physically punish children. 20% disagreed with the hypothesis and 20% were neutral.
30% agreed that physical punishment should be part of child discipline. 37% disagreed and 32% were unsure.
Two petitions for citizens initiated referendums related to the bill were launched in February 2007. The wording for the two referendums was:
"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
"Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?"[26]
In February 2008, the bill having been passed in the meantime, supporters of the referendums claimed that they had collected enough signatures.[27] If 300,000 valid signatures were collected by 1 March 2008 for each of the referendum petitions, they hoped the referendums would be held on the same date as the 2008 general election.[28]
The first petition was presented to the Clerk of the House of Representatives on 29 February 2008,[30] who vetted the signatures along with the Chief Electoral Officer.[30] Of 280,275 signatures required to force a referendum, only 269,500 were confirmed—a shortfall of 10,775. A number of signatures were excluded because they were illegible, had incorrect date of birth information, or appeared more than once.[31]
The petitioners were required to collect and confirm the requisite number of signatures within two months,[31] to be presented to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. This occurred on 23 June 2008, when Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock handed over a petition which claimed to have over 390,000 signatures.[32] The Office of the Clerk of the House had two months to verify the signatures.
On 22 August 2008 the Clerk certified that there were enough signatures, and the Government had one month to name a date for a referendum. Under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, Cabinet could delay a vote on the issue for up to a year. The referendum was held from 31 July to 21 August 2009.
The referendum was non-binding (as specified by New Zealand's Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993), and thus did not compel the government to follow its result. Prime MinisterJohn Key and Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff said the results of the referendum would not commit them to repealing the law.[33]
On 25 August 2009, the Chief Electoral Officer released the results of the referendum. According to the results, 11.98% of valid votes were Yes votes, and 87.4% of votes were No votes. Voter turnout was 56.09%, and 0.1% of votes were invalid.[34]
The second petition, organised by Larry Baldock, was handed to Parliament on 14 May 2008.[35]
2017 election
New Zealand First and Winston Peters said they would take a policy to repeal the law to the 2017 election. However, during the post-election negotiations with the Labour Party, NZ First agreed to drop its demand for a referendum on this law.[36][37]
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international human rights treaty which sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. The convention defines a child as any human being under the age of eighteen, unless the age of majority is attained earlier under national legislation.
A popular initiative is a form of direct democracy by which a petition meeting certain hurdles can force a legal procedure on a proposition. The hurdles the petition has to meet vary between countries, typically signatures by a certain number of registered voters. In direct initiative, the proposition is put directly to a plebiscite or referendum, also called a Popular initiated Referendum or citizen-initiated referendum. In an indirect initiative, the proposed measure is first referred to the legislature, and then if the proposed law is rejected by the legislature, the government may be forced to put the proposition to a referendum. The proposition may be on federal level law, statute, constitutional amendment, charter amendment, local ordinance, obligate the executive or legislature to consider the subject by submitting it to the order of the day. In contrast, a popular referendum that allows voters only to repeal existing legislation.
Prostitution in New Zealand, brothel-keeping, living off the proceeds of someone else's prostitution, and street solicitation are legal in New Zealand and have been since the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 came into effect. Coercion of sex workers is illegal. The 2003 decriminalisation of brothels, escort agencies and soliciting, and the substitution of a minimal regulatory model, created worldwide interest; New Zealand prostitution laws are now some of the most liberal in the world.
Larry David Baldock is a New Zealand politician. Before entering national politics, he was involved with Youth With A Mission and spent 15 years living in the Philippines. After returning to New Zealand in 1996, he joined Future New Zealand in 1999, standing as a candidate in the Tauranga electorate at that year's general election. In 2001, he was elected to the Tauranga City Council, and served as a list MP for United Future New Zealand from 2002 to 2005.
The Kiwi Party was a political party operating in New Zealand between 2007 and 2011. Briefly known as Future New Zealand, it was a breakaway from the United Future New Zealand party and sought to carry on the tradition of Future New Zealand. The party was formed when MP Gordon Copeland left United Future after a dispute over support for the Crimes Amendment Act 2007. At the 2008 general election, the Kiwi Party was unsuccessful, and was not re-elected to Parliament. It did not contest the 2011 general election under its own banner, but the leaders and other members stood for the Conservative Party.
Sue Bradford is a New Zealand activist, academic, and former New Zealand politician who served as a list Member of Parliament representing the Green Party from 1999 to 2009.
Kerry James "Chester" Borrows was a New Zealand National Party politician who served as a Member of the New Zealand Parliament (MP) from 2005 to 2017.
New Zealand lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights are some of the most extensive in the world. The protection of LGBT rights is advanced, relative to other countries in Oceania, and among the most liberal in the world, with the country being the first in the region and thirteenth in the world to enact same-sex marriage.
The Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 is a New Zealand Act of Parliament that broadly legalised consensual sex between men as well as anal sex regardless of partners' gender. It removed the provisions of the Crimes Act 1961 that criminalised this behaviour. The legislation established a uniform age of consent, setting it at 16 for both same-sex and opposite-sex partners.
Referendums are held only occasionally by the Government of New Zealand. Referendums may be government-initiated or held in accordance with the Electoral Act 1993 or the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993. Nineteen referendums have been held so far. Fourteen were government-led, and five were indicative citizen initiatives.
Family First New Zealand is a conservative Christian lobby group in New Zealand. It was founded in March 2006 by former Radio Rhema talkback radio host and South Auckland social-worker Bob McCoskrie who continues to be its National Director. Its 2006 stated objectives were to "seek to influence public policy affecting the rights and protection of families and promote a culture that values the family". In 2009 Victoria University religious studies professor Paul Morris said Family First was "successfully broadening the Christian agenda in New Zealand politics in a way never seen before". In 2020 Family First was described as "New Zealand's most formidable conservative campaigners". Family First was established by a trust deed under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 in 2006, was registered as a charity in 2007 and deregistered in 2022.
The use of cannabis in New Zealand is regulated by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, which makes unauthorised possession of any amount of cannabis a crime. Cannabis is the fourth-most widely used recreational drug in New Zealand, after caffeine, alcohol and tobacco, and the most widely used illicit drug. In 2001 a household survey revealed that 13.4% of New Zealanders aged 15–64 used cannabis. This ranked as the ninth-highest cannabis consumption level in the world.
The Crimes Act 1961 is an act of New Zealand Parliament that forms a leading part of the criminal law in New Zealand. It repeals the Crimes Act 1908, itself a successor of the Criminal Code Act 1893. Most crimes in New Zealand are created by the Crimes Act, but some are created elsewhere. All common law offences are abolished by section 9, as are all offences against acts of the British Parliaments, but section 20 saves the old common law defences where they are not specifically altered.
The 2009 New Zealand Referendum on Child Discipline was held from 31 July to 21 August, and was a citizens-initiated referendum on parental corporal punishment. It asked:
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Tracey Anne Martin is a New Zealand former politician. She was a member of the New Zealand House of Representatives between 2011 and 2020, representing the New Zealand First Party.
The Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Act 2012 amended the Constitution of Ireland by inserting clauses relating to children's rights and the right and duty of the state to take child protection measures. It was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) on 10 October 2012, and approved at a referendum on 10 November 2012, by 58% of voters on a turnout of 33.5%. Its enactment was delayed by a High Court case challenging the conduct of the referendum. The High Court's rejection of the challenge was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 2015. It was signed into law by the President on 28 April 2015.
According to UNICEF, New Zealand has one of the worst rates of child abuse in the developed world. The level of abuse is the fifth-highest in the OECD, with an average of one child being killed every five weeks and 150,000 cases reported every year by Oranga Tamariki, the national children's protection agency. Child abuse in New Zealand is defined under section 2 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 as the harming of a child by physically, emotionally or sexually ill treating them through abuse or neglect. Prevention of such abuse in New Zealand is seen as a high priority by the New Zealand government as well as relevant non governmental organisations due to the prevalence of child abuse cases occurring in New Zealand, particularly when compared with other developed countries. This response is consistent with New Zealand's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child at article 34 – 35 which deals specifically with Child Abuse. This convention places obligations on New Zealand as a state to protect the rights of the child and was ratified by New Zealand in 1993.
John Hall Angus was a New Zealand historian, social worker and children's advocate. He served as the New Zealand Children's Commissioner between 2009 and 2011.
The legality of corporal punishment of children varies by country. Corporal punishment of minor children by parents or adult guardians, which is intended to cause physical pain, has been traditionally legal in nearly all countries unless explicitly outlawed. According to a 2014 estimate by Human Rights Watch, "Ninety percent of the world's children live in countries where corporal punishment and other physical violence against children is still legal". Many countries' laws provide for a defence of "reasonable chastisement" against charges of assault and other crimes for parents using corporal punishment. This defence is ultimately derived from English law. As of 2023, only three of seven G7 members including seven of the 20 G20 member states have banned the use of corporal punishment against children.
The Abortion Legislation Act 2020 is an Act of Parliament in New Zealand allowing unrestricted access to abortion within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, and repealing sections of the Crimes Act 1961 related to unlawful abortion. After the 20-week period, women seeking an abortion must consult a qualified health practitioner who will assess their physical health, mental health, and well-being. The Act also provides provisions for conscientious objection rights for medical practitioners and exempts abortion services from certain Crimes Act provisions, while extending the definition of health services to include abortion services under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
