An Analysis of New Zealand’s 2007 Anti-Smacking Law
DEFYING HUMAN NATURE
About the Author
BOB McCOSKRIEis the founder and National Director of Family First NZ. Established in
2006, Family First NZ has quickly become a household name advocating for families and
speaking common sense and values on a broad range of family issues in New Zealand.
He gained a Masters of Commerce at Auckland University, and a Diploma of Teaching at the
Auckland College of Education. He lectured in a tertiary institute in accounting and tax law
for four years. In 1994, he set up a charitable trust working with at-risk youth and their fami-
lies in South Auckland. In 1996 he was appointed a Justice of the Peace. From 2002 - 2006 he
was Breakfast / Talkback Host on the Rhema Broadcasting nationwide radio programme and
television presenter on their current affairs show “
N-Zone Focus”.
He lives in South Auckland, is married and has three children (18, 14, and 11).
For additional copies, please contact Family First NZ:
tel: 09 261 2426
fax: 09 261 2520
email: admin@familyfirst.org.nz
web: www.familyfirst.nz
post: PO Box 276-133, Manukau City 2241, New Zealand
Copyright – This report and all information contained herein is © Family First NZ 2016.
2
Executive Summary
When Prime Minister Helen Clark championed Green Party MP Sue Bradford’s
anti-smacking bill through Parliament in 2007, she said that the law was “
about
trying to stop the appalling toll of death and injury for children in homes in our
country.” On the other side of the House, Opposition Leader John Key was more
cautious: “
If I see good parents getting criminalised for lightly smacking their chil-
dren for the purposes of discipline, I’m going to change the law if I’m in a position to
do so. It’s as simple as that. It doesn’t matter if there’s a referendum or not. I want
the law to work properly.”
The proposal to ban smacking was motivated by a commendable desire to reduce
child abuse – a desire we all share, but was either leader accurate in their under-
standing of the effect of this law? Were their statements more about justifying the
ideology behind the law without any real understanding or acknowledgement of just
how this law would impact families and fail to achieve its stated aims?
This paper examines the social indicators relating to child abuse affecting our
children and families in the years leading up to the ban on smacking and then
since the law was passed. Has there been any improvement? Have the warnings
about the anti-smacking law targeting the wrong parents been proved right? Is
it time for politicians to respond to the concerns of law-abiding parents?
Key findings include:
• Notifications of abuse to CYF have increased more than six-fold since 2001.
There is no evidence that this can be attributed simply to increased report-
ing or public awareness. Cases requiring further action have more than
doubled since 2001 which has created a huge workload for CYF. In addition,
substantiated cases of abuse found by CYF have increased from approxi-
mately 6,000 in 2001 to as high as 23,000 in 2013. While the past two years
has seen a decrease in substantiated abuse found by CYF, this decrease is
not matched by police convictions for abuse.
• While physical child abuse found by CYF continued its climb from 2001
right through to 2013 but dropped very slightly in the past two years, police
statistics show a 200% increase since 2000 and a 136% increase since
the anti-smacking law was introduced. The increase in serious physical
abuse resulting in injury has increased by 86% since the law change. The
government admits that numbers are projected to rise further.
• Sexual offences recorded by police and by CYF continue to rise but, once
again, while the CYF rates have started to decrease in the past 48 months,
there has been no matching decrease in police rates, with a 43% increase
since the law change.
• Emotional abuse found by CYF has decreased since 2013 but is still 360%
higher than 2001.
• Rates of neglect and ill-treatment of children have decreased in the past
two years but are still unacceptably high each year, with a 45% increase in
police rates since the law change.
• Child homicides continue to be a blot on NZ’s image. New Zealand has one
of the highest rates of child abuse deaths in the OECD.
• There has been a statistically significant increase in children diagnosed with
emotional / behavioural problems (including depression, anxiety disorder,
and ADHD) – a 132% increase since the smacking law was introduced.
The proposal to
ban smacking was
motivated by a
commendable desire
to reduce child abuse –
a desire we all share.
The government
admits that numbers
are projected to rise.
There has been
a statistically
significant increase
in children diagnosed
with emotional /
behavioural problems.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
• The mental wellbeing of youth in terms of suicide and self-harm continues
to be a huge concern.
• A survey in 2011 – four years after the law was passed - found that almost a
third of parents of younger children say that their children have threatened
to report them if they were smacked. Also, almost one in four parents of
younger children say that they have less confidence when dealing with
unacceptable behaviour from their children since the anti-smacking law
was passed. There has been a number of organisations expressing concern
about children physically threatening their parents.
• Two out of three New Zealanders say they would flout the law, and three
out of four New Zealanders want the law amended.
• The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders reject the notion that the
anti-smacking law will reduce rates of child abuse in any significant way.
• Australia, with five-times the population of NZ, has just over double the
incidence of child abuse – without a smacking ban.
In summary,
there is not a single social indicator relating to the abuse of
children that has shown significant or sustained improvement since the
passing of the law. They’ve continued to get worse, in some cases a lot worse.
Those working on the frontline in our communities are not seeing any significant
improvement – in fact, they’re concerned about the ongoing unacceptably high
levels of abuse, and believe that child abuse is still significantly under-reported.
It also appears that CYF has reached the point of ‘saturation’ and can no
longer handle the level of notifications it is receiving, which in turn leads to
its inability to investigate and find actual cases of child abuse which we need
and expect them to find. A number of reviews of CYF have all highlighted prob-
lems within the organisation. A recent review by the Ministry of Social Develop-
ment found that CYF is massively understaffed and that social workers do not
have manageable caseloads and workloads. If CYF was a family, it would have
had state intervention by now. Despite the important work it does and some
excellent social workers, there is increasing evidence of massive systemic failure
in the organisation as a whole.
The anti-smacking law has targeted law-abiding parents. An independent
legal analysis at the end of 2014 of court cases involving prosecutions for
smacking since the anti-smacking law was passed found that the anti-smacking
law is complicated, difficult to apply, and lower courts are getting it wrong. The
analysis by public law specialists Chen Palmer also said that
statements made
by politicians to the effect that the new section 59 does not criminalise ‘good
parents’ for lightly smacking their children are inconsistent with the legal
effect of section 59 and the application of that section in practice.
New Zealanders predicted all of this before the law was passed, but their
concerns were ignored. The politicians and anti-smacking lobby groups linked
good parents who smacked their children with child abusers – a notion roundly
rejected by Kiwis. John Key was right - linking light smacking with child abuse
was “
bloody insulting”.
The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their
children in a manner that was so harmful that they would now be considered
criminals. This undermines the confidence of parents in disciplining their chil-
dren, fails to understand the special relationship and functioning of families, and
has communicated to some children that they are now in the ‘driving seat’ and
parents should be ‘put in their place’.
Those working
on the frontline
are concerned
about the ongoing
unacceptably high
levels of abuse.
CYF has reached the
point of ‘saturation’
and can no longer
handle the level of
notifications.
Australia, with five-times
the population of NZ,
has just over double the
incidence of child abuse –
without a smacking ban.
The anti-smacking
law has targeted
law-abiding
parents.
4
The anti-smacking law
assumes that previous
generations disciplined
their children in a
manner that was
so harmful that
they would now be
considered criminals.
With police no longer
reporting the effect
of the anti-smacking
law, it is now difficult
to quantify how
the law is being
implemented.
136%
45%
43%
Physical
Abuse of
Children
16,128 offences
Neglect of
Children
3,779 offences
Sexual
Abuse of
Children
12,664 offences
71 Child
Abuse
Deaths
71
Deaths
POLICE
132%
71%
Children
diagnosed with
emotional and/
or behavioural
problems
13,805 in 2007
32,000 in 2015
Children
hospitalised
with mental
and behavioural
disorders
14,942 total
MINISTRY of HEALTH
Since the 2007 anti-smacking law
Numbers = total cases since 2007 / % = total % increase since 2007
1,075,916
notifications of
abuse to CYF
10,325cases
of Sexual Abuse
found by CYF since 2007
88,803cases
of Emotional Abuse
found by CYF since 2007
36,797cases
of Neglect
found by CYF since 2007
CYF
42%
24,528
Cases of Physical
Abuse found
by CYF since 2007
160,453cases
of Substantiated Abuse
found by CYF since 2007
5
In just the five years following the introduction of the law – covered by police
monitoring reports - almost 600 kiwi families had a police investigation for
allegations of smacking or minor acts of physical discipline, yet only 9% of them
were serious enough to warrant charges being laid. That’s a lot of wasted police
resource. The other concern expressed by the police and families is the increase
in false allegations.
This level of intervention also does not include the many more investigations by
CYF. CYF claim that they can ‘find’ abuse where the police do not.
With police no longer reporting the effect of the anti-smacking law since 2012, it
is now difficult to quantify how the law is being implemented, how police discre-
tion is being used, and what the longer term trend is in terms of investigations.
The fact that so many social indicators around the welfare of children continue
to worsen proves that we simply are not tackling the real causes of child abuse.
It also proves that the law has been completely ineffective in terms of tackling
the problem it was supposed to confront.
It may even suggest that the law is doing more harm than good.
Some lead researchers in this area suggest that, despite the best of inten-
tions,
the prohibition of all forms of physical correction may inadvertently
undermine appropriate parental discipline with the result that a small but
increasing percentage of boys may grow up with a dangerous combination
of disrespect for their mothers and a lack of self-control. The researchers
argue that physical chastisement should not be banned until there is scientific
evidence that alternative disciplinary tactics are effective for defiant children as
well as easily managed children. They note that neither supporters nor critics
of anti-smacking laws have been able to identify alternative methods of disci-
pline that are as effective in reducing child behaviour problems when using the
same scientific methods used to denounce smacking. Without mild smacking,
a parent’s frustration may continue escalating in such disciplinary situations,
thereby increasing the risk of exploding with overly severe physical abuse and
verbal hostility. Although milder disciplinary tactics may be sufficient for easily
managed children, they are inadequate for controlling the behaviour of young
oppositional defiant children.
Ultimately, the supporters of smacking bans were influenced by political
ideology rather than common sense, good science and sound policy-making.
It also communicated the message that political parties don’t trust kiwi parents
to raise their own children responsibly.
We can solve the issue of child abuse, but we must be willing to confront the real
issues. Criminalising good parents who simply want to raise law-abiding and
responsible citizens is bad law-making.
What matters most is that the voice of New Zealanders is heard and respected!
The supporters of smacking
bans were influenced by
political ideology rather
than common sense, good
science and sound policy-
making.
Political parties don’t trust
kiwi parents to raise their
own children responsibly.
CYF claim that they
can ‘find’ abuse where
the police do not.
A small but increasing
percentage of boys
may grow up with a
dangerous combination
of disrespect for their
mothers and a lack of
self-control.
6
Previously Published by Family First NZ
Drinking Age
2011
Marriage
2009
Family Breakdown
2008
Daycare
2012
Screentime
2015
Gender
2015
Sex Education
2013
Euthanasia
2014
Report to Family First New Zealand 2014
MEDIA USE:
An emerging factor in
child and adolescent health
Screen time in
New Zealand
WE NEED
TO TALK
by Dr Aric Sigman
About Family First NZ
Family First NZ is a charitable organisation formed in 2006, and registered as a charity
with the Charities Commission. Its purposes and aims are:
• to promote and advance research and policy regarding family and marriage
• to participate in social analysis and debate surrounding issues relating to and
affecting the family
• to produce and publish relevant and stimulating material in newspapers, magazines,
and other media relating to issues affecting families
• to be a voice for the family in the media speaking up about issues relating to families
that are in the public domain
For more information, go to www.familyfirst.nz
tel: 09 261 2426
fax: 09 261 2520
email: admin@familyfirst.org.nz
web: www.familyfirst.nz
post: PO Box 276-133, Manukau City 2241, New Zealand
Report to Family First New Zealand 2015
Making Sense of the Confusing
New World of Gender Identity
Boys Girls Other
