The "anti-smacking" law

Family First reports: Almost two years after the passing of the controversial anti-smacking law, more than 80% of NZ’ers still want the law changed and 77% say that the law won’t have any effect on our unacceptable child abuse rate.

These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ, following on from similar research in 2007 and 2008. The Curia Market Research poll surveyed 1,000 people, and also found huge confusion over the legal effect of the law.

The key findings are:

83% say the law should be changed – only 13% say to keep it as is
77% says the law won’t help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ
Less than one third of respondents actually understand the law

Here are some graphs provided by Family First to show these results:

NZ Herald apparently can't make up its mind about NZ's 'anti-smacking' law

Bob McCroskie of Family First sent a letter to the NZ Herald after the latter's recent mocking of the poll Family First initiated relating to the anti-smacking law. It wasn't printed, so here's what was said:

Your editorial “Spare us a smacking referendum” is fascinating in the light of previous editorials by the NZ Herald. In 2001 the NZ Herald Editorial said “ Excessive force is already illegal.. Repealing section 59 would, in fact, promote only confusion ...” In 2003 “(section 59) has led to calls for a change that would amount to a smacking ban. Is it necessary to go that far? Probably not .” And in 2005 “ Section 59 is not the reason that children have been mistreated .”
Now you accuse Family First of ‘alarmism’ simply because we are promoting a change to the anti-smacking law consistent with your own argument – a change which according to the latest poll is supported by a whopping 85% of NZ’ers. They understand that a light smack by a loving parent is not violence or child abuse. Good parents should not be criminalised. Persecution can still happen without prosecution.
Perhaps the next time the Herald prints the ‘alarmist’ photo gallery of MP’s who voted for the Electoral Finance Law, it could also include the photos of the MP’s who voted for the anti-smacking law against the will of the overwhelming majority of NZ’ers.