Bill Ralston: Smacking referendum won't stop the abusers

As a taxpayer you will no doubt be delighted that you are about to pay $9 million to answer a question we already know the answer to and Parliament will ignore anyway.

The citizens-initiated referendum on the so-called "anti-smacking law" is a waste of time and money. Remember the numbers of Kiwis who supported the 1999 law and order referendum for tougher action on crime and criminals? It is hard to see what, if anything, came from that.

An even better example is the referendum to reduce the number of MPs. More than 80 per cent voted to reduce the number to 99, but were ignored.

We know from opinion polls a similar sized majority of New Zealanders oppose the anti-smacking law but they will be outweighed by the 113 MPs who voted for the bill in the first place and who are unlikely to say they were wrong.

Referenda are non-binding on politicians. The argument against making them binding was that "politicians would be foolish to ignore the wishes of a large majority of the electorate" and would, therefore, tend to put into law whatever the referendum suggested.

Fat chance. Indeed, most politicians have already indicated where they stand, saying the wording is too vague, so it is virtually guaranteed the results will be swept away somewhere.

Actually, the wording is vague and confusing. "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" What constitutes a smack? An open-hand tap on the bottom? A clip around the ears? A punch in the face?

Where does that leave Glenn Groves of Lower Hutt who pleaded guilty to common assault after pushing his 7-year-old son over on a rugby field when he refused to go back on and so, literally, "let the side down"? Should a push be part of "good parental correction"?

What on earth is "good parental correction" anyway? Which is worse, yelling abuse and humiliating a child or slapping their hand?

Will the law as it stands, or if it's changed, make any difference to our horrendous child abuse record? The answer is no. Thirteen children have been killed since the anti-smacking bill was passed two years ago, so the new law could hardly be described as a success. But can anyone seriously believe another 13 kids won't be killed if the law is changed to allow smacking? People who murder their young don't care about the law.

The problem with the whole silly $9 million argument is that neither side addresses the question of serious child abuse. That, after all, is the problem we are supposed to be dealing with, surely?

The argument now has boiled down to the moral question of whether the State should be telling you how to raise your kids. That is a pretty fatuous argument. The State already does.

It tells you that you must send your kids to school and demands you care for them.

There is an entire industry spending many millions promoting the care and protection of the young.

I am sure these bodies would claim some success but patently the problem remains. There will be more Delcelia Witikas and James Whakarurus whatever the referendum's outcome.

The best sense I have heard came from Tariana Turia who told an anti-violence conference: "When I look at some of the initiatives put forward for awareness campaigns, I wonder how they relate to the cold, cruel face of violence that we all seek to put a stop to. If it is to change, it must begin with us. We must look to ourselves to generate our own solutions."

She is right. The solution lies in the values and principles operating within our families and communities.