Monday, June 08, 2009

The debate that won't die

Dear Editor

Linley Boniface (DomPost, June 8) says there have been no downsides to the repeal of Section 59. In fact, care and protection notifications to CYF have soared. Substantiations have not. Presumably this means social workers are further overloaded and potentially unable to deal effectively with genuine cases.

The new law fosters a atmosphere of confusion, distrust and suspicion. Smacking is 'sort of' illegal. The public's respect for law is further diminished.

People have also become more mistrustful and cynical about the political process because the "huge" parliamentary majority that Ms Boniface refers to as having passed the law, did not reflect public opinion.

Meantime, as she points out, the very real, life-threatening abuse continues unabated.


Anonymous said...

John Key betrayed public opinion when he cosied up to Labour on this bill, I lost all respect for him then. Indeed the debate will not die, because the majority of the voting public are angry about it, sheer arrogance from our supposed parlimentary representatives, thinking they know what's best, and saying 'stuff you' to joe public.

ZenTiger said...

And Linley continues to equate smacking in discipline with beating and child abuse.

The point of the referendum is to declare once and for all they are not the same.

mojo said...

And indeed they are not the same Zen. I think I could, possibly, almost have gone along with removing the imperative for smacking from parents if they had retained it in schools ... but the double whammy was simply too much. It certainly has transpired, and sadly, that 'spare the rod' has resulted in methylphenidate and its slow release and cheaper alternatives ... with melatonin, the failed anti depressant, to enable appetite and sleep - coz stimulants do affect this; and the anti psychotics and the anti epileptics; and, oh dear, there was an industry waiting in the wings... who would have known.
Spare the rod & medicate the child, or let there be a return to common sense - let the failure to teach children what they can do (where, when, & to what extent) be seen as the abrogation of parental responsibility it really is.
The point of the referendum is to enable parents to parent and teachers to teach ... so much potentially escalated behaviour could be (could have been) avoided by a 'slap in time.' A discrete punishment that enabled the immediate focus to be put on, and remain on, reasonable behaviour.

Anonymous said...

There is another case in the paper, another dead child, the accused released on bail,needing comforting, apprently. How backward NZ has things.