Debating s59 - striking a blow for positive social change

There has been some comment, even from those who support the repeal of s59 like Chris Trotter and Bryce Edwards, that Sue Bradford's bill should be withdrawn because of the anti-repeal lobby. I completely agree that the political management around this piece of legislation has not been the best. The lack of a public campaign to galvanise (and simply show!) the true level of support has been a critical failure, which others have identified too.

I suspect part of this has grown out of the expectation that this Bill would never pass. After all, Laila Harre tried to pursue the repeal of s59 back when Labour-led meant Labour-Alliance coalition, not Winston Peters as Foreign Minister. I got the clear impression then that there was no way the new Labour dominated Cabinet were prepared to go there, and that their caucus wouldn't have backed a Member's Bill either.

Those opposed to the repeal of s59 cut their teeth on previous liberal legislation this Government has passed - law reform around prostitution, and the passage of civil unions into our statue books. They have used similar networks, and similar tactics, to whip up opposition and it has taken sometime for the Greens and other supporters of the law change to respond. In the meantime the public perception of what the bill will actually do has been replaced by an alternative reality where children will dob their parents into the dreaded CYFS* for a tap on the hand, and every parent in the country will become a criminal overnight. Tony Milne has been writing some great stuff on what the repeal of s59 is actually all about, for those looking for a bit of accuracy about the matter.

Many worthy organisations that have a great deal to do with parents, families and children have put their support behind repeal, yet this has been lost in the fray. Other groups, usually with "family" in their name and often with God allegedly on their side, have dominated the discourse, and the media has been slow in pursuing the balance required of the Fourth Estate in a democracy. If I hear the bill referred to once more as "the Anti-Smacking Bill" I may have to hit the presenter of that news item myself (of course I will do so lightly on the bottom in a loving yet correctional manner).

The debate has been portrayed by many as cold, childless elitists (their Uber Example being, quite unfairly, Helen Clark) vs ordinary lovable parents (who could see Simon Barnett as anything but a tender father?). This has given those on the Right of the equation yet another chance to have a go at the parental status of our Prime Minister**, despite the fact it is still not relevant to her ability as a politician and legislator, and wouldn't even be a factor if she was a man.

But actually there are quite a few ordinary parents who have stood up for repeal, not agin it. Some of these people I wouldn't normally agree with about much, but Deborah Coddington, Russell Brown, Katherine Rich, John Roughan, Tapu Misa, and Matt McCarten, are all parents and they are all supporting the repeal of s59, along with some of the parents who commented on my last post about this debate. A significant number of those in this Scoop article have children too (Added 2nd April 10.15am). Not to mention the parents in the Labour, Green and Maori Party caucuses, and no doubt amongst those from NZ First, National and United Future who are also voting in favour. Sue Bradford herself has children, but that seems to have been overlooked in the leap to brand those opposed to hitting children for correctional purposes as People Who Can't Have Any Idea How Hard It Is To Be A Parent.

This is not to say that all those who are opposed to the Bill have been this extreme in their opposition. Certainly it does rather seem to be a small but very vocal minority who have dominated the debate and polarised the issue into interfering know-nothings (aka loving parents) vs loving parents (aka child-beaters). It's not really very helpful is it? And it doesn't bode well for an electoral contest sans senseless dog whistling in 2008.

And so Bradford, the Greens, and the Government find themselves in an odd position. They have the numbers in the House, but the perception is that they don't have the numbers in the nation. I agree with Tony's advice, I wouldn't be rushing this Bill through or making it a Government Bill instead. I think the talk of urgency was a bad mistake, and one that only gave those in fervent opposition more hook to hang their hat on.

Time is now on the side of those who support repeal. We can take this debate back, and we must. It's going to be hard work indeed, but together I hope we can do it.




* Is anyone else wondering about the timing of the establishment of the CYFS watch blog?
** Those particularly apt to froth about this may want to check out some of the comments in this recent thread about infertility and then think about shutting their traps next time they feel the desire to attack someone because they don't have children.