In the past seven years, since Oranga Tamariki was established, 57 kids have died because of abuse or neglect in New Zealand.
They’re the numbers being reported today as we try to get our heads around the death of another toddler, Ruthless Empire, who died just days before his second birthday from what the police described as “blunt force trauma”.
Not only that. But none of the people living in the house where he was living bothered taking him to hospital for another 12 hours after he was assaulted.
So he didn’t have a hope, did he?
There was one comment that the cop in charge of the investigation said over the weekend that really stuck with me. Detective Inspector Nick Pritchard said the level of violence towards Baby Ru was “difficult to fathom”.
And when you get a detective talking like that - who will have seen all sorts of things - you just know that this poor little boy really suffered.
When the anti-smacking law came into effect in May 2007, supporters of it said it would reduce the number of infant deaths in New Zealand. When I say the law “came in”, it was actually an amendment to existing legislation.
Because, up until that point, the Crimes Act said parents couldn’t be prosecuted for assaulting their kids because there was a legal defence of “reasonable force”.
So Green Party MP at-the-time, Sue Bradford, championed the amendment which became known then, and is still known now, as the anti-smacking law.
And you may well remember people who supported it at the time saying that it was going to mean a reduction in the infant death rate.
Because if parents weren’t allowed to smack their kids, then there was less likelihood of someone really losing the plot and smacking a child to death. That was one of the arguments in favour of it
And I thought the same too at the time. But kids are still dying. 57 of them in the past seven years. Baby Ru being the latest.
Which tells me that the anti-smacking law has failed. Yes, there will undoubtedly be less kids getting smacked by their parents than there used to be.
But is a child being killed every six-and-a-half weeks - because that’s what this stat being reported today averages out at - is that a good reason to say ‘woohoo, that anti-smacking law really worked’.
Because it hasn’t. And it is shameful that kids are still dying in these numbers here in New Zealand.
But even though I think the anti-smacking law has failed, I don’t think that’s a reason to get rid of it or amend it back to what it used to be. I think we still need it
Because why would you change the law and make it ok to beat kids? You just wouldn’t, would you.
But my thinking is that as long as there is a law to protect kids - even though it’s failing - as it’s there, it is going to make some people think twice about how they discipline their kids. So my view is that it’s failed, but we still need it.
And then there is Oranga Tamariki. It’s been around for seven years and, in that time, 57 kids have died because of abuse or neglect in New Zealand.
That’s another fail. How could it be anything else? But it was always going to fail. Because when you’ve got an organisation that gets 70,000 to 80,000 calls every year from people who think a child might be in danger, of course there are going to be failures.
I’m not saying it’s good enough. But, sadly, it is inevitable. And kids like Baby Ru are the ones who suffer the consequences.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
So he didn’t have a hope, did he?
There was one comment that the cop in charge of the investigation said over the weekend that really stuck with me. Detective Inspector Nick Pritchard said the level of violence towards Baby Ru was “difficult to fathom”.
And when you get a detective talking like that - who will have seen all sorts of things - you just know that this poor little boy really suffered.
When the anti-smacking law came into effect in May 2007, supporters of it said it would reduce the number of infant deaths in New Zealand. When I say the law “came in”, it was actually an amendment to existing legislation.
Because, up until that point, the Crimes Act said parents couldn’t be prosecuted for assaulting their kids because there was a legal defence of “reasonable force”.
So Green Party MP at-the-time, Sue Bradford, championed the amendment which became known then, and is still known now, as the anti-smacking law.
And you may well remember people who supported it at the time saying that it was going to mean a reduction in the infant death rate.
Because if parents weren’t allowed to smack their kids, then there was less likelihood of someone really losing the plot and smacking a child to death. That was one of the arguments in favour of it
And I thought the same too at the time. But kids are still dying. 57 of them in the past seven years. Baby Ru being the latest.
Which tells me that the anti-smacking law has failed. Yes, there will undoubtedly be less kids getting smacked by their parents than there used to be.
But is a child being killed every six-and-a-half weeks - because that’s what this stat being reported today averages out at - is that a good reason to say ‘woohoo, that anti-smacking law really worked’.
Because it hasn’t. And it is shameful that kids are still dying in these numbers here in New Zealand.
But even though I think the anti-smacking law has failed, I don’t think that’s a reason to get rid of it or amend it back to what it used to be. I think we still need it
Because why would you change the law and make it ok to beat kids? You just wouldn’t, would you.
But my thinking is that as long as there is a law to protect kids - even though it’s failing - as it’s there, it is going to make some people think twice about how they discipline their kids. So my view is that it’s failed, but we still need it.
And then there is Oranga Tamariki. It’s been around for seven years and, in that time, 57 kids have died because of abuse or neglect in New Zealand.
That’s another fail. How could it be anything else? But it was always going to fail. Because when you’ve got an organisation that gets 70,000 to 80,000 calls every year from people who think a child might be in danger, of course there are going to be failures.
I’m not saying it’s good enough. But, sadly, it is inevitable. And kids like Baby Ru are the ones who suffer the consequences.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
Te Ao, tikanga. Plus alcohol and drugs. And unwanted children, not discourged by the Maori Health Authority with many staff aware of the prospect of a numbers led democratic takeover.
What especially sicken s me is the effective united support for offenders. Those in court for th emost heinous acts very often have hapu in the gallery barracking for them.
Maybe feel sad for these children in the short term, for the pain they suffered, but isn't it better that it is over. A short, painful life is better than a long drawn out painful life. Their death is a blessing.
I still take exception to smacking being likened to beating. That is so far from the truth. I was bought up in the 1950’s and am quite sure I deserved a smack now and again and am thankful my parents used smacking as a form of discipline. Discipline and consequently respect has gone out the window-more’s the pity. Add drugs and alcohol to the mix and you get what we’ve got.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.