So John Key gets the compromise he wanted all along. But Helen Clark gets to put her name on the amendment. Who wins?

Actually, I think this is a definite victory for John Key on the issue. Not because he has managed to get the amendment concession from Labour and the Greens, but because Labour were forced into the corner of having to deal with him. Not because of politics but because of general public opinion.

The Labour Party knew that if they supported the bill as it was, they were going to get nailed to the wall quite severely at the next election. As in probably find themselves with maybe half (or fewer) seats in the Parliament than they have right now. On the other hand, if they didn’t support the bill, they would be seen as swinging to the right and lose just as badly. It was a lose:lose situation for them. However, by offering up this concession to the National Party, they’ve effectively admitted the situation they were in and waved a white flag.

What’s ultimately funny about this amendment is that it leaves us in basically the same legal situation we were in before the repeal of Section 59, but now we’ve put more pressure on to the police to sort out issues. It has always been illegal to commit assault. It has always been illegal to commit abuse of any kind.

Strangely enough, I find myself supporting Act’s stance on this. They refuse to support the bill, not because of the anti-smacking, but because the bill is pointless and does nothing but create confusion around the law. While working last night, I listened to the debate briefly and heard Rodney Hide supporting the sixth amendment which creates a time frame for a review of this new law.

Has the passion and the flared tempers been worth it all to get to this point? Well, yes and no. Effectively what we’ve got is basically back to the point we were at previously.

What does the amendment actually do? Well, under the original text that Sue Bradford was trying to get through, Police would have to follow up and investigate fully every accusation or complaint of abuse, even if that “abuse” was a parent smacking/spanking their child for the purposes of correction or discipline. The amendment from Helen Clark, edited and supported by John Key and the National Party, basically says that Police do not have to prosecute or even investigate inconsequential events.

So a parent smacking their child on the hand or backside with their open hand isn’t going to have the Police arresting them. However, a parent taking to their child with the jug cord or the 2×4 will definitely find themselves in front of a judge.

What the original bill — without this amendment — would have put in place was that there was no excuse and no defence at all for hitting a child. No matter how inconsequential or trivial it might be. A smack on the hand would have become just as illegal as beating the child with a steel bar.

Are we in the clear here? Well, personally I don’t think so. The legalese is very muddy and we’ve already had the second reading of the bill. Listening to lawyers on the radio last night, the way things are worded at the moment will leave things extremely murky as far as where the line truly is. More so, this bill doesn’t actually do anything newly constructive. What this bill hopes to achieve was already done by the Crimes Act as it stands right now. This is why the Act Party refuses to support the Bradford bill. Its simply worthless fluff that only confuses the law, not improves it.

Labour will lose the next election. Of that I have no doubt. I think its pretty evident that people are getting pretty fed up with their behaviour. I think they’ve started to notice that and thus the concession to National. However, I don’t expect them to go quietly. We’ll get the new budget in a couple of weeks and I’m fully expecting there to be a lot of bribes in it. We’re about a year out from the next election and they have an extremely major P.R. job ahead of them. The concession was just the first in that line. Expect the budget to be full of it too. ;-)