Clark bolsters anti-smack bill

Prime Minister Helen Clark has spoken out in favour of removing the legal defence allowing parents to use "reasonable force" to physically punish their children - a vote of confidence for the new anti-smacking bill.

Today, Labour, National, New Zealand First, Act and United Future will discuss at their caucus meetings whether to support Green MP Sue Bradford's private member's bill that would repeal controversial section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Most parties are likely to decide to treat the bill as a conscience vote. But the Greens have decided to vote along party lines in favour of the bill.

Helen Clark yesterday indicated Labour was leaning towards supporting the bill.

"It might well be that our caucus decides - as Phil Goff suggested at the end of last week - that the bill should go to select committee; put the evidence out on the table and have a good look at it."

Earlier yesterday, Helen Clark said it was her view that section 59 had to go.

"We have seen people get off who really have dealt pretty viciously with kids."

Support for the bill has also come from outside Parliament, with Plunket, Save the Children and the Law Society all speaking out in favour of it.

But Act MP Stephen Franks and United Future's Murray Smith have both voiced opposition to the bill, and it is thought both parties will vote against it.

Helen Clark yesterday stressed that the Government would not legislate to ban smacking, saying it would be a "very silly thing to do".

"On the other hand, to have an actual defence in the law where someone can go and argue they used reasonable force, is also ridiculous," she said on Paul Holmes' Newstalk ZB show.

Ms Bradford was also at pains to explain that her bill would simply remove the defence for parents to use "reasonable force" to physically punish children, but would not create a new offence.

"I cannot imagine a day in this country when a policeman or a court would arrest or convict someone for lightly smacking a child or physically stopping a child from going into danger."

Mr Franks, a lawyer, said if section 59 was removed parents could be charged with assault for any kind of intentional touching.

"If you think about it, even putting a kid in its bedroom for time-out falls both within the definition of assault and it is probably kidnapping or unlawfully detaining."

Mr Franks said if the bill did proceed, which he was strongly opposed to, he was certain it would require some modification.

Labour MP John Tamihere said he was undecided whether he would support the bill to select committee stage.

Mr Tamihere said he thought the bill had been poorly thought-out with little regard to its practical consequences.

"I have major issues about the intrusion of the Crimes Act and I don't think we should be spooked by the absolute outrageous abuse cases that have been highlighted at the same time."

United Future deputy leader Judy Turner also warned that the implications of the bill needed to be examined.

"Not only do you criminalise the actions of ordinary, loving New Zealand parents, but if we are going to define smacking as abuse, let's be consistent about it and let Child, Youth and Family know they should get ready to investigate possibly every family in the country."