KEY POINTS:
Here is a selection of the views received on Wednesday about the smacking debate.
Green MP Sue Bradford believes her anti-smacking bill will become law, but by a razor-thin majority. The bill easily passed its second reading in Parliament by 70 to 51.
What do you think?
Send us your views
>> Go here to read a selection of the latest views received
David Cohen
Dear Sue,
If I have a 2 year old trying to shove a fork in a live powerpoint and it wont take NO for an answer I am going to smack it. See you in court.
John Stansfield
As a Kiwi and father I am appalled at the death threats and graphic violence directed at Sue Bradford who seeks only to prohibit violence against children. NZ society has a shocking culture of violence as evidenced by these inhuman threats and I am very grateful we have MPs like Ms Bradford who are brave enough to stand against the bullying.
Meg Peek
I think the government is fast losing the plot. It is another bureaucratic ploy to reduce social responsibility. The day is fast approaching when people wont be able to think for themselves in New Zealand. Such a great pity as we have a wonderful country.
Ray
Let us stop being politically correct and admit that it is a particular racial group that is mostly responsible for serious child abuse and they will ignore the anti-smacking legislation anyway. All it will achieve is make potential criminals out of decent law-abiding parents trying to bring their children up well.
Robert Wiener
Sometimes pain is the only teacher. It can be appropriate. For months, my young son, Michael, was able to crawl upstairs. He couldnt manage downstairs. He hauled his chest over the lip of the top step and stared down the carpeted hill, frozen by the fear of falling. A thousand times, I, my wife, my older children would swivel his legs below him. "Michael, you go downstairs feet first." He always refused. Over months in his headfirst position he inched himself ever further forward, closer to the tipping point. He would not learn from our kind hands pointing his feet down hill. One day, the inevitable accident happened. He tumbled head-first a few steps before I caught him. In that split second he learned the lesson that the rest of the family could not teach him in six months. Now he goes to the top step, puts one hand onto the step below and swivels his legs below him. He then slides happily down the rest of the carpeted hill. Now he cruises joyfully up and down the stairs of our three-storey home. Michael is three and still cant walk. He has Downs Syndrome. Sometimes pain is the right teacher. Sometimes a quick smack is the right teacher. Brutality is something very different and is already illegal. The anti-smacking bill is mad, bad law conceived by do-gooders who will create a blackmailers charter. Please vote against it, and Helen, with no children, you are not qualified to vote on this issue. If you have integrity, you will abstain.
Tom
Sue Bradford is just another idiot like Dr. Spock who feels the necessity to interfere in other people's lives. After two warnings, my kids get a smack and they both agree it is totally appropriate. They are disgusted with the behaviour of other kids and say they would probably be like that too if they did not have the additional discipline. I was a physically abused child. Mmy father was awful but do you know what? I have not turned into an axe murderer, I do not beat my children, and I dont have any outstanding emotional issues. Even the stupid sheep will physically punish its young if necessary but of course Sue thinks she is smarter than nature doesnt she?
Justin
People should remember that this bill does not ban smacking, but simply removes the defence of reasonable force, which has allowed parents to get away with abuse. Sue Bradford is a loving mother with five children, who has openly admitted at times to smacking her kids. Police would not prosecute parents for light smack, this is a ridiculous argument. New Zealand should be ashamed of our negative statistics in the area of child abuse, but should be proud that our parliament would pass a bill, which protects children.
Kay Kendall
It is a sad indictment on todays families that a law needs introduction which enables police to have the power to act against those who beat their children. This very law offends those of us who may have administered the occasional smack to our younger children, particularly in the name of safety. Some years ago schools lost the power to strap children, so now the final answer is to exclude them. After discussion, my children agree that they would rather get the strap for misdemeanours, than be hauled through a demeaning and emotionally abusive system, which sees its completion in the public humiliation of school exclusion.
Ollie
I remember when I was eight years old I lied to my parents. I got a big telling off and was grounded etc. I did it again two weeks later and this time I got a damn good thrashing as dad would say. Sure it hurt, sure I cried, sure my behind got bruised. But did I ever lie again to my parents? No! And whats more that one hiding served as a warning and my parents never had to smack me again. It did me no harm whatsoever and Ill be doing the same with my kids, whether it be illegal or not.
Vic
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." Plato (427-347 B.C.)"
Brent
As long as the MPs who vote this through are happy to give out all their contact details so that they are available to come and assist 24 hours a day with disobedient children, then this is a great idea.
Unfortunately, I would also like to see supporters such as Plunket do likewise Reality is that this legislation is going to hurt the majority who do not beat their children, but will not stop children being abused.
Bruce Macdonald
I would like to voice my concern over the bill before parliament which incorporates changes to the law regarding smacking of children. As I understand it, the bill proposes the removal of s59 which provides a defence for parents who use reasonable force to discipline children. I would like to offer a few thoughts on a conceptual level without professing to be an expert (other than being a parent). At present if a child is disciplined with force by a parent, the parent has a defence against criminal conviction if they have used reasonable force and the proposed legislation will remove that defence.The proponents of the bill have concerns because of the level of violence that has been perpetrated against children and recent cases where parent have used this defence to escape punishment and the community feels the courts are not getting it right.
There has also some suggestion that the police use discretion when to enforce the law. There seems to be a fundamental flaw in the logic. We are moving from a situation where there is dissatisfaction with the interpretation of "reasonable force" by the courts, to a situation where we are relying on the discretion of the police as to what is acceptable. Surely it is more appropriate to have the courts determine the meaning of "reasonable" than have (probably) one police officer deciding whether to prosecute a case.
If the courts are getting it wrong, it seems inconceivable that police while make these judgement calls any better. Would it not be more appropriate to address the courts interpretation of what is "reasonable" to ensure it is in line with what the community as a whole considers reasonable. If the courts are not getting it right, the bill could be used to provide clearer guidance to the courts.
The other aspect is the presumption of innocence has subtly changed. At present it is legal to use "reasonable force" to discipline your child and the courts decides if you have broken that law. Under the new bill, a parent who lightly smacks a child on the bottom has committed a crime (whether he/she is caught/prosecuted or not, the crime has occurred) and that person is relying on not being caught or the police not enforcing the law.
As a parent of three teenagers, I am not philosophically opposed to a parent smacking their children (smacking meaning a "reasonable" hand on the bottom) but I actually found I very seldom had occasion to use such methods. But on occasions I did, so if the bill passes as it is, I would be guilty of the act of assaulting my children. Whatever you do dont pass the law retrospectively! In closing, the law as it stands does protect the children from "unreasonable force" as well as protecting "reasonable" parents. The problem has been in the implementation of that law. The proposed changes will do no more to protect children from abuse ("unreasonable force") but will expose "reasonable" parents to the whims of the police.
Georgina
It is plain stupid that this anti-smacking bill is being passed through Parliament. Look at our kids now, criminals are getting younger, and why? Because children know that the parents are helpless to do anything that would bring them back into line yet when they get into trouble, it is us the parents that are criticised. I say imposing tougher sentences on the real culprits is the answer! Not penalising the ones that are doing a good job. It is already hard trying to raise children to become good citizens of the future, Now these idiots have just made it a whole lot harder.
Graham Hutton
Is this a smacking bill or a hitting bill? If it is about parents "smacking" their children then it is a load of bollocks, If on the other hand it is about stopping people beating their children (Child abuse) then I agree with the concept. In my experience the "left wing Pinko femo-nazi tree huggers" want a utopian world where evwryone holds hands sings songs and play guitars while preaching love and brown rice. Life is not that simple. I see every day the children that lack discipline and shake my head in absolute wonder at the woeful parenting that allow such poor behaviour and social development to continue. Just look at screaming tantrums in supermarkets , with the mother "trying" to reason with the 2 or 3 year old. A short sharp smack to the backside and a stern admonishment is what is needed not" Oh come on now little Johnnie, if you are a good little boy , Mummy will buy you an ice cream and some lollies and some chips and some....." Get the picture? Reward the little shite for his / her bad behaviour! There are probably holes in my argument and probably exceptions to the rule, but this over zealous action will only cause to do more harm. Lets face it, any common sense person will agree that child abuse is appalling and as much as is humanly possible should be done to stamp it out. However a smacking (vs hitting, beating etc) bill is not going to stop people from breaking the law. What it will do is make fair and good parents more defensive and more open to attack where there should not be any.
Maria
I think a smack on bum/legs is perfectly acceptable. I was brought up, along with 5 siblings, with that sort of discipline. A belt hung on a door handle and was occasionally used by mum. But generally the threat that she would get the belt soon pulled us into line. I (and I am sure my siblings have) do smack my children. But certainly do not harm them, except maybe their pride for 5 minutes. It is the brutal force beyond a smack that is not acceptable. And that is what the anti smacking should be about. The people that bash their children ruin discipline for the majority who are only smacking.
Shaun
As the father of a young child, it staggers me that anyone would want the legal right to hit their child. What message does it send to our children when it is correct and right to hit another person when we want to change their behaviour. Particularly when those people are defenceless?
Peter McBride
It is absolute madness to be denied the opportunity to properly and fairly discipline your own child. I was a very troublesome child and had I not had many smacks /corporal punishment by both schools (cane / leather strap etc) and parents during my youth I am sure I would be the worse for it now - even though I did not like being punished I ( in hindsight I very richly deserved it !!). I was so bad that the intermediate school refereed my problems to the youth aid person who went and saw my parents . This did not get a very good hearing for me especially! I remember the comment that they were concerned that I would grow up to be a "master criminal"! I would like to assure you to date I have not shown those inclinations but I was terminally bored at school and the structured system did not suit my free spirit! I cannot and will not support this form of namby pamby do goody cobblers offered by pseudo green politicians who do not really understand the necessities of modern life - in either the home unit or the bigger country wide picture.
Michael Hamilton
The legislation as it is proposed in the bill at present is not good. Parents must have the right to lightly smack children, for the safety of the child in certain dangerous situations, and to help maintain appropriate control of their children in certain situations, and to help form good, mature citizens of the future. I was smacked as a child, and now am a mature, loving person, and am actually a teacher/lecturer. (Virtually all of the approx 100 adult students I teach agree in discussions I have had in 2006 and 2007 that they want to be able to smack children). Smacking is one of several methods of discipline which must remain an option for occasional use, after careful consideration of the situation in which it will be used. Smacking is one of a range of methods of disciplining children (a vital part of every parents responsibility), other options including "living with consequences", "time-out", "withdrawal of privileges". Smacking, with reasonable force, must remain an option for use by loving, reasonable parents (ie. the vast majority of parents). The bill, if passed in its present state, will potentially make criminals out of many good people, and waste lots of police time in investigating complaints from children or witnesses to smacking. Abuse of children --- which is very differemt from a light smacking done in a controlled and loving manner will not be prevented by out-of-control, angry parents with significant parent-child or psychological problems -- who need professional help (like we see on the TV Nannying programmes or "Dr Phil"). Our, namely the peoples, government should listen to what the clear majority of the people say -- the NZ Herald poll has been showing 90 per cent (over several hours today) of people support the right of parents to lightly smack their children as part of discipline. The proposed amendments to the bill by Chester Burrows are good, defining what is reasonable force, and I would support the legislation in that form, whereby unreasonable force (when defined as Burrows proposes) has been defined.
Jill
How about stop violence towards children? Making smacking illegal is pathetic- it is a way of disciplining children. Smacking is the most harmless form of disciplining children, mind you, most parents never smack as hard as you would hit a basketball. A lot of children scream, kick, roll around the floor with lots of cries- sometimes a tiny smack could teach them a lesson, but should not be done often. In return, many children do learn from that little smack. Smacking and hurting your child deliberately is different, you do not smack your children out of the blue. Carving your toddlers with knives (recent headline)is when the law should come in.
Richard
While proponents of this bill argue that police will determine whether to prosecute cases "in the public interest", what happens when a child decides to sue for damages in later life for a light smack as a child? I think the bill has merit if it defines reasonable force, although I think more debate is needed to get the wording right.
Berthy
Sue Bradford states herself that she believes any level of violence against children is wrong. She is being very deceitful when she says that this bill is not going to criminalise ordinary parents.If the methods used over these last decades are so effective, why do we have so many out of control children? A short smack for direct disobedience and in your face defiance goes a long way to make for a harmonious living environment for all. Sue Bradfords bill won't stop bad parenting. Help those people instead with better support services such as help with babies, intervention in the early years with behavioural difficulties and teach them to read properly and you will find a lot of dysfunction will disappear. Children are precious. Give parents the means to raise them well, which may mean the occasional smack from time to time.
Bright ideas department
I would like to propose another bill for parliament. I propose that they make it illegal to be stupid. That way anyone who votes for this bill will then become a criminal and be locked up and unable to do any more damage to this country. Oh yes. They can pass it retrospectively too!
Jeanette Edmonds
Will you people please get it right and stop trying to make all people pay for a few. I think it is wrong that families hide behind the fact that there is a problem and saying they don't believe they could do that. There is always signs that say there is a problem, and for the sake of the kids lives is it really right to turn a blind eye. In doing that and keeping quite we are all encouraging abuse to continue and letting the politicians dictate stupid laws and taking parents rights away from us all. Get it right people of N.Z. what are we teaching our kids, to lie and be sneaky. What happened to open and honest, healthy kids?
Rob Pritchard
How dare Sue Bradford hold a gun to the heads of the abused children of New Zealand? We desperately need section 59 changed to allow abusive parents to be dealt to, but SueBradford has threaten to withdraw her bill if Mr Borrows amendment (to allow light, occasional, trifling smacking) is passed. This amendment does not threaten abused children; it only threatens Sue Bradfords ideological view that no children should ever be smacked. She is forcing MPs into a position that means to vote for the amendment is to vote for abusing children therefore forcing them to vote for Sues way. How dare she try to kill an amendment that has the majority of New Zealanders support in such a manipulative way? This exposes her not as the concerned MP she betrays herself as, but as an ideological crusader.
Phil Chamberlain
I oppose this bill because the bill does not differentiate between correction and abuse. Sue Bradford insists on confusing the both as abuse. I abhor abuse of children in any form, but we, wife & I have brought up our children with love and correction. A smack was occasionally and only necessary after any amount of talking and reasoning at the time didnt work. As in employment law, they got warnings and if that didnt work a wee smack often did. One is now a lawyer and the other a baker. Both required loving correction and got it, but never abuse in any way.
John Knight
I (father of 4) wish issues like this could be decided by a proper referendum and not by 120 so called representatives who don't represent the peoples view in issues like this but rather their own "conscience". Most of them dont have kids thats obvious.
M Harris
Are they also going to enforce that all public places such as restaurants provide a time out area?
Andrew Robertson
This bill is an absolute outrage to good parents and will criminalise disciplining children. This should never become law. Deal to the abuse of drugs and violence not to healthy Correction and discipline of children.
Duncan Lennox
There is no connection between using reasonable force by way of correction, and the violent bashing of children - real child abuse. The change in this law is not aimed at real child abuse, it is aimed at the vast majority of us who use reasonable force and do correct our children. Our children grow up to be stable law-abiding citizens. I have been a teacher for forty-two years. I taught in Otara, Tamaki, Dargaville and Flaxmere. If banning corporal punishment were a cure for violence, schools would be safer places than they were before that law change. The reality is that there has been an exponential increase in violence in schools since then. In the school I was at when they banned corporal punishment there was an immediate and drastic increase in violence between pupils, and, for the first time in my experience, teachers were attacked. Which teachers? The young women. Bradfords Bill states quite clearly that anyone who uses any force to correct a childs behaviour will be deemed guilty of assault.
Carolyn
I disagree with Sue Bradford on this issue. Listening to her on the radio this morning she denies that parents will be made criminal by smacking their kids yet the bill she proposes clearly states that it would be illegal. I know of many parents that use alternative forms of discipline as a first course of action(i.e.time out) but still reserve the right to smack for situations where reasoning with the child does not work or quick corrective action is required (i.e, the child is about to touch a hot element). I was smacked occasionally and have no physical or psychological effects and come from a loving home where I was never "beaten, hit or abused". I do not believe that my parents are criminals for smacking me, in fact they have always had my best interests at heart. I doubt whether the parents that "beat, abuse and hit" their children will take any notice of the bill and their appalling actions will still occur regardless of the bill or not.
Jo Robertson
Sue Bradford makes hysterical comments. For example New Zealanders value adults more than children. Is that why most of us work our ass off to give them shelter over their head. Nutritional food on the table. The best schooling we possibly can. Exhaust ourselves carting them to Rugby, Soccer, Dance, drama, art, Gymnastics ballet, sacrifice our second income so that we can be there for them. Read a story to them at night time when we ourselves would rather be in bed. Get them up early so they can develop good working habits. I dont know who Sue Bradford hangs out with, but it certainly isnt me our the huge amount of families I know. May be she would like to come to St Heliers and tell us how we dont value children. Last weekend would have been good, during the Weetbix Triathlon as thousands of parents and grandparents rose at 6am to get their children's bikes into transition by 8am. I saw a most incredible team of organizers sacrifice their time to teach children how to do a triathlon. No I will not be bundled into a small category of parents who for whatever sad reason have lost control as for me the greatest privilege is to sacrifice my life for my children.
Anne Barber
In order for our society to grow we need to set boundaries for our children and grandchildren.Without boundaries there is lawlessness, as there is so much of today with the young people. This Bill takes all rights away from parents who are trying to discipline their children in right and wrong and also trying to teach them values and respectfulness. Young people of today have no respect for anyone or anything, be it your property or life. I take this because they have had no discipline and no structure in their lives. Now Sue Bradford and these alike are going to take away the last piece of rights and discipline left to parents and grandparents, well I hope you all pat yourselves on the back when the next generation comes through to adulthood and there is no consideration for anyone or anything. Who will be in government then?The youth you let go through life without paying for their actions of destructiveness? There is nothning wrong with giving a naughty tantrum child a smack on the bottom or hand to teach them they have done wrong especially after talking to a child five times. Come on politicians. You are suppose to be there to help not hinder us.
Philippa McDonald
If it is the parents responsibility to bring up children then the government should let them. By my reckoning the government only pokes its nose in when it suits them. If the powers that be take responsibility for discipline then they need to take responsibility for everything, e.g. nutrition, hygiene, pocket money, sports/clubs involvement, dress standard, sleep patterns and even who should be mates with who! Basically some kids need a smack and some just need a certain tone of voice. The government needs to concentrate on political and environment matters not personal and private issues.
Urzila
There is a huge difference between abusing your child and caring for your child. A good smack when they need it, sends a clear message to a child, I love you enough to smack you for your own good. I love you enough to care what you are doing, and not to permit the wrong things, because quite frankly they will not serve you in a positive way later in life. Once you start hitting with objects, etc. yes that is wrong, but then word the bill accordingly. How can caring parents be punished?! Word the bill so people who loose it and hit their kids with objects/fist/foot whatever, so they get put in jail for abuse.
I was smacked when I needed it as a child, and I appreciate that today.
L
Smacking a child to modify behaviour or discipline is not child abuse. Anyone with half a brain knows that. This law will make criminals of good caring parents. While the scumbag parents remain untouched. Would this proposed law by Sue Bradford have saved the lives of Chris and Cru Kahui or Lilly Bing? We all know that it wouldnt have. Because they werent smacked, they were bashed and beaten by family members. How about a law prosecuting parents for not feeding their children or for not making sure they go to school. How about prosecuting parents if their kids commit crime. This law if it comes through will be the epitome of Political Correctness gone out of control.
Alex Jordan
Mate the damage Sue is doing will take generations to fix. If this were about facts and honest motives it would be a far different bill. Namely anti beating.
The Junk science that Sue quotes without evidence while refuting the hard copies of evidence on the table in front of her???...Mate she ought to be in one of the institutions she will need to house the kids she will cause to be taken away from their parents. Re Junk Science; article here making the point. http://www.worldnewsaustralia.com.au/region.php?id=131793®ion=2
This article separates the hoards of Social scientist sheep doing studies to kiss up to the activist professors that teach them, from a study that can tell the difference between disciplined discipline and a enraged beating from an out of control idiot.I am out of the country and will sell my house and never come back with my well adjusted kid that I smack a little as appropriate and that cries more often when Daddy isnt home from work than from ever receiving a smack. NZ has nothing much left to offer a person that cares for their kids or works honestly. It is a place where democracy is long gone..
Andrew
I think what a lot of people are missing is that force is more than just smacking, and Sue Bradford doesnt just want to ban smacking, she wants to ban all force. Section 59 of the Crimes Act doesnt just protect against assault charges for smacking, it also, for example, protects against kidnapping charges if you pick up your child and take them to their room (that is still force, just a different kind of force.). The select committee noted this in their notes on the law, but still failed to allow even this kind of force (when it is used for correction), by saying that they didn't think it was likely that there would be a prosecution in this case. Labour and the Greens aren' just trying to ban smacking, they are banning all forms of child discipline, including the forms that are advocated by anti-smacking lobbyists.
Sugu Palanieappan
The only reason the children are abused is because the current punishment handed out to the real abusers is a joke. These criminals are out in a year or less or they dont even go to prison. By outlawing smacking would child abuse go away? If you ignorant politicians out there think so, I am afraid for the survival of our society. We all grew up with a little smacking and it has not done any harm. What has the government done to educate the society on child abuse. If you think pass a law will solve the problem, think again. What happened to the abusers of the Kahui twins? We treat criminals like lords in this country. We make our jails more comfortable for the criminals. An average family cannot afford the luxuries given to a criminal in jail. Do not create criminals out of parents. We do know how to bring our kids up. Educate the society on child abuse. Politicians stay out of our lives.
Anil
If only Green MP Sue Bradfords anti-smacking bill can base their concepts on Bibilical terms, she would have never gone so far, its really sad for me to see this country going downwards.
L Baird
I rather thought smacking was illegal anyway. Isnt it a form of assault and battery ? If we smack a child it is called discipline. If we smack an adult it is called an act of violence. At what age is the boundary crossed between child and adult? Considering some adults never come out of their childhood. Has there ever been a law passed saying you can take physical action against your child ?
Victor
"Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." I have two children aged 10 & 7, they are very good in the school (Distinctions in Australian & Otago exams). Knows their manners. They represent clubs in Netball, Soccer & Cricket. We have family time and have family holidays. They have their TV time & they have time to study every day. We are proud of our children. These good things came about by having good discipline at home and at school. There has been punishments but they are with love as we want them to have better future. Reading North Shore paper of Tuesday talks about truancy in school and mouthy kids. These things come about with ill discipline and disciplining needs smacks in loving way. Some one must look at the stats on the parents who abuse their children. I sure the parents wouldnt have been brought up without proper control. Children are too young to have all the freedom with no responsibilities. Good parenting requires smacks as well to train them. "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.". We dont want them to land in jail as juvenile criminals. You cant train a child by telling him / her to go to the room or stand in the corner or write 100 lines. The child thinks that he or she can do and get away by standing in the corner. But smack works because there is an instant pain associated with it. It worked in my family. These are my thoughts.
Stan
Absolutely stupid and unrealistic idea.
Owen Emery
Again a government who seems determined to divert attention from the real issues in our society with nonsense legislation. Either the law will be applied as it is written, which will introduce law abiding parents to the rigours and trauma of our legal (not justice) system or it will become another wasted and ignored law as has the electronic dog tagging. In both the child smacking and dog tagging cases, it is apparent to anyone with a modicum of common sense, the end goal will not be achieved by the introduction of legislation.
Jo
I am so angry about this bill soon parents will have no rights but those imposed on us by the government. I am a Mother of a two year old and pregnant with our second. We have tried very hard not to smack as it is too easy to slip into the routine of this discipline. But if she does something that I feel deserves a quick whack on the bum I dont see why