KEY POINTS:
Green MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill has caused a lively debate among our readers and there is a mixed view on whether this is political correctness gone mad or whether violence in society means the Government should pass a law to burbparents' ability to use physical force to discipline their children.
Here is an earlier selection of your views on the subject.
>> Read the latest views here
What do you think?
Send us your views
>> Read the story
Trish Coyle
Whilst I understand the rationale behind this Bill and bad parenting seems to be endemic in this new century, I cannot condone such a Bill. There is already far too much political correctness in New Zealand and this would totally remove a parents rights. It is bad enough that children with limited knowledge of the law will spout it ad nauseaum to their teachers, but now parents too will have diminished respect. Instead of this Bill, why not curtail the rights of people to raise children if they are not going to be fit parents? I am currently working on such a Bill myself. Watch this space. May I say that Ms Bradford looks ten years younger than when I last saw her which was 20 years ago. Is that Green living? Or is that common all garden cosmetic surgery?
Wendy Green
We will not stop those among us who think it acceptable to use excessive force to 'control' a child. While I think Ms Bradford has her heart in the right place, her Bill appears too flawed. I agree with Chester Burrows suggestion of defining reasonable force as light smacking as long as it did not cause anything other than "transitory or trifling" injury such as redness or stinging. Anything in excess of that should be totally unacceptable. I also agree that using anything other than an open hand is unacceptable as well as unnecessary.
Al
Isnt the Bill just stopping parents from beating their children?? A light smack is still OK according to the Bill. If this is the case, I totally agree with the Bill and it is in-line with legislation in other civilised countries. There has been a lot of misinformation about the Bill, and the Herald has been very guilty in propagating this misinformation.
Ian Erasmus
The Bible clearly states, if you spare the rod, you will spoil the child. My children will be disclipined, and if necessary will continue to have their rears warmed if they do not listen, regardless of this half brained idea from Sue Bradford. She is out of her tree. This country has a huge issue with youth in terms of lack of discipline, and the lack of corporal punishment has something to do with this, that and the fact that children are so molly coddled in this country. It is almost as if they are "protected game" All one has to do is go to the mall and look at the young thugs with no manners, and it is as clear as daylight. Sue Bradford needs a wake up.
Janet Dixon
For many years children have been treated as second rate citizens with second rate rights. We may not hit our dogs, cats, sheep or other adults -(not even gently) or we are assaulting them. At present we have a huge violence problem in New Zealand and strangely it is condoned by law to use 'force' (reasonable though it may be) 'over" children. We want positive trusting relationships in our adult citizens in this country but does an intermittent smack/hit for an unclear reason from a bigger person build trust long term? Why are we reinforcing academics and other researches to research such topics as "the effect of smacking on children" at expense to NZ only to ignore their findings? Why is it that in education we have long baned "corporal punishment? Over this issue of Repeal of Section 59 I challenge MPs to look a child in the eyes before they vote and promise to protect them from harm.
Russell
Sue Bradfords history shows where she is coming from. From her antics of the eightees shows that there was no discipline in her life. Now she wants the same for every child in the country Good on you Sue you will have to keep building more prisons to house more young people for things not of their own making. Child bashers will not be stopped by this bill which will only get worse with more dysfunctional families.
Chris
People like Sue Bradford need to get out of every ones lives. Most people would agree that beating a child is not on, but to ban smacking is a straw that will break societies back. There are some kids out there that need a good smack on the arse to show where the line is between good & bad behaviour and the naughty step just is not going to cut the cake. In some cases and we all know from past experience that innocent parents will end up before the courts for trying to discipline a bad kid. Sues approach is what's wrong with the Justice system when we keep saying Poor Criminal here's a TV, heres some compensation, oh lets let you out early from prison you poor thing.
Shane
Sue who? What an absolute joke to ban the smacking of children. Have a look at society today,in particular teenagers. Most have no respect for people or property and this stems from banning teachers being able to discipline their students. If we ban the right to discipline our children in our homes then the rot will set in faster. If you leave it to the police to decide who is guilty and they make a bad call then someone has a criminal record, just look at how many people are unfairly convicted every year then found to be innocent. Child Abuse will not stop if this draconian law is passed. Wake up NZ government and use your time dealing with issues that are relevant in society,like parole and bail issues and the P epidemic that is ruining hundreds of lives every day!! Leave the right with normal honest parents to decide when they smack their children.
Ray E
Why can our government not see that basic discipline is required to teach children right from wrong. I do not agree with beating the life out of a child, but a well placed smack or three is needed in some cases. OK, some parents do not have self control and the kids do need to be protected from abusive parents. But, please look logically at today's teenagers and younger children. They show no respect to anyone, Have no sense of morality etc. I remain convinced that this is purely because they have not been taught right from wrong and a whack on the butt sure changes a kids attitude. Cmon Sue, forget about all the goody good bit and think logically.
Wade
Once again the central government and its MPs are telling (read: legislating) the NZ public on how best to lead their lives, how and when we can smoke, drink, smack, run our businesses, and deny the very freedom of personal responsibility and fundamentals of democracy. This act is a menace and will set out to destroy many good families while having little or no effect on the nasty people in society who beat their children. Good on you Sue.
Stewart Finlay
When will we ever learn. Disciplining children is an essential part of their development in learning what is healthy, safe, and what helps build a positive society. Loving punishment (including smacking) works. We have had a number of years where children have been left to learn by themselves and look what we've got. Most of us who grew up in the 1950's and 1960's were smacked and we didnt turn out violent and twisted.
Graeme
I am delighted to see that Clark supports the antis macking bill. To coin a phrase "Yeah Right" It's pretty rich coming from a childless person but that seems to be the norm with another like Barnett and others of that ilk supporting it also. As we all know its not the smack on the hand or backside that is the problem but the beatings and thrashings from those who choose to do so and shouldnt have had the children in the first place. The bill should not go through. By the way dont show retouched photos of Bradford and Clark, it gives the wrong impression, show them as they really are!
Graham Leech
Recently, this government kept the drinking age at 18, in order not to penalise the vast majority of 18-year-olds who drink sensibly. So far so good. They should apply the very same logic to Sue Bradfords bill. They should bin it, in order not to criminalise the vast majority of parents who discipline their children sensibly. Dump this stupid bill!
Jackie
Changes to the way we view our world happen gradually, and I see the proposed changes to what is appropriate for discipline as being the same as a multitude of things that once we get used to them, we look back and cant really understand what all the fuss was about. We are not allowed to hit anyone in life except our own children, and I don't think it sets a good example to them, especially if you are trying to teach them that it is not OK to hit even when the other person has done something bad to them. I am lucky as my parents made a conscious decision not to use physical punishment and to treat their children with no less respect than they would treat a stranger. As a result, I have made it to nearly 40 and I have never been hit by anyone, which is a really good feeling. I also have never hit my children (energetic and mischievous boys) and I don't have any trouble disciplining them in other ways, as long as it is consistent and therefore predictable to them. Many of my friends regret the times when they hit out at their children in anger, and actively try to control this impulse. It takes no control on my part, as any violence is completely unnatural to me. If we embrace this change, within the next generation, that could be the norm.
Fido
I think only people who are, or have been parents should be allowed to vote on this bill. People who have not raised a child have absolutely no idea how difficult it can be some times. Smacking is not only a means of discipline but also a way of teaching right from wrong, like when a child runs across a road without looking for traffic. Mrs Bradfords statement that defining an acceptable level of force to be used against a child is "state-sanctioned violence" is highly humorous; isnt this the same state that wants to introduce the taser gun? I am sorry but I will not have someone else dictating how I raise my children.
Joanna
If the MPs really wanted to reduce child abuse and related deaths then they should go and tackle the key issues and factors that contribute to it, such as child abuse, drug abuse, family breakdowns and poverty. The very high levels of child mortality and abuse in New Zealand can be directly attributed to the above. These are the areas that they need to focus on, not penalise good parents like myself with a bill like this. I will continue to use a smack, if a situation at home or if we are out, warrants it, I will not be told by any government what I can or can not do. This bill will undermind me as a good parent, who cares for and loves her children. As it stands now, it means that the child, if he or she so chooses to they can or could make a false report to the police, claiming to have been beaten by the parent- this will happen. I know of a number of children who are out of control and they would do this just to get at the parents. How will the parents then be supported through this? They wont be. they will be harassed by the police, yes, it will come out that the child was lying to get at the parents, but the damage will be done. Smacking is used in our house as a last resort- it is used as a deterrent and when dealing with unreasonable and offensive behaviour. the smack would be on the hand or back of leg, this is all that is needed to reinforce the message that what they were doing is wrong- nothing more nothing less. There is a big difference between smacking and beating. All the children deaths in New Zealand relate to children that have been beaten not smacked, very big difference, these children were in families that had the factors of drug abuse, poverty, and family breakdown, very big contributing factors, Those are the issues that need to be dealt with by the MPs.deal with them and New Zealands ratings will change, but bringing in a anti smacking bill wont make the difference.
Kent Miller
The proponents of the anti-smacking bill claim that it is for the protection of the child. It is supposed to be designed to stop parents abusing their children. Following this logic, we should have no theft, rape or assault in New Zealand, for they are against the law. Obviously, this is not the case. Laws dont stop law breakers from breaking them. No law by God or Man will stop an abusive parent being an abusive parent. Just like no law will stop a thief being a thief. Rather than turning loving, caring parents into law breakers, the government should look at its own social policies for an answer. Since the abolishment of corporal punishment in schools, crime and violence in New Zealand has gone through the stratosphere. Proof of the connection between the absence of corporal punishment and violent crime is in the pudding. How many Drury Christian School old boys have convictions?
Lea
I hope that common sense will prevail in Wellington and that Susan Bradfords ridiculous attempt at social engineering will get the proverbial thumbs down. It is just another attempt by a radical liberal trying to enforce her beliefs on others. There is a big difference between abuse and discipline. Unfortunately it seems that Susan Bradford is completely unable to distinguish between the two.
Elaine Dyer
I am totally in favour of repeal. I know that many parents fear legal action against them for even the slightest smack. I know this will not be the case. We are removing the legal defence of abuse against our children, not trying to invade the homes of our good enough parents! And there are so many effective ways in which we can instil discipline in our children, try looking at the free SKIP booklets! If we are going to change the culture of violence in our society, we need to start with the way we raise our children. Thanks Sue for your leadership in this one.
T Davis
Smacking kids is not acceptable. Remember when kids were walloped by the teacher with a strap when teacher decided the kid had been naughty? Wouldnt be acceptable by the parents I know now. Totally barbaric and it should not be an option. Kids learn what they are taught and teachers or parents should Not be teaching them that violence gets results. No way.
Ron
Pass it, classify everyone as an abuser or potential abuser, That makes the real thugs seem less of a threat. No one can be considered safe round children not even groups as they may be conspiring together. What comes next old people and handicapped meet euthanasia. Come on New Zealanders look and see "the king has no clothes".
Brad T
Take a leaf out of Asian schools where discipline in the form of strapping and smacking is still practised. The amount of child abuse as a percentage is minuscule, the level of discipline and learning unparalleled. I think we as Western nations are going regressing am insulted at our policy makers faith in our abilities as adults to be able to discipline our children and to teach them right from wrong. We smack our children in hope to prepare them for what is acceptable in real life and because we love them. Statistics will prove that child abuse rapidly increased after corporal punishment was removed from schools. Ask anyone whom was strapped was it the pain you remember? Or the shame?. You will find a lot of instances where some parents feel so de-powered by the no smack policy in public, that when there child misbehaves in public they bottle there frustrations until they get home. Do you think may this leads to some cases of child abuse? I do. Now being a child I would prefer getting a pat in public (with witnesses), Rather than wear it when I get home. I think we have got it all wrong. It is disheartening we have so many cases of youth crime and poor family dynamics, Can our policy makers not see its all inter-related? Despite what hobgoble they may tell us we are now too PC and over regulated and New Zealand families will continue to suffer for it.
Elaine Borger
I think section 59 should stay as it is. It allows parents to use reasonable force for the purpose of correction of their childrens behaviour. Reasonable force is poles apart from assault and abuse.
Rajiv Singhi
I think the parents have right to punish their kids if they are to be disciplined. The State or any law cannot and should not normally interfere in the issues, which are totally personal to a child and its father. All the parents are guardians of their kids and their well being, so it is their choice what methods they adopt to fulfil their duties. There may be stray instances, when the kids are over beaten. But for exceptions, laws and rules should not be framed.
Renton Maclachlan
To MPs, this is an impassioned plea from the parents of three highly productive, highly skilled daughters. Please, please, vote against repeal of Section 59 of the crimes act. Repeal will criminalise our children. We want them to have the same freedom to train and correct their children that we had to correct them, training and correction which has brought them to be exemplary citizens of New Zealand, training and correction which would have been illegal if we had not had the legal protection of Section 59. Unfortunately, Sue Bradford and her fellow Greens, the Labour Party, some National Party members, and most leadership of so-called child advocacy groups which are actually anti-child groups on this point - have ears but they do not and will not hear what opponents of Bradfords bill are saying. Upward of 90 per cent of New Zealand disagree with her but does she and her supporters hear? No! They refuse to hear! They are so blindly obsessed with the righteousness of their cause that nothing anyone says will enter their ears and change their minds. I despair for New Zealand with leaders like this.
Joe S
I am against every form of violence but smacking is something different than abuse or bashing. With smacking a parent is in control of himself and with bashing/violence/abuse, the parent just let go with their anger. As a Christian, I value freedom to govern our own home but see this freedom eroding more and more. There is much to write and to say on this subject of benefits and dangers of smacking but section 59 very clearly states the purpose: for way of correcting a child and only with reasonable force. These criteria should give the authorities and parents a pretty good idea what is acceptable. Killing a sheep or a cow is acceptable in NZ but killing a human being isnt. These are laws to govern our nation and to have order (law & order). But the law doesnt stop people from murdering other people and this sadly is almost a weekly event. Speed limits are good but they don't stop people from speeding. Section 59 is a fine, very well worded law. Keep & Enforce section 59.
Dr Andrew Montgomery
It is difficult to understand what this Bill is intended to achieve. There is virtually no correlation between nations that permit smacking and child mortality from parental physical abuse. We have a population of young people displaying increasingly antisocial behaviour in the full knowledge that there will be no physical or legal consequence. There are cultural groups which comprise a large minority of New Zealand's population who overuse physical discipline. This fact does not justify the passing of this bill. This bill is based more upon prejudice and superstition than science and will prove ultimately counterproductive.
John Beishuizen
Another piece of useless legislation,which will achieve nothing. The bill aims to protect the child in the home from parents who use unreasonable force. How do these parents know what is reasonable and what is unreasonable in the eyes of the law? Come on get real!
Douglas Pearson
Bad bad mistake. New Zealand looks destined once again to go ahead with a law that doesnt work. I wish our government would take a look see at what the law has done over here in London. Kids over know they cant be smacked and use it against there parents. But now days adults can't even reprimand there children for the fear that "little Johnny" will grass them in. The end result is that nowadays adults on the street are afraid to intervene when children are doing something wrong. Ive seen it, its happened to me. They have got the power and they know it. What can you do? I have seen adults telling adults off for reprimanding children for doing socially un-acceptable behaviour. Scary. I am moving back to NZ after ten years in Europe, with seven of those in London. I have seen this place change and dont want to go home to witness the same thing all over again. Before politcians are allowed to go on their social crusades they should be made to move to London for a year or so and have a really good look around at the results these bills will eventually bring us. These people need a reality check, if you remove the most basic form of control from a society where children lose their innocence earlier with every year and you've going to have a big problem.
A D Moore
Your readers views are worrisome. It is obvious that none of them are teachers or community workers or similar. We deal daily with young people who are certainly and regularly smacked. It is so highly effective that they are referred to us ,often to assist them to stop smacking other kids!. Look at the nations record on abuse and safety of children and young people. Until we can learn to control ourselves(yes even you light smackers..ever tried removing/ talking/ discussing things with your kids?), we do not deserve the right to hit as a form of discipline. Some families discipline babies! If you are all so controlled and gentle about smacking then why do it at all? Smacking (especially the very young) is not a universal societal norm and is frowned upon in many cultures. Still it makes you feel good doesnt it? I support Bradfords efforts. The country will look back on the last 10 years scattered with child abuse and deaths as the time before we learnt how to deal civilly with our children.
John Winsley
No, smacking should not be made illegal. 90 per cent of parents probably smack their children in some manner and it is a time honoured method of training children that there are consequences to their wrong actions that has been successful for generation upon generation. Abuse is already illegal and necessary force used by way of correction by a parent or guardian is necessary. Any fool can see that this PC ideology has not had any effect on abuse in NZ in fact it is the opposite.
Lella
Why if there is democracy this law is not voted by the people with a referendum? Soon they will tell us what to wear, what to see, what to eat, how to talk...well they are already doing it. And I thought that this was a free country. There is a huge difference between drinking a glass of wine and the whole bottle and who is drunk or addict will not stop for a simple law... And is the same for smacking. I have been smacked (not beaten up) and I am still here full of respect for my parents, for the elderly and my community and I will do all I can to pass that on to my son too even with a smack in the bottom when deserved. I would leave that lady in a room full of a certain type of kids and I would like to see her discipline her! But get it on TV!
Chris M
Two points on this;
1. From what I can tell the Herald online poll, which currently sits at 91 per cent for the ability administer a smack (not a beating)and 9 per cent against, is very representative of public opinion. Does it not say something about our politians when, against this level of feeling, a bill like this looks likely to be pushed through? 2. Have you noticed how the PR image consultants have worked overtime to produce this other version of Sue Bradford??? Just close your eyes for a second and remember the real Bradford...you know the one....who was generally hanging out with the police!
Philip Hackett
The implications of this could ruin an entire generation. I am outraged at what is happening to this country. Children are confused enough as it is in this society today where anything goes. They want boundaries to feel safe as they grow up. To take away this very natural and effective way to correct, protect and teach would be devastating.
James
I am raising my 4 kids in Sweden, where it has been illegal to smack children for a whole generation. Much like laws against speeding and drunk driving, its not a law that all the people comply with all the time. However, there is no doubt that it moderates behaviour in the heat of the moment; as the blood boils, a parent will think If I smack this kid, I will be breaking the law. Perhaps I should take a minute to cool down and reason instead. And it works! Believe it or not, successfully raising healthy and happy kids has not become more difficult since parents lost the right to take out their collective frustrations by physically assaulting children.
Sean McDonald
Ah yes, once again, the good old average New Zealander will watch this go through and get passed by a bunch of left wing politicians. We will sit back in a few months time wondering in awe how it all happened to cries of "how did we let this happen". Well, because we do, because we are a lazy old bunch and deserve everything we get. We will get this over and over again until we stop voting these idiots back in to serve up more social experiments. I would suspect that a large proportion of the casting votes will be from career politicians who have never even contemplated having children let alone experienced what its like to raise one or two in this modern world. We will all watch this go through, sponsored by the Right Honourable yeh right Sue Bradford. Who would have thought 15 years ago that this left wing hippy would be dictating the course of our country and our social conditions. What next, curfew for all of us for a 9.30 bedtime? God help us all.
Dennis Brunsden
Please, before rushing in to support this bill reconsider. Read the British Press where you will find daily stories of violence on the streets, in private homes, in schools and almost anywhere else you care to look. This violence is enacted by children who have been brought up in an anti - smacking country and who along the way have not been properly disciplined in their formative years. During my last visit to New Zealand I noticed these selfsame attributes creeping into your society. Act now to stamp out this madness before you too pay the penalty for lax discipline.
Sue
What possible good does it do to ban smacking? Its illegal to drown your kids, but people still do it. Its illegal to stab your kids, but people still do it. Making a law doesn't change peoples underlying behaviour. Whats the real reason Sue?
Te Taniwha
Prior to the arrival of foreigners (pakeha) the concept of smacking your child was foreign to Tangata Whenua. It was not and should not be tikanga Maori. The home unit was part of the whole kainga. Grandmothers, aunts, and other females and male elders were responsible for rearing the children of the kainga. The natural parents were not the sole caregivers. Couples could not be isolated to lead independent lifestyles. Their communal living required constant contact and interaction with other members of the tribe in a concerted effort to keep the affairs of the group buoyant and operational. Enter English common law. The definition of family derives directly from Roman Law. Family was used by Romans to denote a new social organism whose head ruled over wife and children. According to English law the head of the family (male) was in control of the household, "women and children were chattels to be used and abused by the paterfamilias as he chose". This foreign concept was forced down the throats of Maori by successive pakeha organisations, especially the early missionaries.
Maori who have lost their way and knowledge of tikanga Maori and who prefer to follow pakeha law are now better then pakeha at being pakeha. We drink more alcohol than pakeha, smoke more cigarettes than pakeha and beat our children better than pakeha. I support Sues bill. Not Sue, not the government. I support the concept that all Maori children, indeed all Maori are Tapu. As Maori I do not breach Tapu as to do so detracts from my own Mana. This epistle is composed for all Maori. Pakeha are ultimately becoming colonised themselves. They are in fact following our tikanga. Children only stray when they are being neglected. Attend to your child and it will not be naughty. It will not need to be abused and have its Tapu denigrated.
Stephen Little
This is an example of how political correctness and the nanny state mentality gone overboard. Parents should always have the right to discipline their child as they see fit, within reason. A certain level of discipline is required to establish what are clear acceptable boundaries of behaviour in society. How ironic it is therefore that these so-called do-gooders who want to ban smacking are probably the very same people who complain about the yob culture of today's youth. Wake up!
R D Bickerton
I come from a family where my parents lovingly enforced good behaviour by way of smacking until the day came when we, as maturing children, could be prevented from indulging in bad behaviour by other means. And, surprise, surprise, I have never been involved in any act of violent behaviour and neither have my two brothers. The link between child abuse and later violence is strongest when a lack of loving parenting is involved. To eliminate a tool to correct anti-social behaviour from parents is sheer folly, a fact reflected in your own poll.
B.E. Russell
Another move toward a lawless state. God Almighty said, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." The politically correct left will incur some divine smacking for the entire nation ere long. Add this to legal prostitution, civil unions and abortion as those things that beg for divine correction and intervention in this tiny sphere of manmade but totally errant laws.
Pat Gregory
I watched Sue Bradford on TV tonight and it seems she has still not grasped the difference between abuse and smacking done in a controlled manner. She even said that it would be wrong to smack a child for touching an electrical outlet and that a parent could be committing a crime in doing so but that to pull the child away was not wrong. Sue also does not seem to be able to grasp the fact that parents who abuse their children will continue to do law or no law - after all, we have a law against stealing but we still get our homes burgled ! Christine Rankin pointed out that Swedens anti-smacking laws have led to much greater abuse figures whereas in the Netherlands where they have the lowest abuse record, they use smacking. It seems to me that Sue has very blinkered eyes and little, if any common sense, when it comes to this bill. The majority of New Zealanders have come out strongly against her bill yet she keeps pushing it. Where is the democratic process in all of this?
Mark Nissen
Is a typical example of the tail wagging the dog? MMP allows minority views to be presented. This is a good thing. Hopefully MMP also allows for the views of the majority to hold the day.
Greg Sheehan
I have voted in your poll and note the overwhelming response in favour of parents right to retain a smack for discipline. Our elected MPs should promote the peoples mandate - not embark on their own crusade. Or have I got it all wrong?
Irene
This bill is like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.From observation it appears to me that people who abuse their children by excessive smacking and cruelty have problems like alcoholism. drug addiction or are so frustrated by constant poverty and trying to make ends meet that they vent their frustrations on the children. Have you not noticed that a lion or even the humble household cat will give th
