KEY POINTS:
Parents will be able to use "reasonable force" to control their children but will be banned from smacking under amended legislation to be debated by Parliament.
Green Party MP Sue Bradford drafted the bill to ban smacking and it still does that, but a parliamentary committee wants to ensure parents are not breaking the law when they protect children from harm, or stop them harming others.
The member's bill originally sought the simple repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows reasonable force to be used to discipline children.
That repeal still stands, and the bill in its new form would outlaw any form of violence as a means of disciplining a child.
The justice select committee has proposed a replacement clause drafted by the Law Commission.
"This new section will effectively remove the defence of using 'reasonable force' against a child for the purpose of correction," the committee said in its report.
Chairwoman Lynne Pillay said members all agreed the existing defence should not be used to protect parents who abuse their children.
However some were concerned parents could be prosecuted for using physical punishment.
Ms Pillay says the committee was advised that police would have discretion on whether to prosecute, just as with any other assault.
She says they expect prosecutors not to bring trifling matters to court and to use other options for minor breaches, such as warnings and cautions.
The committee recommends that the current section 59 be replaced with a new one, which clarifies that reasonable force may be used for other purposes such as protecting a child from harm, providing normal daily care and preventing a child from harming others.
Ms Bradford said today her bill still meant there would be a complete ban on smacking.
The replacement clause was a compromise to meet concerns that parents could be criminalised for doing virtually anything to their children, she said.
"I would rather not have it. But the select committee felt that we needed to do this to provide reassurance to parents," Ms Bradford told reporters.
"We are still abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction."
The replacement clause was drafted by the Law Commission at the select committee's request.
Ms Bradford said it was confusing.
"This is still going to be a fiesta for lawyers. They will make a lot of money out of it," she said.
The bill passed its first reading 65-54 in May last year, and is now back on Parliament's agenda.
It is expected to come up for its second reading in February, and then has to pass its committee stage and third reading before it becomes law.
Ms Bradford said she believed she had the numbers to pass the bill, although the only parties totally committed to backing it were the Greens and the Maori Party.
She said she hoped the Labour caucus would decide to vote for it -- as it did on the first reading -- and if that happened there would be a comfortable majority.
The eight-MP justice select committee received 1718 public submissions on the bill, with strongly-held opinions expressed in favour of it and opposing it.
Ms Bradford was asked at her press conference about "the supermarket scenario", which was often cited in submissions to the committee.
Under the bill as it now stands, what does a parent do with a screaming child in a supermarket?
"If this bill goes through, it doesn't license the parent to hit the kid around the head or smack them or anything like that," Ms Bradford said.
"It allows them to pick the child up and remove the child from the supermarket against their will."
Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she was pleased Section 59 of the Crimes Act was being repealed because it had been used by parents to justify child abuse.
"But I have major concerns with substituting it with a parental control section which allows the use of reasonable force in certain circumstances," she said.
"We need to repeal Section 59, full stop. We don't need to substitute it with another section that still allows the use of reasonable force under a list of still unclear circumstances."
Barnados said the committee had listened to "the weight of informed opinion" calling for the repeal of Section 59 and had balanced that against parental concerns.
"Reasonable people will recognise this as good lawmaking in a democracy," said Barnardos chief executive Murray Edridge.
Every Child Counts said full repeal of Section 59 was still the best option, and the committee had reacted to the "perceived risk" of parents being unnecessarily criminalised.
"We applaud the committee's attempt to balance this concern with the needs and rights of children," said the organisation's manager Deborah Morris-Travers.
"However, we are unsure how the terms 'parental control' and 'reasonable force' will be interpreted by the courts."
Family First, a strong opponent of the bill, said if Section 59 was repealed good parents would be treated as criminals.
"Parents in New Zealand should be horrified by the way their authority and responsibilities are being undermined," said national director Bob McCroskie.
- NZPA
A select committee has backed a bill designed to remove the statutory defence of reasonable force for parents who use force against their children.
A majority of the justice and electoral committee said the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill should pass, but with some amendments to clarify that reasonable force can be used when a parent is protecting a child from harm.
A majority on the committee recommended section 59 of the Crimes Act should be replaced, National party member on the committee expressed their reservations in a minority report.
The bill will be debated if time becomes available on the next members' night.
- NZPA, NEWSTALK ZB
