PM backs smacking ban in wake of Coral's death

By AUDREY YOUNG political editor

The Prime Minister has thrown her personal support behind proposed anti-smacking laws in the wake of the Coral Burrows tragedy.

It is the first time Helen Clark has publicly staked out her position on an issue which divides her cabinet and the country.

But some, including her colleague Youth Affairs Minister John Tamihere, say it is "offensive" to link the 6-year-old's death to the controversial political issue.

Section 59 of the Crimes Act allows a parent to use physical force to discipline a child if the force is deemed "reasonable" in the circumstances.

Helen Clark said yesterday before leaving for Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands: "What needs to be changed in the law is the defence of reasonable force, which is available to someone who has hit a child and of course there are abusers who hide behind that.

"That wouldn't mean that the police would go around charging everybody who lightly smacked a child, but it would take away any defence."

The Prime Minister described as "damning and distressing" a United Nations Children's Fund report released last week that said New Zealand had the third-highest rate of child-abuse deaths out of 26 OECD countries.

"It's not a reputation we want for our country. We have a high level of child violence and neglect and we have to address it."

Mr Tamihere and Social Services Minister Steve Maharey have clashed in the Cabinet over the merits of repealing Section 59.

They compromised on an agreement for Child, Youth and Family to run a $10 million multimedia education campaign next year on alternatives to physical discipline, and the provision of parenting courses.

The Cabinet is then due to consider the issue again in 2005, election year - by which time the education campaign may have softened public resistance to repeal.

Helen Clark's public endorsement of Mr Maharey's view makes it virtually inevitable that the Government will introduce a law change.

She and Mr Maharey both made similar comments about violence towards children in response to questions about Coral-Ellen Burrows, who died of a brain injury.

Coral's stepfather, Steven Williams, was last week charged with her murder.

National leader Bill English said the aftermath of Coral's death was "precisely the wrong time to float public discussion on this issue".

It was "offensive" for the Government to link day-to-day discipline of children "to the evil that happened to Coral Burrows".

Mr Tamihere told the Herald yesterday: "I find it offensive that people use emotion-charged events surrounding the Coral case to relitigate the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

"Why does that come out of the blue as a panacea that would have stopped what happened to her or to [another murdered baby] Lillybing. It would not have."

Changing the law did not stop people's behaviour, attitudes did. There were laws banning thieving and murder, but they still happened.

"What we have got to do is build cultural and societal defences such that friends, family and others intervene very quickly to find any action of abuse or violence abhorrent."

Asked if he thought his comment could be seen as criticising the Prime Minister and Mr Maharey, Mr Tamihere said: "I don't give a hoot."

Defining force


Section 59 of the Crimes Act gives parents a legal defence for physically punishing children.

It allows every parent to discipline a child with force if it is deemed "reasonable in the circumstances".

There are no clear definitions as to what is reasonable but factors previously identified by the courts include the age, maturity and health of the child, the type of misbehaviour and the type of punishment.

New Zealand has been advised by the United Nations that section 59 is inconsistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, of which the country is a signatory.

New Zealand banned the cane and strapping from schools in 1990.