Smacking law - voters say leave it alone

More than 70 per cent of voters want parents to keep the right to use "reasonable force" to punish their children - despite growing support in Parliament for a controversial bill that many see as anti-smacking.

The latest Herald-DigiPoll survey shows that 71.2 per cent of voters believe section 59 of the Crimes Act - which gives parents the legal defence of reasonable force - is needed, while 21 per cent disagree.

The survey contrasts with majority support in Parliament for legislation that would repeal section 59.

Supporters of Green MP Sue Bradford's bill, which was introduced to the House last month, say the survey result is partly due to a lack of understanding and a fear that parents would be arrested for lightly smacking their children.

Auckland University psychologist Associate Professor Fred Seymour said the repeal of section 59 was being confused with the related issue of outlawing hitting children - something the bill would not do.

"If the section 59 situation was explained carefully, the majority would see the sense in it being removed. There is no way police are going to rush out and prosecute parents for smacking their children."

Professor Seymour said the survey question could have coloured people's response - prompting them to agree with it - and was complex.

Ms Bradford said the survey reflected other polls she had seen.

In 2002 a Justice Ministry survey found 80 per cent of people thought parents should be able to smack naughty children with an open hand.

But Ms Bradford said her bill would not outlaw smacking - it would simply remove the defence of reasonable force.

"Parents fear that they are going to be arrested, that someone will dob them in for smacking their child. I can understand that fear and that is not my intention."

But Act MP Stephen Franks said if the section was lost parents could feasibly be charged with assault for lightly smacking their child.

"The people who support repeal are very well meaning, but have no understanding of the role of law.

"They base it all on the idea that the police would not be so silly as to punish the silly cases."

He said the survey reflected differences between the "self-anointed elite" and ordinary people.

"There is outrage at the state presuming to tell them how to rear their children."

This week, 76 out of 120 MPs are expected to support the measure in Parliament - meaning it will pass its first reading this month and advance to a select committee.

Labour has said it will support the bill at least as far as the select committee stage. National will oppose the legislation, saying it will make criminals out of law-abiding parents.

The debate on reasonable force came to prominence in May when a Timaru jury found a 39-year-old North Otago woman not guilty of assaulting her 12-year-old son, despite admitting she hit him with a horse whip and a bamboo cane.

The verdict sparked condemnation of section 59 from child welfare groups. Plunket, Save the Children and the Law Society have all come out in favour of Ms Bradford's bill, as has Chief Families Commissioner Dr Rajen Prasad.

Yesterday, the Weekend Herald spoke to two Mt Maunganui mothers who defended the right to smack. Mother of two Julia Sharkey said people had different definitions of smacking. "To me, it isn't hitting. It's a consequence, not a reaction."

She said she first lightly slapped her 10-year-old son when he was aged about 7 as a method of controlled discipline when all else failed.

Simone Woodroffe, who has two little boys, defended the right to smack a child from the age of 2.

"But just a tap on the hand if they've done something wrong and ignored quite a few warnings, not a clip around the ear."