KEY POINTS:
Emails continue to pour into the Online Herald on the smacking debate so here is the latest selection of your views. There are three parts to this so keep reading for the latest.
In the latest development, smacking seems certain to be banned when MPs cast their final votes on the issue in three weeks' time.
New Zealand First MP Doug Woolerton confirmed he would back Green MP Sue Bradford's bill and would oppose an amendment which might have derailed it. His decision, plus confirmation from at least two National MPs that they will back Ms Bradford's bill, virtually ensures smacking will be forbidden.
What do you think?
Send us your views
>> Read the story
>> Read a selection of earlier views
Here is the latest selection of your views:
Alison
Good on you Sue Bradford for being so determined in your crusade to abolish smacking children. Smacking is assault & bullying in its lowest form and it does not work. Routine, stability, humour, positive distraction,to name but a few, from an early age are the only things that work. Teaching child care and how to handle preschool childrens behaviour to our college students would be a positive step that the government could introduce.
Hannah
I fully support the anti smacking bill for a number of reasons: Firstly; It is entirely possible to raise healthy, happy sensible and 'good' children without smacking them; myself and my siblings are top students, well adjusted, sensible, non-drunks, non-swearers, non-stealers, with good jobs and academic records (currently University level and secondary. Secondly; consider a change of perspective. Most people would never accept smacking as a form of learning for adults, or even mentally disabled people on a comparable level with children. Adults are more physically and psychologically mature. They can cope better with pain and comprehend the reasons, yet this is not considered effective discipline. A smacked child will merely become immune, or afraid and secretive. If they are older, and able to associate the humiliation and pain with misdemeanours - which may only be the parents whim - then they are able to be dealt with differently - words, rules, restrictions, bribes, rewards. Regarding a child in immediate danger - stepping onto the road or reaching for a hot pan - pulling away is a more natural reaction anyway, to protect the child, (not punish).Were an adult unthinkingly endangering themselves they would be jerked away, or warned, not slapped. Finally, some commonsense; if you are smacking your child enough to concern people (so that you are reported) if your child is bruised or afraid, if you hit them constantly; that is abuse, you would no longer get away with it under this bill. The odd slap in your own home of a child in a tantrum (even if ignoring them is the better alternative) is not going to result in a police visit, at the very most all you would get from the overworked CYF is a warning - should your three year old report it.
Matthew Pilott
Everyone who is against the repeal of s59 is showing themselves to be a proponent of child abuse. S59 allows child abuse in the guise of 'discipline'. It makes me wonder about the real intensions of those who oppose the bill. As for the laughable notion that it will make every parent using force a criminal take a second to think about it! Is every boxer arrested mid-fight? How many assault-free rugby games have you seen? Do they all get arrested post-match. Please dont accuse our police force of such idiocy. The result will be that the sick individuals in our society who abuse children will no longer be able to hide behind s59. Normal, decent parents won't find themselves in court for child abuse, one would imagine. Well done Ms Bradford for taking a stand against child abusers, and shame to those who oppose it!
Chris
When will it stop? Political correctness as a social experiment is clearly a failure. For decades now we have had to suffer people like Sue Bradford enforcing views on the rest of us and where has it gotten us, an education system where no one fails and everyone feels warm and fuzzy but some kids at 15 cant read! Children that have little or no respect for uthority. A justice system that is hell bent on the rights of the villains (yes the criminals are the villains not the police). Out of control drunk teenagers killing themselves in record numbers, the list goes on. Keep up the good work, Sue. A few more years and you and your kind will have completely ruined this country.
Bazz
Is this the way our country is headed? It is politically correctness gone mad! I am about to start my own family and to think that I may go to jail or be classed as a criminal because I decided to discipline my child with a smack?? There is a difference between a smack and physical abuse, sadly the only person who may not know what the difference is, is Sue Bradford. Look at the views being sent in on this subject. I could not find any that supported this bill. If that is the case and the majority are against this bill. If it is indeed passed isnt that proof that democracy is dead in New Zealand and we are being too dictated to by parliament.
Lance Beste
I wonder about the value of passing a law to ban smacking. I can understand the reasoning but how do you police it? How do you stop the police using it for other advantages? I wonder if the person who wants to punch Sue Bradfords nose was smacked as a child and if they smacked their own children. I wonder how their children feel about it. It is clear that we have a problem with the youth today. Then we have had problems with the youth today for as far back as I can remember. I guess I was once included in the term, problem youth. The problems it seems are getting worse and the evidence is shown in the increase in crime by youths, the usage of drugs, bullying at school and the declining results in education. We know something has to be done. Is there a politician in New Zealand who has the guts to stand up and deal with the issues that many New Zealanders know are the real issues? On the other hand will many New Zealanders allow a politician deal effectively with these issues? I would love to see some attempts at catching problems during the early school years when many of the issues we will face in the future are already beginning to materialise.
Grant
I am aghast that anyone would do such a thing. It totally discredits all right thinking New Zealanders who are non-violently opposed to this piece of legislation. Sue Bradford is wrong to have drafted such a piece of legislation and the consequences will be on her head, but there is no need for anyone to take retribution themselves. On the other hand with the anonymity, it could be a supporter of the legislation trying to discredit those who oppose it - but then that would be too clever.
Steve Mair
Remove the blinkers Sue!!. While the intention of her bill is not in doubt, the ramifications of it are. Similar to allowing untreated timber in homes in 1994, so too will the "untreating" of children in 2006 cause similar rot and infestation of behavioural problems. Again, the Greens are meaning well but are under-resourced in gaining the information needed to make decisions on matters as important as this. Leave it alone until you have the personal and societal knowledge to make a change. Wait until you know the statistics, know the lessons from overseas and, at least, listen to the commonly held beliefs of every-day New Zealanders.
Greg
A common theme popping up amongst responses here is one that laments the attitudes of children today. Given that smacking has been a perfectly acceptable method of administering discipline throughout said childrens lives up to this point, it may be the act of smacking itself is not what is required to instil discipline and respect desired by posters and parents. But rather the threat of a regular, predictable punishment being known to the child should they step outside a parents acceptable boundaries. As a society we have given protection against physical harm to animals and adults, why not extend this protection to children as well.
Catherine
It is all been said pretty much. The vast majority of parents in New Zealand disagree with Sues bill. But we do not vote on the bill, the MPs do, and they dont seem to care what the majority thinks. The parent who is most likely to abuse their children will not think oh, not allowed to beat up kids now, guess I better not. We already have laws to cope with those type of people, so the only people penalised are those parents trying not to bring up little brats. In Sweden after this law was introduced the rate of violent child abuse actually went up, because parents get to the point of such frustration at being unable to reign in kids behaviour that they would explode. I can just hear it now "if you spank me mum I will tell the teacher and the police will come and get you!"
Matthew Collins
I have no children yet, and would never have them in NZ while there is a government that wants to criminalise the actions of the majority. It annoys me that extremists in the government will use extreme emotive language such as "violence, brutalisation etc" to grossly misrepresent the reasonable action of parents. It is the "job" of the child to push their boundaries to the limit. It is the "job" of the parent to clearly mark these boundaries, and smacking is one of many appropriate tools for their use. Criminalise the extremists, not the parents!
Lee
Stuff this, this country is going crazy. The PM breaks the law, then changes the law to make her crime legal, her party are corrupt..kids have power to send their parents to prison and parents cant even use smacking as a last resort! Bring back National, it is our last hope. Labours power has gone to its head. With luck, I wont be here, but I willl vote from overseas to help out those who are stuck
here!
Peter
Highest rates of child abuse, no breakfast in the mornings, appalling results from Unicef survey... What are children? Pets? And many New Zealanders still think its right to smack/beat them.... If you beat em, dont breed em.
Joanne
Arent we getting a little too PC in our country? If parents are not allowed to give their children a smack when it is needed, where is this going to lead?
I will certainly still be giving my child a smack if she misbehaves while I am out, and I do not care who is looking! All they are doing by this bill is giving children the right to grow up how they like with no discipline, what a society they are going to create!
C J Ward
As there is a distinct difference between beating and smacking, there is no need for any one in parliament to interfere in the way small children are disciplined by their parents. As I have been around for quite some years and am a Grandparent who was physically disciplined as a child and also disciplined my own who to date have continued in the same vain with no adverse effects to any children. I believe in the need for smacking. It is not the physical pain that is the cure I feel it is the shock of the immediate action taken by the parent that is remembered. I find it is a shame that some young people are choosing not to have children because of continuing interference from outside influences. They feel that they are unable to bring up their children in a manner that will produce future citizens to be proud of. As is often said future behaviour can be assessed by past behaviour. If this is the truth, God help us in the future.
Shirley Brady
I think it is disgraceful that an MP is having threats of physical assault made against her, by the very people who say they know what reasonable force is! Talk about violence begetting violence; these are the people who say they were physically disciplined as children and it never did them any harm. Yeah right! Children are the only group in society who are not protected by the rights afforded the rest of us. There is something fundamentally wrong there.
Bryan Lewis (Tokoroa)
It was only a few years ago when men disciplined their wifes and children without a word said. Striking hitting smacking are all forms of violence. You would be horrified if I physically disciplined my granny. You would be horrified if I physically disciplined my wife or girlfriend so why not give children the same rights to physical safety we give ourselves? Your grandchild will be horrified when we retell tales of canning at school and maybe our great grandchildren will be totally horrified at tales of physical discipline. One last point it is illegal under human rights to physically discipline some one regardless of age etc.. The current NZ law allows us an exemption from prosecution when we breech a childs human rights.
Janet
This could be called a peanuts bill Instead of addressing the problem of child abuse, it is another bill to force the average law abiding citizen to abrogate another responsibility. In this case how to bring up our children with some respect for morals and to teach them accept their own responsibility for their actions. A smack tis a world away from the abuse that is perpetrated on some children.usually by people who have no parenting skills or are under the influence of drugs or are just so plain nasty that the law will not change them. Ms Bradford would be better employed by forcing through a bill that forces every pregnant child-woman (unfortunately), woman and their partners attend a parenting course After all why should one set of N.Zers be forced to accept, something that erodes their right of being generally good parents, and not another group who have had no role models to follow Babies are not dolls to play with and them put down and expect peace and quiet. They cry, laugh and sleep,not always, and they grw into children with their own personalities and are sometimes naughty. It is what is known as a learning curve to see what they can get away with or not a smack may save them from a life of crime and the like.
Concerned about NZ
It seems most of the opinions have come from parents, what about the children?! I was smacked as a child by both my mother and father and I believe I had a fantastic upbringing. I think after getting your first smack you are far more precocious with what you do, you know that stinging sensation and you know the drama it courses. I truly believe I did not repeat many things as I knew what it would lead to. Our government has become far to PC and need to learn that the people are important and the point in a democracy is that everyone get heard and majority rules.90 per cent says no, the outcome should only be NO. Our politicians are blind instead of dealing with the problem at hand (domestic violence) they make up a problem and push laws through. Deal with poverty, alcohol abuse and drug abuse and you will see a change.
Rendy Sugiarto
If smacking a child to discipline it becomes illegal, then what is next? A woman being sued for violence on slapping a man in a bar for his advances? For someone to abuse a child, the defence of reasonable force would have been invalidated. This country do not need an anti-smacking bill. What we need is common sense!
Frans Baetens
Is it OK to hit your dog as long as that causes just some transitory injury? A lot of people think it really works!
Anna
Should smacking kids be made illegal? I say no. Why should normal people be punished for the idiots that beat up their children. There is a big difference between a smack and "getting the bash".
Helen
This law (if passed) is going to reek havoc. I an 78yrs , brought up three sons- who got smacked (not hit or bashed) and they in turn have brought up families successfully. Those people who do this will never change-bill or no bill.
God defend NZ
It horrifies me that nanny state in the guise of seemingly innocuous bills, continues down the path of social engineering that was pioneered by one Mr Goebells of Nazi Party fame. This is not only offensive, it is unnecessary on a modern democratic society. The fact that a Labour Govt(of the people, from the people, for the people) continues to exercise this degree of control is beyond my belief. This is not NZ as I knew it, and I resent it. Child abuse is not acceptable, but Govt. regulation will not achieve a thing. This a most reprehensible attack on the morality and efforts of fathers and mothers all up and down this country, and should be rejected out of hand by our MPs as a wrongful intrusion into family life. Get real, this is NZ, with a variety of opinions and behaviours, and Govt. regulation of behaviour has proved a pointless exercise so far. Politically correct attitudes and mores, are proving somewhat difficult to enforce, and even more so to defend. I am not aware of anyone in my work or social circles who feel anything but resentment towards this ultimate intrusion. What is next? The Thought Police?
Joe Vaatuitui
I believe the minister has missed the main issue the issue of the family unit. Her efforts would be better exercised petitioning for a heftier penalty for those that offend in the area of child abuse or petitioning the Government to fund the charitable agencies (not CYPs) that work with disadvantaged families that would raise their self esteem and confidence to change their lifestyle in order to give them a better quality of life. Through this change of mentality / attitude the children would have self respect and the need for discipline would not be an issue. Before the members of parliament take a vote on this bill, they need to take into account the repercussions this will have on society in general. We already have youth gangs in the main centres of New Zealand, the reason for these children participating in these gangs is as a result of a lack of discipline in the home, from single parent home, the parents are drug abusers or both parents are working. In these situations the child is neglected. This bill instead of fixing these areas will add to it because of the threat of imprisonment for disciplining their child. Other issues are: once a child has the boundaries removed they will exercise their freewill and imagine the impact on society with regards to public and private amenities. Is the minister and the Government going to create another department for abused parents when the children turn on them? These are the areas we need to address and not look at smacking in isolation. Has Sue Bradford really thought this through? What would the impact be to CYPS and Police, is Sue Bradford and the Government going to be the disciplinarian in the home? My concern is that this whole issue is based on smacking, I strongly urge all New Zealanders to look at the implied effects that this Bill will have on our future generations and an example of this narrow minded petition is the lowering of the drinking age. Consider all issues.
Phil Sinclair
The bill is aimed at the bullies and cowards who beat their children in anger and then hide behind 200-year-old legislation to avoid punishment for their violence. Legislation which was designed to work hand in hand with similar laws allowing reasonable force to be used when disciplining wives and servants. Chattels - we have accepted that wives and employees are no longer chattels, though judging by some of the responses published in here some are yet to accept that is true of children. I brought up two happy and successful young people, a son and a daughter on my own without ever raising my hand to them and I know many others who have done the same. Childrens misbehaviour is generally a reflection of their parents behaviour and I suspect it is the subconscious realisation of this which makes the abusive parents so violent - they are striking out at their own failings. Whatever it is violence begets violence and the only way to reduce violence in our society is to eliminate it where it starts - in the home. As for the rest of it the feeble attempt to stir up the normal parents by misleading them into believing that this legislation would mean they could be prosecuted if they physically restrained a toddler who was doing something which may hurt him/herself or others; if we really care about our children, who is going to even consider the law in that circumstance. That would be the only danger from this legislation since our courts are comprised of ordinary people like ourselves. If some idjit did try and prosecute someone after the event who was truly acting out of a need to protect their child the courts would toss it out as that circumstance is covered in the legislation.So forget the scare-mongering, racism and out and out BS and celebrate the fact that the attitudes and mores which have caused NZ to become so violent are going to be nipped in the bud in the place they originate - in the home.
Joel
This has got to be stopped! Once the new law is introduced there will be no going back and I can not believe it is going to make any real difference to the true child abusers out there. The only ones it will affect are the loving, hard working parents who are bringing up their kids as best they can. All that will happen if this law is introduced is that the rate of reported child abuse will sky rocket because people will be reporting to police every time a parent lays a finger on a child.
Steve
It would appear that some of us have trouble differentiating between what is a smack and and what is abuse. It is obvious. If you are unable to tell the difference then a law will make no difference. What is worth noting is that the police will not differentiate and will prosecute each of these two acts in the same way. This bill is complete and utter misguided rubbish.
Tim H
I am so glad my parents smacked me when I was naughty. It made me a better person and I will be passing this on to my two kids if need be.Get a life Sue. You represent about 0 per cent of the population.
Soph
While I do not condone making public threats to a prominent person, I think Sue needs to wake up and listen to the community at large. Interfering in peoples personal lives in this manner is not the business of the government unless we are living in a big brother type authoritarian society. We will fast become that way if Labour has their way. If the anti smacking law is passed I will never vote Labour again. The laws against assault and general violence in homes should be enough to prosecute those that offend against anyone, not just children. Down with PC Labour!
Kasper
The idea of using physical force on anyone certainly should not be taken lightly. The use of force such as assault or personal damage to anyone should go with severe consequences. If this was used as a general rule then we would not have to make laws based on circumstances, which is what the govt wants to do in order to create more bureaucracy (jobs for them). However there is a difference between smacking and abuse. Smacking is there to provide a negative stimulus on a child when at a stage where it can not reason, to comprehend wrong from right and danger. eg. two year old running onto a road or 6 year old smacking another kid at school. If smacking (slap)a child on the bottom or hands is abuse, then the Govt has gone to far with raising our kids. We might as well all put our kids and responsibilities with our family orientation on the footsteps of parliament. It is not the job of society to pay a Govt to look after families, jobs, health and economics. It is impossible. If you give those rights to a Govt our freedom will be doomed.
Richard Prosser
Anyone who genuinely doesnt know the difference between discipline and violence shouldn't be allowed to be a parent; and by the same token, anyone who genuinely doesnt know the difference between violence and discipline shouldn't be allowed to be an MP. Does Sue Bradford genuinely not know that there is a difference between violence and discipline, or does she have another agenda? Either way, should she really be allowed to be setting policy here?
Shayna
I think that the smacking bill is degrading and humiliating towards parents that do smack their children or have in the past. I am a young successful woman who has had a smack from time to time when I was younger, just to let me know that I was not in control. If this bill does go through, it allows children to have the control of the parents, taking away the right to freedom of choice for parents. I do not understand where politicians get off telling people how to raise their own children, especially when they were not the people that have given birth to them. I do not think that this bill will sit right with old school parents. The youths are bad now I believe it would make the youths a lot worse in the future. There is nothing wrong with a smack if a child deserves it.
Sarah
I think that we need to do something about child abuse in NZ but that stopping the average Joe Bloggs from disciplining their child is a ridiculous measure. I never suffered from having a smack on the hand or bottom if I was touching something I should not. I agree that there should be different methods of discipline but not all children will respond to time-out or missing out on a special treat or activity. Where do we draw the line on who can have a say in what areas of our lives? Next thing we will be told we can't give our kids sweets cos it could permanently damage their teeth! Grow up Sue Bradford and start dealing with the real criminals and leave Joe Bloggs alone!
Toia
Who does Sue Bradford think she is kidding? Taking the rights away from parents who discipline their children is one of the most pathetic, unthinkable suggestions, and total waste of time and my taxes that I have ever heard of! Look at our young youth of today and the disrespect that they have for our teachers and the people that are trying to help them build their futures or for anyone else except themselves for that matter, by taking away the discipline in our schools, our kids are free to do whatever they want really, they disrespect their teachers, they cant be told what to do, and the language used is school towards our teachers is very discouraging. As a parent of 2 children one 13 and the other 6, I have always believed in being able to smack your child if there is a need to, not beating them senseless obviously but a hard smack on the hand or the arse is certainly not gonna scar them permanently and it is enough for my girls to know that if they step out of line then yes you may get a smack for it or there will be consequences to pay, But by doing this all I have to do is change the tone of my voice and they know I mean business. Thus I have two beautiful very well mannered, well behaved, respectful children, they are certainly not perfect and they certainly try things on, but I am so proud of my girls compared to alot of brats out there now. Without discipline, then there will be absolutely no respect for parents, and other people, or public property etc. Our role is to bring our child/ren up in a loving, caring, encouraging, positive and also disciplined environment the best we can, if that means a smack here and there then so be it, you take away that and you take away any chance us, as parents have to raise a well mannered, disciplined, respectful young adult! Do not do it for the future of our young. We all need rules, guidelines, and discipline to become the successful adults that we all dream of becoming! Thank you for being able to express my own personal opinion.
James
To me and alot of other parents with children think it is crazy to have a bill like this. I am 47yrs of age, As a child I was disciplined, And at school was given the strap, more than just once. Had six of the cane, for chewing gum playing softball in a park. After all that I am not in prison, or doing burglaries, or drugs. I leant right from wrong, to respect other people. I feel discipline should be brought back to schools, teachers would have control over their classroom once more. No teacher should have to put up with chairs let alone desks being thrown at them. I have 2 kids myself, they were both disciplined, and have respect for me, other people and each other. Abuse and discipline are 2 different things, punishment in schools and at home, or where ever you are, There is no harm to discipline.
Ann Scrimshaw
I am not going to quote the number of overseas studies that show that removal of the right to discipline your child with reasonable force turns parents into victims. All any literate person has to do is to consult their library or their favorite internet search engine to find the sad results of the the Swedish experience. I will quote Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law in Gothenburg,Sweden and president of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org)though. On August 16, 2003 the Swedish columnist, Linda Skugge wrote: "We are bringing up a generation of monsters" and on July 4, 2005, the journalist Roger Lord wrote the article: "The children are embarrassing Sweden". Despite the negative Swedish experiences, certain politicians in other countries are trying to enforce similar legislation.
R Bond
When looking at this argument we need to take note of several facts: 1. Sue Bradford admitted the Act will not stop the abuse of children. 2. For the Act to work parents who smack will have to be reported to the police by neighbours, friends and their own children. 3. It will inevitably be used by disgruntled spouses in divorce and custody battles 4. It will be reported by children who are not happy with their parents (even if it is not true), who will the police believe. 5. It will create division in families and the community and an atmosphere of secrecy. 6. It is being used to correct legislation and social engineering decisions that have been made in the past.
Chris
Look what happened to the kids of today since corporal punishment was stopped at school, they totally lack discipline, do as they want, have no respect for other people and other peoples property. Now this out-of-control PC government wants to take it a step further and totally undermine the last bit of authority the parents have to instil discipline. We need a government to run the country wisely, not to treat us all like a bunch of children, or attempt to turn us all into a bunch of delinquents. If this was the USA I would be looking forward with excitement to quite a selection of class action lawsuits against the state.
John
It is outrageous that the NZ Herald and other media insist on deliberately misleading the NZ public by continuing to describe this bill as the anti-smacking bill. Even when one of our elected representatives is threatened with violence, this paper continues its negative campaign by again labelling it the "anti smacking bill". This is not what the bill is about. Look at all of these comments - most have been misled by this false portrayal. This bill is a genuine attempt at removing the defence for caregivers who use extreme forms of violence against children. Nearly all of these views ignore what the bill is attempting to achieve on behalf of children - please ask yourselves why there is so much opposition to this.
Anna G.
I think it is the most useless law I have ever heard of. The most important thing I care of, is the behaviour of our children. We as parents should teach them what's right and what's wrong. How do we suppose to do our parental care, if we might not even get the permission to touch our kids or do a little bit of pushing to show the right way of doing things? I am really scared what might grow from such a free behaviour, I am also scared what might grow from such children and what kind of country we might develop into! I think that first of all we should take our attention to education in New Zealand in general, because we should teach children humanity, generosity and kindness from the very little age. We should also take care about medical issues that young parents might have at the early stage of their parenthood. This is I think the bes
