KEY POINTS:
Here is yet a further selection of your views.
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
Richard John Wallis
There is a huge difference between a smack and a beating. A smack is an instant and a sharp reminder not do something that may be of danger to oneself or to another. A beating or thrashing is an outburst of anger amounting to assault. The first is an effective way of helping a child the second is not. We do need to stop child beatings but to stop a loving snap is to tie the parent's hands behind their back. I smacked my now 38-year-old daughter once. I had taken the children for a walk in the Tararua Range North of Wellington. She ran off into the forest. I knew of too many children who had got lost in the bush, sometimes leading to a mortality. The smack, when I caught her, was the most effective method of saying, never do that again until you are a lot bigger. What to do? I do not believe that stopping smacking is the answer.
Leo
As a Kiwi living in Australia, I am appalled at this further intrusion into the private lives of ordinary people. There are already laws against assault, and these can be used in cases of child abuse. Magistrates are not fools, and can differentiate between a smack and abuse. Leave the laws as they are. I am a Green supporter, but this bill will see an end to my support. Any party that opposes it gets my next vote. Our planet is in deep trouble, and I supported the greens as I believed that their purpose was to try to save it. This bill will have the effect of further destroying the family unit, giving more power to the "authorities". Let the Greens do what they were elected to do, and save the environment, and leave parents to bring up their own children, free from government busybodies.
Dale
Yet another reason not to return to New Zealand. I thought the government were trying to attract NZers overseas back into the country? I was spanked as a boy, and it worked rather well.
Sue (UK)
You only have to look at the problems here in the UK since bringing it in here, to see what a total disaster this bill will bring. The end result is children completely out of control and no way of chastising them, neither schools parents or police are able to and boy dont they know it!
Mei
Smack em, I say, and hose them down with a jet stream of good old H2O. How are parents meant to discipline their kids then? "No, Mei-mei, time out. You stand in corner and think about what you did. No curry laksa tonight!" I was smacked when I was a kid but I am not screwed up nor do I hold a grudge against my parents. I am glad my parents chose to discipline me the way they did. Pages and pages of legislation is not going to help parents discipline their children. I mean, really!
Arron Tui
You vote for idiots you get idiotic bills such as this being passed through parliament. Perhaps we should all give some thought to the types of people that we are voting into parliament in future. This bill clearly goes against common sense when we have had generations raised in healthy home environments where smacking has existed when required. It amazes me that this bill is being given the time of day and just goes to show the type of idiots that people have voted in to represent this country.
Ren
We have State interference in every aspect of our lives and must ask who owns your children? Who in their right mind would want any children when all they have to do is claim being smacked and you have a criminal court case on your hands! The Parliamentarians are legislation mad and with any legislation, years later we find the impracticality of many laws but fail to ever remove them from the Statues book. I have been smacked severely as a child when engaged in budding criminal activities and has never hurt me in the long run.
Jim Burdett
I think the fact that opponents of this Bill threaten violence vividly demonstrates why the bill should become law.
David Knight
When are politicians going to listen to their constituents?? The message was quite clear in the New Zealand Herald poll that parents wish to retain the right to discipline their children with the occasional light smack. This bill will not reduce or eliminate child abuse - which was never allowed under the much maligned section 59 anyway. Child abuse in this country will continue - until it becomes socially unacceptable, in the same way which drink driving is now viewed. Until issues such as drugs, alcohol, domestic violence in this country are addressed, child abuse will continue unabated. If the politicians in this country believe that they can change this simply by repealing section 59 they are deluded! This government is destroying family life in New Zealand with its anti family policies such as this anti smacking bill, and the civil union, and decriminalising prostitution. It is time the people of New Zealand sent this in a clear message to the politicians in the form of a crushing defeat for Labour in the next election.
Liz Holsted
I can not believe this bill has got to the stage it has. Have we reached that depth of PC-ness in New Zealand! Having been a nurse in paediatrics and involved in community issues for a long time now, I know that this particular piece of legislative nonense will do nothing to stop the dreadful abuse that occurs in some families, and will only lead to more kids who push boundaries that are becoming less defined by the week. I am a mother of 2 young adults - we are a close loving family and my kids have had smacks as young ones, at the age when reasoning does not work. They themselves are very against this bill - as they say, the smacks haven't scarred us, they showed us right from wrong at an early age and we still love you both! This is another piece of misguided rubbish. Concentrate on what is really going to make a difference - education, Plunket services (whats happened to that??) early intervention instead of the touchy-feely stuff that CYFS deals out. Leave loving parents to do what they do best - love their kids. Whats next - no cuddling?
Pamela Moresby
My opinion here is that smacking should be used with reasonable force and I dont agree it should be illegal.
Karen Hawxhurst
I hope Ms Bradford takes the time to read these views of everyday New Zealanders and to see what a hornets nest she is stirring up due to her ridiculous views. Taking a look at the behaviour of young people today is a clear signal what not discipling your kids can lead to. Smacking and beating are two totally different things, just read the dictionary.
Trilby
Sue Bradford wanted to simply repeal the section of the Crimes Act that allows reasonable force for "correction" of a child by a parent or guardian. The select committee amended her bill so that it replaces the section with a new one giving a list of purposes for which force is allowed but stating that these must NOT be for the purpose of "correction". This is just playing with semantics, since the list essentially amounts to what most people would think "correction" means: preventing harm to the child or another person; preventing the child from committing crimes or behaving offensively or disruptively; or for "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting". So, the amended bill amounts to simply tinkering with the wording, resulting, farcically, in a contradiction: one clause that allows smacking, overridden by another that forbids it! Truly this is a bill written by a committee, and should be laughed out of the house as a vexatious waste of time. If it is passed, the effect will be to throw the decision over to the whims of individual police officers and judges with no clear guidance from Parliament.
Ronaldo Xavier
The child abuse cases we see are usually to the extreme point of violence, which causes death, or just outright murder. So, how is criminalizing the common parenting method going to stop the unfit parent from abusing/killing their kids? It is like trying to catch the wolves by letting all the sheep out of the pen. Everyones gonna get slaughtered! If I didnt get the smack (hands, bottom) and a lecture when I was young I guarantee you I would be your worst criminal nightmare. I am blessed I can turn around to my parents now, understanding what they did for me, saying thank you for caring enough to discipline me, rather than telling them "I am sorry" at a prison visiting room.
Martin
Smacking children is just plain wrong and should be seen as something only ignorant people who cannot reason do. There is nothing that justifies smacking children and parents who do instil in their children to idea that right is might and if I am bigger than you then I am allowed to hit you.
Katharine Hemingway
So now what? If we get rid of smacking, what will take its place in the discipline of children? What will give parents the controls they need to prepare their children effectively for life in a world full of dangers and pitfalls. What will protect our children now from their greatest enemies – their own ignorance, their own weakness. What – and who - will correct them, strengthen them, educate them, if power is taken from parents in such a way. And particularly during the early years – for those formative first five years when a person is set in their ways – how is a parent then to restrain and thus teach restraint to their under 5 year old child in the absence of smacking. Any parent knows that this age group understands and responds better to physical stimulus than any other and that, in fact, other forms of discipline are either far to weak to make a difference or else just too complicated to apply consistently in the busy realities of every day life. (TV reality is never the whole story). The fact is that parents of under 5s, in the absence of smacking, will become increasingly frustrated, and abuse will actually rise as a result. If not immediately then certainly over time as the controls lost early on in a childs life begin to show later on. We will have many more children being thrown out of home in their early teens, we will have many more parents referring their out of control children over to the social services, and we will have many more children ruining their lives early on in their teens with behaviour that could easily be prevented by the controls of wise and loving parents. Controls which are only really gained in the early years and through the use of physical correction. Come on guys, think about it. Why do you think smacking has lasted so long as a parenting tool when the vast majority of parent adore their children and hate to see them hurt, let alone hurt by their own hand! The answer is because it is vital. Rather like an immunisation it is a small amount of pain administered early on which prevents a far greater suffering from occurring later. Well I hope you are ready for that far greater suffering New Zealand, because that is what will start to happen now if we pass this no smacking law.
Paula
Can someone please explain to me how stopping parents smacking their children will stop child abusers from beating/killing their children because Sue Bradford hasn't! I have 3 very well behaved, happy, grounded children (12,10 & 6ys), all 3 have felt the force of my hand at times. My kids have learnt that No means No, respect, discipline, and unconditional love. I will continue to raise my children my way. I am doing a great job! My children wont go to prison, be on a benefit (over my dead body) or hurt others. The majority of parents are fantastic parents. A small percentage of parents abuse their children. How about bringing in a law that people who abuse children arent allowed them back ever!!! Now that would be sensible!
Mea
Legislation against smacking will not prevent children being abused or killed by parents and/or caregivers. The government needs to confront the source of the problem first, that being in many cases the never ending poverty and welfare dependency cycle, which in itself creates frustration and hopelessness.
Jan W
The letters against the "anti-smacking" bill must be the saddest commentary on our child rearing practices ever recorded. We have a huge prison population for the number of people in the country, and this clearly shows that what we are doing now, and has been occurring for many years, isnt working. What we need are alternatives to any form of violence, parenting courses, whatever it takes to change the culture of aggression. Perhaps a start would be for parents to learn the power of praise when their children are doing things right; try it, you might be surprised at the positive changes this brings. And Sue Bradford, what plans do you have to teach alternatives to smacking? Read these letters and you will see that something positive is needed, fast!
Denise
Yes, I believe smacking should be made illegal. Having used it as a discipline method with my now 4-yr-old my (ex)husband and I have realised that she is much more receptive and responsive if we keep calm and take time to explain things to her. It takes a lot of patience, and is much harder work (you really have to take a deep breath sometimes), but her dignity is preserved. She is not allowed to smack us - why should we be able to be bullies, stripping her of her dignity; she is an individual in her own right after all. Having being an advocate of parents' rights in the smacking debate up till now I now strongly believe that there is no need to smack if we view children as people. Take time to stop your child and explain to them. Smacking doesnt work!
Jason Cowan
I am blown away with the apparent decision of this Government to abolish smacking. I was smacked as a child (very occasionally) as were my siblings. We have grown up, have jobs in respectable organisations and have our own children. If the state is so hell bent on telling us how to raise our own kids, maybe they could take them and raise them if they can do better. I would suggest however, given that state of juvenile prison etc, they would be better remaining in a stable home with the occasional smack. I will quite happily risk going to jail if I feel that the last resort of a smack on my five year olds behind is appropriate. I am not going to be told how to raise my child. I provide love, nourishment, time, money and the occasional smack below the waist for very bad behaviour. A good mix for a well balanced human being. The Greens would be better off returning to the farm and leaving politics to the real politicians.
Jason
It is a story of continuous attempts to create a more unstable human race. We see every day, everywhere, be it at the supermarket for example; you have to tolerate the sight of a parent who cannot control their own mind; they lash out at their child for "absolutely no reason"; they smack this child so hard you can almost feel the vibrations through the floor, and you see the anger in the parents face; their eyes black and their pupils dilated from the sheer powerlessness of their own life situation; "not the childs tiny little naughtiness". Humans beings do contain a mind. This part of them is also intertwined with the emotions. Each and everything we do during our days is either a reaction or an action. An action is a choice, and a reaction is a uncontrolled stimulus you give yourself when provoked; your button is pushed. A lion is backed into a corner; what do you think it will do? It will be feeling scared at first, then it will attack. This is the exact same scenario as a human being, as it is with the lion; an animal. Its called powerlessness. Your life is so out of control you lash out at everyone and everything; mostly the defenceless; the ones you know you can beat, win over, and conquer; you bash your kids in other words, then you fall into guilt and shame, and then blame them again for those feelings arising within you again; thus, you ignorantly bash them a second time for this reason as well. They take no part in your "violence" at all. Their little moaning and groaning and this and that is so small; so small! Its time to get help if you actually think that smacking and bashing is of any use, and of any good to your children, and children in general. This is the single most important bill that will stand up and show the world something very special. What do you want your children to grow up to be like. You?
Sam
Theres no doubt that non smacking is the ideal/best way to discipline kids. The difficult bit is how to do it. Could Sue Bradford give some clues during her campaign and follow that up with " how to " explanation in detail.
Ben Sly
Ms. Bradfords bill seems a bit narrow in a way. If you are really going to make a change to the country's official stance on violence towards children, (and surely, this would be about all such a law would achieve. I am sure that Ms. Bradford doesnt think that habitual users of force are going to suddenly turn into balanced, caring parents overnight with a law change), why not also ban swearing or shouting at children. Or ban locking children in bathrooms, or withholding meals from them, or giving them unhealthy food to eat, or ignoring them. Or teasing them, frightening them, or breaking promises to them, or allowing them to watch too much TV, or sneering at them when they make mistakes? Abuse takes many forms. Why just pick on the physical? In fact one would think that a well-timed bang on the bot could be rather a mild thing after all.
K. Allen
This is one of most unfair things to ever come out of Parliament. This bill is not going to stop those parents to which this law is directed at, No. What its doing is lumping us all under the same category as those who go too far. These are the ones that are hidden behind closed doors and communities, not to mention,their families. These are the ones that the authorities need to target not those of us who mildly discipline our children to make them better members of society. I think this bill reeks in all aspects.
A. Lilly
The anti smacking law in place as of now has not stopped the senseless beating and sometimes killing of small children and babies; the people the law was put there for are not going to stop as news reports testify. Those of us that have used smacking in the past, in a responsible and non-violent way to teach our children right from wrong are now made to feel like criminals, example; very busy Wellington street 3yr old holding Mums hand , Mum holding onto pram with baby in, 3yr old yanks away suddenly and dashes into street into oncoming traffic, Mum grabs 3 yr old and tells him Naughty boy you could be killed when we get home you will have time out. Oh really, a 3yr old is going to remember time out let alone what killed means the next time, I do not think so, but, Mum grabs boy gives him a short sharp slap to the bum and says You do that again and I will slap you again. That he will remember, this child has not been permanently scared by this slap nor is it going to turn him into a beater of his children. There have been referenda for many things over the years. Now, as this affects more people than just those sitting in the beehive, I do not know what proportion in there actually have children, but I feel that maybe this should go to all the people to vote on. Not just a select few sitting on the hill I think at the next election the country should have a vote on this law, I mean to say we had no say about the legal drinking age, no say about the legal driving age and no say about the smoking law, (the above three things do more harm to young people and children than a slap on the bum ever will) I would like to know if Sue Bradford and her hangerons are so sure that this is what the people want, are prepared to put it to the people to vote on, I somehow doubt it very much.
Laurie Steenhart (senior)
What has happened to my country? I am a born and breed Kiwi in my early 80 years, returned serviceman from WW2, just celebrated our diamond wedding anniversary have three Children, four Grandchildren and four Great Grandchildren. In my school years we started class with a roll call and then got down to the business of learning to read, write, and do our arithmetic. We were also taught to respect our elders, to obey our parents and live by the rules or be punished. We were taught manners, give your seats up to adults, open doors for adults, be seen and not heard, speak politely when spoken to. All this was instilled in us at an early age. When and if we were really bad and rebelled we were punished at home and at school mainly given the strap (it hurt but we were never beaten or abused) I do remember not doing what I was told to do and then throwing a piece of wood at my Mother. My punishment was a couple of whacks on the bum with as willow branch. Abuse! Maybe but I never forgot it and learned a lesson. I might add this treatment was no more severe than what we got on our initial training when entering the navy (e.g. hit with a whistle chain or a lanyard when doing wrong). By the time we left primary school at least we could read and write. We also had a truant officer who would be on the parents door step very soon if you played hooky from school. We also had school inspectors who came regularly to assess the teachers performance in the classes. When we left school we were given a report of our performance and were marked so as an employer could see how good we were at certain subjects. This was applied to both primary and high schools.
Our children were our responsibility until they were 16 and if they were in trouble with the law it was our responsibility. Somewhere along their schooling the strap was removed from the teacher. The teachers started to tell the children that they should question their parents as they were not always correct. My response to this is that they would obey my rules until they could earn their own living. They were also taught manners and good behaviour at school and had to be neat, tidy, and wear a school uniform in a proper manner. Compare this with the way we see children in todays society, even high school children wear their uniform in the most untidy fashion and do not seem to uphold the pride in the school.
The Grandchildren went off to school which seemed to have lost a lot of the discipline from previously. Children started to address their teachers by their Christian name, seemed to be able to get away with bad language and in general parents did not seem to have the same control. I think it was at this time that authority was taken away from the police as well as the parents. We heard of an occasion where because the child was rebellious and did not want to do what the parents required she was allowed to go flatting and the parents had to pay the bill. I also understand that if a schoolgirl came pregnant she would be able to tell some welfare person at the school and have an abortion with out the knowledge or consent of the parents.
The Great Grandchildren have just started school and I fear for the way in which they may be taught. We hope the parents will be able to guide them and be able to have some control over them.
Is it any wonder that we have so much crime with young people today when lots of their parents have not been taught any better? If there is no discipline some children (not all children) will see how far they can go and if they are not checked they will carry on until they think anything they do is OK. Today we have so many agencies consisting of do-gooders, and good people as well who are trying to help those in trouble, but unfortunately the source of the trouble is lack of discipline and until parents are held responsible for their children at all times we will not see any improvement. We have become a nanny country where the government has taken over the responsibility of the parent. We have too many handouts for deserted or unmarried Mums when the responsibility should be with the father. We have a justice system that I and lots of people do not understand. We have criminals who are sentenced to X number of years and then have a parole system that allows them to get out before they have served their sentence. What was the point when a jury finds them guilty, the judge sentences them to so many years and up till then this has cost plenty, then we have more people trying to get the offender released earlier adding more expense and grief for the family and friends of the victim. What a shambles!! In our early married years we could only remember one murder in a year compared with as many in a week today. Sure the population has grown four fold but crime has increased by an enormous amount by comparison. Yes we did live in the best years when crime was almost nonexistent. We worked hard for our money and did not expect bonuses for doing a good job. Parents were responsible for their children. The policeman was greatly respected. You knew and helped your neighbours when necessary. You helped in the community and in the schools. You obeyed the law or received and accepted the consequences. The prisons were for punishment no heated floors etc. but plenty of hard labour when required. We were patriotic and had pride in our young Nation. We had many religions then and most people respected each others view. We did have some religious schools but they were set up by the people of that persuasion and we did not have special rooms or services for other religions in public schools.
Our hope is that we might get back to the old principles and have discipline, responsibility, manners, respect and pride in our Nation taught in our schools and in time we will get back to having a great country again
Kevin
I think that there is a common misconception underlying the reason for the bill. There is most definitely a difference between a "smack" for disciplinary purposes and child abuse. Sue Bradford uses words such as "beat up" or "abuse" which are unnecessary extremities, when referring to a disciplinary application of force to a child, which is within reason. This is the as somebody patting you on the back and you calling assault on them. By allowing parents to discipline their children, it does not necessarily give way to automatic child abuse. My feeling is that anybody who is willing to actually beat up and abuse a child will not respond to a change in law, as it is already against the law to do so. By removing the parents right to discipline, we are not necessarily benefiting the child. Children are not born with social skills and an intricate understand of society and human nature, the norms and what is morally just. They (hopefully) learn these things over the course of their childhood. If the child has no real boundaries to its behaviour, that is, no meaningful consequences for ill actions, how will they ever learn how to become a cohesive and productive member of society? I realise there are alternatives to smacking a child and agree those should be used first, but what if the child does not respond to a time-out, or no cartoons etc. What if your child will not stay in time out and goes to carry on, say, drawing on the walls? I am sure most kids would not resume naughtiness after a smack (not having receiving black eyes, but rather a forceful pat on the backside). If one really wanted to get technical about discipline, surely you should not be allowed to send your child to time-out as you are depriving them of social interaction, making them feel alienated and alone. I think we all need to keep things real and be willing to compromise on both sides of the argument in order to have a positive outcome.
>> Go here to read a selection of earlier views
