KEY POINTS:
The Your Views continue:
Melanie (Henderson)
I smack my kids every day. Yes it leaves red marks, but if they have been naughty they deserve it and it is the only way to get the little buggers to sit up and listen. How I correct my kids is my business. I don't care what law they pass, what goes on in my home will not change.
Matthew Barlow
This is pathetic. It doesn't decriminalise parents, it only reminds police that they don't have to prosecute. It doesn't help law-abiding parents, who will have to break the law if they want to follow their conscience and correct their children by smacking. What we are left with is a butchered mish-mash of a section. Shame on you, John Keys, for giving in like this.
Dmw, Auckland
This is a sellout by National, when they had no mandate from the people to compromise. Parents will still be breaking the law. CYFS (the govt pitbull, answerable to noone) will break up families on unsubstantiated allegations.A very bad development, in danger of being cemented in place by National Party ineptitude, when they had the upper hand and support of kiwis nationwide. We need a referendum, urgently.
Felix Lee
This is a sellout. Sue Bradford had the numbers to pass the bill as it is, but she agreed to another amendment that will further weaken the bill. All forms of corporal punishment should be outlawed.
Angeline T (Auckland)
As a kid growing up I used to get smacked every time I did something that was either dangerous or really, really bad. Now that I am older (19) I realize why my parents did so and I don't think it has done me any permanent damage but it has helped me grow up differentiating between good and bad. A child expecting a smack or whack for doing something bad can prevent them from doing so. It scares me to think what the govt is going to come up with next... This is meaningless and forcefully stupid.
Carolyn
I have been watching this debacle unfold before my disbelieving eyes. I have only contempt and disgust for Sue Bradford, John Keys and Helen Clark. Unfortunately, the breed of politician we have in NZ is sadly lacking. We, as a nation have told our MPs's what the greater proportion of people want and once again we have been contemptuously told in no uncertain terms that what we want does not matter. It is another sad day in a long list of sad days. And, yes I would immigrate somewhere if I could.
I'veBeenSmacked
This amendment is repulsive. I am a 19-year-old female that has been raised in ways of (cultural) discipline. Personally, I think this amendment is a great way of solving one initial problem in order to create another massive load of unnecessary problems. The smacking of kids is one of the minor issues that need to be addressed in this country, there are major issues that necessitate attention and are at present being ignored for e.g. crime rates in general are rising higher and nothing has been done about it, the prisons are soon to be overcrowded? Does that not tell us anything about the NZ Crime rate? I don't think the parents are the victims and that smacking will be a crime. There is the odd case when a parent will loose control of their anger and might cause harm to their child in a violent way that does not say that all parents are the same. I think this will reason unnecessary distress to police who will not know what case is to be taken seriously and what not. I don't think they are assessing all areas that are and will be effecting by this bill taking place. Children are to be turning against parents and quite fairly I say this bill will be cleanly taken advantage of. But hey, no matter how hard we complain, they want this bill to go through it doesn't matter what we think right? To help prevent and solve NZ's real problems is their job; to try and mother the children of NZ is not their jurisdiction.
John
Now watch for the dramatic reduction in admissions to Aucklands (Childrens) Starship Hospital. Yeah right.
Jader Auckland
Well done John Key. A hero to the rescue of honest, ethical, law-abiding and loving parents who want to raise responsible children aware of cause, effect and consequence. A man to measure and watch for the future. My children thank you for their future.
Rosario Picardo
We all understand that beating up a child is not good. No parent would want to beat their children unnecessarily. If this bill has to go through then I suggest that only the actual parents of the child should be allowed to use smacking, and not caregivers or stepfathers or stepmothers. I know that if my parents had not smacked me when I was small, I would have ended up on the streets today. At that time I did not like it, but as I grew up I realised the importance. Secondly passing this in its present form will not solve the problem. In fact it will create even more problems, because those kids who would normally have been disciplined by their parents, would now take advantage of this and then end up on the streets as bad citizens. Even the Word of God in the Bible warns parents against not smacking their children when it is required. At present we have so many youth on the streets of NewZealand doing a lot of mischief. If this bill goes through more will end up on the streets, because their parents cannot do anything about it.What we need to do is encourage the parents to spend time with their children. So many parents are busy making money (both of them) that they have no time for their children. I can go on forever. I pray that our political leaders get some divine wisdom rather than relying on their own earthly wisdom.
Relic from Northland
Hello Communism, Goodbye New Zealand. How wonderful that our very own Chairman Clark and her comrades have now made us into criminals.
It was not hard to see that the Chairman cares only for herself and her comrades in office. I have long said the "Red Party" is overdue for toppling and now the proof has come for all to see. Until the last election I was a stanch supporter of the Labour party and had been for all my voting life, But there is no way under the sun that I will ever support Labour, National, the wally Greens or NZ last party. In fact I shall not even bother registering to vote next year. New Zealand has just become a socialist state and the "Red Party" has stuffed it for all decent and honest people. This is truly a said day in our history.Goodbye to the once proud country we had.
Allan
To quote the amendment: "..where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution." What about their being no public interest in proceeding with this bill!? And this directive is for the police who can't even keep their own house in order. No way should they be handed this responsibility. Keep S59 as is and let the courts define reasonable force. That is democracy.
Raj Subramanian
Now it is a bill giving reasons to use reasonable force even for "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting." Still it watered down the unreasonable use by asking Police to use discretion.I think at least the old rules gave discretion to courts to decide whether it was reasonable or not. Now the new bill says parent can smack if it is for performing normal daily tasks. I can only conclude that Sue Bradford wanted to abolish smacking but in effect allowed several wordings to allow smacking. It is a victory for opposition and a face saving compromise to Helen Clark handed over by lenient John Key.
Sally from Rotorua
No one seems to be thinking of the children in estranged homes who so often play one parent against another - an anti smacking Bill of this kind could be lethal for parents in this situation.
Greg for Wellington
Helen Clark seems to have taken a pragmatic decision. Ultimately, the bill was going to have this impact in the first place, but the media did such a poor job on reporting the bill, that this was needed. A victory for MMP. But a symptom of a poor media.
Kiri
Police discretion?...With all the hype about Police misconduct lately, I would say that the Police are as corrupt as your average drug dealer. I'm almost tempted to not even bother to vote in the next election. Let the kids run Parliament they do a far better job than the adults!
Amanda
I believe that this bill is insane. Perhaps they should bring in more people to work at CYFs, so that cases are addressed properly, rather than CYFs being overworked & things slipping through the cracks. As well as harsher penalties for those who beat their children, as there is a distinctive difference between a smack & a beating. They need to define very specifically what a smack is or isnt, so when people do anything that is harsh than the defined smack, they can be penalised as a result. What this bill has done is taken power away from parents - it is not the Govt's job to tell people how to raise their children.
Barry (Albany)
They have squeezed the top off this boil but the infection remains. It is still a gross insult to tell innocent caring parents that they are lawbreakers and criminals but just police aren't going to bother prosecuting. It still means every reported incident is going to have to be fully investigated by police. There is still nothing to stop CYFS from persecuting parents who use smacking as part of correcting their children, and even removing their children from a home on suspicion of "assault". There is nothing to stop CYFS launching its own private prosecutions over smacking. It still opens the door for false accusations by rebellious children or people with a grudge, out to shame and time-waste the parents. It continues to focus on the short-term incident, the instant of smack, rather than on the parent's long-term goal of building love and discipline into the lives of children so they become well-adjusted and productive members of society. Bradford will still have blood on her hands from those children who go off the rails and ruin their lives because parents were unable to effectively discipline them when it was needed.
Maria
John key's compromise changes absolutely nothing - it will still be a criminal offense to smack your child. What does "inconsequential " mean? Reasonable force is easier to understand and could easily have been defined as Chester Borrows has. Who wants to rely on the police on this issue? Helen Clark is just trying to win back favour and John Key is rapidly losing respect. NZ kids need to be corrected and sometimes a smack is the best way. Over 160,000 adults have already signed the petition asking for a referendum - make sure you add your signature to it too.
Ian (Blenheim)
John Key has seen the writing on the wall and managed to rescue his party from certain backlash in months to come. Imagine the effect of being linked to "hit the kids" and being with the "looney right". Imagine offending the "mainstream" NZers who want things to be better for our kids. (The polls by the way depend on the question asked).
Tim
This Bill is still a part of the continuing "dumbing down" of the Law. Laws should be clear and straight forward. To say that the Police do not have to prosecute under certain circumstances even though by admission, the law has been broken in terms of how it is written is farcical. The Bill should not be passed into law. This is bad law and is part of the continual undermining of what law should be about. It won't achieve what Sue Bradford says that she is trying to achieve and is a waste of time and meddling by politicians in familiy matters that they should not be involving themselves in. Get on and debate and solve the "real issues" affecting New Zealand.
Rachael Barton del Mundo (Auckland)
Personally I would have been happy to see Sue Bradford's bill passed without the amendment. Having grown up in the 70's with regular 'hidings' that went on for at least 10 blows to the backs of legs and bare buttocks at the full force of a grown man - it is horrifying to me that this was considered 'reasonable force'. Parents always get the children they deserve... if you have a misbehaving child, take a look at your own actions - you have created this child in every way. If you are unable to change your own misguided actions why hit your child for your own failings? (And yes I do have a child, who those I know concur, is delightfully well behaved without the use of smacking!) I have lived in many countries over the past 15 years. At times I was ashamed to be a NZ'er when this issue would hit the international news. Most people I met abroad were aghast when they heard we still allowed smacking! They thought this had been put to rest in civilised countries decades ago. Can you imagine how that makes Kiwis look in the international community?? However this bill still defines all violence against children as illegal. Welcome NZ to the 21st century!
David - father of six.
So long as we get to the point where there is no support in the law of our land for hitting children then I am pleased. To all those parents who proudly write Your Views to proclaim that they will keep smacking their kids I say 'shame on you'. You sound as though you would be disappointed if your children constantly 'behaved well' and therefore gave you no excuse to hit them. Do you all enjoy hitting children? Wouldn't you prefer that we all live peaceful non-violent lives?
Tania (Aus)
Having left the beautiful country of NZ 5 years ago after watching it deteriorate this bill has finally confirmed we made the right decision. No democratic country in its right mind should pass a law like this when the majority of the country is against it. You no longer have a democratic society you have a dictatorship. Violence against children is repugnant however this law will not prevent violence. Parents who commit violent acts against their children do not care about laws. There is already laws in place and they still do it. It's time judges stood up and did what they were supposed to do. Any decent person knows what is beyond a smack and if the courts are letting lawyers convince them that anything above a smack is reasonable then they shouldn't be in the job. I have two beautiful children 9 and 3. The occasional smack helped them to understand right from wrong and to learn respect. I don't have to use this form of discipline on my 9 year old anymore and my 3 year old isn't far behind. Wake up NZ politicians. Why are you loosing so many good people to overseas. Because they want to live in a democratic country.
Huri
This will result in a greater deterioration of NZ society disrespect of authority including government and law, parents etc. I am deeply disappointed with National's compromise. You want to tackle abuse check today's paper it happens in our schools how about sending a strong message there.
Du Toit
Well done Helen and John, now please tackle the rogue dog problem.
Andrew
If legislation really is going to stop the severe abuse, that is apparently targeted here, then legislate against severe abuse. Define what is wrong, not what is ok, and then leave the rest of us alone! Aren't we capable of doing some things ourselves, perhaps that is even our right as a human, as much as kids have a right not to be severely beaten?
Another BS piece of legislation Auckland
Here we go again- the PC crowd getting their way. It's about time the govt and the PC crowd minded their own business. How far are we going to let PC go ?? Will it get to the point where you can't even yell in public?? The govt is there to run the country not run our lives. All to often it has to be as they want it. Pander to the minority. Discipline is the parent's concern. What's the bet that those that have supported this bill don't adhere to it Behind the scenes and out of the public view they will do as they want.
With today's children having their own way and being unruly, isn't it about time a bit of good old fashioned discipline is applied ?? A good smack on the backside etc show's who's in charge and let's the child know they have done wrong. All this molly codling is helping to create a generation that has not concept of authority. Well those that have voted for it hope you are happy. Don't come whinging to us when it back fires.
Duncan
John Key's amendment to Sue Bradford's anti smacking bill is all the vast majority of good New Zealand parents ever wanted to see. But why did Helen Clark allow list member Sue Bradford to drag the country through such divisiveness when the solution was always so simple? Key has shown he listens and understands the concerns of ordinary New Zealanders while Clark has yet again shown she now only listens to polls
Stacey (Auckland)
Well well well I agree with the 99 per cent of people who have posted their views here. This bill is ridiculous. I agree it will not stop child abuse. I cannot see how they think it will? As if child beaters are going to now stop because Sue Bradford said so. I plan to have children in the next few years & I still will smack them if needs be, but I am certainly no child beater. I also was smacked when I was a child & it taught me respect & right from wrong. I am disgusted that this bill is going to be passed. The young generations I e growing up are becoming more & more disrespectful, self-absorbed brats!
Warren G
For people old enough to remember the year the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was introduced, you may be feeling a sense of de-ja-vu. Paranoia reigns everytime someone wants to make a change in society; no-one likes change especially when the proposed changes challenge our views of sexuality, power and money. Parents in this country must face facts. It is not ok to use force to discipline children. Period. We can't beat our animals by law, not even lightly. Enough said on that. As someone who grew up in a home where strict discipline ruled, I can testify to the long term impacts this type of parenting has on people. My (Pakeha) mother believed it was acceptable to beat us for any wrongdoing because she was god. She was Mother after all. Two of her children were taken away from her into Social Services care in the 1970's; did this stop her? No. She never faced prosecution. In fact, she's never admitted she was wrong to do what she did. The Police had no power to do anything.
Ken
Even proponents of the bill would have to admit that in a democracy the wishes of the majority should prevail. If you wish to change society use education, not legisation. The next question to ask is how do we remove a government which no longer responds to the wishes of the people? Does the Governor General still have the authority?
Claire Foster
There has been a strong "parents' rights" backlash against the so-called anti-smacking bill, when the only point behind it is: Eliminating the defence of reasonable force in relation to assaults on children. This is clearly not about telling parents how to raise their kids. It's about telling courts how to deal with people who are accused of assaulting their children. The process of being accused of assault is not changing. It's at the other end, when the assault has already taken place and you're before the courts using the defence of reasonable force. http://www.barnardos.org.nz/aboutus/repeal_incourt.asp
If you're interested in being well-informed on this issue, I suggest reading the information prepared by Barnados.
Chris G
The amendment is inadequate as parents have no legal protection in those marginal cases that the police may decide to bring a prosecution. Also there is no mention of other agencies (like CYPS) which can intervene without a prosecution. These should have been included.
Martin
Democracy: The anti-smacking Bill is clearly against the wishes of the electorate. In 1984, S 59 re teachers administering corporal punishment was repealed, against the parents wishes then too. Now PPTA wants panic buttons in classrooms and wearable alarms for school playground patrols. While the PM previously stated that she did not want a law, she will not allow a conscience vote on this Bill but she allowed conscience voting on the 'sell your women into prostitution' law. Where has this law worked before? It hasn't. The Sweden experiment has proven that parents are powerless to stop rebellion in a home. Can we ring Sue Bradford when our homes turn to custard because the kids want to rule?
Perfect
Why does it take an opposition minister to actually see sense? Isn't it about time that we had someone in charge of our country that uses their brain for the good of the people and not to serve their own needs. Good on you John Key for using common sense.
Rossnz
I thought Sue Bradford was adamant that "her" bill had to be passed without any amendment or she would withdraw it. Politicians obviously don't have to keep their promises. How do they live with themselves? Maybe by never looking in the mirror.
Mark from Auckland
My 89 year old grandmother has voted Labour her entire voting life. Because of the way Labour has pushed this bill, and because of the bill itself, she will not be voting Labour next year. Wow. Labour has to find that spooky.
Jason
I personally have never hit my children. They were not always angels and they did get into trouble and put myself as a father on the spot from time to time in regards to safety etc. Yet I sat down and explained it to them - it worked 100 per cent all the time. They are very well rounded, they have a good heart towards others and they are trusting and healthy emotionally and also say for themselves in their own words that "we never needed to be hit as my Daddy explained things to me". This info gives the results clearly that bashing your kids, then that being covered over by the words "loving bashing", or "loving smack", is not needed at any point. I have watched the children of friends after seeing them bash their kids and smack them for absolutely no reason, and then over time seeing in the eyes of the children, the distrust and the unneeded emotional hurt. Throughout the ages children who were talked to like adults without the stupid childish voice like so many ignorant parents do still, was found that the children grew up to be mature adults with good compassionate hearts. Look at society, have we succeeded via the path that loves the bashing of children?
D
Why can't Sue Bradford spend her time on a plan/bill to actually help prevent violence in the family as she "says" that's what she wants, rather then this heap of rubbish, the only thing this is going to prevent is good parents bring their kids up well – those committing family violence are not going to stop because of this bill and she's just kidding herself if she thinks it will.
Sarah (Wellington)
For goodness sake. Yet another bill passed to 'help' New Zealanders make the right decisions. If the government wants to take away mine and my husbands plans and decisions around the way we raise our children, they are welcome to pay for school fees, swimming lessons and new bikes too - in case we do that incorrectly. Why is the government so afraid to face the real issue and target the groups who are the most prolific child abusers? Must everyone be tarred with the same brush?
Beans on toast
As humans we used to stick kids in workhouses and thought that was ok, in fact we used to do a bunch of stuff to kids and thought it was fine, but laws were introduced and now we don't, we think its appalling. Our culture is societally entrenched in the idea that physical force to correct behaviour and muzzle the brat within is ok, because its all we've ever known. That we can all say, 'my dad broke the wooden spoon on my bum and I turned out alright'. It is time to begin a generational shift away from this attitude, to actually stick our necks out and attempt to one day live in a community where maybe our grandchildren will say to us ' you used to smack your Mum/Dad? thats awful!' and look on in dismay. Children are Taonga/ Gifts, and can become strong enriched adults without turning into aimless bratlings if smacking is not employed. Perhaps it should be called the anti beating bill, so the hysterical 'right to slap my kid on the hand' sector would stop thinking they are all going to prison now. Maybe we will all think more carefully before laying our hands on our babies.
Fiona, Annoyed parent
I am very disappointed this bill is going through. There are some children who just dont listen to "no". Sometimes a smack on the bum or hand is just what they need to comprehend that No means no. This will not help the current situation. It will waste police time and taxpayers money. Our kids today already lack the respect we were bought up with, this will only make things worse.
Angela, Concerned Citizen of NZ
80 per cent of New Zealand's population are against this bill! Whatever happened to democracy? Our pleas against this Bill being passed appear to be falling on deaf ears. We voted for MP's to represent us, not to follow their own agenda.
Jaybee
I support children having the same rights as adults in this case. There are over 60 agencies in NZ backing the repeal of section 59. Think about it...Barnardos, Plunket, The Children's Commissioner,Families Commission, Children's Issues Centre…. the list goes on...
Louise
I have a concern that we are simply replacing a very flawed system with a law that is equally as flawed. If I understand correctly the law as it stands means that using 'reasonable' force to discipline a child can be used as a defence for child abuse - not alright, however a judge or jury is to make the call on innocent or guilt. Under the new law parents who lightly smack won't necessarily be charged, however now the balance of power has shifted and the police will make that call. Public opinion in the police is sadly not exactly at an all time high. Neither law is satisfactory and I think we should go back to the drawing board. Instead of changing laws that may disempower good parents, perhaps we should have parenting courses/workshops run that give parents confidence in setting boundaries and ways to deal with issues. Make these courses part of an anti -natal programme so all new parents have to attend. The other issue is it seems that most of the severe child abuse cases have been caused by relatives and drug abuse - so in that instance are we looking at the real problem?
HMD
Is anyone down there in wellington listening to us anymore? Is it just me or is New Zealand getting out of control and nothing is being done. Dont even get me started about the other woeful inadequacies we are currently putting up with. I agree that the real "at risk" children who are subjected regularly to severe abuse (not the whack on the rear end the majority of the population receive) at the hands of their parents probably wont see the change that is intended. Their parents are the type who arent going to stop and think " gee whiz, this is illegal". The fact is that the majority of us are responsible parents who are able to distinguish between a smack and a beating. Since when can a small party such as the Greens impose their ideals on this country without really even being challenged. Labour is a weak soup.
Concerned person
I feel that now we have the anti- smacking law coming in with the total lack of discipline of our young people, including teenagers. This is why the youth of today have no respect for anyone or authority as they now know that they can do what they like without any repercussions. What are or young growing up into without boundaries and guidelines? I am very against any excessive assaults on children but am a firm believer that a slap at the appropriate time stops a child from becoming a monster. I have had a 3 year old telling me you can't smack me or I will ring the police. What does that tell you? I hate to think what future children are going to be like with out any boundaries.
Shoba
Gees, no wonder more then half our kids are out of control? Just like the government, the police and councils!!! - what a stupid law! Helen Clark needs to have her own kids and maybe she will rethink twice!! - there goes my election votes for Labour or National. Destiny Church here I come!
Nahomi (East Auckland)
Smacking, like a knife, is a tool that can cause devious harm in the hands of the wrong person. Yet we all possess knives. We prefer to teach people to use them well rather than banning them. . Irresponsible and violent parents must be brought to book. This law will not serve that purpose; instead it will harm some of the best families in NZ. Eventually our society will pay the price. . Police must be asked to make a distinction between smacking used as a correctional tool by just parents on the one hand, and violent acts by irresponsible parents on the other, and ignore the former. As it stand now, it looks as if police are made to overlook an 'offense'. How tragic is that . On the rare occasions when I did smack my children, I would never have labelled my actions as 'minor and inconsequential'. I find this term highly insulting to parents who take child raising seriously.
Tim Saunders
This "amendment" makes precisely no difference in law whatsoever. The Bill, as proposed, will still make light smacking a criminal act. The police have always been permitted to exercise discretion on whether or not to bring proceedings, and stating this in the Bill will do nothing more than waste ink, and mislead people. Shame on our politicians for the dishonesty with which the debate on this bill has been conducted. It is clear that the criminal law is to be used, not to prohibit behaviour considered to be wrong by society in general, but to use the threat of punitive action by the State to scare people into acquiscence. This is positively Orwellian.
Andrew
I agree with Richard below. To me, there is nothing loving about inflicting pain on a child. A hit, be it a light tap or a full on punch, is violence and causes pain, there is nothing loving about violence.
Wayne (Auckland)
Isn't it wonderful how our glorious elected leaders decide to pass the buck and let the police decide how to proceed. So what's next Beehive, telling us when it is appropriate to go to bed, or perhaps a bathroom break? Wonderful to see how my tax dollars are being spent.
Graham
I am confused, Are we talking about asasult ? or a smack? A smack never hurt any one, hitting , beating etc are quite different. Will some one please let me know what the difference is ?
Thom Grey
It's neither a cop-out or concession on National's part, it's a straight-out shot of actually getting the best out of this law-to-be. There's too much support for this bill in parliament, and it's set to become law. Politics aside, the best possible thing Key could have done (and did) was adjust it so good parents do not become criminals. And while police may have discretion, the "inconsequential" as mentioned in the amendment will give parents a defence if police discretion (god forbid) fails and a parent has to defend himself/herself in a court of law.
Peter McK (Wellington)
For months, the National Party has been strongly criticising Sue Bradford's proposed repeal (then amendment) of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. They and their supporters have run a highly effective political campaign. Now John Key has negotiated an amendment to the bill, which Helen Clark has endorsed. Peter Dunne's name will be on the amendment, which Sue Bradford has accepted. The reality without John Key's initiative this amendment would not have happened. So Labour has made a U-turn. The law will simply make that position - police discretion - more explicit. Labour has been against any amendment from the start but has now decided that its positioning was causing political damage to the point where it had to change its point of view. Clark has done the right thing here. Labour's position was politically and intellectually unsustainable. U-turns are not always a bad thing to do, and when they correct a mistake they can only be welcomed. Credit has to go to John Key for pulling off the negotiations that led to this. He has proved herself a master of MMP.
Chieftain
I have only ever sp