KEY POINTS:
Your Views on the issue continues:
Kevin O'Brien
Key has not shot himself in the foot but the stomach. Clark has proved her masterful skills at deception again. The amendment turns on 'public interest': that is not public curiosity but really public policy, when proper rules of interpretation are applied. Clark probably knew that: Key I believe not. Public policy is strongly opposed to child discipline, and even the UN is trying to enforce this in NZ. CYFS will have authority now for their rigorous policies and the Police will be obliged because of public policy to refer all cases to CYPS and use their guidance as to prosecutions. School teachers may become a new class of informers. Where is the sanity in this? Is this good government?
Jason
I'm finished with all this smacking business, I'm gonna get a Tazer.
Barrie Doublesin
Was waiting with anticipation for Sue Bradford to reply to Simon Barnett on T.V.1's close up last night, after he asked her if she would resign if the police falsely prosecuted one parent. Yet thanks to Helen Clark for cutting Sue Bradford off, we will never know what her reply would have been to Simon's question. Hopefully it would have been yes..
Brendan Shore
Key? You just lost the biggest weapon for next years election. I just hope everyone signs the petition to have this State invasion into our homes repelelled. Looks like Mr Hide will get my vote.
Paul
There are always extremes when it comes disciplining children and legislation will not prevent the situations of pure abuse; only allow the perps to be punished. Lawmakers are classically looking for an easy way to satisfy the two major views on this without really addressing the problem; how to protect children from true repetitive abusive situations. It seems with their proposal no one will benefit and more to the point, the children who truly need some discipline to curb bad behaviour will not receive it.It must be clear after millions of years of evolution that there is no magic formula to parenting. Trying to create laws to govern parenting is pure folly, and an indication that our lawmakers have an overinflated opinion of themselves for presuming the answer is sooooooo simple.
Sanson
Sold out yet again we possibly have the worse politicians in all of New Zealand's history, This bill has been a costly exercise and a lame excuse to confront the issue of fatal child abuse in N.Z. It has solved nothing other than expand the abuse industry, e.g police cyfs and most of the other organizations that have supported Bradford.
Jagannatha Suta Das
This sucks, what a bunch of hypocrites. They can send out drunk people into the night wielding weapons of mass destruction ending the lives of innocent people, but to smack a child now is illegal, meaning that you can now end up with a criminal conviction for being a parent! Stop people from drinking (drug), smoking (drug) teach them that there are others in this world besides themselves! I think I might immigrate to a country that is not a fascist regime of drunken fools and hypocrites, waving flags of self justification. I am a parent and I love my kids more than these fools that do not even have children, but I still need to discipline them from time to time.Fools and rascals thats all these politicians are, self serving idiots that need a dose of reality. I am so sure that this bill will be the worst thing that has happened to this country. I guarantee that we will have a country of hooligans and vandals in the next 10 - 12 years, then I would love to make these rascal politicians eat their words. Fools! This is not going to stop real violence to children, just see.
John
New Zealand had better get more policemen. think that the New Zealand police have more important cases to handle, like catching murderers, than being tied up investigating every parent disciplining their children with a proper spanking. To the Maori Party that explains that in the past Maori's did not smack their children...My comment to that is...That was **then** this is now. There is a difference in smacking to disciple a child than to beating a child. A proper smacking will not leave a bruise on a child...an excessive force will leave a bruise. A GP can make that determination.
Chris
Minor incident? Who decides what a minor incident is? The state. You all lose if this bill passes...
Hew
Wow but the Police into the PC bill = still Pc Bill. Parents keep smacking ya kids if needed,
Kelvyn Alp
It never ceases to amaze me... here we are one minute, the majority of the country opposed to the "anti-smacking" Bill, believing it to be a type of home invasion by the State and a form of social engineering, and the next minute we gladly welcome the Bill because politicians created the illusion that they were working in our interests, and made a compromise. We did not want the bloody thing to start with, because there is sufficient legislation already in place to prosecute those that abuse children. Yet again, we are fooled into having it spoon-fed to us regardless; will we ever learn and what's next, the "anti-bad-thoughts" bill?
Phillip Everson
My ten-year-old daughter has never been smacked. She has always been accorded the respect due any fellow human being. That is how we wished her to be brought up. That is the kind of example we wanted her to have so that she may give this legacy to others and eventually to her children. It is not just violence towards children that is at stake with this bill, it is much wider. It is about how we educate our children to be towards others, about how to respect them and also about how not to buy into violence or even the idea that violence of any sort is acceptable. You should see her and how she interacts with other children. It is beautiful. Then you should observe other children who have always been smacked. You can see how it is already part of their mind set for dealing with a range of problems they have to face in dealing with other children every day. Already, violence and aggressive behaviour is an option for them even at this early stage of their lives. Parents should s tart as they mean to go on and how they mean their children to be. If we truly want to change the future for the better we need to think very carefully about how we treat our children.
Peter from Auckland
My stepmother used to beat the daylights out of me. Many times I went to school with rope scours across my back,on more than one occasion she beat me almost unconcious with a frying pan bacause she did not like the way I had cleaned it. I do not claim to have been a little angel but my behaviour "in my opinion' did not warrant this sort of punishment.I now am the father of three children and many grandchildren and I have found it necessary on the odd occasion to give one of them a smack on the bum for doing something stupid but I have never ever "beaten" any of them.I will not repeat the many statements that I have read over the last month or so but I am sure that the average normal parent knows the difference between a smack and beating a child unconscious or worse.
Auckland
As one that has been a big John Key fan, this decision of his today has disappointed me no end. He wouldn't lose my vote over it however. I just wish the rest of the Nats have some balls and still vote against it.
Derrick Hodgson
This 'bill' should never have got on to paper. The whole thing was a deal done between Labour and the Greens. Any idiot could see the people who really physically hurt their kids (and I mean hurt!) will keep on doing it as they couldn't give two hoots. These people usually have long criminal histories. Maybe these politicians need to have kids. These feminists do not have the right to tell me how I should discipline my children. I don't take to them with chains or peices of wood. A gentle smack on the hand or bottom creats boundaries for the child. These types of boundaries are presently missing in our society at the moment, which is why we have high crime. The question of what is right and wrong has disappeared from our young people.
BJ Dooley
The bill is itself fundamentally ludicrous, because it represents tragically flawed thinking. And this will not be rectified by merely changing the presentation. It is a clearcut logical problem: The bill attempts to penalize physical punishment, because it might become child abuse. But, why are child abuse rates high? Is it because the law is disinterested? Surely not. It is because parents have no training in other methods of parenting and may lack emotional discipline. So, where is the great effort to provide such training and encourage such discipline? Nowhere. So, therefore, what will this bill accomplish in its main purpose? Absolutely nothing. It will only put a lot of ignorant people in jail. What a surprise. But, hey, it's a lot cheaper than actually addressing the problem, and gets good press!
Anna from Point Chev
Anti-smacking legislation will prevent child abuse every bit as much as microchipping has prevented dog attacks. Yeah nice one, Parliament.
Carl Forster
Sorry but this piece of PC legislation will do nothing to protect those children front very violent parents. This should never have seen the light of day like a lot of other legislation passed by this Labour Goverment.
Clifford
We need to remember the bill was going to go through regardless of this amendment. I think John Key has done the best he could given this fact, and has at least ensured some notice was taken of parent's concerns throughout the country. Although it doesn't define what is acceptable it basically means a light smack is "inconsequential." No, it doesn't go far enough, but it's better than what was being rammed through before. Sadly, none of it will make a difference to abused children. Sue Bradford believes physical force is never justified against children - I would like to hear her defend the unborn child's right to life as passionately.
Sri
By instructing the police to ignore "inconsequential" smacking, the Govt has spiked the guns of the people who claimed this was the issue - when in fact the issue has 'always been that people believe they have a right to inflict pain on "their" children, at will, because they own their children. I believe this law change will, within ten years, mean that society will be appalled at the sight of anyone hitting a small child. Well done Sue Bradford.
Julie
The reason that New Zealanders need such legislation is because of the appalling and numerous instances of violence against children. It is these same children who end up committing violent crimes against society. Stop being paranoid - the police will not come knocking on your door if you give your child the odd smack. It might however, make you think twice which is a good thing, isn't it. If we start now, maybe the next generation of parents won't actually need the government to legislate for the safety of their children.
Russ
The new gruesome twosome, Key and Clark. This was Key's opportunity to show strong leadership and he blew it big time. 80 per cent of public opinion against the Anti-smacking Bill, and he lies down. He just proved once again, National doesn't understand the game of politics. Manufacturers are about to start leaving the country for good and all the politicians want to worry about is a few smacked bums. Right now I can think of a few that need a good kicking.
M (Auckland)
It's a shame the police will now analyze whether we did the right thing in smacking our kids or rather discipline us than the kids . This bill will make no difference as kids will still will be ruthlessly murdered and their parents will still get away with it for years to come and police will be still investigating for years to come on the reasons for their murder .
Patsy
How appalling that our leaders think we the people would be in favor of this "play on words" and "shifting of responsibility"? Who are they kidding?..certainly not us!! But clearly the machinery of politics grinds on with no sign of commonsense. Why are people who have no children deciding how those of us who do, must raise our children? I defy any of the decision makers to spend two months with my youngest and not consider smacking a necessary requirement of being his caregiver. Don't they understand that, for some children, a smack states a boundary that no other form of interaction will achieve. I despair of their ignorance!
Anna (Point Chev)
What the new amendment says: To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child, or person in the place of a parent of a child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution. I take offence at the persistence of the word 'offence' in this amendment.
Parent with diminishing rights
Once again the politicians have ignored common sense and public opinion and are hell-bent are taking more and more rights and authority away from parents. The state agencies cannot cope as it is - that has been proved time and again. Yet, the politicians want the govt agencies to have more work, which is what this law will result in. This law will not protect the children that need to be protected.
Ian
No doubt John Key will use this latest development to his advantage and claim victory for this amendment, as he has done on other issues so far this year. Of course ignoring the fact that it takes two sides to tango in Parlaiment or on Dancing With The Stars !! As I read earlier this year, he is all veneer and no wood - where are his policies on other issues, other than the usual tax cuts of course ?
New Father
What people who support the bill have failed to realise , is that by giving the police the right to decide, it makes us a Police State. It should be a jury of our peers to decide, not the police. That is why the woman who used a horse crop was let off. Her peers agreed with her. The Police may not... You will still have the police visiting you.
Jenny Petchell
Helen Clark thinks that the 80 per cent of people who are against Sue Bradford's bill will now change their view - Yeah Right!!
Darron Gedge
This compromise does not go far enough. This is not just about not making parents criminals. This bill is about stripping all the tools from authority figures. If I had my way we would be bringing back corporal punishment into schools as well.
Bill
I am sick and tired of politicians telling us what we can and can't do with our lives. First of all I don't agree with beating children, but do agree that a light smack never hurt anyone. When I was at school they still caned, and I received plenty, it never did me any harm, I don't go out beating people up or getting into trouble with police. The problem these days there is no discipline anymore, as it's not politically correct, and what has happened? More and more teenagers in court. Is this Government going to pay the fines imposed by courts on children that get out of hand, because parents can no longer discipline their children. I don't think so, they will see it as another revenue raising method to fund their overseas trips. It's time the Politicians bugged out of our lives.
pCb – Auckland
While kids will still get beaten some of us may smack less but this legislation points out the fact that the two main political parties can reach an agreement. I challenge Helen and John to start dealing with our monetary woes now while we can still afford to educate and feed our children . . .
Kent
I am curious. This legislation is supposed to reduce NZ's appalling child abuse rate. However, as each parent convicted of smacking their child will become another child abuse statistic and the fact that the real child abusers will continue to abuse their children, I can only see our child abuse figures increase. Will Ms Bradford resign in a couple of years when history shows that her bill has in fact increased NZ's child abuse statistics?
Phil Sinclair
Any normal caring person who read through these comments would come away asking why this bill wasn't passed in its unadulterated form a generation ago. I had no idea so many people dislike and resent their children in NZ. "The little brats deserve it" or "I'm going to keep smacking the bugger" are examples of the warped way that many of the pro infant beating lobby express themselves. Shame on you all. Perhaps a criminal charge is needed to help some of these people stop being so nasty about their own kith and kin. I don't think I've ever read anything as appalling as these expressions of hatred towards children. Has it ever occurred to any of you that children aren't born spoilt or mean? They learn that from those closest to them. Those concerned about children playing separated parents off against each other would do well to consider the sorts of behaviour they have been exemplifying to their children. The poor little kids find divorce far more traumatic than many self indulgent parents so they do act out. When kids act out it is invariably in ways that they have learned will work. In other words the real behaviour modification needs to be with parents not the unsullied psyches of young children.
Gary (Auckland)
John Key has made a big mistake brokering this compromise with Labour. Labour was heading for a train wreck where even their oldest and loyalist supporters (such as myself) were threatening to vote National at the next election if s 59 was repealed. All it would have taken for National to have my vote, and anecdotally 80 per cent of the countries, would be to have as one of their election promises a proposed re-enactment of s 59. With this half way compromise National looks to have folded and Labour appears to be the reasonable force behind an amendment. Bad move National, I guess that only leaves the Act Party for my vote.
Issy
These politicians are doing what the UN Rights of the Child Charter has told them to do. Download a copy and read:Part 1 Article 2:2 & Article 4.This bill will be changed eventually to suit the UN.NZ signed this charter in 1989 without the people knowing. Most UN Charters are signed without the people knowing. That is why we have ass laws coming our way! Sit up and know New Zealanders. We can't sit on our hands anymore.
Scalene
Keep the state out of the family.
Wog
The real question is not whether parents should ever be allowed to smack their children, but whether concerned citizens should be permitted to smack parliamentarians?
Doug
Melanie of Henderson: You say that you only smack your children when they deserve it, and that they don't listen otherwise. One has to ask though, if you need to smack your children every day, does this not suggest that it's not working as a means of behavioral correction? Perhaps if you stopped smacking and started talking to them they might listen.
Mother from Auckland
I don't believe that anybody sitting at a desk in Wellington has the right to tell me how to raise my family. I was smacked as a child and believe there is nothing wrong with a light smack to the bum or hand. This is not going to stop the child abuse problem New Zealand has. Why did this not go to a public vote as these are our children who we deal with everyday! Who the hell are they?
Steven Ng
The anti-smacking bill is a rubbish at all! It'll kill our future!
James
About 20 years ago it was decided that teachers were told that a new law made it illegal for them to hit the children in their care. We had many teachers saying that they would be unable to cope and that the students would run riot in the class room without corporal punishment---and we also had the predictable responses of ---"It didn't do me any harm when I was at school". I am a teacher and it would be unimaginable to think about physical punishment in a school today. We have moved a long way since then. We must now move further along that road.
Matthew
In plain sight of public outrage at the bill and what it represents, the parliamentary players still decide to continue with an amendment.
We need more people to stand as independents to move the power away from the main parties which have no interest in the voice of the people.
Pat from Wellington
Congratulations to our politicians for agreeing on a sensible compromise. We can take pride in politicians who seek agreement in this way. John Key is to be congratulated on this approach rather than point scoring. So is Helen Clark.
Tim Saunders
Those who believe that a light smack with an open hand constitutes physical abuse, but "time out" cannot constitute psychological abuse must believe that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". I honestly thought we were more enlightened now.
Liz
Yes . Parents are still breaking the law,they just may or may not ,be prosecuted. Grab an envelope, put your email inside ,put a stamp on it and post it to parliament. It is something physical that makes a statement. Last time I emailed the emails bounced back from full boxes!
Richard
So, as a nearly teenager male aged 10 this is how life looks to him.... after 8 years of not being disciplined due to the law not allowing it, he then discovers that the teachers that he was in awe of cannot discipline him either. From there he will learn that the police cannot touch him as he is classed as a youth and the worst thing he gets is taken away from his parents (this is no biggie for a lot of kids at that age and even younger) No point staying in school as the powers that be cannot even mark the papers properly and teachers can pick favorites to pass and the non conformists to fail. So what options are left for this child in this next few years : drop out of school, no need to get a job as the Government will supply money to sit around smoking and drinking, the police still cant touch him as he is too young. He can get a car and drive at a fast speed to avoid the police who have been told to avoid high speed pursuits. From here what do you think he will do? Obvious to me and hopefully to you too. All of this because why? He learns that he has no boundaries. We have to stop this as a nation or what we read in the papers now will become everyday news not just once offs.
Sean
That is a good idea to push New Zealanders out this nanny country, then we can see the property market falls. I have to say, the government has the long vision.
Lee
I wonder how many of the people advocating the beating of children, also advocate the beating of adults. We used to do that, and some countries still do. I'm perfectly happy to allow parents to beat their children, if the children anger them, as long as they extend to others the right to beat them (the parents) up if they do something that angers someone else. Of course that would be ridiculous, but then again, so is the position of people who want to beat their children. The fact is: if you can't discipline your children without beating them, then you are an incompetent parent, and should have your children forcibly removed.
Andrew
I was unreasonably smacked as a child by a selfish, over-reactive father. Regardless, the damage done to me by good old government schooling was 1000x that of my sore butt. Why couldn't Sue Bradford find a real issue to focus on? She has wasted a lot of time with this poorly prioritised issue.
A.Hooper
From having lived there the last 6 years, I would say the UK has arguably the worst adolescent behavioural and criminal problems of anywhere in Western Europe. It is important we ask ourselves why this might be, in light of the fact that the UK has had, until quite recently, very liberal laws regarding physical discipline by parents. Sweden legislated against parental violence toward children in 1978, Israel in 2000 and all of the following European countries have similar legislation to that proposed for NZ: Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia & Norway. On the basis of the hysteria around the section 59 repeal proposal, I'd expect the above list of countries to embody pure anarchy and the breakdown of society, but in fact many of the listed countries are the envy of Europe in terms of adolescent behaviour and incidence of social problems. The onus is therefore on the pro-smacking lobby to explain how their projections account for this anomaly.
John (Torbay)
Read it carefully: "it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute". That's no protection for parents at all. It makes parents who smack law-breakers. Now we have to sit back and wait for our trusted police force to bring the first unwarranted prosecution.
Scroge (Dunedin)
Since this is such a controversial law I dont trust parliament to come to a publicly viable law and would suggest that since the community is so divided the best solution is to dissolve parliament and force the bill to be a election issue esp since Labour have made it a party vote bill and coercing some of its members to vote against their conscience ( to do so in times past would have been called contempt of parliament or potentially treason.) . Therefore in order to keep the Queens peace an election has to be called or parliament runs the risk of the publics contempt of them damaging parliamentary democracy in New Zealand.
>> Next