KEY POINTS:
The Maori Party's four MPs will support anti-smacking legislation in its current form, meaning it is almost certain to become law.
The party's announcement today virtually kills an amendment proposed by National MP Chester Borrows that would allow parents to lightly smack their children.
The move comes after Prime Minister Helen Clark said today she feels embarrassed at New Zealand's poor international rankings for safety of children.
Previously, readers have discussed the wide issue of a smacking bill. This time we asked for just views on the Maori party stance in the crucial vote.
This forum is now closed until there is a further development in the debate. Here is a selection of your views:
Tim Henderson
The Maori party was looking quite attractive to me as an alternative to the hypocrisy of the 2 main parties. I am sorry to say that support of the Bradford Bill has brought the Maori party into serious disrepute in my eyes. The integrity of the party will affect it standing in conservative voters minds. Such a shame -you were doing so well Pita and Tariana!Any serious person knows that smacking and abuse is poles apart!
Suzi
I do not think they really had a choice.
A deligent Maori
Kia ora, By supporting this bill the Maori party has just criminalised the sacred and indigenous way of our Maoridom and the concept of our Whanau. I am ashamed to be a part of this party who has turned us ordinary hardworking god-fearing people into criminals. You can count my support and vote out from this very day;let alone the next elections .A food for thought: Mad and crazy people will still kill and hurt children despite this amendment. Nothing has changed for these people. What has changed is the way law abiding and concerned parents will made criminals. And to understand this you have to be parents yourselves. I wonder how many of these so called concerned politicians have kids themselves. Kakitee
Ross Nixon
The Maori Party is full of loonies. The Labour Party is full of loonies. The Greens are loonies from way back. How did NZ get so full of loonies?
Peter Rasmussen
What a joke!! Making laws that they wont keep themselves because they consider them pakeha laws. Still, it keeps the trough full for their snouts.
Kyle
They are not listening to their constituents. Maori dont want this bill, Pakeha dont want it... but yet they know better than the ignorant people who vote for them. This would be one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation ever - making criminals out of parents for discipling their children with a smack. It ultimately undermines good parents and makes our job more difficult. The Maori Party has the opportunity to stand up for their people and for every New Zealand parent - right now they are found wanting, but they still have the power to do what is right for the New Zealand family.
Simon Weakley
I see the Maori party has been suitably brought back into line after the threat of changing sides on the anti-smacking bill. The mere hint from Labour that it would look bad for them when statistics show Maori to be on the wrong end of family violence statistics soon saw them scurrying back into line. Forget the fact that the Bill itself, whether passed or not, does not in one sentence change the fact that child abuse and violence against minors has never been lawful in this country. Making parents potential additional criminals for disciplining their children will not change the mindset of those currently flaunting the current laws of our country. Instead of showing some real spine and admitting the Bill in question is nothing more than another attempt for the government to get involved in wet nursing the nation the Maori party unfortunately has shown itself to be another Labour lap dog and rolled over for its belly to be rubbed, in a purely politically correct manner of course.
Disgruntled
I have mixed feelings for this Bill. I am a mother of one and, like many, admit a smack on the bottom is sometimes required. I think that so many parents of NZ need help and support with the upbringing of their children. Obviously, what is unacceptable is a good hiding (where the child is battered and bruised) but what is equally unacceptable are where claims have been laid against a person for abusive behaviour towards their child by smacking when there is no supporting evidence. I have been a victim of such treatment and have spent almost $10k on getting things to where they were in the first place. When I broke up with my partner, we had shared custody in place as we both had work commitments. It was an amicable break up and everything was fine. Then, my ex-partner met somebody else. Which was fine until one day I was served with papers relating to child abuse! Since then, it has been an uphill battle. I maintain my innocence, I am an awesome mother and all that is important is my child loves me unconditionally. However, like I said above, I have spent almost $10k on getting things sorted so I can continue with my shared care custody arrangement. My poor child had to endure extensive child therapy had his own lawyer only to have an Order made to the benefit of myself. His father was told that if such abuse claims are made again with absolutely no evidence whatsoever then the court will award me custody. This procedure in itself was a waste of time and I consider it equally abusive to my sons mental well-being. What happens to all the parents who, like myself, suffer these unfortunate circumstances of such claims of negligence? It does make you wonder.
Jane Anderson
Just a quick query - How many people actually voted for Sue Bradford in the last election?
AG
There is a saying that a nation gets the government they deserve. NZ should collectively hang its head in shame and we are now reaping the fruits of electing three socialist governments. The Labour and Maori parties have shown their contempt for democracy by ignoring their constituents wishes and by also forcing their members to vote along party lines on an issue that is clearly suitable for a conscience vote. The Maori partys decision was an indication of they are just another far left puppet of labour who do not give a stuff about their people or the country they live in. Now we must not only put up with the lowest wages in the OECD, high taxes, ridiculous house prices, but now a nanny state that will be legislating the acceptable way to wipe our backsides next. Anyone with any talent, ability, and who wants to be able to lovingly discipline their kids in the appropriate manner for the situation must surely be looking for greener pastures overseas.
Vanessa
I am a 29-year-old professional full-employed tax-paying female who is in a serious relationship with the intention of getting married and having children within the next 3-4 years.I am disgusted that the people who we vote for lack the foresight and intelligence to see that the members of our community who choose to abuse their children and loved ones will no more pay attention to this law than any other existing law or moral our society has in place. This law will only be to the detriment of good law-abiding moral parents who are just trying to do their best to educate and care for their children.All I can say is if this bill is passed I will be on the first plane out of here when it comes time to have children. And I bet I wont be the only one. Lets just see how many years it takes for the statistics to prove that this bill does not beneficially impact on the instance of abuse in this country.
Alan Wilkinson
Yet another idiot law, which will achieve absolutely nothing useful and most likely, cause a lot of collateral damage. Our police will spend their lives sitting outside schools waiting for someone to drive past some imperceptible fraction over the speed limit and traipsing after parents who give some young fiend a well-deserved clip on the backside.
Meanwhile CYPS will continue to fail to rescue kids from the genuine abusers and the cops will be far to busy to keep crooks out of our homes and cars and thugs off our streets.
Rangimarie
Personally I am disappointed at the way our politicians believe that by adopting this bill, it will stop innocent children from being beaten or murdered. How will this bill stop this from occurring? Are police going to be called out every time a child screams or throws a tantrum just incase they have been smacked? Does this mean that our police will now have the right to enter a property and check to see if children have been smacked if they are alerted by neighbours to children crying? As a child, I received a smack when I needed it and my siblings and I are have grown up much better people for it. Some of us dont choose to use smacking on our children but some of my siblings have and this hasnt harmed their children. I dont agree with this bill as I think it is an individual right of parents to choose if they smack or not. Of course excessive force should be ruled out totally but a light smack should be fine.
Jareth
The anti-smacking bill is taking away the rights of parents to raise their children how they see fit. I have been a naughty boy back in my day and a smack on the bottom always put me back in my place. I am not a parent yet but I know for certain that my parents dont want to be told how to raise their own children. Nationals idea of considering what reasonable force is a good idea but a complete ban? I really dont see how it could possibly be policed. Thats my opinion.
Jemima
I do not understand the vast number of people who keep talking about a parent's "right" to smack their child. Why should you have the right to hit someone much smaller and weaker than you? What kind of message does that send? As for the "light smack" people keep referring to, if it is so light, how does it influence the child at all? It must have to cause a reasonable amount of pain to make any difference. I just dont understand why anyone would want their child to be afraid of them. Also, if its justifiable to hit children because they dont listen to reason, then why dont we have the legal right to hit mentally handicapped people and elderly people with dementia?
Sandra
I totally disagree with the bill, it is wrong and very unbalanced.
Angela
Ms Bradford and her supporters are getting a little mixed up between legislation and values. How can a law banning smacking change the values of those few who "bash" children. Passing a law is an easy option - "we did something". About time someone in Wellington started thinking about proper answers.
Tau Tulaga
I am against it!! Are these MPs actually listening to the people of their Electorate who voted them in??? No, basically their views and opinions overshadow the ones who got them there in the first place, the very people they are suppose to be representing in Parliament. It's very nice for them to sit there and pass bills on how we should raise our children, but at the end of the day its our responsibility as Parents to prepare our children for today's society. A smack on the bum or hand will not hurt them, but it will get their attention and clearly show them what is unacceptable behaviour. Our young children need parents to be parents first then we can be their friends later.
Peter Gordge
How ironic of Maori to support the smacking Bill. They are over represented in Court with assault and murder of children. This Bill will do nothing for Maori to stop such assaults etc. This Bill will over tax our court system, already well behind in cases coming to court. MMP has got to go.
Christina
hi my name is christina ah-kiau im a year 8 student from viscount learning community in mangere and my opinion is i disagree with sue bradfords bill even my class had alot to say about it today one of our student is maori and she held a meeting for maori student talking about anti-smacking and they agree with us so we been faxing letters to Taito Phillip Field and Justice we want actually agree with Mr Borrows amendment and that my opinion of the Anti-smacking bill.
Joseph Barnett
This whole saga has nothing to do with welfare of children at all, at least on Helens part. Sue is misguided and probably trying to do what she thinks is right, but Helen is disingenuous and supporting the Greens because she needs the numbers to hold power, and boy, does she take every opportunity to cling to it with both hands! This bill is child abuse. Is not violence a lashing out in anger because of a lack of self control? We have all gotten angry before and wished we could punch out the boss, but we were raised by our parents in a way that taught us self control and a respect for others. Children not disciplined will grow up to be adults with no discipline. An adult with no discipline has no control over his emotions and acts according to how he is feeling at the time. If that emotion is anger, he may lash out, perhaps at his own kids or at other members of society.
Wayne
I wish to make my voice heard about how ridiculous this legislation would be trying to enforce it. For example, how many family courts are going to hear about how a dad or mom smacked their kid and it being taken into account in custody battles. The law of disruption ( Second order effects ) illustrates that as time commences, the gap between technology and social structures widens and the gap between social and political structures widens. The current crop of policymakers are living in the 1970's, and as each gap widens to the point of unsustainablity, a revolution occurs to bring the gap together. The danger I would like to point out is the ordinary citizens disdain for and further incomprehension of legislation passed in the "house". Having seen MPs collective reputation being eroded to the level of used car salesmen ( polls show this ), when a mass of people regard a law as an unenforceable joke, and continue with their practices behind closed doors, then you have prohibition politics.
It is not so much the issue itself, but that it erodes parents rights to be in control, and by god we need it more than ever before. Children are not adults until they are 21 and their zits have cleared up, hormones have balanced out and their text finger has worn out and no Sue Bradford it going to change my opinion of that. I will continue to bring up my kids with love and care and attention, and occasionally a smack. Sue Bradfords exercise in social engineering is going to lead to thousand of small revolutions in peoples homes. These revolutions will manifest when an average citizen becomes a law breaker in their own home, lose autonomy over their "castle" and either lives in fear or thumbs their nose at the law. I do not want to live in a country in which this is de rigeur.
Mark Taylor
A sensible example has yet to be provided that shows how a parent can currently commit a serious assault where they can successfully claim Section 59 as a legal defence. Section 59 is all about "Reasonable Force". Anything else would surely come under existing law, because it would be "Unreasonable Force" – wouldn't it? So why is this bill necessary? It does nothing to deter those who use "Unreasonable Force". I must therefore conclude that its purpose is to deter exclusively those who use "Reasonable Force" ie many currently law-abiding parents. I note that 4 new family courts are being established, no doubt ready to enforce this proposed bill upon the new class of criminals created by this bill – parents. This bill is not about the welfare of children, it is not about promoting good parental practice. It is about State control, State intimidation and State intrusion. Good parenting is about to become illegal not just smacking. Other areas where a parent currently asserts their parental will upon an errant child may also be about to become illegal. "Good" parents won't be prosecuted? Utter rubbish. Of course they will be prosecuted! What else is this bill for? It has no other purpose! The fundamental problem is that while smacking and correction work in practice, they do not work in theory. Therefore techniques that are known to work (SuperNanny) must be either discredited or removed from view and more appropriate drivel touted by "experts" instead. Whether said drivel actually works is not a consideration as selected research from the "appropriate" authorities undoubtedly proves that it does.
Indie
At a glance, I think our views as a whole are so entrenched in the cultural practise of smacking it seems almost impossible to conduct a "civilized" life without it. For the bill to pass and work, is going to take at least a couple of generations to begin to see the true results, where children who have never known smacking versus those of us who have been and think a whack on the bum never hurt anyone begin to blur into the past and the present. We have let go (sometimes very begrudgingly) of many a cultural practise in the past and come out the other side. The hysteria should be countered with a little level headedness till at least this thing has had a chance to be seen for its true benefits, or hindrances. Just because I can smack my children, should I? Should I be worried if I cant? Should I think of what it would be if smacking never existed? My elders had it told to me that in my culture children were once taonga, a treasure, to never be harmed, but to be nurtured. I for one am interested to know what it would be like to live in a world such as this.
Aarron Spinley
The proposed new law which appears set to pass in New Zealand promises to further abuse our children by removing loving, controlled, physical discipline from the formation of their young lives. Poorly informed politicians have fuelled the fears of others, and this has driven an emotive and reactive response without the benefit of factual information.
Hitting is not smacking.Kicking is not smacking. Abuse is not smacking. Hurting the child is not smacking. Smacking is an act administered in love, and in a controlled manner by a parent to their child, and only in circumstances where the child is fully aware that their prior behaviour or actions have resulted in the smack. In the instance of is the very young (eg 2 and 3 year olds) it is administered as a measure to reinforce where a boundary exists. Children of this age can not be negotiated with, and do understand time-out fully. To slightly older children who discussions as to consequences can be held, a smack should be followed by an "I'm looking forward to seeing you when you have had some time to think about this" - or "I'm sure you have learnt from this experience". Regardless of the age, a smack is always immediately followed by an "I love you". The mis-information on the subject, with politicians and so called "experts" proclaiming that by banning smacking we will somehow stop child abuse, or "change the culture of abuse toward childres" simply holds no water. Worse, it shows up high profile "leaders" on our country as people who have no understanding of such an obvious difference.Education to parents on how to discipline children in a loving way, pre-determining the development of their childrens lives is surely the obvious first step? This law - if passed - steals from families an important tool in the discipline function when raising children. It robs our youth by depowering the most important leadership they will ever have - the leadership of the parent in the most formative years of their life.
New Zealanders need to demand more debate before any such change. We need balanced discussion - devoid of dramatic newsreel sound bites and images of abused childrens funerals.
Andrew
I am very glad that I no longer live in NZ when I read of politicians interfering with good parents doing their best to raise good citizens. I would not trust any assertions by Sue Bradford that social workers / police would not investigate an allegation of smacking (particularly if there was a bitter custody argument in play). Bring on the election and a change of power.
Dean McQuoid
Unbelievably Absurd politics! Decriminalize Prostitution - criminalize normal decent parents! Well done our representatives in Wellington! You are the perfect representation of the state of democracy in this country.
Steve Johnson
Well I suppose if this law is passed parents will have to discipline their children with psychological torment, removing or destroying their toys or worse to control them. Ultimately this type of behaviour will be far worse long term than a pink backside.
G W
So it looks like the "anti-smacking' legislation is to be made law. When it is passed it is thought that children of this country can be empowered to enjoy life free of physical violence in all its manifestations. So why is abortion still legal in the very same nation that, on the surface, seeks to protect their young?
Raj Subramanian
This is the showcase situation that I am talking about, where people lost control in democractic processes when they dont have a say in major Govt. decision making. When we all voted in the last Parliamentary Elections,this issue was not there. Now, it is a new issue. Our political system allows our M.Ps to decide on our behalf on all matters. I cite an example, you are appointing a Real Estate Agent to sell No.13, xyz street house. The real estate agent sells your another house in a different street. How will you feel? Same way parties decide on our behalf on policy matters without referring them to us. This is not pure democracy. This is representative form of Governance. It doesnt matter whether we agree to this bill or not, what is the urgency for parties to bring such a bill. Why cant they wait for the Election and make this bill as their policy and ask for vote. M.Ps. go behind the vote we cast in 2005 without our knowing about a smacking bill. This is circumventing democratic process. Most of the Parliamentary Bills are brought for the benefit of the parties rather than public. There are ways of each and every bill to be decided by public through electronic means. I know it is possible by I.T. and internet. But do the parties have the will to give power to public? I doubt it.
Andy
I expect the next National Government to undo whatever legislation arises from the Green Party's "Anti Smacking" Bill. And I expect everyone who objects to this legislation (for if the polls are correct, there is a huge majority of average New Zealanders who object) to vote against Labor and IN favour of National at our next election, on the basis that National will repeal this legislation. Do not vote for the minor parties: place your votes where they actually matter. Double-tick both ballots: National for your electorate vote, National for your party vote. As they say, Easy-Peasy. Of course, nobody will do this. It is easy to complain, but who will be the one to bell the cat? The Sheeple are great at bleating: but not so good at mobilizing to create change. No wonder this bill will pass. The Politicians will get away with it because all that New Zealanders can do is bleat.
Phillip Salisbury
It has been 7 years since I last lived in the UK and since returning here nearly a year ago am just amazed how down hill values have become in the kids here. 5 year olds helping in muggings, groups of kids vandalizing property and terrorizing people not just the elderly. One gentleman was kicked to death out side a police station by a group of teenagers, the tantrums the kids have in the supermarket while the parents do nothing as they are too frightened to bring their kids into line because you are not allowed to smack your children. If anyone as seen "Super Nanny" they will know to what extent the children have been allowed to rule. There is no government support, no help groups, and no Super Nanny courses available so values have just plummeted and it is only going to get worse. I got the strap at school and the cane at high school, my mum gave me the wooden spoon on my backside and I also received the occasional kick up the backside from my uncles. All I must say was warranted as I was no angel, and having suffered all this abuse as a toddler do you know what? Nothing, I work and pay my taxes, I am not an alcoholic, I dont beat my wife nor my kids and I am not out raping and killing anyone, and I still respect the police and my elders. Domestic violence has been against the law for many years and yet it continues, sadly just as child abuse will continue if the anti smacking bill passes. But once again the government punishes the whole instead of just the few that deserve it. My boys know the difference between right and wrong and also know that after being warned if they cross the line they will get a smack on their backside. This is not child abuse; this is rules, boundaries and choices. Take a look at parents who have no control over their children and see who gets kicked and punched, watch the siblings get hurt and then tell me the anti smacking bill works. Surely we can learn from other countries and not make the same mistakes they have.
Justin
I would simply like to add that what these lunatics in government dont realize is that as soon as Bradfords bill goes ahead our children will know that their parents can't touch them. This will lead to children threatening to dob their own parents in if they are even touched. There will be no respect for adults or parents. I'm sure the people out their with blinkers on will say this wont happen, but they obviously haven't had much contact with children. This bill will not stop the abusers in the privacy of their homes...end of story. I for one will smack my child, if the situation calls for it, and no law will stop me. We do not live in a dictatorship, despite what Clark thinks, and no government has the right to tell me how to care for my children.
Mark
I agree with those saying we are targeting the wrong end of the issue. Violence toward children is not and never has been fueled by the ability for parents to smack their children. It is tied in strongly with alcohol and drug abuse, breakdown and dysfunctionalism in families, sometimes poverty and mental illness. The govt needds to target these much more. However the current labour govt and cronies like the greens and Maori party are incapable of good policies for change or disinterested in the welfare of NZers compared to their own screwed up political agendas. NZ families put a stop to it and vote them out at the next election with devastating force.
Luke Canton
I cannot express my disgust with our current political situation strongly enough. My wife and I are on the doorstep of starting our own family, We are both young, educated, working and care about NZ but until this country elects a better party, one that gives parents care and control of their children as well as punish those that dont cherish this right, I am taking the position offered to me in Australia. God help NZ should people like Sue Bradford and her supporters stay in power for very much longer.
Joanne Robertson
Any one want to do a march on parliament tomorrow? How about an over through of the dictatorship?
Maxine HMaori have to vote for the bill whether we like it or not or be accused of sanctioning the abuse and deaths of our babies at the hands of their parents. It doesn't matter that not all child murderers etc have been Maori. What matters is that one Maori represents all Maori in the eyes of the media and non-Maori.
Maori have to vote for the bill whether we like it or not or be accused of sanctioning the abuse and deaths of our babies at the hands of their parents. It doesn't matter that not ALL child murderers etc have been Maori. What matters is that one Maori represents all Maori in the eyes of the media and non-Maori.
Kim
Its about time someone took a stand against violence on children. We are not allowed to lay hand on a convicted murderer, but we currently are on our own children. Where is the sense in that? The solution is easy; Maori party must vote yes to anti-smacking.
Alana
Correct me if I am wrong but didnt Pita Sharples say in his speech that its was an unpopular decision and that most of NZ didnt want it? Enough said.
Seine
I believe to hit a child with force is defenitely forbidden but to give a child a light slap or tap on the hand or bottom for a good reason e.g to protect or teach a child, that it is OK, it is our humans right as a parent. No one has a right to tell a parent how to tell/teach their own siblings unless there is proof of wrong doing beside, a good parent would never hurt their children intentionally. I think that all MP need work on how best to run the country and how to improve family poverty etc...stop interfering with the way good parents bring their families up and start worrying about where and what their own children are up to!!
Tim
Isnt it sad that parents who smack lightly for corrective purposes will become criminals because the leader of our country is "embarrassed" of our rank for child abuse. Would her time not be better spent doing something about the causes of these statistics, such as poverty? The Labour members of parliament should be allowed to vote with their conscience rather than tow a party (leaders) line.
Pete Simpson
Why not set up a voting system on this website - not just a vote for or against Bradfords socialist agenda bill, rather also provide input for age, have children or not, party last voted for at last election, smack my kids occasionally, etc? Given we have the internet and a high number of NZ users, why not use it to provide the medium for public reaction to this and other proposed legislation? You could send a great big wad of voter results to parliament, or make them into a papermache Bradford and burn her effigy. Oops, better watch my mouth, Sue might get all concerned that I am threatening her!
Alan Purdy
Your many, many corresspondents have already said it all about this insane piece of legislation. What has New Zealand come to, when our so-called representatives seem intent on introducing a law change which by any reasonable measure is against the will of the great majority? What a farce is our democracy. And what happened to the "conscience vote" for issues which are essentially social or moral rather than legal problems? Lost in the grubby machinations of MMP politics it seems. Of course, failure of the Bill to pass might leave 20 to 25 per cent of the voting population unhappy, but sorry, that is how democracy works! Let us wake up to what is happening here, we pay these people to do what we want them to do!
Scott
I was formerly a police officer with the NZ Police. I am now a serving member in Australia and work in a Child Protection Unit. I am a parent of two children and, yes, they get a smack when they deserve it. Although I enjoyed my time with the NZ Police I am glad I got out. There is no way I would arrest a parent who gave their child a slap on the wrist. This law is a joke. I pity the officers who have to enforce it. There has been comment indicating that police will not arrest for a light slap on the wrist or bottom. But police are duty bound to investigate. How can a beat cop who witnesses such an act just ignore it and keep on walking? The eyes of the public will be on him or her. Police could not ignore a smack as much as they could not ignore a drug deal. So to any disillusioned police officers over there: come on over, the weathers fine, the pay is better, and you will not have to arrest well meaning and innocent parents.
Hosea
This bill is formulated to counter NOT the smacking but the family violence which is a real problem in New Zealand. Smacking is not the problem. One must ask if there is a correlation between smacking and violence in general. My answer to that is no. But if you term smacking as violence then you are relating the two but you have to be able to link (prove)the two. I am a product of smacking and not violence and I can tell you that I am a good citizen not just in the family but also the society and the country as well. Why try to stop a winning formula? Why sacrifice smacking to solve violence when no one can prove the outcome?
Sam
This may be the greatest wake up call to New Zealanders about who we
