Anti Smacking Bill

I had a talk to someone at my work the other day about it as I am terribly uninformed.

I'm not sure which side of the fence I am on... will have to do more reading, but she mentioned repealing 'Section 39' (I think?) which is the law that lets you get off being prosecuted for smacking your child around (I'm talking 'beating' here) by saying that you are allowed to use 'reasonable force'. The problem has been that 'reasonable force' is really contentious and many a caregiver/parent who has severely beaten their child has gotten off due to this clause.

There are laws that say you are not allowed to hit another adult... reasonable force or not... yet we are allowed to do it to our children because they are our "property" - and this much I think is wrong.

So the aim of the repeal of section 39 is to stop those that hit their children hard enough to cause significant harm and then using their smart lawyers to get them off.

The police aren't going to come around and arrest you for giving a light tap on the bottom - but they will (and always have done) if there is evidence of violence.

[Hrmmmm... so I guess I am for the repeal ]

Edited by nikkiwhyte

I some times smack Zaara's hand (not hard at all) and she doesnt even cry...but gets the point!!

I also dont agree that we cant smack children...I didnt think that smacking is abusing your children. I guess they really need to refine the term!!

IMHO (and this is MY personal opinion, not related to the opinion of OHbaby! as a whole) is that whilst the way that Section 39 is worded is ambiguous, criminalising parents for smacking their children is not the answer.

It staggers me that people have been able to use Section 39 and the words "reasonable force" to justify beating and, in some cases, killing of their children. That to me speaks of serious flaws in the courts system - I suspect some judges need to be given a copy of the dictionary with the word 'reasonable' highlighted.

I do smack my kids. Well not my kids plural, at this stage only Maya of course. I don't smack her often, and prefer to use Time Out, but in some instances a quick tap on the bottom with an open palm is the only thing that works. I have never smacked in anger, if I feel myself getting angry and frustrated then I take "Me" out of the situation because I'm the adult and I need to keep control of myself.

I have also smacked Maya on a couple of occasions to wake her from a night terror. She gets wound up and cries and screams and is really upset but is fast asleep and I can't calm her down until she wakes up. Once she is awake the night terror is over.

Just my opinion:

I think the bill is a load of crap. It's not going to solve the problems of family violence etc. Just like laws that are around where you must have a rego and warrent on your car to drive it, people still do it despite the law. Same will apply with this law. Those who think light smacking is fine will continue to do it but be paranoid and possibly prosecuted for doing it but those who they really need to stop, the ones that beat the crap out of their children are still going to do it.

DH and I were both smacked as children, we aren't violent people, so Sue Bradford using the arguement of smacking a child makes them more prone to violent behaviour is flawed. I see nothing wrong with a light smack if a child is being extremely naughty. DH and I have already discussed this, we both have no issue with light smacking this child (once old enough). I've even chatted about this with a friend who is a psychologist, she even smacks her lil girl and I think if it was going to do some real damage mentally she would know about it! lol

The money spent on this stupid bill could be put better use, getting things like MAIN off the ground (that's the Manawatu Abuse Intervention Network) and getting initatives like that running all over the country.

But despite that, I think the bill will go ahead which sucks!

mmmmmmmm don't get me started on this one   lucky maddys just waking up lol

Whats NZ coming to??? I so don't agree with this bill.

Edited by EllenMumof2

I guess Maya's fear of being smacked is summed up by the fact that I often tell her when she's being a monkey that I'll "beat her with a big stick" and she laughs at me - a great distraction!

We haven't made up our minds re. discipline methods for Caitlin (for when she's old enough to know better), I wasn't smacked as a child but DH was and we're both fine!

I personally think they DO need to re-write the section to make sure these evil, sadistic people can not EVER get away with beating their children! There is a huge difference between smacking and beating. The aim is to rid the Act of these loopholes where parents have been getting away with injuring their children and in some cases killing them (how this could ever be seen as "reasonable" I will never know).

Like with all things the commen sense approach should be applied. No one will be jailed (I would hope) for tapping the childs bottom/legs/hand when there are so many more people that use bats, sticks, belts and worse!

The Act is not for us responsible parents who would never dream of using such actions against our beautiful children.

I personally don't think having an Act in place will make any difference as the people who carry out these crimes obviously can not tell the difference between right and wrong so I doubt that just because there is another law in place they will stop absuing their children.

wel i wont get too involved in this discussion as I am anti the bill...the people who beat will continue to do so...and keep me in work!!! It is like dog licenses - we do pay ours but there are the likes of those in Otara etc that dont and just keep having dogs...this bill wont stop those in the system who do more than a simple smack!

We have decided that DH wont be smacking..he is huge, has force in his smack on my butt let alone a child..even in jest...and we wont risk it...but i will if need be - eg quick on hand etc...

also reasonable force defence may be required still esp in cases of autism etc where a parent requires force to control their child...dont criticise that until youve lived even a day in their shoes with an unruly child with twice the strength of an adult.

ok done...this is a topic where debate on the issue is highly likely to inflame and antagonise...

There are a lot of good points here. I have been following this one in the news for a while now, so I thought I'd also fill in some "gaps". (This is fact and only a couple of "IMO's", which I have made clear.)

The current legislation (section 59) allows for parents to use "reasonable force for the purposes of correction". It's not well defined but most people understand that a smack is fine and a whipping is not. Apparently there have been less than 20 cases in the last 11 years that someone has been taken to Court for beating their kids in some way, and has used this rule as an excuse (it's still up to Judge and Jury after that though anyway).

Sue Bradford is proposing to change the current law to take out all force, except where it will save the kid right then. So if your kid is about to get run over, you can do whatever it takes to move them out the way. If s/he starts kicking and screaming in the supermarket, you can remove them against their will. That's basically it. There will be no okay's for correction so smacking WILL be out, but it's not being defined in black and white so this means it will be up to a Judge to decide every time (not the Police - they have to follow through on every report they get).

The National Party want to define what is reasonable force and I think this is a great idea. But Sue Bradford has said my bill or nothing, she doesn't agree with defining force - a lot of people say this is because she really IS against all force even though she's very careful what she says about that.

A New Zealand QC has recently given an opinion (it was on stuff news the other day) to the effect that removing a child against his/her wishes to put them on a naughty mat or similar, would be in breech of Sue Bradford's bill - because there is no exception for that type of thing.

A lot of people go on about discriminating against children, I personally think that's bollocks. Adults go to prison or pay fines when they are "naughty". Children need something immediate so they can understand consequences... and obviously we don't want them sent to children's prison! So IMO it is therefore "right" for the parents to have some control in their early years.

[QUOTE=Bombshell] the people who beat will continue to do so...and keep me in work!!! It is like dog licenses - we do pay ours but there are the likes of those in Otara etc that dont and just keep having dogs...this bill wont stop those in the system who do more than a simple smack!

I agree, bombshell, its like the STUPID
microchipping law. Personally, I feel that, like the microchipping law, the people who it is meant to affect will carry on flouting the law regardless.