Hot Topic: Anti-Smacking Bill

New Zealand has a ridiculously high child abuse rate. While the most highlighted case in the New Zealand media is undoubtedly that of the Kahui twins, evidence suggests that in the first 5 years of this decade, 35 children died of maltreatment. That's an average of 7 children dying each year from being abused and it doesn't take into account the ones who have been abused but managed to survive.

Further, when UNICEF surveyed OECD countries about their child abuse statistics it found that New Zealand came 25th out of 27 countries - behind only Mexico and the United States.

The so-called "Anti-Smacking Bill" is actually a substitution of section 59 of the Crimes Act. This section reads as follows:

Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the 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.

The thing that really got under people's skin about this act was subsection 2. Particularly the words "Nothing [...] justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction" To put this another way - if a child is trying to cross a busy street during rush hour and the parent smacks him or her with reasonable force (i.e. a smack on the bum, not a punch to the face) in order to stop the child from being run over then they are covered by subsection (1)(d). The child can also be smacked for trying to walk out of Pak'n'Save with a packet of M&M's under subsection (1)(b). However, if a child comes home late from school because they found a pond with tadpoles that they wanted to look at, the parent isn't able to use force to punish that child under subsection (2).

Contrary to popular opinion, it does not make smacking illegal, merely removes the defense of "reasonable force" for cases of child abuse. However, as a friend of mine pointed out last night, a death is still a crime even without the amendment, as is murder and if a child is in hospital it is clearly assault. However when it was introduced there was concern about the ability to plead 'reasonable force' when a parent was charged with murder, manslaughter or assault against a child.

The bill was put forward by Sue Bradford who is a member of the Greens. Only seven MPs voted against it.

The big issue surrounding the bill now come from the Kiwi Party - a new entry to the Edulection arena. The Kiwi Party want a referendum on the 'Anti-Smacking Bill' and it's been confirmed they have enough signatures on their petition to get one. So, with that in mind, a year after it became law, it's now up to you to decide if you want to keep it.

What you think about this topic is much more valuable than what the main political parties think about it because you are the one who will decide in the referendum whether it stays or goes. It's on this website because it's still a political debate.

You still need to know that this bill originated with the Greens, that it needed significant change for it to be passed at all (section 4 was included in order to get the main political parties to agree to it) and is still ambiguous and, some would argue, entirely pointless.

For the record: Independent MPs who voted against the repeal are Gordon Copeland and Phillip Field. They are joined by ACT's Rodney Hide and Heather Roy, NZ First's Ron Mark, Pita Paraone and Winston Peters and Judy Turner from United Future.

For more coverage of the bill have a look at Scoop.