Given the referendum in New Zealand to confirm or remove the law against hitting your child should we follow them?
Do we put such a law in place.
I believe they will remove that law a product of bad government and run away political correctness.
We should toughen sentencing for child abuse but not parents being good parents.

It shows the content of the head space of the average person when we have to legislate an option in parental right to discipline out of use because many can't tell the difference between discipline and assault.

Sentencing needs to be harsher, for sure...or judges need to grow 'a set' rather, but there needs to be tweaking within the definition of assault and judges need to be held accountable for being out of touch.

Obviously if a child is beaten to the kitchen floor with a belt that's assault, but if a child is smacked on the bum for picking up a can of petrol and a lighter, that might not be.

The law talks about the "Normal Prudent Person" in regards to your average Joe Blow on the street and common sense. How about we get some of those "Normal Prudent People" on the bench....

If we want a drug filled rebellious society then don't smack your kids. If you love them you will discipline with a smack which will give your kids the best opportunity in life. Child abuse is intolerable although the non smacking brigade are just as bad as those who physically abuse their kids. Since non smacking became dogma by secularist, violence has increased at an alarming rate on our streets. The denial of the adamic nature has led to this absurd situation. Parents need to stop being gutless and do what is right for their kids. Be a parent and stop trying to be your kids best mate. They will disrespect you in the end for your weakness and stupidity.

Hi Belly, does the New Zealand law stop parents from merely hitting their kids on the bum and that sort of thing? Is that what you're saying. If it does, that would surprise me, so I'd like to know if it does or if it doesn't. Thanks Belly.

You all know if you don’t smack you have to think through what discipline to use and what consequences might be effective. Raising a child becomes a well considered and non reactionary way to ease them through their childhood without fear of pain.

This form of parenting needs an air tight plan with minute flexibility, a firm grasp on emotions and a recording in your mind on a loop saying “I am the grownup”.

Good luck with it.

Very sad that it has to be made a law in any country.

runner, do you have evidence that shows that those doing violence on the streets come from non-smacking homes.

Research which I've posted links to previously and which you have ignored shows a clear correlation between high use of smacking to discipline children and later violence in life. If the smacking is combined with combined with very expressive shows of love that can translate to sexual risk taking, tendancies towards sexually abnormal behaviour (kinkiness) and sexual violence.

Like most things it's an increase in the risk not a sole cause, if you smoke you may not get lung cancer but you are more likely to do so than someone who does not smoke.

I get the impression that occasional smacks to stop dangerous situations will do little or no harm but that as a favored discipline tool smacking is harmfull.

If changes in discipline have impacted on levels of violence in the community (and that I'm not certain of) it's more likely that it's a belief by some that their children should not be disciplined. I've met a number of people who don't think that their kids should have boundaries, they are often complaining at the same time that other kids won't play with their children, that other parents won't have them over etc. The problem in those cases is not a lack of smacking, it's a lack of boundaries and consequences which the child can understand.

R0bert

It should be a warning sign to everyone, when a government decides that it should involve itself this deeply in the daily business of its citizens.

Regardless of which side of the smack/no smack debate you sit, governments should be discouraged from the belief that it has the right to pass laws such as this.

We are in danger of reaching a point - if indeed we have not passed it already - where every public servant believes that it is his-or-her inalienable right to spend their days dreaming up ever-more-prescriptive ways to control the population.

I have been extremely fortunate in having been able to bring up three well-adjusted and happy kids, without once having to resort to raising a hand to them.

But I do recognize that this situation is an individual one, and not a reflection of the entire world. So while I would be entirely unaffected, personally, by the introduction of such laws, even if they were made retrospective - I oppose them, utterly.

An afterthought. Are the current laws that cover physical abuse not sufficient to cater for these situations?

If not, why not?

Pericles:”An afterthought. Are the current laws that cover physical abuse not sufficient to cater for these situations?

If not, why not?”

Well that is one of the best afterthoughts I’ve ever read. Wish I’d come up with it.

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/preventing_child_abuse_and_neglect/what_is_child_abuse.html

“Physical abuse is a non-accidental injury or pattern of injuries to a child caused by a parent, caregiver or any other person.

It includes but is not limited to injuries which are caused by excessive discipline, severe beatings or shakings, cigarette burns, attempted strangulation and female genital mutilation.

Injuries include bruising, lacerations or welts, burns, fractures or dislocation of joints.

Hitting a child around the head or neck and/or using a stick, belt or other object to discipline or punishing a child (in a non-trivial way) is a crime.“

the sad and sorry fact is that the same governments that want to legislate against smacking also want to hold us responsible, sometimes financially, for our kids' behaviour.

Parents just can't win, can they?

I fully support child's rights and I am against any kind of child abuse, including the smacking.
If we have problems this is our business, if we love and care for our children we will not use the smacks and we will not abuse on our children, we will teach them with our acts, we will allow them to learn from their experiences, we will protect them from dangerous things.
We must teach our children that we can manage our jobs, our activities, our relations, our world without abuse and smacking.
We must train our children from the very begin on the basic democratic values, the democracy start at home all familes members are equal no child abuse and smacking is allowed!
Smacking is not the right way to teach or support a child.
We must teach our children WITH OUR ACTS to be tolerant and show understanding.
NO ABUSE ON CHILDREN, NO SMACKING CHILDREN!

Antonis Symeonakis
Adelaide

Antonis,

You missed the point. I wouldn't jump on a child using physical discipline as the first or only option, but for the government to interfere and make a slap on the hand, or bum a criminal offence is ridiculous.

Wonderful, if you never need to smack. I know a voice can be just as violent. So can judgement. It all depends on the child.

People abuse their children without having laid a hand on them everyday.

MaryE: "does the New Zealand law stop parents from merely hitting their kids on the bum and that sort of thing?"

My understand is it does. After living with the law for 2 years, the bulk citizens of NZ (80%) have decided they don't like it.

From what I can gather, the law was introduced in reaction to NZ's child abuse rates. To be fair they are which are very high in comparison to similar countries.

Unfortunately, the law seems to have had little effect on said child abuse rates. A review of police activity shows the amendment has had minimal impact. http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/2709896/Waikato-people-smack-law-down Oddly, it appears people who beat their beat their kids mercilessly don't take much notice of anti-smacking laws. Evidently NZ politicians find this is surprising, and think the law should be given more time to take effect.

I think this goes to a fair way towards explaining why many citizens have such a low opinion of politicians. After all they elect them because they promised to implement the wishes of their voters. But now we have NZ Prime Minister John Key dismissing the referendum as an irrelevance and saying the result will not change his mind. http://www.act.org.nz/news/anti-smacking-referendum

The law was introduced by earlier NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark in 2007. In 2005, McCoskrie, then a breakfast host on Radio Rhema, asked Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark whether she supported a ban on smacking. Clark replied: "Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature." http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/new_zealand_parents_reject_smacking_ban/ Perhaps not having any kids of her own made her susceptible to the machinations of lobbyists.

Robert

Do you really believe our current crop of psychologist would allow research to show smacking reduces violence? You really don't know how academics work do you. Just look at the dishonest global warming crap.
You write
'Research which I've posted links to previously and which you have ignored shows a clear correlation between high use of smacking to discipline children and later violence in life.'

Children who are smacked at a young age would rarely need 'high' amounts of smacking. Most learn quickly when lovingly disciplined. I have spoken to numerous violent criminals in the past and very few of them were smacked as kids. Well behaved and well adjusted kids and almost without exception they have been disciplined. You see parents who just want to be the kids friend and you find little devils. Today you have 5 year olds telling parents to get.... The little kids know how gutless parents and authorities are. The end result is we drug huge amounts of kids simply because we don't want to face up to their bad behaviour

runner the work I've referenced is by someone with some history of publishing unpopular findings. I do think that he and those he works with will publish the truth, popular or not.

I think that you are too focussed on smacking and not enough on discipline overall. Did the criminals you speak to have clear boundaries and known consequences for breaching those boundaries? That's the place where I see the fundamental difference, just focussing on the one form of discipline does not tell the whole story.

Kind of like saying that you have talked to a lot of starving people and few of them regularly eat dagwood dogs then assuming that eating dagwood dogs causes starvation. It's not the lack of dagwood dogs that killing them, it's the lack of regular food. To stick with the analogy I'd not like to see dagwood dogs outlawed but any parent who uses them as a major portion of a childs diet has got serious issues.

The parents I've known with out of control kids don't do consistant discipline.

R0bert

Mr Stuart: “Evidently NZ politicians find this is surprising, and think the law should be given more time to take effect.”

I do remember it trying to make its way in to law a few years ago in NZ and the child welfare department was well against it. It was only going to increase their workload to stupid proportions if every smacked bum and clipped ear was reported. Bet they’re snowed under now.

StG, there is also emotional abuse and DoCS will remove although it’s a lot harder to prove.

R0bert:”The parents I've known with out of control kids don't do consistant discipline.”

Yeah you have to get up and follow through and have very clear and immediate consequences for bad behavior. And of course the good stuff needs an immediate response too.

In my house I know I’m the one in charge and I rarely negotiate.

Been known to shout though… usually “oi” seems to cover everything and will bring an entire playroom to a grinding halt in a heartbeat.

It would be worthwhile seeing what the law actually entails. There is a big difference between a well placed smack with your hand on a wrist or bottom to a beating.

I must admit I oscillate a bit on this topic. It would be nice to be able to raise children using other forms of discipline - denial of rewards or using praise to emphasise the good rather than focussing on the bad.

But in the real world sometimes a smack is the only option. Parents now are usually both working and tired at the end of the day after picking up kids from childcare and often are out of steam for more creative parenting. It is not an excuse but a just a reality.

The key like any form of discipline is smacking should be last resort and used rarely. Obsessive smacking would have no effect in any case and any effect on behaviour would be nil.

Hi MaryE it is true NZ did make it law you can not smack your kids.
A case just before the court, said a father flicked his kids ear, he was charged on evidence not shared by other witnesses with punching that child in the face.
A different thing but unlikely on the evidence to be true.
Kiwis will chuck the idiot law out, so they should.
My mum would not let dad smack us, she only ever smacked one of her 16 kids, a girl.
I could not discipline my siblings after dad died or the grand kids I helped bring up.
It hurt all of us/them more did harm than good, love can be shown and smacking can be a sign of love and concern.
I often took a hand, gentle as I could pulled a kid to me , held them still and reminded them of what they had done wrong, why I felt they should not do it.
But truly I only ever smacked twice, both times it had to be done over protective grand mother or not.

No one here has yet been able to tell us exactly what this NZ law says. Let's clear this up before any further discussion. Will someone please post a link that shows exactly what the NZ law actually says? I mean, not what someone thinks it says, but what it actually says. Without that information it's surely impossible to offer an informed opinion. If someone doesn't know what it actually says and can't reproduce the text here or a link to it, then surely their comments, pro or against, carry no weight.

Personally, in light of no evidence here that says otherwise, I very much doubt that this NZ law says parents are committing an offence if they give their child a light smack on the bum. But I can't really give an informed comment on that NZ law, because just like everyone else here, I don't know exactly what that law really says.

Someone here seems to think it's ok to give a child a clip on the ear. Attacks to the head of a child like that can actually cause severe injury, as can shaking and harder blows. Whereas a firm smack on the bum is harmless. It's good to understand the difference between abuse and discipline.

Robert

I agree that smacking is should only be part of the discipline process. In fact if it is done for any other reason than rebellion it is harmful.This thread however is headed 'smacking children'. Pain is good if teaches children boundaries like stopping them running on a road, Today we are more likely to spend thousands on fencing rather than train kids not to run on to a road.

MaryE,

You haven't considered researching it yourself?. For someone who seems SO keen on a answer how hard is it to head to google and type "NZ Smacking laws"?. I did it and got the answer within two clicks.

If a complaint is made it's up to the discretion of the Police to decide if the severity warrants a criminal offence. Depending on the Officer it's possible for an offence to have been committed over any form of physical contact.

In the initial passing of the law before the discretion amendment smacking was considered a straight out assault, which obviously doesn't give the individual Officer an option other than that charge. The parent however could claim as a defence that the physical contact was to remove the child from danger or that it was necessary discipline. That defence would be seen before the court after a plea of not guilty....obviously, because of it being a statutory defence.

Glad they amended it and put in the discretion of the Officer clause.

Anything else you need...a foot massage maybe?. *rolls eyes*

MaryE I've not found the exact text but there are plenty of descriptions of it around which should give enough of an idea (the exact text could still require a lot of additional material anyway).

Some interesting comments at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/16/1924952.htm

A brief summary at http://www.broadbaseimmigration.co.uk/already-in-nz/anti-smacking-law.html

More at http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/2707550/Anti-smacking-law-okay-expert

There are a few issues at play here. Debate on the use of any smacking in discipline, the problems around police discretion (how easily could specific racial groups end up on the wrong end of that one). There is the issue of how much government involves itself in our day to day lives.

It's also an issue which is quite deeply held by some christain fundies who believe that god has commanded them to hit children, read more at http://emethaletheia.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-zealands-anti-smacking-law-part-5.html

Given that many of us are in Australia the exact detail of the NZ laws are not so much the issue, rather the idea of having such laws.

R0bert

If smacking/hitting is so great for children then I want to know why it cant be the same for adults. There are a lot of adults (including a few here - Im looking at you runner :P ) who I would like to give a good smack. Bosses practice "discipline" why shouldnt part of it be a good whack to a recalcitrant or disobedient worker? Why shouldnt the cops be allowed to give you a swift clip around the ear rather than a speeding fine if that is what they think is appropriate. Why shouldnt park rangers, parking rangers etc be allowed to whack people parked illegally or lighting fires in national parks for instance?

You people are all for bashing the little ones who cant fight back but you wouldnt accept it yourself would you. Wouldnt dare try giving a beating to that idiot that cut you off or the staff member who habitually turns up late would you? Run crying to the cops if someone did it to you Ill bet.

You call it "discipline" I call it assault.
Just because you gave birth to someone doesnt mean you own them and can treat them like some sort of animal.

STG, I asked for the text of the NZ Law. You could not supply it. Please keep trying, as the text is necessary for an informed comment no matter whether ones supports hitting children or not. RObert thanks for your more serious, mature reply, however the links are basically news reports and blog type entries. That type of thing is what I've been able to find too. But for the debate to progress it's necessary to know what's being debated, that's why the official text of the NZ Law needs to be provided here. I can't find it. Can someone please provide the text thank you.

well i believe a smack is a smack and if it is only for the reason to teach our children no means no ,

but going beyond a smack to the degree were the child is hurt well i think this is when the law should step in ,

their is a diffrence of abusing your child as to giving them a smack on the bum , yes their are people who go beyond just a smack and the courts and law should address which has occurred at the time of a smack on the bum

how many mums and dads have told their little one don't touch you could get burnt or scoldered for touching hot water , a little slap on the hand if they continued ignoring you until they know that means no don't touch

their is a total diffrence of abuse of a child

their has to be a definition of the word abuse

bashing and belting a child till the can not stand well i would say thats abuse of a child

like us people the forgotten australians now that is abuse of children

so i leave it thier kind regards huffnpuff

R0bert: <" also an issue which is quite deeply held by some christain fundies who believe that god has commanded them to hit children...">

I once read a comment where someone said that they like to think of
"spare the rod; spoil the child" as a directive rather than a warning. (I agree).

On the whole I agree with Mikk too.

While a tap on the hand can say a thousand words, and is sometimes better than a whole lot of words loaded on someone who is too little to follow the reasoning, it was absolutely a last resort in our household. We raised three lovely, GOOD, industrious people, without terrorizing anyone.

Mine were so used to warmth and approval that just a frown or a mild "No" was enough.

I think we have to get beyond the notion that all people are born basically evil; that if we don't hit them they won't learn. Anyone can stamp out unwanted behaviour, but the child has to be given an alternative - that is, be taught the desirable behaviour.

"Discipline" <- like the word disciple. It involves education and modeling behaviour and inspiring people to follow.

MaryE you have been a bit hard on us friend, many of us do not know the right address to send you.
But we know the law and that it has indeed stopped the smack on the bum.
Jewely, Julie, pied piper tell us please mate .
RObert thanks yet again, and good to see huffnpuff back, good post.
Some are unaware of the dreadful things that have happened to H and P stay Strong, never ever give in .
We all surely can see the difference, between abuse and smacking.
I must put my cards on the table, my party as more politically correct fools than most.
While I know of no plans to put such laws in place it was a dieing and lost Labor party that went off the rails with this law in NZ.
My childhood was different than todays kids see, we like all kids got kicked out the door when visitors came, seen but not heard was the idea.
I learn a great deal from todays parents, the love and care shown to kids is far better than we had far better than I gave, but I gave far far better than I got, lets hope the trend continues.
Apart from Antonio no one has said we should not smack, I find comfort in the view that rightly measures opinions on this subject.
Abuse, well once men could say Gday in the street to children, or neighbors, not a threat never just being good people, now pedophiles and such take that away mums maybe dads just maybe need to think is that hurting the child, are we right to teach kids to suspect every stranger?
Julie forgive my spelling I see your home in my mind as full of kids much like mine was and bet like me your bark is much worse than your bite, but keep your story's coming its a good memory.

I agree with huffnpuff...

Smacking is sometimes an undesirable but necessary discipline but the a loving parent knows when smacking stops and abuse begins and to be honest, the pain from a strong smack quickly recedes but the pain of strong words can carry all the way through adulthood. I know because I can still recall some.

As for any law.. despite all the bleeding experts, parents know their children best and the experts and other officionados should stand behind loving parents in disciplining their children and not against them or encouraging them to phone up or leave home or indulge the teenage super-opinions in the journey for the development of over indulgent self entitlement.

To my own daughters.. one said a couple of years back (she was 27 at the time) ... I was strict with her when she was growing up .... but she needed it... Kids need limits and boundaries to push against and those who are not provided with limits end up as the anti-social scum-bags with no respect for other peoples rights who we see fighting and either drunk or OD on recreational drugs.

I got many smacks when I was a kid, I have also smacked my kids when they were young.

I just wish people would MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS. It's like bloody religion, never satisfied, always have to try and change other peoples worlds.

“But we know the law and that it has indeed stopped the smack on the bum.
Jewely, Julie, pied piper tell us please mate .”

The law wasn’t there when I left Belly baby.

It used to be more about “reasonable force”. I have seen judges decide a kid with broken bones because his parent went nuts when he wet his pants was “reasonable force” though.

I don’t need the particulars or the wording, it is a silly law and like most laws isn’t about the crime but the ability to prosecute or use a trivial law when something else has failed.

If I was in paranoid mode and without knowing a thing how this law is being viewed in Oz I would suspect a few fostering NGO’s would love a law like this to acquire some more children/cash in their industry.

But if anyone wants to they can wade through this and then let us all know:

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/0F294939-83D6-486C-B0DF-BEB956729AF6/51146/DBHOH_BILL_6844_39294.pdf

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10440080

Mikk

You confirm that the non smacking brigade are often the most violent. Why am I surprised. Maybe you needed the cane as you were growing up to deal with your little ugly tantrums. Maybe then you would think a little more rationally an less like and emotional cripple.

Mikk

You confirm that the non smacking brigade are often the most violent. Why am I surprised. Maybe you needed the cane as you were growing up to deal with your little ugly tantrums. Maybe then you would think a little more rationally and less like an emotional cripple.

MaryE,

You're kidding me right?. Please keep trying...?. Not here to please you sweetheart.

Have a look under 'Parental Control' in the New Zealand Crimes Act.

http://www.google.com.au/

Oh good grief...

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328291.html#DLM328291

Exactly what I told you it was.

Hello belly, you say that "we know the law". Well I don't belly, and I can't find it on the net. I can find dozens and dozens of blogs and newspaper articles, but that's all. Belly, if the people here "know the Law" how come they can't reproduce it's wording? I'm talking about it's actual wording, the text of this NZ Law. I think it's obvious nobody here knows what that NZ Law actually says, including me and you. So, how can an informed discussion take place about a Law, when nobody knows what that Law actually says? Answer, it can't. And I've noticed people are even hurling personal insults. Is that what normally happens on this website? Thank you belly.

Hello STG, thank you for that link. However doing it in a gracious way and with good manners will cost you nothing.

That link shows pretty much what I thought it would show. The text of Section 59 says, " Every parent of a child and every person in the place of the of a parent of a child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of (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".

In other words THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BAN ON SMACKING YOUR CHILDREN IN NEW ZEALAND. Just as I suspected. Thank you STG.

I am firmly in favour of smacking as a disciplinary tool being legally available and agree that anyone knows the difference between that and abuse.

Smacking has worked fine for thousands of years and there is no reason to change it. A gentleman on the radio recently pointed out that just because some people drink drive doesn't mean we should ban driving. Deal with abusive parents rather than socially experiment.

Robert,

"Research which I've posted links to previously and which you have ignored shows a clear correlation between high use of smacking to discipline children and later violence in life."

You chose the words carefully. Yes it was a correlation. No causal link was established and I think we discussed at the time the possibility that confounding factors could have been present for the children or the parents to create the extreme situation.

It found some problems at the extreme end of the scale. There is no reason to extrapolate it to normal families. The researcher did so unashamedly in his conclusion but he clearly has a barrow to push. Indeed the tired chant that smacking makes children violent is something that I find extremely tedious. Have you ever smacked your child and are they violent?

I believe that one of the most common reasons triggering smacking in the first place (others being danger and insolence) is violence. The toddler who strangles their baby sibling and refuses to stop or remain stopped learns it is unacceptable by means of a smack. Dogs have been trained not to do things with smacks. They can work out that the punishment is meant to deter specific behaviour not teach them to be violent and don't turn savage. Why do we assume that toddlers are less capable? Are toddlers who bite taught to bite by their parents? In reality it is the unfortunate reality that we don't need to learn violence.

The other issue that comes to mind are the mandarin and masses dichotomy that brilliant British writer Theodore Dalrymple uses. I believe that there are many parents out there with the resources, environment and opportunities to exclude smacking completely. (As a parent with some relevant tertiary qualifications I have a much larger toolkit then some parents among the "masses" and strongly prefer positive reinforcement, consistency, teaching values and a focus on avoiding peer orientation to corporal punishment.) However the subset of parents who are similarly advantaged and who have already shifted to other tools should not judge or control parents who do not have the same privilege. Doing so is detrimental to society as a matter of common sense as runner and others correctly note.

"In other words THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BAN ON SMACKING YOUR CHILDREN IN NEW ZEALAND. Just as I suspected. Thank you STG."

Posted by MaryE

Who are you trying to convince?. There actually is, but they amended it to its current form. They included discretion of the Police Officer at a later date. The quote you posted from the act is a quote from the Defence Against Charge section. Like I said before. You CAN get charged with assault for smacking if there's a complaint laid but your defence would be that the physical contact you've been accused of is that you were "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting".

It's at the discretion of the Police as to whether they lay the charge or not depending on the individual Officers perception of circumstances and severity of contact.

...and it's rude to DEMAND others to do your research FOR YOU. That's why you got short sarcastic replies from me. Took me five minutes to find the information.

mjpb "I believe that there are many parents out there with the resources, environment and opportunities to exclude smacking completely. "

Yes, but as a parental choice and "parents" being the primary carers, with a vested interest in the well being and development of the child -

I would suggest "Smacking" might well be the punishment most appropriate, in the circumstances. I say that because I assume a natural parent has a greater interest in their children than some remote "expert"

"(As a parent with some relevant tertiary qualifications I have a much larger toolkit then some parents among the "masses" and strongly prefer positive reinforcement, consistency, teaching values and a focus on avoiding peer orientation to corporal punishment.)"

Ah nothing quite like a "relevant tertiary qualifications" for bullying other folk who have a fully functioning set of cognitive skills....

but only is one is intimidated by bullying "tertiary qualified" experts

and I am not of that class of person...

Indeed, my own "tertiary qualifications" predicate against such intellectual debasement and submission.

NZ 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—

o (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
o (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
o (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
o (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

Jim Evans, emeritus professor of law at Auckland University:

“The problem is the section doesn't stop with subsection (1). Subsection (2) says: "Nothing in subsection (1) justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction." Then, for good measure, subsection (3) says: "Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

Subsection (4) then adds that the police have a discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent, when the offence is so inconsequential that there is no public interest in prosecuting.

Subsection (2) seems to take away much of what is allowed by subsection (1). Just how one makes overall sense of it is not clear.

The sop in subsection (4) does not help: it makes it more likely that its application will be arbitrary.”

Yep, I so called it.[smile]

Pied Piper the way I read it a child can be smacked at the time of the behaviour to stop it stop an out of control situation (section 1). You can't come back later and smack for something that happened earlier to discourage a repeat offense (section 2).

So the kid who is kicking, screaming and smashing stuff can be smacked to get their attention and stop the dangerous behaviour. You can't bundle them into the car, get them settled down and then give them a thrashing afterwards.

Whilst police discretion is great I wonder how much of a minefield that creates. If I was spotted smacking a child I'd rather runner be the investigating officer than Mikk. I could see how perceptions about ethnic groups could easily impact on how a smack was intepreted by police as well. Maybe even gender, would dad giving a child a smack be intepreted the same was as mum giving the child a smack.

R0bert

I often think with the obsession with spanking we miss a more insidious form of abuse. Verbal abuse can be just as if not more damaging than physical. Actually it can be the verbal and psychological abuse that comes hand in hand with the physical abuse that actually is more damaging. The fear of walking around on egg shells wondering when a parent is going to explode in a fit of rage, the verbal abuse and put downs eroding any self esteem or sense of self worth.

I'll wager there are plenty of parents who smack at the right time, in a balanced family life with no psychological or verbal abuse and there's no real damage at all. Conversely I know there are parents who don't smack but by god there are some f&cked up things goin' on!

Don't you want people to love you?
My spanking, that's the only thing I want so much...
Spanking, that's the only thing I want so much...
That's the only thing I want so much...
Why is that better than being hugged?
Because you get closer to the person...
Closer to the person...
Just like a person having sex feels cared for...
We wanna be loved, so we have sex together...
And they feel loved about that...
And this is the way it makes me feel...loved...
I want it, I dream about it, I think about it, I want it...
Just like a girl wants sex with a boy, you know?
It's the way I'll always be probably...
My last one was born in the system...
See, they're stupid, very stupid, those people over there...
They're stupid...
These people are so below mentality, honest to God, really...
You know what I mean, he got the nerve to bug me... (2x)
This mentality, honest to G-d, really...
And I don't know if that's my imagination, but, umm...
Hey foxymophandlemama, that's me... (2x)
She prides herself on her cleaning habits... (2x)
Hey foxymophandlemama, that's me...
It's a lovely stupid mop, it is...

There's something really screwey about no streaking...
Is it any old dumb mop? It streaks...
Come on mop, no streaking mop...
I don't mind mop the floor, my mop streaks, I don't like it...
It's not me, it's the mop...
I don't believe it...now the floor looks beautiful...
That's why they call me mophandlemama...
Now the floor looks beautiful...
That's why they call me mophandlemama... (3x)
In two weeks, before she could see herself not dressed...
The twenty-third of May...you know she disturbed no one today...
The manager told her to completely forget...
If you ever go to bed, I'll kill you...
Do I tell the whole world that I'm mentally ill?
Go to the papers...yeah, why not?
Drum roll...
I want to show them that I can walk on my own without hands of theirs...
And, I can still fantasize, but I keep it to myself...
I think I deserve to be loved, don't you?
Very much so...
Think I deserve to be loved...
Keep it to myself...keep it to myself...
Do you ever think that you would actually, really kill yourself?
Well, if I have thought about it real, uhh, real deep...
Yeas, I believe I would...
And, I can still fantasize, but I keep it to myself...
Keep it to myself...keep it to myself...
...that I can walk without hands of theirs...
Yes, I believe I would...

edited 'Stupid Mop' by Pearl Jam

MaryE welcome to the forum, and take it easy Friend, you will remember it was you who first asked questions.
You lead a quite life, politics is to me an interesting subject.
I knew about this before it was law, heard debate on radio national and ABC local radio.
Just weeks ago heard about a father being charged and found guilty, on radio national.
He it was claimed hit his child with a one finger flick to the ear, he admitted it.
The extra charge, that he punched his child in the face, was contested, only one witness to say he did, a challenged witness. the law, the fact it is stupid, or do you agree with the idea courts know your kids better than you.
The referendum is on now listen to radio national or jewely may tell you the NZ news channel freq

“Whilst police discretion is great I wonder how much of a minefield that creates. If I was spotted smacking a child I'd rather runner be the investigating officer than Mikk...”

Nah it’s one those laws like j-walking and littering R0bert. Made so if they can’t get you on what they want you for they’ll use a lesser charge instead.

Like they suspect you of beating your kids and you say “no I just smacked his bum”. Gotchya anyway. It’s all a game.

I don’t believe Runner would be any more sympathetic if in that profession, unless you were beating the kid with a bible. Rather than investigate Mikk would probably give you a slap right back on the spot.

“So the kid who is kicking, screaming and smashing stuff can be smacked to get their attention and stop the dangerous behaviour“

Yup.

“You can't bundle them into the car, get them settled down and then give them a thrashing afterwards.”

Only if people call you “officer”.

Hiya Belly, I am also enjoying Mary’s messages. I don’t know the NZ radio frequencies though. Well not news stations anyways.[smile]

“…or do you agree with the idea courts know your kids better than you..”

Whoever knows the kid doesn’t matter here in NSW.
[Fill in with my normal spew on DoCS here]

The NZ Law as it currently stands seems perfectly reasonable to me. Belly, a "little flick" to the ear can easily go wrong and the child can easily lose an eye. That's why hitting a child on the head is a no go area, as it's extremely dangerous and irresponsible to do that, just as dangerous as shaking a small child. This law does not prevent smacks on the bum and other such similar normal and everyday physical disciplinary measures. You can STILL smack your child. Probably a few hundred thousand NZ kids get smacked every day in view of other people, and those hundreds of thousands of parents don't end up charged.

It's perfectly legal to smack your child in NZ. That's what's written in the law. If you whack , or try to whack, your child in the head and you're caught doing it then you'll deserve whatever the law throws at you. You don't hit children on their heads, just like you don't inflict marks and welts or sexually approach children, and if you do any of that stuff you deserve to be punished. There's laws in most countries against that sort of thing. But, it's perfectly legal in NZ to smack your child. And that's as it should be.

I thought I had an understanding of how you thought MaryE.
I welcome your input and promise we will disagree, often.
We do here, strongly, I fall over laughing at some PC practices, like making boys play with dolls, even wear dresses in an attempt to see they do not become aggressive.
thinking that screaming heap of kid in the super market is better for being cuddled than controlled.
I said in an earlier post my childhood as not helped by a mum, [I loved her totally] who would NEVER allowed smacking, it was hurt by her rules.
I later after dads Early death at a young age had to be father big brother, uncle to ten kids, and to fight to stop dreadful behavior from some, without hitting.
Yes twice I did, for theft big time theft from my mums purse, she fought me but it got done.
Those kids spent the next day on a beach very happy and all thanked me.
NZ made a dumb rule, sorry worse than stupid, confused about neglect and true harm done to children they got lost, have no doubt, be happy they are going to say they got it wrong.
My loving mum? who went hungry to see us eat? who fought like a tiger to stop smacking?
The girl she hit was my sister mum FLOGGED her 3 kl ms to school , with a broom!
all those years ago in Bargo every farm door opened and watched strange isn't it?
It was the Handel and it broke mum still hit away, sister won, she went home with mum WE went to school.

MaryE,

As the laws stands it SEEMS fairly reasonable. The thing is, you can be charged for smacking - you seem to think you can't, and it's great that you've got that much faith in others - and the onus of proof is on you to prove your innocence as opposed to someone proving your guilt.

As it stands, if you are seen laying your hand on a child in a aggressive (not necessarily in anger) manner - no matter how hard - you have committed a crime. That's the fact of it.

You can see all the defence clauses and assume there would be no miscarriage of justice if your personal intention was one of 'for the welfare of the child'. But as it stands the law doesn't see it that way. You are guilty of assault from the start unless the Officer decides that you were acting in the best interests of the child.

There's is no burden of proof on the PROSECUTION excluding proof of the act of physical contact. All they need to know is that you did touch your child aggressively. Then you can spend the rest of your life as a convicted criminal. There goes many job opportunities.

Some people are vindictive when it comes to break ups. Custody battles are ugly. You'd like to think that all Police Officers are above the law and NEVER abuse their knowledge or power but they're human...and fallible. This law will inevitably destroy lives based on the FACT that the burden of proof is at the feet of the accused. I didn't even see an 'intent' clause in the wording of the legislation. EVERYTHING you can be charged with needs an element of intent to be proven by the prosecution to convict. This apparently doesn't have that.

Hope you get where I'm coming from.

“My loving mum? who went hungry to see us eat? who fought like a tiger to stop smacking?
The girl she hit was my sister mum FLOGGED her 3 kl ms to school , with a broom!
all those years ago in Bargo every farm door opened and watched strange isn't it?
It was the Handel and it broke mum still hit away, sister won, she went home with mum WE went to school.”

The image really does make me laugh Belly, the girl must have been guilty of a serious crime in your mum’s eyes? How did your sister win?

Belly I don’t get why you disagree with Mary, she obviously does not approve of extreme behaviors that an adult could inflict on a child and neither do you.

I thought it looked like you two do have similar opinions on the subject.

It is a bit of a quandary, you want government to butt out of regular families and the way they choose to live but we do need laws because of the “other” type of families.

Just back from Dad & Daughter time with my 29 yo...

TPP "It is a bit of a quandary, you want government to butt out of regular families and the way they choose to live but we do need laws because of the “other” type of families."

Who gets to decide what is the "other" type of family?

The problem with regulation is it is a stick held by a blind person who just lashes out at everyone, regardless of the circumstance.

Better there were no "family" based laws and only those laws which reflect a general unacceptance of any abuse inflicted upon anyone.

And I dont think disciplining a child automatically qualifies as "abuse", quite the opposite.

Government are elected by the people they seek to "regulate" but government and politicians need some humility.

They might "regulate" but the do not and never should "rule".

Col: “Better there were no "family" based laws and only those laws which reflect a general unacceptance of any abuse inflicted upon anyone.”

This makes sense and I can see how it would work better than the confusion surrounding the family courts and children’s courts now - in my limited way.

But no one would like it Col, the family based laws enable more abuse towards children to be tolerated in society. We’d be overflowing with foster kids if everyone had to treat their children better than a stranger on the street.

Like the old domestic violence laws (or lack of)and domestic rape laws (ditto) left families to sort out their own problems.

“Who gets to decide what is the "other" type of family?”

Right now I think it is teachers, health workers, police and caseworkers. There are probably a few more mandatory reporters I’ve forgotten. Oh yeah – apparently I am one which no one told me until recently and I probably need a lawyer to explain how a “volunteer” has to obey policy made for people on salaries who are trained in mandatory reporting.

But because the law is changing (DoCS hotline was overwhelmed) people now have to do a lot more damage before these workers are required to report it, cases of neglect that build up over a longer period and consist of regular small reports will be ignored.

That’s a load off for NSW’s.

In regard to children I might be considered “socialist”?

runner just because I said I would like to do something doesnt mean I would do it. Its called self control. I didnt say I wanted such things I asked why is there a difference between violence to adults and violence to children.

By debating such issues and deciding where your ethics stand in advance you make it easier for yourself to know what to do in an emotionally charged situation where judgment may be clouded. Most "discipline" of children I have seen is backed with a generous dose of loss of temper on the part of the adult. Anger is never conducive to good decision making and to have set your own guidelines beforehand would seem a logical and responsible attitude for a parent to take and make it easier for them to know what to do when a child misbehaves.

Either violence, of any kind, is unnaceptable for all or it is ok to beat anyone for their transgressions. To justify violence to children while saying the same act on an adult would be assault people must twist logic into knots and ignore the responsibilities that adults have to protect and assist children and the powerless.

Hello STG, in reply to your comment at the bottom of the previous page. If what you say is accurate, then surely tens upon tens of thousands of NZ parents, who give their children a smack on the bum, have been charged. Have they? I bet NOT.

As I read it, the intent of the NZ law is NOT to entrap parents into being charged with assault from a normal, everyday smack. It's intent is to make sure that parents who abuse and attack their children ARE charged. And this is as it should be.

So STG, please tell me how many NZ parents, over this past 2 years, have been charged with merely smacking their children on the bum. Please tell me. I'm not talking about parents who have genuinely assaulted their children. I'm talking about harmless smacks.

How many NZers have been charged with this harmless smacking STG? Keeping in mind that over that 2 year period, probably innumerable millions upon millions of harmless smackings of children have happened in NZ. Thank you STG.

Jewely I was a tough 9 year old, my sister then 7 was tougher.
She took the blows and still refused to go to school, her and mum left us to continue on to school after that, we had 2 more k,s to go, they both too untidy and warn out did not want to be seen in town.
The program, on radio national will still be there, available for download, as I heard it traveling at work I am unsure what it was.
MaryE seems to believe we made it up, that no law exists re read her posts, I see a hint of so what its not true in any case in her posts surely you do?
A guilty verdict in the case I spoke of above was unsure if it was for the ear flick r alleged punch, see the ear flick is assault under current NZ Law.

An ear flick is an assault to a child's head. It's an extremely dangerous and irresponsible thing for any parent to do. An eye can easily be lost. Any parent who attacks a child's head is being irresponsible. The NZ law does NOT stop a parent from smacking a child on the bum, despite Belley trying to tell us that it does. Read the NZ law and it's obvious that ordinary, everyday physical smacking is OK. Also, read the NZ law and it's obvious that overstepping the mark can land parents in trouble with the law. This is as it should be. This NZ law recognises the appropriate difference between physical discipline and abuse. Parents need to have the ability to physically discipline their children if that is what they wish, and this NZ law allows that. If that is not the case, then where are the millions of prosecutions for merely smacking children in the normal way? That's right, they don't exist. Case closed!

MaryE
"where are the millions of prosecutions for merely smacking children in the normal way?"
Do not you know MaryE that children can not claim their rights?
Do not you know that children love their parents and they are suffering when the police imprison their parents of cause their bad behavior to their children?
MaryE children have huge problems when their parents are agresive, non educated, drunk or take drugs, have personal or family problems, when they have problems in their work, when they have financial problems etc.
Every time parents have problems for one million reasons the children pay the cost of their problems.
For me the best solusion, especial in families with problems is the creation of pro schools from very early. Less time we leave the children under their parents there is bigger probability to avoid the Smacks and any kind of abuse.
The best way to protect children's interests is the creation of better society, with less press on parents, mathers or fathers.

The Pied Piper
my friend you have to care 7 children and it is not easy. I am sure you are good with them.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

The radio story I spoke of took place on radio national.
The Law Report
Date was 28/7 this year.
Unfortunately I have got one thing wrong, its not going to change the law.
What is taking place is citizens initiated referendum.
A good idea but useless, as both sides of the house say they have no intention of changing the law, what ever the out come.
Now TPP look only at MaryEs last post, that gentle flick on the ear, forget Antonius he lives on a different planet.
But people like him and MaryE have no right to get involved in how other peoples kids are cared for.
Unless true hurt is being done.
How stupid to give voters such a right, one we should all have, then ignore their wishes.

“Jewely I was a tough 9 year old, my sister then 7 was tougher.”

Of course.[smile]

“She took the blows and still refused to go to school, her and mum left us to continue on to school after that, we had 2 more k,s to go, they both too untidy and warn out did not want to be seen in town.”

Haha… good one. Me – I have no shame, the child would be at school. I just got back with four wee ones from local mall, they had a blast and are now all looking suitably tired. On the way there and back they hide behind power polls then leap out going “raarr” at me. Actually it drives me nuts but hey.

Belly:”A guilty verdict in the case I spoke of above was unsure if it was for the ear flick or alleged punch, see the ear flick is assault under current NZ Law.”

Ahh well, they got the bugger using whatever law they could. I think this is what Mary is referring to – the fact they have the law to use if they want but they haven’t really made use of it.

“Now TPP look only at MaryEs last post, that gentle flick on the ear...”

Yep she does not like flicks on the ear. I’m not sure what one is – are we talking like middle finger leaving contact with thumb rapidly? Actually seems mild to me and I don’t use physical anything.

“But people like him and MaryE have no right to get involved in how other peoples kids are cared for.
Unless true hurt is being done. How stupid to give voters such a right, one we should all have, then ignore their wishes.”

Tricky Belly, my life is getting involved with how other peoples kids are cared for.[smile]

MaryE,

I think you've mistaken my statements and information sharing for taking sides on the topic, MaryE. My comments were directed towards your gaining understanding on where that law stands comparatively against other related offences and concept of civil liberties within the legislation, MaryE. I mean, you asked the question MaryE, not me.

Do I think parents who abuse their children should be held accountable?. Of course, MaryE, they should. I think the sentencing needs to increased and Judges need to 'grow set' and stop using 'case law' to do their job for them, MaryE.

Seeing as you raise the question though, MaryE. The issue of "how many" is irrelevant. The REAL issue is if ONE PERSON falls victim to an unjust law which in turn has MASSIVE ramifications to their criminal record, potential loss of custody of kids, the flow on effect of kids going into governmental care etc etc, MaryE. That conviction will haunt you the rest of your life.

Is it worth it, MaryE?. IS 'collateral damage' of one person under an undemocratic law ok by you?.

IF they convict a BILLION people who've sexually abused and tortured their children, more power to them, MaryE. I just find it odd that you staunchly support the welfare of the kids - so you should, and as do I - but you find it ok for adult lives to be ruined.

How many innocent dead is ok in regards to death sentences in the states, MaryE?.

Hello STG, the subject here for me is "is it ok and lawful in NZ for a parent to give mild smacks to a child?". I have no desire or intention to extrapolate that into other areas of the law like death sentences in the USA. Ok, I'll rephrase my question to belly then. Can anyone produce even one instance over the past 2 years in NZ where a parent has been arrested, found guilty and sentenced for giving their child a mild smack on the bum? I'm not talking about abuse, attacks or welts or marks etc., just a normal everyday smack that probably hundreds of thousands of parents in NZ do quite often with unruly kids.

Hi Antonios, when I say I support smacking I'm only talking about very mild smacking, just something mild that produces a quick sting and nothing more. Occasionally that can be necessary with difficult children, and is completely harmless both emotionally and physically. The important thing is to minimise smacking as much as possible, and different parents have different abilities in this regard. Nothing beats parents showing gentle, consistent love and setting good examples for their children. Young children especially copy their parents, and if the parents are stable, kind and loving then their kids have a much better chance. Smacking should be a last resort, but of course sometimes that is MUCH easier said than done.

MaryE,

Well, you keep changing the goal posts. Your first question was:

"...does the New Zealand law stop parents from merely hitting their kids on the bum and that sort of thing?"

You've been given that answer NUMEROUS times but a few people. The you needed the ACTUAL Act. You got that too. Then you needed the Act explained because it seemed to didn't quite understand that you're presumed guilty until you prove yourself otherwise. Which is undemocratic, by the way. There's only ONE other crime in law where you need to do that. But you got THAT explained. You got explained global comparison against the basic humanity of the law, which you disregard. You got explained the irrelevance of how many have been charged due to the absolute HIGH risk of being confronted by Police over allegations.

Did you know that many jobs need a detailed description of how many times you've been questioned by Police. Joining the Police is one. There's many examples of Police questioning over smacking you can find in a basic online search.

NOW, you need a list of people with conviction. *rolls eyes*

What's next, you get that then how many have committed suicide over it?.

Anyway, your question:

"Can anyone produce even one instance over the past 2 years in NZ where a parent has been arrested, found guilty and sentenced for giving their child a mild smack on the bum?"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2098497.htm?section=justin

In case you bring up jailing. Anything that warrants jailing is more than likely actual abuse based the lax treatment sentencing gets. Jailing offences are usual where physical damage, and or mental (which goes hand in hand, really), which is bodily harm, or grievous bodily harm, or repeat offences. If those situations happen they deserve jailing.

So where are we moving the posts too now?.

Mary: “…when I say I support smacking I'm only talking about very mild smacking, just something mild that produces a quick sting and nothing more…”

Only if said child happens to be in a vegetative state. I did tell a big lie about not smacking, I have slapped the odd hand away from hot stove… just didn’t think of it in terms of actual smacking. But I think the NZ law did acknowledge a parent reacting in fear as acceptable even if it didn’t name the emotion that stops dangerous behavior.

If the law was better thought out it would have also had age or stage appropriate guidelines. It also neglected to address children that are say autistic or born with downs syndrome.

This is where Belly would probably hit the roof along with many other parents.

StG, your information has helped me, thank you for your efforts. I don’t want you to stop but you are starting to sound like me with kids, gets to a point when I’ve had enough of explaining something over and over and telling them how to do it so I go do it myself and feel damn resentful about it.

I know I’m doing it, I hear myself complain about it and then usually do it all over again a few hours later.

High five.

I've never slapped, hit or smacked my kids and neither has my husband. Every discipline situation has been judged on its own merits and the use of physical force never came into it. They are now in their late teens and are beautiful, independent and caring young men.

Having said that ... on a social level, the issue is much more complex than the passing of a law. At this stage, most opinion polls I've read over the years reveal an overwhelming majority in Australia are opposed to the introduction of such a law. Parental egos are still very much bound up in the 'right' to smack their kids. Also, such a law opens up a whole new can of worms in bitter divorce battles.

Unless and until there is a borderline or majority in Australia who are opposed to the physical discipline of children and want such a law in place, its introduction is more than likely to prove counterproductive.

TPP,

Thankyou. I've been made out to look like a wan*er in the process. lol

*chips the ball in the air for someone else to have a go*

Hello STG, please go back and actually read what the NZ law states. A person charged is NOT presumed guilty as you have stated. The guilt, or innocence status, of the charged person is no different than if that person was charged with any other offence. That's a fact which you've been in denial about. It's also a fact that, just like all other offences, the police in a child smacking case have to prove guilt in order to gain a conviction. Just like ALL other offences. This you have also been in denial about. The facts are, it's perfectly legal for a NZ parent to smack a child, even though you continually deny that.

STG, really now, your very own link showed that the problem with the father was that he angrily manipulated his son's shoulder resulting in bruising. Photos were taken of the bruising. He rightly ended up in court, and he rightly was compelled to undergo anger management treatment. He "assaulted" his son. He didn't just give him a mild smack. So, you've been unable to present even ONE case of a parent being charged and convicted of merely giving the child a mild smack. That says it all STG.

I repeat, if you are charged in NZ you are not presumed to be guilty. If you are charged in NZ the police or prosecutors have to prove guilt if you are to be convicted. They are the facts STG, whether or not you approve. Thank you STG.

Ok.

The story I quoted is from ABC radio national, if you go there look up the law report and past story's.
You will find there dated 27 or 28 of last month the story.
It highlights both sides of the debate, and a story that makes it unclear if that ear flick was assault or not.
Unfortunately it is a citizens initiated referendum, what a great idea.
But wait no it is not!
Both sides of politics say no matter what the outcome they will not change the law.
My earlier thoughts stand, parenting ,unless harm can be proved is between parent and child.
AS is not alone in over emphasizing the very worst that can happen to a child, this thread is not about Ferrel parents, drugys, drunks, it is about any of us.
Often, far too often, we find ourselves debating some ones nigh mares not the subject.

Hello belly, I agree with you when you say "parenting, unless harm can be proved, is between parent and child". Surely you then must realise that this is precisely what the NZ law is about. If the physical discipline is harmless then the NZ law can do nothing about it. If the physical discipline is harmful, then the NZ law can discipline the guilty parent. Or in other words, the NZ law says "parenting, unless harm can be proved, is between parent and child". If that harm can be proved by the police or authorities, then they should intervene. If the police cannot prove that harm has been done, then NO NZ parent can possibly be convicted of any offence whatsoever. Thank you Belly.

Good NZ parents are safe from the police. They really are.

Bad NZ parents who abuse their kids are not safe from the police. That's as it should be.

StG – Kudos.

Belly:”Often, far too often, we find ourselves debating some ones nigh mares not the subject.”

Guilty. But this is what laws do don’t they? They look at worse case and what they will need if the worst case comes up?

Okay normal parents smacking, not so bad, kids will get over it; I hope/guess/imagine. Be much better if the normal parents decided to go another way. However it is only 2009 still and considering all the stuff humans continue to do to each other the smacking is the least of my worries at present.

Now and again as my two children grew up they would mention their friends getting smacked or ask me about it. I used to tell them I was saving it up and for all the naughty things they did I planned to punch them out when they are all grown up on their 21st birthdays.

Now they might have giggled about it back then but hey neither of them is 21 yet.

"Hello belly, I agree with you when you say "parenting, unless harm can be proved, is between parent and child". Surely you then must realise that this is precisely what the NZ law is about. If the physical discipline is harmless then the NZ law can do nothing about it. If the physical discipline is harmful, then the NZ law can discipline the guilty parent. Or in other words, the NZ law says "parenting, unless harm can be proved, is between parent and child". If that harm can be proved by the police or authorities, then they should intervene. If the police cannot prove that harm has been done, then NO NZ parent can possibly be convicted of any offence whatsoever. Thank you Belly.

Good NZ parents are safe from the police. They really are.

Bad NZ parents who abuse their kids are not safe from the police. That's as it should be."

If so why would they change the law in the first place? Are you saying that NZ didn't have any assault laws like the rest of the world before they changed the law? The way you put it it sounds like Australian law.

mjpb that is a good question the very heart of why I started the thread.
Sorry about my last post, knew I had lost a post in a crash so posted nearly the same post twice.
It could help to hear that ABC program, I have live and on the web page.
Kiwis do not like the law, we should not need it, true harm to a child should ALWAYS BE PROSECUTED.
And far too much true harm is done, but smacking can, to me, prove love for a child, some never have a chance to learn about boundary's and manners respect and accountability for actions.
I could forever, without stop, post about poor parenting poor handling of children by schools courts an endless list, but I do not think good parents are safe in NZ.

Good parents are perfectly safe in NZ.

Belly baby:“Kiwis do not like the law, we should not need it, true harm to a child should ALWAYS BE PROSECUTED.”

Well it rarely is and never has been common and never will be. Kiwi’s can just suck it up. It isn’t about good parents it is about nailing the bad ones with something/anything. I’ve said this a few times and a few different ways now.

You any idea in Oz how many good parents have their kids removed via false allegations? Bring it back home Belly because there’s a lot of parents and children here suffering.

“And far too much true harm is done, but smacking can, to me, prove love for a child, some never have a chance to learn about boundary's and manners respect and accountability for actions.”

Surely from what you are saying we can announce that parents should step up their game… why stop at smacking, beat the little buggers – they’d learn even more wouldn’t they?

How come I can manage not to hurt children to teach boundaries and accountability while commanding respect? I am not handed angels Belly, I often have destructive little bullies walk through my door.

I don't follow the "give me a child until 7 blah..." Just give me a couple of weeks.

“I could forever, without stop, post about poor parenting poor handling of children by schools courts an endless list, but I do not think good parents are safe in NZ.”

If it is so important to the Kiwi parents to not be “done” for smacking then they can just chose to learn a better way now.

Jewely hang in there, no way I will change my views we Aussie have as many dreadful parents as any nation.
Lets not get into Kiwi vs us, but smacking kids is not crimson evil.
Surely my post says it like I think, prosecute every time a kid is hurt, but do not make silly laws.
Our laws Australian laws, are good enough, but it is not true about the loony tunes who often rule in courts.
Some, most need a good lesson in thinking as the public does.
And the police who make judgments they are not paid to make, and fail to act on true bashing of kids.
FIRST step in child protection, sack DOCs, every one of them, pick normal humans to sit in judgment in courts, get police who understand, specialists, to investigate child complaints.
But laws like this PC rubbish no way.
Again it is the failure of the above, total failure long term failure that makes for idiot laws like this.

“FIRST step in child protection, sack DOCs, every one of them, pick normal humans to sit in judgment in courts, get police who understand, specialists, to investigate child complaints."

Belly I gonna slap you sideways, you rattled that one off without thought cause I know you don’t want the dude next door sitting in judgment of whether your parenting skills are adequate.

DoCS are the specialists. They need adjusting is all. I don’t mean to make light of it, they stagger me with their case planning and I can see the damage they do on a daily basis. They’ve even reduced me to tears several times in the last few months after all that time fostering in NZ with dry eyes. But the reality is we need them, we just need them to be better.

Hey no bashing men!
Got a laugh out of that big muma.
But sorry DOC,s are not the experts never they are part of the problem never the answer.

Belly:”Hey no bashing men!”

C’mon, you can take it baby.

“But sorry DOC’s are not the experts never they are part of the problem never the answer.”

I wish I could fix that, wish I wasn’t so trapped in to having to cave each time they demand I be the one that places a child where I can see it doing no good or further harm. But your average caseworker is all qualified, knows the laws and the policy and I have yet to meet one that personifies evil. Fractelle got it right ages ago when she said something like removing a lot of middle management would help.

Wish my hair hadn’t gone orange! Anyone a hair dresser or partnered to one?

Belly, Re: your response to me:Here here.

Children were apparently protected prior to the change. Correct me if misinformed but googling indicated that prior to the change:

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 stated that “every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstance.”

That would indicate that prior to the change parents were able to smack providing they didn't use unreasonable force. There was a push to change that in spite of it being counter-democratic. Why was there a change?

The obvious inference is that the law change was driven by ivory tower anti-smackers and good parents are not safe in NZ no matter how carefully crafted things are to cloak the change otherwise.

I also have concerns about the attitude of the NZ politicians toward democracy.

The new law is apparently this:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328291.html#DLM328291

So the basic premise in subsection (2) (curiously not in subsection (1)) is that it is a criminal offence for parents to use force for the purpose of correction. They are able to use reasonable force on children in certain limited circumstances (subsection (1))providing it is not for that purpose (see subsection 3). So presumably you can grab a kid to keep it from running in front of a truck but you can't smack them to stop them and a parent can grab a kids hand if they try to grab a saucepan of boiling oil but if the kid keeps going back the parent can't smack them to stop them. The onus is on the parent to keep the kids in areas without environmental hazards or to continually restrain them. A kid strangling their baby brother would appear to be covered in (1) but toddlers are too young to have criminal responsibility and anyway subsection (3) prevents correction so that is out too. The police have a hazy discretion which they would presumably be loathe to rely upon unless they can figure out what it means. What have I missed?

Orange hair? now I am afraid.
DOCs how do I start? 16 kids that is how many mum had, only eight lived to grow up.
Each child kept up the birth rate mums last Christmas saw 37 sit at our lunch table.
That was about half of us, now? need the Sydney football stadium.
I know DOCs,
A long list in my post history of comments about them, and about government departments, yes red tape strangles them all.
Any , absolutely any government endeavor, DOCs too, can increase work outcomes,cut costs, instantly.
Sack all management, re employ only those who have a history of making things work.
half as many managers on contracts not wages forever no matter how bad they are.
Stop spending more time taking or threatening too, kids from good parents.
Then tell me, tell my neighbors, why our begging yes begging for help, was ignored until after a sweet Innocent child was raped, by her drunken father.
Tell us why she cried in the arms of my sisters in law in my front yard, while me and my bother cried too.
This politically correct idiot world we are forced to live in meant we could not touch her let alone cuddle her and say we are sorry.
Too late for her Jewely, she has 2 kids another on the way and is wed to a bloke who acts looks and is like her dad, she is about 19 and her life is in ruins, I blame DOCs

It’s okay, after three attempts it is now I am a perfectly respectable light brown with red highlights and my girl is never ever allowed to touch my hair ever again.

“DOCs how do I start? 16 kids that is how many mum had, only eight lived to grow up.
Each child kept up the birth rate mums last Christmas saw 37 sit at our lunch table.”

Wow and that was only half of you? I’m from a very small family. Xmas must boost the economy no end in your area.

“Too late for her Jewely, she has 2 kids another on the way and is wed to a bloke who acts looks and is like her dad, she is about 19 and her life is in ruins, I blame DOCs”

It came up yesterday here about how they haven’t heard of anyone successfully suing them even after they’ve admitted fault that has caused long reaching and extended damage. I have a similar story in my house at the moment Belly. I understand the tears.

If I have understood some of what Peter the Believer says he may make more sense with what he explains is missing, then as a normal citizen it could be possible to make a complaint in court if DoCS wont listen. DoCS, being our last port of call, hasn’t worked for many.

If you must fight a government department, fight dirty.
Oh try to get them to see reason, try to explain the issue.
But after it becomes obvious they are ignoring you, whitewashing the issue.
Not interested fight dirty.
Go to their Minister, the day after you take it to the shadow minister.
Tell the media, start with those who do not let truth get in the way of a good story.
Just fight, after a while you will be branded a vexatious litigant, a trouble maker, some one not to be believed.
But the victory, if you never ever give in you will win, is sweet.
I saw A docs regional manager sacked, know life has been not kind to this person, no big sit on bum wage packet, no job in fact.
At a meeting with the Minister, who said it was to thank me, I had the very greatest pleasure in saying just what I thought and walking out.
Fight jewely fight dirty, its worth it.

Hey Belly, thank you for your advice.

I have an update on the NZ smacking thing.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2757082/Over-1-3-million-vote-on-smacking

“Over 1.3 million New Zealanders have so far posted in their smacking referendum ballot papers as the closing date for voting draws near.
The referendum was forced by opponents of a 2007 law change that made it illegal for parents to use force against children for correction , but also allowed police the discretion not to prosecute inconsequential cases.

It asks: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

The Chief Electoral Office's vote processing centre had received 1,330,900 by Thursday last week.

Voting closes in five days time, on Friday 21 August.

Chief Electoral Officer Robert Peden said people should post their voting papers by Thursday to ensure they are received in time.

"If you've already made up your mind, I would encourage you to post your voting paper back today so you don't forget or miss the voting deadline," Mr Peden said.

Preliminary results of the referendum should be available by 8.30pm on Friday, with final results due the following week.”

New Zealanders have voted overwhelmingly to bring back smacking children.
While it may not be word perfect it is a quote from this mornings Australian.
Further by overwhelming numbers the story says 80% voted to ignore the 2 year old law.
A good result for us all, political correctness as always is the few driving the rest, rubbish we let the uniformed inflict on us.
Give your kids a hug in celebration.
And from the same paper? story about kids being removed because dad hits them, needs looking at, fact is description of living conditions could be found in white shanty tents or homes even classy caravans homes in out back Australia.
IF he hurts them its different surely that is the heart of the debate?

Sorry Belly, that's just not how they roll.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2776861/Key-says-no-to-changing-smacking-law

“Pro-smacking campaigners are calling on the Government to fast-track a law change to allow parents to smack their children, after a thumping referendum victory.

But Prime Minister John Key says he will not change the law, and the law's original sponsor, Green MP Sue Bradford, says the question was so flawed the result is meaningless.”

So, Belly, this thread was prompted by that Law Report thing on the same issue, eh? It was a good show, but then the Law Report generally is.

One issue not discussed here is how it changes the role of the police. My rather simplistic view of the role of the police has been rather black and white. They catch people breaking the law and hand them over to the courts. It is not their role to decide "how badly" you were breaking the law - that is the role of the Judiciary. We put all sorts mechanisms to ensure the Judiciary do this fairly: open courts, jury's, insistence on the Judge providing their reasoning in writing, insistence on representation.

Now (for the first time?) NZ has a law that put the police in that role - but without all those protective mechanisms we have for the courts. The police get to make a judgement about "how badly" you were breaking the law. So it a policewoman sees her ex smacking their kid during a acrimonious divorce - prosecute him. But their sister - not as likely. And this behaviour is actually allowed by the law as it is written. To put it another way, before if you had firm evidence of someone breaking the law, the DPP are compeled to prosecute the case if there is a good likelihood of success.

But not now. This is not so much rule of law, as rule of whim.

Yes the law report is always value.
Some posts in the thread seemed a bit shallow, limited understanding of the issues, but that could be said about most threads.
Pieded Piper yes true, but wrong, many here in this forum have called for changes, that we Aussies should have something like this here.
But if 80% can be over ruled by just a few?
It proves we all must demand a say over such as this greens lady.
However we are unlikely to ever get it, even on polling day other issues weld us to such as her.
Laws are sometimes not worth obeying this is such a law.
I find it interesting, the thought a cop would use the uniform to win a private fight.
Very true, seen it often, seen the little woman in country towns informing locals she woulds tell her husband.

Hey Belly, what I don’t get is that this woman says the question is wrong. 8 mil spent on the wrong question is a bit mind boggling. I was left kind of staring at it thinking oh the twats. Not that I can see why she said the question was so flawed that the result is meaningless.

Question: “Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

That police thing though – often it is the police that decide if they’re going to arrest you or let you go isn’t it?

The Pied Piper: "often it is the police that decide if they’re going to arrest you or let you go isn’t it?"

True. But when they decide whether to let you go or not, one hopes that are basing they decision on whether prosecution is likely to succeed. If they don't and their judgement is called into question, this is standard they are held against. As a standard it has a lot going for it - not in the least that it is so simple everyone can understand it. You don't need a law degree.

Consider the case where they arrest the leader of the opposition for some crime. If they do this, and the resultant prosecution fails, all hell will break loose. If they don't prosecute, and it later becomes obvious they had enough evidence they had enough information to prosecute, it is probably some police will at the very least be out of a job.

Now consider the case where the leader of the NZ opposition gives his kids a flick across the ear when the threatens to ride his push bike down a steep mountain bike trail after being explicitly told not to several times. These is no hard line in the sand by which we can judge the police officers decision - one way or the other. Was it because of their personal political views? What it because they were "instructed" to do it in a particular way? Who knows. They don't have to explain their actions, as the law says they in this case they get to pass judgement on the severity of the crime. If they deem the flick to child abuse, the law says it is. If they say its not - then it isn't. They are the final arbiter this part of the law - not the judge or a jury.

Rstuart, me being a foster mum I have this Duty of Care thing which confuses me no end. I am required to report if a child is not being cared for adequately or is at risk of harm. Also I cannot watch it happen I must do what I am able to prevent it if needed in the moment.

But then I have to work out in each and every situation what “adequate” means.

Normally it isn’t something I think about as I don’t come in to contact with any of the kids parents. But a new situation has meant I need to be thinking of this Duty of Care thing all the time. Personally it’s driving me a bit mental and I imagine the police deal with the same dilemma regularly.

Instead of arresting I need to report within context what happened, how it happened and then it is up to the caseworkers whether further action is taken if they considered it serious enough.

I bet new police officers arrest everyone just in case and leave it up to higher authority. Probably a bit sad for the parents until it is sorted, then you’ll get the officers who think the whole thing is crazy and turn a blind eye. I was thinking the CYFS hotline has probably gone berserk since the law came in but if so many Kiwi’s don’t like the law they’re likely to not be using it to nark on anyone.

Sorry I know you want to talk with a clearer understanding of law whereas I always seem to take things apart until you’re probably left with whether someone is having a good day or a bad day.

The Pied Piper: "Sorry I know you want to talk with a clearer understanding of law whereas I always seem to take things apart until you’re probably left with whether someone is having a good day or a bad day."

If what you are saying is: "while we try to define the bright lines, the world in reality is a very blury place that isn't compatible with firm lines in the sand", then it looks pretty clear to me. And you are right.

The Pied Piper: "I have this Duty of Care thing which confuses me"

The problem with the smacking law is very similar, which I guess was your point. Before they had a law that said "reasonable force" was allowed. The courts got to define what was reasonable, which given the checks and balances we have on the courts isn't a bad thing. Also they have the resources to deal with such a burden. They can call on expert witnesses, and they get to hear opinions from both sides of the story. The law now shifts the burden of deciding what is reasonable to the police. The oversight has gone, and unlike the courts they are a single individual acting alone. The best they can do is base their decisions on common sense and instinct.

I am not really interested in the finer points of the law. Unlike MaryE I know my limits, and fine points of law is well beyond them. But the law aside, shifting the burden of judgement to the police like this for the sake of political expediency seems just wrong. If they want to ban smacking, then have the guts to make it illegal. If they want to leave it up to "community standards" without defining what they are, then leave it in the hands of the courts who are equiped to deal with that sort of ambiguity.

As you say, leaving it to individuals like yourself to sort out what "a child is not being cared for adequately" means is a very big ask. So big it is asking for trouble.

Rstuart:”As you say, leaving it to individuals like yourself to sort out what "a child is not being cared for adequately" means is a very big ask. So big it is asking for trouble.”

Huge problem, through not understanding correctly I don’t want to be blamed for a child’s removal, if the child is at risk I want them removed but might not report correctly so leave a child at risk of harm. This is a new role for me and not one I appreciate being told post placement.

So in NZ the police having gone from working out if it is “reasonable force” to being responsible for figuring out if the force was used under the set guidelines a parent requires to use force.

It is a bit of a change in directions. Previously the “why” of it was left up to court and the “action” taken is what the police acted upon?

I’m thinking out loud there, have I put it correctly?

“If what you are saying is: "while we try to define the bright lines, the world in reality is a very blury place that isn't compatible with firm lines in the sand", then it looks pretty clear to me. And you are right.”

Wow, that was really good. I wish I could write like that.