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.