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