Have your say > Bills and new laws > To smack or not to smack?

To smack or not to smack?

Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill

Not quite sure what a bill is or what an MP stands for? Check out Dr. Glossie’s Glossary of Political Terms

What's the bill about?
You may have seen a whole lot of stuff in the news about the 'smacking bill' in the past year. What they are talking about is Section 59 of the Crimes Act. At the moment, under the Crimes Act parents who are taken to Court for assaulting their children can say that they were just using "reasonable force". In some recent Court cases this has meant that parents who have beaten their children with a belt or a block of wood have been protected by law.

There's been a heap of debate about this in the news, in Parliament and amongst the rest of us folk. Some of the main arguments are about parents’ rights versus children's rights, the difference between smacking and assault and whether it harms kids to be smacked by their parents.

There used to be another section in the Crimes Act that allowed teachers to use reasonable force too but that bit got taken out awhile back.
 
Why were they trying to change the law?
People who wanted the law changed argued that parents shouldn't have the right to punish their children using physical force. They wanted children protected from violence in the same way that adults are. Some people also thought that a change in the law would lead to a general change in people's attitudes to children and that this would help to lower New Zealand's high levels of child abuse and child deaths.

What about those people against the bill?
Some people argued that parents should be able to use smacking (light physical punishment) to discipline their kids - they were worried that parents who do this would be taken to Court and punished if there is a change in the law.

Youth voices to the government!
Activate, a youth advisory group for the Ministry of Youth Development, gave a presentation to the select committee on this bill. They used info from a survey around New Zealand to get young people's thoughts on the whole deal of Section 59. Over 100 young people's thoughts on this bill were received and some of their words were said directly to the select committee.

Activate's position was that Section 59 should be taken out of the law. They did not support the physical punishment of children or young people. See related documents at the bottom of the page to see the presentation they gave the select committee.

What did young people say in the survey?
Here are some of the things that young people said about the bill.
"Why can we not stop parents/child abuse or 'reason able force' hitting? Or is there no other way that our society cannot live without physical discipline towards our children?"
13 year old Pacific Island girl

 “You cannot discipline bad behaviour from children with further bad behaviour (assault on child by adult).”
19 year old NZ European

“Letting most parents get away with hitting their kids with objects shouldn’t be allowed!”
14 year old Indian

“I agree with the abolition of Section 59, as long as parents lightly smacking their children for disobedience will not be prosecuted.”
15 year old NZ European

“I think it's okay to smack as long as it doesn’t leave a bruise, permanent mark or scars.”
17 year old NZ European

“I think it’s bad because it hurts their feelings really bad and make them miserable.”
16 year old Asian

“Why can we not stop parents/child abuse or 'reason able force' hitting? Or is there no other way that our society cannot live without physical discipline towards our children”
 13 years Pacific Islander

 “They shouldn’t repeal it … because it won’t solve the problem”
15 year old NZ European

 How do politicians decide?
At the end of the day, the whole of parliament and all the MPs vote on bills and it comes down to counting the votes for and against.

Some political parties have a 'caucus decision' that means when it comes to voting on the bill, they will vote all the same even if they personally don't agree with the 'party decision'. Sometimes parties let their people do a 'conscience vote' which means that they can vote the way they personally want to.

The life of the bill
The bill got examined carefully by the select committee which has reps for all the different biggish political parties, it got thrashed out in parliament and then back for another round… and again, phew! When the bill gets a reading in parliament (there are always three readings), all the politicians get to have a go at it and debate whether they think Section 59 should be removed or not.

The bill got a bit of a delay at the last reading because one MP throw up a bunch of proposals to change the date the bill would become a 'law. All fun and games in the world of select committees, big debates and law making!

An end to the 'smacking debate'
The Bill had some changes made to it to put adult's minds at rest that they wouldn't end up in court for lightly smacking their children. With this change to the Bill, MPs voted and the Bill was passed which means it was given the big thumbs up!

This means from June 2007, the words "reasonable force" have been removed from the Crimes Act.

Top of page