|
Have your say > Bills and new laws > To smack or not to smack
To smack or not to smack? The Section 59 Bill
Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill
You may have seen a whole lot of stuff in the news about the 'smacking bill' a couple of years ago. What they are talking about is Section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Before mid 2007, under the Crimes Act, parents who are taken to Court for assaulting their children could say that they were just using "reasonable force". In some 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.
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 who were 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 was a change in the law.
Youth Voices on the bill
Activate, a youth advisory group for the Ministry of Youth Development, presented to the select committee on this bill. They used information from a survey around New Zealand to get young people's thoughts on Section 59. Over 100 young people's thoughts on this bill were received and some of their words were given 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. Click here to see the presentation they gave the select committee.
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
2007: The bill becomes law
The bill had some changes made to it to put people'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, from June 2007, the words "reasonable force" were been removed from the Crimes Act.
Top of page
|