NZ Centre for Political Research

*To me, the 'anti-smacking' is like the Employment Relations ie- the cards are stacked too heavily on one side. One side can raise merry hell at will and the other side has to comply with and justify their acions every step of the way. One mis-step & you're in big trouble. I see that a learned employer will be better poised to handle an 'anti-smacking' better that the majority of the population as they are trained/learned to the legal situation & processes it is a dark and evil cloud brewing in society. It's a continuing case of 'the tail wagging the dog'. JOHN

*One problem with the debate on the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is that is focuses almost exclusively on what the police may or may not do.

As an agency the police is the most significant crime fighting and prosecuting agency. However, a prosecution by the police leading to a criminal conviction is not the only risk the repeal of section 59 creates for parents.

Assault (causing another to apprehend an imminent battery) and battery (an unwanted application of physical force) are torts. That means a parent who threatens to smack a child could be sued for the civil tort of assault even if the threat is not carried out. Further, a child who is actually smacked could sue for battery.

Note that the criminal offence of "assault" includes both the civil torts of "assault" and "battery" but in civil law they have distinct meanings.

The more likely scenario is that interfering "do-gooder" busy bodies do their best to see that the child issued proceedings, the laws against maintenance and champerty notwithstanding. Importantly, the standard of proof is the civil standard -- balance of probabilities. That is, the child suing only has to prove that it is more probable that the tort was committed than not.

It is also possible for anyone to issue an information pursuant to the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, alleging a criminal offence has been committed. In such a prosecution the private prosecutor has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offence but that prosecutor need have no connection with the defendant nor the child who was allegedly smacked.

Of course there are defences both to the criminal and civil prosecutions that may flow from a smacking incident but the most important of these is section 59. If that is removed, there is no knowing how seriously the threat of litigation or criminal prosecution may hamper parents simply trying to do their best.

Finally, by removing children from their natural parents and placing them in foster care the State would be committing far greater abuse than any amount of smacking from the natural parents. PHILIP

*Smacking is a New Zealand institution.

It is the ugly habit of New Zealand - a lazy, quick fix to a problem which sends the message to kids that hitting is the way to deal with problems. People don't smack their kids because its the best form of discipline - they just don't have the means to discipline positively. This bill is not targeting parents who use reasonable force to restrain a child in the interests of their immediate safety. It is targeting New Zealand’s deep rooted smacking culture. A lot of parents smack their children because they are whining, or won’t go to bed, or have hit their sibling or acted in any other non-safety threatening behaviour, this bill will not mean these parents will be prosecuted, rather it will reinforce to them the fact that smacking is a negative and detrimental form of discipline. This bill will initiate a change in the culture of smacking in New Zealand. The point is that a ZERO tolerance towards smacking will have more of a productive effect on serious incidences of physical abuse towards children than the current situation where hitting is tolerated.

How parents discipline their children is a freedom - children not being hit is also a freedom. Telling parents not to hit their children does not invade parents freedom - it reinforces childrens freedom. JOEL

Peter has just sent through this "excellent" contribution to the section 59 debate! Just click here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBQxll2aDjI

*With 3 adult children who were smacked with a wooden spoon from time to time, and who are still my dearest friends, and who are not in any way violent or aggressive I cannot believe that adding another state control can in any way help children. My only rule for myself was that I did not smack in anger. Not always easy, but I would ensure that I had control of myself before I disciplined a child. Surely 'self control' is what we should be aiming for ? Margaret

*I believe that this is a very dangerous bill. Children are already out of control. This bill puts the children in control - they will definately use it to get their way with their parents with the threat of them calling the police. the government needs to remove itself from trying to control and takeover the rights of parents. what is disgusting is that now the use of force to put a child into a time-out zone will now be not allowed Rachel

*Of course it will. Children who grow up without a healthy respect for those in authority will ALWAYS end up in the justice system. The ongoing effects will be catestrophic to the family as human nature dictates this will only be the thin edge of the wedge. Who knows how far this will be taken but you can be certain that we as a society will pay dearly with higher youth crime rate, broken families and the like. Peter

*As Ms Bradford feels that at 43 I am unable to choose good, safe and effective discipline for my toddlers maybe she could tell me what I should have for breakfast as I am obviously unable to make that decision on my own also. Karen

*Kids today are disrespectful enough. This bill will not stop the crimes like the kahui murder but it will cause a lot of heartache for parents who are held with the threat "I will phone the cops" Get real people and let the parents do their job. Vicky

*Yes, a little pain judiciously applied to a naughty and rebellioius child when young can prevent a great deal more pain and heartache cuased by an undisciplined and unruly youth later. Hans

*I think that the law change would be a stupid thing . My children even at 19, 17 and 15 would tell you of me giving them a smack and that they deserved it, they love there mum and dad and respect other people with authority Albert

*Our prime minister can be classed a large number of places BELOW car dealers and real estate agents. So for down that she cannot see them!!.
The sooner she goes the better. It is hoped that some of her labour ""yes men' Will vote against this proposed bill. I went to a boarding school where the cane was used. It definitely taught you that for an offence there is a reaction. Wet bus tickets do not help at all. Malcolm

*This bill will not reduce child abuse. That's obvious, and confirmed by countless experts. It will drastically undermine parental authority. So how will children learn to respect any authority? Deal with the abuse but stop this misguided insanity. Bruce

*I also belive any MP who has never had Children should not have the right to vote on this bill. Jamie

*Stop the MADNESS NOW!!! Santiago

*Any MP who follows their party line by voting for the bill should have a couple of little horrors dropped off at their home three times a week. I believe this would change their tiny minds. Of course not every unrestrained child will follow a life of crime but lack of the first line of discipline at home may well start a train of problems due to the lack of it. Ron

*Yet another example of the abuse of power by the leftist lead Labour goverment.... How much longer can average, hard working NZ'rs take this...? John

*I have been involved with ToughLove for 5 years. Most of the parents who need this service have been too "nice" throughout their child's life, and as a result the child is out of control. Margaret

*I rememeber well being smacked on the legs when I was naughty. I don't think that left me an emotionally crippled adult but I certainly respected authority! Mark

*An increase in anti-social behaviour and youth crime is so obvious, it's scary. Sandra

*I thought we lived in a democracy. What about a Referendum. Yeah, right. This would threaten the current barmy socialist minority government. Bruce

*I have seen the way that ""Protection orders"" are issued in a ""cry wolf"" fashion in the family court. The anti smacking ban is planned to give the mothers another angle to defather their children. The repeal of this law brings into law a very communist style of government control over our families - I regret that I had a child in this country - All I can hope to do is make NZ more "Family Friendly". Gary

*"A Loving Father" and Victim of the Family Court together with my daughter, Samantha. Gary

*Political Correctness gone mad. Jim

*It is essential that children learn that wrong actions result in painful consequences. It is a simple law of nature that we suffer when we act stupidly. One way we learn this principle is when our parents impose penalties on our wrong behaviour. Repeal of section 59 simply disempowers parents who understand that they are responsible to train their children, that training involves correction and correction involves imposing painful consequences for anti-social behaviour. Peter

*I believe the anti smacking bill will not be a success, as stated parents need to have effective sanctions when their childen misbehave. This bill will not stop the offenders who continually abuse children. Gay

*No, youth crime will not increase. Neither will it decrease. The repeal of the act will mean little in reality, and society will not change as a result. It is largely a waste of time, but if seven serious rights abusers receive the proper justice for abusing their children over the next seventeen years, then it is worth it. Seven is not a small number to those being abused. Martin
*If one does not discipline children they are not going to learn respect and responsibility. Heck even lion and bear cubs get a whack with the paw for misbehaving, puppies get a nip from their mothers, kittens get rolled and bowled over by their mothers, the list can go on and on.
Discipline does mean "punishment given to correct a person or enforce obedience" and discipline can also mean "training that produces obedience and self-control". I fail to see how we can get one without the other from our youth. Wendi

*Of course it will. Similar laws elsewhere provide ample evidence that lack of discipline leads to anti social behaviours. Children need to be restrained and that means that effective sanctions must be available to parents. Children below the age of say 3 in general, simply cannot be reasoned with. A physical retribution is about the only thing they understand at that age. If they are not disciplined they will never learn that bad behaviour will lead to problems both for themselves and their family/relatives. Parents MUST be able to use light force ( i.e smacking or physical restraints or taking achild to its room to be banned for a while) as long as it is not excessive and amounts to abuse. Martin

*Parents are the first authoritative figures children meet in their lives. If parents cannot teach their children to respect their authority, those children will not respect any authority, leading to rebellion, anti-social behaviour and chaos in society. It is already evident in society that many parents shirk the responsibility of raising their children to become useful, law-abiding citizens. To deny parents who conscientiously try their hardest the means to carry out this enormous task is asking for trouble. Marian

*Looking at the youth problems we already have, taking away parents right to discipline their children, will only multiply the problem. Brent

*Our children are already using the proposed reform as a weapon against parents, supposedly believing it to be law. Manipulative, controlling, immature, irresponsible 8 - 9 year olds out of control does not sound like my idea of a great future society, but rather Lord of the Flies brewing up for a global assault, am I the only one who can see similarities in society and this 'fictional' book? Thank you for caring about all of our futures, heaven knows what it will be like if we older ones get cared for in old age by unruly, self-centred, out of control children/adults. Kerry

*This weekend we had one of my employee's friends who was walking home alone in Birkenhead attacked with a hammer by four youths in a passing car - he is in hospital and just OK. This is a regular occurance for today's youth - I am nearly 50 years old and in my time I have seen massive Social decline under various Governments over the last 30 years - this law is another BIG step in the WRONG direction! Mark

*Banning smacking Children is NOT a good idea at all. It takes away parents authority over their young children. There is nothing wrong with a simple smack on the bottom or back of the hand etc when it is needed. Our next generation children are going to grow up with no discipline. It is already starting to become reliavant in schools. For example: What is a parent going to do when their child is misbehaving in the supermarket... just let them run riot i don't think so. We have all been brought up with disapline and my parents smacked me when i needed it. It never did any harm and has not had any bad affects on me latter in life. If anything it is good for children it shows them that when they do something wrong they get punished. You generaly do not do it again becouse you know the consequences. Catherine

*I think you'd be naive to think otherwise! Renee

*There is a deeper cause for the degradation and breakdown of family. Child abuse will always stay so long as the root causes do not get solved. Putting the blame on ALL parents who use reasonable force to discipline their children for the misconduct of the few who have desecrated the sacred rights of being parents is downright UNFAIR and UNJUST. Monaleen

*Yes, absolutely. The removal of corporal punishment in schools has wrought havoc in the classrooms and bullying and violence in schools against both teachers and other students is rampant. Take the last vestiges of the parental armoury away with this anti-smacking bill, and childrens behavioural excesses will multiply again. Civil Society will of course, be the victim of such stupidity. It's all about engineering the fall of civil society, preceded as always by the thirst after the tyranny of power by crazed Dictators, of which Helen Clark and her perverted cronies are card carrying members. Ah well, you dopey apathetic kiwi's, saturate yourselves in football, soccer, beer, consumer geegaws and foldirolls and ignore your patriotic responsibilities as Citizens of New Zealand. Let this maniacal Labour Government full of perverts take the souls of your children and turn them in to idiot puppets of the state. They have already set up a breeding programe for Lesbians and Homosexuals with their sex education in schools. Now let them further destroy the ability of parents to create a secure framework for their young to grow up in, and the task of destruction will be complete. Lemmings to the cliff will be the only solution then. But that's OK, as long as you don't miss your next episode of Coro or the rugby, she'll be right. Dianne

*Sue Bradford needs her head seen to even think this is what people would want.The children could easily blackmail the parents if they did smack them lightly or haevily. What have the members of parliment that we put into power come to. Noeline

*It is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen from our so-called representatives. It displays rock-bottom thinking and analysis abilities with a single-minded twisted agenda. Porus

*I believe this is just another step in the Labour Party's desire to make NZ a Govt/Police controlled state.Parents should be responsible for the training/mentoring of their own children, not the state.Changing the law will not guarentee a change in behaviour. Don

*All children need an effective authority figure(s) in their lives! Geoff

*We already live in a ridculously PC society. Politicians should not dictate how families control or discipline their kids. Instead deal with child abuse where proven in the harshest way possible. Do not tar everyone with the same brush because one or more people are on some sort of personal crusade/feel good about themselves mission. Concentrate on more important issues that concern the country and stop meddling in people's day to day lives. Charles

*Youth crime and anti-social behaviour have been spiralling out of control since children were given 'rights', the first step in diluting and eventually doing away with parental responsibility. It is well understood that this is the first step in develping a communist nation i.e. the dispandment of the family unit. When communism was "disbanded" in Russia, the West rejoiced - no more communist threat to the world as we knew it. Little did we realise that this was just the beginning of the rise and rise of communism in the Western world, they just went about it a smarter way, by infiltrating the education system and then governments. NZ was always a sitter for this insidious take-over which began in the mid-70's- a small population with a high standard of living. Its all very alarming, is it too late to stop it?? Sharen

*I believe that our most precious asset and heritage as a nation - the democratic process - is being undermined for the sake of political expediency by a short-sighted government driven only by the personal desire for political survival - and to heck with the nation! Dirk

*Sue Bradford's removal of Section 59 is ridiculous and can only have an adverse effect on social behaviour in NEW ZEALAND Bill

*This is ridiculous already i have heard children say to thier parents whilst being diciplined i am going to sue your ass! And this was after a small smack for welding a knife on another child on the way to school! My 2nd husband and i tried to adopt my biological child so he could have the same surname as us with my exhusbands permission and because we used time out and smacked our children CYFS opposed our application. So by repealing section 59 this would give authorities more power and children would take the place of parents and tell us what is going to happen. Would Helen like to be told she was going to get her head smashed in by some street kid and not be able to use reasonable force to control the situation because it was against the law and she would then become the criminal? Smacking didnt turn me into an emotional wreak. I went on to respect peoples rights know right from wrong and become an asset to society with no criminal records not even a parking ticket. Lets leave things alone and continue to protect children as we do now by not removing parents rights who mean well. There is a difference between a smack and a hiding and if our health professionals cant tell the difference now what will the repeal of section 59 do? Leah

*Since 1968 "family" laws have strengthened bureaucratic control and provided a field of profit for lawyers and destruction of family life. What kind of society does Miss Helen Clark want ? Jim

*You bet it will!!! Look at the state of New Zealand now that we "good parents" still can teach our children. Crime is always going upward, children have lack of respect for their own parents, the law and the police. Imagine what state our country will be in when the children are running around doing what is right in their own sight!! Francis

*Passing this bill will turn us into a Dictatorship. Mike

*This will turn good parents into criminals and will NOT address the violence against children. This is due to family breakdown which the repeal will cause more of. Intelligent PM would understand this and would heed the warnings given by foreign examples. Please be thinking MP's. Margaret

*Jean Jacques Rousseau's disciples are alive and well and sadly in a position to make life decidedly uncomfortable for the rest of us. Catherine

*PLEASE don't take away parental authority to discipline their children as they see fit. Section 59 already protects children from unnecessary abuse. NZ's horrendous child abuse stats are due to many other factors NOT parental smacking. Many parents smack their children as 1 form of discipline. They are not child abusers.Few parents inflict serious abuse on their children. Mostly from borken relationship families I observe. It is these families we need to identify and assist. Maree

*This bill rewrds parents who neglect their parental responsibility to discipline children and makes criminals of those who take parenting seriously Evan

*I think that the success of this bill would disempower parents who genuinely want to bring up their children as good citizens. It is well intentioned but misguided. Mary

*Of course it will. children already tell their parents what they can and can not do... Andrew

*Not only do I believe it will lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour and youth crime, I also believe it will result in state sanctioned violence against the family, the foundation of a civilised order. If government, in its stupidity,amends or appeals Section 59, it will not alter for one moment, the behaviour of that small percentage of our population who are so lacking in self- government that they would inflict grievous harm or violence upon their own offspring. It will however, make criminals of thousands, who conscientiously work day after day to instill in their children a healthy regard for authority in the home and the wider community. To administer a smack where necessary, may cause a brief and temporary discomfort, but in the long term will bear the fruit of a peaceful civilisation.I find something very sinister at work in people in government, who on the one hand decry the abuse of children, and yet on the other, in gross hypocritical fashion and under the guise of the benevolent state, would turn around and inflict this same abuse upon the family. The consequences of such legislation will be felt for many years down the track, as parents are forced to stand helplessly aside while their children become a law unto themselves. A great recipe for chaos. Keep government out of the home. It has no jurisdiction there. Christine

*We are going to end up with a society full of 'monsters' as is the case in Sweden if this repeal of Section 59 goes through. Cherie

*No thinking New Zealander can surely believe that the anti-smacking legislation will have any positive effect on this country. The negative effects will resonante for years to come.It is yet another move towards total Government control of our lives. Stu

*Please work very hard from your position to stop this bill.I am the father of four lovely teenagers who are only lovely because they were lovingly disciplined when it was appropriate, by the means appropriate to each occasion. This included corporal punishment. It is as logical to class appropriate corporal punishment as violence as it is to class a parental hug as sexual violation. I have also worked as the principal of a composite school for four years, and seen what happens when children are not disciplined - the result is social chaos. This bill is an evil on a number of levels. Todd

*I AM A GRANDMOTHER AND DO NOT BELIEVE IN VIOLENCE IN ANY FORM BUT THE PASSING OF THIS BILL WILL MAKE CRIMINALS OUT OF GOOD PARENTS AND BAD PARENTS WILL STILL BE BAD PARENTS. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE ANTI SMACKING BILL AND WILL VOTE ACCORDINGLY AT THE NEXT ELECTION AGAINST ANY PARTY SO SHORT SIGHTED. Joyce

*Your article points out correctly that the authority of parents will be underminded and it has to result in manipulation and some sort of anarchy. Peter

*What more can be said. It was all in your article. We cannot let this repeal come to pass Rachel

*Why can't there be a vote of no faith in the the government over this.
Mark

*The people promoting the repeal of section 59 are contributing to the breakdown of societal restraint. They are not contributing AT ALL to the prevention of child abuse. Abusers will abuse regardless of the law, and regardless of the effect on their children. This bill will hurt good parents most, it will damage families throughout our nation and it will contribute to the ongoing destruction of the fabric of western society. Mark

*If parents cannot discipline their children, the children will take control of their parents' and families' lives. Parents will fear their children instead of children having a healthy respect for their parents. This will lead to children having no respect for the law or anyone in authority. is this what we want in NZ? The Labour government's (i.e. Helen Clark's) removing the right for their MP's to vote on conscience is an abuse of power and the parliamentary process, which disempowers any who want to vote according to their conscience and the wishes of those who elected them. Laurie

*It is a dangerous law where children will have little respect for parents or anyone else in authority. Diane

*Simply, it is not the governments business to tell good parents how they should bring up their children. We are getting very close to a communist society. Even freedom of speech has almost disappeared. Eddie

*Witness the increase violence in schools since corporal discipline was removed! Jant

*There has already been a decrease in respect for authority, the first place this is learnt is in the home. I believe that children are already protected under section 59. If a parent has genuinely abused their child, they have already broken the law in regards to 'reasonable force'. I wish that there was the same effort put into the more important issues in this country, i.e. cutting down hospital waiting lists, education, poverty, economic growth, crime and a whole host of others, rather than all this social engineering. From my reading, and what I hear in the community, there is an overwhelming majority against the repeal of section 59. When did New Zealand suddenly become a dictatorship rather than a democracy? Veronica

*The Bill is clearly anti-family, anti-authoritarian and anti-social. The lunatic Greens and the Marxist Labour have an ideology that states that our children belong to the State and not to their parents and families. Not so!! History shows quite clearly that when the government wants to interfere in social policy, it just ends up creating a mess. Look at the track record recently. Increased drunkenness from underaged youth. Legalised prostitution. And there is more. And now they want to remove the boundaries of parental authority from our children, so that they may engage in anti-family, anti-authoritarian and anti-social behaviour. The result will be? Bigger prisons, due to unrestrained children growing up not knowing the difference between good and evil. Hands off our families, Sue Bradford. God defend New Zealand against MP's like her, and the wave of madness that will result if this Bill becomes law. Walter

*A high percentage of youth now days have a serious antisocial attitude. This will lead to even more antisocial behaviour and defiance. Wayne

*I believe that parents are the most important authority figures in a childs life. If children do not learn (as is a parents job!!) to obey and respect their parents, what sort of adults are they going to turn into when they get older!! All of our lives are about being under some sort of authority be it an employer or police etc. so we are setting our children up for their futures!! To discipline a child is to bring correction into their lives, so they can learn respect and boundaries etc. Discipline is not all about smacking a child but can be an effective tool. To discipline a child is showing you love and care for their wellbeing now and in their futures!! I believe this bill passing will probably not stop at just not being allowed to smack your child but will lead into the government believing they have rights to interfer in other aspects of family life, this is why I am opposing it!! I am looking out for my children's and grandchildrens futures!! Tam

*Muriel - well said. To repeal s 59 will, as you say, criminalise good parents whose only 'crime(s)' are that they are not charismatic or manipulative enough to always get obedience from their children without smacking; or that they have particularly defiant, aggressive children afflicted with problems such as ADHD. Surely smacks for an ADHD child do far less long-term harm than drugs like Ritalin! 'Time-out' & 'naughty mats' do not work for every child, every time. The really worrying result of this Bradford Bill is it will increase the number of CYFS employees 'needed' to snatch children from 'abusive' (smacking) parent. It will also increase the number of children put at the untender mercies of the drug addicts, alcoholics and molesters numbered among CYFS foster parents. Whether or not the Bradford Bill gets through, here's a suggestion for another law change: CYFS cannot remove a child from its parents' care & custody unless they GUARANTEE the child will be better off with the CYFS-approved foster parents. This guarantee to mean CYFS is liable as an institution, AND its social workers and foster parents are liable as individuals, for hefty six-figure damages should harm befall the child they snatch. A good a means as any as encouraging accountability on Nanny State's family-bashing minions? Ann

*I'm going to e-mail Harry and tell him to vote with his conscience ! Stuart

*I have experienced a systematic undermining of authority from significant adult figures over the years, and perceived a reciprocal loss of respect for authority from children. They have been empowered before they have the ability to accept responsibility. The repeal will not stop abusers from bashing their children. It will provide another means to criminalise parents for disciplining children. Tom

*I was under the impression that the multi billion dollar so called Justice system had enough victims to fleece in the NZ population, now they want to add Parents to their list. How many children has Bradford raised or is she too busy playing the big wig to enter this most difficult and demanding undertaking, she may just as well demand that all parents have their hands surgically removed. Her TV appearance is not comforting, this person is supposed to be representing the citizens of this country in a sensible practical manner, not making criminals of them to satisfy her own grand standing. Does not impress me and is the laughing stock of most intelligent people I have spoken with about her bill. Alfred

*I was smacked occasionally in my childhood by my parents and I deserved it and knew that I deserved it. It didn't stop me loving them and respecting them. Elizabeth

*Why will criminalising ordinary law abiding citizens stop the people who take no notice of the law suddenly change the way they treat each other eg within their families. Bring in compulsory parenting courses or spend money on re education not increasing the number of criminals. Deon

*Have you or your loved ones ever been through the harrowing experience of a CYFS enquiry from a false complaint? It is frightening, harrassing and plain immoral. There will be a raft of false or inaccurate complaints that will clog up CYFS, Police and the courts who are too busy already for this. We were exonorated but after 3 horrible weeks of uncertainty and over 12 staff at CYFS and beyond having valuable time wasted due to a malicious caller that lied and never had to leave her name. look into the reality of what really goes on when a false complaint is made. It will be a revelation to most! Jannette

*An undisciplined child will always follow his base nature. To teach him self control we need to provide significant boundaries reinforced by the one thing a child understands - a smack. Lynley

*Hello!! We have already seen the disaster in schools since corporal punishment was removed. This is a disater in the making. Wake up and please stop meddling in our family. Mike

*Of course - no boundaries, no direction, no discipline, no respect for authority, no responsibility..... aren't there books written about this, for adults who have to now learn to correct their antisocial behaviours?! By repealing this bill this is all going to get WAY worse. Parents will be afraid of doing anything. Korina

*I have read many articles with ref to other countries anti smacking laws and totaly agree that it does not work .This is only a ploy by Labour to get support of the Greens as they are becoming desprarte to hold onto power at any cost .John Keys should come out and state that he would repeal the act if National got into power. Chris

*Children need their parents to show them right from wrong, there are so many problems in this country because of lack of repect by the younger ones, this bill will make criminals of loving, caring parents, who have their childrens best interest at heart, and smacking will now take place behind closed doors, there are more problems in this country that need looking at instead of wasting time on this one. Maureen

*There is so much frustration in the way that this govt is undermining the family unit . This will only be at a huge social cost to NZ. Andrew

*Living in a home with a solo mother who would not smack for the fear of being accused of abusing her children and having them taken away, I have watched my younger siblings turn to such anti-social behaviours, being in trouble with the law, abusing others, teen age pregnancy and drug and alcohol abuse, one of my younger sisters even told my mother the reason she would not listen to her was because she would not smack, as a result I am a firm believer that discipline is needed, every child is different some may need a smack, not a beating, but a smack, and some may respond to less but it should be the right of every parent to discipline the way their child needs using reasonable force without fear of being prosecuted for trying to do their best by their child. Anita

*Yes most definitely it wil. It is very anti family and the worst law ever. We thought we were a democracy....guess not as it is clear just about everyone is against it. Michael and Ann

*The most charitable view is that it seems to be based on a very misguided understanding of families and parenting. At worst, it could be seen as a deliberate attempt to wrest the rightful authority from parents and transfer it to the state. But how is the state going to deal with the resulting social problems that will surely follow? Michael

*To follow Sweden's path in this repeal, which has led to an upheaval in child and parent relationshipsin that country, is MADNESS. Herman

*The nation is plagued with ill brought-up youngsters now, undermining the remaining parents who exercise control over their children is madness. John

*Why the hell we insist on copying other countries is beyond me,the causes of child abuse go way deeper than changing a law. While we have a welfare / benefit sub culture we will have child abuse. Sad but true. Glen

*Your question is worded like a double negative you may get interesting responses based on the understanding of the question... John-Paul

*This will lead to increasing problems in the family courts as well, with fueding parents claiming the other parent has used force against the children. Ted

*People who abuse children will continue to do so no matter what the law says, therefore any change will only affect the one who already use smacking appropriately. Children need boundaries. Jeff

*I find it incredulous that any adult would consider that any child understands the consequences of their actions. They see the next 5 minutes, not next week or the week after. What about their obligations to to not hurt other childern, to assist their parents who are not running serviced apartments for them? Is no food as won't assist with dishes, no toys as won't put them away, no parties as wilfilly misbehaved, no bikes as leave them out for theft, abuse? My kids think so. These pollies are nutters!! Cliff

*Most definitely. Originally from the UK I have friends there that confirm this is the worst thing that could happen to us. The number of "out of control" children and then youths has and is increasing and no one dare touch any child even if it is to help them for fear of being accused of a abuse either physical or sexual. My sister who is a 61 year old mother says she would not go to a crying child in the street for fear of any repocussions how sad is that. Surely New Zealand does not want to head off down this track. I understand that parliament is supposed to be the "House of representatives of the people" yet all the polls shows strong opposition to this bill, how then do our representatives vote it in. It makes a total farce of the system. Martin

*Most definitely! Youth are out of control now and it will get even worse if Section 59 is repealed! Murray

*It's a no brainer! Nick

*This is the first bill introduced by the Labour government that actually takes away my rights and demands something from me that is against my conscience. Other bills such as the Prostitution Reform Bill and Civil Unions Bill, although I do not agree with them they have not interfered with my personal choice. The "anti-smacking bill" does. May it be the final nail in the coffin to bring this Labour government down. Rise up New Zealand and do not be bullied into submission. Arna

*Anyone who understands human nature and has even an elementary knowledge of human behaviour and psychology understands this law will undermine the basis of how a society transmits its values from generation to generation. That is of course precisely what socialists have been trying to destroy for almost a century. Lech

*No comment required. As grandparents we know that our children will take their responsibility; a smacking ban is utterly unwanted. Dr. M

*We see it at the school with graffiti vandals all under 16, police pick them up but can't do any thing. Ian

*The lesson learnt to date with in the schooling system shows exactly where we are heading !!! Mal.

*I believe that taking out a parent's right to be able to give some form of disipline will mean children rule! And as adult's they will do exactly what they like with no rules! It will brake down socail behaviour, and bring parent's to their knees! They will rule the roost and we'll have more youth crime. Susan

*This is a ridiculous assertion! Repeal of this outdated legislative protection will help send a message that NZ is getting serious about seeking to prevent violence - in all its forms. Murray

*Yes it would cause mayhem in this country. The young ones these days are out of controll what will it be like in a few years time. It did us not harm getting a smack on the bottom when we did something wrong. It is a no win thing these days with this no smacking i have notice that parents dont smack but yell and scream at the kids. What is worse having a smack or been yelled at 24/7. Sharron

*"Spare the rod and spoil the child" might be an ancient anachronism in the p/c correct thinking of our so-called ""modern"" enlightened times. But it does illustrate the need for some, maybe physical application of a small amount of pain to instil the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
All higher organisms...[and humans still belong to the animal kingdom even though our veneer of civilisation maybe skin deep],resort to nip, bite,cuff or God help us a ""smack"" to guide our offspring in the learning experiences of life....to survive and perhaps retain some order of civilised behaviour and self-discipline.Without which the human race would self destruct.The punitive attempts by the State to take over that role of Mum or Dad has proved time and again to be nothing but a sick joke.""Tazers, Glocks and Styers, Club Pore or Rima just prove it is too late using the ""nanny"" State method.Teach the parents how to parent would be a start. Political correctness has clearly made this a forgotten art.In the mean time leave the law the way it is.It has the teeth to do the job without destroying the parents, the family or society from the inside out. The Bradford Law will turn parents into criminals and kids into despots..... and who wins? Cedric

*Hardly a robust polling method. Jane

*There is no way that I would support violence towards a child, however in some cumstances a light smack or a wake up call as I call it is in the best intrests of the childs welfare, running onto the road without looking being a perfect example. Graeme

*Parents should be allowed to discipline their children with smacking so that the children will grow up to respecting others and learn right from wrong. Christine

*I can't see that the law change proposed will have any effect one way or the other. However I do not support the law because if it is not to be enforced the it is a waste of resources. Russell

*One problem with the debate on the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is that is focuses almost exclusively on what the police may or may not do. As an agency the police is the most significant crime fighting and prosecuting agency. However, a prosecution by the police leading to a criminal conviction is not the only risk the repeal of section 59 creates for parents. Assault (causing another to apprehend an imminent battery) and battery (an unwanted application of physical force) are torts. That means a parent who threatens to smack a child could be sued for the civil tort of assault even if the threat is not carried out. Further, a child who is actually smacked could sue for battery. Note that the criminal offence of "assault" includes both the civil torts of "assault" and "battery" but in civil law they have distinct meanings. The more likely scenario is that interfering "do-gooder" busy bodies do their best to see that the child issued proceedings, the laws against maintenance and champerty notwithstanding. Importantly, the standard of proof is the civil standard -- balance of probabilities. That is, the child suing only has to prove that it is more probable that the tort was committed than not. It is also possible for anyone to issue an information pursuant to the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, alleging a criminal offence has been committed. In such a prosecution the private prosecutor has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offence but that prosecutor need have no connection with the defendant nor the child who was allegedly smacked. Of course there are defences both to the criminal and civil prosecutions that may flow from a smacking incident but the most important of these is section 59. If that is removed, there is no knowing how seriously the threat of litigation or criminal prosecution may hamper parents simply trying to do their best. Finally, by removing children from their natural parents and placing them in foster care the State would be committing far greater abuse than any amount of smacking from the natural parents. Phillip


*The proposed replacement section 59 is oxymoronic. Total repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act might actually be preferable to the proposed replacement section 59 that the Select Committee has put forward. If section 59 were simply repealed then the Court would simply make common law about what parents could and could not do. Parliament would lose all control over the matter and policy would be set by whatever cases wound up before the Courts. Instead, the Select Committee decided that force could not be used for "correction" but it could be used to prevent a crime, for sfety of a child, or to control disruptive and anti-social behaviour of a child. However, where this crosses the line into correction is quite unclear. Surely, any parenting technique that seeks to modify the behaviour of a child is correction. Almost every parenting technique I have been taught in parenting classes involves some form of physical or psychological manipulation of the child's behaviour. The proposed law is going to say you can manipulate a child's behaviour but you cannot correct it! Surely correction is all about changing a child's behaviour. Perhaps the best advice to parents would be to perform a citizens arrest and then immediately call the police if their child misbehaves. Then a parent would be entitled to use reasonable force to detain the child until lawful authority arrives to investigate the case. Handcuffing the child or locking them in an empty room would seem legal, since the Police can do this. Maybe the age of criminal responsibility should be reduced too - to birth. Then the state could actually deal with young offenders because parents would not have the legal right to deal with them. Mind you, our Department of Corrections does seem to be unable to cope with its current workload of clients, so overloading them with a lot of naughty children may not be the best idea. If parents cannot correct their children, who else will? Cameron

*We are already seeing the results of parents having less control over children with an increase in all manner of social problems. Its a shame there are humans who harm children and I support the prevention of this, but parental discipline/control of their children must be supported also. Sue

*Leave off Political and think common sense, if you can! Ken

*There could be an increase in verbal intimidation of children, which is liable to be far more harmful. Repeal of the act will not reduce the number of children who are beaten to death by their caregivers. This is seldom done in public and those who have suspicions may still be afraid to speak out. In my country of origin in Europe where people hesitate to restrain a child in public, I saw, last August, a misbehaving under five year old child told to sit and stay at the side of a mountain track. His parents reached the car park, an hour's walk further on, before commenting on the fact that the child had not caught up with them. This is surely far more dangerous behaviour. Ann

*Goodness me! Where do we get our politicians? They are certainly not from the normal part of our society. I am so against child abuse! [I was brought up by an abusive father]. BUT as for not discipling your children?? Then of course we shouldn`t have to worry about the law as such as that is a form of discipling! You know "thou shalt not go through a red light, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not go to jail if you do as that is discipling you for doing something wrong! Can we please get some M.P.`s who are sane and rational? I don`t necessarilly have to agree with them but I would like someone who hasn`t completely lost their sanity! H.

*Parents have the right to discipline their children if children misbehave with reasonable force. on the other side of the coin if their children committed crime and the law may punnish parents for not discipline their children. The anti smacking law is useless and contradictary. Responsible parents always brought up good children and responsible citizen. Mun

*This bill will cause untold damage to innocent families firstly through prosecutions instigated by zealous social welfare agencies then, longer term, by loss of parental control over childrens discipline. Graham

*What a crazy Bill this is. Until now parents rightly had authority ... 'parents knew best'. Seems 'parents will soon know better!!John

*Yes most definately. After My marrage split (through wifes infidelity) my children were not disciplined and they ran riot and that lack of strong discipline has ruined them and my relationship with them. We must be able to smack our kids using an open and firm hand. Graham

*Please, again, again and again. Why do our elected?? mp's not listen to common sense people. It defies common sense. Will meet again in the public arena, will not forget. Get out! I am fed up to the back teeth with your antics. Surely there are better things to do, for heavens sake!!! Henk

*Since the time of the time of the strap and cane being taken out of schools you can see the result in youth crime and the lack of respect for authority which is sad as these people are going to regret this some day when they them selves are in places of prominence and see the folly of the whole exerces but as has been said before build more jails at lest it is won away of keeping unenployment down Russell

*This Bill will undermine all parental control, to the detriment of society as we know it. That is not what we want in this country. Ashton

*Youth crime will increase, as it has in other countries. Alan

*The Clarke dictatorship MUST be brought down with urgency. Her irrational communist ideology (communism has failed spectacularly in every country thats tried any form of it) and her corrupt and deceitful leadership is abhorrent. The real challenge however is assuming we get a change of government will its MPs have the guts to repeal all the social engineering that Sadam Clarke is deluged upon our one great country or will they just be spineless wimps! Steve

*I taught in a school which removed corporal punishment before it was legally obliged to. There was an immediate and significant escalation in violence between pupils, and, for the first time, pupils began to strike out at staff - particularly the young women. Children have no difficulty distinguishing between a smack given by an adult for a clearly recognised infringement of decent standards, and a lashing out by a child to a child. They, quite rightly, see that kind of force by an adult as just and fair. Children feel secure when that kind of force is used fairly and consistently. It didn't take long when it was removed from my school, for the rascals to understand that nobody would deal to them effectively if they belted up other kids. The removal of corporal punishment in schools produced the situation today where volence is epidemic in schools. If Bradford's bill is passed, the problem of violence carried out firstly by young people on each other and then onto the rest of society will follow as surely as night follows day. Common sense and the evidence tells plainly that this bill will "sow the wind and reap the whirlwind". Serious violence will escalate and parents will be criminalised. I weep for my children and grandchildren who will pay the price for the arrogant stupidity of these fantical, fundamentalist social engineers. Duncan

*Todays children are showing little respect for rules, laws/lores, parents, teachers and ones in authority. Problems will escalate with this bill going through because the children being abused rarely speak out if they are old enough to until they are adults or until the abuse has been uncovered by someone else. Colleen

*Sadly, politians seem to be a group of people who don't seem to learn from past errors. I harken back to the 'lower the drinking age' debacle (just as one example)......and yes - didn't THAT help our kids! Whilst most parents try to raise their children beginning at the 'thin end of the wedge' - and allowing more responsibililty as their children mature; our govenment seems hell-bent on tipping our 'wedges' on their heads and shaking our children right out in the process! It's hard enough raising children to be moral, contributing members of a society - where there probably won't be a society for them to contribute to soon anyway! Sue

*You have to be brain-dead to reach any other conclusion! Graham

*Isn't it strange that Harry Duynhoven won't change the law relating to Mobile Phone use in vehicles unless there is a referendum on the issue, but Sue Bradford's bill seems certain to go through without any reference to the electorate. The Labour Government is gutless and is hellbent on getting this through as they need the Greens so that they can hang on to the strappings of power. It is, in a word, Undemocratic Shame! Warren

*Children, like adults need to observe very clear rules of conduct in society. Break those rules and there are consequences, clearly seen or unstated. Childrem must also be subject to short clear objective response, when they break the rule. Caring Society is built on this premise. Ron

*This ridiculous bill must be stopped in its tracks.We as a nation are already too politically correct, this bill would do immense harm. Ben

*Swedish experience makes chilling reading. NZ does not need to follow such a flawed lead. Don

*This is another example of Communism in a green cloak. The answer is to better define reasonable force in the existing legislation. Dominic

*Children need boundaries. They cannot be reasoned with as if they are adults. I have a child that used to try to run into the road. Smacking saved his life. Alan

*It is essential that parents have the ability to control their children. Good parents rarely ned to use force but the child needs to have defined limits and to know the consequences if those are breached. Trewby

*As a 71 year old father of four Adult children who all have achieved relatively well in life, my wife and I consider we have been priviliged to have been able to bring up our family in an era when nearly everyone understood that children raised by caring parents who along with schools who knew that a smack on the back, if administered low enough solved many a crisis before a major problem developed. In Short- To hell with all the blinkered, misinformed do-gooders in Central and local Governnent. Colin

*This can only lead to less accountabilty on the behalf of children/ teenagers. As if that isn't already the case do we have to put up with it getting worse. How on earth will teachers cope let alone families with a wayward child. Are we ready for children to run the country, Peter

*This law is just ridiculouus, so much for democracy. Why not have a referendum? Derek

*Totally disillusioned with the political system. This is only one of several bills currently being pushed through despite vast and majourity oppposition by the public. David

*We welcome the anti smacking law supported by labour, economic conditions, the cash rate, high mortgage interest, the theft of several billions of tax will collectively hardly make a dent in the public psyche, but the stupidity of the smacking bill and the false assertations given by the Prime Miniister will penetrate even the densest voter (Generally typified by your low income labor supporter), this is the greatest hope we have of driving labor out of office by public support. National and Act need the smacking bill to urge the most apathetic public, wearied by years of incrimental socialist bullying, to act decisively to bring labor down. I am grateful for that opportunity and hope for a positive result, the abandonment of the ill concieved centralist smacking bill and demise of Labor. Vern

*There is limited discipline in society now this will result in a generation of children with even less respect for their elders starting at an even younger age. Don

*I can't believe that intelligent Politicans would be that desperate to reatain power in the parliamentary house that they would allow this madness through. This bill won't stop the child abusers carrying on, it will stop good parents from disciplining children. This is state interference gone mad. As a school teacher, I can see what is coming and it is total anarchy. Ann

*Inevitably!! The rot started when corporal punishment was banned in schools ( despite tennis balls & duct tape ! ). The promotion of "peoples rights", especially applied to children, has exacerbated the decline in respect, discipline & morality to the detriment of all. No-one has "rights", only duties, obligations & priveliges ( when earned !! ). Dave

*Look at the disaster we live with since the abolition of corporal punishment, also universal education was first introduced to eliminate war 'as educated people would not be foolish enough to go to war'. Carl

*You foolish politicians! stop and think about what you are doing here!, you know very well that 80% of New Zealanders don't won't a bar of this policy so why are you trying to push it through? hardly democractic? do you want our children who are the future citizens of NZ growing up without proper disipline? have you gone mad? I'd hate to be in your shoes when you come before the judgement seat of God, remember "woe to those who scandalize children" yes this will be you, as children have a right to be properly disiplined by their Parents. If you pass this law we will most certainly ignore it, and if we are ever harassed by the law we will simply leave the country and raise our family
elsewhere. It will be your loss, you have been warned! Tony

*Anti smaking law will NOT prevent child abuse. They are just going to make criminals out of good parents. Bryan

*The bill appears to be aimed at paternal authority especially. The use of drugs like Ritalin by feminist influenced mothers has been trendy, and all sorts of cop-outs like sugar, food colouring have been promoted to cover up their poor child control. M

*It could also lead to some parents being driven to distraction and giving a child severe thrashing, where a light smack delivered early in the piece would have solved the problem Peter

*The anti smacking bill is absolute madness. This country is quickly going to the pot with stupid social engineering laws and this one will take it all the way there. We have become the victims of a socialist takeover at the United Nations who now go about imposing their socialistic ideoligy and parallel social engineering on the world Brian

*This is one of the most stupid bits of legislation I have ever herd of and hopefully it will not get passed. Makes one wonder where this Country of ours is going. Faye

*In the first instance, this is an Anti-Christ bill. It goes totally against what the Bible teaches regards the discipline of children by their parents.This puts Helen Clark, Sue Bradford and all their supporters, directly in rebellion against God's word. These people think they know better than God himself. That is ignorance arogance and pride. If this bill goes through it will release another wave of rebellion in our children. Dr Spock told these kind of people around 40 years ago, to just let their children express themselves without limitation, and engage in situational ethics (which is... if it feels good, do it).. After a shocking result over 10 years he admitted he was wrong , and sadly soon afterwards, his own son committed suicide. The phrase, ""Don't compromise truth for the sake of unity"" is very relevant with this anti-smaking bill. Helen Clark is compromising truth for the sake of unity with the Greens, to keep her position of power against the expence of punishing good living New Zealanders.My fears for New Zealand are this.:The anti-smaking bill, is only the tip of the iceberg of what will follow if this bill goes through. ""If our politicions are that unwise to promote such an evil bill as this one, what on earth will they run with in the future?"" This is a very serious issue in regard for New Zealands future. Please pray with me, that the Labour politicians, whom know this bill is a con,and wrong, will have the backbone to rise up and vote according to their conscience. Max

*I believe the people who have not had any children of their own should not be allowed to vote as they lack the emotional experience necessary to make a sound decision. David

*I am lost for words! Richard

*On this matter ALL MP's need to think about their country first rather than abandoning constituents to toe the party line.Helen Clark should once more be throughly ashamed of herself as should Labour MPs. Richard

*The money spent on policing if Section 59 is repealed would be better put towards educating parents on what the Green's consider acceptable discipline methods would be. If the law says it is illegal for parents to smack (even lightly smack) their chidren then police will be obligated to enforce the written law regardless of Helen Clarks interpretation of the law and false promises that police probably won't enforce the law in all cases. Heidi

*I also believe that the government are taking away my rights as parent's to raise children that are not a menace to society. I see gangs of teens roaming the street's at night terrorizing anyone in their path and everyone is afraid of them, this country is going to the dogs. This will only increase the numbers of undisciplined thugs roaming the streets, and prosecuting those who would stand up to them in an attempt to teach them wrong from right. Tony

*Removal of corporal punishment in schools is probably a major factor in youth problems. I would expect additional problems if parents cannot use the full 'tool kit' correct their own children. Its a ridiculous bill. John

*Yes, because the repeal of Sec 59 then says that parents smacking their children is antisocial behaviour AS WELL as that behaviour perpetrated by undisciplined children. DO NOT allow the repeal of Sec 59. Judy

*In the shadow of it's anticipated implementation, it has already. Bevan

*Thank the Lord that there are still some right thinking and brave battlers who care enough about their neighbours to tell the truth.I pray Kiwis are smart enough to listen to Ruby Harrold-Claesson. Hans & Anna

*To me, the 'anti-smacking' is like the Employment Relations ie- the cards are stacked too heavily on one side. One side can raise merry hell at will and the other side has to comply with and justify their acions every step of the way. One mis-step & you're in big trouble. I see that a learned employer will be better poised to handle an 'anti-smacking' better that the majority of the population as they are trained/learned to the legal situation & processes it is a dark and evil cloud brewing in society. It's a continuing case of 'the tail wagging the dog'. John

*Why is it that to smack a child is an "act of violence, but to abort one isnt?" How on earth did we get it so mixed up? Bronwyn

*I have recently returned to my birth county and are very disappointed with what is happening to our lovely country its no wonder people are leaving to go over sees and get better condition's for there families,its time people of power woke up to themselves. Larry

*There is a big difference between a light smack which is sometimes necessary when words are not going to work eg when a child is about to put their finger into an electric power point ,do you try and explain the dangers or give a quick smack and avert a tradgedy.I think the parent should have the right and the choice to choose an appropriate and reasonable form of discipline for their child .But child abuse is a very serious problem that is quite separate and needs to be addressed as to the causes eg poverty,lack of self esteem,lack of education and positive parenting skills,lack of support for families under stress eg with special needs children and little respite or relief. SB

*Your comments are absolutly correct....state control over parents rights. An total abomination. Lets stop this bill from being passed. Mark

*You would not require the brain of a fly to work this one out Rob

*Kids are pretty damned savvy to their rights already. I am a mother of teen girls & I feel that parents are left banging their heads against brick walls of media, social & peer pressures that already influence our youngsters outside of our own family values & ethics. Bloody hell - parents are held accountable for youths that act anti-socially and/or breach the law, or -of just as much negative impact- being financially supportive to them if they are unemployed as a consequence of being uneducated, lazy, or home with a baby themselves. This accountability is expected until our offspring reach the legal age of adulthood (18 years) and all the while our parental authority & discipline is being undermined! Cassandra

*The present lack of anti-social behavour in society is a direct result of our present attitude. David

*To me this Bill has to be stopped, As mentioned before no Govement has the right to tell any Parent how to bring up there Children, it is the fundermental right of Parents to displine there Childern the way they would like. Geoff

*Hitting people physically weaker than yourself to control them is bullying, isn't it? I was smacked as a kid, & I DIDN'T respect my parents any more for it.- Even when I deserved it. I respected my mother more than any other adult, because from as early as I can remeber, she realised that I was capable of reasoning (from the time I was born?) and usually explained the 'rights' & 'wrongs' of my behaviour. I only smacked my own daughter once, in frustration, & still regret it - 12 years later. John

*Discipline and aggression should not be a confused. However, the current socialist agenda promotes reaction against all forms of (legitimate) restraint. It is part of a deliberate attack on the family, which they see as the cornerstone of a continuing patriarchal control system.
Young males (in particular) must have defined boundaries, strong role models and a sense of responsibility drilled into them. If we fail to discipline and instruct our young men now , the future will not bode well for us all. Jerry

*Yes and I believe that the whole issue is more about responsibilities. Before children are taught their rights they should be taught their responsibilities to others, especially their parents. Paul

*This bill nonsence. those who do these gross crimes will still be them. How can Helen Clark tell me what to dowith my 3 teenagers. I would gladly give her them for a trial parenting. Isabel

*Unrestrained, untrained, irresponsible children will increase if parent's rights to be responsible parents are further undermined . Anne

*From information available countries who have banned smacking seem to have no control over their children. I have read that Ski resorts have asked heads of schools from some countries not to arrange skiing holidays for their pupils owing to their disruptive behaviour. It is totally irrational to expect parents never to smack their children though I have never observed the practice much among my own acquaintances The tenor of your column presents the cons. very well.The desire of the state to take over the total control of the family is frightening and as a country we are being conditioned to live by fear. We have to question more and more :Who and What are behind the increasing control freaks?: and more so" How are we allowing them to get away with it?" We seem to have been dumbed down enough without adding fluoride to the water!!! Thank you for your good watchdog work. Diana

*We tend to believe in this illusion of "democracy". A recent article in the Taupo Times (friday 16 March 2007) says that the big majority of Taupo residents does not support the Bradford Bill; it also says that Mark Burton, Taupo's MP will support the Bill. In which manner is Mr Burton following the will of ""his constituents""? What part of the word Democracy is not clear to Mr Burton? Did he not learn the proper meanning of that word before electing to act as a politician "on behalf of the People"? Or is he acting as an MP under duress? Where do the following lead our society to?
a- lowering of standards in primary and intermediate education,
b- dumbing down of University students,
c- School's increasing students' Truancy,
d- children and teenage disruptive behaviour raising,
e- and other numerous factors like the destruction of the family unity and the encouragement by govt organizations and departments to act fraudulently in cases of separation (done most predominantly by the mothers against the fathers). Without a basic level of authority, parents have already very little infuence upon their children's misbehaviour.
When the debate should be focussed on ""how to educate the population towards a better understanding"", it seems to be that, more evidently then ever before, the powers that be are here just for a quick buck. Surely not Helen Clark, nor the Police constables, nor CYFS, not School personnel, in fact nobody will be held accountable for any further destruction and its implicit results in 10 years time. How about changing the legal parameters which grant immunity to all govt bodies? In a shameful society deprived even of a proper Constitution, how can anyone still believe that this is not anything else than a Judicial dictatorship? When the definition of the wording as set by the Parliamentarians, will have any reference to the true reality that affects People's lives, then we may consider this not to be what it currently is: ABUSE OF POWER. Finally, perhaps this issue must be kept alive right through the coming elections, and some party must make a commmitment to grant the People of New Zealand the right of a referendum to repeal this Bill in a truly democratic manner; and also to establish a commission of enquiry on how the Parliament addressed this issue so far. Respectfully, Dario
*I hope never again to hear some holier than thou know-all say "Well frankly, I blame the parents". They do that in the same breath as proclaiming our "democracy". Of course, they will go on blaming the parents because it lets the schools and meddling government off the hook. We couldn't possibly hold the nice Ms Bradford and her cohorts responsible for the mayhem to come could we? Patsy

*Discipline starts at home. The threat, and if need be follow up of a smack, ensures parents set a discipline standard that will carry the child through life. K

*History shows us that we learn nothing from history. How many times do we have to go around this block before we get it? For those who missed it the first, 2nd and 100th time, here's how it works: parents are the boss, children aren't. It is the parent's job to love, cherish and raise their children to the best of their ability, not the "state". Children are not as intelligent as adults - they haven't lived long enough to know (generally) what's good for them and what's not. Children who don't respect their parents have no reason to respect anyone outside of themselves, either as children or as adults. Absolutes existed in the past, exists now and will exist in the future - there will always be things that are right and things that are wrong: children must be taught these things (contrary to what the hippy post-modern relativistic beatniks try to cram down our throats). And lastly, all socialist / marxist / authoritarian governments claim to know better than parents - it's not been true in the past, it's not true now, and it never will be true. Peter

*I totally agree with all you wrote in your article today and am doing what i can to stop Bradford's bill. Rae

*NZ children are already being taught by society and schools that they have lots of rights and few if any responsibilities, and that there are no real consequences for anti-social behaviour. This and other results of "trendy lefty" legislation is are the pricipal causes of increasing youth crime and other breakdowns in our society. Chris

*There is no evidence that the anti-smacking bill will achieve anything positive. We banned corporal punisment in schools almost 20 years ago. We are still waiting for the benefits David Longe Promised such a ban would have in reducing violence in society. James

*I don't agree on hard smaking,but a light smak on the behind,or hand has never hurt anyone.I was brought up that way.I think its a parents right to do so.I chose not to smack my children unless they I feel they have been very bad. Belinda

*No discipline leads to kids becoming criminals, they'll take no notice of anyone and do as they please. Raewyn

*Children need guidance to live in harmony with each other and kept safe.Is it better to give a young child a tap to enforce danger or let them ignore your voice and experince a nasty burn,fall,electric shock,cuts etc. Who is always blamed when a child gets injured.Who is blamed for all the trouble these undisciplined children get into.The parents.So why not leave good parents with the same rights our GOOD parents had all of us baby boomers grew up with the strap at primary school the cane at high school.these are our leaders of today so are they all emotionally scarred and unable to lead good and productive lives.No they are all living well in our society,so why should it be so differnt for the next generation.Let good parents bring up their own chidren without government intervention and threats. Brent

*Look at the state of discipline in the schools and the youth of today - no repect to anything or anybody and it is all me,me me!! Vickie

*Social engineering by socialists intent of continual success at the polls because of their pandering to children, disfunctional families, low decile eastern immigrants, PIs and Maori. ie dumming down of society, so that the granny state can influence those people. Tony

*I hope the politicians in the Labour and Maori party will have the guts to vote against this bill as it will very badly effect future generations. John
Internal discipline is only learned through external discipline. If external constraints are removed we are left with anarchy. Karen

*I hope the politicians in the Labour and Maori party will have the guts to vote against this bill as it will very badly effect future generations. John

*It is ALREADY against the law to beat children. This new law isn't going to change abuse, just give the police another stupid task when they should be out catching criminals. Marie

*Home discipline is the best discipline and good parents should have a range of punishment options which could include smacking. David

*Absolutely. What is this country coming to? I dread to think what the citizens of this country will be like in, say, 10 years time. Why do we not look at Sweden and other countries where it has been introduced and shown to have failed? If this bill is passed, it will be a total disaster for families all round, especially the children who won't know what they are letting themselves in for when they report their parents. Helen

*Quite simply it is an area no government have the right nor were they voted in, with the intention to dictate as to how parents bring up their children or run their homes. Providing they stick within the boundaries of common law. Already laws are in place for the minority who break them. If the powers that be who are acting on behalf of those unfortunate children, cannot carry out their duties, it is rather absurd the common decent parent should be penalised for something which is not their problem. The managing of laws which are already in place appears to be the issue here. The offenders will still offend no matter what is in place. I say look at the real issue. I say, know thy boundaries and stick with what you do best Sue Bradford. Anti smacking aint it! Ali

*What credence can be given to a Prime Minister who promises not to ban smacking, and then changes her mind for political expediency? John

*The day they took the stick out of schools was the start of this countries social decline,no respect no accountability and no one is afraid of anything, so god knows what is going to happen if they take it out of homes. Murray

*This government has a long record for legislating against the wishes of the majority of people. There is a word for this. Tyranny. Jim

*I do not agree with the antismacking bill and hope they won't get the support. Johanna

*It gives the power to children, I thought we'd learnt from that with the lowering of age for being responsible for criminal offences. Parents need to be in control of raising their children in a loving, caring and responsible environment, to turn them into well adjusted adults. Sometime a light smack does the trick. Nobody wants to see children beaten, but this law will have parents held to ransom. I believe while beating children is unethical so is this law change. Judith

*By having section 59 of the crimes act removed, and this bill gets passed, then the whole country will suffer from unruly kids, who have no respect for society, turn this country into a bunch of hoods, who have no thought but themselves, and also the crime rate will increace and out of control. The courts will be overloaded with cases, and they are already have a big workload along with being short staffed. The elderly will be scared to go out because of these brats, and the brats will have no compuction to belt up or even kill the elderly. Surely we must have learnt from Sweden, and other countries that have brought up a generation of thugs. I think that all the politicians who are paid by the public or taxpayers think again about this act, and can any politician please inform me why this bill has even been challenged and talked about when there are many other issues that are more important, like the death penalty for rape and murder, how to reduce our debt, more police on the beat, education, health, just to name a few. I strongly oppose this bill and want it to be put into bin 13, and let everyone have a say and this includes the people have a say, or better still a referendum of this stupid and childish bill. Everyone needs discipline and this starts when the baby is born. Smacking a child will not damage them for life. Also bring back the discipline in schools, as well as respect. Otherwise there is no hope for this country. Most of us want this country to lead the world like we used to. Not have a generation of thugs, that have never been brought up to be repectful, honest, reliable and they do not want to work. I want this bill to be either repealed or put aside until everyone in this country has had a say. Helen

*I believe that when corporal punishment was stopped in schools the Children think they can get away with anything,the same thing will happen with the younger children.There will be people who will be just waiting to report a person to the law for the lightest smack on the behind. David

*If section 59 is repealed, I would like to think that the immediate reversal of such becomes an election issue instigated by the national/act alliance next year. Bruce

*This communistic anti family BS must be stopped!! Jim

*It would be the last straw for New Zealand. June

*The passing of this bill would be extreme social engineering; anti- family, anti-New Zealand and a triumph for evil!!! Frank

*NZ never seems to learn from the bad effects this type of legislations has on other Countries that have made it law. Martin

*Children all need to learn the acceptable boundries in social behaviour and if a parent feels the need to use a smack as a reminder of what is and what is not acceptable then they should have that avalable to them. The issue is not child abuse by loving parents but a political interferance in the right of parents to bring children up to be good and worth while citizens. The passing of this bill will be nothing but political suicide for those who chose to support it. Robert

*Though I do think the question is not a clear one. I believe parents would be breaking the law if the Act was passed, that the Police would be obliged to prosecute. I also believe this would not stop child abuse in any way Deborah

*If this goes thru I have advised my children to take their spouses and kids to Australia Roger

*YOU ARE SPOT ON. The bill is insane and would in the end be damaging to the Lab Paty and the greens. who are more and more becoming the tail to wag the dog. Furthermore it points to the extreme left tendency of the greens. Kare

*I am not normally "politically-active". This bill has changed that. But I have yet to hear National say that they will repeal it. David

*We are fast getting to the stage where the citizens of this country will have no more power. Where is this going? Not even the opposition party is representing the people. It is shocking!!! Geoff

*Where is opposition parties on this? None of them have said they will repeal the bill if it gets thru and they become elected. National are just as bad. The best time to live in NZ was 25years ago. The pollys here are scum! Bob

*It is bad now why do they even imagine that it will get better. Tracy

*We need you back in the House of Representatives. Martyh

*I agree with the arguements expressed in the above report. Clayton

*Thank God my children, and their children, are now grown-up! Paul

*How much overseas experiance/evidence does this control freak govt need? Brian

*Even in the bible it reads ""spare the rod and spoil the child""- and ..
take a look at our animal kingdom the way they discipline their young - sorry - it is unbelievable how we are allowing our country to become more "communist" every day.. Lorraine

*If Children are not subject to parental control how on earth will the governrment control them later. The bible says that to spare the rod is to spoil the child. Will this stupid law stop any of those violent parents who will still beat their children? I very much doubt it All it will lead to is loving parents being prosecuted and another useless government bureacracy that produces nothing to make this country more properous. Colin

*Unfortunately this law discriminates against the parent legitmately wanting to dissipline there child within reason. The law relys on the discretion of the offcials and consistency cannot be guarenteed. Therefore the innocent will be punished along with the guilty. Jacques

*If their's no deterrant, you'll have immature minds making many selfish decisions to obtain what they want. They might turn out more phisically violent to the police than Sue Bradford! John

*I am horrified at the intrusion of this Labour Party into our homes.Most of the greens have communist leanings and this is proof of their control tackticds in our lives. Dinah

*The only group who will benefit from this law is the "lawyers". Another sad step towards total controll by government which has itself taken this power by undemocratic means while advocating democracy. Who buys this nonsense? Gerard

*I see this as yet another step by this government to break down the family unit. Children are quick to learn their rights but do not have the maturity to realise that with rights go responsibilities. This is why I feel so strongly about parents authority being taken away. I sad to see how much of our Labour led legislation has undermined the family unit. Without strong family units, how can any nation expect to be strong? Children respect parents who set reasonable boundaries for them; they feel secure, and generally grow up to pass on their family values on to their own families. Discipline (which is not abuse) is a part of our childhood training. Dorothy

*This goes without saying - they really haven't thought it through - they are so one eyed in pushing through this legislation. My 11 year old son already told us we cannot smack him cos he will have us arrested and he also told me, when I affectionately patted the top of his head, don't touch me - I don't like it - I will tell the police you are touching me in inappropriate ways I don't like. Far out - go figure!! These kids will have all the power!! Aphrodite

*Very Good article we thoroughly endorse it. Kathleen

*I served for four terms on school Boards of Trustees. It was my observation that even without the repeal of section 59 schools already had major problems with the lack of discipline, basic social standards
and anti-social behaviour. It is my belief that if section 59 is repealed and done away with the very fabric of our society- what little of it is left - will definately be lost and wholesale anti-social behaviour will escalate.
You can bet your bottom dollar that our esteemed Prime Minister and Sue Bradford will head for the hill as quickly as they can. Sharen

*If passed into law, it certainly will not stop people breaking the law. We have had a number of child deaths from beatings since 1990,but only 7 who got off using "59" Eric

*Absolute Not!!!! And, this socialist government of ours is really trying the Big Brother stance just once too often, in my opinion!! G

*Kids are out of control already. Do you really want to make things worse by introducing this bill? And do you really think it will stop child abuse? People who abuse their children will still beat them with this bill. All it will do is cause problems for greater crime rates with teenagers, and younger. If this bill goes through, I will not be having children, well, not in New Zealand. Leanne

*It is looney social engineering John

*Tinker with society at your and our peril MPs. This Bill will undermine the existing social order (as its radical promoter intends). We will remember this and remove you from your jobs at the next election. Emmet

*I am utterly fed up with this Nanny State we have developed. It seems to me that under MMP we are stuck with the labour govt for ever, as the satellite/parasite parties and those that were never voted in will stick to labour's coat-tails for fear of losing their jobs and lucrative perks John

*IF THIS SECTION IS REPEALED, THE PARENTS OF TODAY, SHOULD BE "VERY AFRAID" OF THEIR FUTURE "OLD AGE" AS THEIR CHILDREN WILL TREAT "THEIR OLDS" TO NOT JUST WITH ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR BUT AN ABUSE OF THE OLD. KENNETH

*Thank you for your comments -You are 100% correct, but how can we win against this stupid government who once again won't listen to the majority view. I give up! James

*Excuses, Excuses. The Green Party come up with the most ridiculous Bills to go through our Government system. When will it stop? Children need discipline and boundaries, all this Bill is going to do to is take those away in every area of Parenting. Anti smacking, what is next? Have any of our Government Officials seen a cat discipline her kittens, they should.
We are loosing control here, as our children are children, and everyone is forgetting that fact. Just like our Government are forgetting that they are in power to Govern, not to rule, dictate and control parenting. We need guidelines in place yes, but not to the extent that parenting is going right out the door. We are going to end up with frustrated parents who because of this law will either be on prozac for the rest of their lives, or build up such rage with their own children will loose total control and the consequences will be astronomical. It would be interesting to know, how many parents in the countries that have this bill in place are
1. On anti-depressents.
2. Have attempted suicide, or have succeeded at suicide.
3. Are in jail, on probation etc.
4. Have walked out on their families because the stress was to great for them to cope with.
Children are taught in schools already their rights, and this will be taught along with the other rights they have.
A world of blackmailing, cunning, undisciplined spoilt children will be developed. Children will the threatening and blackmailing their parents, relations, neighbours anyone they choose. Anyone who believes the Police will not have to act on any complaint is fooling themselves, as once this is law, it has to be acted on. How far will it go, on the news the other night they said, if you put your child into ""timeout"", you are kidnapping them. Does that also mean that your child can choose to live where it wants, as to make it live with the parent is kidnapping surely. Helen Clark has never been a parent, so she has no idea how to parent, having your nieces and nephews for the holidays isn't parenting.Where will this bill lead us, into a country of uncontrolled, undisciplined, parents of the next generation. The Government once again are playing games in parliment instead of running the Country. I have been a Labour Voter all my life, and from where I am sitting now, the time has come for the whole country to march for a lack of confidence in the Government if they put this bill through, as Election promises should never be compromised for the sake of numbers. Margaret

*Excellent article Muriel. I am very afraid for this country with the amount of government interventions we are becoming subject to. I see it as a repression of free-thinking people by a heavy-handed and controlling, political regime. Jacqui

*The repeal of section 59 has more to do with dictatorship than it has to do with protecting children. Surely there are a few Labour MP's who have the backbone and gumption to realise the insidious nature of the proposed repeal and will not bow down to the pressure of party politics. Shirley

*I agree with all comments read and heard for reasons opposing this ridiculous Bill. Another step towards social engineering with the usual sinister overtones. One doubts the integrity of this Government even more than one does already. Defies all logic and reason. There has got to be an ulterior motive or are they all brainless syncophants protecting personal power and position. DAWN

*Not all children come from the same mould and many do not require the same corrective measures as others. Clause 59 provides the option for parents and others responsible for child care in the home, pre school and educational institutions to make corrections in some childrens behavior and attitudes. How else can self disiplin be developed in a child.
Removal of clause 59 will have serious social ramifications. Harold

*Dont the people have a say this is where it all falls apart. Larry

*This is just another move for the state to interfear in private lives and the creeping removal of personal liberties. Norman

*I have no doubt whatsoever that the proposed law change will see good parents if not prosecuted then severely hampered in bringing up their children to learn respect for others Nigel

*"The powers that be, need to appreciate, that the average nz parent has intelligence. It is up to the now government to seriously look at what this will do to further create a crappy youth, and to think seriously about how many people may change who they will vote for come next election. Victoria

*Absolutely. I also believe that child deaths will increase as some parents will be driven "over the top" by indisciplined children. Mike

*Enough! Time now for the public to wake up to what this government is doing to destroy the family — actions which could destroy our country.
*It seems that the will of a few MP's are being imposed on the majority here. Personal agendas should not be allowed. If we insisted that people have to take personal responsibility and cease blaming others, then the anti-social behaviour and youth crime might diminish. The police, especially, will be in a no-win situation if this crazy law is passed. Lynne

*This is a further step in the process of destroying democracy. The Jury system whereby payment to jurers is a pittance and a grave disencentive to participation in the process is a step on the way to eliminating juries entirely. Imagine a parent hauled up in court for smacking a child being in front of a judge who has been infected by this cretinous thinking. All MPs should be advised that their jobs are on the line and National should make a clear policy statement that the bill will be anulled when they get elected. Christopher

*Children are being taught about their *rights*, but are not being taught about their responsibilities. I hear so many stories where children are paid for jobs around the house, which they should be doing because they are a member of that household and are also responsible for the general welfare of the family unit. The anti-smacking bill will further erode the family unit in this country. Carolyn

*The increase in vandalism has occurred since a relaxing of discipline in this counrty. A smack at an appropriate time is not abuse. It is simply a way of training a child that is not wrong if used properly . Cherie (Rev.)

*Has a Private Member's Bill ever received urgency before? This is outrageous, when it is almost certain that most New Zealanders do not support it. Jonathan

*This has nothing to do with children and everything to do with politics. The arrogance of this government is unbelievable! keith

*It is political clap trap to think that parents doing the entirely reasonable thing of dealing with children who you cannot reason with (the logical thought processes of a three year old are not great) with smacking (NOT hitting) should be brought before the Courts as criminals. Who and how is this to be policed? Think of the oportunity for vendetors against innocent ex partners? Another serious slap in the face for constructive parenting. Gary

*Although I can not remember ever smacking my children, some children do deserve a smack at times. I shudder to think what effect this will have on future New Zealand with absolutely undisciplined children then later adults thinking they have the right to do anything without restraint.The whole thing is complete leftist PC nonsense. Heaven help us if it goes through. Roy

Hi Muriel - below are my comments with regard to the Anti-Smacking Debate. I have given this topic much thought - and after listening to and reading comments from both perspectives.. have come to the conclusion that we, as human beings, desparately need to change our way of thinking and being, if we are going to create a better society both now and in the future. Call it what you will....but 'smacking' is a form of violence and I believe that any acceptance of it creates violence later on in a persons life.... Remember....'we are what we experience' - and a childs' experience stays with them all their lives... I am sorry, but absolutely No form of violence - because that is what it is - is acceptable -and the sooner we retrain 'ourselves' and help each other to find 'better ways' of controlling anti social behaviour, the sooner we will move on to more important things, like how do we provide a better education system that provides equal opportunity for everyone - to promote good self esteem and respect for each other. Its funny you know, with regard to the smacking debate, it would appear that we all examine and refer to our own personal experiences in order that we may come to a conclusion that we find acceptable. I bet you have, too! It is interesting to listen to the myriad of defensive answers and responses that have been expressed.. eg. Those against the Bill "a smack never did me any harm and I will continue to smack my children as it was done to me..." Those for the Bill "I was beaten as a child and it must stop".... I admire the stand Peter Sharples has taken - In my mind, he is ABSOLUTELY right to recognise the urgent need for change... Because until WE - and that means everyone single one of us....change our attitudes towards one another, whether we be big....OR SMALL... then how on earth do we teach our children to respect ANYONE??!! whether it be towards their Parent or Peer, Society has long promoted the attitude of
"Do as I say - Not as I do"... We are teaching children how to effectively be Hypocrits - and employ double standards.. Right from the word 'Go', in my humble opinion. Start as you mean to go on, I say - I believe that we must take up the challenge and Teach (retrain) people to ask for help,
Tell them that it is OK to say, "I cant cope, my skills are limited, I need help!!" The problem is that nobody is taught how to love and value one another anymore, despite their differences. I believe that TOLERANCE is needed in order that we can progress together and make the place we live in, even better. Ps. a little about me: I come from a family of seven children, was smacked little (which looking back was quite unnecessary) - but saw a sibling dealt with quite harshly (so I thought as a child and still maintain was unnecessary...) and have a daughter myself and two grandchildren - both of which my daughter brings up with a firm tone and the very occasional tap - which I am sure is a result of frustration and just 'part of being human'.... If having the law in place makes people look at modifying their behaviour - and stops one child from unnecessary 'violence' - then we are taking steps in the right direction. My only reservation about the Law going through is to ask what steps are being put in place to assist parents who genuinely want to change and modify their behaviour, but dont have the skills to know how to make change. I do apologise for the long winded response, but as we all know, this debate has hit at the core of who we are and how we all deal with things so differently - according to our upbringing. Have a great day! Kind Regards, Cathy

*If we can have an All Black tour to South Africa stopped by individuals with a High Court Interim Injunction, why not a request to the High Court for an Injunction to at least delay this bill for a binding referendum. It is so important for the continuation of families as they should be. Let us through this Forum do something more than talk. Basil

*Dead right Muriel. It's the biggest con-job that has EVER been foisted onto New Zealanders. How many times does this Regime have to behave in total arrogance before gullible New Zealanders say "ENOUGH!" Sefton

*Yes I do, you only have to observe at how animals disicipline there young, swift and quick slaps or nudge, we also need to discipline our young, or yes they become rogues, you just need to look around the shopping malls at the lack of disrespect and shocking behaviour.My eldest is 31 and youngest is 18, they all grew up with knowing the wooden spoon was arms length away, and was in my bag while out shopping, they are not damaged goods, and always knew I disiplined only when nessesary. Vicki

*Anachary is only a step away. Children that are not taught discipline will have no discipline to achieve in their lives. I am not a supporter of smacking children but I acknowledge that every individual needs dicipline to evolve. What sort of society can we look forward to if our children can't focus on acieving. Look at Italy with its laws in this area, the heart of catholicism is having negative growth. The young couples their are opting not to have children because it so tough to raise them under laws similar to the one rail roaded through our parliment. Christine

*We already have ample evidence that children at school and in the home are learning to defy authority figures without any effective penalty available. Young people sentenced to community service fail to appear for that service. Many convicted for minor ofences, re-offend while awaiting sentence or on parole. We are breeding another generation of chronic offenders. Bryan

*This is clearly another indication of the "State" wanting to control and direct society (in all its forms) - the family inparticular. Any "normal" parent has had to deal with correcting their children (in a minor way) from time to time. Peter

*Agree entirely with your views But until NZ wakes up and throws off its inability to bring Politicians to heal we are going to get more of the same. we seem to lack the ability to see the broad picture and each start a band wagon or insignificant protest group instead of comimg together and demanding a total direction change.I dont think our so called opposition party National has a clear direction in which to lead the electorate. Brian

*This is a letter to the editor, sent to the Dominion Post and Manawatu Standard, and also all the MPs. Although I have voted ACT or National in past elections, and agree with most of what you express, I do not agree on this issue. With all good wishes:
Dear Editor, Good parents will not be at any risk because of this proposed change. The Bill seeks to protect our children and remove a defense that is used by a small group of people who are charged with violently assaulting their children. Complaints against violent parents are investigated now. That will not change, but they will no longer be able to use the defense that they were using ""reasonable force"" to excuse their actions. This defense was recently used by a woman who beat her son with a riding crop. We cannot legally assault adults, why should we be able to legally assault children? I am concerned that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the developed world. Clearly what we are currently doing is not working, I believe that it is time to show leadership in this area, and move to more positive approaches with children. When corporal punishment was banned from schools, there were many who predicted that “the sky would fall”. It didn’t. Nor will it, if we pass this legislation. Yours etc. Bob

*Did the abolishment of corporal punishment in schools make for better behaved school kids? Has that effect flowed through into society? Everybody knows that the opposite has happened. I just can't understand how so -called intelligent people can be so blinded by their intelligence. Removing the constraints of parental authority is going to continue the unravelling of society. The reality is that violent and bad parents are going to continue. Good parents who take their parenting seriously are going to be turned into criminals. I can see a huge expansion in the work of social services if this bill goes through. I despair sometimes. Richard

*Who wins this round? If the parents aren't criminalised, the childrens most likely will be in future. Solution...start building jails NOW for the expected influx! Ken

*Stop the smacking bill please. Bryan

*This proposed repeal is based on a flawed world view by Bradford that children somehow become responsible citizens if they don't have correction in thier lives. Yeah right! Wayne

*The hypocrisy and arrogance of Helen Clark takes my breath away!! Thank god my children are now grown up....fine, well adjusted, happy and ocassionally lightly smacked as children!! Miriam

*Kiwis are currently experiencing results, stemming from previous Paliamentary edicts, that debased family structure in NZ! This poll is essentially a no- brainer Ms. Newman, hypocritical distraction from reality where MPs refused to act for Public good. After all as an ex-list MP, Ms. Newman is well aware of how futile 'Resistance' can be? Mass 'civil disobedience' will be the only sane solution! Rev. Dick

*Children will rule authority in parents teachers and society..they took authority away from teachers.. now look at the horrors happening in schools..kids know they cant be punished.. Ganya

*Most definitely agree. The erosion of the right and obligation to provide control and guidance of children is being quickly eroded by the current anti parent/pro state control policy of the Labour and Green Parties. NZ society will suffer if the resposibility is not returned to parents. Logically the state is a second level of interception and the immediacy of the family environment as the proper place to learn social values and responsibility cannot be replaced. The Bill must not proceed. Richard

*Chilren needs boundaries to live within in their family live and society. To remove these boundaries will lead to future chaos amongst our young. Vivienne

*I believe the anti smacking bill is completely wrong. Eunice

*The potential downsides of this proposed legislation heavily outweigh the upsides. I do not advocate smacking or violence, however a smack is not necessarily violence. Peter

*Having worked in probation and child care & protection I have no doubt if this bill is passed there will be an increase in anti-social behaviour and youth crime. Many parents already believe that they are already not allowed to smack their children. This has been bought about by information being given to them by some CYF social workers and what some schools are telling their pupils. This has been extrapolated to the point that parents honestly believe they cannot discipline their children in any manner. Many of these parents have been told by various early childhood agencies that they were bad parents when they would smack their child or segregate them from others for a time. Over the years many teens have taken over ‘ruling the roost’ and the parents are at a loss as to what they can do. In families I have dealt with no smacking would have made no difference as to the assaults carried out on the children. The parents had often assaulted their children in a rage or where being abusive over a long period, not just to the children but to their partners. Any law about minor corporal punishment is not going to stop these assaults. Providing meaningful training for parents to learn parenting and not just react to their children’s behaviour would be of more advantage than passing laws and using a big stick to threaten parents into being ‘good parents’. Also there are a number of insufficiently supported parents with mental health issues who are having difficulty in trying to raise families. At times they are looked upon as being incapable of raising their children without beating them. These are people who need intense in-home support, not being further threatened if they ‘can’t get it together’. Gary

*This proposed bill is a disgrace. Sue Bradford and her cronies are out of touch with the realities of parenting. Leave us alone. Craig

*What are we doing to our beautiful country? How can we continue to hold our head up if this goes through. It is making a mockery of good parenting. ""Spare the rod and spoil the child"" becomes a reality. Does this mean that if a child misbehaves we call in the police to discipline them?" George

*Obviously it will result in increased anti-social behaviou and youth crime. Remove restraint and increase lawlessness. If you have not yet read the reports on the Sweden anti-smacking law, do yourself a favour and read it all. It's really an eye opener and shocking to say the least.
The childs' early years of discipline are vital to training the child in the right way (or wrong way ... if lacking or done wrong). This applies whether you are religious or not: "Prov 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." How often this proverb has been shown to be true. How sadly we neglect the advice of the Almighty (and even commonsense) to our own hurt. We have an increasingly religion-defiant heathenistic government and society and this shows in the decline of morals and standards and even basic discipline. Cursed be anyone defying and willingly undermining the Godly standards.
Let it be on record that I for one will continue to ""obey God before man"" and my family will receive the discipline that the Almighty God commands despite the heathenistic laws of this (ever-more-becoming depraved) country. Call me a criminal for upholding God's laws and standards first; I will not be the first (or last) in history to have this label. Walter

*Biggest threat is with CYFs. But its a further step along the road to reduce parental control and influence over their children. Disgraceful. Graham

*All new homes built from now should have a room with bar on windows and doors ,this will let kids of today get use to being in prisons as that where a lot will end up. Charles

*I find it so amazing that individuals who have had no or little experience of real parenting can dictate how an individual should parent. Sue Bradford is the perfect example. She has openly admitted to being brought up as a child in an abusive home. She believes that she will right the wrongs of her past by introducing this law. However, she comes to the lawmaking table with a flawed viewpoint. Making new laws are not going to fix her or societies problems. I just wish her energy had been tackling the real problems. If Sue Bradford and the remainder of NZ's dysfunctional society dealt with our pasts, then just maybe we would be moving in the right direction. Peter

*Our thought processes are being interfered with by the Government who are about moulding them to accept control by the Government for the manner in which we live our lives on a daily basis. Geoffrey

*Pity the gvt does not do something more important like closing down P Labs Ray

*I beleive parents should have the right to lightly smack their children.It should not be the right of the state to tell parents how to raise their children in their own homes. Vin

*The abolition of corporal punishment by the Lange Government in the early 1980's has not been a great success. Talk to any school teacher. That social experiment has been a failure as will this "anti smacking" bill being promoted on hidden agendas. Sadly, this anti smacking bill will not save another childs life. We have murder as a crime but again sadly this does not stop the offence being committed. Parliament should throw out this side show and concentrate on real issues such as the crumbling health system. Neville

*If you take away the ability to enforce boundaries at home, the boundaries of the law will not be kept. We have aleady seen a huge rise in crime. The next generation will be far wrse if this bill goes ahead. Zane

*Parents will under the new bill be afraid to discipline their children, but that might just be the goal of Sue Bradford! Ivo

*It will remove the (last) control parents have over their children: any form of discipline, it being 'time-out' or a smack are essential mechanisms a parent has to resort to - ultimately - to tell a kid 'this is bad/unacceptable' behaviour. I sincerely doubt if the criminalisation of this form of parental control will reduce or eliminate the abysmally high child murder rate in this country. Tjalling

*Absolutely!. As the saying goes -"spare the rod and harm the child". We have enough discipline problems with youth now - this will only make it worse. Christopher

*My objection to the anti-smacking bill is that it puts the onus on parents to prove their discipline was reasonable rather than the police having to prove it wasn't. I see it as against natural justice. Also I am against smacking but feel it should be a matter of educating parents rather than using the force of the law. Bob

*Using urgency is outrageous and the deception is frightening. This communist mindset will cost us a baskketload of freedoms. Bruce

As has already been seen, the inability to discipline means the inability to enforce boundaries and create respect for others. Look at what has already happened to youth crime and respect for others. Bob

*How can it be otherwise. I truely fear for the future of this land of mine.
The most frightening question is "what next?" Michael

*This anti-smacking bill will do nothing to lessen abuse of children, it will indeed increase lawlesness, especially of the younger age group. Theo

*I received some hefty whacks as a youngster, generally deserved and it hasn't done me any harm, also a few canings at school often deserved but ok I got over all that without any problem Dennis

*This law will make criminals of responsible parents, and will not stop the truly violent. Robin

*Education is needed - not criminalistion Tonka

*I'm more interested in the impact this legislation will have on the free market! J

*Children growing up without any form of discipline at all consider they can't be touched whatever they do. As a consequence they become adult criminals. who will pay for that ? Not Aunty Helen! Wayne

*Govenment should stay out of peoples lives. Allan

*The proposed legislative change will undoubtedly have disasterous consequences on the family life. The only good outcome is that Labour will almost certainly lose the next election. Jan

*A perfect example of MMP in action. You scratch my back and I will scratch yours. John

*Your newsletter contains very compelling reasons why those who support the repeal of Sect 59 should re-think their position. Good old "nanny state" under the guidance of Helen Clark - someone who has never experienced the reality of bringing up children, must not be allowed to enforce this amendment on a very unwilling populace. Graeme

*May I siggest that you re word your poll question to "Do you agree with the anti smacking bill being bought before parliament?" In my view the current wording is confusing and will distort your poll as it may not be clear to many what section 59 does. Craig

*Removal of this is just an indicator of how sick some people in govt - and their policy makers really are!! Alex

*The majority should not ride roughshod over the minority. Helen Clark and her cronies couldn't give a toss about the future of this nation. As usual she is determined to remain in power at all costs. It is time she became a leader and started to promote central government as a reputable and respected establishment. By what right does she and her advisers have to exercise unrestrained power over the people of this nation? Sally

*This is just another, but quite probably the worst yet, example of Labour's social engineering agenda. Despite it being a Green Party sponsored Bill, it is now obvious that it suits Helen Clark and her lefties' policies very well. We wrote to Govt and argued against the lowering of the legal drinking age and the decriminalisation of Prostitution but the voices of the majority were ignored. This is going the same way. We are just pleased that our children are now adults. If this Bill is passed, we will all watch in horror, but with belief, when good parents are brought before the courts. This will happen. I overhead a mother outside the supermarket chastising her 8 or 9 year old daughter saying "they haven't brought in the anti-smacking law yet! Oh happy days! Gaynor

*It is all about rights of the indervidual child against responsibilities to society. William

*I work in the Courts and I see the results of children who have been raised with a lack of discipline and with no clear boundaries. How do I know that they lack discipline and boundaries? Because when they appear they are accompanied by their Parents and younger siblings - who are allowed to run bloody riot while the indulgent parents look on. Hardie

*As a grandmother and school teacher I am very concerned about our youth and the posible passing of this bill, which is totally un-necessary. Sue

*A real no-brainer. Children are only happy when they are secure within consistent known limits. They only know those limits by constantly testing them. Often the clearest, kindest signal of these limits is a timely smack. Ross

*Check out Europe's most popular commercial. This is what we will get. This child and father are from Sweden btw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP-qvAzcl2c" Rob

*No smack ever hurt a child permanently, and parents will be threatened with the child telling the police, that they have been smacked whether they have or not. Carolle

*The choice to have children and to bring them up in society is one that almost everyone makes almost subconsciously. However, as every parent will tell you, this decision quickly provides a couple with every challenge both planned for and also those unimagined situations that vary from family to family. How any government, member or agency, can believe they know what is best in every situation better than those living the experience, beggars belief. This is where social engineering policy becomes very dangerous to the very fabric of society. Without children being brought up to respect their elders, and those elders not having the correct tools to correct errant behaviour, chaos will reign. This bill will create a whole new level of problems for the Police, families and society in general. It will not however save one child's life. Child abusers are people who operate outside society already and new laws will do nothing to change their behaviour. Don

*If an effective way of diciplining a child is removed then those children who don't see 'time out' or 'naughty mats' as a real punishment will grow up with the view that they can do whatever they want without consequence. If they believe they can then get away with breaking into someones house then they will if the need/want arises. Chris

Well Muriel

This is a subject I'm well versed on because you're right - mine was one of the seven cases ever defended and successfully using section 59 of the crimes act.

And why, well the reason was according to the police I hit my daughter with a hose, the truth of the matter is, it was not a hose, nor did I hit her in the sense that she got accidentally hit.

Now the Prime Minister of New Zealand and Ciny Kiro has used my case and others to try and push this bill through Government.

So let's be clear on this. Was the Prime Minister and Cindy Kiro and Sue Bradford there when the incident took place? No they were not. Do they know the circumstances of the case? No they do not. Were they at court? No they were not. In fact all they know is what the press has put in the newspapers, and most of that is far from the truth of the matter.

Do we suppose that 12 members of the public good and true are going to find me innocent after 20 minutes if I had beaten my child with a hose without hearing the facts of the case? So now the Govt is assuming that juries are not capable of making reasonable decisions concerning section 59 of the crimes act.

Well for one and all let's have the story straight so the prime minister and her followers can actually hear the truth and stop telling lies.

Firstly it was not a hose; it was a piece of plastic used to sheath a stove wire, very light and nothing like the weight of a hose at all.

So what happened?

My wife and I had been to a wedding of a friend of ours, we came home about 6.30 on the night of the incident. I had gone to my office to check my email and had noticed that a packet of brand new socks I had brought from the warehouse for my trip overseas had been opened and two of the four pairs had gone.

Now why was it so important to make an issue out of this? Well the reason was I knew who had done this, one of my daughters (unnamed)at the time - I had caught her on several occasions shoplifting, in fact I had actually made her take the items backs to Pak and Save in this case and pay for them and apologize to the manager. So I instantly needed to have a talk with her about this problem she had with just taking stuff and helping herself like any good parent would do, who is responsible and wants to see their child brought up a good citizen.

So to achieve this I rang her up on the phone, because she and her sister were at a baby sitters place.

I asked her did she take the socks, she denied it, but I knew it was her, so I told her she had ten minutes to come home.

After about five minutes she arrived home, with her younger sister, the one who was to figure in this case as you will see.

So I was busy talking to her about stealing , and telling her what happens if she carries on , eventually she will end up in jail.

My other daughter was over the other side of the kitchen bench under a table looking for some apples I think; anyway they were hungry as the baby sitter was drunk as and not fed them. So I told her you two are not going back there that girl is no good and drunk and not feeding them. To this she replied (11 year old girl) f**k up dad you not f**king well telling me what to do.

Now this is where you will laugh, not that the whole case was a laugh far from it, but the truth is I was not the one who disciplined my children, in fact there were even police officers in our church knew this.

So what happened, well I guess you could say it was the point of no return, that point where a parent who is trying to bring up children to be good citizens see red, blue and purple at the same time I guess.

Well on our shelf we had this piece of sheathing my wife used to use to shake at the children when they were naughty - which had the desired effect. However I grabbed it and went round the back of the bench to where my youngest daughter was under the table still looking for food.

I was tapping the table top to scare her and telling her don’t talk to me like that when I'm trying to talk to your eldest sister about something really important - as in the consequences of stealing. As I was tapping the table she came up from under it and that’s how she finished up with a tap on her back.

Now the police made a big thing of nothing, did not want listen to anything I said, beat me up, for injuries which I still have today. So I ask you what will happen if section 59 of the crimes act goes?

Sure like everyone I want see child abuse solved, but the act covers cases like mine which the police have blown out of all proportion and which Cindy Kiro and the prime minister and Sue Bradford have climbed on the band wagon to use to push through this bill.

One has to wonder about the responsibility of these people the prime minister, Cindy Kiro and Sue Bradford, whether they actually care about children when they go quoting my case. If they have any concern for my children, personally its irresponsible seeing they do not have the facts, even Television New Zealand have said the same thing.

This highlights a dangerous precedence in politics when the govt and others can go around with no more information than inaccurate press releases using moderate to innocent cases to force law on 80% of the population who are opposed to the law anyway.

The judge in one my hearings told the police in no uncertain terms what she thought of the way they had handled my case, and that it could have been handled in a different way all together. This is why we have section 59 of the crimes act. For me personally I'd have to say to protect innocent, good well meaning parents form misguided, misinformed police officers. If the police were educated properly then section 59 of the crimes act would work properly.

There is no way Sue Bradford's bill will solve child abuse. Sadly she is a neurotic , misguided young woman who has no idea what she is talking about, even less idea about how to formulate a law that will actually do anything constructive, other than turn innocent well meaning parents into criminals, disrupt the whole structure of family, and like my family leave them 12 thousand dollars in debt because certain police officers have no brains and cannot determine what is abuse and what is not.

As I said last week never mind God save new Zealand , God save parents form the likes of Sue Bradford the prime minister and Cindy Kiro.
One thing like to add, I have emailed all these people, not one of them had the decency to reply, sad really for people do a lot talking but can't personally front up, and hats of to Hon Nanaia Mahuta MP, our local MP - who has known our family for years - she at least replied to my email.

Good on you Nanaia it just goes to show, who is genuine and cares and who is full of talk and nothing else.

Tony

[Tony has just replied to my query to clarify who brought the complaint: "it was laid by the mother of the drunken girl who did not feed my children... in fact she saw nothing which was clearly pointed out to the jury how a person sitting in a car 40 feet away could see over a kitchen bench 6 feet high into a table round a corner..."]

*No discipline = anarchy !! Dave

*Not immediately, but the effects medium to long term will lead to greater criminal activity at a younger age as parental respect is eroded Ian

*I really wanted to click the 'Don't Know' button but as usual there wasn't one. I am not able to see into the future. Two of the most violent and obnoxious children that I ever met had a mother who refused to smack them. At gatherings they were continually being given time outs which, being away from home, meant having to sit in the car and fiddle with the knobs etc. Some punishment that was. They would physically attack any other adult who tried to correct them and would get a time out for it. At the time they were about five and eight years old. I don’t know how they turned out." K M

*Does not take much common sense to work that out, does it? John

*It is a very sad state of affairs when a young 'tagger' is reprimanded by an offduty policeman, the cop gets in trouble and the little @#%& get a 'badge' to wear, ...." .. I got a cop in trouble and I got away with it..." There seem to be absolutely NO CONSEQUENCE for any bad behavior, political correctness gone mad, time for a change... Cheers for now... Keith

*Benevolent parental authourity kept me in line as a child I see no sane reason why there should be a change. Can the anti smacking legislation !! Marshal

*All children push the boundries. It is the parents resposibilty to set the limits of what behaviour is exceptable in our socity and to discipline the chindren if necessary. If this requires smacking so be it. Des

*Absolutely, I fear for the future of our society if this bill is passed. It won't stop those who abuse their children now, they will continue to do so. I am so sick of the control this current government continues to force upon us. They can not be trusted!!!" Beverley

*Hopefully this may contribute to Labour's downfall. lan

*Thank you. Clive

*Hellllllllloooooooooooo? have we learnt nothing from history??? Lincoln

*You only have to look at the instigator - the face says it all - a bitter and damaged character - but not by being smacked. Ron

*Has anyone exhorted those 16 wavering Labour MPs to show a bit of guts, a bit of basic courage and cross the floor? It seems to me that if you do not believe in a point of law, then you stand up and be counted. Are we going to be told who they are. Or is that not for publication for us "ignoramuses"? Are Labour Party MPS so cowed that they bow their heads and kowtow to an obvious travesty of justice. If this is to be the way of it, then they are nothing but dog tucker - gutless dog tucker Patrick

*It simply turns NZ parents against NZ police. Anyone want to be a parent? Anyone want to be a police officer. Children laughing whilst adults fight it out in court because of yet another anti-family policy? Can we not see this fellow kiwi's? Remove Helen Clark; this is the first essential step to reduce crime, abuse, immorality and social degradation for this nation. Install a minister with Family Values. Paul

*Absolutely, and this bill will be just another reason to leave this crazy country ! Trevor

*And in 10 years time when the Government has achieved its ultimate purpose in disempowering parents, and promoting unrestrained youth crime violence and bedlam on the streets ... I'll be the first to publically denounce & mock it. After all, 10 years ago only a fool couldn't predict the conseqences of deregulating the building Act! David

*At the heart of crime is a lack of respect for others or for consequences, which are learned at home from parents. Steve

*We are no longer too concerned what happens in NZ as we are planning to leave just like other sane New Zealanders. This nonsense could be stopped immediately by every worker taking a day off without pay once a month. Therefore the government would not receive a days taxes and if they didn't tow the line next month it would be increased to two days. They would soon learn who is doing the paying of their wages. Unfortunately Kiwis wouldn't have the guts to stand up against them. We get the government we deserve. Yolanda

*How dare our elected leaders brand caring parents as criminals. The law already has rememdies for parents who use excessive force to discipline their children. Labours non conscience vote on this issue is an appalling lack of democracy in action. Michael

*How great would it be if the likes of George Hawkins (ex minister for police) and Harry Duynhoven could/would show some backbone and stand up for their conscience and convictions and vote against this bill. The majority of their constituents will thank them for that. But I am afraid they lack the strength and moral torpitude for such action. EJ

*I think taking the threat of a smack away renders parents feeble. I have extended family experience of children brought up with no disipline or control and the disaster it was for them. One being brain damaged by P. The daughter has told me how she longed for boundaries like her friends. Anna

*That the Greens can influence the Labour Party to cast aside the majority view of New Zealanders and the conscience vote of their own members shows the depths to which both both parties have descended.If urgency is used to pass this ridiculous bill I believe it could well cost Labour the next election and deservedly so - be prepared for a budget sweetner (bribe) from Cullen prior to the next election in hopes of currying favour with the electorate. It won't move me ! Bill

*If it were not just delusional it would be deviously planed to repeal section 59 the later is the more accepted but a bit of both sums it up Wayne

*This issue has gone way beyond the ""Anti Smacking Bill"" and has become an issue of democracy. The government is running roughshod over the will of the people and steadfastly believes that issues such as this are too important to be left for the general public (Their Employers) to decide upon in a binding referendum. Chris Trotter has written a few articles in the Dominon Post decrying the Pro-referenda backlash he has got since he nailed his colours to the mast, implying that the citizens of New Zealand are not to be trusted with their votes. Chris Trotter ends his article: "The real choice, therefore, is be­tween the symbolic conflict, con­tained within Parliament's debat­ing chamber, and the very real political violence which inevitably erupts whenever aggrieved social elements attempt to subordinate legitimate collective interests to the frailties of individual judg­ment." What the??!! So a symbolic debate in Parliament, that can produce only the result ordained by the party in power, is superior to an actual debate in the real world according to Chris and his Cronies in the Labour movement." Gavin

*Children and young people can also be violent. One wonders if the new law will allow Adults to defend themselves against violence from young people. Paul

*The intended Sue Bradford bill is an insidious intrusion by the state into New Zealand families. It seeks to undermine the responsibility and authority of wise, caring parents who need the freedom, when a 'last resort' arises, to lovingly discipline their children. Grant

*They will end up an antisocial pain in the arse like Sue Bradford and Helen Clark Mike

*Repealing section 59 will undermine the ability of parents to instill discipline and set boundaries of acceptable behaviour. It will also have a catastrophic effect on those parents unfortunate enough to be prosecuted for smacking their children. The legal costs involved in defending a case alone will have a serious effect on the ability of defendants top support their families. If found gulty they will have a criminal record which will affect their employment prospects and restrict their ability to travel or live in other countries. These are all consequences adverse to the development of the children of those parents. Wim

*The most chilling part of this draconian law is, as you have identified, the Labour Government's use of doublethink to justify their Orwellian 'utopian' state ownership and state control of children from infancy. The spectre of Soviet-style creches looms. Michael

*I think its outragous to ban smacking. Myself being only a teenager most people including most parents wouldn't give an ear to listen to my opinions, but if we all opened up to everyone including the young we would get more of an open opinion. If laws like this in the future are brought to the table they should address them to the public and get real opinions rather than squabble amoung themselves to see who gets into parliament next election. Hopefully I'll get an opinion letter in the post next time an amendment like this arrises. Jono

*It makes me feel sick whenever I think about this new law coming in. Why is Helen Clark doing this to us? What have we done to her? The only thing I can think of is that she really doesn't know what she is doing because she hasn't had kids. But Bradford has and she's leading this campaign. Mary

*I hope voters remember this at the next election and dump Labour from the government and the Greens from Parliament. Joe

*If we already have a youth crime problem in New Zealand, if this bill gets through, "we aint seen nothin yet!" Barry

*I don't smack my children but I don't want some interfering busy body to take away that right - if I need it some day. Tanya