-
Related
A fresh attempt to ban parents from smacking their children has left many confused.
MPs have proposed law changes which would ban smacking but, still allow parents use reasonable force against their children.
But both sides of the smacking debate don't think it will work.
A Parliamentary Select Committee has come up with a compromise on the contentious legislation.
It is recommending Section 59 of the Crimes Act be repealed, but at the same time allowing reasonable force to be used in some instances. They include protecting a child from harm, preventing a child from harming others, committing a criminal offence or engaging in offensive and disruptive behaviour.
Parents can also use reasonable force to perform the normal daily tasks involved in good care and parenting.
Select committee chairwoman Lynne Pillay says members all agree the existing defence should not be used to protect parents who abuse their children.
However, some were concerned parents could be prosecuted for using physical punishment.
Pillay says the committee was advised that police would have discretion on whether to prosecute, just as with any other assault. She says they expect prosecutors not to bring trifling matters to court and to use other options for minor breaches, such as warnings and cautions.
Critics argue the change will undermine parents rights.
National MP Chester Borrows says parents will not be able to use
force for the purpose of correction.
"A child that is in a supermarket that has just thrown a tantrum
and thrown all the stuff off the shelves can be picked up and taken
out of the supermarket, but if they are given a smack on the hand -
that is against the law."
National's welfare spokeswoman, Judith Collins, says there is a lack of precision in the way the bill has been drafted.
She says National intends offering amendments to the bill that will prevent offenders from hiding behind Section 59, yet prevent good parents from being criminalised.
The Children's Commissioner says the smacking compromise is just as disturbing and confusing as the existing law.
Cindy Kiro says it still leaves the use of force open to
interpretation.
She says some caregivers might consider it offensive if a child
picked their nose or gave the fingers to another - and therefore
finding grounds for giving them a whack.
She wants Section 59 repealed altogether.
A South Auckland lawyer is also upset the Anti-Smacking Bill has been tampered with.
Catriona McLennan says New Zealand has a shocking record of child abuse and sticking with the bill as it was drafted would have been a tiny step towards changing attitudes. She says the debate seems to have focussed on parents' rights rather than child protection.
The Families Commission says the changes fall short of the mark.
It says modifications to Green MP Sue Bradford's bill don't send a strong message against violence towards children.
Deputy Chief Commissioner Sharron Cole says no form of family violence is acceptable. She says the committee's attempts to address parents' concerns about being turned into criminals raises more difficulties than it solves.
But, Bradford says the repeal of Section 59 abolishes the defence of reasonable force which some parents hide behind to physically abuse their children in the name of discipline.
She says she is pleased fellow MPs support that.
Bradford says under the recommended changes, a parent is technically assaulting a child if he or she smacks them, whether its in private or public.
The bill will be back before parliament in February.
