Parliament

Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | Video | Questions Of the Day | Search

 

Pansy Speak: A logical debate about smacking

A logical debate about smacking

Judging by the large number of emails asking me to support or vote against the ‘anti-smacking’ bill, the deadline for a decision must be just around the corner.

The contentious bill in question is Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, which repeals Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Section 59 allows parents or guardians who are facing charges of using force against a child the legal defence that the force is justified as long as it is reasonable in the circumstances.

Over the past 10 years there have been a handful of reported high-profile cases where parents or guardians were acquitted of charges by using Section 59 as their defence. This left many us dumbfounded because bruises or welts were clearly visible on the tiny bodies shown in the photos.

These high-profile cases have served as the catalyst for this bill and have led to vigorous debate.

The debate has been extended to the ‘cycle of violence’ and the need for this to be broken. It’s difficult to argue against this, and most people would agree that no violence should be inflicted on children.

I doubt very much that in cases where Section 59 has been used as a defence that the parents or guardians involved knew that there was such a defence open to them. It’s more likely that their legal counsel came up with the defence after the violent act was carried out.

Therefore, revoking this clause could serve as punishment for those offenders but I doubt that scratching the clause from law will act as a deterrent to those who use force against their child. In most cases where children are the victims of violence they live in horrific circumstances where drugs, alcohol, dysfunctional relationships and poverty are all a part of daily life.

This bill offers the blunt option of revoking Section 59, which only offers two choices, change or maintaining the status quo. In two recent polls, one in Stuff and other published by The Dominion Post, 84% and 82% respectively supported retaining Section 59. Other polls have also reflected this trend.

The Dunedin Multi-disciplinary Health and Development Unit study has also shown that parents and guardians are able to deliver appropriate physical discipline.

Some 1,000 children have been tracked since they were born in Dunedin during 1972 and 1973. The latest interview was conducted in 2004 when the study members were 32 years old. Eighty per cent said they’d been physically punished at home during their childhood, 29% had been only smacked, 45% had been hit with an object such as a strap or wooden spoon, and 6% had suffered extreme physical punishment.

The study also found that the 29% who were only smacked had ‘similar or even slightly better outcomes’, in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement, than those who were not smacked.

Those who support repealing Section 59 argue that ‘smacking’ a child would not lead to parents or guardians being charged because that decision would be with the police. There is an assumption that common sense will prevail, yet, if that was true then offenders who had left cuts and welts on their children’s body wouldn’t be acquitted under the current legislation. So much for common sense!

Do we really want our over-worked police to be called in to decide whether to prosecute, or not, each time a case is reported? Involving police in domestic situations without clear guidance will only make the situation even murkier and undermine the goodwill that exists between police and the communities they work in.

How will making our police define what’s smacking, and what’s not, move the debate along any further? It only pushes the issue further down the line because it’s not resolved.

In the current climate, where the Government is increasingly interfering with our personal lives, many are fed up with the notion that they can’t be trusted to exercise their own judgment.

What do you think? Should Section 59 be repealed or not? Is there a middle ground for this issue? Please email your thoughts to pansy.wong[at]national.org.nz


Pansy Wong

www.pansywong.co.nz
www.national.org.nz


ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Scoop 3.0: How You Can Help Scoop’s Evolution

Entering into its third decade of operation, the Scoop news ecosystem is set to undergo another phase of transformation and evolution.

We have big plans for 2018 as we look to expand our public interest journalism coverage, upgrade our publishing infrastructure and offer even more valuable business tools to commercial users of Scoop. More>>

 
 

Speaking Of Transport: Public Engagement On Wellington Scenarios

“Our work on possible solutions for Wellington’s transport future is ongoing, but has progressed to the stage where we’re ready to share our ideas with the public and seek their feedback to help guide our next steps...” More>>

ALSO:

Parental Leave: National's Time-Sharing Change Fails

National has proposed a change to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill that would allow both parents to take paid parental leave at the same time, if that is what suits them best. More>>

ALSO:

Train Free Thursday: Workers Strike To Defend Terms Of Employment

"They signed up to these conditions a year ago when they got the contract for Wellington's rail services. Now they're trying to increase profits by squeezing frontline workers." More>>

ALSO:

Seclusion: Ombudsman Emphasises Importance Of Monitoring

Disability Rights Commissioner Paula Tesoriero says that while there have been changes to the Education (Update) Amendment Act 2017 to prohibit the use of seclusion, the report is an important reminder of the importance of regular monitoring of schools. More>>

ALSO:

United Future History: "All Good Things Must End"

'We’re extremely proud of what we’ve achieved over the past 15 years, working alongside the government of the day, both National and Labour.' Mr Light told members on Monday. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The TPP Outcome, And The Hobbit Law

Somehow the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal has come lurching back from the dead – and as predicted in this column last week, the member countries gathered in Vietnam have announced a deal in broad principle, shunted aside until a later date the stuff on which they don’t agree, and declared victory. More>>

Agreeing To Differ: Greens Maintain Opposition To TPPA
“The Green Party has long opposed the TPPA. The new proposed deal, which came out of the weekend’s talks, still contains key ISDS concessions to corporations that put our democracy at risk, so our position remains the same,” said Green Party trade spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman. More>>

ALSO:

Monitoring Report: A New Chapter For Children’s Rights In New Zealand?

The Children’s Commissioner is calling on the country to embrace children’s rights to ensure their overall well-being. More>>

ALSO:

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

Featured InfoPages

Opening the Election