stuff the intention, the reality is that you`re banning smacking

Sue Bradford's Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 2005will be considered by a select committee after the election. The bill will remove a legal defence of reasonable force by way of discipline for parents charged with assaulting their children by repealing s59 of the Crimes Act, which permits reasonable force. Without s59, the law considers all force to be assault, meaning "the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly..."


Supporters of this bill incorrectly believe all force, both unreasonable and reasonable, is abuse. They are therefore demanding a law change as they believe parents should not be allowed the option of physically disciplining their children. But they tell people the law change is needed to stop child abuse.


Banning smacking has never reduced child abuse in other countries. In fact in Sweden, the first country to ban smacking, child abuse has increased and parents have been criminalised for using smacking as discipline.

As the purpose of Ms Bradford’s bill is to "stop force… under the pretence of domestic discipline" - meaning smacking - and classes all smacking as assault, it is not irresponsible or misleading to refer to her bill as banning parental smacking of children. Nor is it misleading to say that the bill is an attempt to tell parents how to raise their children, and if they don't do it the way prescribed by the state, then the state will take their kids away and do it for them.

Ms Bradford's Bill will make it an offence to carry a child into a room for " time out" as it requires the use of force. It will also be a criminal offence to threaten to smack a child. It will also be a criminal offence to indirectly attempt to use physical discipline. It is irrelevant whether the police will prosecute for this law breaking. What is more relevant is that parents who smack their kids or take their kids to their room for time out should be allowed to do so lawfully.

Ms Bradford also stated that it is not her "intention" to ban smacking, and she does not " seek to ban smacking". What Ms Bradford intends or seeks is irrelevant. What is more important is what Parliament intends. Therefore what an enacted bill says and will do is also more important. The bill says, "The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act".

In other words, Bradford refuses to admit that she wants smacking to be a criminal offence. She, and her anti-smacking lobby friends have never said that the bill will mean that smacking will, legally, be a criminal offence.

Because they know full well that it will be.

Nor will they answer this question: If banning smacking does not make smacking illegal, what section in the Crimes Act will make it legal? .

They won't be able to answer it because there is no answer.

Take a look at the language of these proponents. They don't talk about "discipline" or "correction". They use "serious force", "violence" and "abuse". In Parliament at the first reading of the bill, Ms Bradford said that Section 59 "legitimises serious force" and "harsh physical discipline". The Parents Centre says that the Crimes Act provides a defence for those who seriously injure and abuse their children. So does Every Child Counts, which is really Plunket in drag

.But they will not mention This case where the defence of S59 failed because serious force was used.

The Crimes Act does not legitimise serious force on anyone. It only legitimises reasonable force in the circumstances in some cases, such as when acting in self-defence or when disciplining your children. What Ms Bradford refuses to do is to look at the circumstances because she is hell-bent on banning smacking.

So is Plunket. President Kaye Crowther, who has said, "We’re not talking about smacking. We’re talking about belting and hitting children with implements. In recent times I am aware of at least two cases where [Section 59] has been used as a defence where the child had been really abused."


It has been confirmed that one of these cases was where the defence failed and the man was convicted of assault using a plank of wood. As he should be. The other case was the woman who was acquitted in court for using a riding crop on her son. She was deemed to have used reasonable force under the circumstances. Ms Crowther never mentions the circumstances. She didn't say that the boy nearly killed his stepfather with a baseball bat just minutes prior to the discipline. Nor does she say that police laid charges reluctantly under relentless pressure of CYFS social workers. These social workers have taken away the woman's son from her and are now attempting to take away her daughter, claiming the daughter's stepfather is a bad parent based on a 30-year-old incest conviction. Social workers are telling parents that it is against the law to use physical discipline on children. They have told parents that if they use physical discipline on their children, their children will be removed from their care. And they are doing just that, even if parents have been acquitted of assault after successfully using s59 as a defence.

Most do not consider those who administer a small smack should be charged with assault. Yet Ms Bradford proposes a law that she is happy for parents to break because she believes that police will turn a blind eye to the law. Since when has a law been made on the basis that it won't be enforced? Bradford is happy to replace juries with police officers who will make decisions on whether to prosecute based on factors other than the law.

What is needed is reasoned debate on what constitutes reasonable force, or what constitutes assault in terms of physical discipline. Ms Bradford does not want to discuss either, because that is not a discussion on banning smacking.