Section 59 of the Crimes Act became a famous political football a few years ago.
As a result of the “Anti-Smacking” law passed in 2007, it became illegal for parents to use reasonable force in “correcting” their children’s behaviour.
Advocates for the law say actions such as light smacking will not land parents in court because of discretionary powers given to police.
This discretion may alleviate fears about the law being too harsh, but it creates other problems, extending the power of police and leaving parents unsure about what they are legally allowed to do.
An election, a citizen’s initiated referendum and thousands of opinion articles later, the issue seems to have virtually dropped from the radar.
Recently a Bill to improve the law was rejected by Parliament, despite members of the Government who voted against it acknowledging that the current law is not ideal.
The Bill would have allowed parents to use “reasonable force” in protecting or correcting their children, with specified limitations.
According to the Bill, force would have become unreasonable when “it causes the child to suffer injury that is more than transitory and trifling.
Hansard’s record of the Parliamentary debate about the Bill, is particularly interesting.
Some MPs defended the outlawing of smacking because they believe it will pave the way to much-needed cultural change. Others criticised it because it is unclear law and not what they believe the electorate wants.
But National MP Chester Borrows made the most interesting comments. He accepted that the current law is a “dog’s breakfast” but would not support the Bill, because a compromise has been reached in shape of the current law. He predicted that the debate that would come with attempts to change it would be unhelpful.
Parliament’s job is to legislate well. The current law only works as its supporters intend if the police use large amounts of discretion. This leaves parents in limbo about what they are legally allowed to do.
As ACT MP John Boscawen who introduced the Bill stated to Parliament, “I say surely it is the job of this Parliament to pass laws that can be understood, and that can be enforced.”
As Mr Borrows declared, compromises are necessary in politics and the Bill that Parliament rejected on September 8, 2010 was exactly that: a compromise.
It was not a return to the pre-2007 law, but it made clear the boundaries when a parent could and could not use reasonable force.
It is concerning that Mr Borrows rejected a Bill which could improve a law he acknowledged to be flawed, simply because he had lost faith in the public to debate well. Compromise is a great thing in politics if it leads to better, more measured law-making, not if it leads to a “dog’s breakfast.”
Giving up on public debate and accepting poor legislation is not a compromise, it is a cop-out.
-Maxim Institute
Photo : National MP Chester Borrows
