Repeal of s59 has passed second reading

It's good to see that Sue Bradford's bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act has passed its second reading in parliament last night. You can read more about it on the Green blog here.

In case you haven't been paying attention to this issue, section 59 is the part of the Act which says that parents may use 'reasonable force' when disciplining their child/ren. All well and good but for two problems: i) this clause has been used as a defense for parents beating their child with implements such as lengths of wood (that is, one person's 'reasonable' is another person's 'completely over the top'), and ii) this section has the effect of giving children less expectation of physical safety under NZ law than either adults or animals enjoy.

Now, OF COURSE parents must train their children. There are lots and lots of ways to do this, starting by being a good role model of how you want your children to behave. Some of the people who are against removing this section of the Crimes Act say that a parent who lightly smacks their child to correct them will be a criminal. My problem with that argument is as follows. If all you need is a 'light smack' to correct a particular behaviour, then there are many alternative (non-physically-violent) ways to achieve the same effect. If you can't use one of the alternative (non-physically-violent) behaviour management methods in a particular instance, then a 'light smack' is just not going to do it - I don't believe that you won't resort to something more than a 'light smack'.

I could blog all day about non-violent behaviour management (or 'positive guidance') methods. Suffice it to say that if teachers (early childhood and school) can manage behaviour by using non-violent techniques (which they must and do), then parents can learn some of the same methods.

So, good on Sue Bradford for keeping onto this.