| ||
Chester Borrows' Amendment Introduction As the section 59 debate reaches its peak, the amendment put forward by National MP Chester Borrows has been frequently mentioned in the media. The proposed amendment is a more flexible alternative to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, Sue Bradford's Private Member's Bill, and importantly, would protect parents from prosecution who used mild force to lovingly discipline their children. This Fact Sheet explains what Chester Borrows' amendment would do. Instances Where Force is Allowed The amendment begins with a list of the purposes for which reasonable force can be used against a child. These are as follows: (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; The first four purposes of the amendment are the same as the Justice and Electoral Select Committee's recommendation. The final clause has been added in an attempt to remove much of the confusion associated with the Select Committee's amendment, and to ensure that the use of reasonable force for correction is still legal. Instances Where Force is Prohibited As set out above Chester Borrows' amendment would still allow the use of force for some purposes, such as preventing harm, similar to the select committee's amendment. In cases where continued use of force is allowed for corrective purposes tougher restrictions would be put in place than currently exist. The amendment prohibits any force used that "causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory or trifling". The inclusion of this phrase provides a guide for what can be considered ‘reasonable' force within the above categories, and tightens up the existing law. The use of any "weapon, tool, or other implement' is also prohibited. Therefore, a smack with a wooden spoon would be against the law. Also prohibited is any force that "is inflicted by any means that is cruel, degrading or terrifying". These provisions would further would ensure that no abusive situations could slip past an undiscerning jury. In addition, a parent could not even raise a defence of reasonable force for correction if they were charged with anything more than a relatively minor assault offence. Conclusion Clause 3 of the amendment sets out that there is no limit on any other circumstances where force can be declared unreasonable. A jury can declare a use of force to be unreasonable, whether or not it falls within one of the prohibitions specified in the amendment. This is consistent with the intent of the amendment to protect New Zealand's children from harm, while not criminalising good parents. Links |
