Right: Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki outside the New Zealand Parliament in 2007. The Church was protesting against the proposed amendment to Green MP Sue Bradford's so-called anti-smacking bill.Further implications
No state government, nor the federal government has indicated that it intends to change the law to deliberately extend the definition of assault so that it clearly includes any physical punishment of children. The attitude of the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, together with a number of state leaders, indicates that they see no need to alter current law. Further, there would appear to be no widespread popular support for such a change in the law. A recent survey conducted by The Herald Sun and other related newspapers indicates that there is overwhelming support for parents to be able to legally smack their children.This puts Australia in clear distinction to New Zealand. In 2007, New Zealand effectively outlawed smacking children by removing a statutory defence for parents. A private Bill sponsored by a Green Party MP, successfully removed an existing legal defence of 'reasonable force' to correct child..
The law's sponsor, Sue Bradford of the Green Party, said, 'It is about our children and what I believe is their God-given right to grow up secure in the love of their family, valued as equal citizens to the rest of us and without the constant threat of legalised violence being used against them.'
Mainstream church groups and child welfare organisations strongly supported the change. A late compromise adopted by MPs gave police the discretion not to prosecute parents if a smacking incident is considered minor.
A government-sponsored survey in 2009 showed over 90 percent of respondents did not support the change in law and wished to see a modification of the 2007 law to legitimise the corporal punishment of children. Despite this, the New Zealand government has decided to keep the 2007 legislation. This may be because the 2007 law was motivated by the desire to reduce child abuse within the home by sending the clear message that no physical attacks on children were acceptable. Australian governments do not seem to share the view that smacking children sends a dangerous social message.