Do you think that the wording of the smacking referendum is unclear?

The citizen-initiated non-binding referendum asks: ''Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?''

4 Comments

  1. mother of many says "Sorry, Emma, but I beg to differ in my opinion on this issue. Having at the moment, 5 adult children, 2 teenagers, and another 7 under the age of 13, I possibly would qualify for making an informed statement. There are no perfect parents out there and no perfect parenting "procedures". Nevertheless, each family needs to set boundaries that are suited to them and their own suituation (convictions, beliefs, desires, goals etc). Having done this, parents need to share those boundaries with their children (in a way that is relevant according to their age/understanding) and discuss what consequences there will be if those boundaries are violated. So long as parents are consistent in imposing those consequences then the children learn that, when Mum/Dad says "no" they mean no. And to save that constant persistence of some children, don't allow second or third warnings that can cause anger to be vented, which in turn can cause the abuse that we all want stopped! Children can be taught to make an appeal, if they don't like the outcome of a situation, in an honourable way that demands a lot more respect from the parents to the child than any shouting match. The referendum question refers to good parents who have already set boundaries with a smack as a "known" (by all parties) consequence for particular unacceptable behaviour, not being a criminal offence. If you put a comma after the word "smack" and "correction" and read it again, it does make sense, whether you agree or not with the use of smacking for correction. Let's look at the other more harmful causes of abuse like gambling, alcohol, drugs, anger, job loss, depression, break-down of family values etc etc, rather than trying to pin it all on parents smacking (not hitting as that is abuse) or not. Don't wish to offend anyone, just voice an opinion common to many."

    June 26th, 2009 at 05:31 PM

  2. Ann Blackie says "I think the question is not so much ambiguous as loaded. The use of the word 'good' within the question makes it appear as though those who would vote 'yes' are not supporting good parental correction. with 'good' deleted the question is more straightforward."

    June 28th, 2009 at 06:30 PM

  3. Tonie & Ian Watts says "We consider the wording to be ambiguous. Furthermore, it is a waste of taxpayers' money, seeing that it is non-binding on the Government."

    June 29th, 2009 at 04:29 PM

  4. Linz says "As a parent I have had to learn to read between the lines... so although this question could have been worded in a much clearer way, I can still understand it easily."

    July 2nd, 2009 at 07:21 AM

Have Your Say

Have Your Say

Latest Discussion Articles

GB Weekly Shadow