A giant beautifully crafted tile mosaic will be unveiled at Johnsonville Shopping Centre to celebrate families parenting positively without the use of physical punishment. The mosaic was created during a positive parenting course run with local parents by Childspace Early Childhood Institute.
WHERE:
Countdown Entrance
Johnsonville Shopping Centre
Johnsonville Road, Johnsonville
WELLINGTON
The University of Otago – Wellington Medical School presents
“Protecting children’s rights to physical integrity and safety. Is the 2007 child discipline legislation under threat?”
Date: Friday 22 May 2009 Time: 12.30 pm Where: Wellington Hospital, Level D Small Lecture Theatre (entrance off Mein St)
Beth will outline the 2007 law change and review research into knowledge of the law and attitudes towards it. She will also discuss the referendum question and campaign.
The Yes Vote team has put together a neat A4 flyer with the key campaign messages neatly contained on one page. It’s suitable for widespread distribution, so feel free to download it, print off copies, and hand them out, post in your workplace, discuss at meetings, stuff into letterboxes or put on your school or kindy bulletin board. Let’s get the word out!
Please note: if you plan on distributing significant numbers of copies of any items from this site, please let us know so that we can include these items in our electoral return of expenses. See the notes under “Legislative requirements” in our Legal Disclaimer for more info.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the resources to post these items out to people, but you are free to download them, print them, and use them in whatever responsible way you see fit. Depending on stock levels, you may be able to get these items from your local Barnardos office.
Druis Barrett resigned from The Families Commission today in protest at Christine Rankin’s appointment.
In an excellent interview on today’s Morning Report (listen below), she says “I wouldn’t go as far as to say that [Christine Rankin] was racist, but she’s damn well close to it”. In the same interview, Hone Kaa agrees with her, saying that Rankin’s comments were unhelpful.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The Herald reports that Rankin’s comment that so upset Barrett was “Maori whanau don’t look after their own, and that [they] should be responsible for the many children that are at risk and have been killed”, implying that Māori were doing nothing about the problem.
In fact, groups like Te Kahui Mana Ririki, Save The Children, Barnardos and Plunket have been running Māori led programs to attack these problems for years.
Early relationships really, really matter. The relationships surrounding children hold implications for the sort of brain architecture we’ll be living amongst thereafter.
The adults in relationship with young children are doing a tremendous amount to not only build their brain connections, but to form their understanding of partnership, of power & pleasantries.
So, let’s review. Hitting, smacking, spanking children helps them to understand partnership … how?
Hitting children demonstrates that the Person With Power may physically hurt the Person Without. It teaches children that their adults sometimes lose it. It involves lower-order thinking (training, like a dog) instead of engaging higher-order thinking (doing the right thing because of an understanding of implications).
As the parent of a vocal, determined and intelligent child, I understand what it is to feel so frustrated by the sassiness that I’ve wanted to hit. Oh, I’ve heard that siren’s call.
I feel that frustrated more often than I care to admit. But I have never hit my child.
I won’t do it because hitting her would be an expression of my anger more than a response to my child’s behaviour.
I won’t do it because I understand that it is my lower brain – my mammalian brain – commanding those desires. My higher brain, my human brain, my beautiful juicy cortex, acts as a filter for desires.
My cortex holds all my cognitive understanding of the ineffectiveness of smacking as a tool for behaviour change and relationship enhancing.
My lovely cortex is the home of my understanding of long-term consequences: that I would feel utterly wretched if I hit my child. Probably for years.
My cortex also houses a variety of strategies for keeping calm, and for dealing more effectively with misbehaviour.
So even if I sometimes want to, I won’t hit because it’s an ugly, base, short-term solution to a temporarily challenging situation with the most precious person in my world.
So to all those mystifying people who are fighting for the right to be able to hit your children: I ask that you please spend the time instead learning some new strategies for dealing with your anger.
Radio New Zealand’s Parliamentary Chief Reporter Jane Patterson covered the controversy surrounding Christine Rankin’s appointment as a Family Commissioner on Morning Report today, available for your listening pleasure below:
The report includes comments from Phil Goff, Tariana Turia, Peter Dunne, and Jan Pryor.
We think that the responsible minister, Paula Bennett sums it up best in her own words: “Hey, that’s politics!”
The Families Commission is looking forward to working with the two newly announced Commissioners, Christine Rankin and Bruce Pilbrow.
They join five other Commissioners on the Board. Mr Pilbrow will bring with him his strong interest in parenting and we look forward to working with him. The Commission is also aware of Ms Rankin’s commitment to the prevention of child abuse and shares her concern about this issue.
It was this shared concern that led the Board to its unanimous decision to support the new child discipline law. We look forward to hearing Ms Rankin’s thoughts on ways to reduce New Zealand’s high rate of family violence and will welcome her input into our future work on this issue.
The law is working well and is achieving what was intended – parents who are charged with assaulting a child can no longer defend themselves in court by claiming they were using reasonable force to discipline the child.
The Commission’s reasons for supporting the law have not changed.
We based our position on research which shows very clearly that positive parenting strategies (such as rewarding good behaviour and distracting young children and ignoring minor unwanted behaviour) are far more effective and safer than physical punishment. Research also shows that most child abuse cases begin as physical punishment. There are risks that smacking can escalate to abuse – and the harder a child is hit, the more damaging it is for their future wellbeing. Hitting children also models violence as a way of resolving conflict.
One of the objectives of law reform was to make the law congruent with positive non-violent parenting messages and the law now clearly states that there is no legal justification for the use of force to correct a child’s behaviour.
This is a direct message to parents encouraging them to use strategies for managing their child’s behaviour that do not include smacking or hitting.
It appears that growing numbers of parents understand this. A Ministry of Health Survey in mid 2007 showed that only 1 in 22 parents considered physical punishment to be effective. Of the parents who had actually used physical punishment in the previous four weeks only one in three considered it to be effective.
Healthy, positive relationships within families do not involve people hitting each other and the Commission continues to believe that [the enactment of the Child Discipline Law in 2007] was one step that, combined with other nationwide efforts to address violence, will help us become a violence-free society.
The cards are stacked! The shape of the question in the Smacking Referendum makes sure of that. “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” It’s rather difficult to say Yes to that. It suggests we support the idea that “good parents” might be “criminals” if they give their child a “smack” as part of “correction”.
After all, it never hurt us when we were growing up, at least not most of us. And we got far worse – strapped or caned at school, given a hiding at home (“your father will hear about this when he comes home”), and look what fine and responsible citizens we have become as a result!
So the cards are stacked in this referendum. The numbers voting “No, good parents should not be criminals”, could well be a majority.
But suppose a different question were asked. Suppose the question was “Should parents who seriously assault their children, causing physical and emotional injury, have a lawful escape from the consequences of their actions?” It’s hard to imagine a majority would say Yes to that proposition. Yet it’s precisely because that sort of thing was happening that the move to change the law came about. Child abusers could rely on the escape afforded them under the old Section 59 to go scot-free.
I was part of the public debate when the law was changed. I was part of a deputation of church leaders who handed Helen Clark a statement saying that we supported the law change because we thought there should be an end to legally condoned physical abuse of children. The vast bulk of New Zealanders would say there should be an end to any physical abuse of children. The law change is an important step to achieve that.
The new law has had no dire consequences. Police have a discretion not to prosecute when an alleged offence is “inconsequential”. There have been a few prosecutions where children have been assaulted in a more serious way. But no evidence whatsoever that large numbers of “good parents” are being dragged before the courts and made “criminals”.
More positively, the debate has aroused renewed attention to what good parenting really means. Co-operative problem-solving approaches between parents and children can lead to deeper relationships and an atmosphere of love and trust rather than one of fear and punishment. It is also saying that children are people too. It is illegal to physically assault an adult. Why should it be OK with kids?
For me one of the most significant features of the debate when s59 was being changed was that although a majority of New Zealanders opposed the change, there was a solid consensus for change among the organisations who actually knew at firsthand why the change was essential. These were groups like Barnados, Save the Children, Plunket and Unicef – people who day by day were on the front line dealing with some of the tragic consequences of the message the old law sent. Popular opinion can be out of touch with reality, and this case was surely one such example.
Our children are too precious to damage. Each one is special in the eyes of God and the whole community. To vote Yes in the coming referendum does not mean we are saying “Yes, good parents should be criminals”. It is saying something of far greater importance. It is saying “Yes, we believe it was right to close a legal loophole for hurting children”. Let’s keep it that way.
—
Richard Randerson, CNZM, was appointed 2000 Dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral, Auckland. He is also Vicar-General, from 1999, and Assistant Bishop from 2002 of the Anglican Diocese of Auckland in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia.
The first article, Just who do we think Children are? New Zealanders’ Attitudes about Children, Childhood and Parenting: An Analysis of Submissions on the Bill to Repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, is by Sophie Debski, Sue Buckley and Marie Russell. The researchers analysed a sample of the submissions to Parliament on the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, and used two known social viewpoints of children. In one viewpoint, childhood is seen as a phase of development and children are regarded as unable to reason and in need of constant guidance from adults – in other words, they are seen as “human becomings”. In the second viewpoint children are seen as full human beings entitled to full human rights and capable of contributing positively to society at all stages of their development – in other words, children are seen as “human beings”.
The researchers found that submitters to the select committee who saw children as “human beings” were more likely to support the 2007 law change than those that regarded children as “human becomings”.
The second article by Julie Lawrence and Anne Smith, A place where it’s not ok to hit children, looks at how professionals approach the task of communicating, guiding and advising families with young children about disciplinary issues. They found that parents sought advice on discipline, and that most professionals disagreed with the use of physical discipline but expressed caution about telling parents that they thought smacking was harmful. The research was conducted before the law change and it is possible that professionals now have an added challenge – how to tell parents about the law change.
A major implication of both these pieces of research is the need to continue to raise public awareness about child development, positive child discipline and the law.
Try to understand how your child thinks and feels.
When you understand how your child thinks and feels at different stages of their development you are much better equipped to respond to challenging situations in a positive and constructive way.
This knowledge about your child’s development gives you a foundation for problem solving. Instead of simply reacting in the moment, you can think about what your child’s behaviour means, and where it is leading them.
Often we misinterpret the reasons why children behave as they do. When we think that they are defying us or trying to make us mad, we respond with anger and punishment.
When we understand that they are doing what they need to do in order to grow into the next stage, we are more likely to respond with the information and support they need.
Remember — each child is unique and will respond differently at each age and stage. The relationships between each parent and each child are also unique.
If you are going to use or distribute material from our campaign in any way, eg remixed or mashed up, please ensure that your actions are compliant with the relevant legislation, as the Yes Vote Coalition cannot take responsibility for actions beyond our control or knowledge.
The bottom line is that we want to play by the rules. We appreciate your support, but please act ethically, thoughtfully, and within the law.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
