Archive for August, 2009
August 10, 2009
All referendum voting papers have been delivered to voters, with over half a million votes cast so far according to a statement released by Robert Peden, the Chief Electoral Officer of the Ministry of Justice.
“If anyone hasn’t got their referendum voting paper yet, or they’ve lost it or made a mistake on it they should contact us to be issued with a replacement voting paper.”
Voting in the referendum opened on 31 July.
As at 5pm on Thursday 6 August, 570,300 votes had been received though votes would not be counted until after voting closes on 21 August.
“If anyone who enrolled by 30 July has not got their voting paper, they can get a replacement voting paper online at:
www.elections.org.nz/app/cir-reissue/
or by calling Freephone 0800 36 76 56,” says Mr Peden.
Replacement voting papers are usually issued to people who have moved house and not updated their enrolment address details, or the voter has lost their voting paper or made a mistake and it isn’t clear which way they want to vote.
The original voting paper is then cancelled.
“We recommend that people have their voting paper in the mail no later than Thursday 20 August to ensure it gets to us in time,” he said. “If you’ve already made up your mind, I would encourage you to post your voting paper back today so you don’t forget or miss the voting deadline.”
Voting papers from overseas must be postmarked no later than Thursday 20 August (this allows for international time differences to ensure compliance with the close of the voting period).
August 10, 2009
Scientific American reports today that a task force appointed by the American Psychological Association concludes that “parents and caregivers should reduce and potentially eliminate their use of any physical punishment as a disciplinary measure.”
[Task force chair psychologist Sandra A. Graham-Bermann of the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor] explained that the group of 15 experts in child development and psychology found correlations between physical punishment and an increase in childhood anxiety and depression, an increase in behavioral problems including aggression, and impaired cognitive development—even when the child’s pre-punishment behavior and development was taken into consideration.
Read the full article.
August 7, 2009
Terry Dobbs wrote an insightful piece in today’s Herald, discussing the results of her research and its implications for improving behaviour outcomes for our children. Here are some excerpts:
Proponents of smacking argue it is not child abuse and that smacking and child abuse are not related issues. They claim that physical punishment is only used as a last resort, that smacking is lightly administered and harmless and should be used when a parent is calm and loving.
But how real is this – what do children tell us? In 2005, as part of her Master’s thesis at Otago University, she interviewed 80 children aged between 5 and 14 years old about their experiences and understanding of family discipline. They were from ordinary New Zealand households with no history of child abuse or neglect.
Some 91 per cent of children in the study said they had been physically punished.
Adults may define a smack as something a lot gentler than a hit, but children were clear that a smack is a hard hit that hurts both emotionally and physically.
Fear and pain may sometimes achieve short-term obedience, but in the long term these emotions are unlikely to contribute to positive behavioural outcomes or promote children’s effective learning.
Many of the children believed smacking did not work as a disciplinary tool. They said that the use of time out, having privileges removed or being grounded were far more effective means of discipline.
The children’s responses render many adults’ claims and justifications highly suspect. It is also concerning that quite large numbers of children reported adult behaviour that was in fact abusive.
[Progressing to more effective discipline techniques means] moving on from a number of deeply held and understandable attitudes and emotions – coming to terms with the fact that your own loving parents hit you (they knew no better), that you may have harmed your child’s development (it’s never too late to change that) and that the law can be regarded as a positive move for children rather than an unwelcome imposition on adults.
Our 2007 child discipline law is only two years old – let’s give it time to help New Zealand grow happy, healthy children.
Read the whole article.
Also see a copy of the report “Insights”, which describes the results of Terry Dobbs’s work, and was commissioned by Save the Children
August 7, 2009
Do parents have the right to smack their children?
The referendum on smacking is sparking controversy nationwide. As a result New Zealand’s premier debating society is hosting a show down between prominent Yes and No Voters in 2009.
The debate; open to the public, with entry by gold coin koha, is being organised by the Victoria University Debating Society and is sponsored by the University.
Side affirmative will be represented by champion student debater Udayan Mukherjee, commentator and former journalist Dave Crampton (who blogs at http://big-news.blogspot.com) and Wellington lawyer Michael Mabbett.
Green Party MP Sue Bradford will speak for the negative side, as will founder of Lobby Group EPOCH and former UNICEF NZ Advocacy Manager and Beth Wood. They will be joined by Victoria University Debating Society President Polly Higbee.
Each debater will have around ten minutes to speak, and a show of hands at the end will determine the winner.
Tea and coffee (and heated discussion) will be served after the debate.
“That parents have the right to smack their children”
Monday August 10, 6:30pm – 8:00pm
Lecture Theatre One,
Rutherford House, Pipitea Campus, Victoria University
August 6, 2009
The Northern Advocate reports that leaders from the seven Northland (Te Tai Tokerau) iwi are urging the public to read past the controversial referendum’s wording and vote YES.
“We are voting ‘yes’ as good parents want their children to have the same protection as adults,” Ngati Whatua chief executive Allan Pivac said.
“Our No1 responsibility is manaakitanga, the care of our people, and our children need to be protected from all forms of abuse,” Ngapuhi chief executive Teresa Tepania-Ashton said.
They are joined by leaders from Te Aupouri, Ngati Kahu, Whaingaroa, Te Rarawa, and Ngatiwai.
Read the full article.
Tags: Allan Pivac ,amokura ,manaakitanga ,ngapuhi ,Ngati Kahu ,ngati whatua ,Ngatiwai ,northern advocate ,northland ,Te Aupouri ,Te Rarawa ,Teresa Tepania-Ashton ,Whaingaroa
August 6, 2009
A Yes Vote in the upcoming referendum supports a law that is working effectively to help bring about a cultural change in New Zealand to move away from physical punishment of our children.
Plunket New Zealand President, Carol Becker, says the referendum on Section 59 represents the next step of a journey New Zealanders must take to ensure the safety of all children growing up in this country.
“What we achieve for the sake of our children’s future is now up to us as a nation. We must all take responsibility to bring about universally healthy parenting behaviours and attitudes. By supporting each other, we can all help to create the healthy caring environments children need to thrive.”
Carol says, “Those practical, effective ways of building a good parent-child relationship and of shaping and guiding a child’s behaviour empower and strengthen us all as parents. This in turns leads to well adjusted, happy children and a stronger, healthier future as a nation.
In addition to supporting one another, there are a number of options available to parents keen to enhance their parenting skills. For example, Plunket delivers a range of services on top of our core Well Child health visits – all at no cost to the participant. There are parenting education courses, informal playgroups, and even courses on how to deal with young children as part of the school education. For urgent advice or support, PlunketLine offers a 24 hour seven days a week service.
“Children of all ages respond to praise and encouragement and need a structured, secure world that includes consistency and predictable consequences. They need to know they are loved and what the rules are.
“Not everyone was raised like this. It is important for the sake of all our children – and for parents themselves – to seek the kind of support that works for them to create that safe, loving, and secure world for their own children.
Groups such as Plunket are here to work alongside and support New Zealand parents in what truly must be a nationwide commitment to creating strong, healthy families and strong, healthy communities.”
August 5, 2009
If you are planning on advertising in the referendum, please take note of the Chief Electoral Office’s Postal Referendum Advertising Rules, which are reproduced here for clarity.
—
A postal referendum on the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand” will run from Friday 31 July to Friday 21 August 2009.
Any individual or group can undertake advertising to promote either a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote on the referendum question.
Advertisers are subject to an expenditure limit of $50,000 (including GST).
Advertisements must contain a statement setting out the name and residential or business address of the person at whose direction it is being published. A Post Office box or website address is insufficient.
The expenditure limit applies to advertising that is used or appears to be being used to promote one of the answers to the referendum question, and is published or broadcast during the period from the 26 August 2008 until 21 August 2009.*
It is a serious offence for any person to, either alone or in combination with others, knowingly spend more than the $50,000 expenditure limit. The offence is subject to a fine of up to $20,000. Persons or organisations that formally or informally enter into an agreement or understanding about their referendum advertising should assume that they are subject to a single advertising expenditure limit.
Any person at whose direction an advertisement is published or broadcast must file a return of expenses with the Chief Electoral Office by 25 September 2009 (being one month after the date that the result of the referendum is declared under section 49 of the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000).
The return must list where every advertisement was published or broadcast and the cost of every advertisement. A copy of a form for making a return of expenses for the postal referendum is available from the download panel on this page.
Advertisers who fail to meet these requirements are committing offences and may be referred to the Police.
The returns are open to public inspection.
It is an offence to print, distribute or deliver anything during the period from 28 July to 21 August that purports to be an imitation voting paper and that either has any direction or indication as to the way that the voter should vote or has anything on it that is likely to influence any vote.
The Chief Electoral Office is responsible for administering the advertising and expenditure provisions. If you have any questions about the rules please contact the Chief Electoral Office at: PO Box 3220, Wellington, Tel: (04) 495 0030, Fax: (04) 495 0031, Email: chief.electoral.office@justice.govt.nz
*The 26th of August is the date on which the Speaker of the House of Representatives presented the petition to the House after being certified as correct by the Clerk of the House under section 18(1)(a) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act. 21 August 2009 is the close of the voting period for the referendum.
August 5, 2009
Open Parachute has a cogent summary of the recent Police Statistics on the Child Discipline Law.
1: “Smacking” in itself is not an offence. The report had to consider offence codes which weren’t “smacking” but most likely to include “smacking” type incidents.
2: The legislation has had “minimal impact on police activity.”
3: During the review period “police attended 279 child assault events, 39 involved ‘minor acts of physical discipline’ and 8 involved smacking.”
4: There has been a decrease in ‘smacking events’ and ‘minor acts of physical discipline.’
5: There has been an increase (36) of ‘other child assault’ events. (We should be concerned about these).
6: “No prosecutions were made for ‘smacking’ events during this period.”
Read the whole article at Open Parachute.
August 4, 2009
On a Hiding to Nothing
Today (3 August) I received two pieces of mail in the post. The first was Build Magazine. The second was my voting paper for the so-called “so-called ‘anti-smacking’ law”. Seeing 89 glossy pages of engineering and building wisdom from the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ) alongside my voting paper got me thinking about the differences and similarities between engineering buildings and engineering societies. Now, the the building of societies is something we all share in and the big question is towards what are we building? I suspect that much of the opposition to the section 59 amendment (2007) to the Crimes Act 1961 comes from the notion that such legislative changes are in fact “Social Engineering” (or “PC”).
The “anti PC” argument goes that just changing the words does not change anything as we all know what we mean. Call a spade a spade. The counter argument is that there is a relationship between reality and the words we use to describe that reality. By changing the words we reshape the reality. Funny that the people who say the words don’t matter get so steamed up when the words are changed! This suggests to me that the words do matter. Anyone who has read Genesis might suspect that the spoken word is indeed reality-shaping. In Chapter 1 it is the word of God that brings the world into being. In Chapter 2 the naming of the animals and the spoken response of the man to the creation of the woman is fundamental to the relationship between humans with each other and the world around them.
So, what does it mean to rename “smacking” as “hitting” or to call either “criminal”? Quite a lot. Underneath the various arguments lies a profound two-fold question: What sort of world do we want to create and how do we want to relate to those with whom we share this world? Those of us who benefit from the way things are will probably opt for “smacking”, while the victims of violence or those who have to pick up the pieces will tend to go for “hitting”. Children will be pretty clear what they think is happening – if they are permitted to have an opinion.
We all know the referendum question is badly worded but for my money the decriminalisation of violence towards children does not sit with a theology that sees each person as unique and special and as the bearer of the image of God. I am going to vote “Yes” because I am only too well aware of the anger and violence that I am capable of and because I want to be a better person. To vote “Yes” is to say that violence towards children is not acceptable. It means setting ourselves the challenge of living up to our own word.
The Build Magazine cover is minimalist. It features the words “Product Substitution” and below that, “Corrosion”. The article on product substitution warns of the dangers of using inferior and fake products in place of the ones specified. Violence is never an adequate substitute for love. Jesus demonstrates the genuine article. The corrosion article reminds us that – for buildings as for cars – “rust never sleeps”. Corrosion is what we do to children when we resort to force, till one day we look down and find that we ourselves have slowly and silently been eaten away from the inside. A “Yes” vote BRANZ us as people who want to help stop the rot.
Tom Innes is Senior Ecumenical Chaplain at University of Canterbury
August 4, 2009
Children who are subjected to moderate or worse hitting as part of parental correction do suffer psychological and physical harm.
New Zealand has a proud history of being the first to change legislation to improve the well-being of its citizens.
We were the first to give women the vote, the first to ban nuclear armed and powered warships from our waters and on June 21, 2007, the first English-speaking country to give children the same protection under law from assault as adults.
These actions define us as New Zealanders and tell the world about our values. They make me proud to be a New Zealander.
As a paediatrician working in child protection, I knew of many cases where the old Crimes Act Section 59 defence of reasonable force had been misused and of cases where police chose not to prosecute assaults against children, knowing the “reasonable force” defence would be claimed.
This is no longer possible with the new Section 59.
Since the law was changed we have seen research published demonstrating that adult attitudes towards hitting children have changed.
Police have used their discretion to not prosecute trivial or inconsequential assaults, as the new Section 59 allows them to do.
This is exactly what the legislation was intended to do. And yet the aim of the proponents of the referendum is to force the Government to bring back the defence of reasonable force.
Of course the question is misleading. Smacking is not good parental correction. It can and does escalate in some houses to serious assaults.
Most of the parents I have met who seriously assaulted their child believed they were disciplining them and doing them good. Children who are subjected to moderate or worse hitting as part of parental correction do suffer psychological and physical harm.
Children whose parents use other positive parenting techniques do better than children of parents who hit.
The question also includes a value judgment – how can something “good” be bad?
And finally, parents are not being criminalised for a light smack, as referendum proponents would have you believe.
Paediatricians’ clinics these days are filled with children with problem behaviour. While not all of it is the result of poor parenting, better parenting would help to reduce the numbers of children we see with the physical and emotional scars of abuse.
In a society that values children, we owe it to them to do everything we can to reduce violence in their lives and increase the use of positive parenting skills among parents.
So what are we to do with this question? We could simply ignore the referendum as the colossal waste of time and money it is, but this could be attributed to simple apathy rather than support for protecting children.
We could protest the question by ticking Yes and No, but this would be recorded as a spoiled vote, along with those filled in incorrectly.
Or we could vote Yes, and send a clear message to the Government that we believe in protecting all children from assault.
The Prime Minister has said he does not want to change the law because it is working and he has better things to do, like getting the economy out of recession. I agree. I do not want our parliamentarians wasting time on this issue.
A large Yes vote is the best way of putting this issue to rest once and for all.
So I am voting Yes in the referendum. If you don’t want our politicians wasting any more time on this, if you believe the law is working as intended, and if you believe children have the same right to be free of violence that adults do, you should do the same.
—
Dr Russell Wills is a paediatrician in Hawkes Bay with a large child protection practice and is the clinical director of Maternal, Child and Youth Services at Hawkes Bay District Health Board. He is also spokesman for the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Paediatric Society of New Zealand on the referendum issue.
