Archive for the opinion Category
August 17, 2009
Better late than never. The Dominion Post’s editorial this morning backs the current Child Discipline Law, and Sue Bradford’s initiative.
… The law change has affected the child-rearing practices of many other other mums and dads. They have diligently tried to learn new ways to discipline wayward youngsters, even when their patience has been stretched almost to its limit. And police report that, despite the fears of Mr McCoskrie and Mr Baldock, they were called to only a few more “child assault events” in the six months to April 4 279 compared with 258 in the previous period. Of the 279 cases, none involved a “smacking” prosecution.
As long as police keep exercising common sense and parents strive to act with restraint, the Bradford initiative has been no bad thing.
August 13, 2009
How does our referendum on smacking look to the world? Not good. Journalist Lotta Hördin wrote this editorial for independent newspaper Helsingborgs Dagblad the fifth largest morning paper in Sweden on New Zealand’s “tragic referendum”.
It’s never right to hit children (8th August, 2009 – Helsingborgs Dagblad)
Tragic referendum in New Zealand
Raising children using violence should definitely be a thing of the past. Unfortunately this is not the case. This is illustrated by the current referendum in New Zealand. Sweden was the first in the world to illegalize hitting children in 1979. Here (in Sweden) how could anyone think about changing this law? But in New Zealand, who introduced the law in 2007, an organization called Family First gathered enough signatures to force the politicians to carry out a referendum. The referendum is now underway.
The current opinion polls show that the majority of New Zealanders think a little “smacking” should be allowed. Indicating they want to remove the current law.
It was not easy when the law was introduced here (in Sweden). In the 1920’s a law called “Husaga” allowed the master of the house to hit his wife, children and servants. Up until 1958 teachers were allowed to hit students. But in the 1960’s public opinion turned and laid the foundations for the current law.
Since then 23 countries have created a similar law including our Nordic neighbors, and many other European countries. However, in the UK you are still allowed to smack your child and even in USA it is allowed in the home. In some states it is also allowed in the schools.
A law against smacking children doesn’t mean that all the violence stops. That’s illustrated in the statistics. Children get smacked and abused even in Sweden. You need more than a law to change bad behaviour, but from society’s side prohibition is an important signal. It also provides an opportunity to hold the offender accountable to the law. The increase in the reports of child abuse we have seen (in Sweden) can relate to fact that the tolerance levels have been lowered and in some way this is thanks to the law.
Children are vulnerable and defenseless to adults, therefore it is important that there are laws to protect them when people in their close environment fail. In New Zealand the opposition to the law argues that parents that give their children a smack on the bum are criminals. But where do you draw the line?
Well of course you draw the line that all violence is illegal otherwise you’re skating on thin ice. Raising children should, above all, be built on good communication and mutual respect. That is not to say that the adult surrenders and lets the child take over and decide everything. But violence large or small should be forbidden. The referendum in New Zealand is to illustrate public opinion on the issue. Leading politicians are planning not to vote and a NO to the law will be a hot potato to handle, but it shouldn’t be. The only right thing, of course, is that New Zealand in the future has a law against smacking children.
August 12, 2009
As I am sure everyone is excruciatingly well aware, we are right now in the middle of the postal referendum on the physical discipline of children.
Voting started on 31 July and finishes on 21 August.
At a cost of $9 million to the taxpayer, the referendum asks:
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
I reckon this question is both misleading and ambiguous.
A lot of people tell me they have no intention of voting, or are going to spoil their ballot paper, because they are angry about money being wasted on such a confused proposition.
Other people are keen to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ because they have strong views on the issue and want to vote regardless.
This includes me of course. I will be voting ‘Yes’ and encouraging others to do the same, as I see that voting ‘Yes’ is a vote for keeping the law as it is.
Parents are not being prosecuted in their droves for giving their children a ‘smack’.
There is actually no offence called ‘smacking’ in New Zealand law.
There is, however, an offence of ‘assault’ which has always been there.
What the law change in 2007 achieved was simply the removal of the defence of ‘reasonable force for the purpose of correction’ which in the past allowed some parents to get away with quite badly beating their children.
The ‘reasonable force’ defence also meant parents felt they had a state-sanctioned right to use physical force as a way of disciplining their children.
New Zealand made a huge step forward two years ago when Parliament voted by a huge majority to take away this defence and give our children the same legal protection from violence as we adults enjoy.
I hope that despite the anger people justifiably feel at the way in which money is being wasted on this confused referendum question, some of you at least will consider voting ‘yes’ as an expression of support for the law change.
People often ask me, ‘If you think this question is so ambiguous, what should the question have been?”
Of course it could have been any number of things, but I believe a much fairer question would have been something like ‘Should the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction be available to New Zealand parents?’
At least people would then have been a lot clearer on what they were voting for or against.
I have put a member’s bill forward seeking to ensure that in future when someone comes up with a proposal for a citizens’ initiated referendum, the Clerk of the House – who approves these questions – has more legal guidance on what should go forward.
I am suggesting that questions that are ambiguous complex, leading or misleading should not be accepted, and that the proposer keeps working on the question with the Clerk until it is clear and simple.
I am in discussions with the Minister of Justice about this at the moment, and hope the Government may change the law in this area as a result.
Meanwhile, the debate on whether our kids deserve a childhood free from violence continues, and will for a while yet, whatever the result on 21 August.
August 11, 2009
John Roughan writes in the New Zealand Herald (8/8/09) that the men behind the smacking poll are so confident of its result they have prepared their next move by drafting a bill that would allow parents to use reasonable force for “correcting” a child’s behaviour.
He writes that they expect the vote for their “good parental correction” to be so decisive that John Key will have to surrender his stated wish to leave well-enough alone.
When they sent the bill to Roughan they said, “This is what government will adopt after the referendum.” So definite, And wanted him to report that the bill, sponsored by Act MP John Boscawen, expressly forbids the use of “any weapon, tool or instrument”.
“That is progress,” he wrote.
He then engaged on the No Vote team in an email Q&A to seek clarity.
“The bill would also make correction illegal if it “causes the child to suffer injury which is more than transitory and trifling” or, “is inflicted by any means that is cruel or degrading”.
“So that is what their correction is not, but what exactly is it? It is not simply the instant admonitory smack that the law now specifically permits. They want to add correction as a distinct permitted purpose.”
He concluded: “I don’t need a right, he does. But there it is; they want the right to smack long after the event, “as long as it’s not abusive … as long as the child associates the punishment with the wrong behaviour … haven’t you heard of parents taking time out … ?”
“I find the idea of parents taking “time out” to plan a punishment quite repugnant if what they plan is physical.
“Whatever the referendum result, I think justice will decide the hiding has had its day.”
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 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.
August 2, 2009
Johny O’Donnell, a leader of Students Against Violence Everywhere (the SAVE Movement) gave the following speech on Parliament Steps last Thursday.
Tena Koutou Katoa
I stand before you today to represent the views of the many rangatahi up and down Aotearoa who are calling on adults to vote in support of violence free homes. I stand with just three of our group of passionate rangitahi who have joined the Students Against Violence Everywhere youth movement and are dedicated to making a difference to our society.
There is a gap in our society and it is youth opinions. Perhaps the government and everyday citizens would be better informed if youth get a better say, I think the referendum is a clear example of young people’s rights and opinions being overlooked.
This law is the difference between us having equal rights to be protected from violence or having less rights than adults and animals. So this issue is a very important topic for young people, surely we would get a say in this issue. Our rights to be brought up in violence free homes are being threatened by groups who are only thinking about adults and it disgusts me that these people are ok with our children being brought up on violence as a form of discipline. As quoted by SAVE member Manaaki Walker “Violence is a ripple effect. It starts off as a drop in the water but soon creates a ripple effect which disturbs all the waters. This is no different than smacking a child. It may start as a smack but can trigger other violent behaviours from both the parent and the child. We need to keep our waters calm and let children have peace in their own homes”.
Smacking is violence and it is harmful, we need to make change to our parenting methods. I want to be a part of a generation that eradicates all forms of physical punishment because it is ineffective, unnecessary, harmful to children and a mind set of some kiwi parents that this is the only option. This law is about positive change and it is happening, good parents are not being criminalised and our attitudes are changing. Child abuse is no longer excused because of discipline.
In a recent survey held on the SAVE movement website 69% of youth voted yes to the question Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? 69% of our young people are urging adults to take this opportunity to do the right thing – be the voice that we can’t be and speak for us.
This question was one of many questions aimed at canvassing young peoples opinions and 100 people from as young as 10 years old participated in our online survey from all around New Zealand. We also asked should there be the defence of discipline in child abuse cases? A clear 81% of youth said no. Further that 82% believed that young people deserved a better say on this issue. And when asked what best describes the referendum question 45% of participants said it was absolutely shocking and shouldn’t be allowed, while 24% said it was not very good and miss leading. Just 8% thought that the referendum question was excellent.
So lets clear this up once and for all young people of this country are calling for people to vote yes and I am only echoing that call. The time has come for people to listen to youth opinions and protect our rights to be free from all forms of violence including physical punishment. I can only ask that you do the right thing and speak for us- physical punishment is harmful, it’s a waste of time and can only encourage other forms of violence- there is no line between a smack and other violence- the whole lot of it needs to be gone from our homes. Lets not put this change under threat please vote yes in the referendum.
No reira
Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa.
August 2, 2009
There was a nice piece in yesterday’s Herald by John Roughan: Sinister undertones to referendum instigators, in which John rightly brings into question what Bob McCoskrie and friends mean by “correction”. He concludes that what the instigators of this referendum are really after is the restoration of their right to give their kids a good hiding.
There is something very creepy about this smacking referendum now arriving in the mail. What exactly do the citizens behind this initiative, men like Bob McCoskrie, mean by “good parental correction”?
Their publicity pretends they mean nothing more than the smack that an anxious or annoyed parent might use to stop or prevent dangerous or offensive behaviour. But that can’t be all they want because the law now expressly permits the use of parental force for exactly those purposes.
Roughan lays out a detailed analysis of why the existing Child Discipline Law allows “good parental correction”, and concludes:
Those who initiated the referendum know what the new law says. They know it permits reasonable force for all the preventive situations they are fond of citing.
They pretend it does not because they could not attract majority support for the restoration of the right to flog children. Don’t be deceived by them. Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Absolutely.
Read the full article.
July 30, 2009
Many people have asked me how I will be voting in the upcoming referendum on smacking children. My personal position is that I will be voting “yes”.
I have been a proud and consistent supporter of moves to make it unlawful to hit children. I supported at every stage the passing of what started out as Sue Bradford’s Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline Bill. In the debate during the committee stages on that Bill relating to its purpose and title, I said:
It could equally be described as the “Crimes (Giving Children the Same Protection from Assaults as Adults) Bill”. It could equally be fairly described as the “Providing Reassurance to Parents by Providing Protection in Situations of Restraint for the Purposes of Keeping a Child or Other Person Safe Bill”. It could be equally, ably described as the “All Use of Force to Punish a Child will be Illegal, and This is Clear to Parents Bill”.
It could be described as the “Making a Smack Equally Unlawful Along With Other Harsh Punishments of a Child Bill”. It could be called the “Sending a Very Clear Public Message that Violence Against Children is Unacceptable Bill”. It could be called the “Making Legislation Consistent With the SKIP Initiative and Other Positive Parenting Initiatives Bill”. It could be called the “Making it Clear that Private Schools Cannot Get Parents to Physically Punish their Children for the School, as Currently Happens, Bill”. It could be called the “Making it Clear that it is Illegal to Hit Children Anywhere on their Bodies Bill”.
It could be called the “Making New Zealand’s Legislation Consistent with International Human Rights Obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Bill”; that would be an equally apt name for this legislation. It could be called the “Making New Zealand’s Crime Laws Consistent with the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act, the Domestic Violence Act, and the Care of Children Act Bill”. It could be called any of those names because they describe what the bill does.
Not only have my views on the intention of the legislation not changed, but I believe that the police have demonstrated diligence and balance in administering the law.
What we have seen instead is a testament to the willingness of most New Zealanders to acknowledge that fair is fair: kiwis are good parents in general, but should not allow those who abuse then and cower either behind their culture, their past, their religion or their own stubbornness by defending practises that no longer reflect who we are as a nation.
Put another way, the current legislation is working; let it be.
There are some who would suggest that the legislation is not popular even within my own community, that the Pacific community is unanimous in their opposition to such change. I am reminded again of what I said in 2007:
Some of us who are young and of the Pacific know a large number of Pacific families who have opted out of violence and deliberately refrained from the practices of the previous generation. We have decided not to perpetuate the cycle of violence. There are many people in that category and I hope that I am thought to be one of them. It is patronising and a bit sickening to hear speaker after speaker talk about how the Pacific community-this mythical monolith-is opposed to this legislation. That is not so. There is a generation of young Pacific people in this country who are achievers and who are very proud of the fact that we have broken cycles of abuse and poverty. This sort of legislation is what we support. Let it not be said that there is a monolithic Pacific community against this legislation-that is a myth.
We all can be better, we all can do better and we all can help others better. Let’s not lose sight of that.
I will vote yes to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves; to promote solutions that allow the police to utilize what they have been trained to do; as an affirmation of my conviction that Kiwi parents are good parents; to break another cycle of violence.
