Most of the time, I’m a big softie. But this week, with Incredible Hulk-like tendencies, I turned into Super Domineering Dad by taking a stand and putting the little one into time out for the first time.
I thought I was looking out for her personal safety with my tough and loving stance. Crikey, she’d pulled herself up onto the cabinet in front of the TV, which is a fair-old fall to the wooden floor boards below, and was slapping the plasma screen with glee. It was the third time – in quick succession – she’d done it so what’s a dad to do?
While that might not sound like dastardly behaviour I couldn’t help but imagine that slab of electronic wizardry falling off the wall and squishing little honey lamb into a shrink-wrapped luncheon sausage.
It turns out, I think time out is a miserable failure and my wife and I don’t believe in it anymore. Not that it didn’t work, I just didn’t give it a chance. In fact, I was the miserable failure because my heart caved in to an uncontrollable longing to pick her up, hug her, and wipe those tears dry after shutting that door in her face.
So what do you do to stamp out wilful toddler tantrums and disobedience? Because, as Mr Ear Clip of Christchurch found out earlier this week, times have changed when it comes to discipline.
Gone are the days when mum cracked the wooden spoon on the bench as a threat – and boy, did my sister and I laugh when it broke on one occasion. Then there was the ultimate I-mean-business threat of dad – a far bigger softie than I am – pretending to take off his belt.
So instead of time out I’m resorting to either asking the little critter nicely to do something; praising her by way of coercion; ignoring her and hoping like hell she stops doing it eventually; or – and this is best of all – distracting her (which requires a ball, a puzzle, or, if I’m desperado, a TV show).
But hang on a minute, I thought I was meant to be a parent? I thought I was the one calling the shots?
Maybe I should harden up, stop being such a sook, and stick to my guns.
Then again, no matter what your approach, disciplining a toddler – and a teenager for that matter – is always going to be torture.
Many people, including myself, have been saying that the Referendum question about smacking, is ambiguous and misleading. So does that mean that we should ignore it and chuck it in the waste paper basket, or should we respond? The referendum question is: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” A lot of people – both ordinary parents and the majority of experts – don’t believe that smacking is part of good parental correction, but we should not be distracted by the phrase “as part of good parental correction”. The Referendum is really about whether the 2007 child discipline law is a good and just law, and whether it is in the best interests of children.
In my view we need to stand up and be counted by voting “Yes”. If we vote “Yes” we show that we understand the law as one small part of our country’s efforts to show that we care about our children and that they are human beings who should be loved and nurtured rather than hit. This law is not about criminalizing parents, because it is very clear that the police are not prosecuting occasional light smacking. It is about sending a message that parents should not have an excuse in law, if they hurt their children badly enough in the name of discipline, to come to the attention of authorities.
It’s important to put the issue in an international context. We are part of a global movement towards recognising that physical punishment is violence and a violation of rights. Some years ago we stopped physically punishing prisoners and juvenile offenders, and stopped spouses being allowed to physically punish their partners, and teachers from physically punishing children in schools and early childhood centres. We have now joined the 24 countries around the world, which have prohibited the physical punishment of children in all settings, including the home. Progress towards eliminating physical punishment around the globe has been exponential in the last decade. In 1999 corporal punishment was illegal in only eight states but today it is illegal in twenty four states – Austria, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Moldova, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela. High Courts in two further states, Italy and Nepal, have ruled that corporal punishment in childrearing is unlawful. Many other countries, such as the Czech Republic, Ireland, Lithuania and Serbia, are committed to full prohibition and are in the process of developing new policies and laws to bring this about. Laws do not always change behaviour, but recent research in Germany by Professor Kai Bussman showed that countries which had prohibited corporal punishment had fewer families using physical punishment and more families rearing their children without it. Especially if this law change is accompanied by education and support for other parenting methods, it can make a difference.
The Child Discipline law is just and good because it protects children from the public health risk attached to the use of physical punishment. No, I am not saying that an occasional light smack is going to harm children forever, but regular use of physical punishment is a risk to children’s health. Research shows that physical punishment has been associated with children’s increased aggression; poorer academic achievement; poorer quality parent-child relationships; more depression and anxiety; and decreased self control. No-one has been able to show that physical punishment has any long-term positive effects on children’s behaviour or development. Other more positive methods of parental discipline have been shown to be more effective, contribute to the well being of children and do not pose risks.
But by far the most important reason that the present Child Discipline law should be supported, is that physical punishment is an assault on children’s dignity. It is disrespectful of their physical integrity, and they find it shameful and humiliating. If we want to treat children without discrimination, as people with human rights, we must support this law.
Anne Smith is a professor in the education faculty of Otago University.
In his column on Scoop, Gordon Campbell takes to task the instigators of the upcoming referendum on a law which “appears to be working exactly as the law makers intended. Parents are not being criminalised en masse by the law change, as some had feared” and the system which allowed it to proceed.
He also criticises the question saying it “contains a value judgment about the context (“good parental correction”)” and “assumes the question of whether, under current Police procedures, such a smack can ever be a criminal offence”.
Essentially, he says the “public is being asked to pass a judgement on a scenario that two years down the track, has not eventuated”
At the very least, he writes: “the Key government will be wanting to wait and hear from the MSD review of the current law – and how it is operating – before reaching any decision. Unfortunately, the public will not be able to do likewise.”
Why am I supporting the Yes Vote Team? For a number of reasons.
First, there’s the pragmatic reason.
Ten years ago I didn’t think much about Section 59 of the Crimes Act, but then I was assigned to write a feature for North & South magazine on the short life and cruel death of James Whakaruru. I interviewed the families of James and his killer and I realised, to my horror, that it wasn’t just a “light smack” used as everyday discipline, but jug cords, vacuum cleaner pipes, belts, closed fists, pieces of wood – anything close at hand when tempers were lost.
Members of the whanau argued with me, even as the earth on James’ grave was still fresh and the little windmills fluttered in the Hawke’s Bay breeze, this was acceptable if their children were naughty. Misbehaviour was defined as not eating their food, answering back or not answering back depending on the mood of the parent, making a mess – in fact any behaviour seemed to depend on what side of bed the parents got out of.
With some people you can educate and persuade as much as you like but you’re never going to make a difference. I believe you have to accept that laws must be changed if children’s lives are to made better. I accept that children will still die – sadly – and children will still be bashed, but there will be parents whose behaviour will be moderated because it is against the law to smack, belt, slap or whatever you like to call it.
You only have to look at smoking laws, or seatbelt laws, to see how they have changed people’s habits.
Secondly, the philosophical reason. I believe in the non-initiation of force, so why shouldn’t that apply to children as well as adults? Why should children have a lesser defence in court when they have suffered violence?
If I give my husband a shove, or a flick over the ear, or even a smack on the bottom, that is assault. There is no defence. If he lays a complaint and it goes to court, I cannot use “reasonable force” as defence because my husband might have come home late from the pub for the fifth time that week and needed some discipline.
So why should a child, who may have suffered similar initiation of force against their person, not be similarly protected? A child is a human being, with the same powers of reason as an adult – a mind, a heart, a brain. A child is not an “almost human being”.
Thirdly, getting rid of Nanny State. Eh?
Yes, you read that correctly, I want Nanny State out of our lives. Therefore the same law should apply to adults and children (though I am happy with the John Key amendment as it stands).
The pro-smackers who claim Nanny State is telling parents how to raise their children by banning smacking are actually doing more of the same by telling parents what kind of smack they can give their children. Act MP John Boscawen wants a new Bill which would allow a light smack. This is just another politician butting in with another law. Sue Bradford’s Bill actually got Nanny State out of people’s lives, but there was so much hysteria, nobody seemed to realise that.
I don’t expect miracles from Sue Bradford’s law change but hopefully, in the next few decades, we might see a shift in attitudes toward children in this country. It doesn’t help when issues are poisoned, and people like Christine Rankin are applauded for polarising the debate. It’s not simply a case of leftie versus rightie; Commie versus Christian. Jesus said suffer the little children to come to me, but Family First backs a father who allegedly repeatedly pushed over his little boy on the rugby field.
Loving smack? No such thing. How about hateful hug? And finally, consider this. Within marriage, rape was once legal between man and wife because marriage was taken as consent. Imagine we were campaigning to change the law, and those who opposed the amendment had written a referendum question which asked: “Should forced sex as part of a good marriage be a criminal act?”
“No matter how mad I get when he acts up, I just don’t want to be that kind of parent. No matter how loud he screams, no matter how big a tantrum he throws, and no matter how much he ignores me, I don’t want to smack him,” he writes.
He’s also annoyed that the government has legislated to this effect saying: “I’d like to think that parents should be able to parent however they want. I’d like to think that parents are responsible, caring and considerate towards their children. I can’t imagine that not being the case. “
However, he says, the reality is not so nice nor easy and goes on to cite numerous and terrible cases of child cruelty in New Zealand meted out by parents who believe in physical punishment.
In today’s Herald, Brian Rudman points out that the $8.9M being spent on the referendum is equivalent to half the money that the government spends on adult education, or a quarter of what Barnardos spends each year on helping children in need.
He continues:
For all their fear-mongering, the pro-smackers have been unable to produce any evidence to back their claims that good parents will be marched off to slappers prison. The best they could come up with as a poster boy for their cause was Christchurch musician and father-of-six, Jimmy Mason. A month ago he was convicted of assaulting his 4-year-old son.
He was dubbed the “ear-flick dad” but witnesses and even he told a different story.
A witness saw him yelling at the boy in downtown Christchurch, saw him yank his ear and hit him in the face with a closed fist. Mr Mason’s version was he gave the boy “a bloody good flick” because he was “being a prat”.
A policewoman testified he repeatedly shouting “f … ing listen” to the child and told her “I hit the big one in the face and that is what I do …”
Later, on what passes as television current affairs these days, Mr Mason was given the chance to recreate his attempts to teach his youngsters safe bike riding practices.
He thought better of repeating the physical violence, or the angry swearing. But if he’s the best the smackers can do by way of a martyr figure, they should apologise for wasting our time – and money.
The question assumes that smacking is part of good parental correction – which is an assumption that John and many other people dispute.
Vote YES if you favour smacking being a crime, you want to keep the law the way it is, you support a violence free society, but you find yourself in the company of Sue Bradford and the Nanny State, and those people who think they know how to bring up your children better than you do.
Vote No if you’d like to go back to the previous law where “reasonable force” is a defence against physically hitting children, and you find yourself in the company of the whackers and the bashers and the wacky right and all of those people.
John is voting YES because he believes, along with Pita Sharples, that there has to be a better way of bringing up your children than smacking them.
In a feature article in today’s DomPost entitled The smacking debate needs some correction Bob McCoskrie of Family First makes a number of claims that warrant comment.
This is a continuation to our previous article on misleading claims.
Misleading claim 10: Mild physical punishment does no harm.
Our response: Physical punishment can be harmful, and is at best ineffective in modifying children’s behaviour.
Whether or not mild physical punishment harms is likely to depend on the circumstances it is administered in. The relevant question is does physical punishment do any good?Research indicates that it does not. People continue to strike their children in the name of behaviour correction for historical reasons. It’s time to pay attention to the relevant research and move on to more effective parenting techiques.
The fact that there may be little evidence that minor forms of physical discipline harm children in no way justifies the use of physical discipline. Does punishment, the infliction of pain and retribution really contribute positively to human development and shape behaviour constructively?
A smack is a violent act. If someone smacks an adult woman, do we ask “Does it do her any harm?” Of course not. We assume that to some degree it is harmful emotionally and harmful of her relationship with the person hitting her. It is also an affront to the woman’s integrity. Yet this very question, “Does it do them any harm?” is frequently asked in relation to hitting children.
Misleading claim 11: There has been an increase in child abuse in Sweden since physical punishment was banned there.
Our response: Sweden has been very successful in reducing child physical abuse. Raising awareness of the issue and mandatory reporting have caused reported rates to rise.
In fact there has been a steady decrease in assaults on children since the law changed in Sweden. In Sweden as in other countries increases in notifications for child abuse indicate an increased willingness on the part of the community to take action and report assaults on children rather than an increase in abuse.
Misleading claim 12:Huge increases in notifications to CYF since the law change are in some way connected to the new law.
Our response: The increases are in fact largely due to increases in the number of children referred to CYF by the Police because the children have been present at incidents of domestic violence.
Misleading claim 13: The Police have discretion not to investigate cases brought to their attention but CYF do not have discretion.
Our response: Both agencies are required to investigate complaints.
In fact both the Police and CYF are required to investigate cases of assault on children brought to their attention. So they should. The nature of the investigation depends on the information they are given by the person making the complaint.
The Police have discretion not to prosecute which is different from discretion not to investigate. CYF do not prosecute because it is not their function. If they believe prosecution is warranted they refer the case to the Police. In a large proportion of cases CYF take no further formal action following initial investigation, not because there has been no substance to the referral, but because there is thought to be no risk of serious abuse the child. This does not mean all is well in the family, rather that a more supportive and informal solution is indicated eg. referral to a family support agency.
SO Rodney Hide wants us to decide everything by referendums? Or at least make our local spending decisions this way.
I might be inclined to go some of the distance with him – if referendums are going to work at all, then it is probably on black or white local issues – if it weren’t for the fact that the suggestion comes packaged in an agenda straight out of the Act New Zealand manifesto: privatisation is good, local government bad, so let’s reduce the latter to its bare minimum – roads and sewage, primarily – and sell off, or contract out, the rest of it.
The corollary is that common enterprise, shared ideals and the very notion of community get lost.
What could be more democratic? Let the people decide, direct action, participatory democracy and all that stuff. Curious how Mr Hide and the Government weren’t even able to countenance a select committee process for the changes to the Auckland Super City arrangements, let alone a referendum. Let’s call it democracy when it suits.
I’m not a huge fan of citizens’ initiated referendums on national issues, because to date the experience is that the questions at the centre of them – addressing complex social issues – are either so broad or so narrow as to be essentially meaningless, or hopelessly loaded, or both.
Norm Withers, deputy mayor of Christchurch, got a gong in the Queen’s Birthday honours the other day. Good on him. A deserving candidate for an MNZM for his long services to sport and to the community. Mr Withers hit the headlines in 1997 when his mother, Nan Withers, was brutally assaulted during a robbery of his menswear store.
He mounted a citizens-initiated referendum, and anyone who recalled the pictures of his badly beaten mother would have signed it without a second thought. In fact, such was the manner in which it was phrased that most people would have signed it regardless. At the 1999 election, 92% gave it the big tick.
The question read: “Should there be a reform of the justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?”
You had to say “yes” or “no”. But to what, exactly? Yes, reform always sounds like a good idea (except when you have to pay millions for some ill-defined proposition of what kind and how much); yes, victims should get more consideration and, yes, probably some restitution and compensation (but, hang on, don’t the courts already have the power to order that, and is it going to raise my taxes?); and imposing minimum sentences, yep, that sounds sensible too (if they don’t already do that); and hard labour for all serious violent offences (however they might be precisely defined) sounds like those jolly good old-fashioned black and white movies where convicts broke up rocks from dawn till dusk on the chain gang. Excellent.
I’m not knocking Norm, nor his supporters, for the sincerity of their efforts, but a lump of jelly has more definition than the question that went out to the electorate on that occasion.
The question for the impending August referendum on the amended S59 of the Crimes Act, removing the defence of reasonable force in cases where parents have assaulted their children, is seriously flawed for a different reason.
The question is: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
Call me stupid, but surely this phraseology is a teensy bit loaded. That is to say, the whole debate is around what constitutes appropriate parental correction. By inserting the word “good” in the question, the referendum both asks the question and answers it – at least for those who haven’t already made up their minds.
It presupposes a smack is good and in so doing makes a mockery of the whole idea of impartial referendums and direct democracy. What is more, it is going to cost the country $10 million, the result will be non-binding, and it pre-empts a two-year Ministry of Social Development review of how the law is working by just a month or two.
In 2007, Parliament, having considered the amendment in great depth – and adapted it to deal with claims the new law would criminalise ordinary parents – passed it by a majority of 113 to 8.
Rodney’s mob, pin-up party for referendums – and, it could be argued, for the rights of parents to assault their children with impunity – in its wisdom voted against it.
Simon Cunliffe is assistant editor of the Otago Daily Times
Calling it the “anti-smacking legislation” is wrong – the purpose of the legislation is to protect children from being beaten up by their parents. It’s aimed at changing the culture of violence against our children that we clearly have in NZ.
$10m is being wasted on the upcoming referendum on a ridiculously worded question. We’ve had the debate already, and the Child Discipline Law was passed by a margin of 113-8.
The legislation anticipated an education programme that never occurred. The $10m being spent on the referendum would have much better been spent on the education programme.
The real referendum question should have been, “Should we be able to beat our children with a horse whip or a piece of wood and get away with it in court”, as happened before this legislation was passed.
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
