Anton Blank, director of Te Kahui Mana Ririki, appeared on TV1 yesterday and spoke with great clarity about the child discipline issue and child abuse. Anton argues that there are no quick fixes, and it will take generations of sustained effort to realise significant change.
Smacking is just another form of violence against children that sits on a continuum of violent behaviours that includes maiming and killing our children, and all those behaviours need to be eradicated.
Tonight’s Campbell Live asks the question, “What would you do with $9 million?” A txt poll taken by Campbell Live shows that 61% of respondents believe that $9m on a referendum is a waste of money. Larry Baldock, the person who organised the referendum, seems confused about how best to spend $9m of taxpayer money. But not too confused to try to take advantage of the situation.
Baldock has issued a ransom letter to John Key stating that he’d withdraw the referendum if the government removes subclause 2 and subclause 3 from Section 59 of the Crimes Act… in other words, reintroduces “reasonable force” as a defence against assaulting a child.
That’s unlikely. We the taxpayers get to pay the price for Larry’s Folly.
It’s time to share some love. Over the last few days, we’ve had lots of coverage from a variety of blogs, and we’d like to give you the opportunity to see what others are saying. We’d like you consider supporting our friends who support us, by visiting their blogs occasionally and joining in the conversation.
The Hand Mirror has supported us from the start, most recently pointing out how confused John Boscawen is over the whole issue. They were the first to run our skyscraper.
If you think Christians are on the wrong side of this debate, think again. Christian Social Services (the folks who have to deal with the consequences of bad behaviour) are right behind us. Other brave religious souls have also spoken out.
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.
Green Party MP Sue Bradford this morning launched a Member’s Bill aimed at ending the use of confused questions in Citizens Initiated Referenda.
“Many New Zealanders have been shocked this week to discover the actual wording of the referendum question proposed by opponents of the law change that helps keep children safe from violence,” said Ms Bradford.
“The Green Party believes it is high time we ended the practice of allowing referenda petitions containing ambiguous questions to be put forward.
“My Citizens Initiated Referenda (Wording of Question) Amendment Bill will be placed in the parliamentary member’s ballot this Thursday 18 June, if one is held.
“The Bill requires the Clerk of the House to only allow referendum questions which are not ambiguous, complex, leading or misleading.
“If a person proposing a referendum question has their wording turned down, they will still have the option of reformulating their question until it meets the new criteria.
“Given comments by Prime Minister John Key yesterday that he thinks stricter rules around referenda questions should be introduced, I am also hopeful that even if my Bill is not drawn from the ballot this week, the Government may pick it up,” said Ms Bradford.
“I believe there would be cross party support for such an amendment.
“There are people who will be confused by the referendum and choose not to vote. There are also people who support the current law but don’t want to engage in a badly-worded and misleading referendum.
“However, I still believe the strongest statement we can make to demonstrate our commitment to protecting our children from violence is to vote ‘yes’ in the postal referendum.”
For your viewing pleasure, we present the following light-hearted look at the passage and implications of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Act 2007.
Note that this video was posted to YouTube in March 2008 as a university project well before a date was set for the referendum by a student, and contains a couple of inaccuracies:
The Timaru lady didn’t use a horsewhip, it was a riding crop, which is an implement used for whipping horses. Just to be clear – we wouldn’t want people to think that we were exaggerating the facts.
You don’t need to worry about going to jail for lightly smacking your own child; no-one has been sent to jail for that. On the other hand, if you smack your wife or your boss – watch out, there’s a future for you at Paremoremo.
Did you think this video was funny and informative? Send it to your friends!
Larry Baldock, the organiser of the referendum,was comprehensively owned by Sean Plunket on National Radio’s Morning Report programme today.
The referendum organiser cannot come up with a single example where a parent has been criminalised for smacking a child.
Baldock: It is absolutely clear that if a parent uses any reasonable force right now to correct their child right now they are breaking the law…
Plunket: Can you give us an example of that having happened?
Baldock: There are examples that we’ll have available…
Plunket: Can you give us a single example of that having happened, please?
Baldock: There was a grandfather for example, who tipped his grandson out of a chair because the grandson refused to obey his grandfather to turn down the television and so on.
Plunket: Was he convicted and was that a smack?
Baldock: He plead guilty …
Plunket: Was that a smack?
Baldock: No, he tipped him out of a chair….
…
Plunket: Can you point to anyone who has been criminalised for smacking a child?
Baldock: Yes we can.
Plunket: Please, could you give me an example?
Baldock: Well, I’ll have to go to my list of examples.
Plunket: Can you give me a single example off the top of your head?
Baldock: No, not off the top of my head, I can’t.
… and so on.
Wouldn’t it be nice to send Baldock a bill for $9m?
Key went further to say the government would be unlikely to change the law no matter what the outcome of the referendum.
Phil Goff agrees: “The question implies that if you vote ‘yes’ that you’re in favour of criminal sanctions being taken against reasonable parents actually nobody believes that.”
True enough, but that’s only one way to read the question. Tariana Turia and Russel Norman agree with us that a YES vote is the only way to indicate your clear support for the law. There is near universal agreement that the referendum is a waste of money, as the Child Discipline Law is working as intended.
Julie Lawrence and Anne Smith presented their interim findings from their research at Otago University today at the Families Commission’s Annual Research Seminar.
We’re pleased to be able to bring you a slideshow and audio of their talk.
Family discipline is a controversial topic which has been debated for centuries, and which is known to have a lifelong effect on the well being of children. This report provides a snapshot of the views, experiences and practices of a sample of 100 New Zealand families, in relation to the discipline of their preschool children.
Parents/caregivers were asked about what they believed about discipline, how they disciplined their children, and the type of support and stress that they experienced with parenting. The study also looked at the effect of child and family characteristics and context over time, on discipline. The study used a multi-method approach, involving semi-structured parent interviews, parent diaries of disciplinary events over three days in a two week period, and a standardised tool, the Parenting Daily Hassles scale. One hundred and seventeen caregivers comprised the national sample – 99 mothers, 18 fathers, one grandfather and two grandmothers. The findings include the following headings: beliefs about discipline; disciplinary practices; the influence of child and family characteristics, stresses, context and support. The findings suggest a more favourable picture of New Zealand parents’ disciplinary practice than previous research has, showing that the majority of parents took an authoritative (firm but warm) approach, and suggests that professionals who work with families could benefit from professional development programmes focusing on effective approaches to discipline.
Background:
Research shows disciplinary practices during childhood have lifelong consequences
Most previous research has focused on broad surveys and physical punishment – NZ parents favour relatively negative disciplinary techniques (Ritchie & Ritchie; Maxwell)
Need for better parent education and support in context of legal change in NZ
Little knowledge of the challenges parents face in using discipline in everyday contexts
Research questions:
What do New Zealand families with preschool age children believe about appropriate disciplinary practices for children?
What are the range and typical uses of discipline in New Zealand families?
How are family disciplinary practices influenced by context and events over time?
What type of support (if any) do families receive in their parenting with young children?
Summary of findings:
Majority of parents use authoritative or mixed approach (ie sometimes they are permissive)
Positive methods (rewards, praise and reasoning) more commonly used than negative methods (smacking or shouting). Timeout the most common punishment.
No enthusiasm for physical punishment.
Own experience of parenting important – but can be rejected.
Books and TV hugely important source of info and support.
Family and friends important supports but also early childhood teachers (other professionals less mentioned)
Kathryn Ryan interviews Prof Anne Smith, Murray Edridge, and Bob McCoskrie on Radio New Zealand’s Nine to Noon programme this morning.
Anne Smith is Professor Emeritus at Otago University’s College of Education, and discusses her research on child discipline that shows that less than 10% of parents feel that smacking is effective; she says that most of the parents involved in her study that smacked their children regretted it afterwards, and that the smacking had more to do with the parents’ state of mind, tiredness, etc than the child’s behaviour.
She also discusses parents’ reaction the current law. In her study, 47% supported the current Child Discipline Law, 27% were against it, with the rest undecided.
Prof Smith said that only a tiny minority of experts believe that smacking is effective, and that the present law is working well.
Murray Edridge (CEO Barnardos) and Bob McCoskrie (Family First) comment on the research and the referendum.
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
