Smacking referendum

1st August 2009

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

This question is being put to nearly three million New Zealand voters. But what has become known simply as the smacking referendum reaches much deeper into the way children are raised and treated here. We put the question to two Hawke's Bay people with opposing viewpoints.

YES - Noel Hendery, Regional Ministry Convener, Anglican Diocese of Waiapu:

Yesterday morning I popped into the supermarket, bought a couple of things and walked back to my car. As I opened the door my mobile phone rang. It was quite a long conversation.

Normally I would have started up the vehicle and driven home, talking as I went. I didn't, not because there is any law about that, but because there is a lot of discussion about cellphones and safety and this has made me think about the issue a lot more, and pushed me to clarify the rights and wrongs concerning cellphones and driving.

For this reason, I think the referendum on smacking is a good thing if it gets more people thinking about the issues surrounding physical punishment of children.

The first point I make is to do with language. The real issue at stake is not banning smacking: it is opposing violence against children.

It was over 35 years ago, when I was the proud and loving father of two lovely little boys. I had smacked them only a few times in their whole lives. But one day they were being a bit of a pain, I was under stress, and I hit them both with an electrical cord.

It was not serious, but it was quite disproportionate to their misbehaviour. It was all about my frustrations and nothing to do with good parental correction.

I have never hit a child since that day.

There is evidence from at least one survey of New Zealand parents that my experience is probably overwhelmingly the norm for most incidents of smacking in our homes.

And I believe that the law change in 2007 helps good and decent parents in New Zealand to see smacking for what it is. I also believe that the law, and the police's administration of that law, acknowledges the reality of what happens in normal family life.

What I have written is very personal. I am, however, proud to say that my church in this region has taken a clear stance on this issue. At its synod (annual conference) last year, the Anglican church from Bay of Plenty to Hawke's Bay, passed the following motion, almost unopposed:

``The Anglican Diocese of Waiapu applauds efforts to reduce the level of violence against children in our country and encourages both Government and non-Government agencies to provide adequate resources for this work and explore further ways of enacting it.

''In particular this diocese supports the Crimes (substituted Section 59) Amendment Act of 2007, strongly urges its retention, and wishes to make clear that not all Christians or churches wish to return to a state which provides less legal protection against assault for children than for adults.''

The basic question to ponder is: should children have less protection against violence under the law than adults?

If you think children should be legally protected against violent assault, then forget about the annoying and confusing language of the wording of the referendum.

Draw a line in the sand by voting ``Yes'' to the question.

NO - Stephen Jenkinson, Central Hawke's Bay:

As a father of six children, aged 5 to 16, I'm raising them with my wife, in a caring, loving environment, that includes correcting their behaviour from time to time, so they'll become mature, responsible adults.

Traditionally, New Zealand has been a pluralistic society enabling a number of different approaches to parenting to be undertaken.

This all changed just over two years ago, when a bigoted and intolerant group of New Zealanders tried to impose their flawed philosophy of child rearing on to the rest of the New Zealand population, by the abuse of political power.

Despite the clear opposition of more than 80 per cent of New Zealanders, a law was passed which made it an offence for parents to use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children.

In New Zealand, when Parliament passes undemocratic laws, we don't riot in the streets, burn cars or assassinate politicians, but we can hold a Citizens Initiated Referendum.

The question had to be submitted to Parliament where the Clerk of the House approved it, after six check points, including advertising it nationwide 28 days for any objections. No objections were received from those currently claiming the question is ambiguous, including Sue Bradford, Barnadoes or Plunket etc.

Sadly the ability of some New Zealanders to understand plain English has deteriorated so much over the last two years that the question has suddenly now become confusing and difficult.

In order to raise children, parents need a number of tools to deal with different behaviours and different children within families. Smacking is only one of these tools.

By removing the parental responsibility and authority to set clear boundaries and consequences for wrong behaviour, New Zealand is starting to experience the same negative effects as other countries who have gone down the anticorrection pathway.

Recent reports show increased truancy in South Auckland as parents complain they can't control their children, and as reported in Hawke's Bay Today on July 24, an increasing amount of violence by children against their parents.

In Sweden, which banned smacking in 1979, research by Dr Robert Larzelere of the University of Nebraska, has revealed increases in physical abuse against children and dramatic increases in assaults by youth against youth.

In New Zealand the high incidence of child abuse and child deaths have continued at the same rate as before the law was passed. Instead of addressing the real causes, the law has intimidated, undermined, and criminalised good parenting.

And the known causes of child abuse?

These are, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and stress, low maternal education, family breakdown, poor housing, children living with nonbiological parents, single parenthood and weak family ties, (as outlined in Unicef reports in 2003 and 2007, and a CYF 2006 report).

The anti-smacking law addresses none of these issues, which explains why it doesn't work and why New Zealanders should vote No in the referendum.