New Zealand Gov't Won't Outlaw Spanking Of Children
New Zealand may be one of the world's more liberal societies, but when the government commissioned a survey to test opinions on the smacking of children, a large majority expressed support for light physical discipline.
Updated Dec 20, 2001
New Zealand may be one of the world's more liberal societies, but when the government commissioned a survey to test opinions on the smacking of children, a large majority expressed support for light physical discipline.
The results have prompted the government to back away from plans to change the law to make spanking illegal, Justice Minister Phil Goff announced Wednesday.
"In considering the issue, the cabinet did not believe that a change in law which resulted in parents being prosecuted for minor smacking was desirable," Goff said in a statement.
The cabinet felt education programs to inform parents about "positive alternative forms of discipline" should be pursued as a first step.
But Goff said he felt it likely that public attitudes eventually would shift toward making smacking illegal "as has now happened in most European countries."
Section 59 of the country's Crimes Act gives parents the right to use force in disciplining children if it is "reasonable under the circumstances."
The government commissioned a survey after the United Nations criticized New Zealand for not complying with the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which aims to protect children from all forms of physical and mental violence.
But the results came as a surprise to some. Eighty percent of respondents agreed with light smacking of naughty children. A high approval rate came from all three of New Zealand's main ethnic communities, although those of "European and other" origin scored higher (82 percent) than did indigenous Maoris (73) or Pacific Islanders (69).
Other results showed that just 15 percent were comfortable with the idea of using a belt or wooden spoon, and less than one percent thought parents should be allowed to use other specified objects, such as a piece of wood or electric cord.
More than 98 percent were against hitting a child in the neck or head area, and three-quarters of respondents said only a smack that left no mark was acceptable.
"I imagine the politicians have decided that there's too much support [for retaining smacking] to change the law now, this side of an election," Roger McClay, New Zealand's Commissioner for Children, said in an interview.
McClay, an ardent supporter of outlawing smacking, agreed with Goff's assessment that public attitudes would eventually swing around to his own way of thinking.
"Children are the only human beings in New Zealand who are allowed to be physically punished," he said.
Convicted murderers and rapists cannot be hit without the risk of prosecution for assault, "but if a three-year-old swears at his mother ..."
McClay said he was taken aback at the high number of New Zealanders who said they approved of smacking, although he said he imagined not all of them actually used it as a punishment method.
In time to come, he predicted, people would be asking: "Why did we allow it against the most vulnerable in our society for so long?"
McClay argued that the government should impose a six-month moratorium, after which he predicted far more people would support a total ban, having realized that there are other effective ways of punishing children.
Graham Capill, leader of the Christian Heritage Party, said he didn't accept widespread attempts to link corporal punishment with a rise in violent crime in a society.
He cited a study from Sweden that showed one year after smacking in homes was outlawed, cases of serious abuse continued to rise at levels equivalent to those found in the U.S.
If claims of a link were true, it would follow that Christian homes in New Zealand would be violent and abusive, he said. Statistics showed the contrary to be the case, however.
Asked about the survey results, Capill said he hadn't been particularly surprised "because we get a huge amount of support every time we speak up on the issue.
"I think it's a question the theorists who are in tune with the U.N. versus the practical reality of raising children."
Even if parents don't use corporal punishment, he said, the threat of using it can serve as a highly effective deterrent.
"Any law change will not achieve the end of stopped abuse. It will, however, turn good parents into criminals."
Capill said the government should stop wasting money on efforts to "to tell parents how to do their job." Parents should be allowed to get on with the task of parenting, "unencumbered by government interference."
Earlier this year, a New Zealand man was acquitted of a charge of assaulting his eight-year-old son with a piece of wood, after a jury deemed he had used reasonable force under Section 59.
The case prompted the Pediatrics Society to call for the law to be scrapped.
Dr. Patrick Kelly, who chairs the society's subcommittee on child abuse and neglect, said today he found it odd that the government had chosen to interpret the findings of its research in the way it had.
"I would interpret the survey as saying that most New Zealand think that someone who beats their child with a piece of wood and leaves bruises should be able to escape punishment.
"I don't think the survey result at all discredits the push to repeal Section 59."
While it was difficult for a law to define what was considered acceptable physical punishment, he said, a "blanket exemption in the law for what's basically an assault on a child" should not be available.
Smacking of children is illegal in most European Union countries, but is still allowed in Britain, Australia and Canada, among other countries.
Smacking remains legal in some states in the U.S.
A study by the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire several years ago found that approval of smacking a child among adult Americans had dropped from 94 percent in 1968 to 68 percent in 1994.
The results have prompted the government to back away from plans to change the law to make spanking illegal, Justice Minister Phil Goff announced Wednesday.
"In considering the issue, the cabinet did not believe that a change in law which resulted in parents being prosecuted for minor smacking was desirable," Goff said in a statement.
The cabinet felt education programs to inform parents about "positive alternative forms of discipline" should be pursued as a first step.
But Goff said he felt it likely that public attitudes eventually would shift toward making smacking illegal "as has now happened in most European countries."
Section 59 of the country's Crimes Act gives parents the right to use force in disciplining children if it is "reasonable under the circumstances."
The government commissioned a survey after the United Nations criticized New Zealand for not complying with the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which aims to protect children from all forms of physical and mental violence.
But the results came as a surprise to some. Eighty percent of respondents agreed with light smacking of naughty children. A high approval rate came from all three of New Zealand's main ethnic communities, although those of "European and other" origin scored higher (82 percent) than did indigenous Maoris (73) or Pacific Islanders (69).
Other results showed that just 15 percent were comfortable with the idea of using a belt or wooden spoon, and less than one percent thought parents should be allowed to use other specified objects, such as a piece of wood or electric cord.
More than 98 percent were against hitting a child in the neck or head area, and three-quarters of respondents said only a smack that left no mark was acceptable.
"I imagine the politicians have decided that there's too much support [for retaining smacking] to change the law now, this side of an election," Roger McClay, New Zealand's Commissioner for Children, said in an interview.
McClay, an ardent supporter of outlawing smacking, agreed with Goff's assessment that public attitudes would eventually swing around to his own way of thinking.
"Children are the only human beings in New Zealand who are allowed to be physically punished," he said.
Convicted murderers and rapists cannot be hit without the risk of prosecution for assault, "but if a three-year-old swears at his mother ..."
McClay said he was taken aback at the high number of New Zealanders who said they approved of smacking, although he said he imagined not all of them actually used it as a punishment method.
In time to come, he predicted, people would be asking: "Why did we allow it against the most vulnerable in our society for so long?"
McClay argued that the government should impose a six-month moratorium, after which he predicted far more people would support a total ban, having realized that there are other effective ways of punishing children.
Graham Capill, leader of the Christian Heritage Party, said he didn't accept widespread attempts to link corporal punishment with a rise in violent crime in a society.
He cited a study from Sweden that showed one year after smacking in homes was outlawed, cases of serious abuse continued to rise at levels equivalent to those found in the U.S.
If claims of a link were true, it would follow that Christian homes in New Zealand would be violent and abusive, he said. Statistics showed the contrary to be the case, however.
Asked about the survey results, Capill said he hadn't been particularly surprised "because we get a huge amount of support every time we speak up on the issue.
"I think it's a question the theorists who are in tune with the U.N. versus the practical reality of raising children."
Even if parents don't use corporal punishment, he said, the threat of using it can serve as a highly effective deterrent.
"Any law change will not achieve the end of stopped abuse. It will, however, turn good parents into criminals."
Capill said the government should stop wasting money on efforts to "to tell parents how to do their job." Parents should be allowed to get on with the task of parenting, "unencumbered by government interference."
Earlier this year, a New Zealand man was acquitted of a charge of assaulting his eight-year-old son with a piece of wood, after a jury deemed he had used reasonable force under Section 59.
The case prompted the Pediatrics Society to call for the law to be scrapped.
Dr. Patrick Kelly, who chairs the society's subcommittee on child abuse and neglect, said today he found it odd that the government had chosen to interpret the findings of its research in the way it had.
"I would interpret the survey as saying that most New Zealand think that someone who beats their child with a piece of wood and leaves bruises should be able to escape punishment.
"I don't think the survey result at all discredits the push to repeal Section 59."
While it was difficult for a law to define what was considered acceptable physical punishment, he said, a "blanket exemption in the law for what's basically an assault on a child" should not be available.
Smacking of children is illegal in most European Union countries, but is still allowed in Britain, Australia and Canada, among other countries.
Smacking remains legal in some states in the U.S.
A study by the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire several years ago found that approval of smacking a child among adult Americans had dropped from 94 percent in 1968 to 68 percent in 1994.
Originally published December 20, 2001.
