Dialogue: Laws condoning brutality against children must be repealed

A dodgy survey is no grounds for the Government to disregard evidence that smacking children does not work, writes EMMA DAVIES*.

Christmas is a time of joy, an occasion for children. Christmas is also a time when children are more likely to be abused. As we approach the new year, it is perhaps a good time to reflect on the laws that govern a civilised society.

The community is outraged when children are abused. However, at a time when we are all looking for ways to reduce violence against children, Parliament seems to have decided that adults should retain the right to hit children.

There are many other ways to create a safer world for our children (see www.buildingtomorrow.org.nz). But in many countries, repealing legislation that condones hitting has been effective: Sweden (1979), Finland (1983), Norway (1987), Austria (1989), Cyprus (1994), Denmark (1997), Latvia (1998), Croatia (1999) and Germany (2000).

Section 59 of the Crimes Act permits reasonable force - a clear statement of children's inferior status.

This legislation has allowed juries in two recent court cases to find a parent not guilty of assault, despite the fact that children had been beaten with a piece of wood and a hose pipe, leaving welts and bruises.

Had these same injuries been inflicted on an adult (or even an animal), prosecution would have followed. Any law that licenses brutality towards children should be repealed.

Sixty children's organisations in New Zealand agree. So why is the Government dithering? Surely a knowledge-based society should look at the evidence.

The evidence against repealing section 59 stems from a Ministry of Justice survey which concluded that 80 per cent of New Zealanders do not want to outlaw hitting children. As we know, statistics can lie. They depend heavily on how questions are worded.

Respondents were given a range of opportunities to indicate that they supported hitting and only one to indicate they opposed it. This breaks the first basic rule of objective research.

International research examining how physical punishment affects children demonstrates consistently that it is harmful. Given this evidence, a knowledge-driven government would be prepared to repeal the law and explain why.

An argument against repealing section 59 stems from a concern that it would lead to the prosecution of parents who rarely hit their children.

It is illegal to hit adults, yet legal to hit children. Just because it is illegal to hit adults does not mean that every adult who hits another is prosecuted. Instead, it sets a platform for what society condones.

In Sweden there has been no increase in the prosecution of parents for hitting their children. Instead, public support for corporal punishment has declined dramatically in the past 30 years, child-abuse mortality is rare, and there is no evidence that emotional abuse has increased.

Hitting simply does not work. Endless studies have demonstrated this: hitting children is an ineffective form of discipline.

Parents who were raised to think that violence is acceptable are more likely to use severe corporal punishment to try to control their children, and this is particularly likely to occur in the preschool years.

It appears there is a vicious cycle at play; the more a child is hit, the greater the tendency for the child to engage in anti-social behaviour, particularly when adults hit in anger. In other words, hitting children escalates anti-social behaviour in preschool children.

It has broader implications, too. When we hit a child to correct anti-social behaviour, we teach a child that hitting is an appropriate way of dealing with anger.

We provide a role model for how to resolve conflict. To use a crude example: if my son bullies another child in the playground and I physically discipline him for hitting that child, I am not giving the child a clear message about use of violence. Instead, I am showing him that violence is acceptable in some circumstances.

Seventy-five per cent of secondary school students in New Zealand (2066 surveyed) said they had been bullied and 44 per cent said they had bullied at some point in their school life.

Bullying behaviour, as with child abuse, is often intergenerational. Those who bully at school are frequently victims of bullying from their adult carers.

Bullying will not be eliminated by repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act, but repealing the legislation would give a clear message that violence is not acceptable.

In a New Zealand study, Jane Ritchie concluded that many parents who hit their children often do so because they do not know what else to do.

Effective discipline of children involves ignoring some anti-social behaviour and rewarding positive behaviour. It involves helping children to learn from their mistakes and teaching children what good behaviour is. It involves clear communication by keeping messages short and specific.

There are many effective forms of discipline. It is simply untrue to state that no hitting means no disciplining.

A statutory ban on hitting children is important in its own right. It helps to set the social norm that violence is unacceptable.

As in Sweden, it needs to be accompanied by widespread information on how laws are created, on effective alternatives to smacking and on improving the social environment of children through provisions such as paid parental leave and reducing child poverty.

As we enter a new year, let's begin with a clear message: all violence against children is unacceptable. Repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act will lay the foundation for preventing child abuse by providing a clear legal framework and by promoting positive, non-violent relationships between children and their parents.

* Dr Emma Davies is initiator of the AUT Institute of Public Policy's Building Tomorrow programme.