Shane Reti: Modify family discipline by finding the middle ground

COMMENT

The Unicef report on child abuse in New Zealand has focused attention again on the issue of smacking children. Often this discussion is polarised around two seemingly exclusive positions - on the one hand, a ban on smacking; and on the other, a broad form of parental discretion.

I submit that the first position is unachievable, the second untenable.

A ban on smacking does not have general public support now, nor has it ever had general public support in New Zealand. Early published research on New Zealanders' attitudes and behaviour to child discipline appeared in the early 1980s with Jane and James Ritchie publishing evidence showing 89 per cent in favour of smacking.

Gabrielle Maxwell, for the office of the Commissioner for Children, found a similar 87 per cent still in favour in 1993. Child Youth and Family evaluating the Alternatives to Smacking campaign from 1995 to 2000 found a reduction to 56 per cent, and Sue Carswell, for the Ministry of Justice, showed the figure had increased again to 80 per cent in 2001.

A law change banning smacking will fail without the support and understanding of most New Zealanders. Thus, in my view, it is unachievable.

The alternative position with section 59 of the Crimes Act allowing reasonable force is simply untenable. How many reports need to be filed, how many calls from child agencies and organisations, and at the end of the day, how many children have to die under this legislation before our collective conscience is stirred? Shame on us. We procrastinate at the peril of our own future.

This argument in its inception, is however, faulty. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. There is a middle-ground position that does have widespread support from the public and professional organisations, and is achievable now.

Banning parents from hitting children with objects and around the head is a reasonable position to consider. This position is supported by the Medical Association, the Royal NZ College of General Practitioners, the Paediatric Society, Te Ora (national association of Maori doctors), and the National Council of Maori Nurses.

Public support against the use of objects was shown by Carswell (2001) to be as high as 15 per cent, and hitting around the head 99 per cent against. My own published research from face-to-face interviews this year clearly showed 88 per cent against hitting with objects, and 93 per cent against hitting around the head.

Legislation was enacted in New South Wales 10 months ago with promising initial reports from the NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People, and the Scottish Parliament continues to make progress with similar legislation.

I view a position banning parents from hitting children with objects and around the head as being the most achievable at this time.

Every stakeholder will need to give a little to meet in this middle ground. For those wanting a ban on smacking, there is victory in making a small step towards that goal. For those wanting some rights to physically discipline children, these are retained with only the excesses stripped away.

As a society we have seen fit to debate and enact legislation allowing prostitution. Are children not only to be denied the rights we give to animals, but now also to be given a social platform below prostitution?

* Dr Shane Reti is a researcher and medical practitioner in Whangarei. He is also a member of the Northland District Health Board and leads proposals for legislation banning parents from smacking children.