By Jan Corbett
Politicians and the public have turned their backs on expert opinion that smacking contributes to the cycle of violence.
Not only does smacking teach children that physical force is an effective way to get people to do what you want, says educational psychologist Professor Anne Smith, but it has
only a short-term impact as a method of discipline.
Long term, it can make children more hostile.
A New Zealand Herald-DigiPoll survey taken at the beginning of August shows that most of us (55.1 per cent) received more than the occasional smack as children and 75.2 per cent continue to believe smacking is justified in some circumstances.
A children's advocate, Robert Ludbrook, says section 59 of the Crimes Act allowing parents and guardians to use reasonable force to correct a child's behaviour not only breaches United Nations conventions but sends the wrong message to caregivers.
"The law is an important symbol," he says. "We need one single straightforward rule that all violence is wrong."
But, despite renewed lobbying from campaigners such as Mr Ludbrook, neither National nor Labour will agree to repeal the provision.
The Minister of Justice, Tony Ryall, who was smacked as a child, says the Government would rather change parents' attitudes. "We want to discourage it, not outlaw it," he says.
This view is echoed by his Social Welfare colleague, Roger Sowry. He says the law has to allow for situations where a parent smacks the hand of a child as it reaches towards a hot element, for example. "The United Nations will not dictate the laws of this country," he says.
The Commissioner for Children, Roger McClay, says society's best option is education about other ways to discipline children.
