The Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Bill is now before Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee. The Bill seeks to repeal Section 59 of Crimes Act (1961), the legislation that gives parents who are prosecuted for assaulting their children the defence of ‘reasonable force’.
Repeal means a parent hitting a child may be considered an assault, just as an adult hitting another adult might be. The age of the victim will be irrelevant in terms prosecution and defence, as will the relationship between the victim and their assailant. Prosecution will depend on the event, and as with adult-to-adult assault, the context and circumstances.
There are many reasons why section 59 should be repealed.
Repeal gives a clear message against violence in our families and communities. We all have the right to lives free from violence, irrespective of our age or our relationship to the assailant.
Repeal is consistent with the Paramountcy of the Child Principle that underpins New Zealand family law.
Repeal favours ‘positive parenting’. Hitting children is the most ineffective way to discipline them, and being hit as a child is a major risk factor for poor child and adult outcomes.
Repeal will ensure New Zealand meets its international obligations. Article 19 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of the Child requires signatories to take all appropriate measures to protect children from violence while in the care of their parents. The UN has noted that Section 59 is inconsistent with Article 19.
Opponents of repeal use a ‘smacking discourse’. This discourse normalises hitting children as acceptable; minimises hitting as ‘smacking’; asserts that ‘smacking’ children does no harm; maintains that ‘smacking’ children is sometimes necessary and effective for disciplining them; and that after repeal, parents will become criminals ‘just for smacking’. Children are seen as the property of their parents in this discourse, just as women were once seen as the property of men.
This smacking discourse has real effects in children’s lives. It normalises hitting children as acceptable and ‘rational’. Nevertheless, research has shown children are most likely to be hit when their parents are angry, tired, and ‘out of control’.
The smacking discourse masks kids experiences of being hit, and in many cases, of being hit hard. By using terms like ‘smacking’, the reality of physical punishment in children’s lives is minimised. Research published earlier this year in the New Zealand Medical Journal found that 80% of the participants in the Dunedin Multi-disciplinary study reported being physically punished during their childhoods. For some this was ‘smacking’, but nearly 45% reported being hit with an object, and 6% reported ‘extreme physical punishment’.
In countries where hitting children is no longer legal, there has not been any significant increase in prosecutions of parents for ‘smacking’. Rather, the clear message that hitting children is not OK has seen big improvements in child outcomes, and big changes in public attitudes against the physical punishment of children.
Parents today are under a lot of pressure. Along with the repeal of section 59, we need to ensure parents are well supported. Positive parenting programmes have been successful, but we also need better working conditions for working parents, and much better practical support for families when parents are stressed.
Get behind the campaign to repeal section 59. Tell your local MP you support repeal, write to your local newspaper, and challenge people who use the smacking discourse that normalises violence in our families and communities.
Lesley Patterson (Sociology Programme, Massey University)
Marie Russell (EPOCH)
For more information see www.epochnz.org.nz
