Soft Touch - our anti smacking laws, one year on

Almost a year has passed since the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, commonly known as the 'anti-smacking' bill, became law. What has this bill, the centre of zesty debates, achieved? Are innocent parents being criminalised? And, most importantly, has the average Auckland parent's attitude to smacking changed? Valerie Schuler finds out...
What do you do with a 3-year-old who bites people? West Auckland father of two, John Cornwall, says a light smack on the bottom usually fixes it. That's until you find yourself confronted with a mob of accusing eyes. During a recent visit to the doctor with his son, John says the moment he raised his hand, he felt the disapproving looks from people in the waiting room. 'He bit his mother hard on the foot, so I went to lift my hand. Everyone glared at me, except maybe the older people,' he says. 'So, this time he got away with it, but it's not fair that good parents should be stigmatized like that.' To smack or not to smack, that is the question. Or it was until Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial 'antismacking' bill was passed on May 17 last year. One year on, has the law change and millions of dollars spent on educational campaigns made any difference to parents' attitudes to smacking? Thirty-year-old John says, 'No way.' 'Kids will always push the boundaries and, at times, a little smack is the only real way to discipline them. You can talk to them 'til the cows come home, but a 3-year-old doesn't understand that he's done something wrong if there's no consequence.' The proud father says people often comment on his children's good behaviour. 'If they didn't get the odd smack, they would be brats.' But that's not how all parents see it. South Auckland mother of two Clare Cairns, 30, says: 'For me, the fact it's now illegal means it's not even a last resort and it's definitely made me think twice.' She says she occasionally resorted to smacking her first child, but it's a different story with 2- year-old daughter, Gemma. Clare believes the law change has been positive and she has definitely changed her attitude to smacking. 'If it's generating debate and making people think twice, then it's a good thing.' Auckland Law Society's Family Law sub-committee convenor, Kirsty Swadling, says the law change has affected people's attitudes. 'Anecdotally, it seems that people feel it is nowadays a lot less acceptable to smack. I have had clients who say they used to smack but they no longer do.' 'Whereas, once, the issue of smacking could be a difficult source of friction between parents, with the amendment in place it is much easier for parents to accept that you cannot smack.' Many, including Family First's Bob McCoskrie, fought hard against the amendment of section 59 of the Crimes Act. Their concerns were that innocent parents would be needlessly dragged through the legal system, only for exercising their 'God-given right to discipline' their child. Has this happened? There have been many high profile cases of ordinary parents' close brushes with the law. As reported, New Zealand Herald journalist Karyn Scherer got a surprise last August, when three policemen banged on her door. Her 2-year-old's bedtime tantrum had alarmed neighbours who called police. There have been many other cases - a South Auckland mother was dobbed in for picking her daughter up by the arm after she fell over in a car park; a West Auckland woman was investigated for smacking her child for running out on the road; in South Auckland, a mother was approached by a police officer outside a supermarket for raising her voice and taking her 5- year-old autistic child by the arm following a tantrum. The list goes on. However, none of these parents was prosecuted. A report by Barnados says only five cases of child assault in the name of discipline have actually gone to court. A police study, conducted three months after the passing of the bill, found there was no increase in the number of smacking incidents police attended. Deputy police commissioner Rob Pope says that fears the change in law would lead to parents being prosecuted for minor acts of physical discipline have proved unfounded. 'While this is only a three-month snapshot, I am confident that police are taking the same commonsense approach to these events as we always have, with officers using their discretion to ensure the appropriate action is taken,' he says. Child, Youth and Family agrees. 'There has been no significant increase in notifications,' says spokesperson Gillon Carruthers. 'Child, Youth and Family only intervene where intervention is warranted. 'Social workers continue to exercise their judgment in any particular situation. A smack on the back of the hand to signal displeasure, for instance, is not likely to be treated as a notification and will not reach a threshold for intervention.' The bill's author, Green list MP Sue Bradford, says it is working 'as we intended'. 'There is an ongoing shift of culture and parents are recognising that smacking isn't the best way to bring up kids,' she says. However, Ms Bradford offers no statistics to back up this comment. Mr McCoskrie, whose party continues to collect signatures for a referendum, says, 'The law has done nothing to protect at-risk children or to strengthen at-risk families.' Despite there being no increase in police callouts and prosecutions, New Zealand's shocking record of child abuse remains unchanged. In the last five years, 35 children have died from maltreatment - an average of seven a year. This death toll has not dropped since the passing of the bill. Mr McCoskrie also brings up the topic of education, or lack of it. 'Kiwi parents are not being educated on alternatives to smacking.' Father of two John Cornwall agrees. 'We're told not to do one thing, but not being being told how to do it any other way.' The Ministry of Social Development says no educational campaigns have been launched directly as a result of the bill. The Strategies with Kids Information for Parents (SKIP) scheme, which aims to educate parents on alternatives to physical discipline, was set up in 2004. So far, it has cost about $7 million. It consists of pamphlets, advertising in parenting magazines and newsletters. These are available from Plunket and Barnados. The ministry says it has been effective and that 45 per cent of parents of children aged from birth to five know about the campaign. That's fewer than half the parents in this country. John says he has never heard of it. West Auckland mother of two Rachel Starr agrees. 'I'm aware of no education apart from people who watch Super Nanny,' she says. 'If parents want to find alternatives they have to go looking for them, and the people who actually abuse their kids aren't going to do that.' Sue Bradford admits that more could be done. 'I'd like to see the Government put more money into campaigns like SKIP,' she says. A North Shore teacher, who wants to remain anonymous, says parents' inability to discipline has become increasingly evident in the classroom. 'I've been teaching for over 10 years and there's definitely been a shift. Kids used to fear their father or grandmother, who took on the role of fierce discipliner. Nowadays, they have nothing to be afraid of and that's reflected in their behaviour. 'You have to ask yourself what sort of adults these kids will turn into.' So what does the future hold? Family First is still lobbying for a referendum to revisit the anti-smacking legislation at this year's general election. So far, they have collected about 260,000 signatures for a petition. 'We need another 17,000 for a referendum,' says Mr McCoskrie. 'We want the law amended so parents who give the occasional smack on the bum or hand aren't criminalised. It also needs to be more clearly defined what is and what is not reasonable.' The police are working on another follow-up report, but no date has been given for its release. A Government review is also on the cards some time next year. In the meantime, it looks like the debate will continue.