By EUGENE BINGHAM
An anti-smacking campaign on the scale of the anti-smoking and road safety public education programmes is being put together by the Government.
Three departments have been ordered to come up with ways of teaching parents alternatives to smacking.
Cabinet papers show the Government is planning a national media campaign, as well as targeted lessons for certain communities.
The anti-smacking campaign has not been costed, but other major public education programmes cost millions.
The Ministry of Health plans to spend $2.6 million on advertising for its quit smoking campaign this financial year. About $9 million is being spent on the graphic road safety advertising.
The aim of the anti-smacking campaign is to teach new disciplinary measures and soften attitudes to removing the legal protection available for parents who smack.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act provides a defence for parents using reasonable force against their children. Under previous Youth Affairs Minister Laila Harre, the Government seemed likely to remove section 59, in line with United Nations recommendations.
But late last year, new minister John Tamihere spoke out against a law change, with support from Justice Minister Phil Goff, whose ministry did a survey that found 80 per cent of people thought parents should be able to smack naughty children with an open hand.
Social Services Minister Steve Maharey says the Cabinet is still debating what to do with section 59.
The issue will be on the agenda next month.
The education programme is being worked on as part of the Budget.
The Cabinet committee paper, obtained by the Weekend Herald under the Official Information Act, says the Government will have to be careful to consult the community, especially Maori and Pacific Island groups.
"All groups consulted agreed that public education should be approached from a positive-parenting stance, not the inappropriateness of physical discipline," says the paper, signed by Mr Maharey, Mr Goff and Mr Tamihere.
"Maori and Pacific people noted the importance of focusing on anger management in the context of parenting, [and] the need to provide their people with the tools to parent without physical discipline.
"The physical disciplining of children is often a learned behaviour deeply ingrained within communities and spanning generations.
"Consequently, a long-term programme that reaches all New Zealanders is required."
Beth Wood, a long-time campaigner for the repeal of section 59 and Unicef's spokeswoman in Wellington, said she was not sure the programme was going far enough.
"It should be more than simply education about alternatives to physical punishment," she said.
"There should be education about why you shouldn't [smack], and they should also talk about why there should be law reform.
"They should be telling parents that it's not about getting at them."
The Cabinet paper says Maori are concerned that if the law is repealed, it will lead to a disproportionate number of Maori being prosecuted for the use of force against their children.
Dr Cindy Kiro, from Massey University's School of Social Policy and Social Work, said that concern was probably because Maori believed they were more likely to be "targeted" for prosecution.
Any campaign would have to include generic messages but also specific messages for groups, including Maori.
She believed it was a good idea to repeal the law but understood why people had reservations.
They could imagine situations where they had smacked or would smack.
"But that's not what the advocates [of repealing the law] are talking about.
"They're talking about cases where fathers get out big straps and leave big welts, and it's not an isolated example."
The law now
Under section 59 of the Crimes Act, parents can use "reasonable force" to discipline their children. Recent court cases involving parents disciplining their children include:
August 2002: A Napier jury is unable to decide whether a man who allegedly hit his son with a stick was guilty of assault.
June 2002: An Auckland man is found not guilty of assaulting his hyperactive stepchild with a belt.
November 2001: A Hamilton jury finds a man not guilty of assault with a weapon, after he hit his 12-year-old daughter with a hosepipe.
March 2001: A Havelock North man is acquitted after hitting his eight-year-old son with a piece of wood.
Herald Special Report (Nov 28, 2001): Building Tomorrow
