• Full Story

Children should have say on smacking debate, says commissioner

Email
Print

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:00a.m.

Any debate over child discipline should include those most affected, the Children's Commissioner says.

It was important the voices of children and young people were heard in the debate over the child discipline law, Commissioner John Angus said today.

"After all, they are the people most affected by it," Dr Angus said.

His comments come as New Zealanders are asked to vote in a citizens' initiated referendum that was prompted by opposition to a change to the Crimes Act that made it illegal for parents to use force against children for "correction".

The postal voting form asks: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

The postal ballot closes on August 21.

Dr Angus said he asked the Young People's Reference Group (YPRG) a series of questions about the child discipline law and while they supported the law change, they said information about it had been lacking, particularly information directed at children and young people.

The YPRG is made up of young people aged between 12 and 18 who provide advice to the Office of the Children's Commissioner on national and regional issues that affect children and young people.

Members of the YPRG felt the law change was positive for children and young people, Dr Angus said.

One of the members, 16-year-old William, said the law change removed possible ambiguity in the seriousness of offences.

"Parents now don't need to question how much force they are using and can't use the law as justification for more serious abuse," he said.

"It seems as if parents are re-evaluating their parenting techniques as a result, whereas without the law change, they may have never stopped to think."

The group indicated many young people might not know what to do if they were being smacked, Dr Angus said.

"If parents hit their kids, it's not like their kids are going to tell the police as the parents are in control," said 16-year-old Anaru.

"It doesn't matter what the child thinks, their parents are the boss."

Dr Angus said the children's comments were consistent with evidence that what children remembered was someone who was supposed to love them, inflicting pain on them rather than making a link with particular behaviour.

"Maybe it's time we listened to our youngest citizens," he said.

NZPA
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

07 Sep 2009 07:16p.m.

Kourosh wrote:

Why shouldn't us teens be allowed to have a say I mean the whole thing is about us and if our parents are allowed to smack/hit us. I mean sure there will be a lot of young people who will make stupid ideas but as Wanna Bikkit said young people can say smart things I'm 13 but do you think my point or opinion is stupid. I personally think that if we are interested in having a proper say then why shouldn't we be allowed to. I also think that it should remain illegal in NZ to smack a child, baby or teenager because sometimes people go take it over the top and end up killing there own children, children get hurt just a punishment is good parental behaviour. Most people might think it's weird for a 13 year old to be putting his opinion out there but I would like a say on all of this.

23 Aug 2009 03:16p.m.

Phil wrote:

You've done it a gain Wanna Bikkit. You just can't bring yourself to say children, you just have to use the terminology "young people". If you are not an adult you are by definition a child. Stop applying a non-existant status to children. Let them be children - they have the rest of their lives to be adults.

12 Aug 2009 02:55p.m.

Wanna Bikkit wrote:

Phil:
My point is that we shouldn't ignore the intelligent and mature things that children and teenagers can say just because they also say and do immature things.
We don't do that for adults, so why do it for younger people?

11 Aug 2009 04:03p.m.

Gary wrote:

If a 'teenager'is a child, then why do we allow children to drive cars, vote in elections, go to war, indulge in sex, and work for a living? Why do we put 'children'in jail?
It is silly to assume that a teenager is a child. Lots of teenagers make responsible decisions. They also carry responsibility. 'Children' often work after school to earn money, in shops, doing paper runs, or fundraising for their schools, and that is a good thing. So why can they not be consulted for their views on some topics which have some bearing on their lives? As 'adults' we are consulted on the issue of capital punishment, and we vote accordingly. We general consensus of opinion opposes capital punishment. How would we like it if the government passed a law approving hanging or lethal injection, without our consultation? Likewise, children are entitled to be included in the debate over smacking. And frankly, most of them will probably make more sense than so called adults who are pro violent parenting methods. If a 'child' hits another child they are held accountable. It is a double standard to give so called adults the right to hit children in any form or level of force. Anybody who has to use such methods is clearly lacking in parenting skills.

11 Aug 2009 11:52a.m.

Phil wrote:

In reply to Wanna Bikkit. Firstly my questions were rhetorical, but never mind.
Teenagers (or young people) are a relatively new phenomenon in the history of society. Indeed as a group they did not exist until about five generations ago - you were either a child or an adult then. And society is so much better off of course for us having them now (sarcasm intended).
By your own admission your "teenager" displays childish behaviour, which proves the point I am trying to make. Let children be children, they have the rest of their lives to act grown-up.
The creation of this blurry group of individuals (young people or teenagers) has merely confused the distinction between a child and an adult to no real useful end. It is the machinations of politically correct people who can't bring themselves to call a child a child, and insist in bestowing some vague stature upon children, which they actually don't need.

11 Aug 2009 09:37a.m.

Wanna Bikkit wrote:

Yes Phil, it's just you. Dr Angus is NOT talking about giving under-18s the vote, he is talking about listening to their opinions.

You are NOT either a child or an adult - have you never heard of teenagers?

I have a 16 year old daughter - sometimes she can be childish, sometimes she is mature. And frequently she astounds me with very perceptive comments about the society around her.

People would do well to actually listen to under-18s - they understand more than you think! They are not stupid.

11 Aug 2009 09:23a.m.

Gary wrote:

Brian, I think you know exactly what I am talking about when I mention perjury.

10 Aug 2009 04:39p.m.

Phil wrote:

Commissioner John Angus is obviously a few bricks short of a full load if he thinks children should have a vote. A lot of things affect children but we don't let them have a say on any of them, and I can tell you why that is. They are children, and children should not be encumbered by adult decisions. They should be allowed to be children - they have most of their lives to be adults so let them enjoy being a child for now. This man is the Chidren's Commisioner and he knows nothing about children. Is it just me?

09 Aug 2009 02:59p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Why is it that I suspect that the pro-belting lobby is so intent on returning us to the days of legal ambiguity is because they have fellow zealots who'd get off under the old Section 59's scandalously broad 'reasonable force' parameters? And why are they so willing to defend people who whip teenagers and punch four year old children in the face?!

08 Aug 2009 08:18p.m.

Brian wrote:

Please stop comparing a smack to the brutal beatings that some terrible people inflict on children. They are not the same thing. I keep hearing people in favor of the new law talk about children being "belted, beaten, punched and ending up in the hospital". Children ending up at Starship Hospital with head injuries or broken bones are not the result of a smack. New Zealand children are not dying from a smack on the hand! "...the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the flawed anti-smacking law and we are failing to identify and tackle the real causes." http://familyintegrity.org.nz/2009/child-abuse-death-rate-is-killing-us/