The NZ Herald carried an interesting article a few days ago about a study by NZ psychologist Jane Millichamp into the effect of smacking on child development. A few quotes -
“Study members in the ‘smacking only’ category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society,” she said.
…
“I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids,” she said.
…
Dr Millichamp said the Dunedin study so far found no evidence of the “slippery slope” theory – that parents who started off smacking often progressed to abusive punishments.
…
“It’s unethical to make out that there is a lot of evidence that mild smacking is harmful,” she said.
All of this is pretty interesting considering that NZ Green Party MP Sue Bradford has introduced a bill (Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill) that is said to ban smacking.
On the NewsTalkZB website, Bradford is quoted as dismissing the significance of the Millichamp study -
Ms Bradford says she merely wants to remove the ‘use of reasonable force’ as a defence in court.She says new smacking research should not have any effect on the validity of her bill.
She says that is merely scaremongering from those opposed to the change [emphasis added].
But how is this scaremongering? What does the bill actually say? Section 3:
The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children.
I think this is pretty clear. Bradford doesn’t want to remove discipline as a justification for smacking, but to remove “reasonable force… as a justification for discipline.” So, parents should not be able to justify discplining their child by claiming that the force used was reasonable. But that’s exactly what the Millichamp study is about – that there are good reasons to justify the use of force in discplining a child.