Call to ban physical child-punishment

Press, 26 November 1979, Page 14

Call to ban physical child-punishment

By

LEONE STEWART

A change in the Crimes Act to outlaw the physical punishment of children has been urged by Dr Jane Ritchie, a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Waikato, at a Christchurch conference. Section 59 of the act, which allowed parents, teachers, and those in place of parents to use reasonable force to control a child, should be repealed, she has said. “That clause means that children can be hit,” she said. Dr Ritchie delivered what she described as a very controversial paper on the physical punishment of children at “The Rights of the Child and the Law” conference, which has been organised by the Human Rights Commission in conjunction with the National Commission for the Year of the Child. The paper was written by Dr Ritchie, with her husband, Professor James Ritchie, the head of Waikato University’s department of psychology. The two are coauthors of several books on child rearing. “New Zealand parents are wedded to the concept of disciplining their children by using violence,” said Dr Ritchie. “They need to be educated that there are other, more effective ways of getting the results they want.” Dr Ritchie proposes the setting up of centres in primary schools where parents could go for advice on child-rearing problems. “A parent-support centre could be set up next to the dental nurse’s room. That would be a practical contribution to the Year of the Child in New Zealand.” Many parents, especially mothers, feel guilty about hitting their children, according to Dr Ritchie. “Our surveys in Hamilton have shown this,” she said. “But fathers don’t fee! that so much. Research show’s fathers hit their sons more and this is perpetuated in each generation. Dr Ritchie said the surveys had shown that mothers hit out spontaneously in frustration while fathers administered physical punishment as a calculated action. Fathers also used weapons such as sticks or straps much more often than mothers. “First we need a change in the law as a moral ges-l ture,” said Dr Ritchie.

While in Christchurch Dr l Ritchie attended the fourth national conference of the Le Leche League. Her latest book, written with her husband, is a slim volume, “Growing Up in Polynesia”. It follows “Child Rearing Patterns in New Zealand”, written in 1970,; and their 1978 book, “Grow- ’ ing up in New Zealand”. The authors hope that “Growing Up in Polynesia” will be used in the Pacific Islands and in New Zealand. “Most books on child-rear-ing being used by studgnts in the Islands are American,” said Dr Ritchie. “If we ifind much of these not applicable here how much more so must that be in the Islands?” The book is based on previous work among Maori families and research in the Islands. It is an extension of work done by Dr Ritchie’s parents, who worked as anthropologists in the Pacific. Professor and Dr Ritchie spent some time in Fiji last year. “We are prepared for criticism because we have not

'been able to do extensive field work,” said Dr Ritchie, i “Child-rearing patterns vary so much from village to village and in different islands, i “Last year--we were at the University of the South Pacific in Suva and people there are still criticising i Margaret Mead 40 years after because, as they say, ‘Only going to one village, really,’ But we hope to stimulate discussion.” Dr Ritchie believes many misunderstandings arise in New Zealand because people here do not understand Polynesian child-rearing patterns. She hopes that schoolteachers and those in the helping professions will read the book. “Aucklanders get very indignant about the disco kids,” she said. “Although 10-year-old children are out late they are not alone at the disco. They are with older brothers and sisters. That is the way in the Islands. “I don’t believe knowledge will necessarily mean people will always agree with these different ways but perhaps they will be less quick to rush to judgment; more tolerant.”