Submitted by crinadmin on
Deborah Morris-Travers, 39, is leading the Yes Vote campaign on corporal punishment in New Zealand. In a referendum on a 2005 law that banned smacking, forced by a coalition of pro-smacking groups, voters will be asked to say yes or no to the question "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Formerly a Member of Parliament, Ms Morris-Travers is now Advocacy Manager at Barnardos. With advocacy, for an issue such as this anyway, you have to be prepared for a long battle. A priority is always gaining sufficient political support. Even now, that's where we concentrate our efforts – getting the right legal framework is important, as public opinion will take years to change. Over the years, the government has invested a lot in positive parenting practices, so it only makes sense that this would be reflected in the law on corporal punishment. People are being misled about the extent of police involvement in families. The opposition campaign has been fought quite aggressively, so for example they have taken out large adverts in national newspapers citing supposed cases of parents being criminalised. But when they have been asked by us, or others, to provide evidence about the cases, they have not been able to produce it, so we can't counter it. Apparently, a lot of the money for their campaign comes from US conservative groups, but we cannot justify spending millions on advertising campaigns or newspaper pages because we have a duty to service delivery. We can't use core funding for this campaign, and the money comes from private donors. The key is getting people through the emotion, and the belief that it is all about the 'nanny state' interfering in the private lives of families. Getting people to believe that children are human beings and therefore rights holders is therefore crucial. The opposition campaign tries to pit adults against children, but when you uphold the rights of one section of the population, you uphold the rights of all of us.
Having a background as a politician and minister has definitely helped with understanding parliamentary and political processes. I used to be a minister, but I left parliament to work in public affairs in the private sector, where I came into contact with NGOs working on law change. I then went overseas to South East Asia, and when I came back in 2004, I decided I wanted to work on community projects.
It is important that advocacy is based on research and evidence. It is also important to build a network of people and organisations working together on the issue, and it has been vital for us to have the major children's organisations, working in the delivery of children's services, working in partnership.
Building allies in the community and parliament, and in the news media, who understand the issue and can act as champions has made a real difference. Celebrities are also good to get on board, where possible, and of course it is crucial to the campaign that children's voices are incorporated. So, for example, the opposition campaign and some parents argue that a light smack is OK, and doesn't hurt or harm children. However, children respond that smacking does actually hurt, and they say they are harmed by it.
Most people will probably vote 'no' in the referendum. Even thought a lot of people would condone positive parenting practices, it shows that a lot of them still don't understand the law. The way the referendum question is phrased suggests that, firstly, smacking is part of good parenting practices, and secondly that parents are, or will be, criminalised for smacking.
In fact, research has found that parents are not being criminalised for smacking, and there has hardly been any increase in police reporting of the issue. There has, however, been an increase in the reporting of serious assaults.
A lot of people are talking about it. The debate has been going on for a while. The first call to change the law came in 1979, and there was calls made right through the 1990s especially. There was a really intense public debate when the law was introduced in 2005, and the referendum has reignited the debate. But we are seeing a much more mature attitude in the media and elsewhere towards the issue, which is a positive sign of progress. There is also more interest in the views of children.
The biggest challenge remains public opinion – you are talking about generations of beliefs and attitudes, and in particular the perceived rights of parents to treat children in a particular way. I always tell people that we are in the middle of a 20 to 30 year campaign.
Further information