Robert E. Larzelere: In New Zealand

ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD
Associate Professor of Psychology
Dept. Human Development & Family Science - Oklahoma State University

will be asking the questions...
• what is the sound scientific evidence on the benefits / harms of smacking?
• how does appropriate smacking compare with other forms of parental
correction in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes?
• do smacking bans reduce child abuse according to international experience?

Doctor Larzelere, one of the World's Foremost Researchers on Child Correction For Past 30 Years is...
• One of three social scientific expert witnesses on the side of successfully defending a
similar section to NZ's s59 of Canada's Criminal Code.
(The social scientific expert witnesses on the other side included Joan Durrant. Durrant
has been painted as the authority on smacking bans in NZ yet was ignored in her own
country!)
• Member of Task Force on Corporal Punishment - American Psychological Association.
• One of 7 experts invited to present at 1996 Scientific Consensus Conference on the
Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Corporal Punishment - co-sponsored by
American Academy of Pediatrics.

Doctor Larzelere is the author of 70 publications including...
• Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary
tactics: A meta-analysis. Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,
8, 1-37.
• Sweden's Smacking Ban: More harm than good. Larzelere, R. E. (2004) Frinton on Sea, Essex, UK:
Families First
(Refutes research presented by Joan Durrant which has been used as evidence for repealing
s59 by NZ's Children's Commissioner, UNICEF, Barnados, Plunket and other groups
supporting repeal.)
• Children and Violence in the Family: Scientific Contributions
Larzelere; R. E. (2005) A Submission to the UN Global Study on Children and Violence
• Physical discipline and child behavior problems: A study of ethnic group
differences.
Polaha, J., Larzelere, R. E., Shapiro, S. K., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Parenting: Science and Practice, 4, 339-360.
• Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful?
Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 580-589.
• The effects of discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences.
Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1996). Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 18, 35-57

For more information on Doctor Robert E. Larzelere and his visit to New Zealand, click here.

One National voice out of 48 backs Bradford bill

this from www.nzherald.co.nz

Katherine Rich

National MP Katherine Rich is likely to be the last MP standing in her caucus of 48 who supports Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill when it finally passes.

"It is not what I expected," she said last night. "But I am privileged to be in a party that allows me to express those views."

She said National had always had a "small pocket" of social liberals.

"When Ralph Hannan [Justice Minister in the Holyoake Government] started talking about the equal distribution of matrimonial property and getting rid of capital punishment, people thought he was a nut. But slowly over time the community changes."

The National caucus has allowed a free vote on the Bradford bill, which bans the use of physical punishment on children.

West Auckland list MP Paula Bennett was thought to be another supporting the private member's bill but she said she had not made up her mind and had sent out 19,000 letters to voters seeking their views in a telephone poll.

By yesterday she had received only 200 replies and 66 per cent wanted her to oppose the bill, so on the basis of that she probably would.

"I am honestly and genuinely conflicted," Ms Bennett said.

National Party leader John Key said he was quite relaxed about Mrs Rich's position.

Mr Key said he had not given up attempting to gain support for an amendment that would state that minor and inconsequential smacks by parents would not be covered by the bill.

But Ms Bradford, a Green MP, confirmed yesterday that she would withdraw the bill if that happened anyway.

Mr Key plans to contact Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia over the weekend and New Zealand First MPs next week.

Meanwhile, the Anglican Church is organising an ecumenical service for peace in families at the Wellington Cathedral on Wednesday at 1pm.

At the same time, across the road at Parliament, Destiny Church will hold a protest rally to mark the return of the bill to the debating chamber.

The Anglican Church's social justice commissioner, Anthony Dancer, said last night that the rally would involve Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians and other mainstream church members on an individual basis.

No smack compromise for Key and Bradford

this from www.stuff.co.nz
NZPA | Wednesday, 25 April 2007

National Party leader John Key and the Green's Sue Bradford have failed to agree on a compromise over her controversial bill to change the law on smacking. They met for an hour in Parliament today for talks Ms Bradford described as "genuine and friendly" but did not find a way to overcome National's strong opposition to the bill. The bill's future did not depend on the meeting because there are 63 votes behind it, enough for it to be passed into law, but it has divided Parliament and is causing bitter debates. The bill removes from the Crimes Act the statutory defence that allows "reasonable force" to be used to correct children. Opponents, including National, say that means even the lightest smack would be a criminal offence. Supporters say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and the defence is allowing people to get away with savagely beating children. Ms Bradford said Mr Key proposed an amendment to the bill at their meeting which would insert a clause stating parents were justified in lightly smacking a child, if the smacking was minor and inconsequential.

It is similar to an amendment already proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, although the wording is different. Ms Bradford said it was not acceptable, because it would legitimise violence against a child. Mr Key initiated today's meeting and Ms Bradford said she believed he had made a genuine attempt to cut through the problems National has with the bill. "I think Mr Key does want to reduce the level of violence against children. . .I think he tried really hard to come up with something," she said. Mr Key was due to hold a press conference later today. A spokesman said the meeting had been cordial "but there was no outcome".