Published in the National Business Review of 2 July 2004
Those who see Helen Clark's government as poll driven and as willing to sacrifice principles for expediency will find support in the saga of the government's anti-smacking campaign.

The initiative, now known as SKIP - Strategies for Kids; Information for Parents, is a pale shadow of the vigorous multi million dollar television driven advertising campaign being planned last year to persuade Kiwis not to smack their kids.

Survey research conducted for the campaign and released under the Official Information Act shows that New Zealanders support the use of some types of physical discipline on children and that they are skeptical about non-physical alternatives.

It backs up other surveys showing that New Zealanders want to retain the right to smack, and that they support the current law on physical discipline of children.

In December 2001 Cabinet had agreed to a "public education campaign to inform people about alternatives to physical discipline and to lead attitudinal and behavioural change."

In 2003 officials were working on "an education strategy on alternatives to physical punishment of children' with a vision that "all children in New Zealand are raised in a positive way, free from physical punishment." The budget was $10.8 m over four years.

Officials told Ministers in August 2003 that the most cost effective means to influence society's attitudes and behaviours regarding physical discipline was "through a mass media campaign, supported by targeted community programmes to reach distinct population groups."

Television would be used "to deliver a highly visible, high impact message" to a mass audience, and would be supported by "other national media resources" and cited an 0800 number, a website, and newspaper and magazine advertising.

Media advocacy (using parenting experts to deliver messages) would set the campaign agenda. "This will inform people of the harm and ineffectiveness of physical punishment and the value of positive parenting alternatives."

While the national media campaign would primarily seek to influence attitudes, community based education programmes would seek to change behaviours. The two approaches "will have more effect than a mass media approach alone" officials told Ministers.

But this advice was written and accepted before the survey research was conducted. The reports to Ministers refer to the target audience for the education campaign being those most willing to change their attitudes and behaviour.

Throughout 2003 while the campaign was being developed, neither officials nor Ministers knew very much about who constituted "those most willing to change", how entrenched their attitudes were, why those views were held, what were the barriers to change, or how best to reach and persuade that audience.

They also knew little about some very basic elements such as which people were using physical punishment, how regularly, for what reasons and in what circumstances.

Auckland survey research company Gravitas conducted its research only in April and May 2004, and the results were "fed into the process as they came available" according to the Ministry of Social Development.

The Gravitas nationwide survey of 1151 adults found physical discipline was seen to be effective, and as bringing about immediate change. Alternatives were considered ineffective.

The key reason was experience. 87% of parents had tried other (non physical methods) methods already.

Gravitas described a 'pathway' where "parents consider themselves to be thinking, planning or undertaking alternatives." These ranged from ignoring the behaviour, asking the child to stop, to time out, final warnings, and finally physical discipline.

The Gravitas reports refers to parents' "perception and experience of alternatives not being effective in the specific situational and behavioural context in which the physical discipline eventually occurs."

In other words it was going to be hard to convince parents that other methods were better when this contradicted their own experience.

The programme now known as SKIP was being called Supporting Positive Parenting only a few weeks before Minister Steve Maharey launched it on May 6.

Reports dated April 2 and April 19 discussing the launch are headed Supporting Positive Parenting Strategy.

The April 19 report recommends a change of name saying 'we have moved away from the term positive parenting as recent feedback suggests that this may imply that there is something wrong or negative with the parenting style of parents who engaged with the strategy."

A report to the Minister dated 29 April is headed Launch of SKIP.

It now has three 'strands', a Local Initiatives Fund of $1.8 million to which community organisations can apply for grants of up to $75 000 to run activities in their area. According to a SKIP pamphlet the fund "will support gatherings of parents and caregivers, promotional events and inspirational activities"

About 20 applications had been received at this week's closing date.

The other two strands in SKIP are a pool of national resources most of which are still being developed and support for existing programmes run by national organisations involved with families. These too are still being worked on.

In fact the researchers are meeting the policy staff and the SKIP project team for the first time today (July 2) to discuss the Gravitas findings and to get feedback. One other meeting had taken place " a few months ago before the interviewing started."

The Ministry of Social Development prides itself on developing evidenced based policy, but the research underpinning the SKIP campaign was still being conducted as the policy was being fashioned. A Ministry spokesman said officials had run a robust policy process for Ministers.

Informing people of the "harm and ineffectiveness of physical punishment and the value of positive parenting alternatives" may be a worthy goal, but it ran into the reality of parents' experience that (true or not) they don't believe physical discipline harms children, that they do believe physical discipline works and they believe non physical methods aren't always effective, although they use those first.

When the research findings became apparent a programme whose initial conception was a high profile and consistent presentation of alternatives to physical discipline using nationally known personalities and run in a top down manner had to change.

It slipped back to become a low profile, below the radar community based set of variable initiatives, backed by some brochures and other information most of which has yet to be produced.

Which approach might be more effective at changing attitudes and behaviour is problematic. The effectiveness of a community based approach will certainly be harder to measure

Despite all the other changes and shifts in emphasis, one thing has remained the same. Funding for the programme still stands at the original figure of $10.8 million.

So what are the numbers?
The Ministry of Justice commissioned a nationwide survey of New Zealand adults on physical discipline. Published in 2001 it showed high levels of support for physical discipline to be "legally allowable."

There were no discernible differences by gender or occupation. Adults who had never parented were less likely to support physical discipline than current parents, but previous parents were more inclined to support it. There was majority support across all ethnic groups with support highest among Pakeha/Europeans followed by Maori and then Pacific people.

• 80% of adults agreed that smacking a child should be legally allowable. Smacking with an open hand was supported but only 15% agreed that implements like a spoon could be used.
• 75% agreed that smacking that left no mark was acceptable, and only six percent agreed that leaving a red mark was acceptable. There was no support for anything more severe.
• physical discipline of children is more accepted for 2-5 year olds (62%) and 6-10 year olds (72%) followed by the 11-14 year olds (43%), and is least accepted for 15-17 year olds (16%).Women thought it more acceptable than men to physically punish a child under two years of age. Conversely men were more likely than women to find it acceptable to physically punish 6-10 and 11-14 year olds.

In October 2003 a HeraldDigiPoll found that nearly 70% of New Zealanders thought the current law on smacking was adequate, and almost 98% considered it was "reasonable in some circumstances to smack a child lightly".

In 2004 Auckland research company Gravitas surveyed 1151 adults on behalf of the anti-smacking campaign. It found:

• 51 % of parents had used physical discipline in the last three months
• its use correlates with decreasing levels of education and income
• it was "typically considered and used as a last resort strategy".
• a smack on the bottom (45% of parents) or a smack on the hands or fingers (28%) were the most common forms of physical discipline
• caregivers are less likely than parents to use physical discipline
• most parents using physical discipline had thought about using other methods
• benefits of smacking cited are that "it works, its immediate and is effective in teaching about safety and danger.