English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In 2003 the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) annual report on child welfare focused its concerns on the physical maltreatment of children, and published a league table of fatal child abuse statistics that placed New Zealand among the worst performing Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations.1 Among its recommendations was the ending of legal sanctions (as enshrined in section 59 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961) that allowed for the hitting of children in the name of discipline.2 Since that time, the topic of child punishment has generated significant anxiety and debate amongst child welfare advocates, doctors, educators, journalists, politicians and the general public.3 Jane and James Ritchie, psychologists from the University of Waikato in New Zealand, were the first to suggest a link between the country’s high levels of societal and domestic violence and the physical disciplining of children.4 In 1979, acting on the findings of their groundbreaking study on the use of physical punishment in the home, the Ritchies made a submission to parliament advising ‘the elimination from statute of any provision that permits the right to employ physical force in the correction and training of the young’.5 Not only was their submission disregarded, but the response they encountered surprised them in its aggression — they had, by their own account, uncovered a firmly embedded ‘cultural pattern’ which, when threatened, provoked a strength of feeling ‘so beyond reason and rationality as to indicate the social equivalent of a personal neurosis’.6

Reading Past Cases of Child Cruelty in the Present: The Use of the Parental Right to Discipline in New Zealand Court Trials, 1890–1902