ARTA not looking after the children

Readers of this blog may remember my posts over the past 6 months about issues related to ARTA and children riding public transport. (They all include the "ARTA" label.)

Note that all I am doing is asking ARTA to implement in practice the policies they already have in place. I am not asking them to do anything they have not already committed to do.

You would think taking action to ensure children's rights under ARTA's policy would be a top priority. Apparently not, given my experience this year.

The issues have been:

1. Children frequently have to pay the adult fare, even when accompanied by their parents, because ARTA does not provide any guidance as to what identification is required to establish entitlement. Bus drivers have absolute discretion. The policy says children aged 5 to 15 inclusive ride for the child's fare.

2. School children are frequently denied access to non-school buses in the morning and told (Birkenhead Transport) to get the school bus.....which left 40 minutes prior. This is contrary to policy.

3. The child pricing policy was incorporated into the "School Student Discounts" of the revamped web site despite applying to all children, including those who are not school students or not school students in Auckland. It seems bizarre to include the super-set of all children from anywhere within the sub-set of children who attend school - by implication - in Auckland. This construction seems to be intended to create confusion rather than clarify the pricing issue related to children.

These points have all been raised wth ARTA since January. They have all been accepted as valid by ARTA. Action to correct them has been promised by ARTA. I've spoken to the head of PR, the head of Customer Service and a senior marketing exec...and all agreed these problems were valid.

Six months later, almost nothing has been done. Birkenhead Transport has stopped refusing to let school kids on regular buses most of the time, but it was still happening two weeks ago. The driver concerned has been spoken to, I'm told, by his supervisors.

I think I'm beginning to understand that ARTA doesn't actually have the power and authority it needs to have in order to do the job it's trying to do. They can't even get their web site updated.....or simply say they won't do it.

I've more or less given up on them. The senior exec who was looking into these issues has not responded in substance to my last two e-mails on the subject. The political route appears to be the only one that can bring these issues to a resolution.

Smacking Hysteria

The petition to roll back the removal of the defense in law for beating your children is a sort of IQ test and it appears roughly 390,000 people have failed.

The question proposed for the referendum is appropriately wide of the mark:

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand."

It's hard to see why these people are in such an uproar. Not one parent has been prosecuted for smacking a child since the right to beat your children with impunity was repealed.

The old law said:

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961
Domestic discipline
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

In practice, this had allowed lip-swelling, eye-blackening, ear-drum popping physical assault (not just smacking) on children. There are no two ways about that. What is not clear is how serious the assault may be before it becomes unreasonable. Many of us will know of families where "a hiding" resulting in significant physical injury to the child is considered to be reasonable by the parent.

Assault on Children is already illegal under Section 194(a)of the Crimes Act and no distinction is made between parents and non-parents:

194. Assault on a child, or by a male on a female---Every one is
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who---
(a) Assaults any child under the age of 14 years; or
(b) Being a male, assaults any female.
Cf. 1952, No. 43, s. 5

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for "smacking" a child"? No. Just as no adult has been prosecuted for a trivial assault on another adult though these are technically illegal, too.

It's now obvious that physical assaults on children have been illegal since at least 1961 when the original Crimes Act was passed, with Section 59 effectively allowing parents to assault their children - legally - provided the police did not consider the assault to be so excessive as to warrant prosecution. That left parents a lot of room to inflict violence on children with no guidance in law as to what was reasonable.

The new law doesn't actually change this much at all. Certainly not from the perspective of parents who do NOT beat their children.

Parental control

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Subsection (1) was substituted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(2) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Subsection (3) was inserted, as from 23 July 1990, by section 28(3) Education Amendment Act 1990 (1990 No 60).
Section 59 was substituted, as from 21 June 2007, by section 5 Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 18).

The new law says much the same thing as the old law. It is illegal to assault children. What has changed is the new law makes it clear that force can be used to prevent children from doing things they need to be prevented from doing, but they cannot be gratuitously assaulted for the purpose of correction (punishment). Further, the law explicitly allows the police to ignore inconsequential assaults for children as they already do for adults.

This is essentially the same thing as the old law, but much more clear than the old law. This additional clarity is important, good and useful to parents and the police. It lowers the bar as to what violence and how much violence is acceptable. That IS a good thing.

How any reasonable, informed person could oppose this law change defies understanding. One can only conclude people opposed to it are either unreasonable, uninformed or both. I suspect reasonable people are merely uninformed. Having seen their materials first hand, the "Family First" group and so-called "Kiwi Party", and their fellow travelers, are a primary source of mis-information on this law change.

One would hope that if there were to be a referendum that Kiwis would actually READ the old law and the new law and see for themselves the hysteria whipped up over this law change is unfounded. That hope may be in vain given roughly 50% of Kiwis who state a preference are happy to vote for a party that refuses to reveal its policies. Whatever qualities Kiwis generally may possess, the evidence of recent political polls suggest that where law and politics are concerned, thoughtfulness and curiosity appear to be minority traits.

Just one more example of unfounded beliefs unconnected from what is verifiable and real. The campaign against this new law is just one more trick being played on people made stupid by their own lack of curiosity as to what the new law actually, REALLY says (and means).

Kids and buses

My youngest daughter sent me a txt this morning from the bs on her way to college. A driver with Birkenhead Transport has been preventing kids from boarding his bus in the mornings, saying variously they should either get the (much earlier) school bus or walk to school as "It's not that far! It will do you good".

Not really his call, I would have thought.

I had pursued this behaviour with ARTA over several months since January and been assured it would not be happening any more. Yet here it was again.

This time, I called Birkenhead Transport directly and spoke to the man there responsible for the drivers. He assured me the driver was in the wrong and that he would sort him out. He went on to say that particular driver "could be a prat at times". He said that other parents had also called today to complain.

I'm hoping no more school kids have to put up with being refused access to buses by flakey drivers.

A Public Transport Saga: ARTA's Child Policy

I'm a public transport fan and a true believer. I've used some of the best public transport systems in the world and lived without a car in such cities for years at a time. I know it can be done very well.

Auckland's MAXX is a huge step forward after the chaos created by selling off the previously public Auckland transport system. MAXX's parent body, ARTA is itself an attempt to bring some coherence to the regional public transport situation. I understand all that and I support what they are trying to do. At the same time, a user of such a system owes it to the providers to communicate any shortcomings with the reasonable expectation that these will be heard, acknowledged and either rejected as invalid or impractical or dealt with appropriately in a timely fashion.

Since shifting to Auckland in December, the public transport issue I have bumped into most often is the way children are treated. I've been pursuing MAXX on various issues related to children since January to little avail until recently.

Three issues have accumulated over time. Two are MAXX-specific and the other pertains to where I live (at least) and relates to the local provider not following MAXX policy.

Child Fare Policy and Acceptable ID

The first MAXX issue is straight forward: MAXX policy is that children 5-15 (incl) ride for the child's fare for singles and concessions. Doesn't matter who you are, or were you're from. If you're a child as described above, you're entitled to ride for a child fare.

But that isn't what happens to children much over the age of 12, depending on their size and appearance. Where I live, (Beach Haven/Birkenhead) children are told to pay the adult fare if they don't have a student card. That means a child not currently in an Auckland school pays full fare. That isn't consistent with MAXX's stated policy.

My daughter was challenged this way on her very first bus ride back in January. She was 14 then and had never attended an Auckland school. So no student card. I witnessed this and explained to the driver we had just shifted to Auckland. No use. The driver refused to accept any ID other than a student card. Clearly not consistent with MAXX policy. She refused to take the bus for two months after that.

I thought: "Welcome to MAXX!" It's hard to imagine a more negative experience for a 14yo girl who had gone to the trouble of checking the MAXX web site in order to be certain she was doing the right thing....only to find that the rules were something else.

Given MAXX's very clear and simple policy on child fares, what ID is acceptable according to MAXX? They don't say. The only answer I can get so far, after repeated queries, was a somewhat uncertain statement that a MAXX student card is provided via schools....but that isn't documented anywhere and is contrary to the MAXX policy as stated: ALL children.

Students are children, but are all children students?

In the meantime, the second MAXX issue appeared with the revamp of the web site over Easter. (This was also when the public forums were dumped) The formerly very clear MAXX child policy was now subsumed into the "school student discount" link. The policy there remains the same, but now it is under a link that refers only to school students, not children. The text itself refers to children. The link to it does not. This has created new confusion where it did not exist before. It logically makes no sense to deal with the super set of all children within the subset of students. It creates new opportunities for confusion among both operators and users. Perhaps this is deliberate. I hope not and have assumed it isn't.

Birkenhead Tansport and Children

The other issue relates to one provider. I live in the area served by Birkenhead Transport (BT).

BT recently began refusing school children access to all peak hour buses after 8am on the basis they SHOULD be using a school bus that leaves before 8am. The issue for the service provider, they claim, is that children fill the peak hour buses and adults can't find space or seat (not sure which). So drivers have been refusing access to the bus and telling kids to get the earlier school bus. Next one arrives tomorrow morning. Walk today. They aren't polite about it, either. This policy of BT's is a clear and obvious breach of the MAXX child policy. There is no legitimate basis for refusing a child access to a bus if they have the fare in hand.

Can you imagine the anguish of a parent should their child be injured or assaulted after being refused access to a bus they were entitled to board? It doesn't bear thinking about.

When I called Birkenhead Transport, it was clear this approach was a matter of BT policy and not an ad hoc thing being done by individual drivers. I called MAXX nd opened a problem about it. That was 2 weeks ago. It's clear the school buses laid on are far too early. What child wants to arrive at school 45 minutes or more early? BT aren't meeting the need. BT says they don't have a bus to spare: "Arthur can't afford another bus", I was told. Oh.

What do I conclude from this? Is this first-hand evidence of the joys on offer in a public transport system where a fragmented service is supplied by a number of private operators, at least one of whom demonstrably lacks the financial resources to meet even a moderate growth in usage amounting to one bus load?

Surely if the 8:18am 973 from Beach Haven Wharf is overfull, then BT should start TWO 973 buses from that location at that time or perhaps 973 Special a couple of minutes later. Kicking children off the buses they are perfectly entitled to ride is not what ARTA is paying BT to do. Maybe using that "school bus" no one uses because it is too early would do the trick. I don't know and I shouldn't have to.

MAXX Responsiveness

MAXX's responsiveness to all these issues has been uniformly poor. My first query on January 30th was never acted upon and I was never called back. They couldn't find it. It had been deleted by someone. My second query on March 4th also sailed through the 7-day response target unmolested. On March 14th, I was told I would be called back the next day. A week later, when I called back again, I was told the same thing.....only to wait another week before calling back again.

At that point, MAXX deleted the old forums and I was very much aware that I was now alone and atomised and dealing with a demonstrably unresponsive MAXX. I called Cam Pitches of the CBT to let him know about the forums disappearing and to introduce myself. Cam advised me to go the NZ Herald. A risk of being thought a tosser, here's a link to the article that appeared in the Herald the following Monday, containing some of my more colourful and critical quotes about MAXX. I said lots of nice things, too, in case anyone is wondering!

That very afternoon, I got a call not from MAXX, but ARTA. The person I spoke to heard out all of my issues (I'm becoming quite practiced at it) and agreed they had merit and should be dealt with. Two weeks went by and nothing obvious happened. No calls back. No change to the web site. It still has the confusing "school student discount" link to an all-child policy. Nothing new on what ID is acceptable for child fares. If BT has been taken to task for ignoring MAXX child policy, I've not heard about it.

Today, I got a call from ARTA again. The FIRST EVER genuine service-driven call back. It was someone covering for the first caller of two weeks ago who has gone on holiday. I rehearsed all the issues yet again, in detail. The person agreed they had merit and should be acted on.

May looms. It really shouldn't be this hard to get MAXX and BT to look after children as they have publicly stated they are committed to do.

I'll let you know what happens next.