Garrett David: Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13819] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my pleasure to introduce this bill to the House today. There are so many problems with the current legislation that it is difficult to know where to start. The original bill was passed in the dying days of the last Government at a time when after 8 years of suspecting that it was out of touch the people established that was the case beyond all doubt. This law has turned good parents into criminals; it is as simple as that. Members of the previous Government decided that they were better parents than the people themselves. They forced upon the nation their other-worldly view that parents who smack their kids are no different from the parents who bash abuse and kill their kids. I must sadly add that those members were aided and abetted in that view by the National Opposition. 
I could not explain the bill’s purpose any better than the explanatory note does and to save time I will not read it all. The first paragraph reads: “The purpose of this Bill is to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and substitute a new section to provide that parents and those in the place of parents no longer commit a criminal offence if they use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour;”. It then talks about the definition of “reasonable force”. 
One of the many terrible ironies is that this bill is really no different from the very good amendment that the member Chester Borrows who is in the House proposed during the debate on the law now in force. The need for this amendment has only grown stronger. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The world’s moved on. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I heard a silly comment from someone that the world has moved on. Indeed it has; experience has shown us that this bill not only does not achieve anything but it is counter-productive. 
The Prime Minister and his colleagues were no doubt hoping the recent Latta review of the anti-smacking law as it has become known would be the end of the matter. Perhaps it might have been had the report not been a complete and utter whitewash. To this end a series of case studies were completely distorted by the Latta review to back up the wishful claim that the bill is working well. I will provide just one example for now from the Latta review. A father who was discharged without conviction for shaking his daughter’s shoulders suddenly became in the Latta review a man who was convicted and then discharged for punching his daughter three times in the head and mouth. That is completely incorrect on both limbs. Discharged without conviction and convicted and discharged are two very different things; even more different is shaking by the shoulders compared with punching in the head and mouth. There are plenty of other examples that I am sure my colleague the Hon John Boscawen will touch on later. 
The bill was originally in John Boscawen’s name and he has worked tirelessly at public meetings all over the country to assure parents that at least some MPs in this House are not deaf to parents’ concerns. Once upon a time it seemed that the Prime Minister John Key was also listening but sadly no longer. When writing the notes for this speech it occurred to me that based on past quotes I could have asked the Prime Minister to write my entire speech for me. I will share some of those quotes with the House. Mr Key once described the anti-smacking law the law that is in place now as “a complete and utter dog’s breakfast badly drafted and extremely vague.” He also said—and here is the kicker: “The Borrows’ amendment was the right place to settle.” But Mr Borrows was browbeaten into voting against his own amendment. It is shameful absolutely shameful that the system does not allow Government members to vote for this bill—and there are many of them and we know it who would very happily vote for this bill tonight if they were not under the whip. Another Key quote said that linking a light smack with child abuse was “bloody insulting”. He is right; it is bloody insulting to compare a light smack on the leg with a bash. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Watch your language. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I am quoting the Prime Minister. Yet that was the argument put forward by many proponents of the current law. I will never forget my introduction to politics if you like at a meeting in Helensville—in fact Ms Fenton was there too—that was addressed by Sue Bradford the former Green member. After the meeting was over I took her to one side and had a quiet word. I asked her if she really believed that any swines who thought it was OK to hit their kids with a piece of wood or pipe would not do so as a result of that law change and she said no. I was astounded. Sue Bradford who was behind the legislation admitted that the legislation in place now does absolutely nothing to prevent child abuse. What it does do is criminalise good parents. 
Since the law has been passed more than 20 children have been murdered—20 children. This law did nothing for 6-month-old Cezar Taylor. It did nothing to stop the murders of Nia Glassie Cash McKinnon or any of the other children killed by those who were supposed to protect them. Notifications of possible child abuse received by Child Youth and Family numbered 125000 in the past 12 months; 125000 is 57 a day every day. The anti-smacking law has done absolutely nothing to change that. In fact the numbers have gone up. That is evidence alone surely that not only is the legislation ineffective but it has made things worse. 
Something that the somewhat hysterical debate at the time seemed to forget was that beating—bashing—one’s child was already against the law. What made anyone think that the anti-smacking legislation would cause such parents—and I use the word reluctantly—to think twice before inflicting such terrible harm? There are many people who disagree with the idea of a light smack. That is their prerogative; that is their right. When things go awry is when their views are forced on other equally good parents who choose to give their children a light smack for the purposes of correction. They do not give them a bash they do not use a weapon but they give them a light smack. They are a world apart as the Prime Minister admitted in his speeches when the law currently in force was before the House. 
New section 59(2) inserted by clause 5 clearly defines unreasonable force and thus removes the confusion many parents have about the current law. It also removes an enormous amount of power from the police—power that has often been improperly used. It is pretty straightforward. If the child suffers more than transitory or trifling injury then there has been unreasonable force. If the discipline—and it is not discipline—is as stated in subsection (2)(b) “inflicted by any weapon tool or other implement;” then it is unreasonable force. If it is as stated in subsection (2)(c) carried out “by any means that is cruel or degrading.” it is unreasonable force. That is what lawyers call codifying the law. Such a provision as Chester Borrows and John Key once recognised would help prevent the law from criminalising good parents. It also recognises that those few cases that escape conviction under the old law such as the use of a riding crop or a piece of wood were and are unacceptable. 
This bill should satisfy those who genuinely feel that the old law did not go far enough as well as the 87 percent of New Zealanders who said last year in a properly constituted referendum—not some telephone poll or write-in survey—that the current law has gone much too far. It will not please those who feel that smacking should be banned altogether—but that is OK. It is not for us politicians to tell parents how to raise their children. It is not our job to judge parents for disciplining their children as they see fit as long as they stay within the confines of reasonable law. If we fail to pass this legislation that is exactly what we are doing; 122 of us here are saying to the parents of New Zealand that we know better than they do. That is the kind of arrogance that got Labour kicked out of Government probably for the next 20 years. Labour members said: “We know better than you.” to the 87 percent of New Zealanders who voted against the current law. I will finish with another quote from the Prime Minister— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired. Before I take the next speaker the member needs to advise the House what select committee this bill will go to. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you. It is normal custom in the House at the beginning of bill like this that the member advises the House which select committee the bill will be referred to. It will be referred to the Social Services Committee.