Kedgley Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8461] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I am becoming heartily sick of opponents of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill the essence of whose argument is: “Don’t tell me what to do in my home. My home is sacrosanct. The State shouldn’t tell me what to do in my home.” Well people are not allowed to beat their spouses in their homes so why should they be able to beat their children? They are not allowed to sexually abuse their children in the sanctity of their homes so why should they be able to physically abuse their children in the sanctity of their homes? 
Every one of us pays when a child grows up in a culture of violence. We pay for it in the crime statistics in jails that are crowded and in a police force that is stretched by trying to cope with crime and with people who do not feel safe in their homes. Day after day in this Chamber we see opponents wringing their hands about the violence in this society—wringing their hands about the need for more police more jails and so forth. But the very same people are not prepared to support legislation that seeks to reduce the culture of violence in this society and that is what this bill aims to do. 
This bill aims to strike a blow at the culture of violence in our society and at the abuse of children which is what section 59 is about. Section 59 legitimises violence; it justifies whacking children and that is why its opponents are so appalled about its removal. They do not have any reason other than that it removes the justification the legitimacy for whacking children on a routine basis. 
I know somebody who has spent most of his life in jail. As a child he was beaten by his father who was a fundamentalist Christian and who said that he had a right to beat that child because the child had the devil in him and the father was whacking the devil out of him. Not just this person—who has spent most of his tragic life in jail—but all of us have paid for that upbringing of violence. We have all paid into the amount—in paying for prisons in paying for that child’s life in and out of jail and in paying for the police to have to arrest him on a routine basis. 
I was talking to someone else who was routinely smacked as a child—not beaten but just smacked. He said in looking back now that it drained him of his trust in his parents and his trust in the world. He said that over the years he lost his joy in life and his innocence. Sure the guy survived—and that is what everyone says: “Look I was beaten as a child; I survived.” We have some outstanding examples like Dr Pita Sharples who has survived intolerable beating and is now an example and an inspiration to us all. Nevertheless I suspect that he would say the same thing—that all of those beatings and all of that violence drained him of his trust of his innocence and of his joy in life. 
I believe that opposition to this bill is very much driven by very passionate and well-intentioned fundamentalist Christians who really believe that they must beat children and not spare the rod in order to beat Satan out of them. What we are hearing here are excuses—excuse after excuse—from people who say they have a right to smack and who want to have their right to smack legitimised and sanctioned in legislation. All this bill is doing is undermining that sanctity and legitimacy of violence and it is striking a blow at the culture of violence in this society. 
If people are seriously concerned about violence in our society—as most Opposition members claim that they are—then it is frankly incomprehensible that they would oppose this bill. I would like to pay a tribute to people with the courage of Doug Woolerton.