Field Taito Phillip: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8450] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I am very interested in listening to this debate and to the points being made. I have a real care that we in this Parliament are showing some real concern for our children and that is good. But the issue with me relates to how genuine that concern is because thousands of children suffer and pay the ultimate price of violent abuse in relation to abortion. How many thousands of children die in New Zealand as a result of abortion? How many members of Parliament are concerned about that rate of death for children in New Zealand? In fact we have a law and a policy that literally results in that appalling number of deaths. Members cannot tell me that a foetus in the womb is not a human being. We could get into an argument about abortion. How many years have we debated it in this Chamber? But the reality is that thousands of children pay the ultimate price for abuse in the murder of those children in the womb. 
 Where is the concern of this Parliament in regard to those issues? Where is the sympathy compassion and concern about children when it comes to that issue and those thousands of children who die every year? That is a question I ask this Committee. I ask New Zealanders too because I think a whole lot of New Zealanders are concerned about that. We talk about children dying and children being abused but what about those children? They do not even get a chance to have life. Where is the sympathy? Where is the law to give them some protection? Let us ask ourselves that. Let us not have crocodile tears about children’s rights and about whatever is determined by the United Nations; let us ask ourselves about the issue of abortion because we are talking about children dying and babies dying. Where is Sue Bradford’s concern about that issue? I watched the march today. I watched people marching. But maybe abortion is an issue that some people should be marching about. That to me is a very serious issue. 
It does not matter how we debate this bill in this Chamber; the thought will continue amongst the majority of New Zealanders that this is a silly law that will not work. It is unworkable. Parents know they have a God-given right to use reasonable force that does not harm a child but that sets out correction and teaches the child what is right and what is wrong. As far as I am concerned that is a right that parents should continue to have. No law should prohibit their right to parent and raise their children in a godly way that benefits those children. 
I note that the amendments proposed by Mr Borrows define reasonable force. We are all concerned about abuse. We debated a few weeks ago the abuse of children and the use of unreasonable force and I agree that child abuse is already against the law. It is already against the law to abuse children. What is being proposed here will miss the mark. I think somebody said that it is like using a huge sledgehammer to crack a peanut. It really is overkill and most New Zealanders realise it. The polling shows that—83 percent oppose this bill for the stupidity it represents. I stand by that position. 
This bill not only will have a negative effect long term but will have a negative effect on relationships within the family—the relationship between the child and the parent and the relationship between siblings and their parents who may be involved in a prosecution. Those are the sorts of concerns that members of this Committee should be considering when we debate this bill. 
The other real concern is that if we are to take away disciplinary correction of children by way of a harmless smack—and we can debate how the police will interpret that—and if this method is not available to parents to discipline their children what psychological damage may be caused? There is more than one way to skin a cat. I am sure that if parents do not have this avenue of discipline for the purpose of correction their screaming at their children and perhaps intimidating them will cause psychological damage. What does a child suffer in psychological damage in comparison with other forms of abuse? Members should answer that question. Has anybody given any thought to what this bill could promote?