Anderton Jim: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Anderton Jim: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7586. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I know and other members do of course that we do not want the State intruding into people’s homes. But of course we do it every day to protect people. We do it when we protect Mum from being hit by Dad. We do it when we set limits on the use of violence against children. The change I want to see is for the limit to that violence to be set at zero. That is no more of an intrusion in the home than we already make. 
Someone in my electorate who was against this Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill has been sending out an email letter comparing my support for the bill to the actions of the Nazi State as an example of intrusion into the home. That person even wrote the following to my constituents: “The fact that Ms Bradford and Mr Anderton have both had children who committed suicide elicits our sympathy. However their very sad misfortune does not by any means make them experts at bringing up their children.” 
What a sad and sick way to promote one’s cause. That is the hysterical extent that people will go to in order to defend their right to hit children. Well they could not have picked a less favourable example for their cause. The root of Nazism and of all hatred is the use of violence and bullying by one group of people who feel they have a moral claim higher than those of others. Without violence hatred cannot flourish and that is a strong reason why we should strip violence out of our homes. 
I will address the people who turn to scripture and recite misplaced lines such as “Spare the rod and spoil the child”. I caution anyone about trying to set the quality of his or her faith above that of others. The message in scripture is of course not literal; it is much more powerful more eternal more meaningful and more encompassing than that. The message is that humans should love one another. Violence is not loving and can never be loving. I am not in the practice of reciting articles of faith in this House but anyone who seeks to invoke the name of the teachings of Jesus in the cause of beating children has not understood Jesus’ message. 
Time and time again in recent years I have come to this Chamber and asked the House to protect our young people. Time and time again I have heard this House mouth platitudes about the importance of protecting our young and then declining the opportunity to do so when it is presented to it. Time and time again this House has exposed young New Zealanders to risks that we know will harm them. Now we are being asked again. Now we are once more deciding whether this House will stand up for young people and protect those whom we can protect. We are being asked to stop violence against children. We are being asked to send the message that our children should not be hit or brutalised and there is no room for equivocation here. 
I will vote for the amended bill because it is the best way to ensure that we make some progress but I say quite strongly that I would support a straight repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act if that were before the House now. This House should be sending the strongest and clearest message that we will not condone physical violence against children. Repealing section 59 would send the strongest possible message that it is not OK to hit and beat children. 
I believe in the persuasive power of this House otherwise I would not have been here for as long as I have. I believe that changing the law can help to change antisocial attitudes. When I voted for homosexual law reform in the 1980s—and the supporters of that initiative were right—I believed our social attitudes changed. I believe that when we passed the antinuclear legislation we made our proud moral stance a cause that all New Zealanders could be proud of. I believe we have a responsibility to lead public attitudes now. 
Leadership is something that this House has a poor record of when it comes to protecting our young. This House declined to show leadership over the drinking age when members knew that the very young had every access to alcohol and that the results were causing mayhem. This House refused to show leadership when it made prostitution a career option for young people. This House is again failing in its duty to show leadership because this bill has been watered down and still allows children to be hit. 
It is against the law for Dad to hit Mum. Why is it not against the law for Dad to hit the kids? There is no reasonable force defence for Dad hitting Mum—one cannot use that. Why should there be a reasonable force defence for hitting children who arguably have even less ability to defend themselves? It is one law for all. I support one law for all—one law that says no hitting. Loving parents will still be able to change their children’s nappies when their children are struggling against them. 
This House has some double standards. We had a privileges case brought against Winston Peters for giving John Banks a shove. He was to be arrested for assault and Lord knows what else in this House. It was a rather mild form of assault too—and I was involved in it I must say as a witness. But for goodness’ sake we are not talking about a mild shove in the corridors of Parliament; we are talking about the example we are asked to give in terms of the law of what one can or cannot do with the kids. 
This bill will still enable parents to stop their kids from running out on to the road. They will not be able to beat their children with a stick with their belts or with their fists—nor should they. Our community used to tolerate men hitting women. I lived in that community; I was in a house like that. Thankfully attitudes have changed—although with some people that I hear I doubt it—but our community still tolerates adults hitting children. It is time for that attitude to change too. A change in the law will bring that about. The law has never supported the use of violence between adults—never. It is time for violence to be removed from the home altogether. It is time to send a message that physical discipline for children is unacceptable. 
I believe that New Zealand has one of the best records in the world in respecting international conventions. When the world looks around at the most humane most lawful most civilised countries in the world I want to stand up and proudly say that our law is faultless. But our treatment of children is a glaring scar on us. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international standard setting out the way we should treat our children. Until section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed we cannot comply with it. 
International law and international conventions are a friend to New Zealand. They are the only tool we have to repel bullying and “might is right”. If we want to thrive as a small proud independent and sovereign nation then we should and must respect international law and conventions with every tool we have. So our breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child tears at the fabric of our respect for international law. Just as an assault against one of us adult or child is an assault against all of us—which is why we prosecute as a society and do not leave remedies to civil courts any more—so too a breach of the convention is an assault against all the authority of international conventions that we ask others to respect. 
I want us to raise healthy adults and I want them raised in a culture of respect care and protection for our young. Time and time again this House has declined the opportunity to step in and protect our young when we could have. I say that we must not let them down again. Let us not send a message that violence and physical discipline against children is OK. I am disappointed as I have said that we are not going to pass the whole repeal of section 59 today but I believe that the amendment makes sufficient progress and I will support it for that reason. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There will be no expressions of approval disapproval or otherwise from the gallery. Thank you.