Goff Phil: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goff Phil: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8856] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I think the public will applaud that in this our adversarial system on some occasions the leaders of the various parties involved can come together to find common ground on an issue that had become very controversial perhaps more controversial than it needed to be because of a lack of clarity on what people on each side of the argument were trying to achieve. I believe that most people in this Chamber were trying to achieve pretty much the same thing. Most people in this Chamber do not believe that smacking a child is the first and best solution. Most people in this Chamber who are parents will understand why sometimes parents resort to that sort of treatment. I confess to having done that myself on occasions when my children were younger. I am not proud of it—actually nor am I particularly ashamed of it; I just understand the reality of parenting. 
I think it is good that Helen Clark Sue Bradford Peter Dunne John Key and other people around this Chamber have been able to come together to provide some clarity about what we want which is to send symbolically the message that as parents we should always try to find more constructive ways of disciplining our children than lashing out in frustration and using violence. But I am also aware that the person whom I think has shown some courage in introducing this bill—though I have not always agreed with her—Sue Bradford has always said that it was not her intention to criminalise ordinary parents going about the day-to-day task of raising their children. We know how hard that can be and what we want to do is to support parents. We certainly do not want to criminalise them. 
I have made that point in some hundreds of letters that I have sent out to constituents. Let me quote the sentence that I have used: “I don’t believe that parents should be subject to criminal sanctions in these circumstances unless their behaviour constitutes abuse. I would not support the bill if I thought that was the fact.” What I think Peter Dunne has done—and I warmly welcome the nature of the speech he has given—is come up with an amendment that makes it clear as the Crown Law guidelines make it clear that in a day-to-day case where a child is smacked in a way that has no more than minor or inconsequential results we do not believe that the police should be pursuing it to prosecution. The Crown Law guidelines are actually very clear and always have been. The police in exercising their discretion must act in the public interest and must act in a way that takes into account how minor or how serious the case may be. 
Acting on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Police I answered a question in the House some weeks ago on this and made reference to a court case. A decision in the Court of Appeal in 1996 in  
R 
v 
Hende 
 said quite explicitly that the court interpretation the common law is that smacking should not result in charges being brought or a conviction. That was not in relation by the way to a parent where there was a section 59 defence. It was in relation to a creche worker who smacked a child and should not have done it but did not do it in a way that should have resulted in a criminal conviction. 
I welcome the fact that members from all parties have been able to show the common sense and the reasonableness to come together to produce and support an amendment that makes it very clear firstly that it is not a great idea to smack one’s child or use violence against him or her but if in the normal course of human events it is done in a way that does not have serious consequences then we do not expect to see and will not see a parent appearing before the court. 
I congratulate the mover of the bill. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the initiative that she took. I congratulate Peter Dunne on taking—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite can try to make this a partisan event. I do not think that is appropriate at this stage. 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s what you did. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I did not do that. Bill English needs to go back and read the  
Hansard 
. I had the decency in my speech unlike in his speech to acknowledge both Helen Clark and John Key in the roles they played. I have done it again in this speech. Petty politicking about the issue at this point does no credit to Bill or to anybody who does that in this debate. I welcome the fact that we did come together as a Parliament we did find consensus we did find a way through that is common sense and that the amendment sends the messages that most people and parents in this country will warmly applaud.