Borrows Chester: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7571. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It has been a privilege and an education to sit as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s subcommittee considering the evidence and hearing submissions in respect of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I am grateful for the respect each member showed and I thank Sue Bradford Ann Hartley Lynne Pillay Nicky Wagner and—later on—Russell Fairbrother for that. After sitting on the subcommittee listening to the submissions and reading the material the group of five became relatively close in spite of the gulf that lies between us on the fundamentals of the bill. 
I find myself in the unusual position of indicating that I will vote for the second reading of this bill as the mechanism for introducing an amendment that will protect parents from prosecution for assault if they even lightly smack their children. The fact that I am doing this may seem a bit strange but I am sure it will not be the first time that people outside the House look at what we do in here and wonder what the hell we are up to. I strongly confirm my intention to vote against the bill if my subsequent amendment fails; I will not vote to criminalise good parents and happily 80 percent of Kiwis agree with me. The threat that if my amendment is successful the proponent of the bill Sue Bradford will withdraw the bill and so scuttle any decision in respect of this matter would really put pride before principle. She would be saying that section 59 as it remains today is so abhorrent to the country in relation to the good upbringing and raising of children that she would rather leave it in that state than in the better state it would be in should my amendment be successful. 
The bill as it was outlined to us on day one by the proponent seeks to stop child abuse—and who would not? But everything gets pretty murky after that. Everyone on both sides of the debate knows that this bill will not stop child abuse so the best the bill’s supporters can do is to say that it can send a message. But who does it send a message to? Does anybody really think that the killer of the Kahui twins thought about the law before or during the horrific and fatal assaults? Dragging out the names of other tragic icons of our child homicide legacy should not even feature in this debate because nobody believes for a single moment that Delcelia Witika “Lillybing” James Whakaruru or any on the list of pathetic victims would have been saved by this legislation. 
I believe we would have a better chance of stemming child abuse if we could legislate for parents to love their children more than golf or work or horses and pokies or booze or the women they run off with or TV or fishing and more than scoring points against their estranged partner and the parent of their children. We would have a better chance of stemming child abuse if we could legislate to ensure that parents cared enough about their own children’s security and happiness so that they did not slag off one another and make the children the meat in the sandwich of every family argument. 
The fact is that that legislation will not work. If it does not work it is not worth the paper it is written on if there is no intention of enforcing the legislation. I say to those pledging to vote for this legislation to go right through the process and past the third reading that they offer no hope to those they most want to protect. If this legislation passes into law without amendment those it will most affect will be ordinary caring parents who will either smack and feel the guilt of breaking the law or who will not smack because they do not want to break the law. It is plain as the nose on one’s face that the children of such parents have never been in danger. 
The huge point to make here is that changing the behaviours of parents including the parents of children at risk is best being addressed by programmes such as the SKIP programme. We are achieving the whole “send a message” objective now through education and not through legislation. Fantastic results after only 2 years show that 34 percent of parents of small children are aware of the SKIP programme which offers realistic alternatives to corporal punishment but Labour will not back its own programme to succeed. 
 So given the goals of the legislation what is the definition of child abuse? Those in favour of the bill as proposed place child abuse on a continuum from the mildest touch to child homicide. The fact is that child abuse is not defined by any independent authority. Of course section 59 does not offer a defence to child abuse; it offers a defence to the use of force for the purpose of correction. It does not defend the use of force because a parent is drunk angry or stupid but offers a defence solely to the purpose of correction. The application of force becomes relevant in the crime of assault and section 59 provides a defence to the crime of assault. 
So what is the definition of assault? The definition of assault is given in section 2 of the Crimes Act: “Assault means the act of intentionally applying … force to the person of another directly or indirectly or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another if the person making the threat has or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has present ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.” The definition of assault does not help much because it does not define reasonable force or as the wording of section 59 states force that is “reasonable in the circumstances.” But we know from this definition that only a least amount of force is necessary for an assault. So for instance as distasteful as it may seem the amount of force contained in a spit is an assault. A swing and miss is an assault. Just raising a hand is an assault under the definition. For a parent a smack on the hand or the bottom is an assault. Currently the existence of section 59 prevents a parent from being prosecuted for this but if this bill is passed it will make that smack no matter how light justifiable or timely illegal. 
The argument from the other side goes that the police can be trusted not to charge parents for smacking. Well this is not about trust. This debate is about who the lawmakers are and who the social agencies are. If we are going to protect parents their situation needs to be enshrined in legislation. This is a free and democratic society. A fundamental tenet of the rule of law in this country is that the law is clear and concise; it is not at the end of a social worker’s tongue or a police officer’s tongue when facing a parent who having been driven mad by an estranged partner in the middle of a custody dispute threatens with phone call and lawyer’s letter that if action is not taken it will be plastered all over the newspapers or some ratings-grabbing documentary. After every supermarket incident or every schoolchild’s morning talk it will mean that every whiff of a complaint is fully investigated on the basis that the teacher the social worker and the police officer will be scared stiff that if an investigation is not completed then there will be another child homicide statistic. Those people just know that they will be hung out to dry by yet another Minister who voted for this pig’s ear piece of legislation and hid behind his or her department. 
It is an MP’s job to make laws that Government agencies enforce. The agencies have their job and we have ours. I look forward to proposing an amendment to protect parents from criminalisation by a “sect” of parliamentarians and interest groups who in spite of the statistics and in spite of history are prepared to put window-dressing ahead of the families of New Zealand because in their arrogance they think they know best for all of us. I look forward to holding them to account. 
The question to those members of this House especially to those conservative members of Labour who are being whipped on this debate is how they will respond to this. How will Damien O’Connor respond to this? How will Harry Duynhoven Clayton Cosgrove Dover Samuels and George Hawkins respond to this when they know and are prepared to say privately something slightly different from what the leaders of their party are proposing? They will have to carry the can. When that first parent gets prosecuted for giving a smack on the bottom which at the moment is legal and defendable under section 59 he or she will be dragged before the court—and I look forward to hearing those members’ responses then.