Roy Heather: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Heather: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7582. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 There is not one MP in this House who condones violence or abuse of any kind against children. Every one of us wants every Kiwi child to grow up in a loving environment safe from the abhorrent treatment meted out to the Kahui twins “Lillybing” and James Whakaruru. Sadly the list goes on and on. There will be more cases like those. Our natural inclination is to take action immediately. 
As legislators we are in a powerful situation. We can try to make a difference by changing laws to reflect the sort of society we want for our children. But the laws we make need to be enforceable and regularly enforced otherwise they are mere words and completely meaningless. The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill fails on both those counts. Sadly if it is passed it will not save the life of even one child or stop the abuse and violence to children who are subjected to terrible maltreatment that would make our stomachs turn. For this reason ACT opposes the bill. 
I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity or good intentions of the sponsor of this bill. Sue Bradford like many of us has long campaigned for initiatives to end the violence and abuse suffered by our babies toddlers and vulnerable youth. But good intentions alone are not enough. This debate which has been going on for some time now has relied on emotion rather than reason and on rules rather than results. 
The easy option for me today would be to vote in favour of this bill to show that violence is being taken seriously in the hope that it would change those who victimise our defenceless children and to clear our consciences. But I fear that all that will be achieved by repealing section 59 is to turn loving parents into criminals and in the course of doing so we will make no difference to the real problems that exist in too many Kiwi communities. Caring for those who cannot defend themselves is one of the finest things about our civilisation. But the unintended result of the bill is that it will criminalise thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of very good parents. 
The original version of the bill outlawed any form of physical punishment or restraint. It made even the lightest uninvited but deliberate touch punishable by law. Holding still their child while dressing that child would have turned parents into criminals. The bill changed significantly during the select committee process and is now a watered-down version of that. 
I do not need to be persuaded that it is essential to reduce our level of family violence. That is why I am participating in the joint-party initiative to look into this matter despite the fact that I have some scepticism about the ability of large committees to make positive change. Violence is a plague that haunts our New Zealand communities and I agree that violence begets violence. Stopping the violence is imperative but this bill is not the answer. 
Our existing law against child abuse and violence against children is already strong. Under section 194 of the Crimes Act assaulting a child under the age of 14 attracts a maximum sentence which is double that of common assault. Under section 195 of the Crimes Act cruelty to a child brings a 5-year maximum sentence. And abandoning a child under 6 means a 7-year prison term under section 154 of the Crimes Act. 
The key is in enforcement. Enforcement involves doing three things properly. The first thing is reporting or detection. We in New Zealand have failed our children in this respect. Everybody—all of us in this House everybody in the gallery and everybody living in a community—owes it to the children living near and with them to report and to detect violence against those children. The second area of enforcement is trial. Again trials frequently do not happen. The third area is that of conviction and sentencing. Again I believe we have let down our New Zealand children in this regard with our sentencing and parole Acts and the level of conviction we have. If any one of these three elements of enforcement fails criminals will go free. 
We as legislators should be striving to help encourage the enforcement of the laws that already exist. The police are already struggling to cope. Child Youth and Family is already struggling to cope. Repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act will not aid either of those agencies. Most abuse is not reported to authorities until severe damage has been done to too many young lives. Around 70 percent of serious abuse occurs in families not already known to Child Youth and Family. As the speaker before me Gordon Copeland pointed out much of this debate rests on the difference between smacking and violence. I would like to say that I agree entirely with his comments on that matter. As a parent I certainly do not believe that those two things are one and the same. 
 Reasonable people know when discipline ends and violence and abuse begin. The rest of the people—an abusive minority and we should not forget that fact—will not notice or care that a law change has been made. The threat because that is what this bill is actually intended to be will be ignored by the very people who should heed the warning. Those parents who care for their children already and take their responsibilities seriously will be the only ones who suffer. 
The greatest good in my view can be done by helping vulnerable families directly. There are many wonderful initiatives operating around New Zealand and sadly we too often ignore the very good work that they do. There are mentoring programmes such as those promoted and put into action by the Family Help Trust in Christchurch where social workers go into homes and give people the advice and help they need whether about health issues education issues or welfare issues. There are many well-established programmes that help parents directly such as the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters that exist around the country. 
We could have a great deal more promotion of antenatal education preparation for vulnerable expectant parents about the pressures of raising a family. We know those families that are at risk and we should be targeting them directly. We could be promoting wholeheartedly child protection services for the whole country like the single programme that operates out of Starship Children’s Health in Auckland. There is much work to be done and much work that should happen immediately. 
Many of us in this House are parents—in fact I think most of us are. So those of us who are speaking today stand here wearing two hats. Many of us have very different parenting philosophies; that is not to say that some are good and some are bad or some are right and some are wrong. We all have different ideas about what is best for our children. All of those philosophies are aimed at bringing up happy and healthy children. 
ACT opposes this bill but that is not because we do not care for our children. We simply want caring parents to be able to make the best decisions for their children; decisions that we as legislators cannot anticipate or control from our comfortable green seats in this House. I would like to finish with this thought: acts of abuse and violence against children are already illegal. Unfortunately enforcement of this illegal behaviour is patchy and frequently totally inadequate. This bill will succeed only in criminalising an act of parenting.