Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8440] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a call because we are finally getting to the very heart of my bill. The purpose of what we are trying to achieve here as amended by the Justice and Electoral Committee is to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. This bill is all about putting children first. 
I would like to refer briefly to some comments made by Judith Collins in the debate just a little while ago on clause 2A. She said: “This bill should be about what is in the best interests of children.” and went on to say: “I heard the most appalling suggestions tonight from Labour Party members that we … should have a voice for children here in Parliament.” What a disgraceful statement from a National member. This bill is all about giving a voice to children in this Parliament. For far too long the voices and interests of babies children and young people have been denied in this place of power. Nearly 20 years ago we got rid of the defence under section 59 of the Crimes Act that had allowed our children for generations to be beaten in our schools. That was a tremendously progressive step but I still cannot understand why this part of the Crimes Act was not got rid of at that time. It was sadly— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: An omission. 
SUE BRADFORD 
:—an omission on the part of the then Government if I may say so. But at least we are finally reaching the point in this Parliament where children’s interests can be represented. 
Section 59 of the Crimes Act as it is currently framed gives parents the right to beat their children in the most appalling ways as we have seen over and over again in court cases. This is an anti-beating bill not an anti-smacking bill. Section 59 of the Crimes Act provides less protection for children than we provide for adults in this country and I think that it is disgraceful that we continue with that—that anyone should think that our babies and children who are smaller more vulnerable less mature and know less about the world than us should somehow be obliged to endure this ongoing culture of violence against them in a way that we do not permit adults to endure. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Less protection than a dog. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: Yes. This whole culture of violence against children is something that has brought us into international disrepute. We have had United Nations reports—and most recently the Unicef Innocenti report—describing how one of the worst aspects of the way in which we treat children in this country is that we simply do not respect them We do not value them. I think this is part of the unfortunate and ugly side of our culture that those of us who are Pakeha have inherited from our settler ancestors who came here in the 19th century with the law and mores of Victorian England. Some of our ancestors brought with them unfortunately a culture and law that said that women wives servants and children were the property of the master the man and the husband. With that attitude came a law that said it was OK to beat the wife the servants and the children. 
We have got rid of those laws. We used to have them but we have got rid of the laws that allowed the husband to beat the wife. We got rid of the laws that said it was OK for a master to beat a servant or an employer to beat an employee. But the relic of those laws is section 59 of the Crimes Act which allows all of us as parents to beat our children in the name of child discipline. What a disgrace! It is time we got rid of this section and I am hoping that that will happen extremely soon. 
Beyond that there has been much research done here and overseas that shows in fact that physical discipline is the most ineffective way of trying to bring up our children. To humiliate children—to beat them—has exactly the opposite effect of what we might be aiming to achieve if we are trying to bring up children to be proactive and to have self-respect—children who have self-sufficiency pride in themselves and hope for the future. The research that we have seen over and over again is that in fact the most negative outcomes come from children brought up in a family home filled with violence. They are the ones who are most likely to end up with mental health problems and addictions to turn to crime and to leave school too soon. Those sorts of children are most often the product of violent homes not of peaceful loving homes where violence is not used as a source of child discipline. 
Before I finish on this overarching purpose clause I would just like to say that some of the criticism levelled against this bill has been from people who say that somehow we say this bill will solve all the issues of violence and abuse of our children. Of course that is not the case—I have never pretended that that was the case—but it is one small step in trying to reduce the level of violence against kids in this country. I find it amazing that every time we have a case such as the death of the Kahui twins the death of James Whakaruru and all of those other dreadful incidents some of those who oppose this bill are the first to ask why Child Youth and Family or the police did not take more action. Yet this is about trying to reduce that. This bill will not solve it but we need somehow to turn the mind-set of New Zealanders from saying that it is OK to beat our children. That we legalise the beating of children in this country is in the end what leads to a culture that has child deaths occur and child injuries show up every day in our hospitals.