Wagner Nicky: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8449] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 The public is getting increasingly concerned about this bill because of the confusion and spin that surrounds it. We just need to look at the number of emails that are pouring into our in-boxes and at the marchers on the streets. People are really up in arms about this. I think this is probably the most emotive and highly charged bill we have seen since the Civil Union Act was passed in 2004. 
But the issue that really concerns me even from listening to some of the discussion in this Chamber is that very few people actually know what the bill is all about. So I want to go over it quickly. We know because we debated clause 2A for a long time that the bill is to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act. Section 59 is a defence that allows the use of physical force against children only if that action meets three strict criteria. The first criterion is that someone has to be a parent or guardian the second is that reasonable force has to be used and the third is that it has to be for the purposes of correction. 
They are three pretty sensible tests. First of all the fact that the section relates only to a parent or guardian recognises the very special relationship that parents have with their kids. They are the ones who have all the rights but all the responsibilities of bringing up kids—all those joys all those disappointments all those nights all those worries all those thermometers in the dead of night and all that time spent agonising over what their kids are doing. They are the only people who really put their kids first. 
Secondly reasonable force has to be used. All those active emotional words that we have heard bandied about tonight—words like whacking thrashing whipping and the bash—are already excluded because no one in his or her right mind thinks that such actions are reasonable. 
Thirdly the force has to be used for the purpose of correction. Force cannot be used when someone is drunk and has a headache and the kids are getting in the way. Force cannot be used when someone is having a bad hair day. Force can be used when people believe they were doing something good for their children. 
So child abuse in any form is clearly excluded. It cannot be defended under the existing section 59. None of the horrible incidents that Sue Bradford mentioned—none of them—such as the cases of “Lillybing” James Whakaruru or the Kahui twins could have used section 59 as a defence or even attempted to use section 59. In fact section 59 is hardly ever invoked. It has been used only 18 times in the last 10 years—that is a fact—and on only six occasions have parents or guardians got off a charge by using section 59. There seems to have been a small amount of argument about those six cases although I admit that a couple of cases concerned many people and one very high-profile case in Timaru a couple of years ago was hotly debated. The jury acquitted that woman in Timaru in circumstances that many people felt were unjust. I note here that it was a jury that acquitted that woman because people who are parents and who know how difficult parenting is find it very hard to convict someone whom they feel is doing the best he or she can. 
I want to make my points clear. Section 59 has three strict criteria and they have to be met before it can be used as a defence. It precludes child abuse because nobody—judge or jury—thinks that child abuse is reasonable and it is rarely used. But I also acknowledge—and this is exactly what members on the other side of the Chamber are saying—that there were cases that concerned people. That is why Chester Borrows is looking at an amendment. 
Like all New Zealanders I am concerned about the violence in our society.