Rich Katherine: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9297] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to stand in the House today and speak for the first time on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I think it is a marvellous time for Parliament. We have brought together differing views at times but we now have majority support by far for this bill and we will see it passed tonight. 
If hitting children is the answer I think many of us have asked the wrong question. One of the things that struck me as being really surprising throughout the whole debate about the bill was that in many cases the debate went off-track. This bill was really about removing the defence of section 59 which was used when some parents who had beaten their kids within an inch of their lives came before the courts and used it as some kind of excuse. In many cases those parents got off convictions. There were only a small number of those cases a year—some estimates were six some were 10 and some were 15—but a number of cases in particular really made many New Zealanders wonder about the rights of parents and the sort of country we live in. 
One case I recall when I was spokesperson on welfare many years ago was that of a 41-year-old stepfather who beat his boy with a block of wood. This man having been to the courts and listed the atrocious things that the little boy had done was able to get off a conviction because the jurors looked at him and said: “What would we have done if we were in the place of that parent?”. Well that is not an excuse. 
One of the things that is marvellous about tonight is that we are lowering the bar considerably. We are saying goodbye to horsewhips jug cords hosepipes vacuum cleaners pieces of wood and all sorts of other implements that have been regularly used on children in the name of discipline. I do not think that the reasons given for the use of those implements stack up. 
One of the things we need to think about is how our country is judged. At the moment our child abuse record is appalling so we need to work towards cultural change and changing the minds of some parents who regularly inflict those kinds of beatings and think in so doing that they are instilling discipline in their children when they are not. 
There has been considerable debate about this bill over many decades so what we are doing tonight is the culmination of the work of a lot of people some of whom are sitting up in the gallery tonight—people who have spent their lives as advocates for children and in raising these debates. I thank all of those groups who have taken part in the debate over many many years. 
What we are doing today is something that Sweden did in 1967—it removed the defence for smacking in that year. There was no tidal wave of cases brought to the courts. There was no increase in abuse. Perhaps we can debate what Sweden went on to do in the 1980s and 1990s but that is different. Sweden did in 1967 what we are doing tonight and Sweden benefited from it. There was no crush in the courts of parents being made criminals. It just did not happen. 
Some have said that what we are doing tonight will not reduce child abuse. We are not pretending for a second that what we are doing tonight will eradicate the way some parents treat their kids. But I will tell members one thing: for those parents who do thrash their kids within an inch of their lives this law will make it a hell of a lot clearer that when they come before the courts there will be much stronger convictions and strong messages sent to them that what they have done is wrong. I am very thankful for that. 
One of the things that has surprised me about this debate has been the absolute hysteria whipped up by some people who have wanted to create an impression that this bill will do a whole bunch of things that it will not do. In particular false experts have been brought out from Sweden. Ruby Harrold-Claesson is a fruit loop to say the least. She had no academic standing in her community and I know that because I contacted a number of Swedish professors people who were social workers and people who had worked within the child advocacy area. Those people had not heard of her and if they had they did not have very complimentary things to say. 
Making the Timaru horsewhip lady the champion of parental rights was I felt one of the most outrageous things that I had ever seen. Here was a woman who had a case file with Child Youth and Family that was very thick and a track record with some of our social service agencies that dated back more than 15 years. Yet here she was presenting herself as being a good parent and an advocate for not changing the law. Well that was one of the things that I found very difficult to deal with. 
There are a lot of people to thank. One of the things I would like to do is pay tribute to Chester Borrows for the work he has done. He is someone who has been a cop and who has been a lawyer and he has seen a lot of New Zealand life that many of us would not like to see. He was someone who I think became a champion for change and a champion for children. 
I also pay tribute to the Maori Party members. What they did was not easy but they took a leadership role decided what was best for their people and they stood strong. I thank the likes of Brian Donnelly who had a previous bill; some previous members of this House like Deborah Coddington; and those like Kay Crowther a staunch advocate. I think the sum total of her Plunket presidency will be a great one when she stands down after its conference having seen such major change. 
I also pay tribute to Sue Bradford. Yes there have been some testing times for all of us in this House as we have debated this issue but I can say that I am sure none of that burden is a little toe’s worth of the burden that Sue has faced in being an advocate. 
I also pay tribute to my leader John Key. One of the things that I think John has shown is that he is willing to put the classic tactics of Opposition aside in order to do something that is better for our nation’s people and for our nation’s children. He was not afraid to make a decision that put aside classic Opposition politics in order to come to an agreement and do something for the benefit of our country. That is something that I think has created this unprecedented situation today where we have so many members in the House voting for this particular bill. 
I feel very confident about this bill. I am glad there will be a review in 2 years’ time because I think that in 2 years’ time a lot of people will go: “Phewf—what were we worried about?”. One of the things that has been said in previous debates is that this bill could potentially make good parents into criminals. Well that was never going to be the case in my view. I ask those parents who think there is such a thing as a loving smack—which seems to me to be the worst kind of oxymoron possible—that if the right to smack is such a God-given right why do people do it in private? Why do they feel bad about it when they do it in public? One of the surveys I saw which I thought was really interesting found that some parents said that if this bill were passed they would think twice before they smacked their child in a supermarket. Well I think that that is a good thing and I think that that is progress for us all. 
This has been a bill that has made us talk with our families talk with those people whom we respect and debate the issues. I think that that is a great thing. This issue is one that has touched many Kiwis’ lives. It has occupied more talkback hours and more newspaper column centimetres than any issue I can recall within my political lifetime. It is an issue that forces people to think about the kind of community we want to have. 
I think that in passing this bill we are doing something for children. With all those surveys we saw—surveys showing that 83 percent of New Zealanders did not want this bill—I kept wanting to ask the question: “Well how many kids did you survey about the bill?”. I do not think that many were included in that. The survey question I would have liked to have seen was: “Do you think parents should get off a conviction by citing section 59 when they have pummelled their children beaten their children and thrashed their children?”. I think that most Kiwis—by far the majority—would have stood up and said: “No I don’t want that.” 
What we are doing with this bill tonight is lowering the bar and sending a strong message. I do not think we will see come before the courts the cases—which have resulted in acquittals—that we have seen in the past. Hopefully as a result of this bill we will not see again the sorts of cases where parents have used horsewhips jug cords and blocks of wood on their children and done all sorts of things that would make good parents shake their heads with concern. 
So I say thank you to all members. I do not think that those supporting the bill will regret it. I think that this is a great day for Parliament that so many members have chosen to do the right thing and support this legislation.