Burton Mark: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Burton Mark: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7573. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is a pleasure and a privilege to speak on behalf of a unified Labour caucus and indeed a unified Government on this important measure. The recent debate on and around this issue has been vigorous and I welcome that vigorous debate because it is part of the light of day being shone on an issue that must be debated and confronted by any civilised society. The issue it deals with has also been brought to light and into sharp focus more generally in recent days by the recently released Unicef report on child well-being. 
I think because of the interest and debate it is important that we do not lose sight of what this member’s bill is aiming to achieve. The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill aims to abolish the shield of so-called reasonable force as a defence by those who perpetrate acts of violence and abuse against children. That is the purpose of this provision. Of course the bill is not a panacea for all of our social ills nor is it claimed to be so but it will make a crucial difference and I think it is important that this House recognises that the bill will at an important time make an important statement. 
That is why this Government has been addressing the sorts of issues that have been raised in the Unicef report through significant programmes such as Working for Families. Of course this bill is not the panacea for all of the underlying issues and concerns that affect many of our families. The Working for Families tax credits are a good example of something that will substantially change the well-being of many many New Zealand families. By 2008 we will have reduced the percentage of children living below 50 percent of the median income level from 14.6 percent to just 4.5 percent. This will put New Zealand in the top four countries in the OECD along with Denmark Finland and Norway. That is something we should be proud of because that indeed starts to address in a serious and meaningful way some of the many other underlying issues that affect the well-being of our children and our families. 
To return to this bill I say that in effect the bill will give children the same right as has the rest of society—that is the right not to be assaulted. As many commentators have pointed out even animals currently enjoy stronger legal protections in some regards than our children do. How can any member of this House accept that that is a tolerable situation? So today we are presented with an opportunity to demonstrate an enlightened leadership and to make a difference in a critically important area—the welfare and safety of our children. 
One of the people who spoke at considerable length on this issue and who I believe appeared before the Justice and Electoral Committee also the manager of Barnardos Mike Coleman summed up well the problem with the current situation. This is a man who represents an organisation that I think every member of this House would respect in terms of its front-line work. He said: “Every day our frontline staff see the consequences of inadequate and confused parenting in our country. Whether to use physical punishment or not is one of the points of confusion. On the one hand the Domestic Violence Act says that it is an offence for a child to even witness or experience the threat of physical violence in the context of family life”—so it should be I say to members opposite. So it should be that it is wrong and it should be held illegal that children are subjected to the witnessing of acts of violence in their family life. Mr Coleman continues: “On the other hand Section 59 …”—and this is legislation that has its genesis hundreds of years back in English law—“says that it is OK for parents to use ‘reasonable force’. What parent is going to say in court that the force they used was not reasonable?”. 
When we talk about court we are not talking about the sorts of situations that Mr Borrows referred to; we are talking about situations in which cases of serious violence and abuse are being brought. This existing provision has enabled people to mount a defence that has worked. People have been able to sustain a defence under section 59. I say to members that society changes and progresses. It is the mark of a civilised society that we develop new and more effective ways of doing things of thinking about things and of living our day-to-day lives together as a society. If it is true of our cars of our televisions and of our cellphones then surely it also has to be the case for something as profoundly important as raising our children. 
As I have noted section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is a remnant of an earlier time. It is available as a defence to parents or caregivers charged with offences involving the use of physical force to discipline their children. I say again to members that in the type of case in which charges are usually laid people who have violently abused children—for instance those who have beaten them with a plank of wood—have used this section to successfully defend their actions. So this bill seeks to protect our children and to remove a defence that is used by a small group of people who are charged with this sort of violent abuse. It is not there to punish and this is not about punishing good parents. 
Our Government is determined to balance the need to make sure that good and caring parents are supported while ensuring that children are protected absolutely from abuse. This is something that I believe New Zealanders overwhelmingly support. Changing this archaic statute is one part of the strategy needed to address the issues confronting us—they are many. But let us be clear: the stresses and pressures of raising children—and many of us in this House have done or are endeavouring to do that—cannot and should not be underestimated. It is a tough job and it is getting tougher I believe as the world becomes a more rapidly evolving and complex place. 
Our Government recognises there is a real need for more public education to provide people with support and information about alternatives to the physical discipline of children. In considering the bill the Justice and Electoral Committee recommended that this focus should be strengthened further and our Government certainly agrees with that. We have invested nearly $11 million over 3 years to establish the SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents programme which Mr Borrows referred to. The programme promotes positive parenting and actively assists parents by informing them about effective non-physical ways of disciplining children—and contrary to the suggestion made by the Opposition Budget 2006 provided a further nearly $15 million over the next 4 years to enable this valuable programme to continue. The issues we are dealing with are complex ones and they require a range of solutions. Clearly public education is an important factor in that mix. Parenting as I said before is a difficult job. It is far too important not to help provide all the tools possible in order to support parents in this all-important activity. 
In November along with a number of my parliamentary colleagues from around the House I took part in events to mark White Ribbon Day which seeks to end domestic violence in our country and around the world. It was noticeable and I thought encouraging how many men were supporting this initiative and who were getting out on the street to say that domestic violence is not OK it is not acceptable and it cannot be tolerated any more. Like stopping domestic violence against women stopping violence against children demands support from across our society. 
This bill of course will not fix all the ailments of society; nor do its supporters contend that it will. However I would encourage members to recognise that this legislation is an important component of a broader effort to address the issue of violence against our children. The current legislative provision frankly belongs in the Dark Ages. 
Parliament is where we make laws that affect every element of our day-to-day lives in our society. The issue of the well-being and safety of our children is something that we simply must not turn our backs on. On 1 March we celebrate Children’s Day. This is a day for reflecting on what we have done to nurture and to protect our children. I urge all members to take this opportunity to send our children the right message. But I say to members that it simply cannot any longer be tolerable that in 21st century New Zealand we afford greater legal protection to our animals than we do to our children.