Turner Judy: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22095] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 2005 which is a member’s bill in the name of Sue Bradford. 
At the beginning United Future considered supporting the first reading for some of the reasons that have been outlined by members in the House so that it could go to a select committee and be discussed. One of our members also has a member’s bill to do with section 59 which has not been balloted. We wondered whether we had an opportunity to address his and our concerns around section 59 alongside Ms Bradford’s bill. We wrote to her and asked for some feedback as to whether there was a willingness on her part to consider our concerns. I have certainly shared a platform with her on this matter on several occasions in the last few weeks and it is absolutely clear that anything less than full repeal is unacceptable to her. That has then forced us to say that there is no point in supporting a first reading because there is no willingness and no openness to discussion. All Ms Bradford is open to is full repeal. That is why United Future will not be supporting this bill. 
 My colleague’s member’s bill unlike what is often being touted around the galleries is not about calibrating reasonable force. He looked at what was needed because he knew that there were concerns. There have been rumours for years. Back in the 1980s when I was parenting small children there was talk about the repeal of section 59. What became obvious was that it is very easy to define “unreasonable force”. Hitting a child around the head the chest the stomach the back or anywhere that protects vital organs and bruising breaking the skin or breaking a bone of a child are easily defined and would send a clear message to parents about what unreasonable force is. Unfortunately there is no willingness for those kinds of discussions to be had. 
When I first got into Parliament a very sincere lady came to see me about section 59 and we had a bit of a discussion about it. In the end I said that I had to be honest with her; I had smacked my children on occasions when they were growing up. Her response was really interesting. She hung her head for a moment and said: “Yes I lost it occasionally too.” I said: “Hold on a minute. I didn’t lose it.” There is always the assumption that when a child is smacked somebody has lost control. My message to her was that no parent should do anything if he or she is out of control or if he or she is frustrated tired and distressed. Parents should not even open their mouths when they are in that condition. I have spent time with adults who are still suffering from things that were said to them by an out-of-control parent when they were small children that have been far more damaging than a smack that they may have received in those same years. 
The parent-child relationship is unique. It is not like any other kind of relationship. Section 59 does not actually say anything about striking a child. It just provides a legal defence for parents who discipline their children using reasonable force. It respects the right of a parent to impose their will on their child. Every form of discipline does this. Even placing a child in time out requires the best use of reasonable force. The defence exists for parents to allow them to act in the best interests of their child even against their child’s own wishes. As I said before that is because the parent-child relationship is completely unique. 
I finish by saying that the claim that this helps us to comply with our obligations to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is misleading because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requests that all appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence injury or abuse are dealt with. “Violence injury or abuse” is a world apart from reasonable force.