Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9300] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in this House and speak on the third reading of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill and in doing so to thank and congratulate Sue Bradford as we end our journey of seeing the bill go through this House. I acknowledge the Green Party the Maori Party Jim Anderton from Progressive and of course our Labour caucus led by Helen Clark who all stood together right at the beginning within their caucuses. I acknowledge that for Labour Broad Church though we were we all did so because we saw that this bill was about making and keeping our children safe. That was always what it was about: making our children safe. 
I also want to acknowledge the courage of members who did not have their colleagues standing beside them: Peter Dunne Brian Donnelly Doug Woolerton and Katherine Rich. I also acknowledge the Law Commission and the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer who worked so hard with us in drafting the first amendment and the Justice and Electoral Committee report which was designed to reassure parents and the public. That report was supported by the majority of the select committee and it stated that the police had the discretion not to prosecute and that they would prosecute only when it was in the public interest. Despite that statement in the select committee report many many parents remained very anxious and needed more reassurance. I commend Helen Clark who was able to work with Sue Bradford and the Law Commission to present an amendment that was acceptable to the vast majority of the very strong opponents to the bill. That was done to ensure that the bill will now pass—which we are confident about—by a sizable majority in this House. It now sends a message that is very very loud and clear. 
But I want to ask the House a question. In the debate that was raging out there if the question put to people had not been whether they thought parents should be criminalised for smacking their children but had been whether they thought parents should be criminalised for hitting their children with pipes whips and pieces of wood—which is what this legislation is about—what would the poll have told us then? I wish that there had been far more clarity and integrity about running this debate. I am very saddened by the uncertainty the fear the panic and certainly the heartache that many parents felt about this bill. It was a very very difficult time. But I am elated that most at-risk children will now be safer and that we can work towards achieving the purpose of the bill set out in clause 3 which is “to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence”. 
Sanity around this debate would never ever have happened if it had not been for the staunch advocacy work undertaken by many of this country’s great and credible organisations that care for our children. I will name just a few: Barnardos EPOCH Women’s Refuge Plunket Save the Children Unicef Every Child Counts our Families Commission and the Children’s Commissioner. Many individuals also spoke out and campaigned very strongly—far too many to name here. I acknowledge the many churches that held a peace vigil for our children in such a dignified way. I acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of emails which gave us heart and clogged up our BlackBerrys. I am proud of the Waitakere City Council which in line with its children first policy was the first council to speak up and state strongly that section 59 should change. 
Not one member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which I chair was unmoved by the stories we heard during the submission process. We heard about the damage that a harsh upbringing and violence had had on people’s lives and that they had carried the damage through not only their childhood but also their adult lives—and it still hurt. It was really significant to hear those people who came and told us their stories. That took a tremendous amount of courage. 
Critics of the bill argued that section 59 of the principal Act has been used successfully only seven times over a long period of time. But that is the whole point of why the law had to change. Seven times represents seven children and the issue was not just about those seven children. It was the message that section 59 of the Act gave to the police when they were looking at prosecuting someone and were considering whether the prosecution would be successful if the benchmark was as high as that. I am not someone who is of the view that it is a parent’s God-given responsibility to hit a child but many submitters who came to the select committee said just that. 
Many submitters came and talked about their upbringing and also talked about bringing up their children and how that differed from their own upbringing. They acknowledged the good job that their parents had done in bringing them up but they also talked about the information and strategies available to them when they raised their children. They particularly spoke about  
The Nanny  
programme on television and the influence that it had had—the naughty chair the naughty-mat and taking time out. They also spoke about the SKIP programme—or to give it its full name SKIP: Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents—and about how it was really significant to learn that there are other ways of disciplining children than smacking them. In fact I found it was our younger parents who often said they could not contemplate hitting their children now because it just did not seem right. That is not to denigrate the parents of my generation who were good parents but it is to say that as we roll out education information and research and as we talk about new and different ideas then our society does become a better place to live and a better place to raise our children in. 
I will finish by talking about an incident that occurred when I was in a fruit shop in New Lynn. There was a young child there throwing a doozy of a tantrum. The mother was standing and waiting with other people standing around and tsk-ing just a little but not saying anything. She was just waiting calmly for that child to stop throwing the tantrum. I probably would not have done this before but because I had been on the select committee I felt compelled to go to her and say: “Excuse me.” As I said that she reeled around and looked as though she thought she would probably be told off. I said: “I just want to say what a great job you are doing of handling this difficult situation.” She responded by saying: “Thank you. I feel like I am an alien.” and I said: “You are not. This is what kids do and you are handling it really well.” I noted that when she went to the queue people moved to let her go through and I think that is what we need to do. We say that it takes a village to raise a child. We need to stand alongside parents when they are in such situations and say that it is a normal thing for kids to throw tantrums that our kids did that that we are not judging them and that we want to support them in dealing with it. It is not much to do. 
I am proud that this bill has got to this stage. As I said before I am sorry about the heartache associated with getting it here but I know that we now have very good support from the majority of the members in this House and I am really proud of that. I think that this is a day to be remembered. Thank you.