Chadwick Steve: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22092] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I congratulate Sue Bradford on having the bravery to bring this issue forward and I think it is wonderful timing that it has come to the House before an election. I am proud to support this bill. I have been a long-time advocate for children and families professionally having established the first women’s refuge in Rotorua and the first child advocacy service at Rotorua Hospital where we had to do the forensic assessment of very abused children. That is where I learnt my trade. I now have the pleasure of co-hosting the Littlies Lobby sponsored by Plunket and the Office of the Commissioner for Children. We have wonderful support for the campaign of Every Child Counts. This is an issue that is hugely controversial but it is a discussion that is going on in our communities now. That is because of Sue Bradford’s bill and she is to be congratulated. 
There does need to be clarity around the issue of what is just known as “reinforcing behaviour” in relation to risk. The previous speaker mentioned the example of a jug of boiling water. We all understand that fine line when it comes to disciplining a child but here we are talking about “reasonable force”. This bill does not condemn parents the rights to discipline their own children and that includes smacking—something I never had to use for any of my children. We were probably of that middle class that rationalised with children rather than having to use the strategy of smacking. 
The bill does not criminalise parents who smack their children as extremists all around the country are suggesting. It is about giving consistent messages and protecting our kids. We do need to look at the definition of “reasonable force”—and heaven forbid lawyers spend enough time in the courts trying to define what reasonable force is. Sue Bradford’s bill simply removes Section 59 as a defence before the law. I am married to a lawyer who deals with family law cases where heaven forbid we see enough lawyers trying to hide behind the defence of reasonable force which is simply inexcusable for many of the cases that go before our courts. This reminds me of a very young child whom I admitted to our children’s ward. I held the child up to get him into the cot and his body collapsed under my arms. His father told me that he had not struck the child; that the child damaged himself trying to get out of the cot. But 22 bones in that child’s body had been smashed. That child had been struck. It is indefensible to hide behind the defence of reasonable force in the courts. 
The bill protects our kids from unreasonable violence. We all know that line of what is “unreasonable violence”. It also supports the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I remind members that New Zealand is a signatory to that treaty which is committed to protecting and ensuring that children’s rights are met—that is the right to protection from harmful influences abuse and protection. We are signatories to this treaty internationally. New Zealand reported on that convention in 2003. It is next due to report in 2008. One of the recommendations in 2003 stated that section 59 of our Crimes Act was inconsistent with the convention. It recommended that appropriate mechanisms be put in place for programmes and services for parents. We do know how difficult parenting is. 
As a Government we have done so much about protecting the rights of children—from Te Rito Opportunity for All New Zealanders Agenda for Children and SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents and we held a hearing on “Creating a Culture of Non-violence”. One of our recommendations from that was that we needed to look at the whole aspect of violence with a whole-of-Government approach and in my view that also suggests repealing section 59. I am proud to support this bill.