Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9284] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. Nearly 2 years ago my member’s bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act was drawn from the parliamentary ballot. Although I was certainly well aware of the controversial nature of the issue that the bill deals with after facing hostile audiences when on various election platforms around the country little did I realise back then the full extent of the difficulties that were yet to come. 
I came to Parliament after many years of working for the rights of unemployed people and beneficiaries and was very used to our groups and ourselves being seen as outcasts—koretake blamed and despised. I was used to being physically assaulted when on street protests and often enough arrested as well. However none of that prepared me for the level of vitriol and for the ugly lies and threats cast at myself and others simply for standing up for the right of our babies and our children to live lives free from violence. 
I thought that in a country that prides itself on being a great place to bring up kids and where people from all parts of society talk constantly of their love for children it would be like motherhood and apple pie to work for a law change that benefits children. Instead the debate over whether to get rid of the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction has shown quite starkly that some people believe that the right of parents to legally beat their children is so important that they have stooped to threats of violence and other abhorrent tactics. However it has in the end been a wonderful thing that despite the ugliness of some aspects of the public discourse so many members of this Parliament from almost every party have chosen to support my bill in its amended form. 
I acknowledge and thank all involved from all sides of the House for their support within this outbreak of consensus politics and I regret on behalf of Peter Dunne and Judy Turner that this bill has seen their party break apart because someone called Mr Gordon Copeland is so dedicated to fighting for the right to beat children that he has abandoned his long-term allegiances. 
The bill in front of us tonight fulfils my original goal of removing the defence of reasonable force while at the same time dealing with some of the fears expressed at different times by both the Labour and National caucuses and by some members of the public. The Labour-led amendment that came out of our select committee consideration of the bill is aimed at reassuring parents that they will not be prosecuted if they use reasonable force when doing things like putting a child in a room for time out forcibly removing a child from danger or restraining a child from causing damage to people or property. I am aware that some lawyers believe that this new provision may be misused as a legal defence for having hit a child as part of control and because of this I believe that its use as a defence in future must be monitored to ensure that it is not used this way in practice. 
The second significant amendment to the bill has been the one put forward just 2 weeks ago by Peter Dunne which was agreed to by both Labour and National through John Key’s leadership. It encapsulates within the bill the long-established police discretion regarding the action they take when deciding whether to prosecute in very minor cases where there is no public interest in proceeding. This new provision simply affirms in law what is standard police practice under their existing prosecution guidelines but I think it is useful in helping to calm some of the unnecessary fears that have been driven up by the bill’s opponents. 
Neither the select committee myself nor anyone else supporting this bill has ever intended that all parents who ever lightly or occasionally hit their children should be subject automatically to investigation and police prosecution. What we have been simply seeking to do is remove a defence that has allowed some parents to get away with quite badly beating their children and most significantly that has stopped police from taking action in many situations of violence against children. 
Some of the most powerful submissions to the select committee came from paediatricians who talked about the injuries they see constantly and about how most of those injuries are inflicted in the name of child discipline. Only last week we were made all too aware of the case of the 3-year-old Otara boy who was killed as a result of beatings inflicted in the name of toilet training. The police officer who led the investigation Detective Senior Sergeant Richard Middleton said among other things: “… what I will say is keep your hands off your kids. Don’t hit them. It’s not on. There’s no need for it.” I think it is a red-letter day when a senior police officer feels able to make such an unequivocal statement in the national media. Police like paediatricians see the daily consequences of what happens when people assault their kids just to teach them a lesson. 
Some people say that smacking or spanking is not violence. I ask them: “What else is it? If a burly gang member much larger than you smacked you in the pub tonight what would you call that?”. Some people say that the deaths of children like James Whakaruru or the little Otara boy have nothing to do with this bill. I say that they have everything to do with it. There is a spectrum of violence used against our babies and children and one person’s light occasional tap is another person’s beating or shaking to death—all in the name of so-called correction. 
I have been much criticised by the bill’s opponents for my unwillingness to support the early amendment put up by Mr Chester Borrows which attempted to define the nature and level of force that parents could legitimately use against their kids. I simply reiterate that to support any such definition would make things even worse for children by having the State define acceptable violence and by entrenching the legal and social concept that it is OK to beat children but it is not OK to beat adults. 
It is important that as we finally vote this bill into law we also look forward to what else needs doing. Law change alone is not enough. To be really effective the bill we are passing tonight needs to be accompanied by a well-planned public information campaign that tells people the intentions and implications of the law in a way that does not make people feel frightened or guilty. The Government also needs to make an ongoing commitment to maintain and extend the SKIP programme so that strong clear messages about alternatives to physical discipline are available to all parents around the country. 
Funding for community groups that support children parents and families needs to be increased. We need research on and monitoring of the attitudinal change that I feel sure will result from this new law—as it already has I think during the 2 years of public debate. The interpretations of the new law and its implementation by the courts police and Child Youth and Family all need to be monitored well. I welcome the 2-year review that was instigated by the Minister David Benson-Pope. I also strongly recommend that the Government works closely with the relevant non-governmental organisations following the bill’s passage on an action plan to ensure that the best possible outcomes are achieved for children and families. 
In conclusion I would like to take a moment to thank some of those who have played such a critical role in championing and supporting this bill in getting it to the stage it is at tonight. An enormous number of organisations have worked tirelessly for reform over the last 2 years including Plunket Barnardos Unicef Save the Children the Families Commission the Office of the Children’s Commissioner EPOCH Every Child Counts the Body Shop the Child Poverty Action Group Parents Centres and many many others. I am sorry I cannot name them all. 
Many individuals have also played a key role—people like Beth Wood the Ritchies in Hamilton Mike Coleman Deborah Morris-Travers Megan Payne Ian Hassall Cindy Kiro Kaye Crowther Robert Ludbrook Sonja Hogan Rhonda Pritchard and David Kenkel. I salute all of them and apologise to all the many others I do not have time to mention tonight. 
 I also say a special thanks to the Reverends Anthony Dancer and Margaret Mayman and to all the other clergy involved in hosting the moving ecumenical service that a number of us attended in the cathedral up the road a couple of weeks ago for their assistance in mobilising Christians in support of this bill. I also acknowledge the huge amount of work done by the MPs and officials involved in the very long select committee process including the sterling efforts of our Parliamentary Counsel Office adviser Elizabeth Grant. 
Finally I say a huge thanks to all the MPs who stood firm in support of this bill during some fairly dark days including Helen Clark and the Labour caucus the entire Maori Party caucus all my own Green Party colleagues Peter Dunne Brian Donnelly Doug Woolerton and Katherine Rich. Those members are all heroes in their commitment to a vision of a country where children will finally receive the same legal protection as adults. I also acknowledge the lead that John Key took in working to find a way through a seeming impasse so that his party too could lend its full weight to the mana of this bill. 
But in the end this bill is not about us here at Parliament—or indeed about adults at all. It is about our children and what I believe is their God-given right to grow up secure in the love of their families valued as equal citizens to the rest of us and without the constant threat of legalised violence being used against them.