Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
 We are engaging in a historic debate this afternoon. It appears that a majority of MPs in this House including some from nearly every party represented here will vote for this bill to proceed to the next stage of the parliamentary process. I know that MPs have various and at times contradictory reasons for supporting my bill through its second reading but nevertheless I would like to thank all of them in advance for being willing to show leadership and take some personal political risk on an issue that divides our country deeply. 
From engaging in public debates around New Zealand and hearing the submissions during our long select committee process it is clear to me that the issue of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act cuts really deeply into our national psyche. All I am seeking to do is to get rid of a law that allows a defence of reasonable force when parents beat hit or otherwise assault their children. Removing that defence would give our offspring the same protection we are kind enough to extend to other adults police officers and animals but not to our babies children and young people. Opponents of repeal continue to argue that somehow parents have an inalienable and indeed at times a God-given right to hit their children in the name of discipline. For example let us listen to this extract from one of the submissions opposed to the bill: “Like most children ours are strong-willed. Their wills are untamed and often applied in ways that can be disruptive or dangerous. They should be taught to respect others and this requires bending their wills which in turn requires force.” That submitter in her unassuming way reflects an underlying attitude towards children that my bill very directly tries to change. 
When Pakeha colonists first arrived here they brought a culture that taught that children along with women and servants were the property of their father husband or employer and that they were mere chattels to be brought into line by force. Section 59 is the last legal vestige of that culture. It is no longer legal for employers to beat their employees or their servants or for husbands to beat their wives. It is still in this supposedly enlightened 21st century within the law for parents to beat their children. Our babies and children are physically smaller than us and they know a lot less about the world than we parents do. Surely our job as parents should be to nurture and protect them until they reach independent adulthood not to use force to physically coerce them into submission. 
The Unicef report released last week makes that point very clearly. The damning figures on child safety contained in the Innocenti report and our low status compared with that of other developed countries are an indictment of the way we view and treat children in this country: as second-class citizens not deserving of the same rights and protections as adults. This legislation before us today is a small but very necessary step towards beginning to turn those attitudes around. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee worked hard on this bill. We received thousands of written submissions and heard hundreds of submitters in person. As a result of the select committee process my original bill has been substantially amended. However I would like to make it very clear that the bill that has come back to the House still clearly and plainly reflects my original intention—that is to abolish the use of parental force for the purposes of correction. Some supporters of the repeal of section 59 have been concerned that somehow the bill now waters down that intention or in some way still allows parents to legally use force as punishment. That is not the case. The intention of the newly amended bill is simply to clarify that no parent will be prosecuted for restraining his or her children when for example that parent is acting to prevent them from hurting another person or themselves or to stop them from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour. The new amendment does not provide a justification for the use of force for the purpose of disciplining a child. 
On the other hand my select committee colleague from the National Party Mr Chester Borrows has made it clear that he intends to put up a different amendment during the Committee stage in the House aimed at defining reasonable force for the purposes of correction. I will fight that amendment tooth and nail as I believe it is the worst possible thing we could do in terms of legitimising the use of force against children. I know that Mr Borrows is well meaning but unfortunately he like others who want to somehow define “reasonable force” does not seem to accept or understand that that is the worst possible thing we could do. The effect of any attempt to define “reasonable force” including Mr Borrows’ is that we would then have the State telling parents that we should hit our kids in some ways and not in others and that it is still perfectly OK to use force on children and babies that we would not consider using on adults who are actually much more able to look after themselves. Defining “acceptable force” also undermines the fantastic work being done by the SKIP programme and by church and community groups all over New Zealand in teaching and supporting parents to use other ways of bringing up their children that do not involve the use of physical discipline. 
Our country has made some progress in ensuring domestic violence against adults is unacceptable and illegal—even inside the privacy of the home. It is high time to give children the same protection that we give adults and to bring an end to the situation in which police are able to prosecute a husband for assaulting his wife but do not prosecute him for assaulting his child because he has a defence for that act. 
The debate around repealing section 59 is very intense and I think it is good that we are having a national discussion on an issue of such concern to so many people here. However some of the opposition to its repeal has been led by a very small group who claim to represent Christians. Of the 2 million people in the last census with any Christian affiliation I believe only a small minority would subscribe to the belief of some that children are little bundles of depravity who deserve and in fact need to have sin beaten out of them even as toddlers. The leadership of the Christian Churches and many individual Christians have dissociated themselves from such statements. But I think it is a pity that the views of a vociferous minority have dominated this aspect of the debate when many people of faith believe that in fact the attitude of Jesus to children was one of welcome and kindness. Nowhere did Jesus advocate physical punishment and the infliction of pain upon children nor is he reported to have advised any parents to use physical discipline against their children. 
Some of the opposition to repealing section 59 has been even more extreme than that of the most immoderate of the Christians. Just today there have been postings on the cyfswatch website that talk about the possibility of assassinating me with one contributor saying for example: “… I would like the opportunity to drive my fist straight into her face as hard as I can hopefully breaking her nose or jaw in the process.” There is more that I am not keen on repeating. A later posting asks anyone who knows my residential address to send it in to the website so it can be published as “… MP’s should no more be immune from consequences as the rest of us.” I would not normally relate that kind of thing to the House but I do so for two reasons today. Firstly I do it because I think the best response to this kind of intimidation is to make sure as many people as possible know about it and know it is not going to silence me or any of the other thousands of people—literally—who are working for this bill. Secondly I do it because I think comments like those indicate the violent nature of some of those who so fiercely defend the rights of parents to legally assault their children. 
Finally I want to say a few words on criminalisation. Much of the opposition to this bill has been driven by those who are spreading the message that if section 59 is abolished suddenly tens of thousands of loving parents will find themselves arrested by the police and prosecuted by the courts for lightly and occasionally smacking their child. Although it is true that if this bill succeeds the use of force for correction will technically be an offence that does not mean that our already very stretched police force will be taking that kind of action. The police investigate the maltreatment of a child only after a complaint is made. The investigation takes into account a whole series of guidelines such as the facts of the case how serious the offence is and whether there are alternatives to prosecution. Every day in this country many minor and technical assaults take place that are not investigated and/or that no prosecution eventuates from. The situation will not change with the passing of my bill. A real campaign of fear has been created around criminalisation and I am sorry that so many parents have felt unnecessarily threatened. 
The time has come to change this archaic law. My bill on its own will not change the culture of violence against children in New Zealand but it is one of a wide range of measures that are necessary if we are ever to be able to hold our heads high in the community of nations as a country that really is a great place to bring up kids. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It has been a privilege and an education to sit as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s subcommittee considering the evidence and hearing submissions in respect of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I am grateful for the respect each member showed and I thank Sue Bradford Ann Hartley Lynne Pillay Nicky Wagner and—later on—Russell Fairbrother for that. After sitting on the subcommittee listening to the submissions and reading the material the group of five became relatively close in spite of the gulf that lies between us on the fundamentals of the bill. 
I find myself in the unusual position of indicating that I will vote for the second reading of this bill as the mechanism for introducing an amendment that will protect parents from prosecution for assault if they even lightly smack their children. The fact that I am doing this may seem a bit strange but I am sure it will not be the first time that people outside the House look at what we do in here and wonder what the hell we are up to. I strongly confirm my intention to vote against the bill if my subsequent amendment fails; I will not vote to criminalise good parents and happily 80 percent of Kiwis agree with me. The threat that if my amendment is successful the proponent of the bill Sue Bradford will withdraw the bill and so scuttle any decision in respect of this matter would really put pride before principle. She would be saying that section 59 as it remains today is so abhorrent to the country in relation to the good upbringing and raising of children that she would rather leave it in that state than in the better state it would be in should my amendment be successful. 
The bill as it was outlined to us on day one by the proponent seeks to stop child abuse—and who would not? But everything gets pretty murky after that. Everyone on both sides of the debate knows that this bill will not stop child abuse so the best the bill’s supporters can do is to say that it can send a message. But who does it send a message to? Does anybody really think that the killer of the Kahui twins thought about the law before or during the horrific and fatal assaults? Dragging out the names of other tragic icons of our child homicide legacy should not even feature in this debate because nobody believes for a single moment that Delcelia Witika “Lillybing” James Whakaruru or any on the list of pathetic victims would have been saved by this legislation. 
I believe we would have a better chance of stemming child abuse if we could legislate for parents to love their children more than golf or work or horses and pokies or booze or the women they run off with or TV or fishing and more than scoring points against their estranged partner and the parent of their children. We would have a better chance of stemming child abuse if we could legislate to ensure that parents cared enough about their own children’s security and happiness so that they did not slag off one another and make the children the meat in the sandwich of every family argument. 
The fact is that that legislation will not work. If it does not work it is not worth the paper it is written on if there is no intention of enforcing the legislation. I say to those pledging to vote for this legislation to go right through the process and past the third reading that they offer no hope to those they most want to protect. If this legislation passes into law without amendment those it will most affect will be ordinary caring parents who will either smack and feel the guilt of breaking the law or who will not smack because they do not want to break the law. It is plain as the nose on one’s face that the children of such parents have never been in danger. 
The huge point to make here is that changing the behaviours of parents including the parents of children at risk is best being addressed by programmes such as the SKIP programme. We are achieving the whole “send a message” objective now through education and not through legislation. Fantastic results after only 2 years show that 34 percent of parents of small children are aware of the SKIP programme which offers realistic alternatives to corporal punishment but Labour will not back its own programme to succeed. 
 So given the goals of the legislation what is the definition of child abuse? Those in favour of the bill as proposed place child abuse on a continuum from the mildest touch to child homicide. The fact is that child abuse is not defined by any independent authority. Of course section 59 does not offer a defence to child abuse; it offers a defence to the use of force for the purpose of correction. It does not defend the use of force because a parent is drunk angry or stupid but offers a defence solely to the purpose of correction. The application of force becomes relevant in the crime of assault and section 59 provides a defence to the crime of assault. 
So what is the definition of assault? The definition of assault is given in section 2 of the Crimes Act: “Assault means the act of intentionally applying … force to the person of another directly or indirectly or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another if the person making the threat has or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has present ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.” The definition of assault does not help much because it does not define reasonable force or as the wording of section 59 states force that is “reasonable in the circumstances.” But we know from this definition that only a least amount of force is necessary for an assault. So for instance as distasteful as it may seem the amount of force contained in a spit is an assault. A swing and miss is an assault. Just raising a hand is an assault under the definition. For a parent a smack on the hand or the bottom is an assault. Currently the existence of section 59 prevents a parent from being prosecuted for this but if this bill is passed it will make that smack no matter how light justifiable or timely illegal. 
The argument from the other side goes that the police can be trusted not to charge parents for smacking. Well this is not about trust. This debate is about who the lawmakers are and who the social agencies are. If we are going to protect parents their situation needs to be enshrined in legislation. This is a free and democratic society. A fundamental tenet of the rule of law in this country is that the law is clear and concise; it is not at the end of a social worker’s tongue or a police officer’s tongue when facing a parent who having been driven mad by an estranged partner in the middle of a custody dispute threatens with phone call and lawyer’s letter that if action is not taken it will be plastered all over the newspapers or some ratings-grabbing documentary. After every supermarket incident or every schoolchild’s morning talk it will mean that every whiff of a complaint is fully investigated on the basis that the teacher the social worker and the police officer will be scared stiff that if an investigation is not completed then there will be another child homicide statistic. Those people just know that they will be hung out to dry by yet another Minister who voted for this pig’s ear piece of legislation and hid behind his or her department. 
It is an MP’s job to make laws that Government agencies enforce. The agencies have their job and we have ours. I look forward to proposing an amendment to protect parents from criminalisation by a “sect” of parliamentarians and interest groups who in spite of the statistics and in spite of history are prepared to put window-dressing ahead of the families of New Zealand because in their arrogance they think they know best for all of us. I look forward to holding them to account. 
The question to those members of this House especially to those conservative members of Labour who are being whipped on this debate is how they will respond to this. How will Damien O’Connor respond to this? How will Harry Duynhoven Clayton Cosgrove Dover Samuels and George Hawkins respond to this when they know and are prepared to say privately something slightly different from what the leaders of their party are proposing? They will have to carry the can. When that first parent gets prosecuted for giving a smack on the bottom which at the moment is legal and defendable under section 59 he or she will be dragged before the court—and I look forward to hearing those members’ responses then. 
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. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make it clear from the outset that the New Zealand First caucus has been divided along the full spectrum regarding this Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I started at one extreme and have long held this position—that is for full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. Ron Mark on the other hand started at the other end of the spectrum and in fact it would be fair to say that he has not moved very far from that position. 
It is a hallmark of New Zealand First however that we have always been able to accommodate diversity within our caucus when it comes to conscience issues. However it would be fair to say that diversity around the issue has now congealed over whether we need to state clearly in the law that a simple smack is not illegal—â la the Chester Borrows amendment—or whether full repeal of section 59 would assume that situation. 
In my case I have long been persuaded of the need for full repeal by my experience as a schoolteacher and a principal. I used to use corporal punishment. Teachers were protected by section 59 which allowed teachers—and principals as in my case—to hit children as hard as they could up to six times on the hand or the buttock with a leather strap or a cane. I can assure members that it left considerable bruising. I had grown up in a schooling system that made liberal use of corporal punishment and I simply continued what I had learnt. 
However in 1990 whilst I was on a stint with the Education Review Office the Government removed teachers from the protection of section 59. At the end of that year I took over as principal of an intermediate school. I soon found that the school was rife with violence both physical and verbal. However I could not fall back on my old control mechanisms and I have to say that this really challenged me. 
What I was left with was the need to turn my whole philosophy on its head. We declared the school to be a non-violent territory both verbally and physically; we trained the teachers in non-violent management methods; and we focused on catching the kids when they were good. We still had negative consequences for unacceptable behaviour and we applied them rigorously—indeed as a principal I was considered a martinet. 
The result? The school became a much happier place. Parents sent their children along in increasing numbers because they saw the school as a safe place for their children to go to. Teaching positions became highly sought after so we had the pick of the crop of teachers who were available. 
However about 6 months into the process I had a young lad who was really trying to rark me up. In the past I would have become angry as a precursor to applying corporal punishment. I suddenly realised that this was not happening—I was not becoming angry. In other words as a result of that law change and the knowledge that we had put in place a system that ensured there would be consequences for bad behaviour I had changed and I believe that I had changed for the better. 
I hope therefore that people will understand why I believe in full repeal. It is critical that we establish the mindset in this country that children are unbeatable. Of two things I am sure. Firstly very few New Zealanders want a continuation of the physical punishment of children at the upper level at which section 59 allows an offence—for example the hitting of children with wooden sticks riding crops etc. The second thing is that I know of no one who wishes to criminalise parents who give their child an odd smack. 
It is my view that it is extremely important that parents establish clear boundaries for their children—anything less I believe is a form of child abuse—and that they follow up with appropriate consequences if those boundaries are breached. But parents have at their disposal a whole range of negative and positive consequences that do not require their hitting their children. The mistake we have made has been to meld the two concepts of discipline and hitting when in fact they are extremely separate constructs. The organisation that arguably is the most dependent upon discipline of its members is the armed services yet hitting is not used in the armed services as a means of achievement of discipline—and we must remember that in the past members of the armed services were flogged. 
The arguments made by those opposed to the bill seem to have focused on one particular point which is that parents—or people in the place of parents—who provide the odd smack would automatically be dragged before the courts to be found guilty of assault and would forever have that mark against their name. This belief without a doubt has frightened many many good parents in this country who do not regularly beat their children but may from time to time give them a smack on their hand. It seems to me that if this argument can be refuted then a large proportion of the opposition to full repeal simply melts away. 
A law that has been on our statute book since 1877 creates quite a significant imposition on parents: it states that parents are responsible for ensuring that their children are at school whenever the school is open for instruction. But virtually every parent of a school-age student breaches this law on more than one occasion every year. Yet we do not see hordes of parents being dragged before the courts. The law is a form of declaratory law that is used only when non-attendance is seriously affecting a child’s rights to an education and even then only after significant intervention by a range of agencies. 
Opponents to this law change point to the immutability of the law. They conveniently ignore some significant legal principles most especially the legal principle of de minimis non curat lex which says that the law does not concern itself with trifles. Even if a technical violation of the law has occurred the judge can simply strike out the charge on the grounds that the offence is too trivial. 
Let me explain. At present it is a breach of the law to travel faster than 100 kilometres per hour on the open road. Police would be laughed out of court if they tried to prosecute a motorist for travelling at 100.1 kilometres per hour yet that motorist would have been breaking the law. That is the application of the de minimis principle. 
I will give members an example closer to the issue we are debating. At present it is an assault under the Crimes Act for a teacher to forcibly take a child by the hand and remove him or her for example to a place of time out. Teachers do not have a defence under section 59; Phil Goff removed that defence in 1990. Let me tell members that teachers particularly those in the early childhood and new entrants classes breach this law on almost a daily basis. Yet have we seen even one such case brought to the court in the 16 years since the law for teachers—supposedly in loco parentis—was changed? The answer is no. 
Yet there are those who are still not convinced. They still say the police will be required to bring prosecutions against parents who give the odd smack. I have a letter on file from the Commissioner of Police that clearly states that is not the truth. However for those who are not convinced let me read out some of the 17 factors to be considered when deciding to prosecute—or not—as set out in the 
 New Zealand Police Manual of Best Practice 
. The factors include evidential sufficiency; well it is pretty hard to get that on a smack. They include the public interest—is it in the public interest to prosecute parents for giving their kid an odd smack? They also include the seriousness or triviality of the offence whether the consequences of any conviction would be unduly harsh and oppressive and a number of other things such as the attitude for example of the victims and the prosecution the likely length and expense of a trial the cooperation of the accused and the degree of culpability. If members go through those 17 principles I can assure them that they will see that no policeman would prosecute for a simple smack. 
I finish by making a comment about Chester Borrows’ amendment. For this amendment to become law this bill must pass the reading today. It is therefore utterly hypocritical for those who claim they wish to retain the right to smack to be lobbying for MPs to oppose this second reading. 
Chester Borrows’ amendment which I can say a number of New Zealand First members support would no doubt be an improvement on the current law—of that I have no doubt. However it still sends a message that it is all right to hit children. This is not a message one should be sending to the parents of New Zealand. The message we should be sending is that we understand if from time to time parents smack their children and rather than criminalise them we would prefer to help them to develop a different and more efficacious repertoire of responses to their children’s behaviour. 
Let me make it clear that the children who were recently stabbed by their father would not have been saved by this law change. Neither would Coral Burrows or the Kahui twins. In these cases we are dealing with totally different social phenomena. 
My experience and research heads my conscience to only one conclusion: the need for full repeal of section 59. However I wish to reiterate that my New Zealand First colleagues’ consciences have not necessarily led them to the same conclusion. 
There is one point however that I do wish to finish with. If the public does not wish me to use my conscience on issues such as this I should not be allowed a conscience vote. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker tenatatou te Whare. If one went into any kohanga reo throughout Aotearoa chances are that one would hear a waiata being sung with huge gusto: 
He taonga o tokungakau ko taku mokopuna e. 
He mokopuna korikori hei aha hei aha ra. 
Ko te mea nui ko te aroha. 
Kaua koe e patu taku mokopuna. 
Hei awhiawhi mai taku mokopuna korikori e. 
[ 
A treasure of my heart is indeed my grandchild. 
Even if he or she is a fidgety one it is not a concern. 
Loving is the most important thing. 
Don’t hit my grandchild. 
My fidgety grandchild is for cuddling 
.]  
This waiata talks about our mokopuna being truly precious—the treasures of our heart. It is a waiata that reminds us all not to hit our children and that promotes the messages of caring kindness and love. It is a call that restores the traditional values of our ancestors as being values for action—values that ask us to consider the way in which we bring up our children as fundamental towards setting standards to live by. There is such a rich archive of knowledge—moteatea whakatauaki karakia and waiata—that reinforces the special gifts required to cherish our children. It holds messages such as the kohanga song that inspire us to be the best parents and to love our children and our mokopuna with all our hearts. I am also aware that other messages are vigorously promoted as providing guidance on how to raise a child. 
Over the last year our office has been bombarded with correspondence from advocates opposing this bill. We have heard a common refrain that offers one interpretation of the biblical phrase: “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” as the argument has been put that this phrase justifies the use of corporal or physical punishment. From my understanding of Christian beliefs the rod referred to was a shepherd’s crook. It was used to guide or to nurture a flock on to the right path. It was not a directive to pick up a cane and wallop a child. In Te Ao Maori we have a concept similar to that of the shepherd’s rod in the saying: “He aroha whaea he potikipiripono”. This is a message to us that essentially parents who care for and nurture their children will find that their children will stay longer with them. If time is given to pass on values and to give guidance on responsibilities and obligations then children are less likely to deviate from these—“as the twig is bent so shall the tree grow.” 
Maori history and literature provide ample guidance about the difference between discipline and the violence of assault against children. The first extensively published ethnographic work by a Maori scholar  
The Old-Time Maori 
 by Makareti Papakura of NgatiWahiao Te Arawa described the experiences she had observed: “The Maori never beat their children but were always kind to them and this seemed to strengthen the bond of affection which remains among Maori throughout life.” Indeed there have been so many sources similarly describing the promotion of peace and care for children as a traditional value amongst tangata whenua that Professor Dame Anne Salmond described pre-colonisation as a “golden age” in her book  
Two Worlds 
. Tuhotoariki of Ngai Tara composed an oriori for his nephew Tuteremoana that was dedicated towards assisting the whanau to support that child in acquiring the vital life skills necessary to achieve his optimum potential. Another source te oriori mo Matareta guides a child in the history and traditions of its people demonstrating that both women and men were the carers and that children were entitled to security respect and protection. 
By sharing some of these time-honoured stories and values I do not want to suggest that everything is rosy in our homes today. For the reality is as this House well knows that New Zealand is suffering from a shameful record of epic proportions in terms of the way in which we mistreat our children. Last week’s United Nations’ Unicef report displayed our filthy washing for the world to see. We have the highest rate of children dying from accident or injury in the 25 OECD countries studied. Dr Gay Keating director of the Public Health Association summed it up with her call for a major rethink to show that we value our children. She said: “The health of our children is the responsibility of us all. Investing in our children now will reward us a thousand-fold in the future. If we ever needed a wake-up call this report is it.” 
The Maori Party is of the view that the decision to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act is exactly the type of investment we need to be making if we are committed to our children living in an environment free of violence. This bill will in effect place parents in the same position as that of any person who uses forcible action against another adult—in other words who assaults someone. This bill now removes the opportunity for assault against children to be recognised as reasonable by defining the types of actions one may take to remedy a situation requiring discipline. The bill sets out a range of approaches—such as pulling a child away from harm or when it is harming others or putting a child in a room for time out—and defines what is an appropriate preventive measure. 
I was raised firstly by my grandmother. At no time did she raise her hand or her voice in taking care of me or my cousins who were all loved nurtured and cared for by her. She lived kaupapa and tikanga and I hope that that is what my children grandchildren and great-grandchildren remember about me when I am gone. Speaking as a mother grandmother and proud great-grandmother I know too well the challenge of child rearing and of how it is easy even with the best intentions for one’s patience to wear thin and for the weapons at the end of one’s arms to become too easy to apply. I believe that when we smack a child we send the message that it is OK to hit others if we think they are doing something wrong to us. 
As a general rule I am not someone who smacks but that is not to say that I have not been sorely tempted over the years. Wherever I go whether it is to the supermarket the marae or a shopping mall down the street I know how frequently smacking is used as the first resort. Yet as Littlies Lobby research tells us 97 percent of over 1300 parents of preschoolers who were surveyed did not believe that physical discipline was highly effective. So we are in a catch-22 situation. Parents know that smacking does not work yet it has become so commonplace that the repeal of section 59 was vehemently opposed and created a near-record number of submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
This bill has raised many complex issues for parents and caregivers right around the country. The Maori Party has certainly appreciated the insights of submitters to the select committee who have shared their frustrations around the apparent State interference in the autonomous right of parents to care for their children. We too would be concerned if the new requirements had the impact of criminalising parents of children being removed from their care and of the family becoming another statistic in the State welfare records. This morning Greg O’Connor from the Police Association basically said that the police will prosecute people who break the law which must cause us some serious concern. The new section 59 will still beg interpretation. What for instance is understood by “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.”? As has already been suggested monitoring of judicial decisions and child discipline cases will be necessary to ensure that abusive behaviour is actually being recognised and stopped. 
So what we have had to weigh up are the concerns of parents and our kaupapa. We believe that it is critical that a line in the sand be drawn. The time has come for a very strong message of no hitting and non-violence to be promoted in every possible way. It is because of our kaupapa that we therefore see the aspirational value of this bill as being a beacon of pride for all whanau to hold as they establish the pathway forward for their tamariki. Kia ora. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 This will be a conscience vote for United Future. I will be voting against the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. But should the bill pass the second reading I will be voting for the amendment that will replace the current wording of the bill with the alternative—and in my view the much superior alternative—that has been suggested by the Law Commission. The bill as it stands in my view is gravely flawed. I say that because of my deep conviction that the right and the responsibility to train and discipline children belongs to parents. The role of the State should be limited to ensuring for the common good the safety of New Zealand children. But subject to that overriding criterion the choice of which particular means parents use to discipline their children belongs to them and to them alone. 
This bill in my judgment is therefore a gross intrusion by the State into an area that goes way beyond its confidence and responsibility. That is why some people have labelled this bill the “Home Invasion Bill”. The State does not belong there. It would be inconceivable for example for this House to be passing a bill saying that all New Zealand parents must smack their children. It would not get past first base. If that is the case by what logic could Parliament decide that it should intervene in the child-parent relationship to outlaw a simple smack with the hand—which is all that is proposed in Chester Borrows’ amendment—in the context of loving child discipline? 
It is my conviction that love and discipline go together; they are two sides of the same coin. That has always been the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Indeed the scriptures are quite clear on the matter. They state that parents who do not discipline their child do not actually love that child. They scriptures go on to say that of course any punishment is most painful at the time and far from pleasant but later it bears fruit in peace and goodness in those on whom it has been used. This is backed up with the extensive research—including some in New Zealand—and the life experience of millions of people who as children were smacked within the context of a loving family environment and grew up to be good and peaceful adults. I am one of those people. 
Of course the beating or the thrashing of a child in anger is a totally different matter. That is exactly the point. There is a dichotomy between a smack in the context of loving discipline on the one hand and the beating or thrashing of a child in anger on the other. The first should be lawful; the second is already—and should remain—unlawful. That is actually pretty simple is it not? So why is there so much confusion? The Judaeo-Christian tradition and the Greek philosophical tradition through people such as Aristotle have held for millennia that children are not born virtuous; that they are designed to be trained to be virtuous. With training and discipline they will become virtuous because of the satisfaction that virtue itself yields in the life of an individual. 
That is the Western tradition. But as some members may know the 18th century French author Rousseau began a reversal of that view in relation to child discipline. He wrote an essay backwards. In his essay children were born into a wonderful Garden of Eden—literally a kindergarten—virtuous loving and kind from the moment they were born. It was the corrupting influence of their parents and society that then robbed them of that original state and converted them into aggressive angry and nasty adults. That thought has since penetrated deeply into Western society—and tonight’s bill as drafted reflects exactly that philosophical position. However the truth is that Rousseau wrote that essay as a joke. The tragedy is that so many people in the Western World—including some educationalists—have never got the joke but have instead decided that his essay sets forward the truth. He never intended that. Indeed believing that to be the truth people unwittingly believe a lie. 
Let us move on to Dr Benjamin Spock. His book  
Baby and Child Care 
 became the best selling book of the latter part of the 20th century. It was a great book of huge help to countless millions of parents—including my wife and me. However we disagreed with Spock on one point and that was in relation to smacking. Spock opposed smacking and millions believed him. But it is true that Spock publicly apologised later in life and freely admitted that he had got that particular part of his book completely wrong—something that he deeply regretted—admitting that with the best of intentions he had simply had a direct role in the raising of a generation of spoiled brats. 
This bill is opposed by around 80 percent of New Zealand parents. It breaches the principle of subsidiarity: that political power should be devolved to the level where it coincides with responsibility. When it comes to child discipline as I have already stated that power belongs exclusively to parents. We must not—and we dare not—step over that boundary. In the future when a parent at his or her wits’ end decides to resort to a smack then remembers that it is now unlawful and will make that parent a criminal—because we are talking about the Crimes Act here—I suggest he or she ring a member of this Parliament and tell that member to come and sort out the situation because we will not be doing that. Parents have the responsibility at the time to take some action. It is their responsibility and we should encourage empower and support them in that role. 
That is why I will support the amendment that is to be proposed at the Committee stage by Chester Borrows so that a smack using the hand only and provided it results in no more than trifling and transitory injury will remain lawful in the context of the discipline of a child by his or her parents. Implements of all any sort—wooden spoons and rulers etc.—are outlawed under the sensible drafting by the Law Commission. I have no doubt that that is the right position but I will go further. It is of fundamental importance that as a Parliament we clearly signal to the parents of New Zealand that they have the sole responsibility to discipline train and raise their children to be good citizens of New Zealand. They should do so with confidence secure in the knowledge that in the complex circumstances whereby a child of theirs is throwing a fit and being disobedient and violent etc. they can smack that child as one of their disciplinary tools. It is not compulsory; it is an option that is all. No one is saying that people should necessarily smack their children. But in those situations in their judgment we should have the confidence to say to them that they can use a light smack on their children. 
We should not even go near the point where we are going with this bill. I hear so many parents saying on talkback radio: “Parliament is undermining my confidence. I no longer know whether or not I am allowed to smack my children. Furthermore I am dead scared of the consequences from both Child Youth and Family and the police.” That is not the kind of nation we want where parents live in fear. We want to instil confidence in them. We want to train them. United Future is for every form of parental education going. We would like to see massive resources being put into it. We would like to see every parent in the country properly trained to be a good parent. But we must not overstep the mark. We must build confidence in them. Norman Kirk would turn in his grave if knew that the Labour Party is supporting this bill because he was very strong on that point. It is not experts who raise children. It is not teachers or social workers; it is parents and we should be totally on their side—100 percent without fear or favour. 
I say that if misguided members of this Parliament are prepared to brand New Zealand parents as criminals when they smack a child who in their judgment deserves it because of the circumstances—in the context of love not anger—with the view of producing good citizens in this country then we have failed them. If we brand those parents as criminals then we have failed them and failed them badly. Thank you. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 There is not one MP in this House who condones violence or abuse of any kind against children. Every one of us wants every Kiwi child to grow up in a loving environment safe from the abhorrent treatment meted out to the Kahui twins “Lillybing” and James Whakaruru. Sadly the list goes on and on. There will be more cases like those. Our natural inclination is to take action immediately. 
As legislators we are in a powerful situation. We can try to make a difference by changing laws to reflect the sort of society we want for our children. But the laws we make need to be enforceable and regularly enforced otherwise they are mere words and completely meaningless. The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill fails on both those counts. Sadly if it is passed it will not save the life of even one child or stop the abuse and violence to children who are subjected to terrible maltreatment that would make our stomachs turn. For this reason ACT opposes the bill. 
I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity or good intentions of the sponsor of this bill. Sue Bradford like many of us has long campaigned for initiatives to end the violence and abuse suffered by our babies toddlers and vulnerable youth. But good intentions alone are not enough. This debate which has been going on for some time now has relied on emotion rather than reason and on rules rather than results. 
The easy option for me today would be to vote in favour of this bill to show that violence is being taken seriously in the hope that it would change those who victimise our defenceless children and to clear our consciences. But I fear that all that will be achieved by repealing section 59 is to turn loving parents into criminals and in the course of doing so we will make no difference to the real problems that exist in too many Kiwi communities. Caring for those who cannot defend themselves is one of the finest things about our civilisation. But the unintended result of the bill is that it will criminalise thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of very good parents. 
The original version of the bill outlawed any form of physical punishment or restraint. It made even the lightest uninvited but deliberate touch punishable by law. Holding still their child while dressing that child would have turned parents into criminals. The bill changed significantly during the select committee process and is now a watered-down version of that. 
I do not need to be persuaded that it is essential to reduce our level of family violence. That is why I am participating in the joint-party initiative to look into this matter despite the fact that I have some scepticism about the ability of large committees to make positive change. Violence is a plague that haunts our New Zealand communities and I agree that violence begets violence. Stopping the violence is imperative but this bill is not the answer. 
Our existing law against child abuse and violence against children is already strong. Under section 194 of the Crimes Act assaulting a child under the age of 14 attracts a maximum sentence which is double that of common assault. Under section 195 of the Crimes Act cruelty to a child brings a 5-year maximum sentence. And abandoning a child under 6 means a 7-year prison term under section 154 of the Crimes Act. 
The key is in enforcement. Enforcement involves doing three things properly. The first thing is reporting or detection. We in New Zealand have failed our children in this respect. Everybody—all of us in this House everybody in the gallery and everybody living in a community—owes it to the children living near and with them to report and to detect violence against those children. The second area of enforcement is trial. Again trials frequently do not happen. The third area is that of conviction and sentencing. Again I believe we have let down our New Zealand children in this regard with our sentencing and parole Acts and the level of conviction we have. If any one of these three elements of enforcement fails criminals will go free. 
We as legislators should be striving to help encourage the enforcement of the laws that already exist. The police are already struggling to cope. Child Youth and Family is already struggling to cope. Repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act will not aid either of those agencies. Most abuse is not reported to authorities until severe damage has been done to too many young lives. Around 70 percent of serious abuse occurs in families not already known to Child Youth and Family. As the speaker before me Gordon Copeland pointed out much of this debate rests on the difference between smacking and violence. I would like to say that I agree entirely with his comments on that matter. As a parent I certainly do not believe that those two things are one and the same. 
 Reasonable people know when discipline ends and violence and abuse begin. The rest of the people—an abusive minority and we should not forget that fact—will not notice or care that a law change has been made. The threat because that is what this bill is actually intended to be will be ignored by the very people who should heed the warning. Those parents who care for their children already and take their responsibilities seriously will be the only ones who suffer. 
The greatest good in my view can be done by helping vulnerable families directly. There are many wonderful initiatives operating around New Zealand and sadly we too often ignore the very good work that they do. There are mentoring programmes such as those promoted and put into action by the Family Help Trust in Christchurch where social workers go into homes and give people the advice and help they need whether about health issues education issues or welfare issues. There are many well-established programmes that help parents directly such as the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters that exist around the country. 
We could have a great deal more promotion of antenatal education preparation for vulnerable expectant parents about the pressures of raising a family. We know those families that are at risk and we should be targeting them directly. We could be promoting wholeheartedly child protection services for the whole country like the single programme that operates out of Starship Children’s Health in Auckland. There is much work to be done and much work that should happen immediately. 
Many of us in this House are parents—in fact I think most of us are. So those of us who are speaking today stand here wearing two hats. Many of us have very different parenting philosophies; that is not to say that some are good and some are bad or some are right and some are wrong. We all have different ideas about what is best for our children. All of those philosophies are aimed at bringing up happy and healthy children. 
ACT opposes this bill but that is not because we do not care for our children. We simply want caring parents to be able to make the best decisions for their children; decisions that we as legislators cannot anticipate or control from our comfortable green seats in this House. I would like to finish with this thought: acts of abuse and violence against children are already illegal. Unfortunately enforcement of this illegal behaviour is patchy and frequently totally inadequate. This bill will succeed only in criminalising an act of parenting. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Parenting in my opinion—speaking as a parent—is the toughest job in the world. It is also the worst paid. It is the most difficult role; and I remember being a parenting expert—before I was a parent! I remember knowing how other people should bring up their children. I remember thinking very very smugly in my latte days: “I’d never let my child behave like that at a cafe.” then a few years later having exactly that thing happen and knowing full well that I would just have to deal with it the best I could and get myself and my child out of there so that I was not such a disruption to everyone else. I understand that smugness. I understand as well the feeling of most parents who say that they do their very best because most parents do. 
I have been listening to the debate tonight and it has been very reasoned and sensible. I would like to congratulate all the speakers on that. But what I have not been happy about has been the amount of emotional language used not just in this House but elsewhere. I have been visited by many well-paid taxpayer-funded lobbyists who have talked to me about why it is that apparently I support child abuse—because I believe that we should not criminalise a parent who uses a light smack with a hand on a child’s bottom once as a form of discipline. I do not believe that that view is in the best interests of children. 
I was also seriously disgusted to be approached yesterday by another lobbyist—at no doubt great taxpayer expense—and advised that I was therefore supporting child violation. How in the world could anybody with half a brain cell consider that a light smack on the bottom with a hand a violation of a child? That is unfortunately some of the language that has been used around the section 59 debate. 
I have listened very carefully to the former teachers who have talked tonight about the fact that they used to strap children. They realised once they were not allowed to that they had to find other ways. I say: “Good on them!” because I suffered from a teacher who every chance she could would get a ruler out and slap me—and I have to say I was the most strapped child in standard 2. Frankly I was rather proud of it at the time. But leaving that to one side I think we need to say there is a huge difference between the responsibilities of a teacher and the responsibilities of a parent—a huge difference. We do not expect our teachers to love our children. We do not expect our teachers to go the extra yard for our children; we expect them to be teachers. We do not expect them to mortgage their homes so they can give our children what they need. We do not expect to go without for our children. We do expect that from our parents. 
I am not one of those people who believe that parents have a God-given right to discipline. I do however believe that parents have a God-given responsibility to their child. I believe that is the most robust relationship there is. When I looked today at the Unicef report yet again I saw that the countries with the very best relationships between children and their families and between children and their peers—every single one of the top eight countries—allow a defence of reasonable force or words similar to that. What that says to me is that those kids want to be with their parents. I am one of the people in this House who can remember being slapped—on only two occasions because that was all I needed—by a parent. I got the message and did not do it again. 
But of course the children whom we are most concerned about are those children whose parents do not give them a light slap on the bottom with a hand. We are most concerned about the children who are killed and the children who are seriously emotionally damaged by their parents. I ask members to think about themselves as children and what it must be like to be called stupid ugly fat or unwanted. All of those names can be and are routinely used against children and every single one of those names will hurt a child significantly more than one slap on the bottom. 
This bill will change nothing. This bill will allow emotional abuse. It will for instance still allow a mother or a father involved in a custody dispute over a child to say to the child: “Your other parent can’t see you this weekend because they don’t love you.” What is worse for the child? Instead this bill will criminalise parents who are good parents. It will criminalise parents who in fact do their very best—around 83 percent of those parents who have replied to polls. Those 83 percent of parents have said they have slapped their child on the bottom with a hand. None of this will help those children whom we know are killed by parents or caregivers—people who should know significantly better. 
I believe the police when they say to me that the police will prosecute parents who smack their child with a light smack on the bottom. I have had people say that that will not happen but I tell them it will. If the police arrest someone they will generally prosecute. There is a reason for that: if they do not prosecute they end up getting sued for wrongful arrest. That is why they do it. I hate to talk practicalities amongst all the fluffy words that we would like to think about on this issue but people get picked on in this society. People who are poor people who are brown and people who are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap will be the people who suffer the most from this legislation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: As I was mentioning before the dinner break the people who are most at risk from this legislation being passed are the poor the brown the people who are often marginalised the people who are picked on in society and the people who are easy prey to the State. Those are the people who are most likely to be arrested and prosecuted. Recently I met with Pacific families and Pacific New Zealanders who told me how concerned they were that this legislation would condemn them. These are good parents who are very deeply committed to their children. They are parents whose children are going very well at school and who will be good citizens of New Zealand. They feel at risk. 
There has been a lot of talk in the media about just how at risk they will be. Let us just look at a few situations. The police have said absolutely categorically that if they are advised that a child has been smacked they will investigate and if they find that a crime has been committed—which on the face of it it will have been—they will prosecute. They have to do so for various reasons. One reason for that is that if they do not they will open themselves up to a charge of wrongful arrest. They have seen many instances of that situation so they have learnt to prosecute. The second reason is that if we say the police will use discretion then we are in fact giving to the police a discretion that generally they do not have and do not use because in giving to the police this overall discretion over whether to investigate or take any action we are saying to them in these situations that they can choose whether they prosecute over something that is on the face of it an assault. 
I believe absolutely that the people who will be most disempowered are those who are already disempowered. What will be the result for those children? It will be that they will have a parent with a criminal conviction for assault on a child. The result will be that they may well be removed from their homes because the parent has a conviction for criminal assault on a child. The result for that child may well be that that child is placed in a far less safe environment than he or she was in his or her own home. The result may will be a completely dysfunctional family at the end of the day; we have in fact not helped the situation. 
Parents need to be given alternatives. Those are the reasons that I completely support the amendment of my colleague Chester Borrows. Chester Borrows is bringing forward an amendment that is sensible and that makes very very plain that repeated smacking is not OK but that a light smack on the bottom of a child by way of discipline will not result in prosecution. This is after all not a House where we should be indulging in social engineering. This is a House of law. This is where laws are made. We do not make laws for the purpose of not having them obeyed. I believe that it is an absolutely fundamental purpose of this Parliament that when we make laws we expect them to be obeyed; we do not tell the police not to bother prosecuting because we do not really mean them to do so. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I know and other members do of course that we do not want the State intruding into people’s homes. But of course we do it every day to protect people. We do it when we protect Mum from being hit by Dad. We do it when we set limits on the use of violence against children. The change I want to see is for the limit to that violence to be set at zero. That is no more of an intrusion in the home than we already make. 
Someone in my electorate who was against this Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill has been sending out an email letter comparing my support for the bill to the actions of the Nazi State as an example of intrusion into the home. That person even wrote the following to my constituents: “The fact that Ms Bradford and Mr Anderton have both had children who committed suicide elicits our sympathy. However their very sad misfortune does not by any means make them experts at bringing up their children.” 
What a sad and sick way to promote one’s cause. That is the hysterical extent that people will go to in order to defend their right to hit children. Well they could not have picked a less favourable example for their cause. The root of Nazism and of all hatred is the use of violence and bullying by one group of people who feel they have a moral claim higher than those of others. Without violence hatred cannot flourish and that is a strong reason why we should strip violence out of our homes. 
I will address the people who turn to scripture and recite misplaced lines such as “Spare the rod and spoil the child”. I caution anyone about trying to set the quality of his or her faith above that of others. The message in scripture is of course not literal; it is much more powerful more eternal more meaningful and more encompassing than that. The message is that humans should love one another. Violence is not loving and can never be loving. I am not in the practice of reciting articles of faith in this House but anyone who seeks to invoke the name of the teachings of Jesus in the cause of beating children has not understood Jesus’ message. 
Time and time again in recent years I have come to this Chamber and asked the House to protect our young people. Time and time again I have heard this House mouth platitudes about the importance of protecting our young and then declining the opportunity to do so when it is presented to it. Time and time again this House has exposed young New Zealanders to risks that we know will harm them. Now we are being asked again. Now we are once more deciding whether this House will stand up for young people and protect those whom we can protect. We are being asked to stop violence against children. We are being asked to send the message that our children should not be hit or brutalised and there is no room for equivocation here. 
I will vote for the amended bill because it is the best way to ensure that we make some progress but I say quite strongly that I would support a straight repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act if that were before the House now. This House should be sending the strongest and clearest message that we will not condone physical violence against children. Repealing section 59 would send the strongest possible message that it is not OK to hit and beat children. 
I believe in the persuasive power of this House otherwise I would not have been here for as long as I have. I believe that changing the law can help to change antisocial attitudes. When I voted for homosexual law reform in the 1980s—and the supporters of that initiative were right—I believed our social attitudes changed. I believe that when we passed the antinuclear legislation we made our proud moral stance a cause that all New Zealanders could be proud of. I believe we have a responsibility to lead public attitudes now. 
Leadership is something that this House has a poor record of when it comes to protecting our young. This House declined to show leadership over the drinking age when members knew that the very young had every access to alcohol and that the results were causing mayhem. This House refused to show leadership when it made prostitution a career option for young people. This House is again failing in its duty to show leadership because this bill has been watered down and still allows children to be hit. 
It is against the law for Dad to hit Mum. Why is it not against the law for Dad to hit the kids? There is no reasonable force defence for Dad hitting Mum—one cannot use that. Why should there be a reasonable force defence for hitting children who arguably have even less ability to defend themselves? It is one law for all. I support one law for all—one law that says no hitting. Loving parents will still be able to change their children’s nappies when their children are struggling against them. 
This House has some double standards. We had a privileges case brought against Winston Peters for giving John Banks a shove. He was to be arrested for assault and Lord knows what else in this House. It was a rather mild form of assault too—and I was involved in it I must say as a witness. But for goodness’ sake we are not talking about a mild shove in the corridors of Parliament; we are talking about the example we are asked to give in terms of the law of what one can or cannot do with the kids. 
This bill will still enable parents to stop their kids from running out on to the road. They will not be able to beat their children with a stick with their belts or with their fists—nor should they. Our community used to tolerate men hitting women. I lived in that community; I was in a house like that. Thankfully attitudes have changed—although with some people that I hear I doubt it—but our community still tolerates adults hitting children. It is time for that attitude to change too. A change in the law will bring that about. The law has never supported the use of violence between adults—never. It is time for violence to be removed from the home altogether. It is time to send a message that physical discipline for children is unacceptable. 
I believe that New Zealand has one of the best records in the world in respecting international conventions. When the world looks around at the most humane most lawful most civilised countries in the world I want to stand up and proudly say that our law is faultless. But our treatment of children is a glaring scar on us. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international standard setting out the way we should treat our children. Until section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed we cannot comply with it. 
International law and international conventions are a friend to New Zealand. They are the only tool we have to repel bullying and “might is right”. If we want to thrive as a small proud independent and sovereign nation then we should and must respect international law and conventions with every tool we have. So our breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child tears at the fabric of our respect for international law. Just as an assault against one of us adult or child is an assault against all of us—which is why we prosecute as a society and do not leave remedies to civil courts any more—so too a breach of the convention is an assault against all the authority of international conventions that we ask others to respect. 
I want us to raise healthy adults and I want them raised in a culture of respect care and protection for our young. Time and time again this House has declined the opportunity to step in and protect our young when we could have. I say that we must not let them down again. Let us not send a message that violence and physical discipline against children is OK. I am disappointed as I have said that we are not going to pass the whole repeal of section 59 today but I believe that the amendment makes sufficient progress and I will support it for that reason. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There will be no expressions of approval disapproval or otherwise from the gallery. Thank you. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the abolition of section 59 of the Crimes Act and I oppose it absolutely. I am angry that despite the input of 1700 submitters the skills of the Crown Law Office and a huge desire by all MPs in this House to do something to stop the terrible abuse of children in our country not one child will be safer happier or even better off if this legislation is passed. This bill is flawed. It is a cop-out that we have created just to show that we are trying to do something. In an attempt to pussyfoot around an issue that has polarised the people of New Zealand the Labour-Green majority on the Justice and Electoral Committee has produced a bill that is an untidy jumble of words that confuses rather than clarifies and that threatens to criminalise rather than support parents who are responsible for the protecting and nurturing of our children. This is not the way to look after our kids; it is not the way to strengthen families; and it is not the way to break the cycle of violence in our homes. 
Supporters of the bill talk of the importance of using this legislation to send a strong message to the community that using physical force to correct children is not OK and they believe that if that message gets through child abuse will miraculously stop. I do not follow this logic. The beating bashing and abuse of kids is already illegal under the existing section 59 and is abhorred by all New Zealanders. The anti - child abuse message is already strong in our communities and it is still not getting through to the right people. Do we really think they will respond to a change of wording in a piece of legislation in Wellington? 
Let us be very clear about this bill. It legislates against the smacking of children only at a level below that of reasonable force. It does not even attempt to deal with the main factors that lead to child abuse. The latest Unicef report identified poverty stress family breakdown and drug and alcohol abuse as the primary factors contributing to child abuse—not smacking. When we analyse the behaviour of the countries that have the best record in terms of looking after children and the lowest child abuse death rates six out of the top 10 allow smacking. So just how closely are smacking and child abuse linked? 
We are debating this bill for the very best of reasons. We are debating this bill because the people who care about kids and we as politicians are so concerned and shocked about the level of child abuse in New Zealand that we want to do something about it. But passing this legislation as it stands is not the answer. When we began debating the bill I was hopeful we could make a difference. Just having the discussion has been worthwhile because it has proved that despite the passion and robustness of the argument philosophically all submitters had a lot in common. Whether they were individuals child experts voluntary organisations the police or Government departments they came to submit because they were concerned about the welfare of kids. 
I think every submission made the point that there is too much violence in our society and it erupts far too often. The sadness and hopelessness we all feel when we read of another child-abuse death quite rightly shocks hurts and angers us. Equally the vast majority of submitters understood that kids need good parenting if they are going to do well. They realise that being a good parent is a very difficult job and that parents have to be encouraged and supported. There was also agreement that kids needed boundaries to feel safe and secure and that there were many strategies and parenting methods that could be used to educate discipline and control kids. 
And that is where the agreement came to an abrupt halt and all debate focused on just one of the many methods of parenting control—the smack. Instinctively we all know that repetitive physical violence and abuse are very bad for children. Research confirms that but it also shows that occasional light smacking does not cause harm in healthy family relationships. Parenting gurus will tell us that smacking unless fully discussed and explained is not effective in the long term but in the short term it works and often parents find that that is just long enough to put other strategies in place. Research also tells us that children need those consistent boundaries and often a light smack is what parents do to reinforce them. 
Actually only a very few submitters were prepared to be hard and fast and say that all smackers were criminals. Even Sue Bradford herself has said she does not want to see good parents criminalised—but that unfortunately is what this bill in its present form can do. 
The debate on this bill is nothing to do with the philosophy of bringing up kids and everything to do with the parenting strategies people use every day in their families. This is why the issue has become so emotive. What mandate does Parliament have to control or shape the very personal and very intimate relationship between parent and child? This relationship involves 24-hour 7-day-a-week care and attention over many many years. How do we devise a law that is relevant at all times under all conditions and in each and every circumstance? Logic says we cannot. Unless it is a really general statement of course the law requires specifics if it is to be enforced. 
Research and our own intuition tell us that the most critical factor in keeping a child safe and happy is its relationship with its parents and the quality of its family life. We need to have faith in families to encourage and support them. We need to embrace diversity in child-rearing methods and we need to give good parents credit for using the right parenting strategies at the right time and in the right place. Parents have this understanding from knowing and loving their kids and I believe that they absolutely understand the difference between smacking and child abuse. 
The argument that using physical force to correct kids causes child abuse is as valid as the idea that just being able to drive a car causes dangerous smashes. We need to be more discerning. Even parenting experts cannot always agree on the best way to handle all kids. 
So in conclusion I believe that this bill is technically a poor piece of legislation. It cannot fulfil the expectations of its promoters. It does not address the issues that are identified as the core factors of child abuse it restricts the options of parents and it has the ability to criminalise good parents—the very people whom we need to rely on to provide a protective and nurturing environment for their kids. The bill has a very unhealthy Goody Two-Shoes Government-knows-best attitude when every scrap of evidence on successful child-rearing indicates that happy homes and strong families are the best place for kids. 
If we really want to do something about child abuse in this country we should be using every effort to support parenting programmes and mentor families in the community rather than bickering over a piece of legislation that bullies and threatens parents and undermines their relationship with the very children we are trying to protect. In presenting this bill I believe we have failed the children of New Zealand—children like the Kahui twins the “Lillybings” and the Coral Burrows. With all Parliament’s resources and the time and the energy that have gone into this bill we should have been able to come up with something better. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I speak in support of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill as reported back to Parliament. I wish to congratulate Sue Bradford on her courage and commitment in introducing a member’s bill to this House to make better provision for our children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence. I give my thanks to the committee members and to the hard-working staff and officials of the committee. We received 1718 submissions and heard around 200 submitters including parents caregivers young people and representatives from organisations—some of whom had Judith Collins quaking in her boots. Every submitter who requested to be heard was heard. 
I acknowledge the many individuals who made submissions on the bill based on their own experience of raising their children and looking back on their childhood. For many it was painful. I commend them for the courage it took to tell their stories. For some the issue was the impact of violence on their young lives and the ongoing effect of it on them as adults; for others it was their regret for having hurt their own children. Then there were those parents who were genuinely fearful that they would be prosecuted for physically disciplining their children and those who believed it was not only their right but also their responsibility to strike their children. 
Many organisations spoke strongly in support of the bill. Barnardos Plunket EPOCH the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges Save the Children Unicef the Families Commission the Children’s Commissioner and many others worked determinedly to advocate for and educate about the need for change—for support for our children our families and our communities. The Body Shop petition of Barry Thomas drew some 20750 signatures in support of Sue Bradford’s bill. I am proud to say that the Waitakere City Council in my own region led the charge in speaking out in support of the bill and it was followed by both the Auckland City Council and the Porirua City Council. 
The bill has been dubbed the “Anti-Smacking Bill”. That trivialises the seriousness of the issue. It is not about introducing a prosecution. It is about removing a legal defence not about introducing a prosecution—a defence that has seen serious violence against our children deemed to be reasonable and seen parents not held accountable for their violent behaviour. Opponents claim that such cases are rare. To me that is unacceptable. Do we really want to stand by while our children are at risk in that way? In the type of case in which charges are laid people who have violently abused their children such as by beating them with a piece of wood a belt or a riding crop have used section 59 of the Crimes Act to successfully defend their actions. The majority of New Zealanders are appalled at such actions. 
Most New Zealand parents are good parents and want to do their best for their children’s welfare and safety. However the recent Unicef report has highlighted the fact that some of our children are amongst the least safe in the Western World. Our country leads in many ways—with the first women to get the vote our nuclear-free policy and our commitment to addressing climate change—but on the issue of our children’s safety and well-being we are lagging behind other Western World nations. We must work together to change that. 
It is said that it takes a village to raise a child and this Government is proud to support the many community organisations throughout New Zealand that help parents to raise happy healthy children who are able to reach their full potential. The education and public awareness programmes that promote positive parenting have been adopted by many thousands of parents community groups and educational groups throughout this country. The SKIP programme—which for the benefit of those who do not know this is Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents—is a fine example of that. As a select committee member I say it was great to hear from so many parents and organisations about the effectiveness of that programme. Our Government has invested—and very happily invested—$10.8 million over 3 years to establish the SKIP programme and we will continue to provide an additional $14.8 million over the next 4 years to enable the programme to continue. Raising children is the most valuable job in our society and providing education and support to families is a vital job of the Government. 
While considering this bill the committee noted the high level of public interest stimulated by the possible repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act and was concerned that there was widespread misunderstanding about the bill’s potential effect. There was a view that parents would be criminalised for disciplining their children and the situation was not helped by a deliberate scaremongering and misinformation campaign by opponents to the bill. For the sake of clarity the select committee requested assistance from the Law Commission in drafting changes to the bill to ensure its intention was clear and to address parents’ concerns. In doing so the majority of the select committee did not want to undermine the effects of positive parenting programmes. 
The changes suggested by the commission and agreed by the majority of the select committee encapsulated a new title and purpose clause and a substituted section 59 that clarifies when it is acceptable for parents to use reasonable force: in situations such as protecting a child from harm providing normal daily care and preventing harm from being done to others. Those amendments ensure the bill gives assurance to good parents. I thank the Law Commission for its invaluable advice on this matter. 
In addition the select committee was advised that the police would not actively solicit reports on the use of force against children as there are safeguards. The Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines that are in place ensure parents will not be prosecuted for minor acts of violence. As the legislation is now the police are obliged to follow up any reports they receive but such reports do not require significant investigation. Currently if a child is sent to his or her room that constitutes kidnapping under section 209 of the Crimes Act but the police do not prosecute parents for that any more than they prosecute high-profile rugby players for hitting a team-mate with a handbag. I believe the select committee report and amendments balance the need to make sure that good and caring parents are supported whilst ensuring that children are absolutely protected from abuse. 
Legislation like that in this bill is not uncommon. Fifteen countries have introduced similar legislation and a number of others are looking at the problem at this point in time. I was disappointed to hear Chester Borrows and Judith Collins—who was quaking in her boots at people terrifying her—refer to interest groups in such a derogatory way. Those organisations are New Zealand institutions and leaders in the care of our children—hardly radical. It may be that because they dared to be critical of an amendment that undermined and counteracted their good work as they strive to support our families both parents and children the Opposition took that stance. In dog training trainers now advocate that the use of violence is counteractive and harmful to dogs being able to reach their full potential. There is no section 59 for puppies. There is no Chester Borrows’ amendment prescribing the level of violence that is OK. Do we see the police marauding and going around arresting dog owners? 
I support this bill and I commend my Labour colleagues and other speakers in this House from other parties who have committed themselves to ensuring that our youngest and most vulnerable citizens are safe and secure. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I give my wholehearted support to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for the full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act as in fact do all of our Green MPs. I congratulate my colleague Sue Bradford on the hard work the persistence and the determination that she has shown in getting it this far—even in the face today of death threats. I acknowledge and thank other speakers tonight who have supported the bill for some very supportive and in some cases very moving speeches: Mark Burton; Brian Donnelly who gave us a lot of facts stemming from his experiences as a schoolteacher which I thought were a very valuable contribution to the debate; Tariana Turia whose heart is clearly with us; Jim Anderton who gave a moving speech; and Lynne Pillay who did great work as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and who has been so forceful in her support just now. 
Non-violence is one of the four core principles on which the Green Party is founded. We believe that non-violence if it is to prevent war and international destruction has to start in the family in the home in the school and in the community if it is to flow through to between nations. This bill is just part of a very long process of trying to build a non-violent society. 
I will tell three stories tonight from personal experience; I think most of the academic arguments have been made. I will tell stories about three children—one of them was me. All of the stories have the theme that if beating a child seems to work because it changes the child’s behaviour is anybody asking why and is anybody asking what is going on in the mind of that child at the time? 
My father was a schoolteacher of the old school and he believed in the strap—not child abuse nothing illegal—but he believed that one did not use it often but when one did one used it really hard. Part of the punishment were the words “go and get me the strap”. So I would go and get the instrument of my own beating bring it back and get a thrashing. I want to focus on what that did to me. The fact that it hurt is neither here nor there; it was completely not the point it does not matter. But did I feel sorry for what I had done? Never. Did I feel remorseful? Did I think: “Oh that was naughty I’d better not do that again.”? Never. Did I decide to change my behaviour? Only to ensure that next time I did not get caught. What did I feel? I felt resentment I felt anger I felt humiliation and I felt a determination to get even. Is that the sort of reaction that we want to provoke in our children? I would suggest that it is actually quite counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve in hitting a child. 
When I had children myself the instinct carried over and my first reaction when I got furious with them—as one does with children—was that I wanted to hit them. I made a decision early on that I was not going to do that and it was a task of a number of years to actually train myself not to hit the kids when I was angry but to use the other methods that I knew could be used. Most of the time I succeeded in that. But because one’s own conditioning carries over when one grows up it took quite a lot of effort. 
The second story I want to tell is about a father and his 2-year-old daughter who were visiting my home many years ago. She was engrossed in what she was doing and did not really take any notice of her father when he asked her to do something. So he said: “Come here I’m going to smack you.” Of course a 2-year-old being told she is going to get smacked does not “come here” so the demands continue: “Come here. If you do not come here right now you’re going to get a real thrashing.” When she finally did come it had worked up to such a point—for a really really small error in the first place—that he put her over his knee and really walloped her on the bottom. Now that was just a smacking. That is what most of the opponents of this bill think is perfectly normal and parents should be able to do. I looked at why that child’s behaviour changed and it was fear. I looked at the fear in her eyes as she looked at her father and I asked myself whether we want to discipline our children by making them so afraid of us that they cannot think for themselves and they just act out of fear. 
The third story is about another 2-year-old with his father. This is much more recent. Two-year-olds can be very trying. They have temper tantrums; they are testing the boundaries all the time. They do things like picking up their dinner and throwing it around the walls. If one can manage to persuade oneself not to laugh—which is important—something has to be done. As soon as that behaviour starts this particular father says: “No it’s time you sat on the naughty mat.” The naughty mat is in the corner of the room and if the child does not go of his own free will he is picked up firmly without violence sat on the naughty mat with his back to the rest of the room where he cannot see people and held there until he calms down. At the end of that time there are usually tears cuddles and reconciliation. I have never seen that child express fear of his father but he is a much better behaved child than the one I witnessed many years ago. 
This is not about opposing discipline. It is not about having no boundaries on children’s behaviour. Children need firm boundaries. They need to know where the limits are and those limits must be enforced. But it is about enforcing those boundaries in a non-violent way. It is about enforcing them with respect for that child as an individual in his or her own right. 
If we want to build a non-violent society we know that after this bill becomes law parents will need help to change the sort of discipline they use. I can imagine that it could be quite hard for a parent of an 8 or 9-year-old who has always thrashed the child to suddenly start disciplining that child without thrashing it. It is important that we provide opportunities and information for parents on how to change their methods of discipline to fit in with the new expectations that society has that that they do not use thrashings. The Greens will do everything we can to support that change in society and to support and encourage parents to use the many techniques that are available to set firm boundaries for children without beating the daylights out of them. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 6 (Bennett P Blue Borrows Hutchison Power Rich); New Zealand First 3 (Donnelly Woolerton Stewart); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 42 (Ardern Auchinvole Bennett D Blumsky Brownlee Carter D Carter J Clarkson Coleman Collins Connell Dean English Finlayson Foss Goodhew Goudie Groser Guy Hayes Heatley Henare Key King McCully Mapp Peachey Roy Ryall Shanks Simich Smith L Smith N te Heuheu Tisch Tolley Tremain Wagner Wilkinson Williamson Wong Worth); New Zealand First 4 (Peters Mark Paraone Brown); United Future 2 (Turner Copeland); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 6 (Bennett P Blue Borrows Hutchison Power Rich); New Zealand First 3 (Donnelly Woolerton Stewart); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 42 (Ardern Auchinvole Bennett D Blumsky Brownlee Carter D Carter J Clarkson Coleman Collins Connell Dean English Finlayson Foss Goodhew Goudie Groser Guy Hayes Heatley Henare Key King McCully Mapp Peachey Roy Ryall Shanks; Simich Smith L Smith N te Heuheu Tisch Tolley Tremain Wagner Wilkinson Williamson Wong Worth) New Zealand First 4 (Peters Mark Paraone Brown); United Future 2 (Turner Copeland); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.