Hobbs Marian: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22089] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 To all the viewers of television news can I state very clearly that this bill is not about smacking. This bill is not about family values. This bill is focused on section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which provides that every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. The issue is our understanding of “reasonable force”. 
New Zealanders are in agreement that children should not be assaulted or brutalised. New Zealanders are also in agreement that parents who smack children must not be criminalised. The problem lies with the interpretation of section 59. Section 59 allows parents to use physical punishment with the intention of disciplining their children without being guilty of an offence as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. Section 59 operates as a defence that can be raised in relation to any charge involving the application of force to a child by a parent. However the term “reasonable” is not defined. 
The test of reasonableness is one of fact. Therefore if that defence is raised in court then “reasonableness” must be determined on a case by case basis. In making that decision the judge or jury can only be guided by their own experience by knowledge of community standards or past cases. Is their own experience determined by their experience as children and when was that? There is a difference between Mr Hughes’ childhood and mine. Is it “their own experience” as parents or is it their experience as grandparents? It is a very different time and responsibility. 
In relation to knowledge of community standards every member of this House will know that that issue is extremely difficult to assess particularly because it is so much a matter of practice within a community or group. Lastly they are guided by past cases. 
Life and community activities change. My mother beat me with little actual success I have to say with a cane as was shown over there. She beat all four of us with that cane. She raised three children by herself during World War II while my father was overseas. It was a fairly stressful time. She did that. It did not work with me and I can remember my brother at 6 foot breaking the cane in front of her. I did not beat my children like that but I did hit them and I acknowledge that. I am not proud of it but life has changed. I would no more think of caning my children now than my mother would not think of it because she believed it was so important. 
It is very difficult to make general legal rules as to what is reasonable and what is unreasonable force. I suppose it is because of that difficulty that Sue Bradford in her bill argues that the solution is to repeal section 59; to repeal the defence that is available. Others like some members of United Future argue that we can solve the issue by clarifying the meaning of “reasonable force”. 
The Labour caucus has agreed that there is benefit in the issues surrounding section 59 being referred to a select committee for further discussion and debate. It has therefore agreed to support the referral of the bill so that a full range of options can be identified and carefully considered. Some of those options do include repeal as Sue Bradford is suggesting. They can include amendment to give judicial guidance on what amounts to “reasonable force” or repeal with a specific prohibition of what the majority of New Zealanders would find unacceptable by way of physical force and I suppose that means by trying to define it. 
Labour welcomes wide public debate on which solution is the most workable. Parliament is a place of debate. That may surprise listeners. Parliament should be a place where issues are clarified. We should not be afraid of taking a difficult issue and putting it to a select committee to hear submissions and to clarify the issue with the community—not for the community but with the community. That is why Labour is voting to send Sue Bradford’s bill to a select committee. That will provide a forum for argument a forum for listening to submissions from the community a forum for examination. It is hoped that some clarification will result. 
We are not the only people who agree that this issue should be discussed and examined. The issue of whether smacking is good or bad is not the issue that is on the table but whether section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is clear as to what makes a defence. What is meant by reasonable force? If we cannot clarify that maybe we should repeal the provision or rewrite it. As I said Labour is not the only group to support such a discussion. In a release today Plunket said: “Plunket supports the bill going to a select committee because it will provide an opportunity for public debate about the serious issue of violence against children and whether it is appropriate or necessary to retain the legal defence for parents who assault their children.” 
After the select committee hearings of submissions a report will be prepared making recommendations about the future of section 59 and any amendments to the bill. Then members of Parliament will vote again as to where this bill proceeds. Then we have Every Child Counts which is a wonderful coalition of Barnardos Plunket Save the Children Unicef New Zealand and Auckland University of Technology’s Institute of Public Policy. It is also supported by 290 more organisations and thousands of individual supporters who say that a select committee hearing provides the opportunity for legislators to receive submissions from all the interested parties such as parents children’s organisations academics faith-based organisations and children themselves. Once those views have been considered then Parliament—the debating chamber the listening chamber—as a whole can have an informed debate. 
I do get tired of simplistic reporting. This bill has been reported so lazily to the public as being simply anti-smacking. Parenting is a tough job. The story told by Sue Bradford as an early parent reminds me of things. Parents need support and encouragement. Too often they feel alone. Parents need not to feel guilty. As I said my mother caned me. My parenting skills were not quite like that but I did hit my children particularly in stressful times. But the action that I feel most guilty about is the several times I put my child in the garage because he would not eat his peas— he turned 33 yesterday! I put him in the garage because he would not eat his peas and I left him there for an hour and a half. I think that is fairly shocking. How successful was I? He has turned out to be a vegan. 
The Labour Government’s programme of SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents is about supporting parents to find their way of working with their children. By voting to send this bill to a select committee Labour is not arguing that one method of parenting is better than another. We know that parenting is the most important and the hardest of jobs. But we do need to focus on section 59 to scrutinise whether it is achieving what the community intends. I am confident that New Zealanders do not support the brutalisation and fear of children. 
I ask my colleagues to consider sending this bill to a select committee for just such scrutiny—whether repeal or amendment. United Future let us have this issue discussed.