Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8465] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 While we are still dealing with clause 3 of my bill I would like to specifically address the Chester Borrows amendment as we will be voting on it at the end of the debate on this clause. I fear a lot of the debate has not been around that even though Mr Borrows’ amendment is quite significant. 
Hon Members 
: It’s clause 4. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: It starts at clause 3. Mr Borrows’ amendment is seriously flawed and in fact it negates everything I am trying to achieve with my bill.  
In 2004 the House of Lords in the UK moved a similar amendment to Mr Borrows’ amendment. It told people in the UK how to hit their children but that they should not hit them too hard. I will quote a couple of things from an article in the  
Guardian 
 in 2004. A health visitor in a poor part of London who has witnessed many tactics used by parents to conceal the injuries on children said: “They’ll pinch behind the ears they’ll hit the soles of the feet they’ll hit the head because the hair will cover it up but the injuries are worse because the brain rocks from side to side.” Another paediatrician at Birmingham Children’s Hospital said she often sees unmarked but badly hurt children. “ ‘There are injuries that are quite nasty that don’t leave any marks at all. Often with impact injuries you do see reddening but a blow to the abdomen doesn’t leave any superficial marks at all the child just starts to vomit.’ Very small babies may show no superficial bruises or redness – ‘then you do an x-ray and there’s a fracture on the thighbone then you x-ray other bones and you may find multiple fractures.’ ” She then goes on to say: “Bruising will be still more difficult to detect on a dark-skinned child.” and to explain that it is possible to look with an ultraviolet light to see whether anything has happened to a dark-skinned child. The article goes on and on.  
I am quoting this horrible stuff because that is what one gets into when one tries to define the ways we can and cannot hit hurt assault or smack children which is what Mr Borrows is trying to do. I know Mr Borrows is very well intentioned. He knows the realities of what sadly happens to some of our children and he is trying to deal with the issue. But the way that he is dealing with it is extremely unfortunate. The best torturers in the world know how to hurt people without leaving a mark. Mr Borrows’ amendment sends a message. If it is passed the Parliament of this country will send a message that hitting and hurting kids is OK as long we can hide it and get away with it. How much evidence can a 1-year-old baby give about the nature of the beating or the breaking of its bones that it has just received? Children are not protected by Mr Borrows’ amendment. What if the head or neck of the body is hit? Any part of the body can be hit. The amendment does not protect children in terms of their age. Babies young people and teenagers are not protected by Mr Borrows’ amendment. All children babies and teenagers could be subject to violence.  
The amendment betrays our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Even Sir Geoffrey Palmer who assisted Mr Borrows in drafting his amendment has made the comment publicly that if Mr Borrows’ amendment is passed it would actually be in contravention of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  
A similar standard to that proposed in Mr Borrows’ amendment was set in Canada in a judgment of its Supreme Court. The result is that even major assaults have been judged to be transitory and trifling as per Mr Borrows’ amendment.  
If passed Mr Borrows’ amendment would send a public message that hitting our kids is OK. It would undermine all the fantastic work that has been done by the SKIP programme and all the church and community groups around New Zealand that are trying to support parents to learn alternative methods of bringing up our kids that do not involve violence. If we have the State legalising violence and defining what level of violence is OK and the nature of that violence it undermines every single one of the groups that are trying to help parents to learn other and better ways of bringing up kids than hitting them.  
I have been criticised by some members for the fact that I have stated all along that should Mr Borrows’ amendment succeed during the Committee stage I will discharge the bill. They have said that will mean I will somehow be undermining parliamentary democracy or committing other sins against the House. I will make a few comments on that. The Standing Orders explicitly provide that a member in charge of a bill—whether it is a Government bill or a member’s bill—can discharge that order of the day at any time. Some members are suggesting it is undemocratic to fly in the face of the rules by saying that if the Chester Borrows amendment is passed I will discharge the bill. In fact that suggestion flies in the face of the rules that we operate by in this House and that govern our behaviour. The ability either to stay with or discharge a bill is the prerogative of any of us who have a bill before the House. In fact in this term of Parliament the right to discharge a bill has been exercised so far a total of 10 times in relation to both Government and members’ bills.  
I did not ever want there to be any doubt amongst MPs or the public about my intentions should Mr Borrows’ amendment succeed. I feel that if it succeeds that would be one of the worst possible things that could happen for the children of this country. It would completely contradict and undermine my original purpose in putting forward this bill. I sincerely hope that enough other members will understand why having the State in this country define and specifically legitimise the level and nature of the force we can use on our children would be nothing short of a total disgrace.