Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13819] 
Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my pleasure to introduce this bill to the House today. There are so many problems with the current legislation that it is difficult to know where to start. The original bill was passed in the dying days of the last Government at a time when after 8 years of suspecting that it was out of touch the people established that was the case beyond all doubt. This law has turned good parents into criminals; it is as simple as that. Members of the previous Government decided that they were better parents than the people themselves. They forced upon the nation their other-worldly view that parents who smack their kids are no different from the parents who bash abuse and kill their kids. I must sadly add that those members were aided and abetted in that view by the National Opposition. 
I could not explain the bill’s purpose any better than the explanatory note does and to save time I will not read it all. The first paragraph reads: “The purpose of this Bill is to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and substitute a new section to provide that parents and those in the place of parents no longer commit a criminal offence if they use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour;”. It then talks about the definition of “reasonable force”. 
One of the many terrible ironies is that this bill is really no different from the very good amendment that the member Chester Borrows who is in the House proposed during the debate on the law now in force. The need for this amendment has only grown stronger. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The world’s moved on. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I heard a silly comment from someone that the world has moved on. Indeed it has; experience has shown us that this bill not only does not achieve anything but it is counter-productive. 
The Prime Minister and his colleagues were no doubt hoping the recent Latta review of the anti-smacking law as it has become known would be the end of the matter. Perhaps it might have been had the report not been a complete and utter whitewash. To this end a series of case studies were completely distorted by the Latta review to back up the wishful claim that the bill is working well. I will provide just one example for now from the Latta review. A father who was discharged without conviction for shaking his daughter’s shoulders suddenly became in the Latta review a man who was convicted and then discharged for punching his daughter three times in the head and mouth. That is completely incorrect on both limbs. Discharged without conviction and convicted and discharged are two very different things; even more different is shaking by the shoulders compared with punching in the head and mouth. There are plenty of other examples that I am sure my colleague the Hon John Boscawen will touch on later. 
The bill was originally in John Boscawen’s name and he has worked tirelessly at public meetings all over the country to assure parents that at least some MPs in this House are not deaf to parents’ concerns. Once upon a time it seemed that the Prime Minister John Key was also listening but sadly no longer. When writing the notes for this speech it occurred to me that based on past quotes I could have asked the Prime Minister to write my entire speech for me. I will share some of those quotes with the House. Mr Key once described the anti-smacking law the law that is in place now as “a complete and utter dog’s breakfast badly drafted and extremely vague.” He also said—and here is the kicker: “The Borrows’ amendment was the right place to settle.” But Mr Borrows was browbeaten into voting against his own amendment. It is shameful absolutely shameful that the system does not allow Government members to vote for this bill—and there are many of them and we know it who would very happily vote for this bill tonight if they were not under the whip. Another Key quote said that linking a light smack with child abuse was “bloody insulting”. He is right; it is bloody insulting to compare a light smack on the leg with a bash. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Watch your language. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I am quoting the Prime Minister. Yet that was the argument put forward by many proponents of the current law. I will never forget my introduction to politics if you like at a meeting in Helensville—in fact Ms Fenton was there too—that was addressed by Sue Bradford the former Green member. After the meeting was over I took her to one side and had a quiet word. I asked her if she really believed that any swines who thought it was OK to hit their kids with a piece of wood or pipe would not do so as a result of that law change and she said no. I was astounded. Sue Bradford who was behind the legislation admitted that the legislation in place now does absolutely nothing to prevent child abuse. What it does do is criminalise good parents. 
Since the law has been passed more than 20 children have been murdered—20 children. This law did nothing for 6-month-old Cezar Taylor. It did nothing to stop the murders of Nia Glassie Cash McKinnon or any of the other children killed by those who were supposed to protect them. Notifications of possible child abuse received by Child Youth and Family numbered 125000 in the past 12 months; 125000 is 57 a day every day. The anti-smacking law has done absolutely nothing to change that. In fact the numbers have gone up. That is evidence alone surely that not only is the legislation ineffective but it has made things worse. 
Something that the somewhat hysterical debate at the time seemed to forget was that beating—bashing—one’s child was already against the law. What made anyone think that the anti-smacking legislation would cause such parents—and I use the word reluctantly—to think twice before inflicting such terrible harm? There are many people who disagree with the idea of a light smack. That is their prerogative; that is their right. When things go awry is when their views are forced on other equally good parents who choose to give their children a light smack for the purposes of correction. They do not give them a bash they do not use a weapon but they give them a light smack. They are a world apart as the Prime Minister admitted in his speeches when the law currently in force was before the House. 
New section 59(2) inserted by clause 5 clearly defines unreasonable force and thus removes the confusion many parents have about the current law. It also removes an enormous amount of power from the police—power that has often been improperly used. It is pretty straightforward. If the child suffers more than transitory or trifling injury then there has been unreasonable force. If the discipline—and it is not discipline—is as stated in subsection (2)(b) “inflicted by any weapon tool or other implement;” then it is unreasonable force. If it is as stated in subsection (2)(c) carried out “by any means that is cruel or degrading.” it is unreasonable force. That is what lawyers call codifying the law. Such a provision as Chester Borrows and John Key once recognised would help prevent the law from criminalising good parents. It also recognises that those few cases that escape conviction under the old law such as the use of a riding crop or a piece of wood were and are unacceptable. 
This bill should satisfy those who genuinely feel that the old law did not go far enough as well as the 87 percent of New Zealanders who said last year in a properly constituted referendum—not some telephone poll or write-in survey—that the current law has gone much too far. It will not please those who feel that smacking should be banned altogether—but that is OK. It is not for us politicians to tell parents how to raise their children. It is not our job to judge parents for disciplining their children as they see fit as long as they stay within the confines of reasonable law. If we fail to pass this legislation that is exactly what we are doing; 122 of us here are saying to the parents of New Zealand that we know better than they do. That is the kind of arrogance that got Labour kicked out of Government probably for the next 20 years. Labour members said: “We know better than you.” to the 87 percent of New Zealanders who voted against the current law. I will finish with another quote from the Prime Minister— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired. Before I take the next speaker the member needs to advise the House what select committee this bill will go to. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you. It is normal custom in the House at the beginning of bill like this that the member advises the House which select committee the bill will be referred to. It will be referred to the Social Services Committee. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to make a number of points clearly and succinctly in respect of the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. On the face of it a number of the comments that the previous speaker Mr Garrett made were valid and I agree with him that the Supplementary Order Paper that I put forward in 2007—which the member now puts forward as a bill—was valid for the time. 
David Garrett 
: What’s changed? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: A number of things have changed and I will make those points very clearly. 
We have to look at where this bill came from. The bill came from a Supplementary Order Paper that was drafted by me in response to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill which was a member’s bill in the name of Sue Bradford that sought to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. I spent a number of months on the Justice and Electoral Committee looking at that bill and hearing submissions from around the country. The reason why the Supplementary Order Paper—the bill as it is now; its provisions form this bill before the House—was valid at the time and is not valid now is that we did not have the numbers. When the Supplementary Order Paper—now this bill—came before the House the Labour Party and its support parties had the numbers to defeat it and it contained all the words that are in this bill before the House now. What changed? Well there needed to be a compromise position which was arrived at through negotiation between John Key and Helen Clark. If we had done nothing if we had done what that member Mr Garrett probably wishes we had done—stuck to our guns put forward our Supplementary Order Paper and been defeated—then the law would be in a much worse state than it currently is. It was the negotiation between those parties that actually brought about a compromise changed the wording of the bill and gained support from across the House apart from the ACT Party and one or two other members. 
I worked hard to get support for Supplementary Order Paper 86. I spoke to the Green Party I spoke to the Labour Party I spoke to the Maori Party I spoke to United Future and I spoke to New Zealand First. The vote was split in New Zealand First. We had the support of the ACT Party. We did not have the support of the Maori Party and it was clear we were going to lose. I believed then and I believe strongly now that it would have been wrong to say: “OK stuff you. Let’s argue about it at the next election.” That would have left New Zealand parents in a worse position than they are in now even with the compromise in place. 
I will move on and ask the member who has just resumed his seat David Garrett where he thinks this bill will go. If this bill is passed tonight it will be referred to a select committee and all of a sudden the debate will not be about the words “transitory” and “trifling”. The whole debate will be about when parents can hit their kids under what circumstances they can hit their kids how hard they can hit their kids or what marks they should be able to leave behind on their children. The debate will be about whether they are allowed to use implements on what occasions they are allowed to hit their kids and who can hit kids. Will it be confined to parents or will a person acting in place of a parent be able to hit those kids? I believe that the difference between back then and now is this: we put forward the Supplementary Order Paper in the course of business and if we had had the numbers then it would have passed and we would not have got into a debate about such things as whether a person can hit a child between their shoulders on the tops of their knees on the bottom of their legs or on the fleshy parts of the body and what sort of marks one can leave behind. That is a distasteful debate to have. 
If that member thinks that it is seemly to go around the country listening to hundreds of submitters talking about when it is appropriate to hit kids and what level of injury one can leave behind on the kids—a debate we would not have had around the country if the Supplementary Order Paper had passed—then we are on different planets quite frankly. I heard all those submitters. I heard a number of people argue that they have a God-given right to belt their kids and that they should be able to smack their kids. They said they should be able to use a rod to hit their children. 
It was interesting that the vast number of those submitters came from fundamentalist Christians who quoted scripture to me. I took great delight in quoting scripture back at them. Never once did those submitters quote the scripture that says: “Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” All they talked about was sparing the rod and spoiling the child. All they did was talk about their God-given right to discipline their children in the way they saw fit. Where the total evil in that position comes from is this: in almost every case where a child was beaten with an implement and where the case went forward to a prosecution—including our famous horse-whipping stock-whipping woman—the beating started in order to discipline the child and to control and to correct the child. I believe that if we were given the opportunity to mandate discipline control and correction in the same way then we would see an abuse of the legislation that allowed that to happen. 
We know that although parents protest that they use a range of discipline regimes such as time out the naughty step loss of privileges a growling apologies compromises and all that sort of stuff when parents start to smack smacking becomes the default position very quickly. It gains immediate compliance. Children stop doing what they are doing because smacking hurts. They do not learn not to do the behaviour; they learn not to get caught doing the behaviour. Through the work of the SKIP programme which has been incredibly successful we have seen that after only 2 years of implementation 34 percent of parents knew of its existence knew how to access it and said that they implemented the strategies for disciplining children in a non-violent way. 
The law has changed the future for many young children. As much as there are parents who still give their children a light smack—and I would not argue that they were child beaters—I make the point that the vast majority of parents want to live within the law so they do not use corporal punishment and they do look for other strategies. It is quite right for the member to point to the large number of respondents to polls and surveys but at the same time he has to understand that the practice of the law as it is now is different from the letter of the law in many aspects of our law. 
I will take an example which maybe is an extreme example far away from this piece of legislation. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act there is a presumption before the criminal court that anyone in possession of more than 28 grams of cannabis is in possession for the purpose of supply. The police never ever charge anyone for possession for the purpose of supply when all people have with them is 29 grams of cannabis or more. Why not? The police realise that actually practice has overtaken the presumption that is in the law. So I am saying to the House that the police use their discretion to look at who they have in front of them and apply the letter of the law accordingly. That is why we have not seen a huge flourish of parents appearing before the courts and being charged with assault on a child over an incident of light smacking. In fact in the last year in 2009 there were 33 complaints of smacking and there was one prosecution that was later withdrawn. To put that into perspective I note that over the same period there were 83000 complaints of domestic violence. 
I believe that the police are working in the public interest in the enforcement of the current legislation. I think it is written like a dog’s breakfast. I think it is ugly and on the face of it with all the legalese it is not easy to understand. I think my Supplementary Order Paper was a hell of a lot better than the dog’s breakfast we have. But at the time we did not have the numbers and in this House we need the numbers. If members do not have the numbers then members have to compromise. We compromised and like it or loathe it it works. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 What an excellent speech from Mr Borrows tonight. I think that Mr Borrows has probably summed up for the majority of this House what we think about this bill—the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. It is a member’s bill in the name of David Garrett ACT MP. It was John Boscawen’s bill and I know that he will be disappointed that he is not taking it through the House tonight but I think the baubles of office were probably more tempting than staying on the backbench to pursue this bill that was his passion. 
This bill repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and substitutes a new section to provide that parents can use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour. Labour opposes this bill. Section 59 was previously amended in an attempt by this House to change the culture of violence towards children in New Zealand. It was agreed to by the majority of this House although Mr Garrett wanted to lay the blame on Labour and said that it would mean that we would be out of power for many years. It was agreed by the majority of members in this House in a sensible debate and compromise so that we could move on from this bill. 
No one is asking for this change. This is a political move by the ACT Party whose time has gone. As Chester Borrows said nobody wants to go back out and listen to submissions on how we should hit our children how hard and with what. We want to get on and ensure that we do the best we can for our children in New Zealand; that we do the best we can with programmes like Incredible Years SKIP and positive parenting programmes to help parents and give them the tools to deal with their children. This is a political bill. I say to ACT that its time has gone we have all moved on and I suggest that the House discharge this bill from the House as fast as possible. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou te Whare. I rise to speak against the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. I agree with previous speakers that this issue has long been debated that we are seeing a cultural change and that that is what is necessary in this country. I can speak from personal experience as an elderly primigravida which is what I learnt I was when I had my first daughter at over the age of 35. 
Simon Bridges 
: Say it again. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: An elderly primigravida. I thought I had some kind of disease when I was approached and told that clinically that is what I was. 
In any event I grew up in a home where smacking did not occur. I grew up in a home where boundaries were set for us without violence being threatened. I did grow up in a home that was rather sexist in that different rules were applied to the boys than to the girls but we all learnt to behave very well and as colleagues in the House will observe I am a very well-behaved person. I owe that to very very good parenting. I had the opportunity to learn from my parents the kind of parent that I wanted to be. 
Very early in my marriage we explicitly discussed how we would bring up children and we explicitly agreed that we would never smack our children. What that forces one to do is to find other measures to bring about the kind of discipline and behaviour that one wants to have in the home and we have managed to get through 17 years of our daughters’ lives without smacking them. From observation and feedback I can say that our daughters are regular normal children who will take every licence and push every boundary that they possibly can. But they know and understand when we as parents tell them that enough is enough and it does not require us to lay a hand on them physically. It seems to me that if we remove that as an option then all of us are forced to find other options by which to get the outcome that we want. I am not suggesting that it is all rosy and sweet. Yes there is shouting doors get slammed and all those kinds of things happen. I know it is a shock and surprise but actually that can and does happen. 
My point is that the legislation is working; the Latta Broad and Hughes review has found that it is working. Practice within Child Youth and Family has been improved as a result of that review so that parents in the wider community who think they need any greater assistance are able to get it freely and quickly. To give some sort of balance to this discussion I say my understanding is that over 80000 domestic violence incidents were reported in 2009. Only 33 were raised in terms of the Crimes Act. Only one charge was laid under section 59 of that Act and that was subsequently withdrawn. If that is not an indication of a law that is working I do not know what is. We will not be supporting this bill and I personally applaud the fact that we will not. Kia ora. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I acknowledge the contribution made by Chester Borrows much of which I agree with. He gave an excellent history of the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. Some of the most serious threats that our kids face are violence and abuse so we must maintain and strengthen the protections in law for children including those in the Crimes Act as Sue Bradford worked incredibly hard and successfully to do. 
I will look at the broader issues and look at the status of children in Aotearoa today. How are our kids actually doing? Compared internationally they are doing very poorly indeed. New Zealand ranks 29th out of 30 countries in the OECD for child health and safety—almost at the bottom. Out of 30 OECD countries New Zealand is ranked 21st for infant mortality and 29th for measles immunisation. Fifteen percent of all children in this country live in poor households. Thirty-one percent of children in this country live in overcrowded homes. In households that suffer from food scarcity body mass index—BMI—tends to be higher and children suffer from poor nutrition and long-term health impacts. 
Hundreds of children change schools every Monday because their families live in overcrowded and insecure housing. That change of schools is undermining their education and leading to future underachievement and low incomes. On other international scores New Zealand is fourth from the bottom of all OECD countries for injury deaths amongst 1 to 4-year-olds. New Zealand has 14 times the average OECD rate of rheumatic fever. It has rates of whooping cough and pneumonia that are five to 10 times greater than those of the UK and the US. Its rate of child maltreatment death is four to six times higher than the rates of OECD countries with the best results—four to six times higher. 
The truth is that our society treats kids really badly. Too many of our kids live in miserable housing and suffer significant illness and Third World diseases. Our kids suffer terribly from accidents and worse from deliberate maltreatment at the hands of adults. Knowing all this—and it is easy to find this out—the only solution that the ACT Party proposes is to remove some of the meagre legal protections that our children have against grown-ups who hit kids. That is the ACT solution to the poverty and inequality suffered by our children and their families—to make it legal for grown-ups to hit kids. That is ACT’s solution. That kind of political leadership which invests so much effort into legislation that will increase harm to children is perhaps an indicator of why our kids are doing so badly. So much more has to be done and we are wasting time on legislation like this. 
We know that if we reduce the gap between rich and poor and address inequality we can raise the living standards and well-being of all New Zealand children. Reducing the gap between rich and poor is good for everyone in our society not just the poorest. So let us spend our time dealing with that. How about we guarantee the essentials for every New Zealand child so that we can guarantee them the opportunities they need. How about we make sure that every child has a warm dry secure home. Let us build homes for the 300000 kids who need them. That would be good use of our time. Let us eliminate the discrimination in income support that the children of beneficiary families suffer. Let us give the poorest families the extra 60 bucks a week that working families get. Those extra 60 bucks a week for the poorest families would mean that they would not have to choose between paying the rent and paying the power bill. 
Let us stop wasting our time on bills like this that seek to injure children and instead build a society that treats our kids with the respect and the dignity they deserve. Kia ora. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will take only a brief call. I agree with Metiria Turei that New Zealand has problems with violence against children. We have cultural issues as well as a long history of violence against children and it will take a cultural shift in order to fix that problem over time. 
David Garrett 
: This hasn’t done it. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Garrett says that this has not done it. Well cultural shifts take time. We saw that in terms of how long it took to reduce smoking rates and to reduce drunken driving. Similarly I am sure that over time we will see a cultural shift away from inappropriate physical punishment of children. The legislation that this Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill effectively seeks to overturn was a step in the right direction. I agree with Chester Borrows that now is not the time to revisit that legislation; it does send a strong signal. There is nothing greatly wrong with the current situation. It is not being abused by the police. I see no reason to vote in favour of David Garrett’s bill. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the ACT Party on the first reading of the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. I am pleased to speak on this bill because as Annette King alluded to and as members know I introduced this bill to the House. I thank my colleague David Garrett for taking on the bill on my behalf. 
Let us look at some of the comments that have been made this evening. Annette King said that no one is asking for the change. Well I wonder what planet she is on. Over 300000 people took the trouble to put their names to a petition asking for a referendum on this issue. Over 300000 people took the trouble to ask for a referendum and 1.4 million voted to change the law—1.4 million; 87.4 percent. Annette King has the gall to sit there and say that no one wants a change in the law and no one is asking for this. She should listen to the people of New Zealand. This is absolutely about reflecting the views of 1.4 million people; 87 percent of people. It is no wonder that politicians have a bad reputation amongst the people of New Zealand; it is no wonder. Even when 1.4 million people—87 percent—voted to change the law Labour members sit there and totally ignore these people and show their absolute contempt for them. 
However let me make one acknowledgment. I thank Annette King for the time that she took to discuss this bill. I asked to speak with Mr Goff and he gave me the courtesy of his time and Annette King joined the discussion. For that I am grateful; I appreciated the opportunity. I was unsuccessful in convincing Labour members to support the bill but I certainly appreciated the opportunity to speak. 
Let me turn now to some comments that Chester Borrows made. He said: “Look this law is based on my Supplementary Order Paper. If we had had the numbers we would have passed this law.” So Chester Borrows is saying that had the National Party had the numbers 4 years ago when this law was originally passed this is what would have happened. Chester says: “Well it’s a dog’s breakfast. It’s a dog’s breakfast; it’s a law that is not easy to understand.” What do I say to this Parliament? I say surely it is the job of this Parliament to pass laws that can be understood and that can be enforced. Surely we have no greater responsibility than to pass laws that can give people certainty. 
I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from the explanatory note of the bill. In particular it states: “Section 59(4) also creates confusion with its reference to Police discretion. According to members of Parliament the intention of this subsection is to provide a safeguard against the consequences of banning reasonable physical correction so that parents will not be ‘subject automatically to investigation and police prosecution’ if they give their child a light ‘smack’ …”. The law is not certain. Although Mr Borrows referred to 33 people being charged I ask how many thousands of parents do not actually know what the law is. They do not actually have the confidence. I say to Mr Borrows and to National members that surely we owe the people of New Zealand a law that is simple and that can be understood. 
My bill was drawn out of the ballot just 3 days after the results of the referendum were announced. It was drawn out of the ballot at 12.00 on a Wednesday and by 4.30 that afternoon 4½ hours later National had called a press conference and said it would not be supporting my bill. National members said they would not give effect to those 1.4 million people the 87 percent of New Zealanders who voted in the referendum for a change in the law. Annette King says this is political. It is not political I say to Annette King; it is representing and standing up for the rights of those people. If the member wants to ignore them I say good luck to her but I am not prepared to and I am very proud that my ACT colleagues and I take the same view. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I need to say from the very outset that the Maori Party say ka kite ano haere ra kaua e hoki mai hasta luego and ciao to the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill which is purported here by Mr Garrett. 
The Maori Party supported the original legislation for the abolition of the use of force as a justification for child discipline which amended section 59 of the Crimes Act. There were two reasons why we supported that legislation. Firstly we supported the concept of children being able to live in an environment free from violence. That was No. 1 and it was consistent with numerous traditional accounts of tikanga in terms of the care of children. Secondly we supported the original legislation because it was in the context that underpins the kohanga reo and kura kaupapa movements. Sure not every Maori child is involved in those movements but it was an approach taken that we hope will continue to spread throughout the whole community. 
Right from the start of the kohanga reo movement in 1982 it was stated that mokopuna were not to be smacked. The no-smacking kaupapa both established the preciousness of children and continued the manner in which our tupuna reared children. In strengthening parents kaiako extended whanau through involvement in kohanga and the aim was to show that smacking was more a manifestation of adult behaviour than that of children’s behaviour. Kohanga reo whanau and wider whanau benefited from taking the time to understand themselves in relation to raising tamariki and mokopuna. 
It is important to have aspirational kaupapa to guide and inform party policy and conduct. The Maori Party saw the aspirational intent of the bill as an important aspect of encouraging whanau to recreate and maintain violence-free homes. At the time we were very clear. What is wrong about holding out hope that we can reclaim our tikanga and find our own solutions to violence? We want to promote a more positively framed approach to addressing issues of violence instead of promoting the punitive approaches that we see in this bill. 
We want to inspire a change of direction. Instead of focusing on what was wrong within our whanau hapu and iwi we want to expend our energies on a positive future for Maori by focusing on our strengths and by mobilising our actions to change that which was ours to change. That is pretty much at the heart of the Whanau Ora approach which is about taking issues back to whanau for them to address amongst themselves. 
On reflection 3 years after the amendment to section 59 it is hardly as if the world has come to an end as other speakers have said. In operation the law does not criminalise parents as was always the threat. The general consensus is that the current law is working well. Parents facing charges of assault against their children are prevented from using a defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction. I absolutely support that. 
I want to remind the House that—as if we need reminding—New Zealand ranks at the bottom of the list of OECD countries for children who die from accident and injury and Metiria Turei touched on some of those incidences. In fact we rank in the bottom four for children over 1 year old. There is no way that the Maori Party will compromise on our aspirations for a violence-free Aotearoa. So we reject this bill absolutely. 
Mr Garrett talked about the fact that the anti-smacking legislation has done nothing to stop the murders of young children. He said that that was the rationale for some reason for this bill coming to the House. So the inevitable question would be: has the “three strikes” legislation stopped any murders? I do not think so. Kia ora tatou. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker for the opportunity to speak on the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. I believe that most of the significant arguments for why this bill should not proceed have already been articulated by my senior colleagues so I am happy just to share some experiences. The first experience is from this morning when the Social Services Committee visited a local organisation down the road from here. It was an organisation that deals with young men predominantly who have suffered in their lives from their homes. We sat there and listened to the presentation from those young men about how many of them were abused violently sexually by people who supposedly loved them. If members had heard the experiences of those young people then I believe that all of us would be united in saying to the ACT Party that what it is attempting to do tonight is not OK. 
I am reminded that when I was a young man my father said to me constantly: “E fafaga le fanau a manu i fua ma lau o laau ae fafaga le fanau a tagata i upu.” That means that the children of birds are fed with fruits and the leaves of trees but the children of men are fed with words. They are words of patience they are words of love and they are words of example. If we as parents have to resort to force whether it be reasonable or whatever the force is that this bill is attempting to define then we have failed in providing words of encouragement words of support words of love and words of faith to our young people. 
To further illustrate my point once upon a time I bought a mandarin tree and because I am quite busy I just dug a hole and put it next to my driveway. I did not take any notice of that mandarin tree and it grew crooked. My car ran into the leaves as it grew and finally one part of that mandarin tree was dead. I had to cut that particular part. But I was too late when I was trying to remove the dead part of that tree and it eventually affected the whole tree. The point I am making is that if we do not feed our children with words of support words of love words of encouragement and words of faith then it will be too late and irrespective of whether we cut their hand or whip it or use reasonable force as determined by that small party there I would say we have wasted our time. 
The community as a whole has moved on. I constantly hear on the rugby field any time somebody attempts to be violent whether with words or facial features that there is always somebody out on the field saying that it is not OK. I think we have created a culture where we respect our young people. We are respecting the fact that these young children will become future leaders of our society of our family of our community and indeed of this country. If we now resort to the old ways then I have to say there is no place for this bill no place for the kind of rhetoric that is coming from that particular party and I again repeat that it is not OK; it is not OK. Thank you for this opportunity. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I would have and I almost have some sympathy for David Garrett and his Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill except for this inconvenient truth—and no I am not talking about Al Gore’s climate change movie—that good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. In saying that or in trying to argue something along those lines David Garrett sounds a little bit like Chicken Licken who thought that the sky was going to fall in. We all know the story of Chicken Licken. An acorn fell on his head—not a lamington I say to Mr Boscawen—and ultimately after going off scaremongering to Goosey Loosey and Henny Penny and the like he was eaten by Foxy Loxy. So I am not sure if there is a moral in that for Mr Garrett but that is a bit what this is like. The truth of the matter is that good parents are not being criminalised for a light smack; the sky has not fallen. 
The Government is not at all complacent in this area. We took the referendum that this country had very seriously. There were reviews and reports by people such as Peter Hughes the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development; Howard Broad the Commissioner of Police; and Nigel Latta who is very well known to New Zealanders. They looked through the policies and the procedures in this area and researched extensively. What they found in the end is exactly as I have said: good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. The law is working and they reinforced that view. We also have in this country a situation where the Government has invited police to report on a 6-monthly or an annual basis for the next 3 years on the operation of the law in this area. They will be doing that. But I come back to what they are finding and what the reports and reviews have found: good parents are not being criminalised. If we were to find that and if the sky was to fall—and I do not think that it will—this Government is open to looking at things. But we believe that the law is working as intended. We want to give parents the assurance that a National-led Government will continue to monitor the way the law is being implemented but I say to Mr Garrett that the truth is that good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. I think that will long continue. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I have not been here long enough to play the silly game where I pretend that the vote will be anything other than what it is to be on the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. We all know what the vote will be so I will use my last 5 minutes to remind those who are listening to this debate of a few facts. 
The previous Labour Government cynically ignored the people who demanded a referendum on the question of smacking prior to the last election—more than 300000 of them. There was plenty of time to conduct that referendum at the same time as the election but Labour decided not to do so because it knew very well that although it would probably lose the election if it drew the attention of the public to its stand on this issue it would definitely lose it. So Labour cynically delayed the referendum. Labour cost the country $10 million to do a postal referendum 6 months later. But that delay did not work as 1.4 million people took the trouble to fill in their ballot papers go down to the post office or whatever it is called and post them. There were 1.4 million people who said a light smack should not be a criminal offence versus 100000 who supported the current law. I tell members to make no mistake about that. 
There is some truth in what we have heard from the other side of the House. Some good police discretion may well be operating but that is not the point. The law as it stands criminalises anyone who smacks a child for the purpose of correction. Labour cynically ignored 1.4 million people and this Government and those members over there are doing exactly the same as Labour did. I have not been here long enough to play the game so I am sorry if I am breaking some conventions. 
Throughout today member after member has called me or spoken to me to say I should make it stop. They have asked me to stop the emails that have been flooding into their offices today from thousands of thousands of people. I had nothing to do with that campaign. I did not know what members were talking about. There was nobody I could call to make it stop even if I had wanted to. 
Everyone forgot that section 59 of the Crimes Act had only ever been a defence. We have heard stupid speeches in this House since I have been here about defences and the defence of provocation was another one. There is a foolish idea that if we offer up a defence the legislation will work. The previous version of section 59 more often than not did not work. It was a defence. 
What will happen to this bill very shortly is a spit in the face of all the 1.4 million people in this country who took the trouble to vote by postal referendum to say they did not think it should be a criminal offence to smack a child for the purposes of correction. It is a case of 122 of us in this House saying we know better than all of them. That is just utter arrogance which I thought we had got rid of when we got rid of the sad lot of members opposite from Government. 
As I said in my first speech the current version of section 59 fails the second test of efficacy. Had the instances of child abuse plummeted since it was passed I think we would have quietly let the issue fade away but that has not happened. Since it was passed 20 children have been killed. Sue Bradford the author of the original bill said 18 months ago that she knew it would not stop one bad parent from bashing his or her child and she was right. That legislation has failed the test of democracy and the test of efficacy. It has not worked and it has not reduced child abuse at all. The nonsense frankly that came from Su’a William Sio and the way in which he said it was almost comical. In 18 months according to him we have become a wonderful loving non-violent society. I say if only that were so; it has not happened. We keep on bashing children because the people who bash and abuse children are not the good parents who wish to smack their children. 
I say to members that they should go ahead do what is going to happen and spit in the face of 1.4 million people but we in the ACT Party are putting it down in  
Hansard  
that we think parents know better than we do and decisions on parenting are better made by them than by us. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.