Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12754] 
2.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “I for one cannot accept that it is fair and reasonable for the law to allow a defence for those who assault children.”; if so when will her Government repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. The Government will not be considering the matter again until after an evaluation of the positive parenting programme launched last week. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents programme announced last week was indeed the same campaign that the Government originally promised children’s rights campaigners last year and how does she respond to comments from Beth Wood of Unicef New Zealand and Roger McClay the former Commissioner for Children that they are deeply disappointed with the programme? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that research shows that the most effective parenting uses love nurturing and strong boundaries and that is the focus of this campaign. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Prime Minister explain why the taxpayer-funded $10.8 million anti-smacking SKIP campaign does not once mention physical punishment; if so would she care to advise the House of her thinking? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The campaign is about promoting positive parenting. There are alternatives to physical discipline and no doubt with the money that will be spent over a 3-year period on positive parenting projects and on strengthening existing parenting programmes we can make some progress. 
Murray Smith 
: Does she accept that the vast majority of New Zealand parents consider that the occasional moderate spanking of a child is an acceptable method of child discipline and that there is a world of difference between that sort of discipline and the child abuse that leads to the hospitalisation and even the deaths of children? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The problem is that the law does allow a defence of reasonable force in an assault on a child but it does not allow such a thing in an assault on an adult. Unfortunately the benchmark cases are seeing people acquitted after taking a belt to children in a rather violent way attacking children with a hosepipe hitting a kid on the buttocks with a piece of wood and hitting a daughter with a doubled-over belt. Those are all cases that have been to court in the last 2 to 3 years that have resulted in acquittals and that is the concern I have. I believe that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has acted responsibly in getting up a campaign on positive parenting that has been well consulted on with community groups. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why is the Prime Minister tolerating something she thinks is neither fair nor reasonable when all parties in this House other than ACT have said they will support a change to section 59 of the Crimes Act? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I do not believe that is correct. Obviously I cannot speak for other parties but I have seen a range of statements from other parties that do not indicate that what the member said is correct. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that a campaign to stop parents hitting their children can actually achieve that aim if the campaign is so soft and insipid that it never uses the word “smacking” or anything like it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I believe that a well-designed campaign like this one which has been extensively consulted on with relevant community groups can have an impact over time on attitudes towards positive parenting. 
Sue Bradford 
: How does the new SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents programme address the United Nations’ criticism of New Zealand that we refuse to repeal section 59 and continue to allow our children to be hit while we continue to make it a crime to assault adults? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Like the member I am concerned that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has singled out New Zealand for criticism because of the law as it stands here at the moment. It is a matter of record that most other Western countries have moved on this issue and the Government would like to see a development in public attitudes towards the discipline of children which would see the sorts of cases that I am referring to where people have been acquitted deemed completely unacceptable.