Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22040] 
7.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Will the Government support referring my bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 to a select committee today? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: 
Yes the Government will support sending this bill to a select committee. Whether section 59 should be repealed or amended is still an open question that can only benefit from wide public debate at a select committee. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister confirm that full repeal of section 59 has the support of large numbers of organisations that advocate for the best interests of children such as Barnardos New Zealand as well as both the Children’s Commissioner and the Chief Families Commissioner? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. I understand there are strong views on either side of the debate and that is why the Government supports the bill going to a select committee—so that these very issues can be debated. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Is the Government by supporting this bill taking away parents’ choices about how they discipline their children? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No. The Government does not support a ban on smacking. The Government is supporting an informed and public debate between two extremes. New Zealanders express genuine distress whenever a child has been assaulted. At the same time New Zealand parents do not want to be held criminally liable for smacking their children in the sweets queue at the supermarket. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister of Justice agree that if section 59 is repealed and smacking is therefore deemed to be abuse what parents should primarily fear is not criminal prosecution but their children being removed by Child Youth and Family Services and the ridiculous situation resulting whereby the vast majority of New Zealand families could be subject to an investigation by Child Youth and Family Services; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I cannot comment on the assertion that is made here about Child Youth and Family Services but I do have some sympathy for frontline Child Youth and Family Services staff. They are condemned when they intervene and just as strongly condemned when they do not. What they and their Minister can be congratulated on is the significant reduction in the number of cases waiting to be addressed. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister aware that similar steps in other countries—to repeal laws that are their equivalent of our section 59—have not led to police arresting parents for lightly smacking their children or physically restraining them when they are in dangerous situations? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I understand that while some countries such as Sweden and Germany have moved to end any physical disciplining of children others such as England and Wales and the state of New South Wales have amended legislation to define more closely and clarify what forms of discipline are reasonable and acceptable. 
Murray Smith 
: Why is the Government supporting this bill which will further disempower good New Zealand parents when its other social engineering legislation this term has already done enough to lose it the election? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I do not accept the assertion that we are disempowering parents. Whether repealing or amending section 59 is the best alternative is the issue that needs examination at a select committee. This debate is a serious one. The community is divided. As parliamentarians we should give the chance for this issue to be debated seriously. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister know that in Sweden the 1979 smacking ban contributed to a 489 percent increase in physical child-abuse cases classified as criminal assaults from 1981 to 1994 with the perpetration of criminal assaults against 7 to 14-year-olds increasing most rapidly in terms of those age groups raised after the smacking law was passed? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No I have not read that research but I think that is just the sort of case that should be argued in front of a select committee. I believe that that member would not agree with physical assault or brutality on children nor would he agree with the criminalisation of parents who smack their kids. We need to sort this out and clarify it. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister seen the recent Littlies Lobby research which came out last night that shows that 97 percent of the over 1300 parents of preschoolers it had surveyed did not believe physical discipline was highly effective; and given this clear signal from today’s parents will she support full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would remind members that when members are asking a question the convention is that members hear the question in silence. I ask the Hon Marian Hobbs to respond. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I heard about this research on radio this morning but I am not sure that one could conclude that 97 percent of parents support the repeal of section 59. The research does by inference support the work of this Government in investing in SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Government agree that repeal of section 59 must go hand in hand with improved education and support for parents and would-be parents; if so can the Minister guarantee that funding for groups that provide such education and support is secure under her Government? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I absolutely agree that legislation or changes in law must go hand in hand with education. Education about positive parenting and effective non-physical discipline of children that sets clear boundaries and teaches kids the difference between right and wrong is a priority for this Government. That is why we have invested $10.8 million over 3 years in the SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents positive parenting programme.