Donald Rod: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Donald Rod: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22097] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 In the next 5 minutes while I am speaking a child will be hit unnecessarily. That punishment may scar the child for life. It may set the child on a path of violence because he or she will have learnt at an early age that hitting someone is the way to get what one wants. I do not expect some members in this House—particularly Mr Adams—to believe me but members may take heed of Dr Emma Davies of the institute of public policy at the Auckland University of Technology who is a spokesperson for Every Child Counts. In an article in the Christchurch  
Press 
 on 2 June she wrote that some of the children who grew up in violent homes are literally “incubated in terror”. She went on to state that those children are more likely to become seriously ill or to commit violent crime without remorse. They are more likely to be victims or abusers when they grow up. And so the cycle goes on. 
Sue Bradford’s bill is a crucial step towards addressing a wider culture of violence. It is not a silver bullet; it does not spell the end of child abuse and neglect. But it does remove the excuse of so-called reasonable force from our law. State-sanctioned violence against our most vulnerable citizens is intolerable in the 21st century. What may have been mainstream in 1961 is irrational in 2005. It is just as irrational as it would be if our Parliament were to legislate to give adults the power to use reasonable force against our elders when they enter their second childhood. Sue Bradford’s bill is an anti-beating bill not an anti-smacking bill. When judges and juries continue to accept section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 as legitimate justification for beating children with canes riding crops four-by-twos and other weapons it must be repealed. It does not need to be replaced by any “degrees of violence” legislation. 
But I tell members not to take my word for it; they should listen instead to the advice of the organisation that had more to do with our growth in our formative years than anyone—with the exception of course of our immediate families. I am talking about Plunket. In a very comprehensive series of questions and answers on repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act Plunket asks amongst other questions the following: “If Section 59 is repealed will I become a criminal if I smack my child?”. The answer was: “Repeal of Section 59 is about removing a law—not creating a new one. It removes the legal defense for a parent to physically assault their child and acknowledges that just like adults and pets children should be protected against assault. Repeal of Section 59 is not about criminalising parents or introducing a new law against smacking. Just as jostling and shoving at a rugby match is technically assault the police only take action when it goes too far.” Another question asked: “What’s wrong with smacking and physical punishment?” The answer was: “The vast majority of parents want the best for their children and they want to raise their children in a positive way. Physical punishment is  
not 
 the most effective way to discipline children. Positive parenting strategies have been shown to be much more effective.” 
Plunket is a member of Every Child Counts and the Green Party is pleased to support the four key policy goals of that mainstream lobby group which are to put children and families at the centre of policy development to ensure that every child gets a good start to end child poverty and to reduce child abuse and neglect. Sue Bradford’s bill is a positive step in the right direction. That is why so many organisations support this bill including the Families Commission the body set up for United Future—a body it had a big hand in creating. Its very own Families Commissioner has come out wholeheartedly in support of this bill along with the Children’s Commissioner and a whole host of other opinion leaders and individuals. So I have to ask United Future as a party that claims to be family-friendly how it can oppose this bill.