Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7590. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I speak in support of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill as reported back to Parliament. I wish to congratulate Sue Bradford on her courage and commitment in introducing a member’s bill to this House to make better provision for our children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence. I give my thanks to the committee members and to the hard-working staff and officials of the committee. We received 1718 submissions and heard around 200 submitters including parents caregivers young people and representatives from organisations—some of whom had Judith Collins quaking in her boots. Every submitter who requested to be heard was heard. 
I acknowledge the many individuals who made submissions on the bill based on their own experience of raising their children and looking back on their childhood. For many it was painful. I commend them for the courage it took to tell their stories. For some the issue was the impact of violence on their young lives and the ongoing effect of it on them as adults; for others it was their regret for having hurt their own children. Then there were those parents who were genuinely fearful that they would be prosecuted for physically disciplining their children and those who believed it was not only their right but also their responsibility to strike their children. 
Many organisations spoke strongly in support of the bill. Barnardos Plunket EPOCH the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges Save the Children Unicef the Families Commission the Children’s Commissioner and many others worked determinedly to advocate for and educate about the need for change—for support for our children our families and our communities. The Body Shop petition of Barry Thomas drew some 20750 signatures in support of Sue Bradford’s bill. I am proud to say that the Waitakere City Council in my own region led the charge in speaking out in support of the bill and it was followed by both the Auckland City Council and the Porirua City Council. 
The bill has been dubbed the “Anti-Smacking Bill”. That trivialises the seriousness of the issue. It is not about introducing a prosecution. It is about removing a legal defence not about introducing a prosecution—a defence that has seen serious violence against our children deemed to be reasonable and seen parents not held accountable for their violent behaviour. Opponents claim that such cases are rare. To me that is unacceptable. Do we really want to stand by while our children are at risk in that way? In the type of case in which charges are laid people who have violently abused their children such as by beating them with a piece of wood a belt or a riding crop have used section 59 of the Crimes Act to successfully defend their actions. The majority of New Zealanders are appalled at such actions. 
Most New Zealand parents are good parents and want to do their best for their children’s welfare and safety. However the recent Unicef report has highlighted the fact that some of our children are amongst the least safe in the Western World. Our country leads in many ways—with the first women to get the vote our nuclear-free policy and our commitment to addressing climate change—but on the issue of our children’s safety and well-being we are lagging behind other Western World nations. We must work together to change that. 
It is said that it takes a village to raise a child and this Government is proud to support the many community organisations throughout New Zealand that help parents to raise happy healthy children who are able to reach their full potential. The education and public awareness programmes that promote positive parenting have been adopted by many thousands of parents community groups and educational groups throughout this country. The SKIP programme—which for the benefit of those who do not know this is Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents—is a fine example of that. As a select committee member I say it was great to hear from so many parents and organisations about the effectiveness of that programme. Our Government has invested—and very happily invested—$10.8 million over 3 years to establish the SKIP programme and we will continue to provide an additional $14.8 million over the next 4 years to enable the programme to continue. Raising children is the most valuable job in our society and providing education and support to families is a vital job of the Government. 
While considering this bill the committee noted the high level of public interest stimulated by the possible repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act and was concerned that there was widespread misunderstanding about the bill’s potential effect. There was a view that parents would be criminalised for disciplining their children and the situation was not helped by a deliberate scaremongering and misinformation campaign by opponents to the bill. For the sake of clarity the select committee requested assistance from the Law Commission in drafting changes to the bill to ensure its intention was clear and to address parents’ concerns. In doing so the majority of the select committee did not want to undermine the effects of positive parenting programmes. 
The changes suggested by the commission and agreed by the majority of the select committee encapsulated a new title and purpose clause and a substituted section 59 that clarifies when it is acceptable for parents to use reasonable force: in situations such as protecting a child from harm providing normal daily care and preventing harm from being done to others. Those amendments ensure the bill gives assurance to good parents. I thank the Law Commission for its invaluable advice on this matter. 
In addition the select committee was advised that the police would not actively solicit reports on the use of force against children as there are safeguards. The Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines that are in place ensure parents will not be prosecuted for minor acts of violence. As the legislation is now the police are obliged to follow up any reports they receive but such reports do not require significant investigation. Currently if a child is sent to his or her room that constitutes kidnapping under section 209 of the Crimes Act but the police do not prosecute parents for that any more than they prosecute high-profile rugby players for hitting a team-mate with a handbag. I believe the select committee report and amendments balance the need to make sure that good and caring parents are supported whilst ensuring that children are absolutely protected from abuse. 
Legislation like that in this bill is not uncommon. Fifteen countries have introduced similar legislation and a number of others are looking at the problem at this point in time. I was disappointed to hear Chester Borrows and Judith Collins—who was quaking in her boots at people terrifying her—refer to interest groups in such a derogatory way. Those organisations are New Zealand institutions and leaders in the care of our children—hardly radical. It may be that because they dared to be critical of an amendment that undermined and counteracted their good work as they strive to support our families both parents and children the Opposition took that stance. In dog training trainers now advocate that the use of violence is counteractive and harmful to dogs being able to reach their full potential. There is no section 59 for puppies. There is no Chester Borrows’ amendment prescribing the level of violence that is OK. Do we see the police marauding and going around arresting dog owners? 
I support this bill and I commend my Labour colleagues and other speakers in this House from other parties who have committed themselves to ensuring that our youngest and most vulnerable citizens are safe and secure.