Fitzsimons Jeanette: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7592. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I give my wholehearted support to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for the full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act as in fact do all of our Green MPs. I congratulate my colleague Sue Bradford on the hard work the persistence and the determination that she has shown in getting it this far—even in the face today of death threats. I acknowledge and thank other speakers tonight who have supported the bill for some very supportive and in some cases very moving speeches: Mark Burton; Brian Donnelly who gave us a lot of facts stemming from his experiences as a schoolteacher which I thought were a very valuable contribution to the debate; Tariana Turia whose heart is clearly with us; Jim Anderton who gave a moving speech; and Lynne Pillay who did great work as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and who has been so forceful in her support just now. 
Non-violence is one of the four core principles on which the Green Party is founded. We believe that non-violence if it is to prevent war and international destruction has to start in the family in the home in the school and in the community if it is to flow through to between nations. This bill is just part of a very long process of trying to build a non-violent society. 
I will tell three stories tonight from personal experience; I think most of the academic arguments have been made. I will tell stories about three children—one of them was me. All of the stories have the theme that if beating a child seems to work because it changes the child’s behaviour is anybody asking why and is anybody asking what is going on in the mind of that child at the time? 
My father was a schoolteacher of the old school and he believed in the strap—not child abuse nothing illegal—but he believed that one did not use it often but when one did one used it really hard. Part of the punishment were the words “go and get me the strap”. So I would go and get the instrument of my own beating bring it back and get a thrashing. I want to focus on what that did to me. The fact that it hurt is neither here nor there; it was completely not the point it does not matter. But did I feel sorry for what I had done? Never. Did I feel remorseful? Did I think: “Oh that was naughty I’d better not do that again.”? Never. Did I decide to change my behaviour? Only to ensure that next time I did not get caught. What did I feel? I felt resentment I felt anger I felt humiliation and I felt a determination to get even. Is that the sort of reaction that we want to provoke in our children? I would suggest that it is actually quite counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve in hitting a child. 
When I had children myself the instinct carried over and my first reaction when I got furious with them—as one does with children—was that I wanted to hit them. I made a decision early on that I was not going to do that and it was a task of a number of years to actually train myself not to hit the kids when I was angry but to use the other methods that I knew could be used. Most of the time I succeeded in that. But because one’s own conditioning carries over when one grows up it took quite a lot of effort. 
The second story I want to tell is about a father and his 2-year-old daughter who were visiting my home many years ago. She was engrossed in what she was doing and did not really take any notice of her father when he asked her to do something. So he said: “Come here I’m going to smack you.” Of course a 2-year-old being told she is going to get smacked does not “come here” so the demands continue: “Come here. If you do not come here right now you’re going to get a real thrashing.” When she finally did come it had worked up to such a point—for a really really small error in the first place—that he put her over his knee and really walloped her on the bottom. Now that was just a smacking. That is what most of the opponents of this bill think is perfectly normal and parents should be able to do. I looked at why that child’s behaviour changed and it was fear. I looked at the fear in her eyes as she looked at her father and I asked myself whether we want to discipline our children by making them so afraid of us that they cannot think for themselves and they just act out of fear. 
The third story is about another 2-year-old with his father. This is much more recent. Two-year-olds can be very trying. They have temper tantrums; they are testing the boundaries all the time. They do things like picking up their dinner and throwing it around the walls. If one can manage to persuade oneself not to laugh—which is important—something has to be done. As soon as that behaviour starts this particular father says: “No it’s time you sat on the naughty mat.” The naughty mat is in the corner of the room and if the child does not go of his own free will he is picked up firmly without violence sat on the naughty mat with his back to the rest of the room where he cannot see people and held there until he calms down. At the end of that time there are usually tears cuddles and reconciliation. I have never seen that child express fear of his father but he is a much better behaved child than the one I witnessed many years ago. 
This is not about opposing discipline. It is not about having no boundaries on children’s behaviour. Children need firm boundaries. They need to know where the limits are and those limits must be enforced. But it is about enforcing those boundaries in a non-violent way. It is about enforcing them with respect for that child as an individual in his or her own right. 
If we want to build a non-violent society we know that after this bill becomes law parents will need help to change the sort of discipline they use. I can imagine that it could be quite hard for a parent of an 8 or 9-year-old who has always thrashed the child to suddenly start disciplining that child without thrashing it. It is important that we provide opportunities and information for parents on how to change their methods of discipline to fit in with the new expectations that society has that that they do not use thrashings. The Greens will do everything we can to support that change in society and to support and encourage parents to use the many techniques that are available to set firm boundaries for children without beating the daylights out of them.