Bradford Sue: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
 We are engaging in a historic debate this afternoon. It appears that a majority of MPs in this House including some from nearly every party represented here will vote for this bill to proceed to the next stage of the parliamentary process. I know that MPs have various and at times contradictory reasons for supporting my bill through its second reading but nevertheless I would like to thank all of them in advance for being willing to show leadership and take some personal political risk on an issue that divides our country deeply. 
From engaging in public debates around New Zealand and hearing the submissions during our long select committee process it is clear to me that the issue of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act cuts really deeply into our national psyche. All I am seeking to do is to get rid of a law that allows a defence of reasonable force when parents beat hit or otherwise assault their children. Removing that defence would give our offspring the same protection we are kind enough to extend to other adults police officers and animals but not to our babies children and young people. Opponents of repeal continue to argue that somehow parents have an inalienable and indeed at times a God-given right to hit their children in the name of discipline. For example let us listen to this extract from one of the submissions opposed to the bill: “Like most children ours are strong-willed. Their wills are untamed and often applied in ways that can be disruptive or dangerous. They should be taught to respect others and this requires bending their wills which in turn requires force.” That submitter in her unassuming way reflects an underlying attitude towards children that my bill very directly tries to change. 
When Pakeha colonists first arrived here they brought a culture that taught that children along with women and servants were the property of their father husband or employer and that they were mere chattels to be brought into line by force. Section 59 is the last legal vestige of that culture. It is no longer legal for employers to beat their employees or their servants or for husbands to beat their wives. It is still in this supposedly enlightened 21st century within the law for parents to beat their children. Our babies and children are physically smaller than us and they know a lot less about the world than we parents do. Surely our job as parents should be to nurture and protect them until they reach independent adulthood not to use force to physically coerce them into submission. 
The Unicef report released last week makes that point very clearly. The damning figures on child safety contained in the Innocenti report and our low status compared with that of other developed countries are an indictment of the way we view and treat children in this country: as second-class citizens not deserving of the same rights and protections as adults. This legislation before us today is a small but very necessary step towards beginning to turn those attitudes around. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee worked hard on this bill. We received thousands of written submissions and heard hundreds of submitters in person. As a result of the select committee process my original bill has been substantially amended. However I would like to make it very clear that the bill that has come back to the House still clearly and plainly reflects my original intention—that is to abolish the use of parental force for the purposes of correction. Some supporters of the repeal of section 59 have been concerned that somehow the bill now waters down that intention or in some way still allows parents to legally use force as punishment. That is not the case. The intention of the newly amended bill is simply to clarify that no parent will be prosecuted for restraining his or her children when for example that parent is acting to prevent them from hurting another person or themselves or to stop them from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour. The new amendment does not provide a justification for the use of force for the purpose of disciplining a child. 
On the other hand my select committee colleague from the National Party Mr Chester Borrows has made it clear that he intends to put up a different amendment during the Committee stage in the House aimed at defining reasonable force for the purposes of correction. I will fight that amendment tooth and nail as I believe it is the worst possible thing we could do in terms of legitimising the use of force against children. I know that Mr Borrows is well meaning but unfortunately he like others who want to somehow define “reasonable force” does not seem to accept or understand that that is the worst possible thing we could do. The effect of any attempt to define “reasonable force” including Mr Borrows’ is that we would then have the State telling parents that we should hit our kids in some ways and not in others and that it is still perfectly OK to use force on children and babies that we would not consider using on adults who are actually much more able to look after themselves. Defining “acceptable force” also undermines the fantastic work being done by the SKIP programme and by church and community groups all over New Zealand in teaching and supporting parents to use other ways of bringing up their children that do not involve the use of physical discipline. 
Our country has made some progress in ensuring domestic violence against adults is unacceptable and illegal—even inside the privacy of the home. It is high time to give children the same protection that we give adults and to bring an end to the situation in which police are able to prosecute a husband for assaulting his wife but do not prosecute him for assaulting his child because he has a defence for that act. 
The debate around repealing section 59 is very intense and I think it is good that we are having a national discussion on an issue of such concern to so many people here. However some of the opposition to its repeal has been led by a very small group who claim to represent Christians. Of the 2 million people in the last census with any Christian affiliation I believe only a small minority would subscribe to the belief of some that children are little bundles of depravity who deserve and in fact need to have sin beaten out of them even as toddlers. The leadership of the Christian Churches and many individual Christians have dissociated themselves from such statements. But I think it is a pity that the views of a vociferous minority have dominated this aspect of the debate when many people of faith believe that in fact the attitude of Jesus to children was one of welcome and kindness. Nowhere did Jesus advocate physical punishment and the infliction of pain upon children nor is he reported to have advised any parents to use physical discipline against their children. 
Some of the opposition to repealing section 59 has been even more extreme than that of the most immoderate of the Christians. Just today there have been postings on the cyfswatch website that talk about the possibility of assassinating me with one contributor saying for example: “… I would like the opportunity to drive my fist straight into her face as hard as I can hopefully breaking her nose or jaw in the process.” There is more that I am not keen on repeating. A later posting asks anyone who knows my residential address to send it in to the website so it can be published as “… MP’s should no more be immune from consequences as the rest of us.” I would not normally relate that kind of thing to the House but I do so for two reasons today. Firstly I do it because I think the best response to this kind of intimidation is to make sure as many people as possible know about it and know it is not going to silence me or any of the other thousands of people—literally—who are working for this bill. Secondly I do it because I think comments like those indicate the violent nature of some of those who so fiercely defend the rights of parents to legally assault their children. 
Finally I want to say a few words on criminalisation. Much of the opposition to this bill has been driven by those who are spreading the message that if section 59 is abolished suddenly tens of thousands of loving parents will find themselves arrested by the police and prosecuted by the courts for lightly and occasionally smacking their child. Although it is true that if this bill succeeds the use of force for correction will technically be an offence that does not mean that our already very stretched police force will be taking that kind of action. The police investigate the maltreatment of a child only after a complaint is made. The investigation takes into account a whole series of guidelines such as the facts of the case how serious the offence is and whether there are alternatives to prosecution. Every day in this country many minor and technical assaults take place that are not investigated and/or that no prosecution eventuates from. The situation will not change with the passing of my bill. A real campaign of fear has been created around criminalisation and I am sorry that so many parents have felt unnecessarily threatened. 
The time has come to change this archaic law. My bill on its own will not change the culture of violence against children in New Zealand but it is one of a wide range of measures that are necessary if we are ever to be able to hold our heads high in the community of nations as a country that really is a great place to bring up kids.