Wagner Nicky: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7588. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the abolition of section 59 of the Crimes Act and I oppose it absolutely. I am angry that despite the input of 1700 submitters the skills of the Crown Law Office and a huge desire by all MPs in this House to do something to stop the terrible abuse of children in our country not one child will be safer happier or even better off if this legislation is passed. This bill is flawed. It is a cop-out that we have created just to show that we are trying to do something. In an attempt to pussyfoot around an issue that has polarised the people of New Zealand the Labour-Green majority on the Justice and Electoral Committee has produced a bill that is an untidy jumble of words that confuses rather than clarifies and that threatens to criminalise rather than support parents who are responsible for the protecting and nurturing of our children. This is not the way to look after our kids; it is not the way to strengthen families; and it is not the way to break the cycle of violence in our homes. 
Supporters of the bill talk of the importance of using this legislation to send a strong message to the community that using physical force to correct children is not OK and they believe that if that message gets through child abuse will miraculously stop. I do not follow this logic. The beating bashing and abuse of kids is already illegal under the existing section 59 and is abhorred by all New Zealanders. The anti - child abuse message is already strong in our communities and it is still not getting through to the right people. Do we really think they will respond to a change of wording in a piece of legislation in Wellington? 
Let us be very clear about this bill. It legislates against the smacking of children only at a level below that of reasonable force. It does not even attempt to deal with the main factors that lead to child abuse. The latest Unicef report identified poverty stress family breakdown and drug and alcohol abuse as the primary factors contributing to child abuse—not smacking. When we analyse the behaviour of the countries that have the best record in terms of looking after children and the lowest child abuse death rates six out of the top 10 allow smacking. So just how closely are smacking and child abuse linked? 
We are debating this bill for the very best of reasons. We are debating this bill because the people who care about kids and we as politicians are so concerned and shocked about the level of child abuse in New Zealand that we want to do something about it. But passing this legislation as it stands is not the answer. When we began debating the bill I was hopeful we could make a difference. Just having the discussion has been worthwhile because it has proved that despite the passion and robustness of the argument philosophically all submitters had a lot in common. Whether they were individuals child experts voluntary organisations the police or Government departments they came to submit because they were concerned about the welfare of kids. 
I think every submission made the point that there is too much violence in our society and it erupts far too often. The sadness and hopelessness we all feel when we read of another child-abuse death quite rightly shocks hurts and angers us. Equally the vast majority of submitters understood that kids need good parenting if they are going to do well. They realise that being a good parent is a very difficult job and that parents have to be encouraged and supported. There was also agreement that kids needed boundaries to feel safe and secure and that there were many strategies and parenting methods that could be used to educate discipline and control kids. 
And that is where the agreement came to an abrupt halt and all debate focused on just one of the many methods of parenting control—the smack. Instinctively we all know that repetitive physical violence and abuse are very bad for children. Research confirms that but it also shows that occasional light smacking does not cause harm in healthy family relationships. Parenting gurus will tell us that smacking unless fully discussed and explained is not effective in the long term but in the short term it works and often parents find that that is just long enough to put other strategies in place. Research also tells us that children need those consistent boundaries and often a light smack is what parents do to reinforce them. 
Actually only a very few submitters were prepared to be hard and fast and say that all smackers were criminals. Even Sue Bradford herself has said she does not want to see good parents criminalised—but that unfortunately is what this bill in its present form can do. 
The debate on this bill is nothing to do with the philosophy of bringing up kids and everything to do with the parenting strategies people use every day in their families. This is why the issue has become so emotive. What mandate does Parliament have to control or shape the very personal and very intimate relationship between parent and child? This relationship involves 24-hour 7-day-a-week care and attention over many many years. How do we devise a law that is relevant at all times under all conditions and in each and every circumstance? Logic says we cannot. Unless it is a really general statement of course the law requires specifics if it is to be enforced. 
Research and our own intuition tell us that the most critical factor in keeping a child safe and happy is its relationship with its parents and the quality of its family life. We need to have faith in families to encourage and support them. We need to embrace diversity in child-rearing methods and we need to give good parents credit for using the right parenting strategies at the right time and in the right place. Parents have this understanding from knowing and loving their kids and I believe that they absolutely understand the difference between smacking and child abuse. 
The argument that using physical force to correct kids causes child abuse is as valid as the idea that just being able to drive a car causes dangerous smashes. We need to be more discerning. Even parenting experts cannot always agree on the best way to handle all kids. 
So in conclusion I believe that this bill is technically a poor piece of legislation. It cannot fulfil the expectations of its promoters. It does not address the issues that are identified as the core factors of child abuse it restricts the options of parents and it has the ability to criminalise good parents—the very people whom we need to rely on to provide a protective and nurturing environment for their kids. The bill has a very unhealthy Goody Two-Shoes Government-knows-best attitude when every scrap of evidence on successful child-rearing indicates that happy homes and strong families are the best place for kids. 
If we really want to do something about child abuse in this country we should be using every effort to support parenting programmes and mentor families in the community rather than bickering over a piece of legislation that bullies and threatens parents and undermines their relationship with the very children we are trying to protect. In presenting this bill I believe we have failed the children of New Zealand—children like the Kahui twins the “Lillybings” and the Coral Burrows. With all Parliament’s resources and the time and the energy that have gone into this bill we should have been able to come up with something better.