Turner Judy: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8470] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to tell members of a huge fear I have regarding this bill. It is a fear that nothing I have heard in any speech tonight has reassured me on and a fear that for me originated in a meeting I had with a very reputable non-governmental community organisation just after I came into Parliament. When talking to highly qualified social workers I was asked to provide some assistance with a case they had. This was a case of a family that the social workers had been dealing with for 2 years. Their contact with the family had started when the couple approached this organisation because their six children had just been removed by the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and understandably they were devastated. Department staff went to the house and discovered that it was a bit of a mess and that mum was suffering from low-level depression which explained the level of neglect the children were experiencing. So they put in a team cleaned up the house organised some support services around mum and got her back on her feet. Then the parents went back to the department and said: “OK can we have the kids back now? We have got the situation sorted.” This concerns a reputable provider. 
Two years later when I am sitting in the office these six children are still not back with their parents. They have been split up from each other and are living in separate foster homes. The very youngest ones have bonded with their foster parents who are now applying for permanent care. I could not believe that something like that could happen in New Zealand. There was no accusation of physical or sexual abuse members should remember; this was just neglect—and very low-level neglect. 
 My fear around this bill is that the people who will be policing it the most are employees of the service called Child Youth and Family. This service requires a very low burden of proof—compared with the New Zealand Police—when its staff make an arrest or get a conviction. This service has only to suspect that a child is at risk in any shape or form—and members should remember that with the passing of this bill the bar as to the definition of what constitutes risk will drop to smacking. Child Youth and Family will mostly be called in to respond the police will make referrals to that service—that is the current arrangement—and the service will go in. 
I had a very interesting email today—one of many emails we are getting—from a woman who suggested to me that Sue Bradford is about to harm the very people for whom she stands in this Chamber year after year and claims to be an advocate for. They are some of the most disenfranchised and marginalised people in this community. The woman wrote: “As the mother of preschoolers I have my personal views which have changed since I had children. But whether I choose to smack or not to smack or whether anyone does isn’t the issue. I know that as a middle-class woman in a happy marriage my chances of being prosecuted for smacking are practically nil. But I have another perspective. As a criminal lawyer who has both prosecuted and defended people charged with assaulting a child I think the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act will have disastrous and unnecessary consequences for a small group of people. The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community and their children.” 
I am hugely concerned because since that incident I described earlier I have taken an active interest in the work of Child Youth and Family. Barely a week goes by when I do not receive an email or a letter from a concerned set of family members about the way that that service has handled their case. I do not know and I am not equipped or resourced to determine whether the cases I receive across my desk are viable—whether they would stand up to investigation. But let me tell members about one common denominator across those cases—and this is what really scares me about this bill. The common denominator in the cases I get is that the people who write to me and ring me on the phone are largely poorly educated and poor at literacy do not express themselves clearly and do not have the necessary skills to make their cases. 
This lady is right. If ever an accusation was taken against her she is well able to defend herself and nothing will happen to her should she choose to smack her child. She will cope with that situation and defend herself well. But the people I deal with week in and week out I cannot even write to the Minister about.