Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21259] 
12.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he still stand by his statement with regard to parental discipline that “The truth is that the Government is working through the issue and has not yet arrived at a conclusion.”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I do. This Government is concerned to prevent family violence but Government measures must support parents by giving alternatives to physical discipline and avoid criminalising ordinary parents who may smack a child. Whether that is best achieved by repealing or amending section 59 is still an open question that can only benefit from debate in the wider public arena. 
Judy Turner 
: How does the Minister reconcile his statement made at the Plunket Society conference over the weekend that the Government does not yet have a policy on repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act with the Prime Minister’s indication yesterday that she believes it should be repealed; and whom should parents believe on this issue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Prime Minister has made it clear that that is her personal opinion on the matter. It is clear as we have been stating for some time that we chose to invest in parenting programmes and that we will revisit the issue. As I have mentioned we are very clear on the notion that Government measures must support parents to provide alternatives to physical discipline but we want to avoid criminalising ordinary parents who choose to smack a child. And of course this issue is best opened to wide public debate. 
Helen Duncan 
: What initiatives has this Government put in place to prevent family violence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Heaps. Family violence is a critical issue for this Government and we have established a number of policies: the Te Rito Government strategy oversees the policy; $10.8 million for Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents which is a positive parenting programme; Family Violence Funding Circuit Breaker teams; the community collaborative initiatives fund for prevention of family violence; the Child Youth and Family Services Everyday Communities programme; New Zealand Family Violence Clearing House; family safety teams; advocates for children witnessing family violence; and a Family Violence Intervention Programme in Work and Income offices from July this year. It is a great deal. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that beating children with riding crops and lumps of wood as allowed by the courts under section 59 of the Crimes Act is unacceptable in a civilised society and does he also agree that describing Sue Bradford’s bill as banning smacking is confusing and trivialising the issue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In answer to the first question yes. In answer to the second question my understanding of Ms Bradford’s bill is that it seeks to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act not to ban smacking. I do not know anybody in the House who would want to take that position but the National Party for its own purposes loves being confused and loves confusing the issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not necessary. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister accept that simply removing section 59 of the Crimes Act without replacing it with something else such as my member’s bill provisions would mean that any parents who physically disciplined their child would be committing a criminal offence; if so does he consider that people who commit criminal offences are criminals only if they are successfully prosecuted? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not accept the premise of the member’s question. What I think we are up to in this debate is as I signalled in my answer to the primary question that no one in the House condones anybody using violence on a child that leads to harm. Everybody in the House wishes to avoid any notion that an ordinary parent smacking a child would end up being criminalised and therefore the best step forward at the present time is to allow for an open debate. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has he seen reports from the Plunket Society the Commissioner for Children the Law Society and many community groups such as the National Council of Women the Public Health Association of New Zealand the Paediatric Society and now the Families Commissioner all supporting repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act and would he agree that that shows that a wide cross section of middle New Zealand and groups concerned about the welfare of children and families support Ms Bradford’s bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think recent opinion polls as well as that long list show that public opinion on this matter has changed quite significantly over recent years and therefore I repeat that I think the position we are in is that people are opposed to physical discipline of children that leads to harm and they want to avoid criminalisation of ordinary parents who smack their children and therefore it is time for a wide open debate about these issues which all those people have called for. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister accept that unintended consequences of the member’s bill seeking to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act mean that an amended version would better serve his Government’s position on this matter? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: While members of this Government hold views on this issue there is no specific policy because as we have said we have chosen to invest in positive parenting programmes and to evaluate those. But we are clear where public opinion lies and therefore we invite members of the House to allow the wider public to have a view on this matter. It is a matter that requires the input of the public. It is very clear that the parameters of this debate are about avoiding criminalising ordinary parents and ensuring that children are kept safe. Allow an open debate! 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government will treat the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act as a conscience issue; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The only bill before this House on this matter is a member’s bill and it is yet to be decided upon. But I think it would be the view of the Labour members of the House that that bill should go to a select committee where the public can have a say on the issue rather than our trying to shut it down as some people seem to want to do. 
Murray Smith 
: I seek leave to table a copy of my member’s bill which clarifies the difference between abuse and appropriate physical discipline. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a document calling for the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act signed by Presbyterian Support New Zealand Parents Centres New Zealand and many other groups. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a remit passed by the New Zealand Plunket Society supporting the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act which points out that it provides a legal excuse in cases of serious assault against children. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Barbara Stewart 
: I seek leave to table my member’s bill which outlaws attacking a child with a secondary implement and also hitting a child around the head. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.