Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7218] 
5.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Why is the Government not moving to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 immediately as one means of addressing the increasing abuse of children identified in the most recent  
Social Report 
? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The  
Social Report 
 does not show an increase in the rate of child abuse over the 6-year period its statistics cover in this area nor does section 59 of the Crimes Act provide a defence to the types of abuse and neglect of children recorded in that report. However the Government is currently putting in place a public education campaign on alternative and more effective forms of disciplining children rather than smacking. Changes to the law on physical punishment of children will be considered once the campaign is under way and has been evaluated. 
Sue Bradford 
: In the light of the fact that the Minister will not move to repeal section 59 immediately under what circumstances does he think it is OK for parents to hit or physically assault their children? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Section 59 of the Crimes Act sets out quite clearly the answer to that question—that is every parent of a child and every person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child if the force used is reasonable under the circumstances. The cases referred to in the Social Report would not be regarded as reasonable by anyone in the community let alone any judge looking at that. 
Mita Ririnui 
: Why is it considered important that a public education programme precede consideration of changes to the law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Law change without attitudinal change and an awareness of alternatives to the use of force is unlikely to be effective. 
Sue Bradford 
: How does allowing parents to for example beat their children with a stick or a piece of hose comply with provisions of the new Care of Children Bill which states amongst other things that: “The welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration … in any other proceedings involving the guardianship of or the role of providing day-to-day care for or contact with a child.”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It does not. I am aware of four cases determined by jury trial where the use of a physical implement was regarded by the jury as constituting reasonable force. One of the options open to this House is to redefine what is reasonable force in the same way the Parliament in New South Wales has. The survey of public opinion in New Zealand shows overwhelmingly the public belief that reasonable force is only smacking with an open hand and then not about the head or the neck. 
Sue Bradford 
: How can the Government persist in justifying this legalised physical abuse of children when we do not tolerate it legally with adults? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member will find if she looks at the research I had done through the Ministry of Justice that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders—in fact 80 percent—do not believe that a person should be prosecuted for smacking a child as a form of discipline with an open hand.