Franks Stephen: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22094] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I look at these matters first as a lawyer then as a citizen and as a parent. I became involved in this issue 5 years ago when I was asked to speak at a Barnardos forum. I realised later that it was assumed that I would be the man in the black hat because I found that all the other parties—National and New Zealand First included—were keen on repealing section 59. I assumed that they had a sincere good motive. I understand the helpless rage that a teenager perhaps feels at being beaten. I can see the awful hurt for children who are waiting for the world to hit them—the brutalising effect of helplessness in the face of adult strength. 
I believe too that for many parents it is probably quite clear that non-violent methods of discipline are better. But I am very conscious of how humble we must be and how hard it is to find cause and effect in human circumstances. I suspect that the consistency and predictability of discipline is much more important than the actual kind and I am quite confident that cold deprivation of affection will be more damaging than some temporary exasperation expressed physically. A vicious selfishness will be just that however it is expressed but discipline from loving concern will probably work almost regardless of how it is expressed. 
I have found that the people I have dealt with—and I know that this may sound hurtful to many of them—are not sincere. I think after the many many debates I have now had that they actually enjoy the fact that many ordinary parents are outraged by the suggested interference in their child rearing. I think that this bill’s promoters relish the anguish because there is a kind of self-righteous pleasure in telling lesser mortals what to do. In fact the more the protest the more justified they feel—the more they feel that they are the leaders and are out ahead of all the people who do not know how to do it. They really get their jollies in this debate from the people who are resisting. 
New Zealand is a violent place. I heard mention of 11000 suspected cases of child abuse. Hundreds of kids out there are basically living wild and sniffing glue. There are 12-year-old girl prostitutes. Thousands of kids who are sponsored by the State and who are in fact bred by the State are victims of each other. 
I really ask the people promoting this bill whether they ever have a moment’s self-doubt. Do they ever stop to ask why New Zealand today seems to have so many more kids who have been abandoned? Do they ever stop to ask why we did not get the heaven on earth that was supposed to occur in our schools 15 years ago when corporal punishment was abolished? Does it ever occur to them that the 20000 kids suspended from school or two-thirds of the 18000 kids in the Correspondence School might still be at school if it had not been for the loss of a discipline method that was familiar to many of their families? I know that when that bill went through conservative Labour Ministers said that it would hurt their people most of all because their culture assumed rigorous discipline. 
Humility is in order for this Parliament in any situation whereby 70 or 80 percent of parents are telling us to leave them alone. Juries hear the circumstances. The law says “reasonable force”; it does not say “serious force”. This law will criminalise. In fact it is very hard for me not to use unparliamentary language when I hear some of the arguments here. I have debated with Sue Bradford five times now and she keeps saying that she does not intend to criminalise people. She knows very well that assault is any uninvited unintended and unwelcome touching and that smacking will be a criminal act if her bill goes through. 
I am also very conscious that the last time I heard this kind of cant was when the prostitution legislation was going through. Labour and the Greens insisted that we remove the provision the police had wanted that would allow police to ask the age of prostitutes. Those members went through a crocodile-tear eye-glistening performance in this House while they took out the only practical means of enforcement. They are responsible for this misery.