Collins Judith: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22091] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 As Sue Bradford will know I considered long and hard whether to support this bill. When I saw the bill I discussed the matter with many parents and I came down firmly on the side of saying for parents: “Hey we know that parents cannot do a perfect job. I’m not a parenting expert; I’m just a parent. We don’t expect parents to be parenting experts. We expect them just to try to do the best for their kids because if they don’t do it no one else will.” Being a parent is one of the toughest jobs in the world. Our only preparation comes from our own life experience. No amount of education programmes or well-meaning advice from members of Parliament will necessarily make one scrap of difference to how a parent parents. The fact is we learn from our own parents and we actually learn from our own parents’ mistakes—mistakes that we try not to make ourselves. No doubt we all make our own mistakes and mistakes that our own parents did not make we tend to make. 
Children are not just little adults. Children cannot vote they do not drink alcohol—I hope—they do not work for income they do not get benefits and they cannot stand for Parliament but occasionally we wonder about that! A 10-year-old can hit his mother and get away with it. There are different rules for children and for adults and there are reasons for that. I do not think anybody in this Parliament and I acknowledge that previous speakers have also mentioned this would ever condone beating children. But I think about being a parent and I think about being a child and I know of people whose children have been burnt by boiling water. I have seen what happens when a little child has reached up and pulled the kettle cord and boiling water has gone all over him. I think the only thing to do when a 3-year-old is about to do that is to smack the child’s hand take him or her aside and talk about it as best one can. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been made clear that we are not to have interruptions from the gallery. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There will be no comment from the gallery. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I expect there will be an addition to the member’s time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Thank you Mr Jones. It is not all right to say to a parent who takes that sort of action that he or she could be criminally liable. I note the points made by Sue Bradford and Marian Hobbs. I note the point that we would hopefully not have Child Youth and Family Services workers running around interfering in situations like that and hopefully not have the police doing that. But I also note that that was one of the arguments that in particular Mrs Bradford gave in terms of the Prostitution Reform Bill. It was said that the police might run around prosecuting people for prostitution but I think there has been one conviction in about 3 years. 
The fact is we cannot have it both ways. Parliament does not make laws so that they can be broken. If I were to smack the hand of an adult that would be an assault. If I were to take an adult by the shoulder or arm and force that person to sit in a room by himself or herself for an hour that would be an assault. If a parent picks up a child who is physically struggling puts the child in a room shuts the door and leaves the child there that is an assault unless there is the defence of “reasonable force”. No amount of nonsense spoken in this House is going to change that. I understand that the previous speakers do not have backgrounds as lawyers but I can tell them that that is an assault. The fact is most assaults are never prosecuted—but that is still an assault. We cannot afford to criminalise our children and our parents in this way. 
I have listened to speakers talk about some of the simplistic answers. Well this bill is a simplistic answer. When we come down to the House and see instruments such as whips and canes brought in here that is done for effect and for a headline. The fact is we in this House do not know all the facts of those particular court cases. We were not one of those 12 jurors who looked at all the facts—we were not. It is not in our role to judge those jurors. If we need to redefine “reasonable force” we need to do so but simply to leave good parents wondering whether their child at a day-care centre might say: “Mummy smacks me if I do that.” and the next thing the parent finds she is in trouble is something we should not do to our parents or our children.