CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : The point is that we are writing the Crimes Act here. We are not writing a parenting manual or the policy for Child, Youth and Family, the Plunket Society, or Barnardos. We are not rewriting the SKIP programme and we are not rewriting some page out of the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly. We are actually writing the law here.

The Crimes Act is full of matters called justification and excuse, and section 59 is one of them. It fits in with such matters of justification and excuse, like self-defence or the defence of another, the law around provocation, the law around necessity, the protection of property, and the right to eject people from one’s property on trespass. It all comes out of the same box. It all has to define an extreme of where the law will allow one to go when using force on another person. As abhorrent as that may seem to be, and as accused as I am by those on the other side of this debate of trying to define a justification for parents to smack their kids just so far, or assault them, or beat them, or whatever expletive they want to use, that is what the law does when one is writing matters of justification and excuse.

The reason for section 59 is that the law recognises, and has for generations, that parenting is a hard job—it is a damned hard job. So the law cuts parents some slack. It says that parents under stress may use force, but they can use force only if it is reasonable in the circumstances. We are not saying it is good or bad, we are not saying good parents smack and bad parents do not, we are just saying that parents do. We will allow them to use reasonable force, which is reasonable in the circumstances. The law cuts parents that much slack, it makes that accommodation for parents, because parenting is a real hard job and parents are under pressure. It is just as the Prime Minister recognised, when she was asked by Bob McCroskey on Radio Rhema some time before the election; she said exactly the same thing. The trouble is, of course, that she said on that occasion that she would not be voting to prohibit smacking, and that is exactly what she is doing now.

The Labour Party, the Greens, and everybody else who is voting for this bill, will remove that accommodation for parents under pressure, which has existed for generation upon generation. Helen Clark says that this bill will protect every child against being thrashed, bashed, thumped, and belted. Well, it will not. People on both sides of the debate admitted all the way through the select committee process that the bill will not protect those children. But, now, all of a sudden, just because the Prime Minister says it will protect them, what do you know, everyone else says it will, too. Well, 83 percent of New Zealanders out there know very well that it will not protect them. When Helen Clark talks about those of us who are suggesting an amendment in this case to allow parents to use reasonable force, she says that we want parents who bash, thrash, beat, and thump their children to be able to justify it. I say to her that when it comes to being a parent she would not know what day it is.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Kia ora. I want to take just a brief call and also reiterate what my colleague Mr Chester Borrows said. I have been a parent for some years. We have five children and on the odd occasion, yes, we have smacked our children. I take deep offence at what the Prime Minister said this morning in the New Zealand Herald. I am neither a basher nor an abuser of my children, and I regard what she said as a slight on all good parents of this nation.

This bill has nothing to do with protecting kids from abuse. There are ample laws in our statutes now that protect children from abuse, as my colleague Chester Borrows has just said. We are not writing a Child, Youth and Family policy, a child policy, or a child welfare policy; we are actually involved in rewriting the Crimes Act. If we are doing that, then let us stick to the issues.

What does this bill do? Does it make people with a guilty conscience feel better? Most probably, it does. What does it really do? Will it stop the sort of abuse that we see around this nation? It absolutely will not. What it will do is to marginalise between 80 and 85 percent of the nation’s good parents—good parents, who only want to get on with raising their children and making sure they have a shelter over their head, have clothes for their body, and are loved. What more could anyone ask for?

R Doug Woolerton: Smack it into them, mate!

Hon TAU HENARE: That is Doug Woolerton. Poor old Doug. He is on his way out, so he has to have some sort of valedictory speech—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has been here long enough to know that he cannot refer to members by one name. It must be by the member’s full name. I refer to Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7.

Hon TAU HENARE: Thank you, Mr Chairman; I am just back from a 6-year sabbatical. Mr Doug Woolerton is on his last legs. But I digress. This is a serious matter, but Doug Woolerton does not see it like that. He wants to criminalise most of the parents in this good nation of ours. He wants to line them up. I will tell members this: the day this bill passes—if it passes—I make a vow to go down to the police station and confess that I have smacked my children. I have smacked my children—well, whoop-de-do! They are not in jail; they are actually good, responsible kids.

All that people who support this bill want to do is to criminalise parents. That is all they will do, even if—

Hon George Hawkins: Rubbish!

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, yeah—well, it is a long time since old George Hawkins had some children to look after. But that is OK. This bill is all about a criminal act. It is about using force as a defence. If those who support it are saying that they want to be the parents of our children, then they should come out and say that. But then they can look after my kids, clothe them, send them to whichever school they decide on, and have all the responsibility of doing that. If they are not going to take on that responsibility, they should not tell me or the many other good parents in this nation how we should run our lives at home and how we should bring up our kids.

In the New Zealand Herald this morning, the Prime Minister had the audacity to actually accuse the majority of parents in this nation of being abusers and bashers. That is beyond belief. That will be the Government’s Waterloo. Every Government has a Waterloo, and that will be this Government’s Waterloo.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next member, I just say that I have been fairly tolerant with speakers. We are actually debating clause 2A. I have given members some latitude on that, and members’ previous speeches have been pretty wide ranging. But I ask members if they can, please, to try to debate what the clause states. I know it is not an easy clause; I understand that. The real issues of the bill are in clauses 3 and thereon in. But clause 2A is a really narrow one. I suggest that members ask themselves, for instance, whether the bill should amend the Crimes Act or whether this is the right bill to do that with. They really need to relate their speech to what is in the clause. I know that is not easy, but the real meat is in other clauses.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : As you have correctly pointed out, Mr Chairman, clause 2A of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill states that the bill amends the Crimes Act 1961. Therefore, I think it is highly relevant to this debate to determine what the Crimes Act 1961 actually states in relation to smacking a child. If we are to amend the Act, then, by definition, we are changing what is currently in it to something else. I particularly want to challenge the remarks made by the member Russell Fairbrother, by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, and by the sponsor of the bill, Sue Bradford, that smacking has always been illegal in New Zealand. To me, those comments display a complete ignorance of what the Crimes Act at present states in relation to smacking. What it states is that the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. Let us take a situation of a child receiving a light smack—one light smack with the hand. Is that a crime in New Zealand at the moment?

Hon Members: Yes, it is!

GORDON COPELAND: No it is not. I will go to the Crimes Act, which is what we are debating. The Act defines the word “justified” as follows: “ ‘Justified’, in relation to any person, means not guilty of an offence”—not guilty of an offence—“and not liable to any civil proceeding:”, if the force used is reasonable. I want to ask a question of those who have just barracked in a prepared sort of way that one smack by the hand is already illegal. Since the Crimes Act 1961 was brought into being, from that day to this—[Interruption] My point is relevant to the amendment to the Crimes Act 1961, Mr Chairman. I am within the Standing Orders on this, I am absolutely sure. I want to ask those members how many parents who have smacked their child once have been prosecuted and found guilty in the courts of New Zealand. I will tell them the answer: not one single person. On that note, I rest my case and challenge the member in the chair, Sue Bradford, to tell me otherwise. Can she tell me where and when the parent of any child who has been smacked like that has been found guilty of a crime. The member is saying that smacking at the moment is a crime; I am saying very definitely that it is not a crime.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I would like to take a brief call to make a direct response to Mr Copeland. Of course, as far as I know, there has never been a conviction or a prosecution of someone once lightly smacking a child. That is simply because we have the defence of reasonable force under section 59 of the Crimes Act, which is for the purpose of correction. It is this section this bill seeks to repeal. The problem is that at the moment we have cases where people who severely beat their children escape conviction in court under section 59 of the Crimes Act. The whole point is that this bill is not an anti-smacking bill; it is an anti-beating bill. Under section 194 of the Crimes Act an assault on children under 14 is against the law. The situation in this country is that we have this defence of reasonable force, which allows people to get away with quite seriously assaulting their children. Thank you.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I want to record, in somewhat general terms, my objection to Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, because she is amending the Crimes Act to make normal parental behaviour criminal. That is her intention. It does no good for her to say that all she is doing is removing a defence, so, therefore, smacking is already illegal. That is simply not true. If one has a statutory defence, one’s actions are protected. No crime is committed; there is not a criminal offence. How much plainer can one get the situation than that? If we take away section 59, we create a criminal offence—and that is what Sue Bradford is doing.

The last intervention made by Sue Bradford was really remarkable, because certainly it seemed to me and my colleagues that Sue Bradford was actually making an argument for members to vote for Chester Borrows’ amendment. Sue Bradford at various times has come and gone a bit on that issue. I appreciate that she is now saying no, but at an earlier stage she said she did not want to criminalise ordinary parental behaviour—amend the Crimes Act, as is stated by clause 2A, to criminalise ordinary parental behaviour—even though that is exactly what she is doing.

I have asked people in my electorate, by a scientific, random opinion poll, for their view on this issue.

Jill Pettis: Well, that’s an oxymoron—“scientific, random”!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I can tell members on the Government side of the Chamber and other members of this Committee that over 80 percent said they do not want normal parental behaviour to be criminalised. That is, in fact, entirely consistent with all the current opinion polls, so that proves the accuracy of my method. I actually asked a second question, because I thought it was important that we know more than that. My second question was: “Do you think that the use of implements should be eliminated?”. We have all heard about the cases involving jug cords, pieces of timber, and so forth, and there have been some problems with regard to that issue—we all know that. The public was also clear on that matter. Eighty percent do want implements to be eliminated. So, effectively, 80 percent of the population are saying that Chester Borrows is right—and Sue Bradford’s intervention effectively admited that.

One of the purposes of the criminal law is to make criminal conduct certain, one way or tother—something is either a crime or not a crime. People should not have to rely on police discretion determining whether their behaviour is criminal. If we allow this bill to go through, we are abandoning our responsibility as legislators in favour of the police exercising their discretion. That is an abandonment of our responsibilities. Good parents should not have to rely on police discretion. Good parents should be able to understand the law and say that either their conduct fits within it or it does not, in some cases perhaps. That is the role of legislators—to provide certainty to our society.

The proposal made by Sue Bradford to amend the Crimes Act will criminalise normal parental behaviour, and that is why it is simply wrong for us to be legislating in this way. There is a deep anger in the community. There is deep anger in the community, firstly, about the way that this Government is ignoring the heartfelt views of New Zealanders. But it goes further than that. Secondly, people in the community are asking the Government and Sue Bradford why they are potentially making them criminals, why they are asking them to become dependent on police discretion, and why they are making the law less certain, so that ordinary parental behaviour becomes criminal behaviour.

The Prime Minister herself was confused on this whole issue, as well. She said this bill was aimed only at those people who beat their children. That is wrong, and she knows it is wrong. We have proved that in this Chamber by quoting her own words back to her. I say that Government members should read what the Prime Minister has said, and vote for Mr Borrows’ amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): In the hope that someone will be relevant to the clause, I will call the next speaker. But I want members to try to debate clause 2A. We are not actually doing that at the moment.

JILL PETTIS (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : I will be very, very specific about what this particular clause, 2A, does. It amends the Crimes Act. I have looked at the Crimes Act to see what that Act—especially as it relates to section 59—is intended to do. Its intention is good and honourable. The Crimes Act states that hitting somebody is wrong. If we go and beat up people in the street, hit them in the pub, or wherever else, that is a crime. I am pleased that that is a crime and that nobody in this Committee would support doing it.

But if we look at section 59 of the Crimes Act, we see that it provides a reasonable defence for parents who may have used what would not be acceptable in another situation. For example, I would not accept any other parent giving my child even a slight smack. That is not that person’s role, it is not his or her function, and I do not want other parents or anybody else doing it. But section 59 provides a defence for a parent who may have done so.

Some of the hysteria that has been whipped up around this issue comes from the view that every time a parent smacks his or her child, the parent will be taken off to jail by the police and charged. I think that view is wrong, but the sponsor of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, Sue Bradford, needs to think about some cases that I think would be of grave concern to most New Zealanders.

The first case is in matrimonial property dispute area. I have had experience in this as a constituent member of Parliament, and I am sure that Sue Bradford may have had the same experience. When a marriage is breaking up we hear some outrageous claims being made, such as the wife claiming that the husband has sexually abused the children. That is a big call and, if it was true, it would be worthwhile claiming that. But in some cases it is just a matter of one parent trying to get back at the other parent by stopping that parent getting custody of the kids.

I look at the Crimes Act 1961 and I think that surely if we make it a crime to smack children, as the removal of this defence will do, then when it comes time for a matrimonial break-up, it will be really easy for someone to win the matrimonial settlement. A parent might just tell the truth and say that the husband, for instance, hit the children. He might have given them the gentle smack that we have talked about. It might have been agreed by both parents that it is good to teach the children the proper way to behave and to teach them right and wrong. But now we see the difference. The husband will have to fess up. The judge might even ask the children whether Daddy gave them a smack. The kids will innocently say that he did, and, because the section 59 defence is removed, the husband will then be a criminal, and that could impact heavily on his ability to get custody or all sorts of other things. So there is a situation under this legislation that we will immediately be exposing people to, whereas in the past parents could say that they smacked a child, that they did it properly, and that their spouse did it as well or that both parents had agreed that it was teaching their child boundaries.

Then we get into the other sorts of disputes that members of Parliament are brokering all the time—disputes about neighbours. I mean, how better to get at our neighbour who has a noisy dog or who has a driveway that goes past our house than to try to make him or her a criminal? I have actually thought about the Crimes Act 1961, and I say that with this amendment we could make people criminals if we want to get at them for any of those things. Because section 59 will no longer be a defence, we can deal to our neighbours by saying that we saw them hit the kids or smack a child. We can say that we saw them smack a child.

Jill Pettis: Relevance.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No, that is terribly relevant. Jill Pettis, who is normally at elocution lessons on a Wednesday, is going on about relevance. Well, I tell the member to go back to her elocution lessons, because they are not working. I also tell her that I think it is highly relevant that good, ordinary parents could, in the course of their normal lives, be made criminals.

None of us in this Committee are supporting any legislation that would allow people to use implements, tools, or weapons. Chester Borrows’ amendment takes care of all of that. Anybody who beats their kids should be prosecuted; I agree with that. Anybody who uses weapons or implements, or who leaves marks, draws blood, or cuts their children, should be dealt to. But what Chester Borrows is saying—what, actually, Sue Bradford has on a number of occasions defended, and what the Prime Minister has said she would never want to outlaw—is that parents should be able to use their right, with a gentle smack, to teach their young children right and wrong. But when it comes to this bill and Chester Borrows’ amendment to the Crimes Act 1961—oh no! That amendment from Chester Borrows, even according to Sue Bradford—here is how genuine she must be—would get her 90 percent of what she is looking for. That would give Sue Bradford a 90 percent chance of saving kids. It would stop all of the abuse and so on. But what will she do if she gets 90 percent of what she is looking for? Nothing—if she does not get 100 percent of what she wants, she will spit the dummy and throw the bill out. That shows that she does not care genuinely about kids, because getting 90 percent of what she wants would be a hell of a lot better than just throwing the bill out and walking away.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. National has a lot of speakers wishing to take a call on this clause. The amendment of the Crimes Act 1961 is extremely important to us, and I would like you to consider ruling accordingly and hearing the rest of our speakers, please.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 60/7 which states that the chairperson is the sole judge as to whether a closure is accepted. I also refer the member to Standing Orders 138 and 137(3). I am not going to accept the closure yet; I am going to accept the next speaker, the honourable member Rodney Hide.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : We are debating clause 2A of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I want to pick up on the points that my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson has been making about a real case that already exists in New Zealand.

But, first of all, I make this point. We are seeing a complete trampling of Parliament here with this bill, because this is, quite properly, a conscience vote issue. We see every political party, bar one, is having a conscience vote. We see the Greens; I know the Green MPs can vote as they choose, and they all choose to support Sue Bradford’s bill. I think that Parliament and the public of New Zealand can appreciate that. We see the ACT party—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member coming to the clause?

RODNEY HIDE: I know, I am coming to the clause—this is a vote; I want to explain that vote, then I will get on to the point.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is a very narrow clause.

RODNEY HIDE: It is a very narrow clause, but we are adjusting the Crimes Act in a way that will criminalise the parents of New Zealand, and we are doing so in a way that is undemocratic and unparliamentary. If the Labour Party and the Prime Minister allowed members to vote as their conscience dictated, this clause would not go through. The great National Party has MPs voting for the bill—that is fine; that is how a proper democratic party should operate. It is proud to let its MPs vote as their conscience dictates. If we go over to the Labour side of the Committee, George Hawkins wants to vote against this clause.

Hon George Hawkins: No, I don’t.

RODNEY HIDE: He wants to vote against this clause, but he is not allowed. Clayton Cosgrove wants to vote against this clause, but he is not allowed. Dover Samuels wants to vote against this clause, but he is not allowed. If we had a free vote then I could accept the result, and so could the people of New Zealand. But we are not allowed one. Whose conscience is it that is determining this result?

Hon Members: Helen Clark’s.

RODNEY HIDE: Helen Clark’s conscience rides over her own caucus. What a pack of voting ciphers!

I want to tell members about one case that I have been familiar with for many, many years as a constituent MP. It goes like this. A man was observed smacking his child in the street probably 11 or 12 years ago. A person reported his smacking his child to Child, Youth and Family. People from Child, Youth and Family turned up and interviewed him. It so happens that this man is a good friend of mine. He is a professional man and is very, very successful. He is also—I guess what we would describe as—a fundamental Christian. He explained when Child, Youth and Family told him—

Hon David Cunliffe: Oh, he couldn’t have done it then.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, David Cunliffe wants to be a smart alec. Child, Youth and Family explained to him that he should not smack his child. He said that he was the father and he would smack his child. As a result of that, proceedings were instigated against the man and he lost his three kids to Child, Youth and Family. They were taken off him and his wife.

It gets worse. A psychologist then said to the wife that the best way to get her kids back was to leave the husband because he was the problem. She left the husband to try to get the kids back, and still could not get them back because of the smacking. I promise you, Mr Chairman, that this bill will make that a fait accompli. This is what then happened in the case. The children went through foster home after foster home where they were physically abused—they were bruised, and they were beaten.

Hon Members: Oh!

RODNEY HIDE: “Oh, well. This isn’t relevant.”, the Labour members say. They do not want to hear the truth. The man finally got his children back after 7 years, and after spending $400,000 through the courts.

Hon Member: That’s under the present law.

RODNEY HIDE: That is under the present law. What I am saying is this legislation will make that a fact of life. People smacking their children will be committing a criminal offence. That is what clause 2A does.

What do we hear from the promoter of the bill, Sue Bradford? We hear: “Don’t worry, the police won’t prosecute.” Excuse me? We live in a country where there is a rule of law, where this Parliament makes a law and it is the police’s job to implement it—they do not get a choice about which law they apply and which they do not. So what will happen is that when there is a complaint—and we have already seen this from the police—they will investigate. What this legislation does is make me, as a parent, a criminal.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : Thank you for allowing me to take this call, Mr Chairman. I will try as much as possible to confine my debate to clause 2A, which is a part of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill that amends the Crimes Act—that criminalises good parents, and that makes a judgment call that this Government knows parenting skills better than parents themselves do and that if one does not toe the line, one will be committing an offence against the Crimes Act. With this amendment, good parents will be turned into criminals under the Crimes Act. Under the Crimes Act it is the crime of assault to apply, or attempt to apply, “force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose”. That is the definition of assault. A mere touching is defined as assault under the Crimes Act. A pat on the bottom is assault, or can be assault, under the Crimes Act. The brushing of some part of a person’s body can be assault under the Crimes Act.

Assault does not depend on the level of harm; harm can be great or minor. Assault is not just thrashing and bashing; good parents will be guilty of assault if they lightly smack their children on the bottom—that is the fact of it. We have the Prime Minister of this country saying: “We’re not going to have thousands of mums and dads lined up in court because a hand happened to come into contact with a bottom.” Well, that will not be the case, because they will be lined up in court, they will be criminalised, and they will be charged with assault under the Crimes Act 1961.

The Crimes Act as it currently stands, as we know, provides a defence in section 59 where reasonable force is used by way of correction towards a child. That is a question of fact—what is reasonable and what is not. That is what the few cases relating to this section have determined, whether that determination was by a judge or by a jury.

This matter has been sensationalised. We have heard about the case of the riding crop—a riding crop that was the thickness of a little finger, which was used against a 12-year-old boy who was bigger than his mother, was out of control, and was about to hit his stepfather around the head with a baseball bat.

Hon Member: With a what?

KATE WILKINSON: With a baseball bat. He was about to—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is a very narrow clause.

KATE WILKINSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. A jury of 12 reasonable, ordinary New Zealanders decided that that was reasonable and not a crime under the Crimes Act. This bill removes that defence under the Crimes Act and replaces it with a justification in using reasonable force for other than the purpose of correction. Under this bill one can use reasonable force to prevent harm, criminal activity, and offensive or disruptive behaviour. That is ridiculous, because proposed new section 59(2) inserted by clause 4 overrides that by the provision that nothing justifies the use of force for the purposes of correction. It makes a total nonsense to say that we can use reasonable force to prevent our children from being disruptive or offensive, but not use it as a corrective measure to prevent our children from being disruptive or offensive.

So what does this bill do? On the one hand, it appears to confer a defence in one clause, but on the other hand it takes that defence away completely in the next clause. That is ludicrous, and I suspect that this will be fertile litigation material for lawyers—which is the last thing any reasonable parent wants, the last thing any child needs or wants, and the last thing any family wants.

By amending the Crimes Act under this clause, in the manner contemplated by this bill, we are making more criminals. We are making criminals of good parents who are trying to bring up their children to be responsible, caring members of our society. It will be difficult enough for those children to grow up into responsible citizens if they know that their parents have just been turned into criminals. Thrashing, bashing, and beating are not OK. This bill, however, will create another mischief—that of criminalising parents. This bill is a disaster. It is a sticking plaster on the sore, but the sore remains. Yes, we have a mischief of child abuse and domestic violence, and, yes, we need to deal with it.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is my duty to keep within the Standing Orders. After all, these are the rules that have been crafted for well over a century of parliamentary practice in New Zealand, and it is my duty to ensure that they are upheld. I have been very tolerant; this is a very narrow clause, and I can see that members are keen to get into the substance of the bill, so I am going to accept the motion.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you can just confirm, for those of us gathered here, the advice given to this Parliament by your colleague Ann Hartley when we commenced debate on the Committee stage that clauses 3 and 4 would have wide-ranging debates, and that members would be given leniency to be able to debate them widely.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I tell the member that clause 3 is the purpose clause, and members may debate right over it—it is a very wide clause. So the member is perfectly correct.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I would like to take a call, because we are finally getting to the very heart of my bill. The purpose of what we are trying to achieve here, as amended by the Justice and Electoral Committee, is to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment, free from violence, by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. This bill is all about putting children first.

I would like to refer briefly to some comments made by Judith Collins in the debate just a little while ago on clause 2A. She said: “This bill should be about what is in the best interests of children.” and went on to say: “I heard the most appalling suggestions tonight from Labour Party members that we … should have a voice for children here in Parliament.” What a disgraceful statement from a National member. This bill is all about giving a voice to children in this Parliament. For far too long, the voices and interests of babies, children, and young people have been denied in this place of power. Nearly 20 years ago we got rid of the defence under section 59 of the Crimes Act that had allowed our children, for generations, to be beaten in our schools. That was a tremendously progressive step, but I still cannot understand why this part of the Crimes Act was not got rid of at that time. It was, sadly—

Hon Chris Carter: An omission.

SUE BRADFORD:—an omission on the part of the then Government, if I may say so. But at least we are finally reaching the point in this Parliament where children’s interests can be represented.

Section 59 of the Crimes Act, as it is currently framed, gives parents the right to beat their children in the most appalling ways, as we have seen over and over again in court cases. This is an anti-beating bill, not an anti-smacking bill. Section 59 of the Crimes Act provides less protection for children than we provide for adults in this country, and I think that it is disgraceful that we continue with that—that anyone should think that our babies and children, who are smaller, more vulnerable, less mature, and know less about the world than us, should somehow be obliged to endure this ongoing culture of violence against them in a way that we do not permit adults to endure.

Hon Chris Carter: Less protection than a dog.

SUE BRADFORD: Yes. This whole culture of violence against children is something that has brought us into international disrepute. We have had United Nations reports—and, most recently, the Unicef Innocenti report—describing how one of the worst aspects of the way in which we treat children in this country is that we simply do not respect them We do not value them. I think this is part of the unfortunate and ugly side of our culture that those of us who are Pākehā have inherited from our settler ancestors who came here in the 19th century with the law and mores of Victorian England. Some of our ancestors brought with them, unfortunately, a culture and law that said that women, wives, servants, and children were the property of the master, the man, and the husband. With that attitude came a law that said it was OK to beat the wife, the servants, and the children.

We have got rid of those laws. We used to have them, but we have got rid of the laws that allowed the husband to beat the wife. We got rid of the laws that said it was OK for a master to beat a servant, or an employer to beat an employee. But the relic of those laws is section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows all of us as parents to beat our children in the name of child discipline. What a disgrace! It is time we got rid of this section, and I am hoping that that will happen extremely soon.

Beyond that, there has been much research done here and overseas that shows, in fact, that physical discipline is the most ineffective way of trying to bring up our children. To humiliate children—to beat them—has exactly the opposite effect of what we might be aiming to achieve if we are trying to bring up children to be proactive and to have self-respect—children who have self-sufficiency, pride in themselves, and hope for the future. The research that we have seen over and over again is that, in fact, the most negative outcomes come from children brought up in a family home filled with violence. They are the ones who are most likely to end up with mental health problems and addictions, to turn to crime, and to leave school too soon. Those sorts of children are most often the product of violent homes, not of peaceful, loving homes where violence is not used as a source of child discipline.

Before I finish on this overarching purpose clause, I would just like to say that some of the criticism levelled against this bill has been from people who say that somehow we say this bill will solve all the issues of violence and abuse of our children. Of course that is not the case—I have never pretended that that was the case—but it is one small step in trying to reduce the level of violence against kids in this country. I find it amazing that every time we have a case such as the death of the Kahui twins, the death of James Whakaruru, and all of those other dreadful incidents, some of those who oppose this bill are the first to ask why Child, Youth and Family or the police did not take more action. Yet this is about trying to reduce that. This bill will not solve it, but we need somehow to turn the mind-set of New Zealanders from saying that it is OK to beat our children. That we legalise the beating of children in this country is, in the end, what leads to a culture that has child deaths occur and child injuries show up every day in our hospitals.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : The public of New Zealand are hanging on this debate. We are making history here today. Those who come here fighting to protect the rights and relationships of parents and children are fighting not in the best interests of parents, although it achieves this, but in the best interests of children not to have their parents liable to prosecution because of a smack. Those who approach this from a philosophical approach have the wrong end of the stick, because everything they seek to achieve here will never occur.

Some seek political branding through this bill. Well, it is not a chance to brand oneself for election purposes. It is about children, their parents, and their relationships. It is not about political branding. Then there are the fence-sitters. Some of them will be out of Parliament at the next election. One day they will be asked by their grandchildren: “So what did you do in Parliament, Grandad?”.

Jill Pettis: Not much.

CHESTER BORROWS: Jill Pettis is right, in her case.

All they will be able to say is: “I kept my head down and when I had the chance to make a difference I sat on my hands.” How will history paint the future of those people in this place? Being a member of Parliament is a huge privilege, denied to many and granted to only a few. In being elected to this Parliament an MP is not sent here to sit on his or her hands. Those of us who are elected to Parliament are sent here to do something. People believe in us as MPs. They have made their selection based on an assessment as to who best represents their beliefs. Nobody came to this Parliament to sit on his or her hands. I ask those members how history will paint them in this matter.

The only issue directly addressed by this bill is whether parents who smack their children should be liable for prosecution. The next question is: if a protection from prosecution should exist, should it be in the law or should it be in practice? The proponents of this bill say that we should leave it to the police and to Child, Youth and Family. But the police say “Don’t leave it to us.” At the Justice and Electoral Committee, Assistant Commissioner of Police Peter Marshall asked whether we really want to leave lawmaking to our social agencies. The police’s own family violence policy, as it is written at the moment, makes prosecution mandatory where an offence is disclosed.

It is MPs who make the law, not the police and not Child, Youth and Family. Threats to pull the bill if my amendment passes show bad grace. So I say to Sue Bradford that if she does not like the process, she should not participate. I have already spoken about the implications for those elected to this Parliament to be active participants in the process. Members put their ideas up for debate. They work damn hard to articulate them, they lobby, and they sweat blood. Then it is over to the House. We win or we lose. We do not pick up our ball and go home; we do not chuck our toys out of the cot, spit the dummy, and sulk.

Sue Bradford’s bill initially sought to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, and this was a reflection of her philosophical position. There was no surprise. Sue and the rest of the Green Party are activists and it kills them to abstain, but they do it in expectation of reward. One of the rewards was Labour support for this bill, and Helen Clark promised it without resort to her caucus. She made a press statement, before going into the room, saying that she expected 100 percent support for the bill from her caucus, and she did this knowing that she did not have it. She sold it as a collective conscience issue, but there is no collective conscience in the Labour Party; there is only fierce discipline. She knew that there were dissenters in her camp. She knew, and she knows now, that at least eight of her troops are swallowing rats over this bill and my amendment. Even proponents of the Bradford bill admitted that the amendment made so much sense that many of Labour’s caucus want to vote for the amendment.

What Labour’s one-time supporters out on the streets say, though, is that Labour has no regard for them. It has no regard for the 80-plus percent of New Zealanders who disagree with criminalising parents and who have constantly done so in nearly 20 polls and surveys on this issue over the past 2 years. Labour says: “Stuff your beliefs, your thoughts, your parental relationships. This issue is on our agenda. We’re going to pass it—eat that.”

I stand here today bringing with me the experience—some would say the baggage—of 30 years of dealing with agencies involved with child abuse. For all the rhetoric around this bill, all the “send a message”, all the protecting of children, and for all of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, nobody on either side of this debate believes that the bill will save one life or one beaten child. There is not a single parent whom this bill will affect who presents a threat to his or her child. Who will it send a message to? Which children are they actually seeking to protect? The Otago University longitudinal study found that children raised in a safe, loving, and nurturing home who were smacked achieve all the good social, educational, and financial heights of a child raised in a similar home who is not smacked. Children who are not nurtured in a warm, loving relationship do not do so well at all.

I find it hugely ironic that a Government that refuses to take responsibility for vulnerable people hurt while living in its care—such as the likes of Liam Ashley, who was killed in a prison van by a murderer he was handcuffed to, like the numerous young people under placement by Child, Youth and Family who are abused physically and sexually in foster homes, and like those suffering from instances of ECT in mental hospitals—sees it as its role to take responsibility for what goes on in the private homes of good New Zealanders who would otherwise never come to the notice of the police, Child, Youth and Family, or the court system.

Proponents of this bill have continually spoken about parents who want to beat their children. I doubt whether I have heard anybody from their side talk about a smack. It has always been words like thump, whack, belt, bash, and assault. My amendment seeks to strongly limit the use of a section 59 defence by allowing the use of reasonable force for correction. So that is the amendment to this clause: to add to the clause after the word “provision” the words “for the parental control of children by limiting the use of force for the purpose of correction.” As frivolous as opponents would paint this amendment, the Law Commission has said that this is a significant limiting of the law as it currently is. That was said by the same commissioner whom Labour stands behind in respect of his opposing opinion to Peter McKenzie QC.

Labour members cannot have it both ways, and they will need to have a think about that. An amendment I have put forward to clause 4 limits the use of section 59 to three minor uses, because parents who do more than what is reasonable will be charged with more serious offences. The amendment does not allow the use of implements because they become too hard to define effectively and we would be forced to try to define not only what they were but also how they would be used, which would be a hopeless situation. Reasonable force could not be used in a way that is cruel, degrading, or terrifying.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHESTER BORROWS: The fifth provision to my amendment seeks to restrict the law as to harm more tightly from where it is now.

The point has been made that we are writing the law here, so, as divisive as it may seem, we have to be specific in writing that law. Opponents will always twist the need for this into what it is not. They will say that an amendment is in some way compliant with those who beat, thump, bash, and assault their children—as the Prime Minister has been saying lately. I have used a term from the common law to set the most extreme level of force that can be inflicted and that could possibly be saved by this amendment. It is a legal term for the reddening of skin from a smack. In the law it is called “transitory and trifling harm”. Those are not my words and they are not flowery words that have been made up by someone trying to squeeze something into the law, as has been suggested; they are legal words and they come from the common law.

I would bet my life on it that every good parent who has seen that redness feels immediate guilt, because the smack was obviously too hard and left a red mark. I have seen the red mark where my hand has smacked a wee bottom, and I have frequently eaten myself up about it since. But I do not believe I should be liable to prosecution for it. I am not proud of it and I do not argue it is my right or duty, but I do believe I should not be rendered liable for prosecution for having gone to that level. That is where the line is drawn.

The media and my opponents have tried in every way they can to say that I believe it is OK to hit one’s children. I have never said that. I have not promoted smacking. I have never said the words “It never did me any harm.”, which is not an argument for anything. Sue Bradford has said that I take this stand because, in her words, as she said on the radio: “Well, he’s an ex-policeman and a big man so he would, wouldn’t he.”

I take this stand for the children of ordinary New Zealanders. When I am asked by my grandchildren what I did in Parliament I will proudly point to this day as just one example of a stand I took with others to protect the families and future families of this country.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I am grateful for the opportunity to take a call in this debate on clause 3 of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. It is the first time I have spoken on this issue, and I appreciate the chance to put my point of view on record. Clause 3, the purpose clause, is pretty clear, but I have been pretty astounded by the suggested amendments, the debate, and the hysteria that this bill has engendered. It is natural for people to have strong views when it comes to our children. I understand that. New Zealanders do tend to be fiercely protective of their families. But for me it is a simple question of protecting small people and babies. Is it right for adults, who have a lot of power compared with small people and babies, to exercise that power in physical force, and for that physical force to continue to be a defence? I say it is not. I say it is time that we all accept that there are better ways to raise children than to exercise violence upon them. We are talking about violence here. We are talking about physical force, and whether it is trivial or transitory, or whether it is a light spank or a big wallop, it is still physical force that is being used on human beings who are vulnerable.

One of the good things about Sue Bradford’s bill—and I thank the member for it—is that it has created debate in this country about how we raise our children. As in many families, I imagine, there have been lots of conversations in my family about our experiences both as children and in raising our own children—and, of course, lots of debate, as well. I realised when I was talking with my siblings that we could never remember being smacked or hit in any way. The reason is that we were raised when Dr Spock was advising our parents that hitting children was not an effective way of teaching a child boundaries. Of course, when Dr Spock was an old man he resiled from that advice, saying he had encouraged a generation of spoilt brats. I disagree; I think that is pretty harsh. Those I know who were raised under Dr Spock’s advice are good, law-abiding citizens. I am one of them.

I recall being whacked at school. I know that this is not to do with the purpose of this bill, but I think it is important to remember that in the past this House has debated issues about violence towards children. It eventually saw sense and outlawed corporal punishment. I remember when I was in standard 4 a teacher galloping down the corridor towards me to deliver the strap with maximum force. I remember how shocked I was. It did not change my behaviour; in fact, it might have contributed to it in the future because I did not think I had done anything wrong. It made me more defiant and determined to buck the system. I became a hero in standard 4 because I was the one who stood up to the teachers. The sense of injustice I felt at that time was so strong that it influenced my lifelong pursuit of social justice.

When my siblings and I raised our children we set out not to discipline them with force, emulating the example that had been set by our parents. Unfortunately, I recall losing my temper once with my little son and whacking him. To this day I regret it. Anyone who has parented a child can understand the level of frustration that leads parents to do things like that, but it could so easily have escalated into punishment that went wrong.

Like many mums, I worked as a supervisor in the local playcentre, as mums often do when their kids are small. I often ended up dealing with other people’s children who were hitting each other. When I said that that was not OK, they could not understand it, because they had been taught by their parents that hitting was OK. The fact is that children learn by observing their parents, and there is no doubt that violence begets violence. It is well established that children who have grown up with violence are more likely to perpetuate violence on their own families. Positive parenting has been found to be much more effective in teaching children to behave well.

Parents can make different choices about setting boundaries for children. I had an interesting conversation with a taxi driver on my way into Parliament at the beginning of the week. He told me that he has never hit his kids and that he did not support hitting kids. But when he took his daughter’s cellphone off her for a week, she begged him to curtail her allowance for a month instead, because taking that cellphone had a real impact on her. We can parent without violence, and the Government’s SKIP programme teaches parents how to do that. I just wish that I had had that programme when I was the parent of a young child.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : I am delighted to take a call on clause 3, the purpose clause, of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I have to say that for me this bill is about far more than just whether to smack children; it is about telling New Zealand parents that we as a Parliament know best how they should bring up their kids.

I say to this Committee that I am probably in a unique position. I have been married for 32 years, and for 16 years of those we were without children. I tell members that for those first 16 years we knew exactly how to bring up kids. Every time we visited the supermarket and saw little ratbags tearing stuff out of the freezer and so on, my wife would say: “Look at those dreadful parents. We know how to do it.” We were the best parents the world had ever produced—for our first 16 years. Then we got a child. We now have three children. They are all adopted, so members can stay calm. The children did not get my genes, so they are lucky. I have to say that parenting turned out to be the hardest bloody job the world has ever seen. It is a job for which parents get no training, and it is a job whereby parents have the ultimate responsibility to make those children become grown-ups who are responsible, capable, and productive members of society.

One of the things that parents have to do with little children is set boundaries. We are not talking about 12-year-olds. Taking a cellphone off a 2-year-old or an 18-month-old is a bit of a ridiculous punishment. My 18-month-old never had a cellphone. [Interruption] Yes, under ACT they would all get a cellphone. A parent has to say to children that there are some boundaries in life. If children do not learn those boundaries of right and wrong and what they can and cannot do, then they will end up being little horrors for the rest of their lives, hated by most people and more often than not in trouble with society when they grow up. I believe that most parents are responsible and that the vast bulk of parents, if they do smack for correction, usually give a very gentle smack that they use to teach boundaries to a very small child. I hear from Sue Bradford and from the Labour members that they are not outlawing that—that this bill does not do that. Well, actually, it does.

Let me make it clear now that I think anyone who beats a child, uses violence against a child, or thrashes a child should be locked up. Anyone who uses an implement, a tool, a weapon, or an electric jug cord on a child should be locked up. But that is not what this debate tonight is about. This debate tonight is about parents teaching children a very, very valuable set of values in life and about boundaries and right and wrong.

Children try parents out. I will never forget my little girl Brittany trying me out about the poker in the fireplace. She was trying to grab it, and I said: “Don’t you touch that, you’ll get burnt.” She put her hand out and went to grab it. I said: “Brittany, don’t touch it.” She put her hand further out. I said: “If you touch that, I’ll give you a smack.” She said: “No!”, and grabbed it. She was 2 and she was trying me out. She was seeing what would happen. Actually, she got a hell of a fright because the poker was a lot hotter than she expected. But she did get a smack. It was not a hard one and it did not do any damage; it did not do anything. In fact, only about a month later when I put her in time out she actually asked if she could please have a smack rather than time out. It taught her about boundaries and right and wrong. But this bill is about the nanny State.

A huge number of members of this House have never had children and have never had to go through the process of what it is like. Let me tell members that in my first 16 years of marriage I knew exactly how to bring up kids. I knew rights and wrongs and so on until the reality struck me that parenting is a much harder bloody job than it seems.

If Chester Borrows’ amendments were adopted by this Committee, the bill would get my vote right there and then. We are saying that anyone who does brutalising, violent damage to a kid should be locked up. But parents who are trying to act responsibly, teach barriers, and be gentle with their kids while showing them right from wrong will actually be made criminals by this bill. I know that the police will not charge into every house around the country to arrest people and lock them up. But I made the point before that this is a wonderful weapon to use in a matrimonial split. A wife could say: “My husband beat the kids. He’s a criminal. Let him have no custody.” If, yes, the husband had given them a smack, then he would be a criminal and lose custody.

Here is another great example that goes on daily, as I am sure members know: neighbourhood fights. How do I get at my neighbour? I can report her and say that I saw her smack her child. There we have it. I have to say that I have found nothing more galling than this bill.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) : All members of the House remember the famous statement made by Winston Churchill, who said he had been to the House many times, he had seen people cry, he had seen tears shed, but he had never seen anybody change his or her mind in the Chamber. I guess this is one of those debates—unfortunately—where we spend our time railing back and forth across the Chamber at each other thinking hopefully that somebody might change his or her mind. Hopefully, we are not all fixed in our minds. I think Maurice Williamson showed in the last speech that he is willing to actually think about the issue and change his mind, if he could see his way through it.

Really, what we are talking about is a very, very—

Judith Collins: We’ve all thought about the issues. Stop being so patronising!

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am not being patronising. I ask the member not to be so stupid. I say that that member, Mrs Collins, has a mortgage on this whole thing. As far as I have seen, she has mortgaged it with patronising comments.

What I am saying here—[Interruption] Are we allowed to say things on our side of the Chamber or is this typical of the way that Mrs Collins’ side debates—by always trying to browbeat people?

What we are doing here is talking about the very simple issue of whether we ought to do something about section 59. I have argued for the repeal of section 59 ever since I have been in the House. The way I understand section 59 is very simply this. It is part of the Crimes Act and the only reason it kicks in, at all, is if someone has committed a crime. That person then goes to court with the police prosecuting him or her for using that kind of force on a child—it usually requires a rubber hose, a horse whip, or something like that. That person ends up in court and then uses a defence that it was reasonable in the circumstances to do that. We all know—as Mr Williamson said—that that is wrong. We do not want that in our legislation. No one should be able to go to court and use a defence for anything like that, at all. That is why I have wanted the section repealed all the way along.

At the present time we have an effort to try to bridge the gap between people who understand that that section should go but who feel a little uncomfortable about what the implications of repeal might mean. So after a whole lot of advice, a provision has gone into the legislation for someone who is restraining a child because that child might harm someone, or might harm himself or herself—the usual story of a child running along the road or sticking a finger in an electric socket, and those kinds of things—or for someone who strikes down a child’s hand. We all know that that is done to save the child, or to stop the child from doing something that will harm somebody else. Once again, I think we would all agree with that. We want to be able to ensure that parents are comfortable in their ability to do that.

The one remaining part we are debating here is the question of whether, if we remove this section, we have somehow created an offence, even though there is nothing going into the law. Like Mr Williamson, I inherited my children, too, and on the only times I have physically had to restrain them it usually came down to sitting on them. That was the device we used to use to ensure that we had restrained them. All of us have been in a situation—as in a supermarket, a frustrating position for ordinary parents faced with everyday behaviour—where children have done something that might result in parents giving them a light smack, and we ask whether that will be criminalised by this bill.

The argument, of course, from people who are advocating this change, is that, no, it will not. What are we relying on? We are relying on the normal daily process of the police, who use discretion as they do now in all of these kinds of situations with adults. Will they apply this in relation to someone saying that a parent has used a smack on the bottom of a child at a supermarket? We are arguing that the police will not prosecute; they will use their discretion. In a way, this whole argument seems to me to boil down to whether people believe this, because no one wants violence on children, and no one wants people to be able to defend themselves against that.

Hon Maurice Williamson: What about marriage break-ups?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: What is that?

Hon Maurice Williamson: You could actually get to your spouse by saying to the police that he used a smack—

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, that is what I understand is the issue that probably divides people who are around the middle of the debate. They are asking, if we have this change, whether they will be safe. Hence we have Mr Borrows’—I think well-meaning—effort to try to write that into the law. The reason I do not like that is because it would lead us down the slippery slope of saying we would then have to try to define what sort of hit could be applied to a child, where the hit could be put, and how much force could be used. I do not think we could ever make that kind of legislation stick.

I think we have boiled it down to the fact that we all agree we do not want violence, and we do not want a defence against that kind of violence. We want parents to be able to restrain their children and not have to worry about it. We are concerned now only about how the police will interpret this legislation. We are not legislating against smacking children here; there is nothing going into the law. What we are relying on is the removal of something and then there will be a space left that asks how that will be interpreted. That is what it boils down to, and I am arguing that we will not see the police become involved in that kind of behaviour.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : There have been some hypothetical situations tonight and I would like to add another one. A young mother and two children, Johnny and Joey, were going across the road. The children had worked it out between themselves that they were going to dart across the road just before a car came. I know this happens; I saw it happen not that long ago—3 or 4 months ago—not with a mother but with one single kiddie who was playing chicken or something. Sue Bradford can maybe tell me whether I fully understand the situation. Joey got across, and Johnny got a smack. He got caught by the mother and got a smack. Joey was on the other side laughing but he thought a smack was coming. They were on a relatively rural road where there was a bit of road dug up, and a bit of work going on. There was a poor old guy—maybe like myself—digging in his front garden. Joey took off and picked up a stone, a chunk of rock, to fling at the old guy. The young guy who got caught and got smacked for not doing anything was following behind and he had the same idea. But the mother caught him again and gave him another smack, while the other one threw the rock at the old guy and hit him on the head.

Rodney Hide: Which one got the smack?

PETER BROWN: The one who stayed with the mother. I ask Mr Hide not to get confused.

Now we have a situation—and I want Sue Bradford to tell me about this. The kiddie who did the damage, the kiddie who crossed the road, was not punished, but the kiddie who was stopped was punished twice. Their mother took them both home and said: “I’m going to put you in your rooms for some time out.” But the kiddies wrestled like hell, as they do from time to time, and it virtually became an assault case to get the kiddies in their rooms. The member can tell me whether I have got it wrong, because this bill states that someone can smack to stop a kiddie from doing harm to himself or herself, someone can smack to stop a kiddie from doing harm to somebody else, but someone cannot smack for correction. I urge the member in the chair, Sue Bradford, that if she thinks I am wrong to tell me, but if I am right, I say that this bill needs Chester Borrows’ amendment.

I heard the Hon Steve Maharey a little while ago saying that the Chester Borrows amendment would give guidance to smacking, or what have you, and he would prefer to leave it to police discretion. I ask members in the Committee what they think the police will do. They will come out with some discretionary powers. I asked a few police constables—whom I will not name although I could, easily—and they said to me, as individuals, virtually the same thing. They will be told by their superiors that they are not to use discretion, as that is for judges. If this bill goes through, if my fears are realised, there will be police cars at a number of houses.

Hon Chris Carter: Do they prosecute at rugby games now? It happens every week—technically an assault—but do they prosecute? No.

PETER BROWN: Does the Minister think it is absolutely nice to have policemen knocking on neighbours’ houses, saying: “I heard that you smacked little Johnny.”? I can tell members that this bill is opening the door wide, and even if the police do not prosecute, the stigma of having the cops around, time and time again, because little Johnny or little Joey were alleged to have been smacked, is not on.

The Chester Borrows amendment is very clear, and it is very simple. It protects the child from abuse. Anybody who goes further than the rather tame smacking outlined in the amendment will be up for possible prosecution, but the amendment does allow the parents some discipline, for a correction basis. I say that if it is good enough to allow a parent to smack to stop someone from doing something there and then, what is the real rationale for stopping them from doing something into the future—for correcting behaviour? It is a play on words.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : The public is getting increasingly concerned about this bill because of the confusion and spin that surrounds it. We just need to look at the number of emails that are pouring into our in-boxes and at the marchers on the streets. People are really up in arms about this. I think this is probably the most emotive and highly charged bill we have seen since the Civil Union Act was passed in 2004.

But the issue that really concerns me, even from listening to some of the discussion in this Chamber, is that very few people actually know what the bill is all about. So I want to go over it quickly. We know, because we debated clause 2A for a long time, that the bill is to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act. Section 59 is a defence that allows the use of physical force against children only if that action meets three strict criteria. The first criterion is that someone has to be a parent or guardian, the second is that reasonable force has to be used, and the third is that it has to be for the purposes of correction.

They are three pretty sensible tests. First of all, the fact that the section relates only to a parent or guardian recognises the very special relationship that parents have with their kids. They are the ones who have all the rights, but all the responsibilities, of bringing up kids—all those joys, all those disappointments, all those nights, all those worries, all those thermometers in the dead of night, and all that time spent agonising over what their kids are doing. They are the only people who really put their kids first.

Secondly, reasonable force has to be used. All those active, emotional words that we have heard bandied about tonight—words like whacking, thrashing, whipping, and the bash—are already excluded because no one in his or her right mind thinks that such actions are reasonable.

Thirdly, the force has to be used for the purpose of correction. Force cannot be used when someone is drunk and has a headache and the kids are getting in the way. Force cannot be used when someone is having a bad hair day. Force can be used when people believe they were doing something good for their children.

So child abuse, in any form, is clearly excluded. It cannot be defended under the existing section 59. None of the horrible incidents that Sue Bradford mentioned—none of them—such as the cases of “Lillybing”, James Whakaruru, or the Kāhui twins, could have used section 59 as a defence, or even attempted to use section 59. In fact, section 59 is hardly ever invoked. It has been used only 18 times in the last 10 years—that is a fact—and on only six occasions have parents or guardians got off a charge by using section 59. There seems to have been a small amount of argument about those six cases, although I admit that a couple of cases concerned many people, and one very high-profile case in Timaru a couple of years ago was hotly debated. The jury acquitted that woman in Timaru, in circumstances that many people felt were unjust. I note here that it was a jury that acquitted that woman, because people who are parents and who know how difficult parenting is find it very hard to convict someone whom they feel is doing the best he or she can.

I want to make my points clear. Section 59 has three strict criteria, and they have to be met before it can be used as a defence. It precludes child abuse, because nobody—judge or jury—thinks that child abuse is reasonable, and it is rarely used. But I also acknowledge—and this is exactly what members on the other side of the Chamber are saying—that there were cases that concerned people. That is why Chester Borrows is looking at an amendment.

Like all New Zealanders, I am concerned about the violence in our society.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) : I am very interested in listening to this debate and to the points being made. I have a real care that we in this Parliament are showing some real concern for our children, and that is good. But the issue with me relates to how genuine that concern is, because thousands of children suffer and pay the ultimate price of violent abuse in relation to abortion. How many thousands of children die in New Zealand as a result of abortion? How many members of Parliament are concerned about that rate of death for children in New Zealand? In fact, we have a law and a policy that literally results in that appalling number of deaths. Members cannot tell me that a foetus in the womb is not a human being. We could get into an argument about abortion. How many years have we debated it in this Chamber? But the reality is that thousands of children pay the ultimate price for abuse, in the murder of those children in the womb.

Where is the concern of this Parliament in regard to those issues? Where is the sympathy, compassion, and concern about children when it comes to that issue and those thousands of children who die every year? That is a question I ask this Committee. I ask New Zealanders too, because I think a whole lot of New Zealanders are concerned about that. We talk about children dying and children being abused, but what about those children? They do not even get a chance to have life. Where is the sympathy? Where is the law to give them some protection? Let us ask ourselves that. Let us not have crocodile tears about children’s rights, and about whatever is determined by the United Nations; let us ask ourselves about the issue of abortion, because we are talking about children dying and babies dying. Where is Sue Bradford’s concern about that issue? I watched the march today. I watched people marching. But maybe abortion is an issue that some people should be marching about. That, to me, is a very serious issue.

It does not matter how we debate this bill in this Chamber; the thought will continue amongst the majority of New Zealanders that this is a silly law that will not work. It is unworkable. Parents know they have a God-given right to use reasonable force that does not harm a child but that sets out correction and teaches the child what is right and what is wrong. As far as I am concerned, that is a right that parents should continue to have. No law should prohibit their right to parent and raise their children in a godly way that benefits those children.

I note that the amendments proposed by Mr Borrows define reasonable force. We are all concerned about abuse. We debated a few weeks ago the abuse of children and the use of unreasonable force, and I agree that child abuse is already against the law. It is already against the law to abuse children. What is being proposed here will miss the mark. I think somebody said that it is like using a huge sledgehammer to crack a peanut. It really is overkill, and most New Zealanders realise it. The polling shows that—83 percent oppose this bill for the stupidity it represents. I stand by that position.

This bill not only will have a negative effect long term but will have a negative effect on relationships within the family—the relationship between the child and the parent, and the relationship between siblings and their parents who may be involved in a prosecution. Those are the sorts of concerns that members of this Committee should be considering when we debate this bill.

The other real concern is that if we are to take away disciplinary correction of children by way of a harmless smack—and we can debate how the police will interpret that—and if this method is not available to parents to discipline their children, what psychological damage may be caused? There is more than one way to skin a cat. I am sure that if parents do not have this avenue of discipline for the purpose of correction, their screaming at their children and perhaps intimidating them will cause psychological damage. What does a child suffer in psychological damage in comparison with other forms of abuse? Members should answer that question. Has anybody given any thought to what this bill could promote?

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : This debate is supposed to be about the purpose of this bill. I can tell members right now that the purpose of this bill is to decide who is in charge of our children. The members opposite want to be able to say that they know how to bring up our children. Not one of them cares about our children. Those members care only about themselves and their ability to strut on the world stage at the UN, hold up a little flag, and say: “Look what we did in New Zealand.” Not one part of this legislation will help the children who are killed in this country. Nobody in this Chamber will be able to deal with the real causes of child abuse by passing this bill. Not one child will be saved by this bill, but families will be set asunder.

I was amazed to hear tonight the argument from some Cabinet Ministers that we can trust the police to do whatever they want, because they will always use their discretion in the right way. Well, those Ministers should tell that to Mr Solanki of Hamilton. He went through a court case because he held his 12-year-old daughter by her shoulders against her will, because he wanted to talk to her. The police were called; 111 was dialled. And they turned up—yes, they did. The police prosecuted Mr Solanki. The case went right through the court and ended up in the Court of Appeal, which said that it was very sorry to Mr Solanki, because it was a stupid case and a waste of time. Why did that happen? Because Mr Solanki was not doing that to discipline his child, so he was not able to do it.

Jill Pettis: That’s now.

JUDITH COLLINS: Right now—Mrs Pettis is absolutely right. Do members know that section 59 does not protect a father from that sort of police abuse—because that is exactly what happened?

But Mr Solanki was not like me: he was brown, so was treated differently from someone like me. I have heard in this Chamber tonight that the police will suddenly become serious and sensible about using their discretion. I have had members opposite say to me that I should not worry, because this legislation will not affect people like me. What they actually mean is that it will not affect me because I am white. That is what the issue is about. It certainly will affect the people of Māngere. It certainly will affect the poor. It certainly will affect those who are not articulate. It certainly will affect those who have any other criminal convictions. It certainly will do so. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is about giving more power to the State, so that it can tell us how to bring up our children.

This bill comes from people who have no experience of raising children or whose experience simply has not been successful. Those people will criminalise our good parents. They will criminalise people who actually love and care for their children. This is not a fight about the power to smack, or about anything like that. All that those women of the Labour Party will do—and, by the way, has anyone noticed that since Georgina Beyer left Parliament, the Labour Party has lost one of its women—is to take good parents out of homes. They will take children out of homes and put them into Child, Youth and Family care, whereby, as many people know, children often do not get much care. Child, Youth and Family has, supposedly, 13,000 substantiated child abuse cases. The figure has more than doubled under this Government, which has taken away responsibility for children from parents. The figure has more than doubled. Will this bill help any of those children? No, it will not.

This bill is about putting parents in their place. It is not about good parenting and it is not about benefiting children; it is about putting parents in their place. If that was not the purpose of the bill, those people opposite would support my colleague Chester Borrows’ amendment to this clause. His amendment deals with the very sensible issue of not whipping children and not beating them with anything. It keeps discipline at the level it should be at. It is about good parenting, and not about arresting or picking on parents just because they are poor, inarticulate, or might have done something else that is wrong. This is one of the most important bills in this Parliament, and the reason is that 83 percent of the people in this country know that this Government has gone too far. This is a case of the nanny State gone mad. I am here tonight to help to save kids from the nanny State. The nanny State is no good; it is a bad nanny. It goes home at 5 o’clock every night; it does not care. The nanny State is not there at 3 o’clock in the morning. This bill is a disgrace.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I would like to speak to clause 3. It is very, very clear and unambiguous in its language that the purpose of this bill is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. It is quite interesting that the clause includes the concept of abolition, because it is actually the 200th anniversary, at this time, of the abolition of the trans-Atlantic trade in slavery. That, indeed, was something that needed to be abolished.

But I want to question tonight in this Chamber whether it is a good idea to abolish correction by parents of their children. I think that that leads us straight into a consideration of what it is we are trying to abolish. If we look at the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, we find that correction means “The action of putting right or indicating errors.” We are going to abolish that here tonight. The definition further states that correction is “Reproof of a person for a fault of character or conduct.” We are saying that we are going to abolish that here tonight. Justice Fisher, in a 2003 case, said: “Correction implies that the object of the punishment was to deter repetition of improper conduct.” This Committee is asked to accept tonight that we should be abolishing that.

I find that very, very ironic, because we actually have a Department of Corrections in this country, and the State has no problem at all in correcting people—through arrest and imprisonment—with the object of deterring a repetition of improper conduct. That is what our Department of Corrections is set up to do. People have said that we should treat children in the same way as adults. Well, I for one am not keen to send children to prison. I think there is a vast difference between a child and an adult when it comes to correction. But my real fear is that if we do not correct our children when they are children—that is, punish them to “deter repetition of improper conduct”—then we greatly increase the risk that the State will have to correct them as adults. That is the purpose of correction.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically recognises the right of parents to train and discipline their children. This bill actually contravenes that convention and it is a nonsense to pretend otherwise. Therefore—

Jill Pettis: So you can only discipline by force?

GORDON COPELAND: Well, that is the only thing we are abolishing. As Taito Phillip Field and others have pointed out, we are leaving in correction through yelling and screaming at children, telling children they are no good, and putting children down. In my experience, with many, many people over many years in counselling and otherwise, that does a great deal more damage to a child than does a smack—a great deal more damage. There is no comparison between the two. I know lots and lots of people who say: “My life is screwed up because when I was a kid I was told I was no good. I would never amount to anything.” That does grave damage to a child. We are not abolishing that—that is OK—but a smack is wrong. I think it is exactly the other way around.

I will give members this analogy. Why do we put a needle into our child’s veins and inoculate him or her against disease? Is that painful? Is that an assault on a child? Of course it is. But why do we do it? We do it because we love that child. We do it because we want that child to be able to live a healthy life. That is a good goal. Quite frankly, the goal—the purpose—behind why we smack a child is all-important. One can do that in love. One can do that to correct a child’s behaviour, so that that child will grow up to be a good, peace-loving, non-violent person. That is in the best interests of the child. That is what motivates loving parents; they love their kids enough to discipline them.

A lady said to me the other day: “You know, there was a little beggar next door and his mother gave him a good hiding. I went across and said to her: ‘I see you gave the child a hiding.’ The mother said: ‘You’re not going to tell the police, are you?’. I said to her: ‘No, but I would have told the police had you not given him a hiding.’ ” That woman actually realised, of course, that that child needed some discipline—he needed some boundaries. All the psychologists, and all the people who study child behaviour, will tell us that if children do not learn boundaries as children, they will learn them as adults in the hands of the police and in the hands of the Department of Corrections. That is a stupid thing to be doing.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I heard the same hysterical, highly emotional, and rhetorical debate on the smoke-free environments amendment legislation. It spun out of control in the public perception, because of misinformation. We are dealing tonight, sadly, with a lot of misinformation that has gone out to the public and has raised among the public anxiety and concern that do not even need to be there. I think tonight some members in this Committee need to look at their own behaviour and look at their hypocritical attitudes. I chair the Littlies Lobby in this House—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member cannot say that. She needs to withdraw and apologise.

Gerry Brownlee: Apologise for that.

STEVE CHADWICK: I withdraw and apologise. We need to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Just a minute; please be seated. Mr Brownlee, I was on my feet and I was ruling. You know that you cannot talk over me. You will withdraw and apologise.

STEVE CHADWICK: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I am talking to Mr Brownlee.

Gerry Brownlee: I also withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I assume now you are going to ask Steve Chadwick to withdraw and apologise for her appalling remark.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Brownlee, she had already done that before I called you.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. In actual fact what you said to her was “No, no, I’m not calling you; I’m calling Gerry Brownlee.” Well, I accepted your call and made the apology, so theoretically there is no apology from Steve Chadwick yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): All I would say to Mr Brownlee is to go back tomorrow and read the Hansard. You will see very clearly that Steve Chadwick withdrew and apologised before you were on your feet.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take your advice. Thank you very much. I assume you are going to make Steve Chadwick’s Hansard available for us to check tomorrow?

STEVE CHADWICK: I just remind members across the Chamber—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. What is the answer? We do not get Steve Chadwick’s Hansard for over 2 weeks.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member knows the rules. Please be seated.

Gerry Brownlee: I do.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member knows the rules very clearly. That is up to the member.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You have instructed me to take a look at the Hansard tomorrow to see that there was an apology from Steve Chadwick. I cannot do that tomorrow, because Steve Chadwick’s will not be available for some time. But if you, as the Chair, were to suggest that the should be made available, then of course it will be.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. As the member knows very well, it is up to the member to do that, but I would suggest that the member will be able to read the Hansard when it is available.

STEVE CHADWICK: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am happy to table my Hansard tomorrow for the benefit of members in the Committee, and if it is required, I am happy to withdraw and apologise again.

But I want to also draw the attention of members in this Committee to some rather hypocritical behaviour. I chair the Littlies Lobby, along with these wonderful advocates in the House tonight: Barnardos, Plunket, Women’s Refuge, Save the Children, Unicef and EPOCH—

Judith Collins: They are not in the House!

STEVE CHADWICK: Yes, they are all in the gallery tonight, hearing the screaming and hysteria in this Committee from members. I recall that members in this Committee tonight who are point-scoring on the backs of our children came to that meeting to hear Joan Durrant, a leading world expert, who talked about the repeal of section 59. They all said what a wonderful thing that was, and that they supported any initiative that would make a difference to the dreadful levels of child abuse in this country. Something has dramatically changed the minds of members of the Opposition, and they have conveniently forgotten the role that we all agreed: to work together as a political lobby group in order to make the lives of our children better in this country, and to rid ourselves of the dreadful reputation we have for violence to our children.

I would like to acknowledge Brian Donnelly here tonight. He stood up long before the repeal of section 59 had popularity and bravely voiced that it was one initiative, just one initiative, that will not solve issues—

Anne Tolley: It won’t solve abuse.

STEVE CHADWICK: That is right—it will not solve abuse. But repeal of section 59 will put out very strong social messaging to the parents in the community whom I have dealt with that we no longer tolerate violence of any sort to our children. I believe that we are all saying the same thing in the Committee tonight.

I also really believe that Chester Borrows has genuinely tried to find amendments that reflect the level of concern from parents who are anxious and feel they may no longer be able to discipline their children for purposes of correction. I believe that it is a matter of definition, and I prefer the amendments put up by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I think they are more lucid—

Chester Borrows: He wrote mine, too.

STEVE CHADWICK: Yes, I know he wrote that member’s amendments, but we know what he thought of them, too.

I have heard in the Committee of instances where section 59 has not been used as a defence in the courts. Well, 20 years ago—I used this example in my first speech to the House—I admitted a child to the children’s ward of a hospital. I managed the children’s ward and set up the first child abuse service in Rotorua, so I do not appreciate or respect Opposition members saying that some of us have no professional expertise or standing on the issue of child abuse. It has been my life’s work. That child I admitted was in a little pushchair, cowering. When I lifted him to put him into a cot, his body collapsed like a witch’s wand. Twenty-four bones in his body were broken. That father went to court and hid behind section 59, saying he had used reasonable force. We had to get care and protection and have paediatricians involved, to remove that child from his father. People cannot hide behind section 59.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : Of course, everyone feels for the little baby that Steve Chadwick speaks of, but that is not what the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is about. I will go back to what the Hon Steve Maharey had to say, because I think he actually put his finger on the nub of the issue.

Funnily enough, I do not think there is a big difference between the supporters of this bill and those of us who oppose it. I think where we differ is in respect of what the bill means in practice. One of the things that bothers me about the bill is that we will not know what it means in practice until it is passed, which is not a very good way of making the law. We have a situation whereby Steve Maharey, who is voting for the bill, says that proponents of the bill are not about stopping a light smack on the bottom, and that they do not want to ban smacking but to remove the defence for abuse. Actually, I am sort of with Steve Maharey, but when I look at the bill, I think, hang on, if I smacked my son—if I had a toddler—then I would be breaking the law. That is what this bill says. But then the proponents of the bill say not to worry, because the police will not do anything. That makes me wonder what sort of police we have if we are sitting here passing a law that the police will not do anything about if I smack my son, for whatever reason.

Then Steve Maharey says—and I am with him; I want people to understand that—that it is too hard for Parliament to define where the boundaries should be, and that the trouble with Chester Borrows’ amendment is that he has Parliament trying to define that boundary. Steve Maharey says that is too tough. Steve Maharey stands up in this Parliament—and, again, I am agreeing with him—and says that because it is too tough to define, we will leave it up to the police. That causes me grave concern, because Mr Plod will have to decide, and I do not think that we as a Parliament should put the police in that predicament. Here we are in Parliament, elected to make these decisions, and we are saying that it is too tough for us and that it is the job of the police.

So the police will be turning up at Mrs Brown’s place and saying they have received a complaint that she has smacked her son. The proponents of the bill say that the police officer will then make a decision about whether to prosecute her and leave it up to the courts. That is a horrible situation for a police officer to be in. But it also means that we have arbitrary power: one police officer could go to one person’s house and say that the situation involving a light smack was OK, because no damage was done and the kid is OK, then wander off. But another officer may go to another house, say he or she does not like the look of the situation, and prosecute. Yet that situation could be exactly the same as in the first case. We in Parliament are saying that is OK, because the police will do it. Well, I am sorry, but it is the job of this Parliament to make the law. It is the job of this Parliament to make clear law for the citizens of this country, so they know what it is and so the police know where the lines are.

I am sitting here listening to the debate, but I do not actually know what the police will do. I do not know what this bill means in practice. So why are we passing it, and why are we having a debate that is all about children being battered, beaten, and abused? I think that on all sides of the Chamber we agree that that is already against the law. What we are interested in are the implications of removing the defence of reasonable force for parents.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : People in the Committee have already heard of my experience of going from a situation of being a principal who used corporal punishment, when we were protected under section 59 of the Crimes Act, to a situation where we had no protections and had to find things out.

When I came to Parliament in 1996, I was really concerned about what we could do about reducing violence towards children. We had a bit of time, because at that stage we were in negotiations with both Labour and National. I wanted to raise this concern in my maiden speech, and I wanted to do some research. I thought I would go to the Commissioner for Children and see whether I could get him to give a bit of a hand on this one. I knew we had been taken away from using corporal punishment in schools, but I did not know there was a thing called section 59.

I talked the matter over with a guy by the name of Laurie O’Reilly, who was the Commissioner for Children at the time. I have to say he was a man’s man. He was a prop and had played rugby for Canterbury. The guy was certainly no wimp. We looked at all the different issues, but finally he said to me: “We will never reduce violence against children in this country until we repeal section 59.” That is the statement he made. I came back and mulled over it. I became a Minister and did not make my maiden speech until February. I mentioned the matter to one of the other Ministers from National, who is still a member of Parliament, who told me that it was probably right that we did need to get rid of section 59, but that whatever I did I should not mention it in my maiden speech. He said that I was now a member of the executive, and that we did not want to go down that track because of the political implications.

Since that time I have been mulling over just how we could do it, and as we had the tragedies of people like James Whakaruru and “Lillybing” the words of Laurie O’Reilly kept coming back to haunt me. I had looked at the section and I was very clear: I wanted the law framed in such a way that parents who gave their children a smack were not criminalised. I still absolutely believe in that. If anyone asked me whether I believe parents should be criminalised, the answer is absolutely no. But I looked at all the different ways it might possibly be done and at what was happening in New South Wales, where the law tried to define where and how one could hit a child. I saw that law was an enormous mess.

In the end, in the year 2000, I spoke to the New Zealand First convention and said that I would bring in a law to repeal section 59 but that I also wanted amendments to the care of children legislation, which was going through at the time, that would actually define what people were able to do, in order to protect them. In about 2002—just after the “Lillybing” tragedy—I introduced a bill into the House to repeal section 59, but I could not find my way around that problem. I withdrew the bill in 2002, because I did not believe we had the support for it.

I looked at some work by Dr Shane Reti, who said that 92 percent of people he researched in the Whangarei area did not believe that parents should have the right to smack their kids around the head or with an implement. We drew up laws for that, which went in the name of Barbara Stewart. But every time I attempted to try to get around this particular issue, I came back to the problems associated with Chester Borrows’ amendment. I have already said that I will not be voting for Chester Borrows’ amendment, but if it goes through and the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is left in, I will actually vote for the bill because I think that it will be better than the situation as it stands at the moment.

In the end, I came to the conclusion that the only way that we could actually protect parents from the sort of vagaries of being charged for a minor smack, etc., was to use the legal principles under which our legal system operates. I am talking about the de minimis non curat lex rule—the law does not concern itself with trifles.

Rodney Hide made a good point when he said that we will not know what will happen until we actually see the legislation in practice. But I go back to the experience with regard to schoolteachers. People will remember that they were removed from the defence in section 59. Therefore, any teacher who picks up a child and moves him or her to time out, to sit on the mat, etc., is breaking the law by way of committing an assault. In fact, I saw Gerry Brownlee assault Don Brash in this Chamber, but he was not taken to court. And if he had been taken to court, it would have been thrown out by the police. [Interruption] I will not make mention of that, but certainly I would not be running down to court in those circumstances—and nobody has run down to court about teachers.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) : I was interested in what the previous speaker, the Hon Brian Donnelly, said because he was quite honest, I think, in his exposition about why he has come to the position he has. He has honestly expressed the contradiction at the heart of the argument of the proponents of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, which is that we pass a law on the basis that it will not be enforced. Of course, those of us who are against this bill believe that that is a silly position, but he expressed it honestly.

However, another member of this Parliament has set out to deliberately and calculatedly mislead the public on this matter—that is, the Prime Minister. When we are talking about the purpose of this bill, we should remember that the Prime Minister has now made a sequence of public statements that deliberately mislead the public about the purpose of the bill. The Prime Minister has said to the public that she is not interested in banning smacking. Then she said that this legislation will not make criminals out of parents who give their child a light smack, but that it will stop what she calls “child bashers”, whom she referred to in question time today.

Well, the Prime Minister is known for being an intelligent and a hard-working person—even when she is completely wrong—and she knows that that is not what the bill states. She knows that. We might expect to excuse a new member of Parliament who stands up in one of these debates, has not read the bill, and, therefore, gives a misleading impression of its content. But the Prime Minister has read the bill. She has more access than anyone in this country to high-quality policy and legal advice about what the bill means, yet she still misleads the public.

This is an anti-smacking bill—that is the purpose of it. The purpose of the bill is to criminalise anyone who uses force for corrective purposes. That is stated in clause 3. I defy the Prime Minister to get on the radio and the TV and to tell the truth. She is misrepresenting this bill to the public, not because she cares very much about the issue but because support for the Labour Government is going through the floor because her voters—her good, conservative Labour voters—are defecting en masse.

I repeat the comment that I heard today from someone whom I met in the street, who is not a political person, but who asked: “Does she think we are stupid?”. The parents of New Zealand know the purpose of clause 3, which states “… abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.” That is what it is.

So if our child touches the hot element—as I saw a child do tonight—and we pull the child’s hand away, that is legal. If the child does it again and we pull the child’s hand away again, that is legal. But if the child goes to do it again and we give the child a smack on the hand, that is a criminal offence. If the child goes to school and tells the teacher that is what happened, the teacher’s professional ethics oblige the teacher to report it to the police, and the police—

Hon Member: Rubbish!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it is a criminal offence, and the police are obliged to investigate it. The Prime Minister should stop telling the public lies about her bill. She should stop deliberately deceiving the public about the content of this bill.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member just made an unparliamentary remark about the Prime Minister, and I believe that he should withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member knows very well that he cannot say that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would like the Prime Minister and the proponents of this bill to have the courage of their convictions—particularly Sue Bradford, who has been manipulated by the Prime Minister into changing her description of this bill.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : I am in support of this bill—

Hon Tau Henare: See you later, Dougie.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: —yes, it could be: “See you later.”; it could well be: “See you later.” I just want to explain how I came to my position on this bill, because I did not support it in its first reading. Then I had a visit in my office from a lady called Maxine Hodgson, whom many members will know from Parentline in Hamilton. Maxine Hodgson said to me that if I did one thing in my term in Parliament and did nothing else, I must vote to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Hon Members: It doesn’t do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is speaking from the back of the Chamber. One cannot possibly hear him. I ask members to restrain themselves.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I listened to Maxine Hodgson, and she said that we must repeal section 59. I believe that Maxine Hobson is at the front line. She knows what she is talking about. She is a person who is well versed in the area of child advocacy, and she is a person whom I respect.

Maxine Hodgson says, along with all of the other advocacy groups for children—Barnardos, EPOCH, Parentline, and the Presbyterian Church; they all say this—that provision should go, and those people all say that because they understand something that is not being talked about today. It is that this measure is the beginning of a very, very long road towards reducing child abuse in this country. This bill is about the children. It is not about the sorts of things that have been spoken about here tonight. It is not about somebody’s right to beat a child. This is about the first step in a long journey towards doing something about a curse on our society that I believe we should all be concerned about and all do something about.

I for one am very, very scathing of people who talk to me about crime and about abuse—about the abuse of the elderly, about the abuse of women, and about the abuse of children—but who, when the chance comes to do one little thing about those things, run for the hills. They run for the hills, and they do not have the guts to stand up in this Parliament and vote for something that is a little—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I say to Mrs Collins, and to other members at the back—Mr Bennett—one cannot hear a thing. The noise is going across the Chamber, and I ask members to have some consideration for other people.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I understand that it is unparliamentary to stand up in this Chamber and accuse other members of lacking guts. That is exactly what Mr Woolerton just did. You did not take any action on it, so some of us felt the need to do something about it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I could not hear a word of it, because of the screaming coming from that member’s side of the Chamber. If Mr Woolerton did say that, I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Quite obviously, I would never accuse that member of lacking guts, so I withdraw and apologise, and I do so humbly.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. [Interruption] I am on my feet; that is your final warning. Mr Woolerton, you know that when you are asked to withdraw and apologise, you cannot say anything else but that you withdraw and apologise.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I take your advice, and I withdraw and apologise. I think it behoves all of us—

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member knows the Standing Orders, and he should have to comply with them; they are of long standing and are well understood. The only thing a member can say is that he or she withdraws and apologises; a member cannot say anything else.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is exactly what the member has just done.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member said clearly—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I give members another warning. When we are dealing with points of order, they will be dealt with in silence. I certainly understood very clearly that the member was responding to what I had said, which was to say nothing else but that he withdraws and apologises.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I withdraw and apologise.

I think it behoves all of us in this Committee to take things one step at a time. It is a fool, quite frankly, who believes that a problem such as child abuse can be cured in one fell swoop. It is naive and it simply will not happen. So, of course, the first step must be a little step—and this is a little step.

Members have been calling out to me, saying: “You’re gone, Doug.”, and all that sort of thing. I just want to say that I belong to a party—and I must say that I had a huge part in forming that party and bringing it to this Parliament—that I believe stands for tolerance, a party that straddles the middle ground in Parliament, and a party that, sadly, I feel, has put pressure on me not to stand up and support this bill. I say to anybody who believes that I do not have a right as a list MP to speak on a conscience issue, and to anybody who would seek to demote me in the situation of a party list, that there are people—and I make this absolutely plain to everybody in this Committee—good, God-fearing people in New Zealand First, who believe that section 59 should be removed. I do not deny those who do not believe that, but I want to make sure that everybody in this Committee, and everybody in this country, knows that there are people in New Zealand First who believe that. I speak for them when I come into this Chamber and say that we should take this first step on the path towards getting rid of the scourge of child abuse.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) : I appreciate the opportunity to speak on clause 3 of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. If there has been an upside to the whole fiasco surrounding this debate and this bill, it is that I now know how many Kiwis have email addresses. I suggest to the Committee members that they damn near all do; I believe I have had an email from just about every New Zealander who exists. Even just in the last half-hour I have had 42 emails on this subject come through to my BlackBerry.

I suggest that one of the problems with those emails is that one sees, yet again, how rude many Kiwis can be. Is that not sad? I hope we do not as a culture totally lose the ability to respect each other and each other’s arguments, and the right to have a different opinion. Sometimes I think some people forget that we actually have the right to a different opinion.

I take this chance to thank the many people who have come to see me and those who have sent reasonable arguments through by email. I made an effort to read a heck of a lot of them. There are a lot of people who really do care, and who have a real concern. Is that not fantastic? One has to be thrilled to bits with that, because I think, at the end of the day, that we all want the same thing.

I suppose the debate is about whether this bill is delivering on what we hope to deliver. I suggest to Sue Bradford that it is not. I always had it in my mind that Parliament’s role should be to provide leadership for New Zealand. Sometimes leadership gets a bit difficult, because one sometimes has to make decisions that fly in the face of public opinion. I ask the member to trust me, because I know about that. I sold the electricity company, and I can tell members that did not go down very well. I was involved with variations to the waterfront plan, and I can assure members that they did not go down very well.

Sometimes leadership is very difficult because one believes that one is making decisions with more information and more facts than the public have, and that one is privy to certain things the public is not privy to. That is when one has to make difficult decisions; that is called leadership. Leaders should not make difficult decisions with the belief that the public are dumb. I sense that this bill suggests to members of the public that maybe they are not as smart as they think they are. I think that is wrong.

I do not believe that Parliament is showing leadership by having this debate. I cannot figure out why we are having a debate on this bill. Surely Parliament has bigger things to debate—things that would make New Zealand a heck of a lot of a better place than it is—than whether we should make it a criminal offence to smack our children, because we believe that that will lead to thrashing and bashing, and everything else.

If people were looking from the outside at this debate and they saw the level of hysteria in this Committee, they would actually think we were having a debate on capital punishment. Maybe a debate on that would have the same level of hysteria we are seeing in this argument.

I cannot believe that this Parliament has managed to alienate so many Kiwis. Parliament is sending Kiwis a message, and it is not the sort of message I honestly believe we want to send them. It is a message that says: “Hey, we don’t really care what you say. We believe we can enter your family home. We believe we can enter that sacrosanct area and do a better job than you can of making decisions on how you develop your family.”

I say to Sue Bradford that I still do not understand why we are having this debate. When I read the many, many emails that had come through, I saw that thousands and thousands of people did not understand the issue. This debate does not seem to make one bit of difference in getting us to where we all want to go. We all want to stop child abuse and bad parenting. I do not see this bill making a difference in that area.

There are too many Kiwis being disenfranchised at the moment because of the decisions being made and the debate we are having. This is not happening just in New Zealand. Some of the emails I received were very relevant. I want to draw attention to one I received on 7 March from Jeremy and Alison Coleman. It reads: “Dear New Zealand MP. We are expats considering returning to New Zealand, with a significant interest and investment in the well-being of our children. We are watching the passage of Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill with great interest. It is evident, if mood can be read from the New Zealand media, that the majority of New Zealanders are also opposed. The passage or failure of this bill will certainly influence our decision to return to New Zealand.” So we are seeing messages not just from New Zealand but also from overseas.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I am becoming heartily sick of opponents of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, the essence of whose argument is: “Don’t tell me what to do in my home. My home is sacrosanct. The State shouldn’t tell me what to do in my home.” Well, people are not allowed to beat their spouses in their homes, so why should they be able to beat their children? They are not allowed to sexually abuse their children in the sanctity of their homes, so why should they be able to physically abuse their children in the sanctity of their homes?

Every one of us pays when a child grows up in a culture of violence. We pay for it in the crime statistics, in jails that are crowded, and in a police force that is stretched by trying to cope with crime and with people who do not feel safe in their homes. Day after day in this Chamber we see opponents wringing their hands about the violence in this society—wringing their hands about the need for more police, more jails, and so forth. But the very same people are not prepared to support legislation that seeks to reduce the culture of violence in this society, and that is what this bill aims to do.

This bill aims to strike a blow at the culture of violence in our society, and at the abuse of children, which is what section 59 is about. Section 59 legitimises violence; it justifies whacking children, and that is why its opponents are so appalled about its removal. They do not have any reason other than that it removes the justification, the legitimacy, for whacking children on a routine basis.

I know somebody who has spent most of his life in jail. As a child he was beaten by his father, who was a fundamentalist Christian, and who said that he had a right to beat that child, because the child had the devil in him, and the father was whacking the devil out of him. Not just this person—who has spent most of his tragic life in jail—but all of us have paid for that upbringing of violence. We have all paid into the amount—in paying for prisons, in paying for that child’s life in and out of jail, and in paying for the police to have to arrest him on a routine basis.

I was talking to someone else who was routinely smacked as a child—not beaten but just smacked. He said, in looking back now, that it drained him of his trust in his parents and his trust in the world. He said that over the years he lost his joy in life, and his innocence. Sure, the guy survived—and that is what everyone says: “Look, I was beaten as a child; I survived.” We have some outstanding examples, like Dr Pita Sharples, who has survived intolerable beating and is now an example and an inspiration to us all. Nevertheless, I suspect that he would say the same thing—that all of those beatings and all of that violence drained him of his trust, of his innocence, and of his joy in life.

I believe that opposition to this bill is very much driven by very passionate and well-intentioned fundamentalist Christians, who really believe that they must beat children and not spare the rod, in order to beat Satan out of them. What we are hearing here are excuses—excuse after excuse—from people who say they have a right to smack, and who want to have their right to smack legitimised and sanctioned in legislation. All this bill is doing is undermining that sanctity and legitimacy of violence, and it is striking a blow at the culture of violence in this society.

If people are seriously concerned about violence in our society—as most Opposition members claim that they are—then it is frankly incomprehensible that they would oppose this bill. I would like to pay a tribute to people with the courage of Doug Woolerton.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) : It is a pleasure indeed to rise and speak on the purpose of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I am looking at the title of the bill, and I have an older copy of the legislation here, from when it was reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think it is quite appropriate to have this copy, because it illuminates one or two of the aspects that have been discussed tonight. The original title reads: the “Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill”—quite a mouthful.

Let us look at clause 3, the “Purpose” clause. It originally read: “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act …”. This is quite interesting, because the provision that was taken out was the very driver of this bill when it went to the select committee. It was to “abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children.” That was changed to “make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”

It strikes me very clearly that this bill is in actual fact an anti-smacking bill. It is being proposed totally to undermine the parental choice—which has been a part of society—of parents taking responsibility for rearing their children in a caring and loving manner. It says there “for the purpose of correction.” So on that basis we can all support the comments that are coming forward around doing away with abuse and violence. I find that it is still very hard to come to grips with the fact that this bill is no more than an anti-smacking bill being promoted by this Government, and, as such, it has set about to undermine totally the responsibility in families of the mums, dads, and carers of those children.

I would like to take members through some thoughts. Everybody has the right to have a different view on things. Some people oppose any sort of physical chastisement, and we appreciate that. Some people insist on a great deal of parental scope to discipline as they see fit, and we accept that. However, the majority—a huge number—of New Zealanders sit in between those two camps, making their own choices but allowing for the notion that other parents should be allowed to choose differently, within boundaries.

Really, it comes down to the question of what is reasonable. On that basis, it becomes quite clear to me that Chester Borrows’ amendment certainly does measure up to the opportunity there of stating what parental control of children, by limiting the use of force for the purpose of correction, is about. It is very appropriate that he goes to the lengths of explaining that it would be inappropriate to use a weapon, at all, or an implement, if it is inflicted by a means that is cruel, degrading, or terrifying. So, on that basis, I find that Chester Borrows has moved to a situation that 80 percent or more of New Zealanders are perfectly comfortable with. Many people will be at a loss to understand what exactly is “unreasonable” about a defence that is an action of being reasonable.

This bill is really about a Government that is trying to tell the public that it knows best. We have had to put up with a tremendous amount of “We know best.” Fortunately, I sense a degree of frustration on the benches on the other side of the Chamber there, because those members know that they are on the wrong side of the argument. The public itself is giving a very clear message as to what it believes.

Really, if we wanted to do something quite serious about this situation, we would be doing away with the situations where it is quite clear that New Zealanders are at risk—where there is alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and stress associated with the poverty that has grown since this Government came into power, and where mum’s live-in boyfriend is a threat. The gentle smack of correction on the bottom has done nothing to damage children.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) : I stand in this Chamber as one of the MPs who was accused by the media of not supporting this bill. With the exception of one radio journalist last Saturday, no media person has ever come to me to ask me whether I support this bill. I am now on the record as fully supporting this bill as it came back from the Justice and Electoral Committee. I had concerns when this bill went to the select committee. However, as often happens in this House, careful and wise consideration by a select committee has meant that changes have been made to this bill that, in my view, have presented us with a very fair and reasoned bill.

It is important to remember one thing: it is currently illegal to hit anyone, be it an adult or a child, in this country. Section 59 of the Crimes Act allows a defence. When I was at primary school—and I was at school with some people in this Chamber—we were strapped, we were hit around the legs with wickets, and we had quite an amount of physical punishment exerted against us as the teachers had to keep us in line. At high school I received five on the backside quite a number of times for discipline reasons. Those forms of discipline are no longer legal. The education system has not failed because of that.

We now have a situation where the defence used by individuals under section 59 has led to confusion about what one can and cannot do to a child. In my view the fact that a jury ruling upheld a defence that allowed a child to be whipped is something we cannot stand by and allow to continue. That is why I support the passage of this bill. In fact, if there is any criticism, it might be that this bill does not go far enough. Anyone reading the bill will see that performing the normal daily tasks incidental to good care and parenting will still be allowed. Some people might say that we have not banned smacking, that we still allow it, and therein lies a danger of allowing a defence when, arguably, some child has been abused.

I think the select committee has done a good job to come up with a balanced bill that will move this issue forward. I cannot, in all good conscience, stand in this Chamber and not support a bill that will attempt to remove a defence that has time and time again allowed parents to abuse children, to beat them, and to stand in a court of law and say they are allowed to do that because of section 59. That is abhorrent. It is something that this Parliament has to do something about. This bill, while not perfect, will allow parents to discipline their children in order to prevent them from getting into harm, to prevent them from harming others, and to perform “the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting”.

The thing that really saddens me is the amount of energy that is being used up and down this country to demand the right to hit a child. If only we could turn that energy and demand that every child in this country be loved, be cared for, and be given a chance, then we would be doing something. I cannot understand so much energy going into demanding the right to hit a child when the problems we have relating to child abuse are beyond comprehension for a country that tries to consider itself a fair and just society.

I am happy to support this bill as a step forward to try to address the issue of child abuse up and down this country. It is not perfect; it does allow for smacking in the normal parenting of a child in this country.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) : We have heard a great deal of debate already on this bill, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I have heard things from the Government benches like: “We must pass this bill to change attitudes.”, “We must pass this bill to draw a line in the sand.”, and “This bill is about taking a stand, striking a blow.” I say to Government members that they are absolutely right. Up and down this country mums and dads, grandmas and grandads, aunties, uncles, and cousins—you name it—are changing their attitudes. They are drawing a line in the sand, and that is why we are seeing the energy that the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor, talked about; they are sick and tired of this Government telling them what to do. They are sick and tired of a nanny State Government reaching into their living rooms and telling them how to look after their children. That is the change in attitude—they have had enough of this Government telling them what to do. If Government members want to change the attitudes of New Zealanders, they should keep on doing just what they are doing.

Up and down the country 84 percent of New Zealanders are rejecting this bill. They know that this bill does not do a jot to address the appalling record of child abuse in this country. This bill does not do a thing. It does absolutely nothing. We have a Government that is paralysed by the appalling figures of child abuse. We have a Minister in charge of Child, Youth and Family, Ruth Dyson, who is more interested in spin than in substance. She is far quicker to appoint public relations people up and down the country to spin out what a great job she is doing than she is to appoint highly qualified, professional people at the front line to do the job that needs doing in this country. I say to Ruth Dyson that this bill will not do it. If we are serious about attacking child abuse in this country, this bill will not do a thing.

I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee and listened when people from organisations like Barnardos and Plunket made their presentations. Those people are working at the front line of child abuse in this country. Of course they want the Government to do something. They are asking this Government to do anything, because it is frozen. The Government and the Minister have no idea of what to do to address child abuse. The Government will pass a bill like this, it will do a television campaign and tell people not to hit their children, and it thinks it will all go away. The Government is bereft of ideas and it is time it went.

I have absolute sympathy for the desire to get rid of the defence currently in the law in section 59. I brought to my caucus pictures of a child who had been beaten with a wooden stick by his father. They were horrific. That father used section 59 as a defence. I want to speak in support of the amendment in the name of my colleague Chester Borrows because his amendment addresses what is wrong with section 59. Chester Borrows’ amendment takes away the defence used in a number of pretty horrific cases, and I think it deserves the support of this Committee because it protects the hundreds of thousands of good Kiwi parents who know the difference between smacking their child and bashing their child.

We have heard a lot of rhetoric in this Committee, but there is a huge difference between giving a child a smack and bashing a child. No one in this Committee supports bashing and thrashing children—no one in this Committee does. But if we are serious about doing something about our appalling statistics of child abuse, then we must recognise that passing a law that the people who commit that violence do not even know about, let alone understand, will make no difference in their lives.

Child, Youth and Family workers themselves talk about some of the common factors they see in families where child abuse takes place. They talk about things like poverty, poor housing, indebtedness, neglect, and that cycle of violence where smashing people is a norm—smashing people, not a tap on the bottom saying “Do not do that again.” or a smack on the hand saying “Don’t do that again, you’ll burn yourself.” That is the difference. People on this side of the Committee who are supporting Chester Borrows’ amendment understand that New Zealand parents, in the main, are good parents.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : While we are still dealing with clause 3 of my bill, I would like to specifically address the Chester Borrows amendment, as we will be voting on it at the end of the debate on this clause. I fear a lot of the debate has not been around that, even though Mr Borrows’ amendment is quite significant.

Hon Members: It’s clause 4.

SUE BRADFORD: It starts at clause 3. Mr Borrows’ amendment is seriously flawed, and in fact it negates everything I am trying to achieve with my bill.

In 2004 the House of Lords in the UK moved a similar amendment to Mr Borrows’ amendment. It told people in the UK how to hit their children but that they should not hit them too hard. I will quote a couple of things from an article in the Guardian in 2004. A health visitor in a poor part of London, who has witnessed many tactics used by parents to conceal the injuries on children, said: “They’ll pinch behind the ears, they’ll hit the soles of the feet, they’ll hit the head, because the hair will cover it up, but the injuries are worse, because the brain rocks from side to side.” Another paediatrician at Birmingham Children’s Hospital said she often sees unmarked but badly hurt children. “ ‘There are injuries that are quite nasty that don’t leave any marks at all. Often with impact injuries you do see reddening, but a blow to the abdomen doesn’t leave any superficial marks at all, the child just starts to vomit.’ Very small babies may show no superficial bruises, or redness – ‘then you do an x-ray and there’s a fracture on the thighbone, then you x-ray other bones and you may find multiple fractures.’ ” She then goes on to say: “Bruising will be still more difficult to detect on a dark-skinned child.”, and to explain that it is possible to look with an ultraviolet light to see whether anything has happened to a dark-skinned child. The article goes on and on.

I am quoting this horrible stuff because that is what one gets into when one tries to define the ways we can and cannot hit, hurt, assault, or smack children, which is what Mr Borrows is trying to do. I know Mr Borrows is very well intentioned. He knows the realities of what, sadly, happens to some of our children, and he is trying to deal with the issue. But the way that he is dealing with it is extremely unfortunate. The best torturers in the world know how to hurt people without leaving a mark. Mr Borrows’ amendment sends a message. If it is passed, the Parliament of this country will send a message that hitting and hurting kids is OK, as long we can hide it and get away with it. How much evidence can a 1-year-old baby give about the nature of the beating or the breaking of its bones that it has just received? Children are not protected by Mr Borrows’ amendment. What if the head or neck of the body is hit? Any part of the body can be hit. The amendment does not protect children in terms of their age. Babies, young people, and teenagers are not protected by Mr Borrows’ amendment. All children, babies, and teenagers could be subject to violence.

The amendment betrays our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Even Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who assisted Mr Borrows in drafting his amendment, has made the comment publicly that if Mr Borrows’ amendment is passed, it would actually be in contravention of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

A similar standard to that proposed in Mr Borrows’ amendment was set in Canada in a judgment of its Supreme Court. The result is that even major assaults have been judged to be transitory and trifling, as per Mr Borrows’ amendment.

If passed, Mr Borrows’ amendment would send a public message that hitting our kids is OK. It would undermine all the fantastic work that has been done by the SKIP programme and all the church and community groups around New Zealand that are trying to support parents to learn alternative methods of bringing up our kids that do not involve violence. If we have the State legalising violence and defining what level of violence is OK and the nature of that violence, it undermines every single one of the groups that are trying to help parents to learn other and better ways of bringing up kids than hitting them.

I have been criticised by some members for the fact that I have stated all along that should Mr Borrows’ amendment succeed during the Committee stage, I will discharge the bill. They have said that will mean I will somehow be undermining parliamentary democracy or committing other sins against the House. I will make a few comments on that. The Standing Orders explicitly provide that a member in charge of a bill—whether it is a Government bill or a member’s bill—can discharge that order of the day at any time. Some members are suggesting it is undemocratic to fly in the face of the rules by saying that if the Chester Borrows amendment is passed, I will discharge the bill. In fact, that suggestion flies in the face of the rules that we operate by in this House and that govern our behaviour. The ability either to stay with or discharge a bill is the prerogative of any of us who have a bill before the House. In fact, in this term of Parliament, the right to discharge a bill has been exercised so far a total of 10 times in relation to both Government and members’ bills.

I did not ever want there to be any doubt amongst MPs or the public about my intentions should Mr Borrows’ amendment succeed. I feel that if it succeeds, that would be one of the worst possible things that could happen for the children of this country. It would completely contradict and undermine my original purpose in putting forward this bill. I sincerely hope that enough other members will understand why having the State in this country define and specifically legitimise the level and nature of the force we can use on our children would be nothing short of a total disgrace.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I want to do something I did not expect I would do, which is to commend Sue Bradford for at least being honest with this Parliament about what her bill, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, does. What she has effectively just said to the Committee in her explanation is that it is too hard to define what is a smack and what is abuse, so her bill goes the full hog and bans smacking. I agree with her. I direct my criticism at the cynical spin from the Prime Minister and the Labour Party, who somehow pretend that this bill does not ban smacking.

What goes to the heart of trust in our democracy is that politicians do what they say and say what they mean. Ten days before the last general election the Prime Minister, when asked on the radio whether her Government would support a ban on smacking, did not say no; she said absolutely no. That is what she said. This cynical Labour Government will now break that word and use every cynical trick it can find to try to ram this bill through Parliament. That is wrong. I say to Labour members opposite that not only is their measure wrong but they are undermining the basic trust on which our democracy is based.

I turn to the substance of the bill, because I heard so many speeches in which members said we need to send a signal about abuse. If those members were giving a speech or if they were writing a parenting manual, I could well support them. If the Prime Minister wants to give a speech and say there is too much child abuse in this country, I, and I think every member of this Committee, would say “Hear, hear!”. But we are not writing a parenting manual; we are writing the Crimes Act. We are determining those New Zealanders who are to be classed as criminals.

I will not support a bill that turns 70 percent of my constituents, who as responsible parents occasionally smack their children, into criminals. We must not do that. I also appeal to this Committee that in this country of ours a huge number of disputes over custody happen when families are split.

Hon David Benson-Pope: That member would know about that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member wants to bring my own personal circumstances into the debate. Yes, I know about that. He is a grubby member who would do that. I say to David Benson-Pope that I am proud of the fact that I have a very cooperative relationship with my former wife and we work hard together for the interests of my two children.

I have to say as a member of Parliament that not a Saturday constituency clinic goes by where I do not see parents fighting parents, and this bill is going to throw petrol on the fire. We know already that too many relationships between ex-partners become incredibly acrimonious to the disadvantage of children. By introducing this provision into law, affidavits galore in which smacking is alleged will be filed in the courts, and relationships between children and parents will be broken down and cut out because of those shenanigans. That is wrong.

The approach that has been taken by the very practical and sensible member Chester Borrows is the right way forward. I have read cases where people who assaulted children should have been convicted. The provisions of section 59 are, to date, too broad. What Chester Borrows does is rise to the challenge of this Parliament to define properly that which is abuse and that which is a reasonable smack in the course of disciplining children. I plead with this Committee to take on board that amendment, which provides a middle way forward. I say to Sue Bradford that what she presents is an extreme position. The fact that, after over 12 months’ debate on this bill, 83 percent of New Zealanders do not support her makes this bill undemocratic.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : The only acrimony in relation to this bill—this fine Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill—is from those people who are putting their head up in the clouds like that member there. The fact that this bill is just about defining the difference between smacking and clubbing people is something we have to be clear about. It is about making provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment. We have heard all this high-handed stuff that, like the king without any clothes, abuse does not happen. Chester Borrows’ stuff is totally confusing. This bill is explicit.

We have heard all this prattle in defence of people being allowed to smack their kids. People like Mr Bennett know that this country’s refuges are full of Māori women and kids who have been thrashed and bashed by other people. Those members do not want to talk about that. It is outrageous. Dr Sharples was dead right. Opposition members want to head us off from trying to have a smack-free community. They do not want that. Police do not arrest parents at the moment for tapping or smacking their children.

Who supports this bill? It is Plunket, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, and all those organisations that are at the interface and that patch up all this smashing and bashing. People say that smacking is OK, but the whole nation cried and decried the actions when the Kāhui twins were lying dead. When other babies were killed we all went “boo hoohoo”. We have a clear chance with this bill, and I commend Sue Bradford for the courage she has shown. This woman has stood in front of those damn politicians in years past and decried them for what they have done. She has had the courage to stand up on behalf of children and declare that there are people in this nation who want to protect them. Who protects a child’s rights? This bill helps with that. What about the parents who do not care about children’s rights and disguise the bashings they give? What about them? That is OK. I hear enough banter and prattle in this Chamber about the Department of Corrections and our full prisons. How come it is OK to deny children their rights? How come? Children get brought up in cultures and societies where they get thrashed by their parents and have welts on their buttocks and legs. Where do the children turn? Who can they tell about the damage, the fear, and the hurt? Who do they tell? This legislation is good governance. It is a great Government that does this in support of mothers and kids.

We can go on and on. Nick Smith says that he wants to ensure that the rights of a certain percentage of his constituency are defended. What about the defence of the kids? What about the defence of all the women in refuges? Who is defending them? We are playing this game again that abuse does not happen—that the killing and the murder and the smashing of women and children does not happen by what are, supposedly, just minor, incidental slaps. Let us believe where that heads off to. I want people to think about it. What they are condoning is what is happening in this country and what everybody else is denying.

An amended section 59 will not ban smacking and it will not make criminals out of decent parents. There are decent parents. But I ask members to take a snapshot in their mind of the kid who has been hit tonight, whether that kid is 5, 10 or 12 years old. Who does that kid talk to? Who can that kid tell that he or she has just got the bash? Who? What would Nick Smith do about that? There are kids who quiver and shiver in their houses because people are left to run riot and beat them up.

Let us cut to the chase. All of a sudden we are trying to be amenable and correct and to show political correctness about not banning smacking because it is a parent’s right. Let me ask the question again: how do we defend a child’s rights? How do we defend a battered woman’s rights? How do we do that? We put a marker in the ground like we did about having no smoking in restaurants. Everybody went “boo hoohoo”.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Straight off the bat I want to talk briefly about two former colleagues of mine, Brian Donnelly and Doug Woolerton. Although I support wholeheartedly their democratic right to vote whichever way they want to, I say, especially to my friend Doug Woolerton, that I get a bit wild in this debate when accusations are made that normal parents—the majority of New Zealanders, whether they be black, white, red, or green—are child beaters or abusers. That is what I have no truck with.

Hon Member: No one said that.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, if the member had been in the Chamber while Doug Woolerton was speaking, she would have found out that that is what Doug Woolerton actually said. [Interruption] Yes it was.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to interrupt my honourable colleague, but I do point out that it is the convention of this Chamber not to refer to anybody’s absence.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I agree. The contributor transgressed there. I would also like Mr Henare to come back to the bill.

Hon TAU HENARE: During the debate, while I have been in the Chamber, I have been accused by the former member for Whanganui of being an abuser. I find it absolutely disgusting that the member used this debate to accuse me—and, most probably, every other decent, working-class parent—of being an abuser.

Sue Bradford said that the best torturers in the world know how to hide their handiwork. For God’s sake! This is not Iraq. Every parent is not Saddam Hussein. Every parent is not a member of Al Qaeda. I respect Sue immensely. I have worked with Sue in a past life, and I respect her immensely. But the problem I have—

Peter Brown: That explains a lot.

Hon TAU HENARE: Peter Brown says that that explains a lot. Well, I tell you what—no, I will not; I will keep to what I am saying. The fact of the matter is that this bill would not have stopped the Kāhui twins from being killed.

Jill Pettis: How do you know that?

Hon TAU HENARE: Because the murderers of the Kāhui twins would not have given a toss about what the legislation was. They were bent on murder. This bill would not have stopped them. This bill would not have stopped all the murderers of our babies and of our children. So do not pretend—[Interruption] The Hon Brian Donnelly says to get rid of our murder laws.

Hon Member: No, he didn’t.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, he did.

Hon Member: Be honest!

Hon TAU HENARE: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am asked to be honest. I think that is actually a breach of the Standing Orders. Is it OK—[Interruption] I have raised a point of order, Mr Chairperson, and three people have intervened while I have been speaking on it. The Speaker today booted people out of the Chamber for just that transgression.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I too am trying to get into the debate. But, yes, I remind members that it was a point of order, they clearly heard that it was, and that means that they keep quiet. It has been a pretty robust debate. How about you continue, Mr Henare.

Hon TAU HENARE: I raise a point order, Mr Chairperson. As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, the Hon Brian Donnelly said something. I have repeated in the Chamber what I think he said. Now I am being told that “Be honest!” is not what he said. I seek leave for Brian Donnelly to say what he actually said to me during my speech.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member cannot seek leave for another member to do anything.

Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I have to dispose of the point of order that is on the floor. I dispose of it by saying that we will leave it at that.

Hon Brian Donnelly: I did make an interjection. The Hon Tau Henare half-quoted what I said. He did not quote the whole thing.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): These are all points of debate, but I thank both members for raising them.

Hon TAU HENARE: What was the other half?

Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I believe that within the Standing Orders there is a provision that if one has been misquoted within a speech—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): A member can raise this issue at the end of a speech, not during a speech.

Hon TAU HENARE: This bill will do nothing to save the lives of the babies who get thumped and who will continue to get thumped; it will do nothing. With the new section 59—or the “no section 59”—there will not be hordes of people out there running around the town saying: “Hey, this doesn’t apply to me so I’m going to thump my kids when I get home, because it doesn’t matter. ”

I do believe what Nick Smith has said, that some separations are acrimonious. Boy, watch the sparks fly then! There are also neighbours who hate each other. For God’s sake! We have seen it on reality TV. One neighbour will say: “Oh, here we go. Now this is really good. Let’s—” [Interruption] Oh, whatever! For God’s sake! I have five children and I know what I am talking about. Some people do not have children and they should shut up, especially when they do not know what they are talking about. I have brought up five children with the help of my wife and we have done a great job. I am proud of my kids. The fact of the matter is that I did not abuse them. [] I did not say that that member does not have any kids, but her leader does not have any. Those members can dish it out, they can call me an abuser, but they cannot take it. And when they cannot take it, they get all mad and stupid.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As discussed earlier, I was quoted by Tau Henare. By way of explanation, I say that he quoted only half of what I said, and therefore gave quite an inaccurate rendition of what I said. What I actually said was that our murder laws do not get rid of murders, and I asked, therefore, whether we should get rid of our murder laws.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you, Mr Donnelly.

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.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : I rise tonight to speak to the purpose of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. In particular, I start by replying to Parekura Horomia, who spoke earlier. He is a Māori member of the Committee who got up and spoke extremely passionately tonight. I reply to him with a whakataukī: tihei mauri o-rā! Hūtia te rito o te harakeke. Kei whea te komako, e kō? Kī mai ki ahau, he aha te mea nui o te ao. Māku e kī atu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

[Behold the force of life! Draw out the centre shoot of the flax, and what will become of the bellbird? Ask me what is the greatest thing in the world, and I will tell you three times over that it is mankind.]

That whakataukī talks about family. It talks about the harakeke—the flax bush—and it talks about the bellbird that sits in the flax bush. It says that when one takes away the heart of the flax bush, one removes the home of the family. This is what I see us doing with this bill today.

I believe that I represent middle New Zealand. I am a family man with three children—a 10-year-old, an 8-year-old, and a 6-year-old. Tonight I want to speak from the heart about those children. I see this country becoming a nanny State. I will tell members a story about when I took my daughter to kindergarten to go on a confidence course. I set up the course for her, sat down and took her in my arms, then opened my arms and told her to go. Away she went, around the confidence course and back again. A group of other children were lined up beside me—a whole lot of other little girls and boys who wanted to go on the course. The next little girl climbed into my arms, and I started to ask myself whether it was right for her to be there. Was it right for her to be in my arms?

The message that it is not OK to hug children in a playground was sent from Parliament, from this Chamber. This is the situation we are going through. The Prime Minister has never stood up and given a strong message about that. We have a similar, crazy situation regarding men on aeroplanes. It is totally unacceptable that there is now a policy in this country that children travelling alone on aeroplanes cannot be seated beside men.

I will get back to the purpose of the bill. The substitute section 59 takes away the rights of good, upstanding families in this country, who have done amazingly well. Eighty-three percent of people in this country support the view of the bill taken by members on this side of the Chamber—83 percent.

I will talk tonight about cases where section 59 was totally unsuccessful as a defence, where reasonable force was considered to have been exceeded, and where a charge of assault was upheld. I found 15 cases since 1985. In only four of those cases in the last 21 years was section 59 used as a successful defence. But I want to talk about a case where the use of section 59 as a defence was not successful, that of Sharma v Police. A defendant was convicted of two offences, one of which was assault on a child. He had struck his 9-year-old stepson three times. Initially the defendant was found guilty, and he appealed against that conviction. Although the section 59 defence was available to the appellant, the judge was unable to see how the two linked together in that particular circumstance. Mr Sharma could not justify his use of force, which had gone to the lengths of a slap to the head as well as further blows. Section 59 was not able to be used as a successful defence.

That is the case. By amending section 59 we are removing the right of parents to care for, and look after, their children in the way that 83 percent in this country know is best. That is unacceptable.

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I rise to take my first call of the evening in this debate, and before I go any further, I have to say that I respect and support totally the right of New Zealand First caucus members to vote as they see fit on conscience issues. I respect and support totally the right of any member of this Committee to stand up and vote as that member sees fit, according to conscience, and I totally stand against anyone who would force any member of Parliament to vote against his or her conscience. I have said enough there. That includes everybody in this Chamber.

I want to dispel some of the myths that have been spread about this bill. Myth No. 1 is that the bill will create a safe and secure environment that is free from violence for all children in Aotearoa New Zealand or, indeed, on planet Earth. It will not. Myth No. 2 is that the police will not investigate every case that is brought to their attention. The truth of the matter is that the police will have to, I tell Mrs Bradford. They will have to do so, because one of the fundamental, core policies that the police are pursuing in their drive to reduce crime is to act on every reported incidence of family violence, and that is something that the Green Party, the Labour Government, the New Zealand First Party, the National Party, and the ACT party all support. The police understand fully their responsibility to act on every complaint of family violence. To say now that they will not do so is not true. It misleads and deceives, and it is a myth.

Mrs Bradford, in making the comment in this debate that the best torturers in the world know how to hide their work, in so far as I am concerned, was saying that every person in this Chamber who has ever smacked one of his or her children is a torturer, and should be considered and legislated against as though that member were a torturer. Let me tell Mrs Bradford what a Green Party member said about torturers in an article that he wrote some years ago, “Cambodia liberated: victory for humanity”. Her colleague Keith Locke wrote: “He rode into Phnom Penh on a Honda, and as a lone figure in black pyjamas came to a halt in front of a line of Cambodian armoured vehicles, it was hard to say who was more scared.” That man, who trumpeted the victorious actions of the Khmer Rouge, does not mention that when the Viet Namese liberated the city of Phnom Penh, which was previously a city of a million people, they found 75 people there. That was torture, I say to Mrs Bradford; that was condoning violence, I say to her.

Smacking children in order to protect them from danger—the type of discipline that I would imagine every member of this Committee who is a parent might well have had to resort to, as a last resort—is not torture. It is very disappointing, I say to Mrs Bradford, that one has to stand up and condemn the idiots who have sent me some of the emails that extol why I should vote against this bill, in support of their views—emails that I regret and wish I had never read. The people who have written those emails to me fit into exactly the same category as Mrs Bradford now does, by daring to imply that everybody who smacks his or her child is a torturer, or condones torture. That is as emotive and misleading as some of the opponents of her bill have demonstrated themselves to be by the claptrap that is cluttering my computer.

I turn now to the warnings from Tau Henare. Let us just watch to see how litigious matrimonial settlements become now. We all know that the firearms community talks ad nauseam about the best way to pay back a husband who has a few hunting rifles he loves, if he is in an acrimonious settlement with his wife: the wife tells the police she is scared of her husband and he has all his firearms taken away. There is not one case, not 10 cases, and not 50 cases, but hundreds of cases of that. Members cannot sit there and tell me that men and women who are locked up in acrimonious settlements will not use their children and, under this legislation, start to claim that one of the reasons for separating is that the husband or wife has smacked their children.

JILL PETTIS (Labour) : Mr Chairman, I move, That the question be now put.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We had a motion from Mrs Pettis that was inappropriately worded, according to the Standing Orders. In any event, I seek the call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I have yet to consider what was put here. I accept the motion in the way it was put, albeit it was slightly off the actual wording that is specified. But the wording was sufficient for me to understand the motion, and I accept it. Also, we have had 2 hours 45 minutes on this tiny clause. I want to be very fair on this. We have had over 30 contributors, and the essence of the bill is in the next clause. It is my judgment that members really want to get to that clause. I will accept the motion from Jill Pettis.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With due respect, my understanding is that the wording used in the motion has to be accurate to the letter. If you, Mr Chairman, start to change that, then that will endanger how Chairpersons and Speakers have treated the issue of a closure motion. I raise real concerns in regard to that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I do not think that point needs to delay us. I have accepted the wording as put by Jill Pettis. I am quite comfortable with it, and I intend to put that motion.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is obviously a very important bill, and for that reason—although I am not wanting to sound as if I am trifling with the Chair, at all—we have a considerable concern about the ability of the senior Labour whip to cast a full vote on this particular bill. Information has come to us about the potential for the Labour Government to be well over its allowed number on leave. Of course, we would accept the assurance of the whip, but we are just a little concerned that that may be the case at the present time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that, Mr Brownlee. The convention and the practice is that the word of the whip be accepted. If the vote was very, very close, then there would be areas one could go into. The vote is not close in those terms—it is 63 to 58. I intend to accept the word of the whip as to the number that he used.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 in the name of Chester Borrows to clause 3 be agreed to.