Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill

I rise to speak in relation to clause 2A, “Principal Act amended”, which I will read for the benefit of those who are listening: “This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.” So I take it we can talk about the Crimes Act 1961 and how it is amended by this particular bill.

At the moment, should parents smack a child not for the purpose of correction but because they do that every Friday, or every day after they come home from the pub, or because they feel like it, it is against the law. That is not condoned by the law, because it is not for the purpose of correction of the child. This is already the law. It is already against the law to hit a child for any reason other than for the purpose of correction. It is absolutely the law.

Occasionally, the law can be abused by people being overly keen to prosecute a parent, but it can also sometimes be abused by people thinking they have the right to do that. It is quite wrong to have discussions in this House that imply that somehow there will be a change of attitude towards children and the beating of them. I have heard people in this Chamber talk in this debate about how we need to send a message. The way most of us send messages is by phone calls, emails, letters, television and radio adverts, and by talking to people and educating them. We do not actually prosecute parents because we want to send a message.

This bill should not be about what the Green Party and the Labour Party want it to be about, which is who is in charge of our kids. Those parties think they are. This bill should be about what is in the best interests of children. What is in the best interests of children is for them to have responsible, empowered parents who put their children first, and who make decisions that sometimes the children do not like but they are in their best interests.

I heard the most appalling suggestions tonight from Labour Party members that we should not now do anything that children do not like, and that we should have a voice for children here in Parliament. They say we should definitely do that. Well, why do we not just give children the vote? That will solve the problem. We have heard Labour Party members saying that children should not be forced to do things they do not like. I do not know of any parent here of a teenager who could say to his or her child: “You decide, dear, when you would like to go to bed at night. You decide, dear, whether you do your homework. You decide who you get to hang out with. You decide where you go. You decide whether you would like to go to a pub when you are 14. You decide.”

I would just like to say to those members who do not live in the real world—unlike those of us who do, who represent real people and do not live in some la-la land along with la-la land people—that on Monday I was at the Bethany Centre in Auckland. The centre does not really do adoptions these days; what it does is teach parenting to mums who are absolutely at risk. In other words, we are talking about people in the underclass area—people who have absolutely no hope without the help and intervention the Bethany Centre can give them. Staff at the Bethany Centre have said to me that one of the biggest problems they have is kids who come in there who have no idea about being parents.

They have parents who come in to visit their children and who are trying to do the right thing, but who have never said “No”. They have never set boundaries or actually said they do not want to be the best friend of their child, but want to be that child’s parent. Because guess what? They are different—just like those members who are former teachers and who like to stand up and say that once they used to smack children, once they used to beat them with a cane, but they do not do that any more because they have learnt the way. They try to equate the relationship between a parent and child with that of a teacher and a child. They are completely different relationships.

A teacher will have a child for a certain number of hours every day and not in the holidays. A parent has a child 24/7. I have never seen a teacher get up at 3 o’clock in the morning and take a sick child with earache to the doctor, which is what normal parents do. Those teachers who are parents will have done it for their own children, but they do not do it for other people’s children, because they are not those children’s parents. There is a basic difference between the relationships.

It is absolute twaddle for some members to come into this Chamber and talk about how they used to be a teacher and cane children, but now they have learnt better. Forget it! We are not saying parents should be able to cane their children; we are saying that a light smack on the hand or the bottom of a child by way of correction will not harm him or her. In fact, it may actually stop a situation escalating.

Speaking to clause 2A, “Principal Act amended”, which states: “This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.”, reminds me very strongly of the fact that that Act was amended when I was a young teacher—well, not so young, actually; probably a middle-aged teacher. I say to the member who spoke before me that I am both a teacher and a parent. I actually know the difference between the two roles, and I also know the similarities between then. At that time it was said to us that it would be impossible to exert any discipline in a classroom or a school when corporal punishment was taken away. I have to say that that was not so; that was incorrect. Anyone who was taught by me—and at least three people in this particular organisation were—knows that he or she was equally scared of me before that provision was repealed and afterwards.

But I want to talk about something that is quite serious and is above party politics. I believe that even though this debate has not been argued away, this is very serious legislation. I want to tell members a story, because many people are alleging that the police will arrest every parent who slaps his or her child. This story happened in relation to my child when she was about 2 or 3. There had been a murder, and I am sure Gerry Brownlee will remember the child from Bexley who was abducted and murdered. This story happened about 2 weeks later than that. I was at school, and my husband had taken Claire—and I apologise to Claire for bringing her into the debate—to the library in Papanui where, as a 2-year-old, she threw a class A tantrum. He picked her up under his arm and, with her arms and legs going, he walked through the town of Papanui, bundled her into the car, and drove her home.

Five minutes later, there was a thunderous knock on the front door and a policeman was there. Claire answered the door, all sunny smiles, and the policeman said: “Is your daddy here?” and she said: “Yes, he’s just here.”, and went and got poor Geoff. The policeman said to Geoff: “Oh, you’re the father?”, and he said: “Yes, she threw a tantrum in the library and I brought her home.” The policeman said: “Look, that is perfectly OK. We are just terribly concerned at the moment because of the abduction and because of the murder of the kid in Bexley.”

That policeman used his common sense. He did not prosecute my husband for abducting the child. He did not prosecute my husband for putting her on a mat and taking her home. He did not prosecute my husband for physically taking the kid up. That was common sense. To say that our police force would do other than that at the moment is to belittle their priorities and to belittle their common sense. I do not often bring my family into the debate here, but I wanted to tell that story because it is a true story and is pretty damn real.

Also, another argument has been put up in here. It is an argument that says that this amendment is the Government or the State interfering in our families. The Government and the State interfere in our families when people commit domestic violence. When there is rape within marriage, of course the State is inside the bedroom on those occasions, because, if one wants to play religion, that is against the Ten Commandments. That is pretty basic. Whether those Ten Commandments are broken on the street or inside the home, they are still broken. Murder committed inside the family home is still murder; it is still against the Crimes Act. Assault committed inside the family home is still against the Crimes Act, and that is why this amendment is not actually saying that suddenly the State will go inside the family home. The State ought to be in there for murder, assault, and domestic violence, and I stand by that.

The other argument we come up against is the one being put up by the Opposition at the moment in relation to the weakest time in our lives—and I have been through the Family Court several times—which is when one is in divorce proceedings and there is a contest over the children. Everyone grasps at different straws. They grasp at the abuse of children by different partners; they use that argument already in there. But to say other than that and to say that judges and the lawyers for the child do not argue against spurious cases that are put up is, I think, again to belittle our judges.

I stand in here in support of our police; I stand in here in support of our courts.

Clause 2A highlights how the proponents of this Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill have wildly over-claimed what it is they are doing legally, but have clearly underestimated the impact they are having on parental attitudes. Clause 2A states: “This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.” If this bill is passed, there will still be a section 59. I do not know whether the lobby groups that have spent millions of dollars on this realise that there will still be a section 59 and that it will still have a set of conditions for defence against prosecution. It will not be a particularly sensible set of defences—Chester Borrows’ ones are much better—but that will still be the case.

The legal difference between this bill and what Chester Borrows is proposing is actually not very large, but the key to this debate is what my colleague Gerry Brownlee said when he quoted the Labour member who said that this is about attitudinal change. Well, I want to tell the Labour Government why so many people are worked up about this bill. They do not believe that the way to solve abuse and violence against children is to force a change in the attitude of all those parents who do a great job. That is what is being proposed here. I resent that. I resent being told by people over on that side of the Chamber that for the 20 years I have spent raising six children I have had the wrong attitude; I was wrong, my attitude was wrong, and as a result of that wrong attitude “Lillybing” was killed and it is my fault.

This Government has spent the last 3 months avoiding responsibility for the death of Liam Ashley and, more recently, for the death of Mr Kuchenbecker. Government members do not know who is responsible for those deaths, but they do know who is responsible for the awful violence against young, vulnerable children in New Zealand: it is me, and it is the other members who do not support the bill, and it is the hundreds of people who sent me emails and letters—they are responsible. Nobody in the Government is responsible for the death of prisoners who were in the Government’s care, but it is the attitudes of all normal parents who have done a good job over 20 years that are responsible for extreme violence against children.

That is why clause 2A is so telling—because it makes it clear there will still be a section 59. All those people who have emailed me because they were told by Sue Bradford and the child lobby that section 59 will be repealed have been misled, again. The amendment to the Crimes Act is simply to replace section 59. I say to Sue Bradford that she should tell people the truth.

It is really grinding on New Zealand parents that they are being told that their good intentions towards their kids are not of the same moral value as the good intentions of the child lobby, that somehow the child lobby’s good intentions have to be legislated over and above theirs, and that the answer to fixing parents who do a bad job is to attack all those parents who do a good job. I want the next Labour speaker to explain to me just what it is about the attitude of the thousands of parents who do a good job every day that has to be changed in order to save some other child who may be killed in the next wee while. I want him or her to argue that.

I will tell members about symbolism. I resent my relationship with my children being legally and fundamentally altered to prove a symbolic point. Our relationships might be regarded by Labour and the child lobby as being grist to the mill of symbolism, strategies, and politics. But for us they are human, heartfelt, and real; they pump blood, tension, love, and warmth every day. I never again want to hear people say they are performing some political trick of symbolism on that fundamental human relationship.

I want to introduce a little bit of calmness and common sense into this argument by explaining—and I think that is what he requested—to the member Bill English the amendment from the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Basically, I think it would be fair to say, a number of members of the select committee would have preferred straight repeal of section 59, as would have the myriad organisations that submitted to us in support of the bill. But, to their credit, they accepted the amendment, not because it was absolutely essential but because it gave reassurance to parents. The silly nonsense going out from the National Party members, from members of the media, and from other people was that parents would be arrested and prosecuted for minor acts of violence. So it was the intention of the select committee, supported by the non-governmental organisation sector—and we are very appreciative of that—and also with the assistance of the Law Commission, to create an amendment that gave clarification to people, and, therefore, gave reassurance to good parents in New Zealand, and still kept our children safe.

The previous speaker, Bill English—when I could understand what he was saying; he was shouting a lot—actually argued that Chester Borrows’ amendment was more sensible. Chester Borrows’ amendment goes against what modern parents are learning today with the SKIP programme. [Interruption] I say to members opposite that they should cut the hysteria and settle down; they should stop being bullies. This legislation reinforces the SKIP programme. The nanny programme on television has taught people about this issue, and they are very receptive. They say that, yes, the SKIP programme is great. This legislation reinforces that programme.

This bill will give reassurance, and I thank everybody who was part of making that happen: all the organisations that give so much advice and support to parents in our country, the Law Commission, and the majority of members on the Justice and Electoral Committee.

We often hear National members in this Chamber talking about unions. That is another group they like to whip up, saying what terrible people from the dark ages union members are. In particular, National members take a few swipes—if members excuse the use of the word “swipes”—at the engineering union. I want to talk about one of the organisers of this union who spoke with me a couple of days ago and told me about the attitude of fitters to this issue. These fitters, many of them middle-aged, said they were not worried about the bill, and that of course they would not get arrested for minor acts. They said that people do not hit their kids nowadays; they just put them in time out or take their iPods from them. That attitude was from quite a conservative section of our society.

So if the concern from the Opposition benches is genuine, I want to try to reassure those members in some way. But the cynical side of me thinks their concern is not genuine. I think that they are deliberately misleading the public in New Zealand, and that what they are doing is reprehensible.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, the member may not say “deliberately misleading”.

What can I say, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is understood that the member should not have said it.

The Opposition members are creating misunderstandings out in the public with the words they are speaking so frequently, so passionately—and so hysterically, in fact. I think that if we take a breath and read this amendment bill, then we will know that it gives reassurance to people. It gives reassurance to the good parents in New Zealand—along with the police, who do have prosecution guidelines—and we know that people will not be criminalised under this bill.

In speaking to clause 2A, which confirms that this Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is an amendment to the Crimes Act, I believe we need to have a think about why we are amending that Act. It is obvious; it is because an assault comes under the Crimes Act. In fact, if the Chair recalls learning verbatim the definition of assault under section 2 of the Crimes Act, he will be able to confirm that “Assault means the act of intentionally applying … 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 … that he has, present ability …” to do so.

So what has been found to be an assault? Well, what has been found to be an assault is contact as light as a kiss, and goes on a continuum all the way through to bashing someone around the ears with a lump of wood. That is about the state of it. So the argument around this legislation and this amendment concerns whereabouts on that continuum we start or stop. The point was made earlier that Sue Bradford’s bill provides a defence for parents who use reasonable force to control their children. But my amendment provides a defence for people who use reasonable force, for the purposes of correction, to raise their children. There is only a gap between us; it is not very wide.

Let us have a little think about when the changes to the bill came up, because initially, of course, the only thing that was before the House and before the Justice and Electoral Committee was repeal of section 59—to take it away completely.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.