Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I move, That the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my pleasure to introduce this bill to the House today. There are so many problems with the current legislation that it is difficult to know where to start. The original bill was passed in the dying days of the last Government, at a time when after 8 years of suspecting that it was out of touch the people established that was the case beyond all doubt. This law has turned good parents into criminals; it is as simple as that. Members of the previous Government decided that they were better parents than the people themselves. They forced upon the nation their other-worldly view that parents who smack their kids are no different from the parents who bash, abuse, and kill their kids. I must sadly add that those members were aided and abetted in that view by the National Opposition.

I could not explain the bill’s purpose any better than the explanatory note does, and to save time I will not read it all. The first paragraph reads: “The purpose of this Bill is to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and substitute a new section to provide that parents, and those in the place of parents, no longer commit a criminal offence if they use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour;”. It then talks about the definition of “reasonable force”.

One of the many terrible ironies is that this bill is really no different from the very good amendment that the member Chester Borrows, who is in the House, proposed during the debate on the law now in force. The need for this amendment has only grown stronger.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I rise to make a number of points clearly and succinctly in respect of the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. On the face of it, a number of the comments that the previous speaker, Mr Garrett, made were valid, and I agree with him that the Supplementary Order Paper that I put forward in 2007—which the member now puts forward as a bill—was valid for the time.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this

What an excellent speech from Mr Borrows tonight. I think that Mr Borrows has probably summed up for the majority of this House what we think about this bill—the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. It is a member’s bill in the name of David Garrett, ACT MP. It was John Boscawen’s bill, and I know that he will be disappointed that he is not taking it through the House tonight, but I think the baubles of office were probably more tempting than staying on the backbench to pursue this bill that was his passion.

This bill repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and substitutes a new section to provide that parents can use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour. Labour opposes this bill. Section 59 was previously amended in an attempt by this House to change the culture of violence towards children in New Zealand. It was agreed to by the majority of this House, although Mr Garrett wanted to lay the blame on Labour and said that it would mean that we would be out of power for many years. It was agreed by the majority of members in this House in a sensible debate and compromise, so that we could move on from this bill.

No one is asking for this change. This is a political move by the ACT Party, whose time has gone. As Chester Borrows said, nobody wants to go back out and listen to submissions on how we should hit our children, how hard, and with what. We want to get on and ensure that we do the best we can for our children in New Zealand; that we do the best we can with programmes like Incredible Years, SKIP, and positive parenting programmes to help parents and give them the tools to deal with their children. This is a political bill. I say to ACT that its time has gone, we have all moved on, and I suggest that the House discharge this bill from the House as fast as possible.

HEKIA PARATA (National) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou te Whare. I rise to speak against the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. I agree with previous speakers that this issue has long been debated, that we are seeing a cultural change, and that that is what is necessary in this country. I can speak from personal experience as an elderly primigravida, which is what I learnt I was when I had my first daughter at over the age of 35.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

I acknowledge the contribution made by Chester Borrows, much of which I agree with. He gave an excellent history of the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. Some of the most serious threats that our kids face are violence and abuse, so we must maintain and strengthen the protections in law for children, including those in the Crimes Act, as Sue Bradford worked incredibly hard and successfully to do.

I will look at the broader issues and look at the status of children in Aotearoa today. How are our kids actually doing? Compared internationally, they are doing very poorly indeed. New Zealand ranks 29th out of 30 countries in the OECD for child health and safety—almost at the bottom. Out of 30 OECD countries, New Zealand is ranked 21st for infant mortality and 29th for measles immunisation. Fifteen percent of all children in this country live in poor households. Thirty-one percent of children in this country live in overcrowded homes. In households that suffer from food scarcity, body mass index—BMI—tends to be higher, and children suffer from poor nutrition and long-term health impacts.

Hundreds of children change schools every Monday because their families live in overcrowded and insecure housing. That change of schools is undermining their education and leading to future underachievement and low incomes. On other international scores, New Zealand is fourth from the bottom of all OECD countries for injury deaths amongst 1 to 4-year-olds. New Zealand has 14 times the average OECD rate of rheumatic fever. It has rates of whooping cough and pneumonia that are five to 10 times greater than those of the UK and the US. Its rate of child maltreatment death is four to six times higher than the rates of OECD countries with the best results—four to six times higher.

The truth is that our society treats kids really badly. Too many of our kids live in miserable housing and suffer significant illness and Third World diseases. Our kids suffer terribly from accidents and, worse, from deliberate maltreatment at the hands of adults. Knowing all this—and it is easy to find this out—the only solution that the ACT Party proposes is to remove some of the meagre legal protections that our children have against grown-ups who hit kids. That is the ACT solution to the poverty and inequality suffered by our children and their families—to make it legal for grown-ups to hit kids. That is ACT’s solution. That kind of political leadership, which invests so much effort into legislation that will increase harm to children, is perhaps an indicator of why our kids are doing so badly. So much more has to be done and we are wasting time on legislation like this.

We know that if we reduce the gap between rich and poor and address inequality, we can raise the living standards and well-being of all New Zealand children. Reducing the gap between rich and poor is good for everyone in our society, not just the poorest. So let us spend our time dealing with that. How about we guarantee the essentials for every New Zealand child so that we can guarantee them the opportunities they need. How about we make sure that every child has a warm, dry, secure home. Let us build homes for the 300,000 kids who need them. That would be good use of our time. Let us eliminate the discrimination in income support that the children of beneficiary families suffer. Let us give the poorest families the extra 60 bucks a week that working families get. Those extra 60 bucks a week for the poorest families would mean that they would not have to choose between paying the rent and paying the power bill.

Let us stop wasting our time on bills like this that seek to injure children, and, instead, build a society that treats our kids with the respect and the dignity they deserve. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this

I will take only a brief call. I agree with Metiria Turei that New Zealand has problems with violence against children. We have cultural issues as well as a long history of violence against children, and it will take a cultural shift in order to fix that problem over time.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the ACT Party on the first reading of the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. I am pleased to speak on this bill because, as Annette King alluded to and as members know, I introduced this bill to the House. I thank my colleague David Garrett for taking on the bill, on my behalf.

Let us look at some of the comments that have been made this evening. Annette King said that no one is asking for the change. Well, I wonder what planet she is on. Over 300,000 people took the trouble to put their names to a petition asking for a referendum on this issue. Over 300,000 people took the trouble to ask for a referendum, and 1.4 million voted to change the law—1.4 million; 87.4 percent. Annette King has the gall to sit there and say that no one wants a change in the law, and no one is asking for this. She should listen to the people of New Zealand. This is absolutely about reflecting the views of 1.4 million people; 87 percent of people. It is no wonder that politicians have a bad reputation amongst the people of New Zealand; it is no wonder. Even when 1.4 million people—87 percent—voted to change the law, Labour members sit there and totally ignore these people and show their absolute contempt for them.

However, let me make one acknowledgment. I thank Annette King for the time that she took to discuss this bill. I asked to speak with Mr Goff and he gave me the courtesy of his time, and Annette King joined the discussion. For that I am grateful; I appreciated the opportunity. I was unsuccessful in convincing Labour members to support the bill, but I certainly appreciated the opportunity to speak.

Let me turn now to some comments that Chester Borrows made. He said: “Look, this law is based on my Supplementary Order Paper. If we had had the numbers, we would have passed this law.” So Chester Borrows is saying that had the National Party had the numbers 4 years ago when this law was originally passed, this is what would have happened. Chester says: “Well, it’s a dog’s breakfast. It’s a dog’s breakfast; it’s a law that is not easy to understand.” What do I say to this Parliament? I say surely it is the job of this Parliament to pass laws that can be understood, and that can be enforced. Surely we have no greater responsibility than to pass laws that can give people certainty.

I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from the explanatory note of the bill. In particular, it states: “Section 59(4) also creates confusion with its reference to Police discretion. According to members of Parliament, the intention of this subsection is to provide a safeguard against the consequences of banning reasonable physical correction, so that parents will not be ‘subject automatically to investigation and police prosecution’ if they give their child a light ‘smack’ …”. The law is not certain. Although Mr Borrows referred to 33 people being charged, I ask how many thousands of parents do not actually know what the law is. They do not actually have the confidence. I say to Mr Borrows, and to National members, that surely we owe the people of New Zealand a law that is simple and that can be understood.

My bill was drawn out of the ballot just 3 days after the results of the referendum were announced. It was drawn out of the ballot at 12.00 on a Wednesday, and by 4.30 that afternoon, 4½ hours later, National had called a press conference and said it would not be supporting my bill. National members said they would not give effect to those 1.4 million people, the 87 percent of New Zealanders, who voted in the referendum for a change in the law. Annette King says this is political. It is not political, I say to Annette King; it is representing and standing up for the rights of those people. If the member wants to ignore them, I say good luck to her, but I am not prepared to and I am very proud that my ACT colleagues and I take the same view. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

I need to say from the very outset that the Māori Party say ka kite anō, haere rā, kaua e hoki mai, hasta luego, and ciao to the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill, which is purported here by Mr Garrett.

The Māori Party supported the original legislation for the abolition of the use of force as a justification for child discipline, which amended section 59 of the Crimes Act. There were two reasons why we supported that legislation. Firstly, we supported the concept of children being able to live in an environment free from violence. That was No. 1, and it was consistent with numerous traditional accounts of tikanga in terms of the care of children. Secondly, we supported the original legislation because it was in the context that underpins the kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa movements. Sure, not every Māori child is involved in those movements, but it was an approach taken that we hope will continue to spread throughout the whole community.

Right from the start of the kōhanga reo movement in 1982, it was stated that mokopuna were not to be smacked. The no-smacking kaupapa both established the preciousness of children and continued the manner in which our tūpuna reared children. In strengthening parents, kaiako extended whānau through involvement in kōhanga, and the aim was to show that smacking was more a manifestation of adult behaviour than that of children’s behaviour. Kōhanga reo whānau and wider whānau benefited from taking the time to understand themselves in relation to raising tamariki and mokopuna.

It is important to have aspirational kaupapa to guide and inform party policy and conduct. The Māori Party saw the aspirational intent of the bill as an important aspect of encouraging whānau to recreate and maintain violence-free homes. At the time we were very clear. What is wrong about holding out hope that we can reclaim our tikanga and find our own solutions to violence? We want to promote a more positively framed approach to addressing issues of violence, instead of promoting the punitive approaches that we see in this bill.

We want to inspire a change of direction. Instead of focusing on what was wrong within our whānau, hapū, and iwi, we want to expend our energies on a positive future for Māori, by focusing on our strengths, and by mobilising our actions to change that which was ours to change. That is pretty much at the heart of the Whānau Ora approach, which is about taking issues back to whānau for them to address amongst themselves.

On reflection, 3 years after the amendment to section 59, it is hardly as if the world has come to an end, as other speakers have said. In operation, the law does not criminalise parents, as was always the threat. The general consensus is that the current law is working well. Parents facing charges of assault against their children are prevented from using a defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction. I absolutely support that.

I want to remind the House that—as if we need reminding—New Zealand ranks at the bottom of the list of OECD countries for children who die from accident and injury, and Metiria Turei touched on some of those incidences. In fact, we rank in the bottom four for children over 1 year old. There is no way that the Māori Party will compromise on our aspirations for a violence-free Aotearoa. So we reject this bill absolutely.

Mr Garrett talked about the fact that the anti-smacking legislation has done nothing to stop the murders of young children. He said that that was the rationale, for some reason, for this bill coming to the House. So the inevitable question would be: has the “three strikes” legislation stopped any murders? I do not think so. Kia ora tātou.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, for the opportunity to speak on the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. I believe that most of the significant arguments for why this bill should not proceed have already been articulated by my senior colleagues, so I am happy just to share some experiences. The first experience is from this morning when the Social Services Committee visited a local organisation down the road from here. It was an organisation that deals with young men, predominantly, who have suffered in their lives from their homes. We sat there and listened to the presentation from those young men about how many of them were abused, violently, sexually, by people who supposedly loved them. If members had heard the experiences of those young people, then I believe that all of us would be united in saying to the ACT Party that what it is attempting to do tonight is not OK.

I am reminded that when I was a young man my father said to me constantly: “E fafaga le fanau a manu i fua ma lau o laau, ae fafaga le fanau a tagata i upu.” That means that the children of birds are fed with fruits and the leaves of trees, but the children of men are fed with words. They are words of patience, they are words of love, and they are words of example. If we as parents have to resort to force, whether it be reasonable, or whatever the force is that this bill is attempting to define, then we have failed in providing words of encouragement, words of support, words of love, and words of faith to our young people.

To further illustrate my point, once upon a time I bought a mandarin tree, and because I am quite busy I just dug a hole and put it next to my driveway. I did not take any notice of that mandarin tree and it grew crooked. My car ran into the leaves as it grew, and, finally, one part of that mandarin tree was dead. I had to cut that particular part. But I was too late when I was trying to remove the dead part of that tree, and it eventually affected the whole tree. The point I am making is that if we do not feed our children with words of support, words of love, words of encouragement, and words of faith, then it will be too late, and irrespective of whether we cut their hand, or whip it, or use reasonable force as determined by that small party there, I would say we have wasted our time.

The community as a whole has moved on. I constantly hear on the rugby field, any time somebody attempts to be violent, whether with words or facial features, that there is always somebody out on the field saying that it is not OK. I think we have created a culture where we respect our young people. We are respecting the fact that these young children will become future leaders of our society, of our family, of our community, and, indeed, of this country. If we now resort to the old ways, then I have to say there is no place for this bill, no place for the kind of rhetoric that is coming from that particular party, and I again repeat that it is not OK; it is not OK. Thank you for this opportunity.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

I would have, and I almost have, some sympathy for David Garrett and his Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill except for this inconvenient truth—and no, I am not talking about Al Gore’s climate change movie—that good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. In saying that, or in trying to argue something along those lines, David Garrett sounds a little bit like Chicken Licken who thought that the sky was going to fall in. We all know the story of Chicken Licken. An acorn fell on his head—not a lamington, I say to Mr Boscawen—and, ultimately, after going off scaremongering to Goosey Loosey and Henny Penny and the like, he was eaten by Foxy Loxy. So I am not sure if there is a moral in that for Mr Garrett, but that is a bit what this is like. The truth of the matter is that good parents are not being criminalised for a light smack; the sky has not fallen.

The Government is not at all complacent in this area. We took the referendum that this country had very seriously. There were reviews and reports by people such as Peter Hughes, the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development; Howard Broad, the Commissioner of Police; and Nigel Latta, who is very well known to New Zealanders. They looked through the policies and the procedures in this area and researched extensively. What they found in the end is exactly as I have said: good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. The law is working and they reinforced that view. We also have in this country a situation where the Government has invited police to report on a 6-monthly or an annual basis for the next 3 years on the operation of the law in this area. They will be doing that. But I come back to what they are finding and what the reports and reviews have found: good parents are not being criminalised. If we were to find that, and if the sky was to fall—and I do not think that it will—this Government is open to looking at things. But we believe that the law is working as intended. We want to give parents the assurance that a National-led Government will continue to monitor the way the law is being implemented, but I say to Mr Garrett that the truth is that good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. I think that will long continue.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I have not been here long enough to play the silly game where I pretend that the vote will be anything other than what it is to be on the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. We all know what the vote will be, so I will use my last 5 minutes to remind those who are listening to this debate of a few facts.

The previous Labour Government cynically ignored the people who demanded a referendum on the question of smacking prior to the last election—more than 300,000 of them. There was plenty of time to conduct that referendum at the same time as the election, but Labour decided not to do so because it knew very well that although it would probably lose the election, if it drew the attention of the public to its stand on this issue, it would definitely lose it. So Labour cynically delayed the referendum. Labour cost the country $10 million to do a postal referendum 6 months later. But that delay did not work, as 1.4 million people took the trouble to fill in their ballot papers, go down to the post office or whatever it is called, and post them. There were 1.4 million people who said a light smack should not be a criminal offence, versus 100,000 who supported the current law. I tell members to make no mistake about that.

There is some truth in what we have heard from the other side of the House. Some good police discretion may well be operating, but that is not the point. The law as it stands criminalises anyone who smacks a child for the purpose of correction. Labour cynically ignored 1.4 million people, and this Government and those members over there are doing exactly the same as Labour did. I have not been here long enough to play the game, so I am sorry if I am breaking some conventions.

Throughout today, member after member has called me or spoken to me to say I should make it stop. They have asked me to stop the emails that have been flooding into their offices today from thousands of thousands of people. I had nothing to do with that campaign. I did not know what members were talking about. There was nobody I could call to make it stop, even if I had wanted to.

Everyone forgot that section 59 of the Crimes Act had only ever been a defence. We have heard stupid speeches in this House since I have been here about defences, and the defence of provocation was another one. There is a foolish idea that if we offer up a defence, the legislation will work. The previous version of section 59, more often than not, did not work. It was a defence.

What will happen to this bill very shortly is a spit in the face of all the 1.4 million people in this country who took the trouble to vote by postal referendum to say they did not think it should be a criminal offence to smack a child for the purposes of correction. It is a case of 122 of us in this House saying we know better than all of them. That is just utter arrogance, which I thought we had got rid of when we got rid of the sad lot of members opposite from Government.

As I said in my first speech, the current version of section 59 fails the second test of efficacy. Had the instances of child abuse plummeted since it was passed, I think we would have quietly let the issue fade away, but that has not happened. Since it was passed, 20 children have been killed. Sue Bradford, the author of the original bill, said 18 months ago that she knew it would not stop one bad parent from bashing his or her child, and she was right. That legislation has failed the test of democracy and the test of efficacy. It has not worked, and it has not reduced child abuse at all. The nonsense, frankly, that came from Su’a William Sio, and the way in which he said it, was almost comical. In 18 months, according to him, we have become a wonderful, loving, non-violent society. I say if only that were so; it has not happened. We keep on bashing children, because the people who bash and abuse children are not the good parents who wish to smack their children.

I say to members that they should go ahead, do what is going to happen, and spit in the face of 1.4 million people, but we in the ACT Party are putting it down in Hansard that we think parents know better than we do, and decisions on parenting are better made by them than by us.