Sue Bradford, Green Party MP, who wants to stop assault of children, seeks your support:

[Her reasons need reading before believing the opposition nonsense that her Bill is to "stop smacking" - ED]

ACTION ALERT: Submissions needed to support repeal of section 59

1. Introduction

 My private member’s bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Bill, was recently drawn from the ballot, passed its first reading, and has been sent to the Justice & Electoral Select Committee for consideration.

The deadline for submissions is 28 February 2006.

 If you would like to support the Bill, send 20 copies of your submission to:

Committee Clerk, Justice and Electoral Committee, Parliament, Wellington.

 If this is your first time making a submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee, you may want to read the Parliamentary guide Making a Submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee. 

 If you have the time and feel you have something important to add to the debate, it is really good if you can make an oral presentation in support of your written submission.  The MPs on Select Committees tend to take more notice if you actually appear before them.  If enough people make submissions from your area, the Select Committee is more likely to travel to somewhere close to you to hear oral submissions, or to set up a video link.

2. Aim of the Bill

The aim of my Bill is to remove the defence of ‘reasonable force’ from s59 of the Crimes Act, which says ‘Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances.’

The Green Party wants to remove the message given by the current law that it is legitimate in some circumstances to beat children – when it is against the law to beat other adults, including spouses, police and employees.

Under section 59, it is up to a jury to decide if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.  This was interpreted by a jury in Napier to mean that it was reasonable for a father to hit his eight year old son eight times with a piece of wood 30cm by 2 cm – leaving linear bruising visible for days.  A jury in Hamilton considered it reasonable for a father to hit his 12 year old daughter with a piece of hosepipe, leaving a raised 15cm-long lump with red edges on the girl’s back.

The fact that the perpetrators of such assaults can be and are acquitted by the courts because of section 59 sends a very disturbing message to society that violence against children is acceptable.

However – please note that the Bill does not set out to create a new law which makes it a crime for parents to lightly smack their children, or, for example, to physically remove their child from danger.

 3. The Key Message - Repeal, not Reform

 The key message the Green Party hopes you will convey to members of the Select Committee is to support the full repeal of section 59.

Some have argued for reforming section 59 by defining what types of force are reasonable or unreasonable.  We suggest that you do not support that approach because it:

• sends an unhelpful public message that force in disciplining children is acceptable
• serves the interests of adults, not children,  and lowers the status of children as human beings
• actually further legitimises the use of some force against children
• is fraught with definitional problems.

Full repeal of section 59 is required, both to prevent abusive parents who have violently assaulted children from successfully using “reasonable force” as a legal defence and to send the signal to parents that all violence against children is unacceptable.

4. Some further arguments in support of repeal – please feel free to add your own:

 4.1 Protect children from abuse

 The courts have inconsistently applied section 59.  There have been a number of cases where violent assaults, resulting in injury, have been excused as reasonable force.  These cases clearly amount to child abuse.  Section 59 therefore results in the courts failing to provide adequate protection for children from abuse.  Those who perpetrate the abuse and successfully apply section 59 as their defence remain unaccountable to our justice system.  (Hancock J, (2003), Review of NZ case law involving section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 for the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Auckland Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa -Click here to order an electronic copy).

 Physical punishment is a risk factor for child abuse.  Child abuse is more likely to be occurring in homes where physical punishment occurs than those in which it does not (Durrant, J, 2002 Physical Punishment and Physical Abuse.  BC Institute Against Family Violence Newsletter: Winter 2002).  Physical abused their children often explain their actions as attempts to discipline (Leach, P. (1999).  The Physical Punishment of Children: Some Input from Recent Research.  London.  National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. - Click here to order an electronic copy).

 4.2 Physical punishment harms children – and the voices of children and young people themselves should be heard in this debate

 The use of physical punishment is clearly demonstrated by international research as having poor outcomes and can cause harm to the health and development of children.  Evidence also demonstrates that physical punishment is ineffective in teaching children appropriate behaviour.  (Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Littlies Lobby, 2005)

 A clear message should be given from Government that physical punishment is strongly discouraged, and that parents and caregivers should learn loving, positive and non-physical ways of disciplining children.  This should accompany the repeal of section 59. 

 Parent and public education about the damage that physical punishment can cause to a child’s health and development, and about alternative positive forms of discipline, is essential to complement the repeal of section 59.

 Children themselves regard physical discipline ineffective, hurtful and unfair.  Many experience forms of physical punishment that far exceed the light tap or smack promoted by supporters of the use of physical punishment (Dobbs, T. (2005) Insights: Children and young people speak out about family discipline.  Wellington.  Save the Children. – Click here to order copy).

 4.3 Physical punishment breaches children’s rights

 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 19) indicates that children have a human right to protection from all forms of violence and abuse.  The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends to all countries that have ratified the Convention that they should prohibit all forms of corporal punishment.

 The New Zealand Action Plan for Human Rights, published in 2005 by the Human Rights Commission, specifically recommends repeal of section 59 as a human rights priority.

 5. Are any compromises acceptable?

 The Green Party does not support any compromise that would amend section 59 to define what types of force are “reasonable” or “unreasonable” in terms of what is used for the hitting or what parts of the body can be hit.  This would send the wrong message that limited violence against children is okay.  Defining safe hitting is an impossible task.

Some politicians and commentators have expressed concerns that full repeal of section 59 will criminalise parents who lightly smack their children.  The Green Party believes these concerns are unfounded.  Police will use their discretion to determine what cases they will prosecute, just as they currently use their discretion to determine whether to prosecute when technical assaults against adults have been committed.

 The Police have also made it clear that they would not prosecute parents who, for example, use physical force to remove their child from danger, as some opponents of the Bill have alleged.

 However, at this stage I believe the Green Party would be amenable to some compromise positions to allay the fears of those who think that people might be prosecuted for minor incidental or technical assaults on children, so long as these do not compromise the principle that violence against children is unacceptable.

 6. Recommendations

The Green Party suggest that you conclude your submission with clear recommendations, for example: 

·        That section 59 Crimes Act be fully repealed. 

·        That repeal is accompanied by a clear message that physical discipline is unacceptable. 

·        That repeal is accompanied by public education about positive non-violent discipline – and that there be increased funding for support work for families in this area.

 Please remember – this is only a guide – there are many other arguments and recommendations that can be made.

 7. Further information

 If you want further information to assist you in making your submission, contact the Green Party’s Social & Economic Justice Outreach Coordinator, Ivan Sowry.  Don’t forget the submission deadline – 28 February 2006.

 -- Sue Bradford

MAIN MENU     ISSUES