Submission
by Dr Muriel Newman to the Justice and Electoral Committee on
the Crimes
(Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment
Bill
I
am writing this Submission as a former Member of Parliament
who has had nine years of experience in parliamentary matters
and welfare issues. I oppose the bill on the basis that it
will not result in a reduction in child abuse (the reason
stated for introducing the Bill by the proposing Member), but
instead will interfere in the normal functioning of
law-abiding families.
I
would appreciate an opportunity to make an oral submission if
possible.
Zero tolerance to child abuse
There
is no argument, that as a society we should have zero
tolerance to child abuse.
The Present Law
The
1961 Crimes Act is quite clear in that intention: section
194 states that anyone assaulting a child is liable for up to
2 years in prison, and section 195, that anyone being cruel to
a child by wilfully neglecting, ill-treating, or causing them
unnecessary suffering, actual bodily harm, injury to health,
or any mental disorder or disability, is subject to up to 5
years imprisonment.
But
while it is clear that the intent of the law is to ensure that
anyone who abuses a child is severely punished, it is also
clear that in order to protect parents who use traditional
methods of discipline for correction purposes from claims that
they are abusing children, section 59 was introduced.
Section
59 states that every parent or guardian of a child is
justified in using force by way of correction towards the
child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
If section 59 is repealed, then parents will be exposed to the
common law definition of assault. According to the law, it is
not just an act of force that can lead to a charge of assault,
but a verbal threat or gesture can also initiate such a charge
as well. If section 59 is removed, any touching of a child for
disciplinary or correction purposes could be interpreted as
assault, and if a complaint is laid, the Police, or Child,
Youth and Family, will be required to investigate. To claim
that they will not need to investigate is disingenuous.
Section
59 Defence
The
instances of Section 59 being used as a defence from child
abuse charges are rare. In those cases, it is up to a judge
and jury, after hearing all of the details, to determine
whether the accused is innocent or guilty. Most New Zealanders
express confidence in our jury system.
Child
Abuse:
The
promoter of the Bill claims that her intention is to reduce
child abuse.
According
to Child Youth and Family, some 60,000 notifications of
potential child abuse are expected in this financial year. Of
those, up to 50,000 cases will warrant further action. A
majority of the children, who are being abused, live in
families with complex intergenerational problems including
family breakdown and welfare dependency. A large proportion of
them are already known to government agencies.
A
British study “Broken
Homes and Battered Children” by Robert Whelan, carried out
in 1994, shed light on the real causes of child abuse. The
study found that the incidence of child abuse is 20 times
higher for children living with their cohabiting parents and
33 times higher among children living with their mother and
her boyfriend compared to children living with their
biological, married parents.
With
child deaths, the situation was found to be even worse –
children living in households in which the child's biological
mother is cohabiting with someone who is unrelated to the
child were 73 times more likely to be killed than those living
in a traditional, intact, married family.
That
means that anyone who is really serious about reducing child
abuse should be targeting policy changes in these more complex
areas, rather than changing laws that will result in the
criminalisation of parents who are not abusing their children.
The
Way Forward
Instead
of focussing solely on the care and protection of abused
children, the department of Child Youth and Family should be
charged with the responsibility of preventing child
abuse. If a key performance target was the supporting of
families where child abuse was most likely to occur - in order
to prevent it from actually taking place - then the number of
notifications received by the department would start to
decline, instead of continuing to rise every year.
Further,
if Parliament decided that
New Zealand
society is now ready to support a reduction in smacking as a
tool of child discipline, with an initiative to educate
parents about alternative strategies for dealing with
difficult children, then the Member’s objective of reducing
smacking could also be achieved. In particular, Plunket,
doctors, public health nurses, early childhood education
providers, churches, schools, libraries, and all other
organisations and groups that deal with families with young
children could all be part of a network supporting the
promotion of more modern methods of parenting.
Five-Step
Plan
Finally,
in the past I have proposed a five-step plan to significantly
reduce child abuse in this country. While it is outside the
scope of the Bill being discussed, it does, nevertheless
provide a holistic approach to solving
New Zealand
’s growing problem of child abuse. It will provide the
Committee with an alternative view to that being promoted in
this Bill:
1.
Since a large proportion of children who are abused live in
single parent families dependent on welfare, strategies should
be introduced to eliminate long-term benefit dependency (which
Ministry of Social Development research has shown to be a risk
factor for children) through the use of mentors, subsidised
childcare and the provision of appropriate work opportunities.
2.
Fathers have always played a key role in protecting their
children and denying a child of fatherly contact increases
their risk of being abused. That is why proper Shared
Parenting should be introduced to ensure that if parents do
separate, children do not lose the support of their biological
fathers.
3.
New Zealand
’s child welfare services should be focused on the
prevention of child abuse as well as care and protection
services, with the full responsibility for the investigation
of child abuse, and the apprehending and prosecuting of
offenders, shifted onto a Youth Division of the Police.
4.
In jurisdictions where the Family Court is more open, child
abuse crimes have been seen to fall as perpetrators are
exposed to greater levels of public humiliation and shame, and
agencies, whose activities are no longer hidden from the
public, improve their performance.
5.
Women who are not in a position to properly care for their
new-born babies should be encouraged to consider adoption.
| 
