The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 JohnsonvillePress Release
2 April 2007
Minister Phil Goff Misled Parliament over Bradford's Bill
On Thursday the 29th of March the Hon. Phil Goff misled the House during Question Time when he answered a question put
to him by Taito Phillip Field, Independent MP for Mangere. Mr Field asked the Acting Minister of Police whether he could
assure "good parents" that they would not be prosecuted for smacking their children for corrective purposes, should Sue
Bradford's bill ever become law. Mr Goff misled the House on two counts in his answer (see Hansard full transcript
below).
Goff replied in the affirmative: "the police guidelines, which follow the Crown Law Office guidelines, make it
ABSOLUTELY clear that MINOR forms of offending will NOT be prosecuted". [Emphasis added].
However, once Bradford's bill becomes law, the police cannot treat smacking for correction involving a child as "MINOR
forms of offending". Every formal complaint involving a child will have to be investigated promptly and current police
guidelines dealing with "family violence" make this very clear as police spokespersons and leading lawyers have
repeatedly pointed out. Whether they proceed to prosecute will be left to police discretion, but this does not provide
the assurance the public are seeking.
If there is no justification in law under Bradford's bill for parents to use any form of "reasonable force" for
correction, then a child's claim (possibly exaggerated) as to how hard he was 'hit' or the extent of pain caused, and/or
a by-standers perception of the these matters; will be the critical factor(s) that may lead an officer to charge the
parent. If an officer knows there is no chance of a s. 59 defence being used by the parent, and no chance of any defence
under summary law being relied on, (both defences are removed in Bradford's bill), and he is somehow convinced that the
case is not a "MINOR" one, then he will find it much easier to take a risk and press charges than under current law.
What's there to lose, he night ask? Why shouldn't I prosecute? His attitude may very well be: let the Courts decide not
the police. Under current law, with s. 59 in place, there is a safeguard for "good parents" to rely on, should a false
allegation lead them into Court proceedings.
Mr Goff went on to mislead the House by citing a Court of Appeal case to the House - R v. Hende (1996) [1NZLR 153]. - as
providing him with "quite strong confidence" that he could assure parents that police will not prosecute parents for
light smacking for correction once Bradford's bill becomes law. He claimed that this case set a precedent: establishing
that all judges will have to take the same view as the Court of Appeal Judge - Eichelbaum CJ: that "a light smack did
not merit the stigma of a conviction or a fine". For Goff to claim this, he would have to mislead parliament, which he
did. The case he cited involved a creche worker, NOT a parent or a person in the place of a parent. She appealed her
conviction for assault against a child, for which she had been fined $250, and appealed her convictions for ill-treating
and stupefying a child (both judgements issued by the District Court). She was not a parent or a person in the place of
a parent for which s. 59 of the Crimes Act (1961) applied. Furthermore, the two light smacks she applied to the child's
bottom (a "technical assault" as the Judge noted) were not applied for the purpose of "correction". They were applied in
order to try and control a young child throwing a "tantrum" when she went "beserk". Eichelbaum CJ concluded:
"... there was no justification for treating the incident as involving anything more than a pat on the bottom. Although
technically an assault, it did not merit the stigma of a conviction and the fine imposed. Accordingly we set aside the
conviction, and instead direct (pursuant to s. 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985) that the appellant be discharged
without conviction."
The case Mr Goff cites shows how police have prosecuted and will continue to prosecute adults who have formal complaints
lodged with the police against them for administering a "pat on the bottom" to a child when no justification exists in
law for the use of such "reasonable force" (s. 59 did not apply as a defence for the creche worker, nor will it apply to
parents under Bradford's bill). Once s. 59 goes, should Bradford's bill become law, parents and those in the place of
parents will find themselves as vulnerable to prosecution for assault as any creche worker, for merely carrying out
parental duties involving the application of "reasonable force" for the purpose of correction. The role of parenting is
demeaned to the level of child minder/creche worker (no disrespect intended towards creche workers!). Parents are not
just child minders. The parent-child relationship is a sacred one with special and unique features. The parent for
example is responsible for the moral upbringing of the child.
The fact that the appellant endured a seven day trial and two hearings before the Court of Appeal, for what the Court of
Appeal effectively said were only trifling matters, and matters that were three or four years old, shows sadly how
police can get it so very, very wrong.
Mr Goff misled the House to claim the police guidelines and a single Court of Appeal judgement can provide "good
parents" will "quite strong confidence" that they will not be prosecuted by the police for lightly smacking their
children for the purpose of correction, should Bradford's flawed anti-family bill become law.
Appendix: From the Hansard Record (Uncorrected Transcript)
Crimes Act-Child Abuse Charges
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/Documents/20070329.htm
Taito Phillip Field: Does the Minister hear the warning given by Michele Wilkinson-Smith, [NZ Herald] when she stated:
"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."-and that will mean many in the Pacific community, which explains its widespread
opposition to the Sue Bradford bill-if not, what assurances can the Minister give that good parents who are working hard
to raise and correct their children will not be unnecessarily investigated by the police and Child, Youth and Family?
Hon PHIL GOFF: I think we can say with quite strong confidence that good parents are not going to be prosecuted under
the new section 59, as set out in the bill. The reason for that is that the police guidelines, which follow the Crown
Law Office guidelines, make it absolutely clear that minor forms of offending will not be prosecuted. Further to that,
there is case law-R v Hende in 1996-where the Court of Appeal itself ruled that a light smack did not merit the stigma
of a conviction or a fine. It is clear from Crown Law guidelines, police guidelines, and case law that good parents will
not be so prosecuted.
ENDS