Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 stated that the parent of a child, or a person in the place of a parent “is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances."Sue Bradford MP It was up to a jury to decide if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. This was interpreted by a jury in Napier in recent years 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. Also in recent years 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.

These cases formed the legal background against which police decided whether to prosecute or not when they come across similar instances of abuse. Thus beating children with pieces of wood and hosepipes was “reasonable” under the law. The United Nations reported that we were the only country to have such harmful legislation.

Repeal of Section 59 was the only way of removing the legal justification for assaulting babies, children and young people. Repealing Section 59 also means that we will be meeting our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In Europe, ten countries have changed laws so that no physical punishment of children is allowed. In these countries there is no evidence at all that police prosecute for this kind of minor assault. With the success of Sue Bradford's Bill, New Zealand will now join them.

What happens, on the evidence from Europe, is that child abuse deaths drop, and very few parents now feel that physically punishing our children is an acceptable way for adults to treat people who deserve adult love and care, not adult physical and mental assault on their well-being.