Thank you. Can I just begin by asking you to help the committee out here in understanding how the burden of proof is going to work if this defence is removed? Because the issue of whether something is punishment or not is going to disappear, providing that it's clear that contact with a child has happened. Is that going to work on the presumption that that's an unlawful contact? Is that something the prosecution will still have to prove, or will it be for an accused parent to say, to use your example, 'I was just dragging them out of the traffic or stopping them putting their hands in the fire'?
I understand your point. There's no change whatsoever to the burden of proof, nor to the standard of proof.
Perhaps you can run us through it quickly.
If the defence argue that that act was—. So, we have to show that there's been an unlawful assault. So, if we remove the defence of reasonable chastisement, in a sense that alters some things but it doesn't alter the basic responsibility of the prosecution, which is to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the defence raise an argument and say, 'Well, look, that was a lawful act; I was only doing what I thought was reasonable in the circumstances', it's for the Crown to disprove that.