Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill

I should like to briefly start this debate on the title clause by explaining the reason for the change of name as recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee. The earlier title of the bill the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, indicated my original purpose in putting this bill forward—that is, to completely get rid of the statutory defence of reasonable force for parents who use force against their children for the purpose of correction. However, during the course of the select committee process, as many members will be aware by now, some of those on the committee felt that rather than simply abolishing the defence of reasonable force, we should substitute a new clause amending the principal Act instead. This is the new clause 4, which we will be debating in more detail shortly.

But just to summarise, new section 59 in the new clause amends rather than abolishes the reasonable force defence. Entitled “Parental control”, the change aims to clarify and reassure parents that should this bill go through, they will stop having a reasonable force defence if they, for example, stop a child from coming to harm or from engaging in criminal conduct, prevent a child from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour, or, if they are carrying out a normal task of parenting like pulling a sweater over the head of a struggling toddler.

The new provision also makes it very clear, however, that the retention of a reasonable force defence for these purposes does not mean that parents will still be able to use it as a defence if they use force for the purposes of correction—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member but she needs to come back to the title.

I am, Madam Chairperson. Because we have introduced a new clause 4, it has therefore subsequently been necessary to amend the title of the bill because it is no longer a simple amending bill. Now is not the time to debate the pros and cons of the new amendment to the original draft—we can do that later on—but I thought it would be useful to state why the change has been made.

I rise to speak on the title of this bill—the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I suggest that the bill’s name should be changed to the “Crimes (Anti-smacking) Amendment Bill”. The reason for that is that this is, in fact, the “Anti-smacking Bill”.

We have had months and months of debate about what is actually in this bill and, consequently, what should be the title of the bill. The bill is, first and foremost, an anti-smacking bill. It does not, for instance, outlaw somebody from attacking their child and beating them around the head with a stick, because that is already outlawed. It is already a crime under the Crimes Act; to say otherwise is simply not to tell the truth. This is an anti-smacking bill. It is designed to prevent any good parent saying to his or her child: “I’ll give you a smack if you keep doing that.” That is the sort of threat that works for most children and most parents. That is what the bill is designed to do.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Could the member please come back to the title.

The title does not reflect the true nature of this bill, and I think that it is very important to look at why it does not. The bill does not deal just with force as a justification for child discipline. The reason is that at the moment should one, as a parent, attack one’s child, beat him or her to a pulp, and say: “I did that because I wanted to use child discipline, and now I want to rely on section 59”, that protection is not afforded to the parent—nor should it be. We have discussed previously, in the media and elsewhere, why this bill is called the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill and not what it should be called—the “Anti-smacking Bill”—because that is what parents understand it as, and that is exactly what it is. When we look at that title, we see that it is important we change it so that we call the bill what it is. When we give it a nice, big, long name that nobody is ever going to remember, we hide behind the title and refuse to call the bill what it is. This is the “Anti-smacking Bill”.

It is a bill that could equally be called the “State Knows Best and Parents are Simply There to Do as They are Told Bill”. It could well be called that, because that again reflects the fact that parents—including the 83 percent of parents who say they have smacked their child—under this bill are going to be treated as criminals should they do that, or even threaten to do that. As the member Sue Bradford should know, even to threaten assault is actually held to be assault under the Crimes Act. If members do not know that, then they have no right to be here.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has had two warnings. She is going away from the title.

When we call the bill the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, we put in place within the minds of the public a title that does not adequately reflect just how serious this bill is and what it does to families. The title of this bill, as I have said, should focus on the fact that it is about anti-smacking, and about removing the rights of parents. It is a title that should look at the role of the State in the home. The title, at the moment, does nothing like that. What it does is hide the fact that this bill concerns a home invasion for many people. It gives people a right to say: “I can tell you what you do in your home. I can be in charge of you in your home, because you as a parent have no greater right than a school teacher over your child.” We have seen where this sort of abuse can happen. We have seen it with Child, Youth and Family, and we have seen it with other agencies. That is one of the reasons I believe that this is a badly titled bill. The title has no relevance to what is actually in the bill.

It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak in support of the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. It is an appropriate name for the bill. It is a common-sense name. It is not a repeal; it is an amendment—and I acknowledge at this time the assistance of the Law Commission—that acknowledges the concerns raised by some people who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee heard almost 200 submissions. There was a concern that people would be criminalised for caring for their children—a concern that the previous speaker Judith Collins and other people were prone to promote out in the community.

So I speak very strongly in favour of the title of the bill. I feel it is very appropriate. The “Anti-smacking Bill” would not be appropriate; it is not a title that describes what the bill is about. Yes, there are concerns out there, because that member Judith Collins has gone out saying that that is what the bill is about. That is not what it is about. It amends the principal Act, and it amends it in a very meaningful, common-sense way that gives assurance to good parents and protection to children. In that case, I am very proud to stand as chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee and support the majority report and the amendment to the title of the bill.

I rise to speak in respect of the title of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I note that the returned bill from the Justice and Electoral Committee suggested it be entitled the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.

The reflection of the initial title that the bill was given indicates the hodgepodge of ideas that went into the creation of this bill. The insertion of a substituted section 59 may be one that fairly directs or reflects where the bill is now in the mind of its proponent, Sue Bradford, but it does not reflect where her mind was at the time that the bill was constructed, nor where the minds are of those who are supporting it. I believe it is important that the title of a bill reflects not only what the bill will achieve, but also the motivation behind the bringing of the bill.

In the course of the debates and the discussions on this bill, we have heard a number of things about it and what it intends to do. We have already heard from my colleague Judith Collins that it should be relabelled the “Anti-smacking Bill”, because that is what people know it as. For the point of certainty and clarity, when the public go looking for this bill they will be looking for the words “Anti-smacking Bill” within the title.

This bill will affect only those parents who want to smack their children occasionally, or feel the need to smack their children occasionally, because of their experience and because of the way that they have opted to rear their children. The problem is that the discussion has been skewed around whether smacking is good, and whether smacking works. It has been skewed around whether good parents smack their children or do not smack their children. The fact is that it will affect only good parents who smack their children.

It has also been said that it will send a message. So maybe the suggestion is that it should be entitled the “Send a Message Bill”, but one must ask who it is going to send the message to. If this bill is directed at combating child abuse, then it seeks to send a message to people who abuse their children. It is accepted by proponents of the bill that, in actual fact, this bill will not save one life, and it will not save one child from being abused and beaten, because those people who commit those acts are currently living outside the law. And, what do you know? Those people are not going to read the newspapers, and they sure as eggs will not be listening to this debate.

Maybe it should be called the “Send a Message on Behalf of Those Who Want to Brand Their Party Bill”. We have heard from a number of members within the House that this bill is going to send a message; for instance, that the Māori Party stands against child abuse. Well, it is not about political branding; this is about children and their parents. This is about—in the best interests of children—protecting parents from the possibility of being prosecuted for smacking their children. It is nothing more than that. One cannot skew it one way or another.

Although the debate has been taken off to other places and the suggestion has been made that parents want to beat their children—that they want to continue to assault their children—one continually finds that that is where the public debate has gone. It has gone right away from the actual wording of this bill. I believe that for certainty, for clarity, and for just plain honesty the bill should be named the “Anti-smacking Bill”, because it is the parents who choose to smack who will be the most affected by this legislation—and everybody knows that their children were never in danger.

In speaking to the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, I presume there is the opportunity to refer to one or two of the alternative titles put forward. I would like to talk to the previous title, the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I actually preferred that earlier title. People have suggested the bill should be called the “Anti-smacking Bill”.

I want to make this point—it was suggested by Judith Collins, who is a lawyer; she knows the law—and that is to ask where in the Crimes Act it is actually stated that parents, or people acting in the place of parents, have the right to smack their children. It is not actually stated. There is nothing in the law to state that parents have a right to smack their children. In fact, with the way the law is set up, parents do not have a right to physically remove their children to the naughty mat, either—as Mr Copeland referred to. In fact, those actions are, under the existing law, an assault. But there is a defence within the law that talks about reasonable force by way of correction.

Reasonable force is a public standard, and there is nothing within the current law that may, in the future, prevent someone from being prosecuted for smacking his or her child and a jury saying that that is unreasonable force. Therefore, to suggest that this bill should be named the “Anti-smacking Bill” is totally and utterly illogical.

I want to raise the issue that colleagues have talked about—that is, the importance of people understanding what this bill, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, is about. I think its old title, the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, was very relevant. Most people understand from the words in that title that this legislation is about removing the right of parents to smack their children. It is the more appropriate title, because it is relevant to most New Zealanders’ understanding of what this legislation is about.

Not many people understand what section 59 of the Crimes Act is about. I think that if we quoted section 59 of the Crimes Act to them, most would not know what the heck we were on about. So it is ridiculous to have in the bill’s title a technical term relating to the Crimes Act. As far as I am concerned, the question of the title should be relevant, as Madam Chairperson talked about the relevancy of our debate in terms of limiting what we say to the title. The title should also be relevant to most people’s understanding of the bill.

As I think Judith Collins has already said, this bill has been debated up and down this country for goodness knows how many months, and we know that about 80 percent—perhaps more—of parents and people in the wider New Zealand electorate oppose this bill. For them, the relevancy is about making good parents face possible criminal charges. Perhaps we should name the bill the “Possible Criminal Charges for Parents Bill”. Maybe that is a more relevant title for us to discuss. We are not talking only about smacking, anyway. Maybe we should be extending it from just anti-smacking and looking at other ways in which children are disciplined. Smacking is not the only way that children are disciplined. I am sure that over the years parents have used other methods to discipline their children.

I think Brian Donnelly made a point when he talked about using reasonable force as a defence but he said that there is no clear wording that gives parents the right to hit their children. I accept that, but what is clear in the legislation is the fact that for many years parents have had the right to use reasonable force. That is another issue that perhaps needs to be considered in the title. It is along the lines of the sort of amendment Mr Borrows has talked about—that is, the definition of what reasonable force is. That is relevant in terms of considering the title, as well.

I think that the Chair has made a very important point about relevancy, and this debate, generally, is focusing on the title. But I do not think that the title, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, actually fits the legislation. It nowhere near defines or explains most people’s understanding of what the bill does. Therefore, I have great objection to the title. It should be changed so that it is relevant to the understanding of most people.

The issue of the title is important in other ways, in the sense that we have many diverse communities in New Zealand. The debate has included, maybe in submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee, the attitudes that different ethnicities have to discipline. We have a Christian perspective on discipline, which everybody knows comes from the good book, and we have the Pacific and Māori perspectives on discipline. The diversity of cultures within New Zealand means that there are different understandings of what discipline, and of what relevant discipline, those cultures should use in the raising of their children.

I think it is important that we debate—and understand from the wording of the title—the relevancy of raising children. It is a God-given right that parents have to raise their children to know what is right and wrong, and it is the right of parents to correct them. That is the responsibility of parents, not the responsibility of some policeman who, because of hearsay, comes into the homes of families and starts interfering in the way parents should discipline their children. To me, that is also a relevancy in relation to how we address the title of this bill. I think that all those issues need to be considered, and considered in a way that the title should represent all of those issues that are before the New Zealand public.

So, Madam Chairperson, you are right: the title is important. The title of this bill bears no resemblance to the content of the legislation and it is not relevant to people’s understanding of it.

I want to make just a short contribution at this stage. I rise initially to say that I support the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I think it explains very clearly what the member who is promoting this bill, Sue Bradford, is trying to achieve—not on behalf of herself but on behalf of children in New Zealand society.

The bill could have been named many things. One of the titles could have been the “Reduction in Domestic Violence in New Zealand Bill”, because that describes what is quite likely to occur when this new legislation—I hope sincerely—is passed into law. I most certainly will be voting in favour of it. Organisations that work in the area of reducing domestic violence have stated that the passing of this amendment bill will work towards reducing domestic violence in New Zealand. I am sure that the member who has just resumed his seat, Taito Phillip Field, will support me in saying that we all want to see a reduction of domestic violence and violence of any sort in New Zealand.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the title. All members are getting too general.

Absolutely. This bill is far-reaching in its aims. The title is very clear about what the bill wants to achieve. What perhaps has been lost sight of to a degree during the whole debate that has ensued over recent months is that violence against a child is a crime. A child who witnesses violence in the home is being exposed to a crime. This is a good title, and I am pleased to speak in support of it.

When I first decided to take part in this debate—and I know how limited this particular debate is, in that it is on the title clause only—I sat down and tried to ask myself what an appropriate title would be, so that people in years to come when looking up this bill would know what it was. I thought something like the “Elimination of Violence Against Our Children Bill” would be a good title. Then I suddenly realised, no, that is not what this bill is about. If it were about the elimination of violence against our children, not a member in this Chamber would not be voting for it. It would not even be debated; it would go through unanimously. There is not a member in this Parliament who does not want to take action against people who beat their kids with weapons and implements, who leave marks and welts, and who draw blood, and so on.

So then I thought that it was more of a send-a-message bill to people out there—a bill about how to look after their kids and how to teach those kids right and wrong. But calling it the “Send a Message to People About How to Look After Their Kids Bill” would not be a good title, because the problem with calling it that is that it would go to the wrong people. By far, the people who are doing the shocking bashing and some of the dreadful stuff we have seen—and family names like Delcelia Witikā, the Kāhui twins, and others will roll off the tongue—will not even know that this bill is being passed, and if they do, they will not care. If members in this Chamber think that passing this bill will deal with those serious, high-end offenders we all want to get to, they are dreaming.

So I thought it might be more appropriate to get to what the bill really is about—that is, the “Making Good Parents Criminal While Not Addressing the Actual Issues Bill”. That is what it is—that is what it is saying to good parents who are trying to teach their kids what boundaries are acceptable—what right and wrong mean. I am happy to say that I have brought up three kids. Luckily, they did not inherit my genes, because they are all adopted, but I am happy to say that those three kids had to learn some boundaries. And they tested and they tried out me and my wife about those boundaries: “Go on, make my day. I can take it a bit further to see how you go.” I am happy to say they got a smack. It was not a hard smack; it did not make any marks, leave any welts, or draw any blood, but it actually started to put a boundary in place. So I thought, maybe, that the elimination of violence was not the right idea, and that the “Making Good Parents Criminal While Not Addressing the Actual Issues Bill” would be a good title.

Then I went on to think that, no, it is actually a bigger issue than just that. A good title for this bill would be the “Nanny State Knows Best Bill”. That would be a brilliant title for this bill, because we are saying that to good parents, up and down the country—and let us get it clear: very, very few parents beat their kids. Most parents give their kids a smack on the bum to say: “Hey, that was wrong and you know it.” Most of them give a warning. I have never smacked my kids in anger; I have never done it to hurt them or do anything other than just teach them what is a boundary that it is not acceptable to cross.

I have to say that a number of members taking part in this debate have never had kids—and that is on both sides of the Chamber—but they really should have three of them dropped off at their houses for a week so that the little monsters can really show them what is good and bad about how good they are at trying parents.

So then I thought, no, the “The Nanny State Knows Best Bill” does not encompass enough, so I think I will narrow it down. I thought a good title would be something like the “MPs (Some of Whom Have Never Had Kids) Know Better Than Good Parents How to Care for Kids Bill”. That is what this bill is about. Members of Parliament in this Chamber, many of whom have never done the toughest job there is, know that it is the job that people get no training for in life. It is the hardest job, the worst-paid—

💬 Jacqui Dean: The best job.

—but the job with the best rewards if we do it right. That is what this title should be.

💬 Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The only person on the committee who had not had children, to my knowledge, was Christopher Finlayson—

💬 Phil Heatley: That’s not a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member will withdraw and apologise. He knows there will be silence during points of order—OK? The member knows that very well.

💬 Phil Heatley: I sincerely withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you. That is a warning to everyone; when a member raises a point of order—and I rule that that was not a point of order; but that is irrelevant until it is heard and I have dealt with it—there will be silence.

So that was the next thing I thought—and I meant all members in this Chamber, from all sides—the “MPs (Some of Whom Have Never Had Kids) Know Better Than Good Parents How to Care for Kids Bill”. Then I thought, no—actually, that is just trying to be too provocative. Let us go for what it really is about: the “Removal of Learning What Boundaries Are for Children Bill”. That is what this bill will do.

I will be the first to help arrest any parents who beat their kids. I will be the first to actually go with the police to arrest someone who uses an implement—a spoon, a bat, a whip, or anything else—but I will also be the very first to defend the right of good parents to be able to teach some little monsters, who can grow up badly if they are not taught boundaries, what is right and what is wrong.

I will make just two simple points in relation to the title of this bill. The first one is that the title reads that this is the “Crimes”—I will leave out the bit in brackets—“Amendment Bill”. It is vitally important at the beginning of this debate tonight to remind the Committee that this legislation is an amendment to the Crimes Act. We are not here writing a good parenting manual. Therefore, I support the reference in the title to the Crimes Act.

It is vitally important that we understand that in this legislation we are changing the criminal law of New Zealand. We are changing the criminal law of New Zealand to bring into the orbit of assault, under the Crimes Act, for the first time, actions such as light smacking and taking children to time out. Those are the things we are changing about the criminal law in New Zealand. That is very important, because if we forget we are amending the Crimes Act, we can forget that that Act involves the police and very serious penalties for people who break the law under that Act. This is not the Summary Offences Act, this is not the “Do-Gooders Act”, and this is not the “Let Us Send a Message to Violent Families Act”; this is the Crimes Act. This is not about sending some sort of hypothetical message to some hypothetical recipient; it is about crime—crime in New Zealand. That is my first point.

The second point is that I think the Justice and Electoral Committee has erred gravely in dropping the original name of this bill, and I am surprised that the member in charge, Sue Bradford, has actually allowed the committee to do that. The original name of the bill was the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. If we look at the purpose clause, which we will discuss separately, we see that the bill’s purpose is the abolition of the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. So in my opinion the more accurate title would be the “Crimes (Abolition of the Use of Parental Force for the Purpose of Correction) Amendment Bill”. That title would be consistent with the purpose of the bill. To say that the bill is just a substitution of section 59 of the Crimes Act is most unhelpful. It does not tell anybody what the heck this bill is about.

I have received emails today, and one said: “I want to draw your attention, Mr Copeland, to section 58.” I have not read section 58, incidentally, but a lot of people are just using the section as some sort of code, and we assume that people automatically, in some magical way, will know that section 59 means a section of the Crimes Act. It means that we are establishing new criminal offences for the first time in New Zealand’s history through this bill tonight, and that those criminal offences for the first time, in relation to parental force, are for the purpose of correction. That point should, therefore, come through in the name of the bill. Otherwise, we will start the debate on the wrong foot. My main purpose now, though, is to remind all members in their speeches tonight to recognise and appreciate that through this bill we are changing the criminal law of New Zealand.

I would like to bring members’ attention to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill before them. The original title of the bill contained the words “Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline”. I think the member, Sue Bradford, must have got the words “Force as a Justification for Child Discipline” mixed up when she first put the title on the bill; child discipline as a justification for force is really what Sue Bradford is fighting. In other words, “I beat the buggers. I got a whip and I thrashed them. I got a piece of four-by-two and I conked them on the head. And my justification is child discipline.” I think that is what she originally meant—and she might like to correct me—when she first introduced the bill. Rather than force as a justification for child discipline, she meant child discipline as a justification for force—and wrongful force, at that.

Who in this House, who in the gallery, and who in New Zealand would think that beating children in the ways I have described, and persecuting them so much and bringing them so much harm and pain, could ever be justified as just disciplining a child. No one who is voting against this bill tonight, as I will be doing, thinks that using force in such a way can ever be justified by people simply disciplining their children and saying that they want their children to grow up just like them and to be wonderful people—as if it ever could.

I am attracted to Chester Borrows’ suggestion that the title should be the “Send a Message Bill”. It should be the “Send a Message Bill No 3”. As a dad of three children, I can tell members that my children have already been sent two messages in the last few years from this Parliament. One is that prostitution is OK. That is the “Send a Message Bill No 1”. It is OK for my daughters to sell their bodies for sex—to get cash and to give sex. It is OK for my two little girls to do that when they grow up. That is the first message they have been sent.

The Green Party and Nandor Tanczos would like to send the “Send a Message Bill No 2” to kids—to Phil Heatley’s kids—that it is OK to smoke dope. It is not OK to smoke cigarettes but here it says in the “Send a Message Bill No 2” that it is OK for those three kids to smoke dope.

This is the “Send a Message Bill No 3”, and what is intriguing about that is that although Parliament, through voting for all those other things, seeks to undermine my family by saying it is OK for my girls to sell their bodies for sex and it is OK for my girls and my boy to smoke dope, it removes all the tools parents use to try to prevent that stuff.

Does it spend any money on parenting courses? Does it spend any money at all for groups and counsellors to go across the country to give parents the tools to help raise kids in difficult circumstances? I am not talking about healthy families like mine, where my wife loves being a full-time mum and has the best and most important job in the world, I love being a dad, and we love our kids. I am talking about really struggling families—those with solo mums or those holding down a job—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask the member to come back to the title.

But this “Sending a Message Bill” simply is that. This Government and the member sponsoring it want to undermine me as a father in all those other areas and to take away the tools that will help me protect my children. This is another “Burden the Majority to Fix the Minority Bill”. The Government will help the prostitutes. It will send a message to every family in New Zealand that prostitution is OK.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak on the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. If ever anything is important about this bill, it is that we want clarity in terms of every aspect of it, including the title. That, indeed, is one of the reasons I will be supporting Chester Borrows’ amendment later on. But to come to the title, the bill originally stood as the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, and that was pretty clear as to what this legislation is about. I am deeply concerned when I see that the proposers and supporters of this bill want to change the title to what seems almost a euphemism, and that is to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Because even this morning one of my local editors rang me and asked me what section 59 was. That in itself demonstrates the confusion that those out there in the constituencies are experiencing over this bill. That is why it is important to have clarity, or as much as possible, with every aspect of it, including the title.

One of the areas that has caused considerable confusion has been the fact that New Zealand has been a signatory to ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Even the debate on that has caused tremendous confusion, like this title. Might I say that although it was under a National Government in 1993 that New Zealand, along with another 131 countries, ratified that convention, the Parliamentary Library has provided us with evidence just on 8 March that New Zealand ratified the United Nations convention but reserved the right to interpret and apply the convention as it considered appropriate. New Zealand’s initial report to the UN therefore stated that parents had the right to smack their children for the purpose of correction, but the use of unreasonable force against a child was a criminal offence.

So, in going back to the title, that is why I am so deeply concerned that here we have a change from an explicit interpretation of what this bill is about, to one of a euphemism, which will only cause more confusion to those out there.

When I talked to my local editor in Port Waikato about the interpretations of this bill supplied by Mr McKenzie QC and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, again he was totally confused. On the one hand we have an opinion from a highly eminent barrister suggesting that when children were taken to the “naughty mat” by their parents, those parents could be wrongfully criminalised, and on the other hand Sir Geoffrey Palmer from the Law Commission stated that that would not be the case.

So therefore, when we get back to this title, if we look at every aspect of this bill it is hugely important that we do indeed seek clarity at every possible turn we can.

The other thing that has been suggested by the proponents of this bill is that it sends a message against child abuse. As my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out, this bill and this title may, in some respects, be huge distractions from the huge tasks that we in New Zealand really have to undertake if we are to reduce the horrific OECD statistics that we hear about New Zealand on a daily basis. So when we talk about the title of this bill, it is very important that we have clarity within it and it is quite inappropriate that it be amended as suggested.

I stand on behalf of ACT to speak to the title of this bill. Like those who have spoken before me, I agree that the current title, Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, does not cut the mustard, is very confusing, and, in fact, does not tell anybody what the bill is about, at all. I commend my colleague Gordon Copeland for his speech on the title. He was absolutely right that we should acknowledge that this is an amendment to the Crimes Act—so it is entirely appropriate that that stay in the title—but the portion in brackets is the bit that is hotly contested. “Substituted Section 59” tells us not one thing about what this bill stands for, and not one thing about what this bill will actually do or achieve or about what its intent is.

The member responsible for the bill, Sue Bradford, began her speech by saying that her intention had changed and that the change was best reflected in the current title. But if we, or Television New Zealand, or TV3 went outside this Chamber at this very moment and interviewed half a dozen people along Lambton Quay, or anywhere in this country, and asked them what section 59 meant to them, most people would have absolutely no idea. Some people will have paid a great deal of attention because of the publicity this matter has caused, but if we went out 3 months hence and asked ordinary New Zealanders what section 59 was, they would have absolutely no idea.

There has been a large number of suggestions for a title, many of them very good and certainly a much better reflection of what this bill is about than “Substituted Section 59”. We have had the “Anti-smacking Bill”, the “Removing the Right of Parents to Smack Their Children Bill”, the “Send a Message Bill”, and the “Nanny State Knows Best Bill”. They are absolutely right—each and every one of those titles is a much better description. I had jotted down in the same vein that the title should perhaps be the “Crimes (We Know Best How to Discipline Your Children) Amendment Bill”, or the “Crimes (Limit Parent’s Right to Discipline Their Children) Amendment Bill”. Certainly, those titles would be a much better reflection of what this bill is about and what the intention is.

This bill, as Mr Gordon Copeland pointed out, is about crimes. It is about criminal activity. It is about breaking the law. We should be very mindful of that when we are voting tonight and are considering Chester Borrows’ amendments, which ACT will support.

💬 Nathan Guy: Very good amendments.

They are very good amendments, indeed. In fact, we must be mindful of the fact that we are talking about criminal activity and whether parents should and will be prosecuted for the type of disciplining that occurs in the home.

As the sponsor of the bill has said, the intention of the bill is to give a message against child abuse and against the terrible violence that some children are subject to. I am afraid that this bill sadly fails in this respect, and the reference in the title sadly fails in the respect that it is thought any attention might be paid to the bill. Those people who are already doing these things—abusing children and creating terrible violence against them—will pay no attention to this bill at all, regardless of whether it is called the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Not only do they not know what this bill means but they do not care what it means.

That is a pertinent message for those of us sitting here in this Chamber tonight who are about to tell parents how they should discipline their children, what is acceptable within the eyes of the law, and what is not. It brings no solace to any loving parent who wants to discipline his or her children in a way where they will be taught the difference between right and wrong. No matter what techniques they might use, they will not be reassured by this title or even by this debate on the title.

So ACT will oppose this title. We certainly oppose the change. I agree with other members who said that it would have been best for the sponsor to plug for the retention of the original name. Certainly, at least that title told us a bit about what this bill is about, rather than “Substituted Section 59”, which says nothing to anybody in this country.

I am delighted to rise to take a call on the bill and to speak in particular on the appropriateness of the name. Other speakers have said that this legislation could have all sorts of other names. Well, I am supportive of the current name, but I agree that there are other ways the bill could be described.

It could equally be described as the “Crimes (Giving Children the Same Protection from Assaults as Adults) Bill”. It could equally be fairly described as the “Providing Reassurance to Parents by Providing Protection in Situations of Restraint for Purposes of Keeping a Child or Other Person Safe Bill”. It could be equally, ably described as the “All Use of Force to Punish a Child will be Illegal, and This is Clear to Parents Bill”.

It could be described as the “Making a Smack Equally Unlawful Along With Other Harsh Punishments of a Child Bill”. It could be called the “Sending a Very Clear Public Message that Violence Against Children is Unacceptable Bill”. It could be called the “Making Legislation Consistent With the SKIP Initiative and Other Positive Parenting Initiatives Bill”. It could be called the “Making it Clear that Private Schools Cannot Get Parents to Physically Punish their Children for the School, as Currently Happens, Bill”. It could be called the “Making it Clear that it is Illegal to Hit Children Anywhere on their Bodies Bill”.

It could be called the “Making New Zealand’s Legislation Consistent with International Human Rights Obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Bill”; that would be an equally apt name for this legislation. It could be called the “Making New Zealand’s Crime Laws Consistent with the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act, the Domestic Violence Act, and the Care of Children Act Bill”. It could be called any of those names because they describe what the bill does. I support the bill.

Firstly, I want to put the case very strongly that this is a crimes bill. I have become very concerned about the debate by the proponents of this bill, such as Sue Bradford and Helen Clark, that it is somehow all about writing some sort of parenting manual and sending a signal. No, it is not. It is about determining in this country what is a crime—what is a criminal offence.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: No, it’s not.

Who has piped up?

💬 Russell Fairbrother: Smacking is a crime already.

The member who was thrown out by the people of Napier has piped up. He wants to pretend that somehow this is not a crimes bill. Well, I say to this Parliament that we should do the job we are here to do, which is to provide clear guidance to the courts and the police about what is a crime and what is not.

I remember this Parliament throwing the Treaty of Waitangi into a whole lot of laws. We said it was because we wanted to feel good. We wanted to recognise a historic document.

💬 Jill Pettis: His name was Jim Bolger.

No, actually it started in 1987. A whole lot of Parliaments passed laws to put the Treaty of Waitangi into legislation, without the blindest idea as to what it would do. Now there is general consensus across this Parliament that that was an error—that that was one of those symbolic, stupid things we do that gets us in trouble with the courts. We are now, in fact, not putting it into laws.

I come back to this bill and say that this is not about writing a good-parenting manual. This is not about trying to give a signal to those who beat and bash their kids. This is about this Parliament providing clear law for the courts about what society thinks is a crime and what it thinks is not. So this bill should be a Crimes Amendment Bill.

I am one of those who is backing Chester Borrows, because I think he has done the job that Parliament should be doing, which is to provide a clear line in the law between what is criminal conduct and should be punished by the courts, and what should be left to the discretion of families to do.

💬 Jill Pettis: It’s not clear in the current law.

Jill Pettis says that it is not clear in the current law. Well, I think there have been some bad examples. I think there have been some cases where parents should have been prosecuted under the existing section 59, because they went over the line of that which is socially acceptable.

But the problem with this bill, and Sue Bradford’s and Helen Clark’s advocacy, is that it goes to the other extreme. As we have seen from the legal opinions from the likes of Peter McKenzie, we are going to make criminals out of parents who give their child a tap on the bum, and that is wrong.

💬 Jill Pettis: That’s wrong.

The member opposite says that is wrong. I want to know why we have an opinion from an eminent Queen’s Counsel like Peter McKenzie, backed up by the Law Commission, that says if we pass this bill in this form, then we will make criminals of parents like me who give their kids time out.

💬 Hon Members: Rubbish!

They say “Rubbish!”. Well, I have a 5-year-old boy and, sadly, he has too many of my genes. He can sometimes be very stroppy. I have picked him up, kicking and screaming, and given him time out in one of the rooms in our home. I think it is wrong that we will make criminals of parents who do that sort of thing.

I have listened to those who advocate for the bill. They do not want to engage in the debate about what should be in the law. They simply say: “Oh, there are too many kids dying in New Zealand from abuse”—and there are—“so let’s send a signal.” I say that is the wrong approach. We should be writing accurate law, and again I urge parliamentarians to back the sensible law that an ex-cop and qualified lawyer, Chester Borrows, will give to this House.

This bill, in the form that Sue Bradford and Helen Clark are backing, is another chapter of social engineering from this Labour Government. Those members think they know better than parents, and I say that is the wrong approach to this important area of law.

I would like to take a call, as well, on the title of this bill. I can sympathise with the point that my colleague Nick Smith made—that this is a crimes bill. But I am not sure that that is what we would like it to be, because we do not want to make parents into criminals. My view is that this bill could better be called the “Parental Limitation Bill” because it imposes limitations on good parents.

Speakers have said that this bill is to protect the vulnerable. This bill does not protect the vulnerable. The first point is that it will have no effect whatsoever on those people who abuse their children. Those people ignore the law in many fields, and they will again ignore any law on the statute book that says they should not abuse children. They abuse children for a whole lot of reasons, not because a law is or is not on the statute book.

Secondly, this bill does not protect the vulnerable. If this House was seriously concerned about the vulnerable and wanted to protect them, it would do that. Where is the most vulnerable place for children today? It is in the womb. We murder 17,000 a year, and if the proponent of this bill was at all serious about the vulnerable, she would be doing something about that, rather than doing something about the odd smack that a parent might give.

I say that this bill is an absolute nonsense. It could also be called the “State Control of Parenting and Children-raising Bill” because in effect that is what it does. It takes away the rights of parents and imposes State control over them.

Those listening may think I was some kind of brutal parent. I have four children and have raised a few foster children at various times, as well. I can recall three occasions when I spanked. Those children were brought up on a farm where there were a number of hazards. On each of those occasions, the spanking was for disobedience where their safety was involved. With only one parent around to supervise five or six children there had to be some rules, and the children had to know that if they crossed those lines and their life was in peril, then there would be a very, very clear message. I can recall only three such occasions, but I do not know whether my children can recall other instances.

We are deluding ourselves if we think amending the Crimes Act will save and protect the vulnerable. In absolutely no way whatsoever will the vulnerable be protected by this bill. This is about State control. This is about reducing parents to automatons out there who do what the State says about their responsibilities as a parent. For a few thousand years we have relied on parents and on empowering them to do the job. Right now, empowering parents does not mean reducing their options. If we seriously want to improve parenthood, then we should be providing more options, not limiting options that are there.

Let me stress that no one I know in this Chamber or out of this Chamber wants to see children abused. There is a very clear line between abuse and parenting using reasonable force—a very, very clear line. I say that the Committee must take very clear notice of the number of emails, calls, telephone calls, polls, etc. that say this bill is a nonsense. It is not just one or two people speaking on this side of the Chamber who say that. This bill, under the title of Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, is deluding New Zealanders if they think this amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act will reduce abuse of the vulnerable.

I move, That the question be now put.