Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill

I seek some clarification on clause 5, possibly from the member in the chair, Sue Bradford. It is New Zealand First’s understanding that it is just a technical clause that is necessary to make the bill function, and that if it is not approved the bill will not function. It is quite important for New Zealand First to have that confirmed. As the member and the Committee will know, by and large New Zealand First is giving split votes on this bill all the way through, but what we as a party are trying to do is to get the best piece of legislation possible. At the end of the day, come the third reading, we will allow our members a conscience vote and each of us as individuals will make up our minds which way to go, but we want to know whether it is essential that this clause is in the bill, and what it does. We are not fully au fait with what it does. We did not have a member on the Justice and Electoral Committee, and we would appreciate the member giving us just a brief overview, so that we can vote appropriately.

We are pleased to have supported the last amendment to the bill, the one in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne. We would have much preferred Chester Borrows’ amendment; we thought it was far superior.

💬 Rodney Hide: So did I.

So did Rodney Hide.

💬 Hon Member: Strange bedfellows!

It is a bit unusual, is it not? Some unusual things happen in this place from time to time. But we believe that that amendment to clause 4 has made a significant difference. We do not totally share the view that Rodney expressed. We think it is essential to clarify where the police stand and what is expected of them—not only for the police but for the average, caring parents out there who might, for one reason or another, smack their child for the purpose of correction, and think all hell is going to descend on them. We voted for the amendment to clarify that clause, in the interests of New Zealand having workable legislation.

We now seek some advice from the member in the chair as to exactly what clause 5 does, so we can assess whether we should vote for it or against it. I hope that clarifies our position. I look forward to Sue Bradford explaining briefly what it is all about.

I would like to thank Mr Brown from New Zealand First for his inquiry. I think it is great that he really wants to understand what he is voting on here tonight. Of course, some members did not have the advantage of sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which looked in detail at the bill.

The purpose of this clause is to correct an anomaly that would be left if we did not pass it, in that when the law changed in 1989 and removed the ability for teachers to administer corporal punishment in schools, because of the current section 59 of the Crimes Act it was left in there that the parent or guardian of a child could still come into a school and punish the child in the school. This anomaly has meant, for example, that although some of the Christian schools, such as Tyndale Park Christian School, Carey Baptist College, Wainuiōmata Christian College, and some others, I think at times have had a practice—and still do—of having teachers administer corporal punishment inside the school, which is totally outside the law, in some cases they still have a practice of calling parents in to administer physical punishment within the school for infractions of the school rules.

I am certainly committed to seeing that anomaly rectified. We would like all children at schools in this country to receive the same protection in the law and to have the same right to be free of violence when they are at school. It is absolutely essential to this legislation that we get rid of this anomaly, which we see as a totally repugnant practice, by putting forward this clause here. Otherwise, we would be left with a very strange little situation whereby parents could come into a school, use physical punishment, and have the defence of reasonable force. I hope this explanation is enough to satisfy members’ understanding of this provision.

There were two amendments to clause 5, but only one is left as the amendment put forward by Mr Borrows has been withdrawn. The amendment from Rodney Hide to omit the clause is ruled out of order.