The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The House is in Committee on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Before we start, I remind members that this bill is constructed a little bit differently from what members are used to. Members have become accustomed to some latitude in debate on the title clause. However, this latitude is limited to a bill that is drafted in parts and where the title clause is considered at the end of the debate on the parts. That is the procedure we usually have. This bill is drafted in clauses, however, and there has been no agreement to have a wide-ranging debate on this clause or any groups of clauses. Each clause is to be treated separately. The first clause is about the title of the bill.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I listened carefully to your comments relating to the title and I understand the point you are making. However, I think it is appropriate for two or three points to be made at this stage prior to the discussion. As I am sure every member of the Committee is aware, this is a significant bill, and it is controversial, to say the least. It is also a conscience issue and it is not whipped in the strict manner of whipping. Although there may well be some split votes and some votes cast on behalf of parties, it is accepted that it is a conscience issue. It seems to me that there are two or three things that you might also want to reflect on, Madam Chairperson, and I intend to seek leave on one matter following your comments.

Given that it is a conscience issue and it is controversial—and I am sure there will be significant interest in it from a good number of members—it is not unusual on conscience issues that are controversial for the Chair to be more tolerant about the number of speakers allowed. There is some precedent for that and I just wanted to comment on that at the beginning, rather than have fights as we go part-way through when you accept the closure, etc. Perhaps the promoter may make a comment on this, I do not know, but I think it would be fair and reasonable to allow some reasonable discussion, rather than to have the normal limit to the time allowed.

The second point I make is that normally these speeches are restricted to 5 minutes each. I just wonder whether the Committee might consider both the promoter, and the member with the amendment of significance, Chester Borrows, being allowed to speak for more than just 5 minutes. Although the promoter can get a second call, I wonder whether it might be appropriate to seek leave to allow the promoter to have two 5-minute speeches on end if she wishes, then also for Chester Borrows to be allowed 10 minutes in response to put his amendment as we go through.

I intend to seek leave for that to happen, and, following your comments on the title, Madam Chairperson, I also intend to seek leave in relation to the title, the debate on which, as you say, is limited. Under the way in which the bill is structured, that is true. It would seem more appropriate to consider a wider-ranging debate than normal under this clause, otherwise the debate on the title is, quite honestly, very limited in what it allows. I wonder whether the Committee might think it appropriate to allow a reasonable debate to take place at the beginning, rather than have what is set down under the Standing Orders, which is that the debate is limited to what the clauses state.

It seems to me that it might be more appropriate for a more fulsome debate to be had upfront, because that is normally how we now structure debates in Committee. It makes more sense. We changed the Standing Orders to allow that to happen. I am sorry I have not had a chance to talk to anyone else about this, but it seems to me to make good sense for the promoter and others to have a more wide-ranging debate at the beginning, rather than narrow it down.

So I want to seek leave on two matters, and, of course, any member can object. First, I want to seek leave that both the promoter and Mr Chester Borrows—the promoter first, of course—get two 5-minute slots on end if they wish to take it. Chester Borrows would then be allowed leave for two 5-minute slots as well—

Anne Tolley: What’s happening?

JOHN CARTER: It is a conscience issue.

Anne Tolley: It’s not a conscience issue.

JOHN CARTER: I beg your pardon, Madam Chairperson, I am mistaken, then. I apologise to the Committee and I retract everything I have said. I am sorry, I thought it was a conscience issue. I had understood that this—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Can the member repeat his statement?

JOHN CARTER: No, thank you. I apologise, Madam Chairperson, and I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee. I thought it was a conscience issue.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for his comments. I assure the member that there is wide-ranging debate on clauses 3 and 4. It is quite clear what the other clauses are, such as the title. But there is plenty of opportunity for a wide-ranging debate on clauses 3 and 4. The member can still seek leave for anything he wants.

John Carter: No, no thank you.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Just before we start, I want to check that we are going to debate this clause by clause. Have I got that absolutely right?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, as I said at the beginning, this bill is structured in clauses, which is something we are not all used to, so there is a debate on clauses. But because it is on clauses, people must be relevant to the clause.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I want to raise a bit of a concern, given your explanation about clauses 1 and 2, that there is a limited debate in regard to them. Perhaps you could clarify the reason for that for me. To me, the title is important and the commencement date is important. These are issues on which the Committee should be allowed to determine the outcome of the debate in regard to those two clauses.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I clarify for the member that it is not a limited debate, but debate on clause 1 is limited to the relevance of the matter of the title, and that applies to about three or four clauses in this bill. Clause 1 is just a clause and the debate is limited to the relevance of the debate on the title; members can speak about the title in debate on the first clause. Then, as I said, debate on clauses 3 and 4 is wide ranging.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I appreciate that, and I think it can be said of every clause that it must be relevant. The debate must be relevant. There is no question about that—that can be applicable to clause 1, to clause 2, and right through however many clauses we have. That is the point I am making. Why should we point out clauses 1 and 2 when, in fact, the question of relevancy in debate applies to all clauses?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As I started to say, this bill is structured differently from most bills. Usually debate on the title clause is now used at the end of a bill as a wrap-up speech, and it tends to be wide ranging. I think that is what a lot of people assume, and it is the only reason I reminded people at the beginning that this bill was structured differently.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Perhaps you could clarify for me why this particular bill is different from every other bill in that regard, because I do not quite understand what you are actually saying.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As I said at the beginning, these are clauses, not parts—OK?

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : 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.

SUE BRADFORD: 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.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : 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.

JUDITH COLLINS: 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.

JUDITH COLLINS: 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.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : 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.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : 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.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : 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.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) : 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.

JILL PETTIS (Labour) : 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.

JILL PETTIS: 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.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : 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.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: —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.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: 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.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : 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.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : 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.

PHIL HEATLEY: 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.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : 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.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : 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.

HEATHER ROY: 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.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : 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.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : 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.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Who has piped up?

Russell Fairbrother: Smacking is a crime already.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : 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.

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : In the last Parliament, and to a lesser extent in this term, United Future, like all other parties, was inundated with lobbying from thousands of people who were advocating for binding citizens initiated referenda. People felt disenfranchised by the fact that legislation that was often unsignalled in party manifestos, but on which they had strong opinions and on which they felt their opinion was mainstream, was passing through this Parliament against the tide of public opinion by the slimmest of majorities. That was of concern.

In response to this, United Future decided on a series of policy positions on citizens initiated referenda and on the Government’s response to referenda. In particular, we developed a policy to address what appeared to be the issue of greatest concern—that bills that were voted on largely as a conscience issue and were of high public interest were often passed by tiny majorities. In fact, in the last Parliament one such bill passed by one abstention.

We plan to move similar amendments to any bill that is largely decided by conscience vote. Although we do not support the purists’ view of binding citizens initiated referenda, we do believe that a strong case can be made for this Parliament, if it believes that it truly represents the New Zealand public, to allow for binding referenda on issues that receive questionable support in Parliament. We have set a 60 percent benchmark to protect the integrity of the process, so that decisions can be binding only when voter turnout and voter support are equally clear.

This issue of amending section 59 is a classic example of a large number of voters having serious concerns about the potential outcomes from a bill. Unlike with many other conscience votes recorded in the last 4 years, this bill has seen a huge outcry, because people believe themselves to be personally implicated in its intentions. Yet their ability to register a vote is not catered for. United Future’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 95 would push out the commencement date to the date of the next election, when a referendum could be held, if—and only if—this bill passed its third reading with less than a 60 percent majority.

So I call on those in this Committee who do believe that this bill is seriously out of step with public opinion to give the public the chance to have their say if we elected representatives cannot make a substantial and clear-cut call on this issue. I also call on those who support this bill to consider supporting the Supplementary Order Paper, on the basis that although they are constrained in this Chamber by their own conscience, they are willing to let those most directly implicated have their say if we fail to deliver a decisive outcome.

I believe that it is fitting, in a democratic society, that those privileged to enter the House of Representatives should see their role as one where they promote the ability of citizens to better engage in the democratic process, where practicable. The amendment in my name allows for the consideration of the section 59 issue by the public in general at a general election. We understand the expense of running a referendum, and we think that a general election, when we are already taking people to the polls, is an ideal time for people to give their views on a range of issues that impact on their lives and on which often there are not fixed party positions. We think this is an ideal situation. If Parliament chooses to put a proposal before its members and then cannot give a clear and distinct position as a Parliament on that proposal, it would be wise and fair that the general public most affected by it get a chance to have a say.

We set the threshold at 60 percent because we felt that it was quite possible—as has been proven historically on these types of votes—for us to creep over the 50 percent line, yet for the public at large to feel genuinely dissatisfied with the outcome and to feel that if they had been asked, they could have delivered quite a substantially different outcome.

So that is why United Future is putting up this amendment to this bill. It is not a particular tactic to try to stall or delay this bill; it is something we are now going to employ with all bills that are voted on by way of conscience. It is our party policy. We would really like the Committee to consider this proposal, understanding that it would kick in only if the third reading of this bill passed with a very slim majority. We see that that would be an ideal time to allow the public of New Zealand, seeing that they are the most affected by the outcome of this bill, to have their say.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I would like to take just a quick call to explain why the Green Party will not be supporting Judy Turner’s amendment to clause 2. We believe that trying to put in a clause asking for a referendum as part of a bill undermines the parliamentary process and the sovereignty of Parliament. Members have a job to do. Whatever political background we come from and whatever party we are from, we were elected to represent our party and to represent the voters who voted for us at the last election. At times that can be difficult. On really intense issues such as this, it can get very difficult. But this is the place where we work these things out, and we have to have the courage of our convictions on these difficult issues; it does not matter where we are coming from on them. It is the job of members of Parliament to show leadership, not to run away from difficult issues, and not to run away from all those emails, from both sides of the debate, that are pouring into our offices as we speak.

The whole reason for Parliament is that we have the processes in place that enable us to make informed decisions. We have the research facilities of our staff, and of Parliament itself, that allow us to look at the whole range of issues; it does not matter what legislation it is. We also have the select committee process, through which we had thousands of submissions on this bill—and all that public input. We have the officials who support us—in this case from a number of different Government departments. We have the whole consideration process inside the select committee. That is a part of our democracy that is based on information, consideration, and public input, not on blind prejudice.

Almost all select committees make amendments as part of this process, as the Justice and Electoral Committee did in this case, based on official advice on submissions and on our own debate between us as members of Parliament. We are simply doing our job, and amendments like Judy Turner’s undermine that process. Changing the law is not just about public will; it is also about informed decision-making.

The other thing I would like to say very strongly about Judy Turner’s amendment is that children should be at the centre of this debate. They are the ones who are most affected by the retention of section 59 of the Crimes Act—the defence of reasonable force for the purposes of correction. It is children who still do not receive the same protection from violence as adults do. Babies, children, and young people do not have a direct voice in this Parliament. They have a voice only through adult MPs. We all have our own approach as to how we bring that voice in here, but sadly children’s voices are not often heard in this place of power.

It is not easy for children’s needs and priorities to be heard in this Parliament, and that is what a lot of us are trying to do here tonight. Although it is difficult to have children’s opinions expressed in Parliament, it is even harder for their views to be expressed through referenda because no one under 18 can sign a referendum if it is part of the official referendum process. So although referenda are very easy to engage with—people can simply sign them—children have no access to them. It is just another way in which children and young people are completely disenfranchised.

Judy Turner’s amendment is a recipe for a decision made on ignorance and prejudice, especially given the nature of some of the input to this debate over the last 2 years. Far from being a democratic amendment, in fact it totally undermines the process of parliamentary democracy in this country. The Green Party will certainly be voting against it, and I call on other parties in this Chamber to do likewise.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I stand to talk about clause 2, “Commencement” of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I am concerned about the commencement date, because I do not think the public are ready for it. We have already heard from many people in the Committee tonight that the public are confused by the title and they feel deceived by what it is actually saying. Polls tell us that somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of New Zealanders do not support this bill, so why are we, as the representatives of the people, debating the bill as it is, and how could we possibly think that this commencement date is reasonable?

Sue Bradford has just said that Parliament has a job to show leadership and to make decisions for the poor uninformed public, whom she considers cannot make good decisions for themselves. I would argue that we have a job to represent constituents and to respect their vision of how they want to live their own lives. I believe that this bill is technically a poor piece of legislation, and it is so badly written that I predict it will cause a lawyers’ fee feeding frenzy. We should consider simplifying and clarifying this bill before the commencement date.

This bill cannot fulfil the expectations of its promoters. We have already heard that people want to use it to send a message about child abuse, which is about the criminalisation of parents who use force, even very small amounts of force, to carry children to time out in order to correct them. I know that Sue Bradford does not want to criminalise parents—she has told us that in the Justice and Electoral Committee—particularly if they are only putting their kids in time out. So perhaps we should consider a review, before the commencement date, of what this bill can achieve.

I do not believe that this bill addresses the issues that are identified as the core factors of child abuse. We should perhaps consider detailing an inventory of those drivers of child abuse that have been identified, and perhaps the methods to combat them, before this commencement date.

This bill restricts the options of parents and has the ability to criminalise good parents—the very people whom we need to rely on to provide the protection and nurturing environment for our kids. We need to find a way, before the commencement date, to support parents and raise the skill levels of parents. This bill has a very unhealthy, Goody Two-Shoes, Government-knows-best attitude, when every scrap of evidence on successful child-rearing indicates that happy homes and strong families are the best places for kids.

We should find, before the commencement date, a way to allow for a diversity of parenting methods and for new initiatives that will keep families happy and healthy. But probably the very best thing that we could do with this bill is to postpone the commencement date until we have got it right—or perhaps even indefinitely.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to speak in respect of the commencement date of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Although I have some sympathy with the amendment from United Future in respect of seeking a referendum, I am aware of the points that have also been made around the sovereignty of this House. I find it ironic that one can invoke the sovereignty of this House, enter into the process, participate in it, then decide to withdraw the bill if one does not get one’s way. What is that about if it is not defecating on the sovereignty of this House? In this place, we have the idea, we put it up, and we see how it goes. We make our arguments for and against, we articulate them as best we can, and we win or we lose—and whether or not we like it, we have to eat that. What we do not do is to spit the dummy, toss our toys, and say that if someone else wins, we are off. We do not take our ball and go home, because that is acting just like a child. I would expect children to have a far more reasonable approach to this matter, in any little class discussion they might be having in primary school, than what has been suggested will happen when my amendment passes.

Currently, there is a petition before the public of New Zealand that is being strongly supported. It is being strongly supported right across the community and by Māori and Pacific Island peoples. I understand that the petition was circulated on the weekend at a gathering celebrating Pacific Island lifestyles. As fast as the petition was being photocopied, it was being signed by concerned New Zealanders who want to live in a country where their sovereignty within their households is sacrosanct. They want to live in a country where the State does not come bursting in through the doors and police good parents over the way they look after their children and the way they discipline their children. It is not—as has been suggested by members opposite—that this has anything to do with the tragic child abuse statistics that we have in this country. That may be some sideline motivation, but everybody knows that the passing of this legislation will not save one child who is currently being beaten, and it will not save one child who may be killed tomorrow by some errant parent who is living outside the law. This legislation is about righting the law to police good parents.

I can understand the sentiments of United Future in wanting to move this legislation back until it has been the subject of a referendum. I have some feelings for the petitioners, who are expecting to get an even bigger level of support, and hopefully they will, in order to bring the petition before Parliament for its consideration—and, of course, that petition can remain open for a period of 12 months. I can understand that. However, I believe that overriding that is the point I have already made in respect of the sovereignty of this House. I believe that when we stand by our convictions and stand for something, we get up, we make our arguments, we put them before this Parliament of peers, and they will decide how it will fly and whether it will stand or fall. I do not believe that it is right just to remove the bill, and I cannot agree with the amendment that the matter should be put before a referendum.

Ms Bradford made the point earlier that children do not have a voice. Well, parents, being the people who know children best, have a voice in respect of a referendum, and they have a voice in respect of this Parliament. We are elected to come to this Parliament in order to do a job. We had a lot of submissions during the select committee process about children and what children think about smacking—even videotape submissions—and there were arguments about how children feel when they are smacked. Well, what do we know—they do not like it! We might as well ask them what they want for tea. What do members think they would say? KFC, lollies, a bit of ice cream—why not? They would say that because they are children. That is why we are here as adults to argue this debate. That is what it boils down to. Would we really want to open up the whole of the democratic process to children? Do members think that parents lack the ability to make good decisions on what is in their children’s best interests? No one disagrees. Well, that is great; I am very happy with that. With that, I will sit down. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I am pleased to take a quick call. I cannot understand the intentions of Judy Turner with her idea of a referendum. That member is usually very sensible.

But I just want to speak tonight about timing. This clause is about the commencement date of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, and I think the bill is long overdue. Simply, the tolerance of society to allow the continuation of smacking is long overdue. I will read this email: “I have just heard the news that the Māori Party will not support the Borrows amendment. If your party is going to support the Bradford bill then, as the most senior Māori lawyer in practice who spends a lot of time acting for kids, I applaud you.”—the Māori Party—“Now is the time and opportunity to put a stake in the ground and send a message to all people that violence in any shape or form is not on. In particular, our people need to sit up and take notice. The Borrows amendment was bizarre, anyway. It allowed an adult to do violence to a child which it couldn’t do to another adult. I admired Sue Bradford for saying she would withdraw her bill if the amendment succeeded—and rightly so. I now equally admire the stance of the Māori Party in helping to push the bill through.”

This is an email sent to Tariana Turia from my husband, who is the most senior Māori family lawyer in New Zealand. It is quite unusual for him, as a Labour Party supporter, to be writing to the Māori Party to say “Well done” and to say that it has put a stake in the ground, and that the time—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the bill.

STEVE CHADWICK: —to act is tonight.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) : I have a few amendments here on the commencement date, so I would like to contribute a little bit. Sue Bradford has been a colleague for some years. I know she has her heart in the right place in what she is trying to do, but I think that on this occasion she is misguided. I believe that a commencement date for this sort of bill of a day after its Royal assent is far too soon. That is why I believe we should try to delay its passage through this House. We should also look at allowing time for a petition that is going around the country that gives people the opportunity to oppose the timing of the bill and to oppose the bringing in of the provisions.

A lot of arguments have already been stated up and down this country as to why there is strong opposition out there. The opposition is to what we believe is the State’s inference in the rights of parents to raise their children and to determine the discipline that should be exercised to bring those children up, in terms of knowing what is right and wrong. I believe that exercising a smack or a mild form of discipline in no way harms the child.

This is lawmaking gone mad. It is insanity, in the sense that we have completely blown the whole thing out of proportion. As previous colleagues have said, this bill will make criminals out of parents who are really trying to do a good job of raising their children and, as we said before, not only teaching children what is right and wrong but actually keeping them safe when on many occasions they endanger themselves, and perhaps other children in the process.

I believe that this provision here is completely out of kilter with the opinion of the New Zealand public. We have to allow time for the debate to be considered and for people to exercise their right to express their opposition to this bill being brought in at this time and to what is being proposed in terms of the commencement date.

I believe that this bill will have a hugely negative impact on the Pacific and Māori communities and on many other sections of our society, and on a lot of parents with their own Christian perspectives of their God-given rights as parents to raise their children in the proper way, and to provide that discipline. I believe that there are many politicians who will regret supporting this bill, because I think it will backfire. I do not think our law enforcement agencies will be able to cope with the sort of frivolous allegations that will be made publicly in relation to anybody who is seen giving a child a smack.

Another thing that I have heard about recently and that really concerns me is the relationship between the parent and the child if that child—an older child—reports something and it results in the prosecution of a parent. What will happen to the relationship between that parent and child, as well as to the relationship with the other siblings in the family? What happens to that relationship as a result of a parent being prosecuted? How does that help relationships within a family? That is an issue that needs to be considered by those who are supporting this bill.

I come back to the commencement date. It is too soon, particularly with the strong opposition to this bill by the New Zealand public, for it to be rammed through this House and commenced on the day after its Royal assent. So I have a few amendments, as I believe any person in this Parliament who opposes the legislation should also try to delay and slow down the passage of this bill—certainly with the petition that is going around the country—to allow time for New Zealanders to express their strong opposition by way of that petition. That is what my amendments are designed to do.

I am in opposition to what is being proposed here, not only in relation to the commencement date but also to other provisions of the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : I rise at this stage of the Committee debate to speak on the commencement date of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. In the 5 minutes available to me there are three points I want to touch upon: first, the role that criminal law plays in our society; second, the way the debate is being conducted and whether a referendum would advance the issue very much further; and, third, by way of anecdote, the pressing need to move ahead with this legislation.

First of all, though, I will deal with the way this debate has been conducted in the media so far. It ignores totally many of the submissions that were made to the Justice and Electoral Committee subcommittee that heard them. There were submissions from a wide variety of very well-respected people who work intensively with children and families, including paediatricians, doctors, clergy, churches, and non-governmental organisations, who were all in support of the outright repeal of section 59. Yet in the media we get the conflict, the overstatement, the hype, and the rhetoric. What we get in the media was echoed today in a speech made by Nick Smith from the National Party. The media totally overlooks that at present it is a crime to smack a child. The smacking of a child is, at least, the crime of assault, and has been a crime for over two centuries. [Interruption] The member will get his chance to bark later. Section 59 merely provides a defence should the matter get to court and the court decides there is enough evidence to convict. Only then does section 59 come into play. So to say that Sue Bradford’s bill will criminalise normal adults is totally misleading and misguided, and, when said by some people, is dishonest.

It is a crime to smack a child. What we are discussing here is the defence that is available if the crime is made out in the first place. The defence that is made available is one that has been evolving over time. In 1893, when the defence was first put on our statute book, it included the right of ship captains to punish their crew, the right of teachers to punish their pupils, and the right of parents to punish their children.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the commencement date.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: When we look at the need to introduce this bill as soon as possible, it is important to consider two things. Criminal law sets criminal standards, but the enforcement of criminal law relates to the community standards prevailing at the time. Crimes on our statute book are sometimes enforced and in another period they are not. We see that with cannabis. We saw it previously with sodomy and homosexuality. We see it with other offences that are currently on our statute book, which most of us here would not know existed. They are not enforced because social standards have moved on. The debate of time is a mere delaying tactic, because the public will not be better informed. We do not have time.

I conclude my speech on this clause with an anecdote. I am probably the only person in this Chamber—for my sins—who has defended people who have invoked section 59 by way of defence. In my experience, section 59 has been invoked by way of defence by people who have habitually hit their children with spades, lumps of wood, leather straps, and the hand. Section 59 has been invoked by adults in the belief that it will be a defence to a charge of murder or manslaughter. I will tell members about an incident when I was called to a very high-profile fatality of a child who received notoriety in his death. The child was bitterly beaten. I took instructions on the night the child was admitted to hospital, before he died and before the police became involved. I spoke to the family, whom I did not know, and the male adult said to me that, yes, he had hit the child. I gave him the only appropriate advice that could have been taken then. At the police station, the father of this man—I had not known him before, either—said he thought he had caused it to happen. I asked him what he meant. This was a man who worked in a responsible position. Everyone would have admired his work ethic and family commitment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the commencement date.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: He said he had grown up in an environment of extreme physical punishment, and it just got bigger and bigger in his family. Now is the time to make this legislation pass.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) : I rise to take a short call in this debate on the commencement date of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. New Zealanders will not be ready for this bill, no matter what the commencement date is. Many of my constituents have contacted me—as have hundreds of other New Zealanders—to tell me that they are not ready now and that they will never be ready.

But what are they ready for? You know, the proponents of this bill do know what New Zealanders are ready for. They are ready for an end to child abuse. They are ready for a strong message to go out there that child abuse is not OK. They are ready for that, but that does not mean that the commencement of this bill will bring it.

Repeal of the element of section 59 that we have heard others in this Chamber speak of—the element that allows the defence of reasonable force in the circumstances, that allows a defence for a child who is hit with a horsewhip, a four-by-two, or a hosepipe—needs work. It needs to disappear. That is fine. But this bill does so much more than remove that defence. So that problem should be sorted, but commencing this particular bill will not only sort that problem but also create unintended consequences for the non-abusers.

I too was tempted to read out some of the emails that have come to me. They have been fascinating, over the weeks that have preceded the debate on this bill, but I am not going to read them out tonight. I will simply give members the way I see it.

New Zealanders are not ready for interference in their family life. They are not ready for the confusion they tell me they still feel as to what this bill means about their right to discipline their children. I am not talking about just smacking. This is more than an anti-smacking debate. This is a debate that creates confusion when it comes to the discipline of children that might require one to reasonably remove them through force, to pick them up and take them out of the room because their actions are simply unacceptable and one wants to correct them.

The police are not ready for the responsibility of investigating the many complaints and having to use discretion. I read here from a column written by the president of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, who states: “The Commissioner, except behind closed doors, cannot become involved for fear of being seen to be influencing the parliamentary debate. This is despite the fact that those in favour of the repeal of section 59 are very reliant on the belief that police will use discretion in deciding to prosecute.” That is a huge responsibility on the police—not on the judges and juries, but on the police, the enforcers. “Does any frontline officer believe that he or she, despite being confronted with evidence from a complainant, a witness, and often corroborated by an admission, will be permitted to do other than prosecute under current policy?”. We know now that the police are bringing together guidelines on how they will deal with this—an unenviable task for them.

Schools are probably not ready for the commencement of this bill either. Schools are unsure how it will affect some of their discipline policies, and I have spoken to principals on this matter.

New Zealand is ready for an end to child abuse. The commencement of this bill will send a message, but it will not end child abuse. My colleague Phil Heatley suggested that this bill would catch the majority, when we are wanting to deal with a minority. Commencement of this bill will not deal with that minority, either.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I will not take a long call; I simply want to put my views on the record. My view is simply that the passing of this legislation will not prevent there being another James Whakaruru, it will not prevent there being another Coral Burrows, it will not prevent there being another “Lillybing”, and it will not prevent girls such as the Howse girls from being murdered in their beds. This legislation will criminalise caring, loving parents, caregivers, grandparents, foster parents, and adoptive parents.

In fact, this legislation will leave the police absolutely no choice whatsoever other than to investigate and prosecute every alleged and reported case of child abuse that is a case of smacking. For those who say the Police Association is overstating its case, I say it is the association that is telling the mistruth. Those people who counter Mr Greg O’Connor’s views, and the views of the Police Association, know that when the Police Association said what would happen with lowering the drinking age it did the one thing the police were too scared to do—it told the truth. And it was proven right.

I also add into the mix the Department of Child, Youth and Family, which is so often criticised as being a zealot in the way it applies the law. I am waiting for someone to tell me that Child, Youth and Family will not be required to swoop on every home where a schoolteacher has reported that a child has come to school and said he or she was smacked.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the commencement.

RON MARK: The commencement of this bill is an abomination. The commencement of this bill will be a blight on society and on good, caring parents. The commencement of this bill will see Child, Youth and Family with no choice but to act.

I challenge Sue Bradford. I believe she has her heart in the right place, and I believe that in commencing the passage of this bill she was quite rightly focused on child abuse. I applaud her and I thank her for raising those issues. But Miss Sue Bradford is misguided. In relation to the commencement of this bill, I will be here along with the other members who, like me, will vote against it, and they will be saying that at the time that Ron Mark warned about these things during the commencement of the bill, he was right. In 1 year, 2 years, we will be looking at the results and saying: “By gee, we got it wrong.”

We do not want to see in the commencement of this bill parents having their children removed from them for months on end, while Child, Youth and Family, which has a national reputation for not always getting it right, conducts its investigations. I seriously ask every MP who has been forced against his or her conscience and whipped into voting for this bill to consider what the commencement of this bill means for the rest of the nation. For those who do not have children and grandchildren, I challenge them to take up the task of being a parent for 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, or 10 years and tell me that they are right in their view on this bill.

At the commencement of this bill people need to be thinking very clearly about one simple fact: children commit acts of violence even though they are not taught to do so. I have seen my own grandchild grab a toy and hit another child. I see nothing wrong with taking that little hand, smacking it, and saying: “Don’t do that. It hurts, and now you know that yourself.” I can say with a lot of pride that I could count on half a hand the number of times I have ever had to physically discipline any of my children. But that does not mean that I should have the right to remove that means of disciplining and guiding children from normal, caring, loving parents, in some misguided belief that I should be adding to the pile of legislation that is meant to have an educative purpose.

I simply say to those learned people who have said that law needs to be educative and law needs to send messages, that that is what we have television advertising for, it is why we have an education system, it is why we run programmes such as anti-smoking programmes, and it is why we jail and imprison people who clearly abuse. That is where the education is best had.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I want to speak briefly on the commencement date of the legislation, but before I do I would just like to turn to a point made by a couple of earlier speakers, and that is the supposed enormous level of opposition in the Pacific community to this legislation. Some of us who are young and of the Pacific know a large number of Pacific families who have opted out of violence and deliberately refrained from practices of the previous generation. We have decided not to perpetuate the cycle of violence. There are many people in that category and I hope that I am thought to be one of them. It is patronising and a bit sickening to hear speaker after speaker talk about how the Pacific community—this mythical monolith—is opposed to this legislation. That is not so. There is a generation of young Pacific people in this country who are achievers and who are very proud of the fact that we have broken cycles of abuse and poverty. This sort of legislation is what we support. Let it not be said that there is a monolithic Pacific community against this legislation—that is a myth.

In turning to the commencement of this legislation, I want to speak in particular to Judy Turner’s amendment, which I oppose for many of the reasons that were articulated by previous speakers, including Sue Bradford and Chester Borrows.

Fifty percent is the normal vote by which this House passes legislation. The only exception that we make, on a precedent basis, is for electoral law, which is for good and proper reasons. None of those reasons are applicable in this case. Similar logic applies to the notion that there ought to be a referendum over the coming into force of this legislation. Referenda are largely foreign to our system, except in the case of citizens initiated referenda. According to the proper procedure, no citizens initiated referenda has been called for in this case. It ought to be the case, if that is the route that proponents of this measure want to go down. They should go down the proper channels and call for a referendum in the recognised way.

As I have said, referenda are foreign to our system. This is a House of Representatives, and all MPs are paid good money to come and exercise their votes in this House. It is wrong when a tough issue suddenly comes up and MPs seek to abrogate that responsibility and push it back on to the people who pay us to do our jobs. We ought to do our jobs. We ought to get on and vote on this legislation—and certainly vote for it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : When this bill commences into law, I am afraid it will criminalise and label as abusers a whole lot of loving, caring, and very responsible parents. I know that to be so, because I believe I am one of them. I certainly smacked my son when he was a toddler. I did so in a loving way, in a responsible way, and in a caring way, because I do not know how one can reason with a 3-year-old. I am proud to say that my son is now a responsible young adult. I am proud that I exercised my responsibilities of fatherhood in the way that I did.

I think it is fine for parents to decide not to discipline their kids with a smack. Again, I think it is their right. But I particularly object to Labour members coming in here, exercising the whip on all their MPs, and then getting up and pretending that somehow they are getting paid to do a job by lecturing us on how to bring up our kids. In fact, the way that we have been bringing up our children has been the way for thousands and thousands of years. I think that for thousands of years we as parents—as compared to Labour members—have known the difference between a smack and abuse. I take it hard that somehow I am an abusive parent, about whom Mrs Brown at the supermarket could be ringing the police—who, let us be clear about this, have no option but to investigate.

The idea that the police can sit back and say it is just Parliament sending a signal is poppycock. The police have to implement the law, because that is what the rule of law means. The police are not there to say we should have an arbitrary decision about which laws we implement and which ones we do not. When this Parliament passes laws, the police have a job to do. So Mrs Brown rings the police and says that she saw Rodney Hide smacking his 3-year-old. The police then have to investigate. I think I could give the police a good run for their money, by the way, but if I was an inarticulate parent who was struggling a bit to understand what was going on, I would be in serious trouble with the police, particularly if they wanted to hassle me. I could see a report going to Child, Youth and Family. Then I would be in trouble with Child, Youth and Family for not looking after my kid, because I am violent. Suddenly, a light smack makes me tantamount to a child abuser and a killer. This is what this legislation will do.

Are we seriously saying, in this Chamber and in this country, that the big issue facing New Zealand children is parents who smack them? I do not think so. I took the liberty of asking the people of Epsom what they think about this—they are good people in Epsom.

Peter Brown: Are they still talking to you?

RODNEY HIDE: Well, I can tell the member that they are—unlike the citizens of Tauranga, who are all busy talking to ”Bob the Builder”; not Winston Peters or Peter Brown. They ran away and are living in Auckland.

The people of Epsom say that 68 percent do not want this law, 11 percent are not sure, and 21 percent say yes. Overwhelmingly, New Zealanders are against this law change—and for good reason, because they can see that it will criminalise good, loving parents. If people do not want to smack their kids that is fine, but are we seriously saying we want the police, Child, Youth and Family, and the authorities to be investigating those parents who do?

The day this legislation commences is the day that we criminalise the majority of parents, who are responsible, and, again, neglect the real issue of those parents who are not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before I call the next speaker, I say that the last two speakers have not had much content in their speeches in terms of the commencement date, which is being debated.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not know how this works, but Jill Pettis—I am not sure whether she wants to take a call—yelled out some incomprehensible statement to me while you were talking. That meant I could not hear what you were saying. I do not understand how a Labour MP can sit there, yelling out across the Chamber while the person in the Chair is trying to give an instruction. I do not understand why she does not get disciplined, but if I say peep I am out of here.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I take the member’s point.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Jill Pettis continued to do that across the Chamber while you were speaking to me again. Again, I make the point that if I open my mouth or even look as though I am going to, you throw me out. What is it? Are Labour MPs allowed to do what they like?

JILL PETTIS (Labour) : I suggest humbly to the member that when I shout, most people know. I was not shouting at the member, at all. He reminds me of the senior clergyman—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I am sorry. That is not a point of order. Please be seated. I was tolerant of the member’s points of order. There has been a lot of interjection tonight.

Rodney Hide: All right, I’ll interject on you, too. Is that what you are saying is OK?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I warn the member. I am trying to say to him that there has been a lot of interjection tonight. I have not pulled up everyone consistently, but if that is what the member wants, I will do it.

Rodney Hide: I just want to know what the rules are.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): We will apply them across everyone.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : I want to speak about clause 2, “Commencement”. I have thought about this long and hard, and the more I have seen clips in the media about this bill—and, in particular, when it would commence—the more I realise there is a bitter-sweet irony that I cannot let pass. The bill is going to pass through the House because Labour is pulling the whip. On an anti-smacking bill, the whip is to be used to get it through! That is the first bit of the irony, and I thought it amazing. Labour is going to pull the whip in order to get an anti-smacking bill through. Then I thought, well, I do not know whether the Labour whips will have that sort of power. I do not know whether they know about this. So I wondered who the Labour whips were. I had to look that up in a book, and I found out they are Tim Barnett and Darren Hughes. I thought that was interesting. How many children do they have between the two of them? They do not have any.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Oh, that’s appalling.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Hang on, Lianne Dalziel needs to know that I said before that there are members on both sides without children, and there are members on both sides who should not be taking an active role in this debate if they have not been through the baptism of fire of bringing up children. It is the hardest job in the world. It is the job for which one gets the least training, and Labour has pulled the whip. The two whips doing it have never brought up a child. But that is their choice, and I respect their right to have that choice.

Then I suddenly saw that it was actually Helen Clark who said that Labour was going to use the whip. I thought: “Wow! It’s gone right to prime ministerial level, and that’s amazing, because it is not a Government bill.” I understand why one would, as Prime Minister, whip a Government bill, because one has to have the numbers to get one’s programme through. But this is not a Government bill; it is actually a member’s bill from a Green MP. And Helen Clark again says: “No, we’re going to use the whip.”

So in regard to the commencement date I have moved a number of amendments that are now tabled. I have moved them because I find it really hard to believe that legislation as important as this legislation will get through the House, even though it has become apparent that a majority of members do not support it. I say that because I know a number of Labour MPs who are making it clear to those who will listen that they do not support this bill. They are being whipped by a couple of whips and a Prime Minister on a member’s bill promoted by a member of another party. In my 20 years in Parliament I have not seen that occur.

So the commencement date now is under the whip. My amendments are one each for the Hon Dover Samuels, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, the Hon George Hawkins, the Hon Damien O’Conner, and so on. They say that instead of this legislation coming into effect on the day after it gets the Royal assent, it comes into effect on the day after it gets the Royal assent and—here members’ names are substituted, for example the Hon Damien O’Connor—has signed a statutory declaration that he personally supports the Act. If those members would do that, then this legislation is fine, the commencement date is fine, and the passing of this bill is fine. It will have been the will of the majority. It will have been democracy. It will have been this House voting for a bill.

But if those members do not do that, then what we are seeing here is something we are likely to see in Zimbabwe—Robert Mugabe using all sorts of underhand tactics to get his way, even though it is not what the majority wish. I am very clear about this. I find it absolutely repugnant that the whip has to be pulled—I think it is hilarious that it is being pulled on a smacking debate—and I find it absolutely repugnant that a number of Labour MPs are sitting there, just absolutely fuming, but they are doing it because this whip is being pulled on a vote that should be a conscience vote.

I say that those amendments are done seriously. They are not done frivolously; they are done seriously. If the members named in those amendments genuinely support this legislation, then I say it should go through this Parliament. That means a majority supports it. What I do know is that Chester Borrows has 58 as his number of members who support his amendments—amendments that I think are the most sensible compromise one could get for this bill, and I will sign up to signing for it and voting for it if the trifling and transitory nature of his amendments gets through. But I will not sign up to any commencement date, the way the situation stands.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : It is almost providential that I should be following on from that speech made by Maurice Williamson. Supplementary Order Paper 95 proposed by my colleague Judy Turner states, as members know, that unless this bill is passed by a majority of 60 percent of this Parliament, it will go to a referendum to be held concurrently with next year’s general election. If that referendum decides by a majority of 60 percent that this bill should become law, then and only then will it become law. Effectively, this very good Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Judy Turner means that the commencement date is deferred until after the 2008 election, and until after the people of New Zealand have, for once, had a chance to have their say on this legislation.

I know full well there is no way this bill will achieve a 60 percent majority in this Parliament, and we have just heard why from Maurice Williamson. We heard that the only reason it will pass is that Labour Party members are being whipped. I would like to go back for a moment to the origins of the idea of a 60 percent majority. It came, actually, from a former Governor-General, Sir Michael Hardie-Boys. He suggested, following the passing of the Prostitution Reform Bill into law on the basis of one abstention, that on conscience votes we should raise the threshold from a bare majority to 60 percent. If, in fact, the Prostitution Reform Bill went through on one abstention, then raising the threshold is much more necessary on this particular bill, which we know will pass only because the Labour members are under the whip.

I also want to respond to some of the comments that have been made by Sue Bradford in speaking to Judy Turner’s Supplementary Order Paper. Sue attacked the Supplementary Order Paper, saying that it undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. I wonder how many people in this Parliament have never heard that democracy has been defined as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Parliament is not sovereign in our form of democracy; the people hold sovereignty. People are not answerable to Parliament; Parliament is answerable to the people.

Believe you me, people who vote for this bill will find out the truth of that when we come to the 2008 elections, because, as I speak, I know that whether or not this excellent Supplementary Order Paper of Judy Turner’s is adopted, it is highly likely that a referendum will be held in 2008. My former colleague Larry Baldock and a young woman, Sheryl Savill, are, right now in this country, collecting signatures for a citizens initiated referendum. I have been informed tonight that a coalition of radio talkback hosts has been put together today and that from now until 2008 they will, first, oppose this bill, and, secondly, promote the citizens initiated referendum. I know that as we are sitting here debating, hundreds and hundreds of volunteers are coming forward to start collecting signatures. Believe you me, Larry Baldock and I collected 203,000 signatures on the Prostitution Reform Bill, and that issue is not as important to most New Zealanders as this issue. Most New Zealanders are not involved in prostitution. They have a peripheral interest in it.

This issue is very different. All parents in New Zealand are personally involved in it. In my time in Parliament—coming up to 5 years now—I have never seen as many impassioned emails and letters on any one issue coming to Parliament as there have been on this bill. People are telling me they strongly oppose this bill. The reason is that it is State interference in our right and responsibility to correct and discipline our children. Child abuse, I should add, is a separate case. The Chester Borrows amendment talks about light smacking—not beating, not thrashing, but light smacking. Virtually all parents in this country are now aware of that reality.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I was very, very interested in the speech made by Gordon Copeland, the member who has just resumed his seat. I invite the member and his former colleague, if he is serious about getting a petition on this, to have the decency to come to the local MPs in the area where Larry Baldock lives, because New Zealand First would be willing to promote that petition. We would be willing to promote it in Tauranga. I ask him to please tell Larry Baldock that if he wants to do something, he should do it in a meaningful way. [Interruption] I ask the member over there, Mr Clarkson, whether he knows—[] Well, there we are. We have three MPs—from both sides of the Chamber—who would welcome Larry Baldock coming to talk to them. Maybe I had better clarify it when I say “welcome Larry Baldock coming and speaking to us”. Perhaps I could say “welcome Larry Baldock coming and telling us about the petition”.

I was very interested in Maurice Williamson’s idea. I think he was somewhat frivolous on it.

Hon Maurice Williamson: No.

PETER BROWN: The member says no, but let me just develop the idea, because it was a damned good idea. Why single out Harry Duynhoven, Dover Samuels, and the other members he mentioned? Why not make it a statutory declaration for all of us—the 121 members? New Zealand First, by majority vote at least, will support that.

Hon Member: Yeah, right!

PETER BROWN: Yeah, right—by a majority vote we would support that. I would be surprised if we did support that seven to zero, because, as members might know, there is a difference of opinion in New Zealand First in terms of this bill.

Rodney Hide: Tell us some news.

PETER BROWN: The member wants some news. If he were here a little more frequently, he would know a lot more news.

I want to talk about Judy Turner’s Supplementary Order Paper 95, because I know that Judy is a very sincere person, and New Zealand First would—at least, by majority—support her Supplementary Order Paper if she removed the requirement for 60 percent of enrolled voters to have to cast a vote for the answer “Yes” in a referendum. In fact, that is just removing proposed new subclause (3)(b). If she made the provision to be passed by simple majority at the general election, then I think she would get a significant number of New Zealand First votes. She would not get the total vote, because some of my colleagues believe that it is a referendum too little, too late, and we also prefer referenda on the substance of the bill, whereas this would be on the date. But I can tell the member that if United Future considered that, then New Zealand First would be on board. We are compelled to vote against it as it is now, because it seems somewhat hypocritical to say that it may be passed here in Parliament by majority vote, but the public has to win 60 percent of its vote—it is one or the other.

I also draw the member’s attention to the fact that if there is a general election, United Future is bound to get 60 percent or more of the electorate voting one way or the other—absolutely bound to. So it is just a small change to delete part of the amendment in order to make it compatible with what we are actually doing and saying here.

I listened to Sue Bradford’s response to that, and I tell the member that when I saw her on television some years back, in the protest line, she certainly gave the impression that she wanted the public to have a greater say. Now she is in Parliament she is saying that we will speak for everybody: “We know more than you guys out there.” Well, I say that that is a sad day for Parliament. The day that Parliament accepts the sort of philosophy that members know better than the people out there, then we are going downhill. If the member shakes her head, she should agree to some sort of referendum along the lines that Judy Turner has proposed, and along the lines of my amendment—New Zealand First’s amendment—to Judy Turner’s amendment.

We are talking about the commencement date. Taito Phillip Field has a number of amendments that in effect delay the commencement date. In theory we are not really comfortable with some of the rationales, but we believe that the public has to have more say on this bill. So New Zealand First will be voting for every one of Taito Phillip Field’s amendments by a majority vote—a split vote. Indeed, Colin King, whom I saw was anxious to take a call, also has an amendment that effectively delays the commencement date by some considerable time. New Zealand First is interested to hear what the member says is the reason, because I think New Zealand First will be supporting that amendment, by majority. I keep saying that because we are having a split vote.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) : I am grateful for the opportunity to take a call on clause 2. I have a handwritten amendment in my name, primarily because I believe there needs to be an education programme around the wider implications of this bill. Just looking at the editorial in my local paper today, which said people should support the anti-smacking bill, I saw that it made the comment—which is quite relevant, if we think about it—that a law change, in itself, will not accomplish everything that is required. It will not change attitudes, but it may give parents a very good opportunity to think before they lash out. So on that basis, I recommend that we have a considerable delay, so that we in Parliament here do not believe that by just making a considerable change to section 59 of the Crimes Act, we are able to walk away and say we have done our bit.

When it comes to the education programme, we also recognise that the police are currently looking at issuing guidelines as to how they will administer the altered section 59 of the Act. I also recommend that it would be appropriate to have an education programme around Child, Youth and Family, because that agency, in fact, will become the front-line police in terms of this legislation. Child, Youth and Family staff will be the ones to have to act; they will be the ones who confront parents alleged to have smacked or abused their children.

It is very important that parents listen to the voice of this Parliament, and especially to the member who is the proponent of this bill, the Green member, when she says that democracy is at work in this Parliament. It is clearly evident by the entrenched nature of the members across on the Government benches in this Parliament that they are indeed being whipped. We know, in fact, that if they were able to vote according to where their consciences sit, they would be voting according to the way their consciences lead them, just as I intend to do. I will support Chester Borrows’ amendments; I see them as being a very intelligent, forward-thinking way to proceed. When it comes to Judy Turner’s recommendations about having a greater process around the input of the public, I certainly see a great deal of merit in that, and I have always seen Judy Turner as being somebody who acts very sensibly and who always thinks first about what is best for society.

On that basis, my reference to the timing of the implementation of this bill is that it needs to be pushed well out in front of us to 2009, not only to enable the alteration of section 59 but to allow us to do more. We can completely wipe out that insidious aspect of violence and abuse exhibited in our society, instead of just feeling that by altering section 59, in a slight knee-jerk reaction, as parliamentarians we can wash our hands of any responsibility for child abuse.

Interestingly, when I was looking at the title of the bill and the time when it should be implemented, I went to the Parliamentary Library and got some information on what we were actually looking at. The most recent information we could get from the Parliamentary Library, effectively around section 59 of the Crimes Act, was that only 15 cases could be located. Out of those, there were four cases in which section 59 was used as a successful defence, and ten cases in which it was used unsuccessfully. In one case nobody could tell who the winner was.

So I believe that with everything considered, and given the very wise manner in which the matter has been canvassed by members on the Opposition side of the Chamber, it would be very appropriate to engage in a full and comprehensive education programme, so that we do not let off the hook the parliamentarians who are forcing this change through, contrary to the intentions of the greater public. I will be supporting the amendments that Chester Borrows has put forward, as I see those to be the only sensible and logical way forward for the betterment of society. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I want to talk on clause 2, the commencement clause, and I want to make this point right at the very beginning: although it is true that this bill is in the name of Sue Bradford, let us make no mistake that the reason it will go into law on its third reading is that Helen Clark, the leader of the Labour Government, has forced it through this Parliament. Helen Clark is the person who is responsible for this legislation. She will be the person who makes this bill commence on the day it does, because she has driven her caucus. Helen Clark, the leader of the Labour Party, will be responsible for making good New Zealand parents criminals. Let us just get that clear on the record.

I want to support the very good amendment put in by my colleague Chester Borrows. It is one of the most sensible things that we will debate in this House for some time and he is to be congratulated on it. I also want to congratulate Colin King on the amendment that he has put forward.

I also want to refer members to a further amendment that has been put forward by my colleague Maurice Williamson. It reads: “… and all 121 existing members of this House have signed a Statutory Declaration that they personally support the vote that was cast in their name in the passing of this Act.” The reason for that amendment is that we want to know that everyone is accountable. We want to know that Helen Clark has not driven some of her party members to vote for this bill. We want to know that they are able to stand up and speak for themselves. Are they doing that or are they driven by Helen Clark and her Labour Government? I say they are being driven by Helen Clark.

Let me make it clear that this bill tonight will not stop one child being abused in this country. This legislation will not stop any kid from being killed or whipped, or thrashed by a four-by-two or a pipe. The parents of those children do not even know where Parliament is. They do not care a squat about what laws we pass. They could not give a stuff about what we do here tonight. They will carry on abusing, beating, and manipulating their children in the way they do, and if anyone thinks this is going to help those kids one diddly-squat, that person is deluding himself or herself.

There is another thing that worries me with this bill. A 13 or 14-year-old child—boy or girl—brought up in a good home may say one night: “I am going out to a party, Mum and Dad.” The mum and dad are going to say: “No you are not.” “Yes, I am,” says the child, “I am going to go; I don’t care what you say.” “No you’re not,” say the mum and dad—and what will happen? The kid will ring up the police and say: “My parents are abusing me.” All of a sudden, the cops will come around and the parents will be under scrutiny. They will have to go through the whole trauma of being investigated by the police because of this legislation.

Good parents will be persecuted by this legislation. What will be worse is that the dad will stand there and say: “Yes, I wanted to discipline my child.” He will be told: “Off you go, you can’t live here with your kid.” Mum is going to stand there and say: “Hang on a minute, I’m backing Dad.” She will be told: “You can’t go, or we’re going to take the kids and put them in with Child, Youth and Family.” The children will probably end up being put in with Black Power or somewhere where they will really get abused while the parents are trying to sort out with the police the fact that they have not abused their children, that they are good parents, and that they should not be under the scope of this bill.

I say tonight that the people in the Labour Government—Helen Clark particularly—who are driving this bill are absolutely doing this country the biggest disservice. It is, of course, part of the Government’s social engineering, it is part of its social manipulation, and it is part of what Helen Clark believes. Absolutely! It is the nanny State saying to good parents: “Don’t worry about it. We’ll look after you.” Nanny State and “Nanny Helen Clark” will go about, telling good parents how to operate. It is not good enough and the people of this country know it. They will finally have their say soon enough, and when that happens there will be a change of Government, because those people know what is good for their children.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I rise this evening as an electorate member of Parliament, representing the Wairarapa. Last year I sent out 26,000 forms to survey members of my electorate to find out how they wanted me to vote on this bill, and 2½ out of every three told me to vote against it. I am standing here tonight to oppose this bill coming into force at any date. I say to the people of New Zealand that across the Chamber from where I am standing there are about 11 members of Parliament in the Labour camp who are sitting on the benches across from me. Three of the 11 are responsible to electorates, and one of those three supporting this anti-smacking bill is personally responsible for ramming a tennis ball down a student’s throat. Has Mr Benson-Pope no shame? What is he doing here supporting this bill?

I say to Dover Samuels in the back row that we know that he does not support this bill, but he is being whipped into place here in this capital of our country called “Helengrad”. Those members might smile, but each of those members, in the Labour camp and in the Greens, is undermining the social fabric of our country. They are passing this bill on the back of having undermined every teacher and every policeman in this country. Two weeks ago, at the Golden Shears in Masterton, a couple of young kids were sitting on the bonnet of a car, causing trouble and abusing old people. Someone said to them: “Listen, boys. Naff off!” It was not me doing the telling; I witnessed this. “You can’t tell us that, mister. You can’t do that,” the boys said. The guy said he was going to get the police. “They can’t do anything either,” he was told. That is why we have so many children out of control in Masterton and elsewhere in the small towns of the Wairarapa. It is because this Labour Government has pulled the rug of authority from every institution in this country, whether schoolteachers, police officers, or, now, parents.

I stand here because 2½ out of every three people in my electorate oppose what the Labour Government is doing. I have never, in my 18 months in this Parliament, seen so many emails from people saying that they oppose what the Government is doing. Two weeks ago, on the streets of Masterton, Sue Reid began a petition that will cause this Government to face a citizens engaged referendum on this issue. I can say that more than 2,000 names were collected in two 2-hour bursts on Queen Street in Masterton; people are queuing up to sign this petition. I asked one lady in her 80s whether she was sick of this Government telling her what to do all the time. That lit a fire that went on for 20 minutes.

People out in the community, the people whom we represent and who put us here—I say to Darien Fenton, who is a list candidate—are asking us to stand against these Labour people, because they are crucifying this country. They are creating a situation of social disruption. A headmaster from one of our religious schools in the Wairarapa said to me the other day: “John, suppose somebody opposes what I am doing in running this Christian school. Under this new piece of legislation, if they bring a charge against me and I am convicted for smacking one of my children under my roof at home, that will be classified as assault under this bill.” And what is the penalty of that for schoolteachers? They lose their livelihoods.

I think this bill is absolute and utter nonsense. It is something we inherited from my predecessor, Georgina Beyer, and her Labour mates, who are embarked on yet more social engineering under the leadership of that well-known parent Helen Clark. I, at least, have two children. I know the problems that people in our community have to face in bringing up kids—

Hon David Benson-Pope: So do your children!

JOHN HAYES: I tell Mr Benson-Pope to find himself another tennis ball and go assault another student, then to come back into this Chamber.

JILL PETTIS (Labour) : As I listen to the debate from those who are not in support of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, I am reminded of that saying of the senior retiring clergyman as he gave advice to the new young preacher: “Argument weak here—shout like hell!”. That is a bit like what is going on amongst those who are not in support of this bill. When people have to resort to personal attacks on other members of Parliament over an important bill like this, it means that their argument is very weak.

The commencement of this legislation cannot come soon enough if we are sincerely and genuinely concerned about facilitating attitudinal change towards the care of our children in this country. It is not a comfortable thing for New Zealanders to say that we do not care for our children as well as we should. Statistics in New Zealand—which are independently gathered; they are not gathered by people who have a political axe to grind—show that our care, protection, and support of children is not as good as it should be. The commencement of this legislation as soon as legally possible will facilitate a significant attitudinal change towards the way we care for and protect our children.

I have never been the victim of domestic violence, but I am emphatically opposed to domestic violence. One does not have to be a parent to be emphatically in support of care and protection legislation for children. I resent any implication that people who support this bill but who do not have children are not entitled to a view. We are entitled to views on a whole range of matters, purely and simply because we have been democratically elected, and to abrogate that responsibility is not what we were put here to do.

The rights of parents have been mentioned a great deal during the debate. What about talking about the rights of the child? We hear the statement that all should be equal under the law; why are we saying that children should be less equal? I do not understand that. Children should be more equal because they are precious and important to us. Some of us have had the gift and the privilege of being grandparents—and it is a gift and a privilege. When our precious little bundle was born, I said to my husband that that little girl would never, ever be hit. It was lovely, as a grandparent, to be able to say that with absolute confidence. Our precious little bundle will never, ever be hit, because her parents have moved on from the beliefs of previous generations in New Zealand, when physical discipline was the norm. We used to do things to children in generations past that are no longer acceptable. People know there are alternative methods, and they are using them.

We want to use this bill as a vehicle to provide more and more support for parents and to give them the information and power to be better parents. Every parent wants to be a good parent. Every parent wants to be the best possible parent he or she can. Finally, I say that the passing of this legislation and its commencement cannot come soon enough.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : That member may well have just blown her chances of being the Ambassador to Niue with that speech. She exposed, in a very simple line, that this bill will cause significant attitudinal change—those were her words. She said that this bill would cause significant attitudinal change. That tells us that Labour members think that the vast majority of parents in this country, who do the right thing by their children day in and day out, who care about them, who love them, and who want to put them on the right path, need significant attitudinal change. That is the thrust of what Labour members are saying.

It is also, interestingly, the reason why Labour is in such terrible political trouble at the moment. This bill is not about the Government supporting people. This bill is not about making life better for people. It is a bill that puts Labour and Helen Clark right into the living rooms of the families of this country on a watching brief. That is the situation. Labour is watching every little moment. No one can doubt that that is the case.

We who are constituency MPs—some MPs, of course, have been booted out of their seats—will be aware that a lot of the work we get revolves around disastrous cases in the Family Court. There would not be an MP in this Chamber who has not had a letter from a constituent on either one side or the other of a Family Court argument. What bothers me seriously about this is that if one is having trouble with custody, one can simply allege that the partner one is aggrieved with has smacked the kids. If anyone thinks that that is unlikely to happen, he or she should stand by and watch what happens if this bill is passed. That situation will become form. We already know that a range of allegations are regularly made in the court, because lawyers advise people that if they can get this, this, or this, it will help their case. This legislation will just be something else. For the children that this bill is supposed to protect, it will become, in those circumstances at least, a disaster.

It is also interesting that Jill Pettis stood up tonight and put on that mock fervour about the need to have a gentler, kinder, less violent society when Labour has spent the last 2 months refusing to take any responsibility at all for the actions that resulted from Graeme Burton’s unfortunate release from prison. That is a fact. In the Chamber today the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both said not to blame the Government. They said they were terribly sorry about it—it took them 2 months to get there—but that Graeme Burton was the problem. He pulled the trigger, said Michael Cullen, so he was the problem. Despite the fact that five psychological reports said that that man should not be released, and he was, that he was then not monitored, and that it was known he was going to run amok—the armed offenders squad even had to be brought out—the authorities could not go after him because that in some way might infringe upon his rights as a paroled prisoner.

So Labour members should not come in here and suggest that to criminalise the normal disciplines of a household is in some way about caring for the future. No one will believe Labour members when they say that. We know that this bill will pass only because Helen Clark wants to stay as Prime Minister for a time longer. That is what it is about. Otherwise, those people in the Labour caucus who understand the people they represent, who are connected to their constituencies, and who do care about families in this country cannot exercise their vote in the way they want to. Helen Clark wants to be in Parliament as Prime Minister for a good time longer, and that is unacceptable.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Before I call the next speaker, I say that although I have been in the Chair for only a short while, the contributions made since I have been here do not seem to be very relevant to this clause. There may have been some other understanding previously—I do not know. Please make speeches relevant to clause 2.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : I rise to speak about the commencement date. I want to talk about it because the commencement date is not about just this bill. The commencement date is the day when Helen Clark and the Labour Government take charge of our households. The other members from the Labour Government who have spoken tonight have told us how they are here for their own brilliance, they are here because they have been chosen by Helen Clark, and they are here because they are so brilliant and they know so much more than the ordinary New Zealand parent. I represent the people of Clevedon and I represent the National Party. I know exactly where I stand, and it is not standing on some little pinhead, like those members are, trying to make out that the commencement of this bill will somehow change the attitudes of people who kill babies—because it will not. These people are already living outside the law. They are already outlaws. They are already murderers. They are already killers. The people whom this bill will affect are good, good parents. [Interruption]

I ask the people in the Labour Government who are shouting out whether they were ever smacked as a child. Were their parents criminals? I tell them that my parents are not criminals and I am not a criminal. I smacked my child and I am damned proud of it, because I have a good kid, and I am really pleased about it. I represent those people, unlike some members in this Chamber—when we talk about the commencement date—who have not talked about what they have done, and who are too ashamed to stand up and say what they have done.

I am not going to stand up like Mrs Chadwick, the current MP for Rotorua, and read out an email from my husband to the Māori Party. How pathetic is that? The woman cannot even work out how to do her own emails. I will not stand up here and read out the thousands of emails I have had from people saying: “Leave my home to me. Let me be in charge of my home. Let my children be my responsibility, because they are my children, because nobody will ever care, when this commencement date comes around, about my child as much as my husband and me.” The reason is that that is what parents do. It is nothing special. It is normal. I know this is new for the Labour Government, but that is normal, because normal parents care about their children.

When this bill goes through and we get to the commencement date, those parents will be criminalised. Under this bill, a parent who smacks a child’s hand for being naughty, by way of correction, will be a criminal. We can see how this will be abused in the Family Court system. Many people know this. How many people here have ever been involved in any way with the Family Court, in any sort of custody battle, anything like that, either themselves, with members of their family, or as lawyers for clients? I tell members that one of the things we all know is that when people go into that Family Court process, unfortunately even the most sensible, nice, and decent people can become somewhat strained. Sometimes people say things they should not say, and they do things to each other that they should not do. Unfortunately, this legislation, when it starts on that commencement date, will open up a whole new avenue for fathers to be accused of beating their children. It will set up a whole new avenue for mothers to be accused of losing it and smacking their children. It will absolutely disempower those parents.

We are not talking about the people who kill babies. We are not talking about the people who whip children. We are not talking about the people who take a cane to a child and beat its bottom until it bleeds, like some people in this Chamber could talk about. We are not going to talk about that, because we want to outlaw that. That is why we support Chester Borrows’ amendment, from this commencement date. But we do say that ordinary parents will smack their child aged 3 or 4 on the hand or the bottom to stop that child doing something he or she should not be doing. That is by way of correction. This bill, even if the commencement date is amended, specifically says that it will not protect a parent if a smack is used by way of correction. It specifically says that. So when I hear those women from the Labour Government screaming and shouting and trying to rip the paint off the walls, I say they should read the bill.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : That was absolutely appalling. I am really pleased to take this call on the commencement date. It is time that the law was changed. There is so much misinformation out there, and I want to talk about that. That member sitting on the other side of the Chamber was skiting about how many times she smacked her kid—good for her! But she is misleading people. What is the law about? It is about parents using a defence when they are prosecuted for using implements such as riding crops—[Interruption] Yes, it is. Those members are telling whoppers. Chester Borrows is hanging his head in shame. He is so embarrassed.

I will tell members something. This bill is not about introducing a prosecution; it is about removing a defence in cases when children are beaten. Chester Borrows was very, very concerned about that in the select committee. Very few members on that side of the Chamber sat and heard the submissions from Plunket, Barnardos, and Every Child Counts, as well as a petition from 20,000 people. That is all discounted. To them, it is all about the right to smack their children. I have to say that the media has aided and abetted them in that. That is not the debate. The debate is about people who hit their children with riding crops, who are prosecuted, and who get off. That is what it is about. That woman—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Please come back to clause 2.

LYNNE PILLAY: I am sorry, Mr Chairman. I am not showing the same discipline as members on the other side.

All I can say in closing is that this bill is long overdue. The commencement date is appropriate. Members on the other side of the Chamber have talked about the SKIP programme. Education is great. The commencement of this bill will mean that it reinforces that education; it follows it. The parents I speak to say: “Look, all this scaremongering, where are the Nats coming from?”. They said: “I feel really sorry, because Paula Bennett has been talking to us and she doesn’t want to vote for Chester’s amendment, but she’s in a terrible position.” So the commencement date is very important, and that is why I think the commencement of the bill should occur as stated in the bill. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Members do not seem to have taken too much notice of the comments I made previously. I really will be insisting that contributions be relevant to this clause, otherwise I shall terminate them.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : I rise to speak to this bill, and specifically to the commencement date. The people of New Zealand do not want a commencement date for this bill. That is what the people of New Zealand are saying about this bill. Eighty-five percent of people in this country say they do not want a commencement date, and that is what I will speak about tonight. That is so not only across the country but also in the Napier electorate, where I represent some very fine people.

I took the opportunity before Christmas to go out and hold a series of public meetings, and to walk the streets with a clipboard in Mārewa, Napier, Ahuriri, and Taradale and ask people what they thought about this legislation. Eighty-five percent of my constituents did not want to see a commencement date for this legislation, albeit they did want to see a change to the definition of “reasonable force”. That is what we are here to debate tonight, not the misleading information of Lynne Pillay across the Chamber, who says we are here to get rid of section 59 because many parents are whipping their children with riding crops. That is misinformation.

Many polls have been done. Even in my own electorate today I have had many phone calls about this issue to my team. They were on the phone to me this afternoon saying: “Chris, we’re having phone call after phone call from constituents saying they do not want to see a commencement date for this—

Jill Pettis: Rubbish!

CHRIS TREMAIN: That member should go to Napier and see for herself. Eighty-five percent of Napier constituents do not want to see a commencement date for this bill. That is a fact. We even had a phone call from a policeman in my electorate today, a policeman who said: “I’m going to can the police force as a result of this. We’re being told that we have to give priority to these sorts of situations over burglaries, because they will be seen as assaults.” That is what he told my office today. The police do not want to see a commencement date for this bill, the Napier constituents do not want to see a commencement date for this bill, and I can tell members that I certainly do not want to see a commencement date for this bill. It is a shocker, and it should never even have come to Parliament.

I can understand when the majority of the public sits in one position but the logic is clearly in another position, on a particular piece of legislation. But here the public have got it right. Eighty-five percent of our constituents say “No!”, and the logic—the empirical evidence—whenever one looks around the world says that the introduction of anti-smacking legislation has not made one iota of difference. Let us have a look. No decent research shows that a smack by a loving parent breeds violence—

Jill Pettis: Commencement date—commencement.

CHRIS TREMAIN: I have been speaking all night about the commencement date—I am right into it. No decent research has shown there should be a commencement date for this bill. The Otago University study implied there should not be a commencement date. It says that children who are smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions, and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all. That study shows there should be no commencement date to this bill.

The 2003 Unicef report on maltreatment in deaths showed that of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates, four allowed smacking. Here we are arguing that New Zealand has a high amount of child abuse—and I am not going to disagree with that; that is clearly the case—but the Unicef report says that of the five best countries, four of them have not wiped out a provision like section 59, and they still allow smacking. So we have clear evidence that there should be no commencement date for this particular piece of legislation.

Ms Pillay stood up and said that section 59 should be outlawed because we need to stop parents using riding crops and implements. Only 18 legal defences have been successful over 30 years, yet we are going to change the entire legislation for 18 people and criminalise the remaining good parents in this country. Eighty-five percent of parents do not want to see a commencement date for this bill, and I support them totally. The logic is just not there; the Unicef report and the Otago University reports are just not there.

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wish to raise it under Standing Order 137(3): “The Speaker may accept a closure motion if, in the Speaker’s opinion, it is reasonable to do so.” This is an extremely contentious bill this evening. We have a lot of speakers wishing to speak on the commencement clause of this bill, and I urge you to let the debate carry on.

Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I do not think I need any assistance. We have had 22 speakers, some of them relevant to the clause, but Jacqui Dean has not spoken on this clause.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I rise to speak to the commencement date of this bill, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. The first comment I would make about this bill is that the public of New Zealand are not stupid. The public of New Zealand know exactly what this bill is about. The public of New Zealand do not want to see this bill commence. The public of New Zealand do not want this bill to commence, because they understand very, very clearly that this is a bill in which the Government comes in their back door, into their kitchen, into their family room, into their bedroom, and tells them how they may or how they may not raise their children.

I have the great pleasure of being a constituency MP, and as part of my duties as a constituency MP I receive a number of people in my office. I was particularly struck by a man who came in to see me. He made an appointment and took some time off work, and I hope he is listening this evening. He took a morning off work so that he could come in and see me and express his dismay at the provisions of this anti-smacking bill, including the commencement date, which, of course, is integral to the bill. He said: “You know, Jacqui, it’s my job to raise my children. It’s not the Government’s job to raise my children.” Those members over on the other side of the Chamber—the unionists—are scoffing, but this is a man’s heartfelt belief. If members can scoff against that, then I guess they can scoff against anything.

I spoke to a lawyer this morning on the telephone because I was interested to see how, in fact, this bill would pan out should the commencement date come into force and the bill be turned into law. That lawyer, who has done quite a bit of family work, ran me through the scenario of what would happen out in the real world should this unfortunate and vile bill ever become law. What would happen is that if a complaint was made to the police about a parent or caregiver smacking a child, it would be regarded by the police as the same as a domestic violence incident. Under police current practice, should this happen in Ōāmaru, the police would go along to that Ōāmaru home, knock on the door, and arrest the person. The person—and remember we are talking about a parent here—would be taken to the police station and held in custody. That parent would be removed from his or her child and taken into custody. That person—that citizen of New Zealand who is now being regarded as a criminal—would be put before a judge or a justice of the peace in order for bail to be discussed, because in this instance of family violence, so-called, the police would not be considering that.

So here we have a situation where, if this bill should ever become law—which I certainly hope it does not; I do not want to see this bill ever commence—a person who taps his or her kid on the bottom is going to spend quite a bit of time in police custody and in police cells. If the politicians on the other side of the Chamber who live in la-la land want to argue that, then they should go and speak to a lawyer in their own community. Do we want this for our society? Do we want this for our children? Do we want this for our parents? I would say we do not.

So let us have a look at another scenario, because I got a little bit interested at this point. It is all very well talking about principles, but what actually happens out in the world? Well, here we have a situation where a couple separates. There is an awful lot of bitterness going around when couples separate and divorce and when there are children involved. OK, Dad’s feeling very bitter about Mum, who has found herself a new partner. He picks the kids up, and one of the kids is a bit angry with Mum because Mum has sent them off to their room to do their homework or something. So the kid says—because the kid knows that he or she can—“Mum hit me.” Well, members can guess what will happen then. The cops will have to go around and, once again, our good, decent parents will be regarded as criminals.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I move, That the question be now put.

GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) : I have had advice from the Clerk’s Office in relation to Judy Turner’s Supplementary Order Paper 95, and I seek leave that the vote on this Supplementary Order Paper be taken as a single vote. I have checked out that matter with the other whips, so I seek leave accordingly.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Judy Turner to clause 2 be agreed to.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just ask you to explain a little about the amendments in my name that you have ruled out. I am looking especially at Standing Order 257(1). It quite clearly states: “A bill must include a distinct clause stating when the bill comes into force.” If the clause stays the way that it is, it states that it will come into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent. Well, the Royal assent date is an indeterminate date. We do not know when that will be. Maybe the Governor-General is not around for some weeks; he may be overseas. I want to know how it is acceptable for it to be an indeterminate date, such as when it receives the Royal assent—that is acceptable—but the Standing Order quite clearly states that a bill must include a distinct clause stating when the bill comes into force. My amendments state—especially the first four, which relate to individual members—that it should be after that day and after they have signed the statutory declaration stating they personally support the way that the vote was cast in their name. I cannot understand why that date, which would be some date after the legislation has passed through, is in any way less determinate or more determinate than that of the date it receives the Royal assent.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : Mr Chairperson, perhaps to begin with I could refer you to Standing Order 311, “Bills passed to be printed fair, authenticated and presented for Royal assent”, which states: “When a bill has been passed it is printed fair, by direction of the Clerk, who authenticates two prints of it and presents them for the Royal assent.” Of course, one could argue that the Royal assent may not be forthcoming, but as the Royal veto has not been exercised since 1707 and is regarded by most constitutional historians and lawyers as now defunct, the Royal assent may be regarded as something that follows automatically from the provision of the fair copies presented by the Clerk of the House. A commencement date that is contingent upon another member—or, indeed, upon anybody else—doing something that that person may or may not do, whether or not that person does it, is no indication of what that person actually means by his or her action or inaction, and is a totally indeterminate event. It is precisely the kind of matter that was the subject of the Speaker’s ruling in October last year.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the members for that.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : Dr Cullen refers to Standing Order 311, which states: “When a bill has been passed it is printed fair, by direction of the Clerk, who authenticates two prints of it and presents them for the Royal assent.” I do not understand how that has any overriding effect on the Standing Order that I read out, which states that a bill must have a clause in it that states clearly when its coming into effect will be. I would have thought that there is a degree of certainty that there will be a Royal assent at some stage afterwards. My amendments are stating that there is a degree of certainty—that we are asking members of Parliament to sign a statutory declaration. I simply do not understand why those two events are different. Certainly, the Standing Order that Dr Cullen referred to does not actually refer to that.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : The member can adopt a date that is certain in that respect, with a specific date such as, say, 15 November—which of course is the other form of the date of commencement, where an actual, specific, certain date is given. The Clerk of the House has no choice but to present a fair copy. That must be done. I think it is now reasonable constitutional law that when that is being presented to the Governor-General, the Royal assent must be given. These events must occur, and therefore the event will happen. It is a certain event.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank members for that. I am persuaded by the argument from Dr Cullen, which is an argument that has been made before on very similar issues. The statement I made that the amendment was out of order is quite correct. An amendment to a commencement date must provide certainty. For the reasons that have been outlined, those amendments did not do that. We will move on now to the much-awaited clause 2A.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : I rise to speak in relation to clause 2A, “Principal Act amended”, which I will read for the benefit of those who are listening: “This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.” So I take it we can talk about the Crimes Act 1961 and how it is amended by this particular bill.

At the moment, should parents smack a child not for the purpose of correction but because they do that every Friday, or every day after they come home from the pub, or because they feel like it, it is against the law. That is not condoned by the law, because it is not for the purpose of correction of the child. This is already the law. It is already against the law to hit a child for any reason other than for the purpose of correction. It is absolutely the law.

Occasionally, the law can be abused by people being overly keen to prosecute a parent, but it can also sometimes be abused by people thinking they have the right to do that. It is quite wrong to have discussions in this House that imply that somehow there will be a change of attitude towards children and the beating of them. I have heard people in this Chamber talk in this debate about how we need to send a message. The way most of us send messages is by phone calls, emails, letters, television and radio adverts, and by talking to people and educating them. We do not actually prosecute parents because we want to send a message.

This bill should not be about what the Green Party and the Labour Party want it to be about, which is who is in charge of our kids. Those parties think they are. This bill should be about what is in the best interests of children. What is in the best interests of children is for them to have responsible, empowered parents who put their children first, and who make decisions that sometimes the children do not like but they are in their best interests.

I heard the most appalling suggestions tonight from Labour Party members that we should not now do anything that children do not like, and that we should have a voice for children here in Parliament. They say we should definitely do that. Well, why do we not just give children the vote? That will solve the problem. We have heard Labour Party members saying that children should not be forced to do things they do not like. I do not know of any parent here of a teenager who could say to his or her child: “You decide, dear, when you would like to go to bed at night. You decide, dear, whether you do your homework. You decide who you get to hang out with. You decide where you go. You decide whether you would like to go to a pub when you are 14. You decide.”

I would just like to say to those members who do not live in the real world—unlike those of us who do, who represent real people and do not live in some la-la land along with la-la land people—that on Monday I was at the Bethany Centre in Auckland. The centre does not really do adoptions these days; what it does is teach parenting to mums who are absolutely at risk. In other words, we are talking about people in the underclass area—people who have absolutely no hope without the help and intervention the Bethany Centre can give them. Staff at the Bethany Centre have said to me that one of the biggest problems they have is kids who come in there who have no idea about being parents.

They have parents who come in to visit their children and who are trying to do the right thing, but who have never said “No”. They have never set boundaries or actually said they do not want to be the best friend of their child, but want to be that child’s parent. Because guess what? They are different—just like those members who are former teachers and who like to stand up and say that once they used to smack children, once they used to beat them with a cane, but they do not do that any more because they have learnt the way. They try to equate the relationship between a parent and child with that of a teacher and a child. They are completely different relationships.

A teacher will have a child for a certain number of hours every day and not in the holidays. A parent has a child 24/7. I have never seen a teacher get up at 3 o’clock in the morning and take a sick child with earache to the doctor, which is what normal parents do. Those teachers who are parents will have done it for their own children, but they do not do it for other people’s children, because they are not those children’s parents. There is a basic difference between the relationships.

It is absolute twaddle for some members to come into this Chamber and talk about how they used to be a teacher and cane children, but now they have learnt better. Forget it! We are not saying parents should be able to cane their children; we are saying that a light smack on the hand or the bottom of a child by way of correction will not harm him or her. In fact, it may actually stop a situation escalating.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) : Speaking to clause 2A, “Principal Act amended”, which states: “This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.”, reminds me very strongly of the fact that that Act was amended when I was a young teacher—well, not so young, actually; probably a middle-aged teacher. I say to the member who spoke before me that I am both a teacher and a parent. I actually know the difference between the two roles, and I also know the similarities between then. At that time it was said to us that it would be impossible to exert any discipline in a classroom or a school when corporal punishment was taken away. I have to say that that was not so; that was incorrect. Anyone who was taught by me—and at least three people in this particular organisation were—knows that he or she was equally scared of me before that provision was repealed and afterwards.

But I want to talk about something that is quite serious and is above party politics. I believe that even though this debate has not been argued away, this is very serious legislation. I want to tell members a story, because many people are alleging that the police will arrest every parent who slaps his or her child. This story happened in relation to my child when she was about 2 or 3. There had been a murder, and I am sure Gerry Brownlee will remember the child from Bexley who was abducted and murdered. This story happened about 2 weeks later than that. I was at school, and my husband had taken Claire—and I apologise to Claire for bringing her into the debate—to the library in Papanui where, as a 2-year-old, she threw a class A tantrum. He picked her up under his arm and, with her arms and legs going, he walked through the town of Papanui, bundled her into the car, and drove her home.

Five minutes later, there was a thunderous knock on the front door and a policeman was there. Claire answered the door, all sunny smiles, and the policeman said: “Is your daddy here?” and she said: “Yes, he’s just here.”, and went and got poor Geoff. The policeman said to Geoff: “Oh, you’re the father?”, and he said: “Yes, she threw a tantrum in the library and I brought her home.” The policeman said: “Look, that is perfectly OK. We are just terribly concerned at the moment because of the abduction and because of the murder of the kid in Bexley.”

That policeman used his common sense. He did not prosecute my husband for abducting the child. He did not prosecute my husband for putting her on a mat and taking her home. He did not prosecute my husband for physically taking the kid up. That was common sense. To say that our police force would do other than that at the moment is to belittle their priorities and to belittle their common sense. I do not often bring my family into the debate here, but I wanted to tell that story because it is a true story and is pretty damn real.

Also, another argument has been put up in here. It is an argument that says that this amendment is the Government or the State interfering in our families. The Government and the State interfere in our families when people commit domestic violence. When there is rape within marriage, of course the State is inside the bedroom on those occasions, because, if one wants to play religion, that is against the Ten Commandments. That is pretty basic. Whether those Ten Commandments are broken on the street or inside the home, they are still broken. Murder committed inside the family home is still murder; it is still against the Crimes Act. Assault committed inside the family home is still against the Crimes Act, and that is why this amendment is not actually saying that suddenly the State will go inside the family home. The State ought to be in there for murder, assault, and domestic violence, and I stand by that.

The other argument we come up against is the one being put up by the Opposition at the moment in relation to the weakest time in our lives—and I have been through the Family Court several times—which is when one is in divorce proceedings and there is a contest over the children. Everyone grasps at different straws. They grasp at the abuse of children by different partners; they use that argument already in there. But to say other than that and to say that judges and the lawyers for the child do not argue against spurious cases that are put up is, I think, again to belittle our judges.

I stand in here in support of our police; I stand in here in support of our courts.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) : Clause 2A highlights how the proponents of this Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill have wildly over-claimed what it is they are doing legally, but have clearly underestimated the impact they are having on parental attitudes. Clause 2A states: “This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.” If this bill is passed, there will still be a section 59. I do not know whether the lobby groups that have spent millions of dollars on this realise that there will still be a section 59 and that it will still have a set of conditions for defence against prosecution. It will not be a particularly sensible set of defences—Chester Borrows’ ones are much better—but that will still be the case.

The legal difference between this bill and what Chester Borrows is proposing is actually not very large, but the key to this debate is what my colleague Gerry Brownlee said when he quoted the Labour member who said that this is about attitudinal change. Well, I want to tell the Labour Government why so many people are worked up about this bill. They do not believe that the way to solve abuse and violence against children is to force a change in the attitude of all those parents who do a great job. That is what is being proposed here. I resent that. I resent being told by people over on that side of the Chamber that for the 20 years I have spent raising six children I have had the wrong attitude; I was wrong, my attitude was wrong, and as a result of that wrong attitude “Lillybing” was killed and it is my fault.

This Government has spent the last 3 months avoiding responsibility for the death of Liam Ashley and, more recently, for the death of Mr Kuchenbecker. Government members do not know who is responsible for those deaths, but they do know who is responsible for the awful violence against young, vulnerable children in New Zealand: it is me, and it is the other members who do not support the bill, and it is the hundreds of people who sent me emails and letters—they are responsible. Nobody in the Government is responsible for the death of prisoners who were in the Government’s care, but it is the attitudes of all normal parents who have done a good job over 20 years that are responsible for extreme violence against children.

That is why clause 2A is so telling—because it makes it clear there will still be a section 59. All those people who have emailed me because they were told by Sue Bradford and the child lobby that section 59 will be repealed have been misled, again. The amendment to the Crimes Act is simply to replace section 59. I say to Sue Bradford that she should tell people the truth.

It is really grinding on New Zealand parents that they are being told that their good intentions towards their kids are not of the same moral value as the good intentions of the child lobby, that somehow the child lobby’s good intentions have to be legislated over and above theirs, and that the answer to fixing parents who do a bad job is to attack all those parents who do a good job. I want the next Labour speaker to explain to me just what it is about the attitude of the thousands of parents who do a good job every day that has to be changed in order to save some other child who may be killed in the next wee while. I want him or her to argue that.

I will tell members about symbolism. I resent my relationship with my children being legally and fundamentally altered to prove a symbolic point. Our relationships might be regarded by Labour and the child lobby as being grist to the mill of symbolism, strategies, and politics. But for us they are human, heartfelt, and real; they pump blood, tension, love, and warmth every day. I never again want to hear people say they are performing some political trick of symbolism on that fundamental human relationship.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : I want to introduce a little bit of calmness and common sense into this argument by explaining—and I think that is what he requested—to the member Bill English the amendment from the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Basically, I think it would be fair to say, a number of members of the select committee would have preferred straight repeal of section 59, as would have the myriad organisations that submitted to us in support of the bill. But, to their credit, they accepted the amendment, not because it was absolutely essential but because it gave reassurance to parents. The silly nonsense going out from the National Party members, from members of the media, and from other people was that parents would be arrested and prosecuted for minor acts of violence. So it was the intention of the select committee, supported by the non-governmental organisation sector—and we are very appreciative of that—and also with the assistance of the Law Commission, to create an amendment that gave clarification to people, and, therefore, gave reassurance to good parents in New Zealand, and still kept our children safe.

The previous speaker, Bill English—when I could understand what he was saying; he was shouting a lot—actually argued that Chester Borrows’ amendment was more sensible. Chester Borrows’ amendment goes against what modern parents are learning today with the SKIP programme. [Interruption] I say to members opposite that they should cut the hysteria and settle down; they should stop being bullies. This legislation reinforces the SKIP programme. The nanny programme on television has taught people about this issue, and they are very receptive. They say that, yes, the SKIP programme is great. This legislation reinforces that programme.

This bill will give reassurance, and I thank everybody who was part of making that happen: all the organisations that give so much advice and support to parents in our country, the Law Commission, and the majority of members on the Justice and Electoral Committee.

We often hear National members in this Chamber talking about unions. That is another group they like to whip up, saying what terrible people from the dark ages union members are. In particular, National members take a few swipes—if members excuse the use of the word “swipes”—at the engineering union. I want to talk about one of the organisers of this union who spoke with me a couple of days ago and told me about the attitude of fitters to this issue. These fitters, many of them middle-aged, said they were not worried about the bill, and that of course they would not get arrested for minor acts. They said that people do not hit their kids nowadays; they just put them in time out or take their iPods from them. That attitude was from quite a conservative section of our society.

So if the concern from the Opposition benches is genuine, I want to try to reassure those members in some way. But the cynical side of me thinks their concern is not genuine. I think that they are deliberately misleading the public in New Zealand, and that what they are doing is reprehensible.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, the member may not say “deliberately misleading”.

LYNNE PILLAY: What can I say, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is understood that the member should not have said it.

LYNNE PILLAY: The Opposition members are creating misunderstandings out in the public with the words they are speaking so frequently, so passionately—and so hysterically, in fact. I think that if we take a breath and read this amendment bill, then we will know that it gives reassurance to people. It gives reassurance to the good parents in New Zealand—along with the police, who do have prosecution guidelines—and we know that people will not be criminalised under this bill.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : In speaking to clause 2A, which confirms that this Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is an amendment to the Crimes Act, I believe we need to have a think about why we are amending that Act. It is obvious; it is because an assault comes under the Crimes Act. In fact, if the Chair recalls learning verbatim the definition of assault under section 2 of the Crimes Act, he will be able to confirm that “Assault means the act of intentionally applying … force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe … that he has, present ability …” to do so.

So what has been found to be an assault? Well, what has been found to be an assault is contact as light as a kiss, and goes on a continuum all the way through to bashing someone around the ears with a lump of wood. That is about the state of it. So the argument around this legislation and this amendment concerns whereabouts on that continuum we start or stop. The point was made earlier that Sue Bradford’s bill provides a defence for parents who use reasonable force to control their children. But my amendment provides a defence for people who use reasonable force, for the purposes of correction, to raise their children. There is only a gap between us; it is not very wide.

Let us have a little think about when the changes to the bill came up, because initially, of course, the only thing that was before the House and before the Justice and Electoral Committee was repeal of section 59—to take it away completely.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.