Williamson Maurice: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8445] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on clause 3 the purpose clause of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I have to say that for me this bill is about far more than just whether to smack children; it is about telling New Zealand parents that we as a Parliament know best how they should bring up their kids. 
I say to this Committee that I am probably in a unique position. I have been married for 32 years and for 16 years of those we were without children. I tell members that for those first 16 years we knew exactly how to bring up kids. Every time we visited the supermarket and saw little ratbags tearing stuff out of the freezer and so on my wife would say: “Look at those dreadful parents. We know how to do it.” We were the best parents the world had ever produced—for our first 16 years. Then we got a child. We now have three children. They are all adopted so members can stay calm. The children did not get my genes so they are lucky. I have to say that parenting turned out to be the hardest bloody job the world has ever seen. It is a job for which parents get no training and it is a job whereby parents have the ultimate responsibility to make those children become grown-ups who are responsible capable and productive members of society. 
One of the things that parents have to do with little children is set boundaries. We are not talking about 12-year-olds. Taking a cellphone off a 2-year-old or an 18-month-old is a bit of a ridiculous punishment. My 18-month-old never had a cellphone. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes under ACT they would all get a cellphone. A parent has to say to children that there are some boundaries in life. If children do not learn those boundaries of right and wrong and what they can and cannot do then they will end up being little horrors for the rest of their lives hated by most people and more often than not in trouble with society when they grow up. I believe that most parents are responsible and that the vast bulk of parents if they do smack for correction usually give a very gentle smack that they use to teach boundaries to a very small child. I hear from Sue Bradford and from the Labour members that they are not outlawing that—that this bill does not do that. Well actually it does. 
Let me make it clear now that I think anyone who beats a child uses violence against a child or thrashes a child should be locked up. Anyone who uses an implement a tool a weapon or an electric jug cord on a child should be locked up. But that is not what this debate tonight is about. This debate tonight is about parents teaching children a very very valuable set of values in life and about boundaries and right and wrong. 
Children try parents out. I will never forget my little girl Brittany trying me out about the poker in the fireplace. She was trying to grab it and I said: “Don’t you touch that you’ll get burnt.” She put her hand out and went to grab it. I said: “Brittany don’t touch it.” She put her hand further out. I said: “If you touch that I’ll give you a smack.” She said: “No!” and grabbed it. She was 2 and she was trying me out. She was seeing what would happen. Actually she got a hell of a fright because the poker was a lot hotter than she expected. But she did get a smack. It was not a hard one and it did not do any damage; it did not do anything. In fact only about a month later when I put her in time out she actually asked if she could please have a smack rather than time out. It taught her about boundaries and right and wrong. But this bill is about the nanny State. 
A huge number of members of this House have never had children and have never had to go through the process of what it is like. Let me tell members that in my first 16 years of marriage I knew exactly how to bring up kids. I knew rights and wrongs and so on until the reality struck me that parenting is a much harder bloody job than it seems. 
If Chester Borrows’ amendments were adopted by this Committee the bill would get my vote right there and then. We are saying that anyone who does brutalising violent damage to a kid should be locked up. But parents who are trying to act responsibly teach barriers and be gentle with their kids while showing them right from wrong will actually be made criminals by this bill. I know that the police will not charge into every house around the country to arrest people and lock them up. But I made the point before that this is a wonderful weapon to use in a matrimonial split. A wife could say: “My husband beat the kids. He’s a criminal. Let him have no custody.” If yes the husband had given them a smack then he would be a criminal and lose custody. 
Here is another great example that goes on daily as I am sure members know: neighbourhood fights. How do I get at my neighbour? I can report her and say that I saw her smack her child. There we have it. I have to say that I have found nothing more galling than this bill.