Hutchison Paul: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8865] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak on this very important bill the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Clause 4 which we are debating actually includes the amended section 59 which as my colleague Judith Collins pointed out remains in the bill—it is not removed. It includes within it those four paragraphs (a) to (d) in subsection (1) which mean that every parent of a child is justified in using force if the force is used in reasonable circumstances. But it also includes subsection (2) which explicitly states: “Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.” Therein lies the impasse that has faced this Parliament for so long and until today’s historic consensus this caused the problem for so many New Zealanders including my constituents in Port Waikato who overwhelmingly viewed the previous amendment as inappropriate. 
As Audrey Young noted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 it is almost inconceivable that Parliament will pass a law that explicitly bans physical punishment and then expects the police to prosecute only extreme cases. I consider that the breakthrough came when the leader of the National Party John Key not only spoke to the Salvation Army but then was prepared to talk to other party leaders to see whether there was a way through and that has been achieved. 
I want to acknowledge an excellent paper published only a few weeks ago on 19 April by Every Child Counts which outlines the history of violence against children in New Zealand since 1867 and the evolution of attempts to diminish it. It also outlines the evolution of this bill through the Justice and Electoral Committee that has brought us to the amended section 59. The paper talks about dispelling the myth that has worried so many New Zealanders—the myth that parents will be criminalised if section 59 is repealed. This is what many of them worried about so much. It states that the police and Child Youth and Family have said they would work together to develop guidelines if the new law is enacted. That has not happened so far. 
Also the paper states that official advice to Cabinet confirms that loving parents are unlikely to be unnecessarily criminalised following the repeal of section 59. It would take only a set of simple words to be placed within the bill to state the above and the bill would find significant support throughout New Zealand. I believe that is exactly what has happened over the last week and I think it was brought about very much by initiatives from this side of the Chamber. 
The huge amount of thought that National has put into this legislation should not be underestimated. Firstly there was the Chester Borrows’ amendment which had three very clear objectives. It sent a clear message that child abuse is wrong that child abusers cannot hide behind the defence of section 59 and that the legislation should not inappropriately criminalise good parents for light or inconsequential smacking. That was clearly not enough for the support of the majority of this Chamber. But John Key was prepared to go one step further in order to achieve that wider consensus. I believe he has made a very historic and significant step on behalf of the children of New Zealand and on behalf of the common sense that rules this Parliament. It was his amendment that triggered off what is happening today. 
At the second reading of this bill I recall Sue Bradford saying that she would fight tooth and nail—perhaps those were slightly unfortunate words—to see that the bill would go through unchanged. I admire her for her determination in terms of reducing violence against children and I am very glad to see that she has been prepared to move.