King Colin: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8462] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure indeed to rise and speak on the purpose of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I am looking at the title of the bill and I have an older copy of the legislation here from when it was reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think it is quite appropriate to have this copy because it illuminates one or two of the aspects that have been discussed tonight. The original title reads: the “Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill”—quite a mouthful.  
Let us look at clause 3 the “Purpose” clause. It originally read: “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act …”. This is quite interesting because the provision that was taken out was the very driver of this bill when it went to the select committee. It was to “abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children.” That was changed to “make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”  
It strikes me very clearly that this bill is in actual fact an anti-smacking bill. It is being proposed totally to undermine the parental choice—which has been a part of society—of parents taking responsibility for rearing their children in a caring and loving manner. It says there “for the purpose of correction.” So on that basis we can all support the comments that are coming forward around doing away with abuse and violence. I find that it is still very hard to come to grips with the fact that this bill is no more than an anti-smacking bill being promoted by this Government and as such it has set about to undermine totally the responsibility in families of the mums dads and carers of those children.  
I would like to take members through some thoughts. Everybody has the right to have a different view on things. Some people oppose any sort of physical chastisement and we appreciate that. Some people insist on a great deal of parental scope to discipline as they see fit and we accept that. However the majority—a huge number—of New Zealanders sit in between those two camps making their own choices but allowing for the notion that other parents should be allowed to choose differently within boundaries.  
Really it comes down to the question of what is reasonable. On that basis it becomes quite clear to me that Chester Borrows’ amendment certainly does measure up to the opportunity there of stating what parental control of children by limiting the use of force for the purpose of correction is about. It is very appropriate that he goes to the lengths of explaining that it would be inappropriate to use a weapon at all or an implement if it is inflicted by a means that is cruel degrading or terrifying. So on that basis I find that Chester Borrows has moved to a situation that 80 percent or more of New Zealanders are perfectly comfortable with. Many people will be at a loss to understand what exactly is “unreasonable” about a defence that is an action of being reasonable. 
This bill is really about a Government that is trying to tell the public that it knows best. We have had to put up with a tremendous amount of “We know best.” Fortunately I sense a degree of frustration on the benches on the other side of the Chamber there because those members know that they are on the wrong side of the argument. The public itself is giving a very clear message as to what it believes.  
Really if we wanted to do something quite serious about this situation we would be doing away with the situations where it is quite clear that New Zealanders are at risk—where there is alcohol abuse drug abuse and stress associated with the poverty that has grown since this Government came into power and where mum’s live-in boyfriend is a threat. The gentle smack of correction on the bottom has done nothing to damage children.