Field Taito Phillip: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7995] 
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 Maori 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.