Duynhoven Harry: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8882] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I thank members of the Committee tonight for the quality of the debate we are hearing. Some of it has been of very high quality and that is often the case with bills of a nature such as this. We have seen a remarkable day in Parliament today. In the 16 years I have been here it has been very rare to see an occasion like this whereby a bill that is seen as divisive the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill has the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition jointly promoting an amendment. 
 We have seen that the amendment on the Table in Peter Dunne’s name has put forward a way of trying to move this issue forward that I think allays the concerns of those of us who were concerned about this bill—and there are some members of Parliament who have been very concerned about this bill—and about what its unintended consequences might be. 
What is said in caucus should stay in caucus but those who know me best know that I do not do subtle very well. My unhappiness with this bill as introduced was clear. The bill as it was introduced intended to completely remove the ability for a parent to smack his or her child with any legal protection. The effect of the legislation as introduced was unclear. Politicians legal experts and commentators all argued publicly over the exact effect of the provisions of the bill. 
In my book leadership is about moving the country forward about moving issues forward but it is possible to lead only if one is not so far over the horizon that the people one is trying to lead have lost sight of one. 
I thank Sue Bradford not only for driving this issue forward because we need to make progress as a country but for being prepared to go against her initial stance of saying that if there were any modification to the bill—I say sorry to Sue if I am misquoting her but this is how it came across in the media—she would withdraw it. I am very pleased that in the interests of moving the issue forward for New Zealand Sue has been prepared to allow an amendment to go forward and to support the bill in that way. I congratulate Sue too on enduring the heat and on making New Zealand have this debate. 
I have been through this debate or one like it before. The abolition of corporal punishment in schools was a major issue for me because at that time I was one of the very few people teaching in a major boys’ school who did not use corporal punishment in a school where it was endemic. I worked very hard together with a small band of other staff who were I think reasonably enlightened at the time to try to remove corporal punishment. We were successful. 
Much has been made in this House of my Dutch heritage; people forget that the other half is of course New Zealand - Irish. The Netherlands is the safest place in the world for a child to be born. The Dutch have an equivalent of our section 59 in their legislation today but they have a few factors that are very different from New Zealand. Their culture is different. The expectation on parents is different. First they have a culture of respect for children. They do not have a culture of respect for—if you like—violence. They have a very different approach. In New Zealand we treat as a hero the guy who in the rugby scrum gets the best hit in. He is a hero; he is a folklore hero in New Zealand. So we have quite a divided view on how we deal with these issues in New Zealand. 
The expectation on parents in Europe especially in the Netherlands is quite strong. In September 2006 the Dutch Parliament made a decision that basically read that parents must care for and look after their children without any form of mental or physical violence. That was the resolution of Parliament. It has not yet actually been enacted in law but it reflects a culture that is a little different. Most parents in Europe and especially in the Netherlands would not think of hitting a child. Certainly if someone in the Netherlands regularly hits his or her child a neighbour will be over the fence saying: “Do you need a hand? Can we get you some assistance from the social authorities? You clearly have a problem.” But in New Zealand we put our hands over our ears or our hands over our eyes and pretend we do not hear or see. That is a significant difference. Maybe one could say that the Dutch are fairly stubborn or nosey or even determined but the actual difference is that children are their most treasured possession; children should be the same for us. 
We need to examine the reasons why we have such a problem of violence against children in New Zealand. The bill as it was introduced crossed a line. The public perception was that it intruded the State into every home with children. It sort of had the feeling of presuming against the wisdom of ordinary people. The arguments of the pro and anti groups the MPs and the legal experts as to whether the bill criminalised good parents who occasionally might smack a wayward child—and I will plead guilty to that now—are of little relevance or interest to most people; most people simply want to get on with the business of being the best parent they can be. I think what we are doing today in clarifying with this amendment will help this bill. 
On this issue I have been more torn than on any other issue we have debated in this Parliament. I have seriously considered whether I still fitted whether my views and the basis of my value system were appropriate for the party I am in. I am pleased to say that our party has listened. It has moved with the issue—perhaps not as far as I might have liked but it has moved—to establish an amendment together with Peter Dunne who introduced the amendment and with John Key who supported it to at least clarify the position to ensure that we have it written in law so that the police responsibility is quite clear in this issue. 
We had a real perception problem and I think we still do. We need to take this message to the public. But hopefully what has been done today will help reinforce the message that good parents doing their best for their children will not be prosecuted for minor lapses. All of us want the parents who are brutal to be dealt to. That parents can get off because the law provides them a loophole when they have been brutal is what I—and every thinking member of this Chamber—want to fix. So I congratulate Sue on that. 
I congratulate Chester Borrows also on a very strong effort with his practical background as a policeman as an investigating detective and as a lawyer in trying to resolve this issue and in pointing a way ahead for us. I also congratulate one or two members of the National Party who I know privately because we have talked on these issues have stood their ground very firmly in their caucus as well. Even though they might be on the other end of the debate from me it is vitally important to congratulate them. I congratulate my colleagues on the way in which I have been treated throughout this issue when I have felt sometimes a little bit exposed. 
We are now finally dealing with a bill that will be successful and a bill that will lead the country forward without being so far ahead that people will have lost sight of us. The amendment of the Minister David Benson-Pope himself to review the entire legislative effect in 2 years’ time will ensure that Parliament will return to this issue if there are unintended consequences. 
We now have a bill that I feel if it is passed in the way in which it is intended I can live with a bill that will lead New Zealand forward and above all a bill that has at least fostered public debate on an issue that has been dealt with below the windowsill level if you like for a long time—an issue we as a country have pretended has not existed and an issue that desperately needs to be moved forward into a more modern era. That is not to say that the vast majority of parents who have been concerned about this bill are in any way inadequate. They are simply doing the best they can in a circumstance where we all get frazzled. 
I as I child was occasionally smacked usually with very good reason and on the odd times when it was not with good reason at least I learnt that there are sometimes injustices in the world and learnt to cope with that. Madam Chair thank you.