Wilkinson Kate: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8438] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you for allowing me to take this call Mr Chairman. I will try as much as possible to confine my debate to clause 2A which is a part of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill that amends the Crimes Act—that criminalises good parents and that makes a judgment call that this Government knows parenting skills better than parents themselves do and that if one does not toe the line one will be committing an offence against the Crimes Act. With this amendment good parents will be turned into criminals under the Crimes Act. Under the Crimes Act it is the crime of assault to apply or attempt to apply “force to the person of another directly or indirectly or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another if the person making the threat has or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has present ability to effect his purpose”. That is the definition of assault. A mere touching is defined as assault under the Crimes Act. A pat on the bottom is assault or can be assault under the Crimes Act. The brushing of some part of a person’s body can be assault under the Crimes Act. 
Assault does not depend on the level of harm; harm can be great or minor. Assault is not just thrashing and bashing; good parents will be guilty of assault if they lightly smack their children on the bottom—that is the fact of it. We have the Prime Minister of this country saying: “We’re not going to have thousands of mums and dads lined up in court because a hand happened to come into contact with a bottom.” Well that will not be the case because they will be lined up in court they will be criminalised and they will be charged with assault under the Crimes Act 1961. 
The Crimes Act as it currently stands as we know provides a defence in section 59 where reasonable force is used by way of correction towards a child. That is a question of fact—what is reasonable and what is not. That is what the few cases relating to this section have determined whether that determination was by a judge or by a jury. 
This matter has been sensationalised. We have heard about the case of the riding crop—a riding crop that was the thickness of a little finger which was used against a 12-year-old boy who was bigger than his mother was out of control and was about to hit his stepfather around the head with a baseball bat. 
Hon Member 
: With a what? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: With a baseball bat. He was about to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a very narrow clause. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. A jury of 12 reasonable ordinary New Zealanders decided that that was reasonable and not a crime under the Crimes Act. This bill removes that defence under the Crimes Act and replaces it with a justification in using reasonable force for other than the purpose of correction. Under this bill one can use reasonable force to prevent harm criminal activity and offensive or disruptive behaviour. That is ridiculous because proposed new section 59(2) inserted by clause 4 overrides that by the provision that nothing justifies the use of force for the purposes of correction. It makes a total nonsense to say that we can use reasonable force to prevent our children from being disruptive or offensive but not use it as a corrective measure to prevent our children from being disruptive or offensive. 
So what does this bill do? On the one hand it appears to confer a defence in one clause but on the other hand it takes that defence away completely in the next clause. That is ludicrous and I suspect that this will be fertile litigation material for lawyers—which is the last thing any reasonable parent wants the last thing any child needs or wants and the last thing any family wants. 
By amending the Crimes Act under this clause in the manner contemplated by this bill we are making more criminals. We are making criminals of good parents who are trying to bring up their children to be responsible caring members of our society. It will be difficult enough for those children to grow up into responsible citizens if they know that their parents have just been turned into criminals. Thrashing bashing and beating are not OK. This bill however will create another mischief—that of criminalising parents. This bill is a disaster. It is a sticking plaster on the sore but the sore remains. Yes we have a mischief of child abuse and domestic violence and yes we need to deal with it. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my duty to keep within the Standing Orders. After all these are the rules that have been crafted for well over a century of parliamentary practice in New Zealand and it is my duty to ensure that they are upheld. I have been very tolerant; this is a very narrow clause and I can see that members are keen to get into the substance of the bill so I am going to accept the motion.