Copeland Gordon: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8891] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 The United Future members will be voting in support of Minister David Benson-Pope’s amendment. We think it is vitally important that we review the application of the law in the not too distant future because there is a real possibility that the practice of what happens over the next few years will actually be—if you like—the proof of the pudding which is in the eating so to speak. With the wisdom of that actual lived-out experience I think it is very very important that we commit ourselves to come back and review the matter. 
I want to comment briefly on the comments of the Hon David Parker in relation to questions around assault. I respect his views and he is a lawyer. But I want to respond not in my words but in the words of two justices in New Zealand. The first one is the Hon Justice Wylie who in 1989 said: “It is well known that assault does not require such a powerful action. A mere touching can amount to an assault. A pat on the bottom or a kiss can be an assault. The mere brushing of some part of a person’s body can be an assault.” So that really refutes David Parker’s comments. Then Justice Fisher in 1991 had this to say: “It is trite law that the amount of force used is immaterial. To kiss or touch a person against her will is an assault.” I am sure every female in the country would agree that such inappropriate touching—particularly from a male—would in her view constitute an assault and I am very very conscious of that. 
But I want to go back to my real point about why I wanted for the avoidance of doubt to see Parliament clearly state that taking a child to time out and so forth is not a criminal offence. Before I do that I just point out again to David Parker that one of the arguments that the proponents of this bill use is that the law in New Zealand should be the same for children as it is for adults. That has been one of the central planks that has been repeated over and over again. If I were to lift up Sue Bradford tonight and take her to a naughty mat that would be an assault—OK? Are we agreed on that? That would constitute an assault and I would expect the police to be here very quickly. I would expect to be in the court to be convicted and to end up in the can. That just goes to illustrate that when we are dealing with adults rather than children the realities are different. We do not actually wipe the bottoms of adults. We do not actually feed adults grated vegetables. There are many many differences between the relationship of a parent to a child and that between adults. I think any person in New Zealand with any modicum of common sense knows that to be true. So that argument is just overly simplistic. 
But my real worry as I said—and we need to test this out in the next 2 years—is that in this legislation time out and the use of a naughty mat constitute criminal acts. That is what the law says. If I could quote the Hon Phil Goff in the context of the prostitution legislation he stated as follows: “If this Parliament passes a law and at the same time decides we are not going to enforce the law we are guilty of severe hypocrisy.” Those were Phil Goff’s words. That is exactly what we are doing in respect of time out and naughty mat activity. Therefore because those activities are technically an assault under this bill parenting organisations say to me that they cannot morally encourage parents to use time out and naughty mat activity because in doing that whether technically or not they are breaking the law. 
The fact is that most New Zealanders want to live their lives and discipline their children within the law. From that point of view the whole question of prosecution is irrelevant. If I go into a supermarket take a packet of chocolate peanuts off the shelf and walk out without paying for them I may not be prosecuted but I have broken the law. For me morally that is important. I live my life endeavouring not to break the law of New Zealand—as do most New Zealanders. 
I think this review is important and I think all of us in Parliament should support it.