Roy Heather: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8855] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT party in this Committee stage of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill and on this amendment that has just come before members today. ACT members will continue to oppose this bill—we are a pretty solitary voice now I think in this Parliament—for a very good reason. I attended a public meeting in Hamilton last night. Parents in this country want the right to be able to choose for themselves how they bring up their children. They feel that they are being denied this right and I am afraid this amendment makes no difference to that view. 
This amendment is not—as my colleague Judith Collins whom I have a lot of respect for said—a victory. It is not a victory at all. There is no doubt that there are any number of good intentions involved in this amendment. I think that people have tried to do their best. There is no doubt that everybody wants to do something about the violence and abuse that too many of our children suffer. But our continuing to put good loving parents who already do a good job of raising their children into the firing line yet again does not get us anywhere. As I say good intentions are not nearly enough. 
This amendment is not a victory because in fact nothing changes with it—not a thing. It is still illegal to physically chastise a child in any way at all even if it be just a little restraining touch when a child is about to do something dangerous. Nothing has changed because those parents who do that will still be criminals in the eyes of the law. What this amendment does is to allow the police the discretion to prosecute complaints. That sets a very dangerous precedent in my mind. 
I frequently miss the legal expertise of my former ACT MP colleague Stephen Franks. No one would be surprised to hear that typically he has already had something to say about this amendment. He stated today: “Bradford and Clark must be howling with glee and derision. They’ve out-lawyered (not to mention out-politicked) opponents of their Bill.” How right he is. He stated: “The ‘compromise’ words have no legal effect. They merely ‘affirm that the Police have a discretion not to prosecute’—meaning that no new discretion is added only the existing rules and duties apply.” 
As I say this amendment brings absolutely no change to anything. What is worse to escape prosecution a smack must “be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.” “Those words can’t have had competent legal consideration from any opposing lawyer.” stated the lawyer who had a great deal of respect in this House. 
There is also the contempt shown for our constitutional traditions. It is fundamental to our law that it is not for the police to decide what the law is or what it ought to be; it is their job merely to uphold the law. In passing this amendment today members will actually place the police in an invidious position. Who will be held responsible when the police decide one week not to prosecute a complaint that has been made but the following week the child in question is abused or worse still murdered? We have seen any number of these cases. Who will be held accountable if that happens—and it is not actually an “if” it is a “when”. It is the police of course. Not one single member of Parliament who is voting in favour of this amendment today will put up his or her hand and say: “I am sorry New Zealand. I did not see that one coming.” because members know that will happen. That is a terrible position in which to place our police. 
Today the leaders of Parliament are telling the police to ensure that the courts do not get to consider where the law’s boundaries lie. Today this Parliament is cold-bloodedly passing law that it does not want enforced. The law has not changed. Everything that every member on Opposition benches was saying last week the week before that and for the past few months was wrong and illegal will be exactly the same now. What we are doing is just passing to the police that decision-making process. 
ACT is opposing both this amendment and the bill because we believe that the law as it stands already covers the cases that we see all too frequently. Our existing law against child abuse is already strong. Section 194 of the Crimes Act which covers the offence of assaulting a child under 14 attracts a maximum sentence that is double that of common assault.