Borrows Chester: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7994] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in respect of the title of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I note that the returned bill from the Justice and Electoral Committee suggested it be entitled the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. 
The reflection of the initial title that the bill was given indicates the hodgepodge of ideas that went into the creation of this bill. The insertion of a substituted section 59 may be one that fairly directs or reflects where the bill is now in the mind of its proponent Sue Bradford but it does not reflect where her mind was at the time that the bill was constructed nor where the minds are of those who are supporting it. I believe it is important that the title of a bill reflects not only what the bill will achieve but also the motivation behind the bringing of the bill. 
In the course of the debates and the discussions on this bill we have heard a number of things about it and what it intends to do. We have already heard from my colleague Judith Collins that it should be relabelled the “Anti-smacking Bill” because that is what people know it as. For the point of certainty and clarity when the public go looking for this bill they will be looking for the words “Anti-smacking Bill” within the title. 
This bill will affect only those parents who want to smack their children occasionally or feel the need to smack their children occasionally because of their experience and because of the way that they have opted to rear their children. The problem is that the discussion has been skewed around whether smacking is good and whether smacking works. It has been skewed around whether good parents smack their children or do not smack their children. The fact is that it will affect only good parents who smack their children. 
It has also been said that it will send a message. So maybe the suggestion is that it should be entitled the “Send a Message Bill” but one must ask who it is going to send the message to. If this bill is directed at combating child abuse then it seeks to send a message to people who abuse their children. It is accepted by proponents of the bill that in actual fact this bill will not save one life and it will not save one child from being abused and beaten because those people who commit those acts are currently living outside the law. And what do you know? Those people are not going to read the newspapers and they sure as eggs will not be listening to this debate. 
Maybe it should be called the “Send a Message on Behalf of Those Who Want to Brand Their Party Bill”. We have heard from a number of members within the House that this bill is going to send a message; for instance that the Maori Party stands against child abuse. Well it is not about political branding; this is about children and their parents. This is about—in the best interests of children—protecting parents from the possibility of being prosecuted for smacking their children. It is nothing more than that. One cannot skew it one way or another. 
Although the debate has been taken off to other places and the suggestion has been made that parents want to beat their children—that they want to continue to assault their children—one continually finds that that is where the public debate has gone. It has gone right away from the actual wording of this bill. I believe that for certainty for clarity and for just plain honesty the bill should be named the “Anti-smacking Bill” because it is the parents who choose to smack who will be the most affected by this legislation—and everybody knows that their children were never in danger.