Roy Eric: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8004] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a call as well on the title of this bill. I can sympathise with the point that my colleague Nick Smith made—that this is a crimes bill. But I am not sure that that is what we would like it to be because we do not want to make parents into criminals. My view is that this bill could better be called the “Parental Limitation Bill” because it imposes limitations on good parents. 
Speakers have said that this bill is to protect the vulnerable. This bill does not protect the vulnerable. The first point is that it will have no effect whatsoever on those people who abuse their children. Those people ignore the law in many fields and they will again ignore any law on the statute book that says they should not abuse children. They abuse children for a whole lot of reasons not because a law is or is not on the statute book. 
Secondly this bill does not protect the vulnerable. If this House was seriously concerned about the vulnerable and wanted to protect them it would do that. Where is the most vulnerable place for children today? It is in the womb. We murder 17000 a year and if the proponent of this bill was at all serious about the vulnerable she would be doing something about that rather than doing something about the odd smack that a parent might give. 
I say that this bill is an absolute nonsense. It could also be called the “State Control of Parenting and Children-raising Bill” because in effect that is what it does. It takes away the rights of parents and imposes State control over them. 
Those listening may think I was some kind of brutal parent. I have four children and have raised a few foster children at various times as well. I can recall three occasions when I spanked. Those children were brought up on a farm where there were a number of hazards. On each of those occasions the spanking was for disobedience where their safety was involved. With only one parent around to supervise five or six children there had to be some rules and the children had to know that if they crossed those lines and their life was in peril then there would be a very very clear message. I can recall only three such occasions but I do not know whether my children can recall other instances. 
We are deluding ourselves if we think amending the Crimes Act will save and protect the vulnerable. In absolutely no way whatsoever will the vulnerable be protected by this bill. This is about State control. This is about reducing parents to automatons out there who do what the State says about their responsibilities as a parent. For a few thousand years we have relied on parents and on empowering them to do the job. Right now empowering parents does not mean reducing their options. If we seriously want to improve parenthood then we should be providing more options not limiting options that are there. 
Let me stress that no one I know in this Chamber or out of this Chamber wants to see children abused. There is a very clear line between abuse and parenting using reasonable force—a very very clear line. I say that the Committee must take very clear notice of the number of emails calls telephone calls polls etc. that say this bill is a nonsense. It is not just one or two people speaking on this side of the Chamber who say that. This bill under the title of Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is deluding New Zealanders if they think this amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act will reduce abuse of the vulnerable.