Mapp Wayne: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8434] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to record in somewhat general terms my objection to Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill because she is amending the Crimes Act to make normal parental behaviour criminal. That is her intention. It does no good for her to say that all she is doing is removing a defence so therefore smacking is already illegal. That is simply not true. If one has a statutory defence one’s actions are protected. No crime is committed; there is not a criminal offence. How much plainer can one get the situation than that? If we take away section 59 we create a criminal offence—and that is what Sue Bradford is doing. 
The last intervention made by Sue Bradford was really remarkable because certainly it seemed to me and my colleagues that Sue Bradford was actually making an argument for members to vote for Chester Borrows’ amendment. Sue Bradford at various times has come and gone a bit on that issue. I appreciate that she is now saying no but at an earlier stage she said she did not want to criminalise ordinary parental behaviour—amend the Crimes Act as is stated by clause 2A to criminalise ordinary parental behaviour—even though that is exactly what she is doing. 
I have asked people in my electorate by a scientific random opinion poll for their view on this issue. 
Jill Pettis 
: Well that’s an oxymoron—“scientific random”! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I can tell members on the Government side of the Chamber and other members of this Committee that over 80 percent said they do not want normal parental behaviour to be criminalised. That is in fact entirely consistent with all the current opinion polls so that proves the accuracy of my method. I actually asked a second question because I thought it was important that we know more than that. My second question was: “Do you think that the use of implements should be eliminated?”. We have all heard about the cases involving jug cords pieces of timber and so forth and there have been some problems with regard to that issue—we all know that. The public was also clear on that matter. Eighty percent do want implements to be eliminated. So effectively 80 percent of the population are saying that Chester Borrows is right—and Sue Bradford’s intervention effectively admited that. 
One of the purposes of the criminal law is to make criminal conduct certain one way or tother—something is either a crime or not a crime. People should not have to rely on police discretion determining whether their behaviour is criminal. If we allow this bill to go through we are abandoning our responsibility as legislators in favour of the police exercising their discretion. That is an abandonment of our responsibilities. Good parents should not have to rely on police discretion. Good parents should be able to understand the law and say that either their conduct fits within it or it does not in some cases perhaps. That is the role of legislators—to provide certainty to our society. 
The proposal made by Sue Bradford to amend the Crimes Act will criminalise normal parental behaviour and that is why it is simply wrong for us to be legislating in this way. There is a deep anger in the community. There is deep anger in the community firstly about the way that this Government is ignoring the heartfelt views of New Zealanders. But it goes further than that. Secondly people in the community are asking the Government and Sue Bradford why they are potentially making them criminals why they are asking them to become dependent on police discretion and why they are making the law less certain so that ordinary parental behaviour becomes criminal behaviour. 
The Prime Minister herself was confused on this whole issue as well. She said this bill was aimed only at those people who beat their children. That is wrong and she knows it is wrong. We have proved that in this Chamber by quoting her own words back to her. I say that Government members should read what the Prime Minister has said and vote for Mr Borrows’ amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In the hope that someone will be relevant to the clause I will call the next speaker. But I want members to try to debate clause 2A. We are not actually doing that at the moment.