Roy Heather: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8001] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of ACT to speak to the title of this bill. Like those who have spoken before me I agree that the current title Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill does not cut the mustard is very confusing and in fact does not tell anybody what the bill is about at all. I commend my colleague Gordon Copeland for his speech on the title. He was absolutely right that we should acknowledge that this is an amendment to the Crimes Act—so it is entirely appropriate that that stay in the title—but the portion in brackets is the bit that is hotly contested. “Substituted Section 59” tells us not one thing about what this bill stands for and not one thing about what this bill will actually do or achieve or about what its intent is. 
The member responsible for the bill Sue Bradford began her speech by saying that her intention had changed and that the change was best reflected in the current title. But if we or Television New Zealand or TV3 went outside this Chamber at this very moment and interviewed half a dozen people along Lambton Quay or anywhere in this country and asked them what section 59 meant to them most people would have absolutely no idea. Some people will have paid a great deal of attention because of the publicity this matter has caused but if we went out 3 months hence and asked ordinary New Zealanders what section 59 was they would have absolutely no idea. 
There has been a large number of suggestions for a title many of them very good and certainly a much better reflection of what this bill is about than “Substituted Section 59”. We have had the “Anti-smacking Bill” the “Removing the Right of Parents to Smack Their Children Bill” the “Send a Message Bill” and the “Nanny State Knows Best Bill”. They are absolutely right—each and every one of those titles is a much better description. I had jotted down in the same vein that the title should perhaps be the “Crimes (We Know Best How to Discipline Your Children) Amendment Bill” or the “Crimes (Limit Parent’s Right to Discipline Their Children) Amendment Bill”. Certainly those titles would be a much better reflection of what this bill is about and what the intention is. 
This bill as Mr Gordon Copeland pointed out is about crimes. It is about criminal activity. It is about breaking the law. We should be very mindful of that when we are voting tonight and are considering Chester Borrows’ amendments which ACT will support. 
Nathan Guy 
: Very good amendments. 
HEATHER ROY 
: They are very good amendments indeed. In fact we must be mindful of the fact that we are talking about criminal activity and whether parents should and will be prosecuted for the type of disciplining that occurs in the home. 
As the sponsor of the bill has said the intention of the bill is to give a message against child abuse and against the terrible violence that some children are subject to. I am afraid that this bill sadly fails in this respect and the reference in the title sadly fails in the respect that it is thought any attention might be paid to the bill. Those people who are already doing these things—abusing children and creating terrible violence against them—will pay no attention to this bill at all regardless of whether it is called the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Not only do they not know what this bill means but they do not care what it means. 
That is a pertinent message for those of us sitting here in this Chamber tonight who are about to tell parents how they should discipline their children what is acceptable within the eyes of the law and what is not. It brings no solace to any loving parent who wants to discipline his or her children in a way where they will be taught the difference between right and wrong. No matter what techniques they might use they will not be reassured by this title or even by this debate on the title. 
So ACT will oppose this title. We certainly oppose the change. I agree with other members who said that it would have been best for the sponsor to plug for the retention of the original name. Certainly at least that title told us a bit about what this bill is about rather than “Substituted Section 59” which says nothing to anybody in this country.