Hutchison Paul: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8000] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank you Madam Chairperson for the opportunity to speak on the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. If ever anything is important about this bill it is that we want clarity in terms of every aspect of it including the title. That indeed is one of the reasons I will be supporting Chester Borrows’ amendment later on. But to come to the title the bill originally stood as the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill and that was pretty clear as to what this legislation is about. I am deeply concerned when I see that the proposers and supporters of this bill want to change the title to what seems almost a euphemism and that is to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Because even this morning one of my local editors rang me and asked me what section 59 was. That in itself demonstrates the confusion that those out there in the constituencies are experiencing over this bill. That is why it is important to have clarity or as much as possible with every aspect of it including the title. 
One of the areas that has caused considerable confusion has been the fact that New Zealand has been a signatory to ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Even the debate on that has caused tremendous confusion like this title. Might I say that although it was under a National Government in 1993 that New Zealand along with another 131 countries ratified that convention the Parliamentary Library has provided us with evidence just on 8 March that New Zealand ratified the United Nations convention but reserved the right to interpret and apply the convention as it considered appropriate. New Zealand’s initial report to the UN therefore stated that parents had the right to smack their children for the purpose of correction but the use of unreasonable force against a child was a criminal offence. 
So in going back to the title that is why I am so deeply concerned that here we have a change from an explicit interpretation of what this bill is about to one of a euphemism which will only cause more confusion to those out there. 
When I talked to my local editor in Port Waikato about the interpretations of this bill supplied by Mr McKenzie QC and Sir Geoffrey Palmer again he was totally confused. On the one hand we have an opinion from a highly eminent barrister suggesting that when children were taken to the “naughty mat” by their parents those parents could be wrongfully criminalised and on the other hand Sir Geoffrey Palmer from the Law Commission stated that that would not be the case. 
So therefore when we get back to this title if we look at every aspect of this bill it is hugely important that we do indeed seek clarity at every possible turn we can. 
The other thing that has been suggested by the proponents of this bill is that it sends a message against child abuse. As my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out this bill and this title may in some respects be huge distractions from the huge tasks that we in New Zealand really have to undertake if we are to reduce the horrific OECD statistics that we hear about New Zealand on a daily basis. So when we talk about the title of this bill it is very important that we have clarity within it and it is quite inappropriate that it be amended as suggested.