Collins Judith: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7993] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title of this bill—the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I suggest that the bill’s name should be changed to the “Crimes (Anti-smacking) Amendment Bill”. The reason for that is that this is in fact the “Anti-smacking Bill”. 
We have had months and months of debate about what is actually in this bill and consequently what should be the title of the bill. The bill is first and foremost an anti-smacking bill. It does not for instance outlaw somebody from attacking their child and beating them around the head with a stick because that is already outlawed. It is already a crime under the Crimes Act; to say otherwise is simply not to tell the truth. This is an anti-smacking bill. It is designed to prevent any good parent saying to his or her child: “I’ll give you a smack if you keep doing that.” That is the sort of threat that works for most children and most parents. That is what the bill is designed to do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Could the member please come back to the title. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The title does not reflect the true nature of this bill and I think that it is very important to look at why it does not. The bill does not deal just with force as a justification for child discipline. The reason is that at the moment should one as a parent attack one’s child beat him or her to a pulp and say: “I did that because I wanted to use child discipline and now I want to rely on section 59” that protection is not afforded to the parent—nor should it be. We have discussed previously in the media and elsewhere why this bill is called the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill and not what it should be called—the “Anti-smacking Bill”—because that is what parents understand it as and that is exactly what it is. When we look at that title we see that it is important we change it so that we call the bill what it is. When we give it a nice big long name that nobody is ever going to remember we hide behind the title and refuse to call the bill what it is. This is the “Anti-smacking Bill”. 
It is a bill that could equally be called the “State Knows Best and Parents are Simply There to Do as They are Told Bill”. It could well be called that because that again reflects the fact that parents—including the 83 percent of parents who say they have smacked their child—under this bill are going to be treated as criminals should they do that or even threaten to do that. As the member Sue Bradford should know even to threaten assault is actually held to be assault under the Crimes Act. If members do not know that then they have no right to be here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has had two warnings. She is going away from the title. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: When we call the bill the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill we put in place within the minds of the public a title that does not adequately reflect just how serious this bill is and what it does to families. The title of this bill as I have said should focus on the fact that it is about anti-smacking and about removing the rights of parents. It is a title that should look at the role of the State in the home. The title at the moment does nothing like that. What it does is hide the fact that this bill concerns a home invasion for many people. It gives people a right to say: “I can tell you what you do in your home. I can be in charge of you in your home because you as a parent have no greater right than a school teacher over your child.” We have seen where this sort of abuse can happen. We have seen it with Child Youth and Family and we have seen it with other agencies. That is one of the reasons I believe that this is a badly titled bill. The title has no relevance to what is actually in the bill.