Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8455] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Of course everyone feels for the little baby that Steve Chadwick speaks of but that is not what the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is about. I will go back to what the Hon Steve Maharey had to say because I think he actually put his finger on the nub of the issue. 
Funnily enough I do not think there is a big difference between the supporters of this bill and those of us who oppose it. I think where we differ is in respect of what the bill means in practice. One of the things that bothers me about the bill is that we will not know what it means in practice until it is passed which is not a very good way of making the law. We have a situation whereby Steve Maharey who is voting for the bill says that proponents of the bill are not about stopping a light smack on the bottom and that they do not want to ban smacking but to remove the defence for abuse. Actually I am sort of with Steve Maharey but when I look at the bill I think hang on if I smacked my son—if I had a toddler—then I would be breaking the law. That is what this bill says. But then the proponents of the bill say not to worry because the police will not do anything. That makes me wonder what sort of police we have if we are sitting here passing a law that the police will not do anything about if I smack my son for whatever reason. 
Then Steve Maharey says—and I am with him; I want people to understand that—that it is too hard for Parliament to define where the boundaries should be and that the trouble with Chester Borrows’ amendment is that he has Parliament trying to define that boundary. Steve Maharey says that is too tough. Steve Maharey stands up in this Parliament—and again I am agreeing with him—and says that because it is too tough to define we will leave it up to the police. That causes me grave concern because Mr Plod will have to decide and I do not think that we as a Parliament should put the police in that predicament. Here we are in Parliament elected to make these decisions and we are saying that it is too tough for us and that it is the job of the police. 
So the police will be turning up at Mrs Brown’s place and saying they have received a complaint that she has smacked her son. The proponents of the bill say that the police officer will then make a decision about whether to prosecute her and leave it up to the courts. That is a horrible situation for a police officer to be in. But it also means that we have arbitrary power: one police officer could go to one person’s house and say that the situation involving a light smack was OK because no damage was done and the kid is OK then wander off. But another officer may go to another house say he or she does not like the look of the situation and prosecute. Yet that situation could be exactly the same as in the first case. We in Parliament are saying that is OK because the police will do it. Well I am sorry but it is the job of this Parliament to make the law. It is the job of this Parliament to make clear law for the citizens of this country so they know what it is and so the police know where the lines are. 
I am sitting here listening to the debate but I do not actually know what the police will do. I do not know what this bill means in practice. So why are we passing it and why are we having a debate that is all about children being battered beaten and abused? I think that on all sides of the Chamber we agree that that is already against the law. What we are interested in are the implications of removing the defence of reasonable force for parents.