Tremain Chris: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8025] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this bill and specifically to the commencement date. The people of New Zealand do not want a commencement date for this bill. That is what the people of New Zealand are saying about this bill. Eighty-five percent of people in this country say they do not want a commencement date and that is what I will speak about tonight. That is so not only across the country but also in the Napier electorate where I represent some very fine people. 
I took the opportunity before Christmas to go out and hold a series of public meetings and to walk the streets with a clipboard in Marewa Napier Ahuriri and Taradale and ask people what they thought about this legislation. Eighty-five percent of my constituents did not want to see a commencement date for this legislation albeit they did want to see a change to the definition of “reasonable force”. That is what we are here to debate tonight not the misleading information of Lynne Pillay across the Chamber who says we are here to get rid of section 59 because many parents are whipping their children with riding crops. That is misinformation. 
Many polls have been done. Even in my own electorate today I have had many phone calls about this issue to my team. They were on the phone to me this afternoon saying: “Chris we’re having phone call after phone call from constituents saying they do not want to see a commencement date for this— 
Jill Pettis 
: Rubbish! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: That member should go to Napier and see for herself. Eighty-five percent of Napier constituents do not want to see a commencement date for this bill. That is a fact. We even had a phone call from a policeman in my electorate today a policeman who said: “I’m going to can the police force as a result of this. We’re being told that we have to give priority to these sorts of situations over burglaries because they will be seen as assaults.” That is what he told my office today. The police do not want to see a commencement date for this bill the Napier constituents do not want to see a commencement date for this bill and I can tell members that I certainly do not want to see a commencement date for this bill. It is a shocker and it should never even have come to Parliament. 
I can understand when the majority of the public sits in one position but the logic is clearly in another position on a particular piece of legislation. But here the public have got it right. Eighty-five percent of our constituents say “No!” and the logic—the empirical evidence—whenever one looks around the world says that the introduction of anti-smacking legislation has not made one iota of difference. Let us have a look. No decent research shows that a smack by a loving parent breeds violence— 
Jill Pettis 
: Commencement date—commencement. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I have been speaking all night about the commencement date—I am right into it. No decent research has shown there should be a commencement date for this bill. The Otago University study implied there should not be a commencement date. It says that children who are smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression substance abuse adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all. That study shows there should be no commencement date to this bill. 
The 2003 Unicef report on maltreatment in deaths showed that of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates four allowed smacking. Here we are arguing that New Zealand has a high amount of child abuse—and I am not going to disagree with that; that is clearly the case—but the Unicef report says that of the five best countries four of them have not wiped out a provision like section 59 and they still allow smacking. So we have clear evidence that there should be no commencement date for this particular piece of legislation. 
Ms Pillay stood up and said that section 59 should be outlawed because we need to stop parents using riding crops and implements. Only 18 legal defences have been successful over 30 years yet we are going to change the entire legislation for 18 people and criminalise the remaining good parents in this country. Eighty-five percent of parents do not want to see a commencement date for this bill and I support them totally. The logic is just not there; the Unicef report and the Otago University reports are just not there.