Williamson Maurice: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8436] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I will be very very specific about what this particular clause 2A does. It amends the Crimes Act. I have looked at the Crimes Act to see what that Act—especially as it relates to section 59—is intended to do. Its intention is good and honourable. The Crimes Act states that hitting somebody is wrong. If we go and beat up people in the street hit them in the pub or wherever else that is a crime. I am pleased that that is a crime and that nobody in this Committee would support doing it. 
But if we look at section 59 of the Crimes Act we see that it provides a reasonable defence for parents who may have used what would not be acceptable in another situation. For example I would not accept any other parent giving my child even a slight smack. That is not that person’s role it is not his or her function and I do not want other parents or anybody else doing it. But section 59 provides a defence for a parent who may have done so. 
Some of the hysteria that has been whipped up around this issue comes from the view that every time a parent smacks his or her child the parent will be taken off to jail by the police and charged. I think that view is wrong but the sponsor of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill Sue Bradford needs to think about some cases that I think would be of grave concern to most New Zealanders. 
The first case is in matrimonial property dispute area. I have had experience in this as a constituent member of Parliament and I am sure that Sue Bradford may have had the same experience. When a marriage is breaking up we hear some outrageous claims being made such as the wife claiming that the husband has sexually abused the children. That is a big call and if it was true it would be worthwhile claiming that. But in some cases it is just a matter of one parent trying to get back at the other parent by stopping that parent getting custody of the kids. 
I look at the Crimes Act 1961 and I think that surely if we make it a crime to smack children as the removal of this defence will do then when it comes time for a matrimonial break-up it will be really easy for someone to win the matrimonial settlement. A parent might just tell the truth and say that the husband for instance hit the children. He might have given them the gentle smack that we have talked about. It might have been agreed by both parents that it is good to teach the children the proper way to behave and to teach them right and wrong. But now we see the difference. The husband will have to fess up. The judge might even ask the children whether Daddy gave them a smack. The kids will innocently say that he did and because the section 59 defence is removed the husband will then be a criminal and that could impact heavily on his ability to get custody or all sorts of other things. So there is a situation under this legislation that we will immediately be exposing people to whereas in the past parents could say that they smacked a child that they did it properly and that their spouse did it as well or that both parents had agreed that it was teaching their child boundaries. 
Then we get into the other sorts of disputes that members of Parliament are brokering all the time—disputes about neighbours. I mean how better to get at our neighbour who has a noisy dog or who has a driveway that goes past our house than to try to make him or her a criminal? I have actually thought about the Crimes Act 1961 and I say that with this amendment we could make people criminals if we want to get at them for any of those things. Because section 59 will no longer be a defence we can deal to our neighbours by saying that we saw them hit the kids or smack a child. We can say that we saw them smack a child. 
Jill Pettis 
: Relevance. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No that is terribly relevant. Jill Pettis who is normally at elocution lessons on a Wednesday is going on about relevance. Well I tell the member to go back to her elocution lessons because they are not working. I also tell her that I think it is highly relevant that good ordinary parents could in the course of their normal lives be made criminals. 
None of us in this Committee are supporting any legislation that would allow people to use implements tools or weapons. Chester Borrows’ amendment takes care of all of that. Anybody who beats their kids should be prosecuted; I agree with that. Anybody who uses weapons or implements or who leaves marks draws blood or cuts their children should be dealt to. But what Chester Borrows is saying—what actually Sue Bradford has on a number of occasions defended and what the Prime Minister has said she would never want to outlaw—is that parents should be able to use their right with a gentle smack to teach their young children right and wrong. But when it comes to this bill and Chester Borrows’ amendment to the Crimes Act 1961—oh no! That amendment from Chester Borrows even according to Sue Bradford—here is how genuine she must be—would get her 90 percent of what she is looking for. That would give Sue Bradford a 90 percent chance of saving kids. It would stop all of the abuse and so on. But what will she do if she gets 90 percent of what she is looking for? Nothing—if she does not get 100 percent of what she wants she will spit the dummy and throw the bill out. That shows that she does not care genuinely about kids because getting 90 percent of what she wants would be a hell of a lot better than just throwing the bill out and walking away.