Smith Nick: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8002] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I want to put the case very strongly that this is a crimes bill. I have become very concerned about the debate by the proponents of this bill such as Sue Bradford and Helen Clark that it is somehow all about writing some sort of parenting manual and sending a signal. No it is not. It is about determining in this country what is a crime—what is a criminal offence. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: No it’s not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Who has piped up? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Smacking is a crime already. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member who was thrown out by the people of Napier has piped up. He wants to pretend that somehow this is not a crimes bill. Well I say to this Parliament that we should do the job we are here to do which is to provide clear guidance to the courts and the police about what is a crime and what is not. 
I remember this Parliament throwing the Treaty of Waitangi into a whole lot of laws. We said it was because we wanted to feel good. We wanted to recognise a historic document. 
Jill Pettis 
: His name was Jim Bolger. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No actually it started in 1987. A whole lot of Parliaments passed laws to put the Treaty of Waitangi into legislation without the blindest idea as to what it would do. Now there is general consensus across this Parliament that that was an error—that that was one of those symbolic stupid things we do that gets us in trouble with the courts. We are now in fact not putting it into laws. 
I come back to this bill and say that this is not about writing a good-parenting manual. This is not about trying to give a signal to those who beat and bash their kids. This is about this Parliament providing clear law for the courts about what society thinks is a crime and what it thinks is not. So this bill should be a Crimes Amendment Bill. 
I am one of those who is backing Chester Borrows because I think he has done the job that Parliament should be doing which is to provide a clear line in the law between what is criminal conduct and should be punished by the courts and what should be left to the discretion of families to do. 
Jill Pettis 
: It’s not clear in the current law. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Jill Pettis says that it is not clear in the current law. Well I think there have been some bad examples. I think there have been some cases where parents should have been prosecuted under the existing section 59 because they went over the line of that which is socially acceptable. 
But the problem with this bill and Sue Bradford’s and Helen Clark’s advocacy is that it goes to the other extreme. As we have seen from the legal opinions from the likes of Peter McKenzie we are going to make criminals out of parents who give their child a tap on the bum and that is wrong. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s wrong. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite says that is wrong. I want to know why we have an opinion from an eminent Queen’s Counsel like Peter McKenzie backed up by the Law Commission that says if we pass this bill in this form then we will make criminals of parents like me who give their kids time out. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They say “Rubbish!”. Well I have a 5-year-old boy and sadly he has too many of my genes. He can sometimes be very stroppy. I have picked him up kicking and screaming and given him time out in one of the rooms in our home. I think it is wrong that we will make criminals of parents who do that sort of thing. 
I have listened to those who advocate for the bill. They do not want to engage in the debate about what should be in the law. They simply say: “Oh there are too many kids dying in New Zealand from abuse”—and there are—“so let’s send a signal.” I say that is the wrong approach. We should be writing accurate law and again I urge parliamentarians to back the sensible law that an ex-cop and qualified lawyer Chester Borrows will give to this House. 
This bill in the form that Sue Bradford and Helen Clark are backing is another chapter of social engineering from this Labour Government. Those members think they know better than parents and I say that is the wrong approach to this important area of law.