Collins Judith: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8854] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 This amendment is a victory for good parents. It is a victory for parents who might occasionally smack a child’s hand to stop him or her doing something very naughty or dangerous. It is a victory for good parents that has come about because of the work of a good parent. 
I say that to the Committee because a few weeks ago John Key spoke to the Salvation Army conference in Christchurch about the need for this Parliament to move forward and find consensus on this issue so that good parents would not fear they would be criminalised simply for giving a child a little smack on the hand to stop the child doing a naughty thing or doing something dangerous. John Key said we needed to get together and talk with other parties. 
Fortunately some parties listened. I congratulate them today on having done so. Unfortunately members of the Labour Government—under David Benson-Pope’s management of this issue—said no. They said they would not talk to John Key about this issue and that was a real shame. I am so pleased to see that common sense is starting to take a grip. Of course the reason is that 80 percent of New Zealanders have said they did not want to see the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. New Zealanders have achieved exactly that; they will not be seeing a repeal of section 59. 
I say to those parents who feel that section 59 gave them some protection—and it did—that section 59 was not perfect. I have told members before and I will tell them again about the case of Mr Solanki of Hamilton. He was charged by the police prosecuted and told to plead guilty in court because he had held his 12-year-old daughter by the shoulders because he wanted to talk to her. If he had known the law and had said to the police that he had held his daughter by the shoulders because he wanted to discipline her by way of correction then he would not have been prosecuted and found guilty. That case went to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal said that it was ridiculous that Mr Solanki was ever prosecuted. It said that it was ridiculous that that man was told in court that he had no defence and it said that he should never have been in the situation of pleading guilty. That is just one instance under the existing section 59. 
So I tell those parents who feel that section 59 protected them that actually it did not always do that. It did not always protect good parents and sometimes unfortunately it protected parents whose behaviour would make many of us wonder what in the world they are doing being parents—they simply should not have been protected. So section 59 was not perfect. 
This amendment will not be perfect either but it is a good step forward. It tells those of us who are parents that the police must use their discretion sensibly. That is what it states. It states that we will not have situations where the police decide that their discretion does not have to be used sensibly. I think that is something we can all take heart in. 
John Key put out a plea to other parties that members should put children and parents first and stop standing on their little soapboxes and telling each other what their positions are and not moving. He said that National members were prepared to negotiate and that other parties should be too. I am so pleased to find today that other parties have decided to negotiate and come to the middle ground. I know that Sue Bradford has always taken the one line on this issue. She has stated at many stages of this legislation that if she did not get it through as it was or if Chester Borrows’ amendment came through she would pull her bill and this legislation would not happen. I am pleased that she has not carried out that threat. 
I also pay tribute to my colleague Chester Borrows who put forward a very sensible amendment that had the support of a majority of people outside this Parliament. I believe that if a free vote were allowed by certain parties he would have an overwhelming majority for it in this Chamber. So I pay tribute to the great work that my colleague Chester Borrows has done. I know that this amendment is in fact a variation of Chester Borrows’ amendment. It seeks to do the same job—and it does. It states that if something is silly trifling and inconsequential the police need to use their discretion. Police need to understand that effectively when they arrest a parent they arrest not only the parent but also the children because the children will suffer.