Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8319] 
11.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that her Government would “absolutely rule out legislation banning smacking. That would be a very silly thing to do.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Heather Roy 
: Why does the Prime Minister not trust her MPs to exercise their own consciences on this vote? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What is on the conscience of the Government is the need to do something about the appalling rate of child death and injury from violence in the home. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is one of the groups advertising against the bill a group called Focus on the Family which was founded by Dr James Dobson and is this the same Dr James Dobson who has likened proponents of gay marriage to the Nazis backed political candidates who called for the execution of abortion providers defined embryonic stem cell research as State-funded cannibalism and urged Christian parents to pull their children out of public school systems; if so would she rather be associated with Unicef Save the Children Plunket and Barnados in supporting the bill? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I most certainly would rather be associated with Plunket Barnados and Save the Children which are reputable organisations that stand for decent values and for not having violence in our homes than with the extreme right-wing fundamentalist groups that do not care about those issues. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Prime Minister justify breaking her word given to the electorate of New Zealand prior to the last election by maintaining that Sue Bradford’s bill does not ban smacking when her own Labour MP Charles Chauvel stated during the debate on the short title of the bill on 14 March that the bill could quite properly be described as the “Making a Smack Unlawful Bill”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Firstly it is perfectly plain that the bill does not ban smacking. It is a fact that around the world eight countries have introduced such legislation. This bill is not such legislation. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that more than 55 well-known organisations involved in the care and welfare of children including Presbyterian Support New Zealand the New Zealand Paediatric Society the Families Commission and the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges support this bill which does not create a new offence but simply removes the defence for an existing criminal activity and gives children the same protection under the law that adults and animals have? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes and those are the very good reasons why reputable organisations that care about our children support this bill. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why does the Prime Minister not support the amendment of Chester Borrows since it allows a smack on the hand to continue whilst outlawing hitting with an implement of any kind and indeed outlawing even a smack that causes injury beyond that which is transitory and trifling since objectively that conforms with her stated position? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is my understanding that Sir Geoffrey Palmer who advised the Justice and Electoral Committee on both amendments advised that Mr Borrows’ amendment would leave New Zealand in breach of international conventions and furthermore was a lawyers’ charter. 
Heather Roy 
: What right does she believe she has to override the views of the majority of New Zealanders and her own caucus and to tell me as a mother of five how to raise my own children? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member will never get from me anything like Jenny Shipley’s code of social responsibility which tried to tell people precisely how to do that. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: To summarise this debate can the Prime Minister confirm that the bill before the House neither bans smacking nor sets out how parents should raise their children and that it simply removes the defence of a person who is facing prosecution in court for using excessive force to discipline children? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member’s analysis is absolutely right. I believe that if this bill passes the police will have a reasonable chance of actually getting convictions against child beaters who take to their children with riding crops bits of wood and the rest of it. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a list of over 50 organisations that have put their hands up in support of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table from  
Hansard 
 the speech of Charles Chauvel a Labour MP in which he said the bill could be appropriately named the “All Use of Force to Punish a Child will be Illegal and This is Clear to Parents Bill”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There has been objection. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table an article from the  
Dominion Post 
 of 14 June 2005 in which the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that her Government absolutely rules out legislation for banning smacking as that would be a very silly thing to do. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Question No. 12. I call the Hon Tony Ryall. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am aware that we are leaving question 11 but the Prime Minister purported to quote from a document in the name of Sir Geoffrey Palmer in her answer to my supplementary question. I believe that in such circumstances she is bound to table that document. Could I have a ruling on that point please? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member should have raised that at the time. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Madam Speaker we have not started the next question yet have we? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes we have actually. I have called the Hon Tony Ryall. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I know but I said in raising the point of order that I did not realise that. I was just momentarily a little bit late. I would ask for your forbearance and a little flexibility on the matter. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Prime Minister was not quoting an official document. She was quoting Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s evidence to a select committee which is not the same thing as that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In order to clarify matters can I ask the Prime Minister whether she was quoting from an official document. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I was not. I was quoting from my understanding of the advice to the committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that clarifies the matter for the benefit of the member. Thank you.