Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8437] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 We are debating clause 2A of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I want to pick up on the points that my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson has been making about a real case that already exists in New Zealand. 
But first of all I make this point. We are seeing a complete trampling of Parliament here with this bill because this is quite properly a conscience vote issue. We see every political party bar one is having a conscience vote. We see the Greens; I know the Green MPs can vote as they choose and they all choose to support Sue Bradford’s bill. I think that Parliament and the public of New Zealand can appreciate that. We see the ACT party— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member coming to the clause? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I know I am coming to the clause—this is a vote; I want to explain that vote then I will get on to the point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a very narrow clause. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a very narrow clause but we are adjusting the Crimes Act in a way that will criminalise the parents of New Zealand and we are doing so in a way that is undemocratic and unparliamentary. If the Labour Party and the Prime Minister allowed members to vote as their conscience dictated this clause would not go through. The great National Party has MPs voting for the bill—that is fine; that is how a proper democratic party should operate. It is proud to let its MPs vote as their conscience dictates. If we go over to the Labour side of the Committee George Hawkins wants to vote against this clause. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: No I don’t. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He wants to vote against this clause but he is not allowed. Clayton Cosgrove wants to vote against this clause but he is not allowed. Dover Samuels wants to vote against this clause but he is not allowed. If we had a free vote then I could accept the result and so could the people of New Zealand. But we are not allowed one. Whose conscience is it that is determining this result? 
Hon Members 
: Helen Clark’s. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Helen Clark’s conscience rides over her own caucus. What a pack of voting ciphers! 
I want to tell members about one case that I have been familiar with for many many years as a constituent MP. It goes like this. A man was observed smacking his child in the street probably 11 or 12 years ago. A person reported his smacking his child to Child Youth and Family. People from Child Youth and Family turned up and interviewed him. It so happens that this man is a good friend of mine. He is a professional man and is very very successful. He is also—I guess what we would describe as—a fundamental Christian. He explained when Child Youth and Family told him— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh he couldn’t have done it then. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well David Cunliffe wants to be a smart alec. Child Youth and Family explained to him that he should not smack his child. He said that he was the father and he would smack his child. As a result of that proceedings were instigated against the man and he lost his three kids to Child Youth and Family. They were taken off him and his wife. 
It gets worse. A psychologist then said to the wife that the best way to get her kids back was to leave the husband because he was the problem. She left the husband to try to get the kids back and still could not get them back because of the smacking. I promise you Mr Chairman that this bill will make that a fait accompli. This is what then happened in the case. The children went through foster home after foster home where they were physically abused—they were bruised and they were beaten. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: “Oh well. This isn’t relevant.” the Labour members say. They do not want to hear the truth. The man finally got his children back after 7 years and after spending $400000 through the courts. 
Hon Member 
: That’s under the present law. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That is under the present law. What I am saying is this legislation will make that a fact of life. People smacking their children will be committing a criminal offence. That is what clause 2A does. 
What do we hear from the promoter of the bill Sue Bradford? We hear: “Don’t worry the police won’t prosecute.” Excuse me? We live in a country where there is a rule of law where this Parliament makes a law and it is the police’s job to implement it—they do not get a choice about which law they apply and which they do not. So what will happen is that when there is a complaint—and we have already seen this from the police—they will investigate. What this legislation does is make me as a parent a criminal.