Horomia Parekura: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8467] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 The only acrimony in relation to this bill—this fine Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill—is from those people who are putting their head up in the clouds like that member there. The fact that this bill is just about defining the difference between smacking and clubbing people is something we have to be clear about. It is about making provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment. We have heard all this high-handed stuff that like the king without any clothes abuse does not happen. Chester Borrows’ stuff is totally confusing. This bill is explicit.  
We have heard all this prattle in defence of people being allowed to smack their kids. People like Mr Bennett know that this country’s refuges are full of Maori women and kids who have been thrashed and bashed by other people. Those members do not want to talk about that. It is outrageous. Dr Sharples was dead right. Opposition members want to head us off from trying to have a smack-free community. They do not want that. Police do not arrest parents at the moment for tapping or smacking their children.  
Who supports this bill? It is Plunket the Maori Women’s Welfare League and all those organisations that are at the interface and that patch up all this smashing and bashing. People say that smacking is OK but the whole nation cried and decried the actions when the Kahui twins were lying dead. When other babies were killed we all went “boo hoohoo”. We have a clear chance with this bill and I commend Sue Bradford for the courage she has shown. This woman has stood in front of those damn politicians in years past and decried them for what they have done. She has had the courage to stand up on behalf of children and declare that there are people in this nation who want to protect them. Who protects a child’s rights? This bill helps with that. What about the parents who do not care about children’s rights and disguise the bashings they give? What about them? That is OK. I hear enough banter and prattle in this Chamber about the Department of Corrections and our full prisons. How come it is OK to deny children their rights? How come? Children get brought up in cultures and societies where they get thrashed by their parents and have welts on their buttocks and legs. Where do the children turn? Who can they tell about the damage the fear and the hurt? Who do they tell? This legislation is good governance. It is a great Government that does this in support of mothers and kids.  
We can go on and on. Nick Smith says that he wants to ensure that the rights of a certain percentage of his constituency are defended. What about the defence of the kids? What about the defence of all the women in refuges? Who is defending them? We are playing this game again that abuse does not happen—that the killing and the murder and the smashing of women and children does not happen by what are supposedly just minor incidental slaps. Let us believe where that heads off to. I want people to think about it. What they are condoning is what is happening in this country and what everybody else is denying.  
An amended section 59 will not ban smacking and it will not make criminals out of decent parents. There are decent parents. But I ask members to take a snapshot in their mind of the kid who has been hit tonight whether that kid is 5 10 or 12 years old. Who does that kid talk to? Who can that kid tell that he or she has just got the bash? Who? What would Nick Smith do about that? There are kids who quiver and shiver in their houses because people are left to run riot and beat them up.  
Let us cut to the chase. All of a sudden we are trying to be amenable and correct and to show political correctness about not banning smacking because it is a parent’s right. Let me ask the question again: how do we defend a child’s rights? How do we defend a battered woman’s rights? How do we do that? We put a marker in the ground like we did about having no smoking in restaurants. Everybody went “boo hoohoo”.