Hobbs Marian: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8031] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Speaking to clause 2A “Principal Act amended” which states: “This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.” reminds me very strongly of the fact that that Act was amended when I was a young teacher—well not so young actually; probably a middle-aged teacher. I say to the member who spoke before me that I am both a teacher and a parent. I actually know the difference between the two roles and I also know the similarities between then. At that time it was said to us that it would be impossible to exert any discipline in a classroom or a school when corporal punishment was taken away. I have to say that that was not so; that was incorrect. Anyone who was taught by me—and at least three people in this particular organisation were—knows that he or she was equally scared of me before that provision was repealed and afterwards. 
But I want to talk about something that is quite serious and is above party politics. I believe that even though this debate has not been argued away this is very serious legislation. I want to tell members a story because many people are alleging that the police will arrest every parent who slaps his or her child. This story happened in relation to my child when she was about 2 or 3. There had been a murder and I am sure Gerry Brownlee will remember the child from Bexley who was abducted and murdered. This story happened about 2 weeks later than that. I was at school and my husband had taken Claire—and I apologise to Claire for bringing her into the debate—to the library in Papanui where as a 2-year-old she threw a class A tantrum. He picked her up under his arm and with her arms and legs going he walked through the town of Papanui bundled her into the car and drove her home. 
Five minutes later there was a thunderous knock on the front door and a policeman was there. Claire answered the door all sunny smiles and the policeman said: “Is your daddy here?” and she said: “Yes he’s just here.” and went and got poor Geoff. The policeman said to Geoff: “Oh you’re the father?” and he said: “Yes she threw a tantrum in the library and I brought her home.” The policeman said: “Look that is perfectly OK. We are just terribly concerned at the moment because of the abduction and because of the murder of the kid in Bexley.” 
That policeman used his common sense. He did not prosecute my husband for abducting the child. He did not prosecute my husband for putting her on a mat and taking her home. He did not prosecute my husband for physically taking the kid up. That was common sense. To say that our police force would do other than that at the moment is to belittle their priorities and to belittle their common sense. I do not often bring my family into the debate here but I wanted to tell that story because it is a true story and is pretty damn real. 
Also another argument has been put up in here. It is an argument that says that this amendment is the Government or the State interfering in our families. The Government and the State interfere in our families when people commit domestic violence. When there is rape within marriage of course the State is inside the bedroom on those occasions because if one wants to play religion that is against the Ten Commandments. That is pretty basic. Whether those Ten Commandments are broken on the street or inside the home they are still broken. Murder committed inside the family home is still murder; it is still against the Crimes Act. Assault committed inside the family home is still against the Crimes Act and that is why this amendment is not actually saying that suddenly the State will go inside the family home. The State ought to be in there for murder assault and domestic violence and I stand by that. 
The other argument we come up against is the one being put up by the Opposition at the moment in relation to the weakest time in our lives—and I have been through the Family Court several times—which is when one is in divorce proceedings and there is a contest over the children. Everyone grasps at different straws. They grasp at the abuse of children by different partners; they use that argument already in there. But to say other than that and to say that judges and the lawyers for the child do not argue against spurious cases that are put up is I think again to belittle our judges. 
I stand in here in support of our police; I stand in here in support of our courts.