Flavell Te Ururoa: Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13827] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I need to say from the very outset that the Maori Party say ka kite ano haere ra kaua e hoki mai hasta luego and ciao to the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill which is purported here by Mr Garrett. 
The Maori Party supported the original legislation for the abolition of the use of force as a justification for child discipline which amended section 59 of the Crimes Act. There were two reasons why we supported that legislation. Firstly we supported the concept of children being able to live in an environment free from violence. That was No. 1 and it was consistent with numerous traditional accounts of tikanga in terms of the care of children. Secondly we supported the original legislation because it was in the context that underpins the kohanga reo and kura kaupapa movements. Sure not every Maori child is involved in those movements but it was an approach taken that we hope will continue to spread throughout the whole community. 
Right from the start of the kohanga reo movement in 1982 it was stated that mokopuna were not to be smacked. The no-smacking kaupapa both established the preciousness of children and continued the manner in which our tupuna reared children. In strengthening parents kaiako extended whanau through involvement in kohanga and the aim was to show that smacking was more a manifestation of adult behaviour than that of children’s behaviour. Kohanga reo whanau and wider whanau benefited from taking the time to understand themselves in relation to raising tamariki and mokopuna. 
It is important to have aspirational kaupapa to guide and inform party policy and conduct. The Maori Party saw the aspirational intent of the bill as an important aspect of encouraging whanau to recreate and maintain violence-free homes. At the time we were very clear. What is wrong about holding out hope that we can reclaim our tikanga and find our own solutions to violence? We want to promote a more positively framed approach to addressing issues of violence instead of promoting the punitive approaches that we see in this bill. 
We want to inspire a change of direction. Instead of focusing on what was wrong within our whanau hapu and iwi we want to expend our energies on a positive future for Maori by focusing on our strengths and by mobilising our actions to change that which was ours to change. That is pretty much at the heart of the Whanau Ora approach which is about taking issues back to whanau for them to address amongst themselves. 
On reflection 3 years after the amendment to section 59 it is hardly as if the world has come to an end as other speakers have said. In operation the law does not criminalise parents as was always the threat. The general consensus is that the current law is working well. Parents facing charges of assault against their children are prevented from using a defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction. I absolutely support that. 
I want to remind the House that—as if we need reminding—New Zealand ranks at the bottom of the list of OECD countries for children who die from accident and injury and Metiria Turei touched on some of those incidences. In fact we rank in the bottom four for children over 1 year old. There is no way that the Maori Party will compromise on our aspirations for a violence-free Aotearoa. So we reject this bill absolutely. 
Mr Garrett talked about the fact that the anti-smacking legislation has done nothing to stop the murders of young children. He said that that was the rationale for some reason for this bill coming to the House. So the inevitable question would be: has the “three strikes” legislation stopped any murders? I do not think so. Kia ora tatou.