Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I firstly want to commend Northland MP Matt King—an experienced practical cop—for bringing this bill to the House. I think he speaks for the vast majority of New Zealanders who look in revulsion at these king-hit murders—deaths of innocent people—that occur around New Zealand and are delighted there is a member of Parliament like Matt King that's prepared to say That's not the sort of New Zealand we want." and for this Parliament to send a very clear signal for people that are out in bars and clubs around New Zealand that this bullish behaviour of king-hits is morally repugnant and wrong. Now I've heard the bleeding hearts from the Labour Party and Green Party who I accept—as part of their DNA—see it as their duty to always speak for victims. And I am proud to be part of a National Party that actually says our criminal justice system is primarily responsible for ensuring that people are held to account for violent acts and for the innocent deaths of people.But can I tell you this evening my biggest disappointment is with the New Zealand First Party. I say this because they present themselves to the electorate as a law and order party. They pretend they are a party that puts strong values on holding people to account when they commit atrocious crimes. I think we should be honest about what's happening in the Parliament tonight: if any other member of this House proposed this bill actually New Zealand First would be supporting it. It is simply for the petty politics around Northland—and because Matt King is such an effective member of Parliament for that community—that they will not support this bill rather than anything of the substance of this legislation. That is a tragedy for this Parliament. It's a tragedy for New Zealand. But it exposes the complete lack of principle and character by the New Zealand First Party and is why they only have a few more weeks in this Parliament. I say to the New Zealand First Party: "Stand up for your values before the country sees through you and gives you the rejection from this Parliament which is coming very soon."Can I come to the point that was made by the previous speaker Clare Curran who said we should not support the specific identification in our Crimes Act of the crime of a coward punch—that we shouldn't do that that as a matter of principle that is bad law? Well I ask this question: why then has this Government specifically provided for an offence of strangulation? If the way in which the person dies is completely irrelevant to the Crimes Act then why would we specifically in the law provide for the particularly ugly crime of strangulation because if it's good enough for Parliament to put on the law books our abhorrence of the crime of strangulation it is equally appropriate for this Parliament to say that the particular crime of the coward punch is something that we do not want. My last point is this: I look at our close cousins in Australia; actually Labor Parties in Australia in every state have supported a bill of this sort. What is it about the Labour Party in New Zealand that is so out of touch with Main Street towns all over New Zealand—and the threat from coward punches—that the Australian Labor Party understand but the New Zealand Labour Party does not? I've actually read the records of judges using the coward-punch law in Australia. It at least seems to me that this is an idea worthy of sending to select committee. I commend Matt King on his advocacy for it. What he proves with this bill is not only he's an experienced cop but he's in touch with New Zealanders and we need to see an end to the coward punches that are costing the lives of too many New Zealanders."