Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8874] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 First of all let me congratulate Sue Bradford and Helen Clark because they have built a remarkable coalition in support of this Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I have to say that the ACT party stands resolutely against it. 
I am actually a bit staggered because I have read the words on Supplementary Order Paper 107 most carefully—and indeed have sought legal advice—and the amendment makes no difference to the bill as I am sure Ms Bradford knows. Therefore I am somewhat surprised why people would change their votes as a consequence of this Supplementary Order Paper. All it says is that the police have the discretion not to prosecute. Well Sue Bradford knows that was precisely the situation in her bill—I can see the Labour MPs agreeing. I sat here night after night hearing the National Party members complaining about the police having that discretion. They said Mr Borrows’ amendment was needed to give guidance as to what the law was. I was persuaded by Mr Borrows. 
Chester Borrows 
: You were right to be. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I was right to be persuaded by Mr Borrows actually because I was not keen on his amendment. 
I heard Mr Borrows say on the radio this afternoon that this amendment is great because it is what he was proposing. Mr Borrows is a police officer and he has studied the law—I hear his nervous giggle—and that is not what this amendment says. Mr Borrows has been rolled. The entire National Party caucus has been rolled. Again I congratulate Helen Clark and Sue Bradford on this legalistic sleight of hand; it is a great piece of politics to take the heat out of this bill and have it remain unscathed. 
This is a very bad way to be making the law. This bill went through the select committee process. Changes were done. It came back here to be voted up or down but now—no no—we are changing it. We can see that is a bad way to make the law because one entire party is clearly confused about what it means. 
I ask Mr Borrows whether it is true that the police have the discretion not to prosecute. 
Chester Borrows 
: Yes. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: So this amendment does nothing to Sue Bradford’s bill? 
Chester Borrows 
: No. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He agrees with me that it does nothing to the bill. Could Mr Borrows explain to me why he is now voting for the bill when he was not voting for it before? 
Chester Borrows 
: You missed my speech. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh yes I missed his speech—but I heard him on the radio and I did not get any sense from him. 
I want to go a bit further. What is this “public interest”? This is a very interesting concept; if there is no public interest there will not be a prosecution. But get this: at least 20 percent of New Zealanders are opposed to smacking full stop. So there is huge public interest in any smack that occurs—and we have heard that from Parliament today. Even if one gives a little inconsequential smack there is public interest in there being a prosecution and there is public interest in there being a test case. So the public interest test means absolutely nothing does it not? Is it not the role of the police to uphold the law? Is it not the role of Parliament to be making the law? With this amendment we are not making any law and we are leaving it up to the police to decide what the law is. It remains an arbitrary piece of law. How will the police decide whether something is inconsequential or in the public interest? Parliament has given no guidance. 
That was the point of Mr Borrows’ Supplementary Order Paper 86 which I have to say I was persuaded to agree with after some careful deliberation and listening. 
Peter Brown 
: Put it up in your name. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I will. I will do that tonight and I am looking forward to the support of Mr Brown and Mr Borrows. 
I go back to the problem with this bill. Sue Bradford has been clear right along and I commend her for that. Clearly she is opposed to physical violence on children and I understand that absolutely perfectly. I think all of us in this Committee oppose it. Where we disagree is whether a smack is physical violence against a child. I think it is fair to say that Sue Bradford says that yes a smack is physical violence against a child and should be banned. That is Sue Bradford’s position absolutely that was what the original bill said and that was the purpose of it. 
Then the Labour Party members came along and said a light smack should be OK. People had a natural fear that if they gave their kid a wee smack on the bottom they would have the State fall on them. The cops would turn up they would be dragged through the courts their kid would have to testify Child Youth and Family would be involved and suddenly the smack would be akin to child abuse. 
That is where it got murky because it seemed to me that both sides of the debate were saying the same thing—not Sue Bradford; she and members from the Labour Party were saying there should be no smacking. But I think the vast majority of members were saying we have to draw a sharper line between smacking and abuse. Chester Borrows’ amendment was to draw a sharper line. Have we done that? Has Parliament done that? Has Parliament achieved anything? Are we not right back to Sue Bradford’s original aim to ban smacking totally? Is that what the people of New Zealand want? I do not think so. Is that what this Committee wants? No I do not think so. I think this Committee has decided on something political to get everyone off the hook. 
Chester Borrows 
: That never happened. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Chester Borrows is saying with a big grin on his face that it never happened. I am appalled by that. It is not as though we have not had a lot of time to debate this; we have been debating it pretty hard. 
We have ended up with this: smacking is banned unless it is inconsequential or prosecuting it is not in the public interest. The opponents of the bill—that is 80 percent of New Zealanders—are saying: “To hell with the public interest. It is my child and I will discipline my child as I see fit within the bounds of reasonableness.” That right will go from the New Zealand statute book if this bill passes in its present form. 
I say to Chester that he should hand me his amendment and I will move it. I say to him that he should run upstairs and get it now please. 
Chester Borrows 
: I sent it to you by email. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I have not got my email here—I am not as sophisticated as that. If he gets me a copy I will move it tonight. I can see Gordon Copeland and the New Zealand First members coming in on it—some of them. We will vote for Mr Borrows’ amendment. I would like to see whether Mr Borrows would vote for it. 
We are doing the country a grave disservice. Although it is nice to see the Labour Party and the National Party in agreement in a wonderful display of MMP politics I would like to see them in agreement about something that made sense something that would work and something that was good law not something that was nonsense and pure politics. 
This law leaves families exactly as they were before this amendment. It leaves the police in a very difficult hole and it hands the police—[ 
Interruption 
] I thank Mr Copeland; I now have the amendment. I will be moving this amendment thank you. The bill has the police in a position where they will be exercising arbitrary power. With families that the police do not like they will decide that is in the public interest to prosecute. They will think that the families they do not like or they think are trouble or they want to hassle are not giving inconsequential smacks. Who will those families be? They will be disproportionately disadvantaged families inarticulate families and Maori and Polynesian families. They will be disproportionately families that actually love their children and do care for them and look after them. This bill opens those families up to abuse—abuse by the law abuse by the police and abuse by the courts. 
I commend Sue Bradford for the clarity with which she has made the argument. I reject this bill totally on behalf of the ACT party.