Smith Nick: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8466] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to do something I did not expect I would do which is to commend Sue Bradford for at least being honest with this Parliament about what her bill the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill does. What she has effectively just said to the Committee in her explanation is that it is too hard to define what is a smack and what is abuse so her bill goes the full hog and bans smacking. I agree with her. I direct my criticism at the cynical spin from the Prime Minister and the Labour Party who somehow pretend that this bill does not ban smacking. 
What goes to the heart of trust in our democracy is that politicians do what they say and say what they mean. Ten days before the last general election the Prime Minister when asked on the radio whether her Government would support a ban on smacking did not say no; she said absolutely no. That is what she said. This cynical Labour Government will now break that word and use every cynical trick it can find to try to ram this bill through Parliament. That is wrong. I say to Labour members opposite that not only is their measure wrong but they are undermining the basic trust on which our democracy is based. 
I turn to the substance of the bill because I heard so many speeches in which members said we need to send a signal about abuse. If those members were giving a speech or if they were writing a parenting manual I could well support them. If the Prime Minister wants to give a speech and say there is too much child abuse in this country I and I think every member of this Committee would say “Hear hear!”. But we are not writing a parenting manual; we are writing the Crimes Act. We are determining those New Zealanders who are to be classed as criminals.  
 I will not support a bill that turns 70 percent of my constituents who as responsible parents occasionally smack their children into criminals. We must not do that. I also appeal to this Committee that in this country of ours a huge number of disputes over custody happen when families are split. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: That member would know about that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member wants to bring my own personal circumstances into the debate. Yes I know about that. He is a grubby member who would do that. I say to David Benson-Pope that I am proud of the fact that I have a very cooperative relationship with my former wife and we work hard together for the interests of my two children. 
I have to say as a member of Parliament that not a Saturday constituency clinic goes by where I do not see parents fighting parents and this bill is going to throw petrol on the fire. We know already that too many relationships between ex-partners become incredibly acrimonious to the disadvantage of children. By introducing this provision into law affidavits galore in which smacking is alleged will be filed in the courts and relationships between children and parents will be broken down and cut out because of those shenanigans. That is wrong. 
The approach that has been taken by the very practical and sensible member Chester Borrows is the right way forward. I have read cases where people who assaulted children should have been convicted. The provisions of section 59 are to date too broad. What Chester Borrows does is rise to the challenge of this Parliament to define properly that which is abuse and that which is a reasonable smack in the course of disciplining children. I plead with this Committee to take on board that amendment which provides a middle way forward. I say to Sue Bradford that what she presents is an extreme position. The fact that after over 12 months’ debate on this bill 83 percent of New Zealanders do not support her makes this bill undemocratic.