Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8014] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 When this bill commences into law I am afraid it will criminalise and label as abusers a whole lot of loving caring and very responsible parents. I know that to be so because I believe I am one of them. I certainly smacked my son when he was a toddler. I did so in a loving way in a responsible way and in a caring way because I do not know how one can reason with a 3-year-old. I am proud to say that my son is now a responsible young adult. I am proud that I exercised my responsibilities of fatherhood in the way that I did. 
I think it is fine for parents to decide not to discipline their kids with a smack. Again I think it is their right. But I particularly object to Labour members coming in here exercising the whip on all their MPs and then getting up and pretending that somehow they are getting paid to do a job by lecturing us on how to bring up our kids. In fact the way that we have been bringing up our children has been the way for thousands and thousands of years. I think that for thousands of years we as parents—as compared to Labour members—have known the difference between a smack and abuse. I take it hard that somehow I am an abusive parent about whom Mrs Brown at the supermarket could be ringing the police—who let us be clear about this have no option but to investigate. 
The idea that the police can sit back and say it is just Parliament sending a signal is poppycock. The police have to implement the law because that is what the rule of law means. The police are not there to say we should have an arbitrary decision about which laws we implement and which ones we do not. When this Parliament passes laws the police have a job to do. So Mrs Brown rings the police and says that she saw Rodney Hide smacking his 3-year-old. The police then have to investigate. I think I could give the police a good run for their money by the way but if I was an inarticulate parent who was struggling a bit to understand what was going on I would be in serious trouble with the police particularly if they wanted to hassle me. I could see a report going to Child Youth and Family. Then I would be in trouble with Child Youth and Family for not looking after my kid because I am violent. Suddenly a light smack makes me tantamount to a child abuser and a killer. This is what this legislation will do. 
Are we seriously saying in this Chamber and in this country that the big issue facing New Zealand children is parents who smack them? I do not think so. I took the liberty of asking the people of Epsom what they think about this—they are good people in Epsom. 
Peter Brown 
: Are they still talking to you? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I can tell the member that they are—unlike the citizens of Tauranga who are all busy talking to ”Bob the Builder”; not Winston Peters or Peter Brown. They ran away and are living in Auckland. 
The people of Epsom say that 68 percent do not want this law 11 percent are not sure and 21 percent say yes. Overwhelmingly New Zealanders are against this law change—and for good reason because they can see that it will criminalise good loving parents. If people do not want to smack their kids that is fine but are we seriously saying we want the police Child Youth and Family and the authorities to be investigating those parents who do? 
The day this legislation commences is the day that we criminalise the majority of parents who are responsible and again neglect the real issue of those parents who are not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the next speaker I say that the last two speakers have not had much content in their speeches in terms of the commencement date which is being debated.