Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9296] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises in the third reading of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill as the only party opposing it and I think it is important that we state the reasons why. But first of all let me take my hat off to Sue Bradford whose name appears on this bill. All the way through Sue Bradford has held a consistent and principled line on this policy and legislation. The Maori Party too—and it has been a tough issue for the Maori Party to take leadership on—has had a consistent and principled line as also has I think Katherine Rich. It is fair to say that other parties and MPs in this House have had shifting positions on this bill and on the policy and that has added to some of the confusion. 
Let me explain why ACT opposes this bill. Sue Bradford and the Maori Party have a policy of zero tolerance for any violence against children. Included in that definition of violence is a smack. In their view we as a Parliament should make it a crime to smack a child so that if a parent smacks a toddler that is a crime. The bill removes any defence. 
To make it plain what the purpose of the legislation is I can do no better than to read clause 3 which states that the purpose is to “make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence …”. I think that is a very worthy purpose. But the clause goes on to say: “… by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.” That is where the difference between ACT members and I guess now the vast majority of MPs lies. I do not think it is Parliament’s role to say to mums and dads that if they lightly tap their toddlers on the bottom they are committing a criminal offence and that they should not do it. This bill says not only that parents should not do that but that they are committing a crime against the Crimes Act in so doing. 
In case members have any doubt about what we are doing here today let me read clause 4 of the bill that we are shifting into law. Clause 4 puts a new section 59 into the Crimes Act. Section 59(2) will now state: “Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.” I want to read that again. It states: “Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.” 
When my son was a toddler I smacked him on the bottom; this legislation makes that a crime. The legislation is quite clear that it is against the law to do that. It may be that the police would not bother prosecuting me for doing that but that gives me no comfort because I want to live within the law as best as I can. Certainly as a parent I want to live within the law with my son. I object to the fact that this bill will make me and a large number—dare I say it the vast majority—of parents who are good parents criminals under the Crimes Act because they tapped or used force for the purpose of correction. I do not think that is a good policy for this Parliament to adopt; I do not think it is right. 
I want to make a further point. Sue Bradford has not done this the Maori Party has not done this but Labour and National have. Those parties have said that good parents who lightly smack their children have nothing to fear because the police will not prosecute them. Well that has to be bad law. We are passing a law that says people should not do something and that it is against the law but we are telling those people not to worry because the police will not prosecute them if they break the law. 
What sort of law are we passing here tonight? It is a law that people can disobey—as detailed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party—because the police will not prosecute them. Well the ACT party believes in law that means something. The ACT party believes in a police force whose job it is to uphold the law not to ignore it. The Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party have said: “Don’t worry about this law. The police will ignore it and if they don’t we’ll change it.” That is why I say that I admire Sue Bradford and the members of the Maori Party. They have stuck to the principle of what the law is about. We have heard from Helen Clark and John Key that we should not worry about the law because it will not be upheld. Well I do not agree with that. I think we should pass law that is clear and that we expect to be enforced. 
My next point concerns the great aroha—love—that has broken out in our Parliament in respect of the smacking issue. Well I think it is quite nice and I rather love it that MPs can work together sometimes. But just because all parliamentarians agree on something does not make it right does not make it good law and does not make it good for New Zealand. 
I have to say that when I read the new clause 4 I do not understand what the National Party has been against all this time. I was persuaded by National’s arguments against the bill. The only thing that this new clause does is to say that the police have discretion. Well we knew that. The police always have had discretion. No one knows that better than the Prime Minister of New Zealand because she has been the beneficiary of that discretion on more than one occasion has she not? So we knew that the police had discretion. I do not understand how a party can be opposed to this legislation then say the police have discretion and suddenly it becomes OK without explanation. 
Finally I have this concern: I think the issue of the smacking of children—not abuse not violence but smacking—should be one of conscience for individual MPs. If we were serious about testing this Parliament and its resolve the old parties like the new MMP parties would allow their MPs to have a free vote so we could actually see where Parliament lies and actually test the vote. In respect of this issue I do not agree that Helen Clark and John Key can dictate and decide how the majority of MPs in this Parliament will vote. I do not think we can take any comfort from that. John Key said in this House that if Labour had had a free vote the bill would not have passed so presumably at that point he was saying there were Labour MPs who would vote against it—I presume that was the case. I would like to see that tested by John Key and Helen Clark by their giving their MPs some mana and letting them have a free vote. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.