3. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his reported statement as Prime Minister, in relation to the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission, that she was appointed for her expertise when it comes to abused children; if so, why?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, because I believe that she has something positive to offer the Families Commission and will work hard on behalf of Kiwi families.
Does the Prime Minister believe that Christine Rankin was demonstrating her expertise and knowledge of child abuse issues when she said that people are told when they ring the Child, Youth and Family that the service is too busy and cannot be there for 6 weeks, but if a child is smacked then the service is there the next day?
How can the Prime Minister reconcile his defence of Christine Rankin’s appointment, on the basis that she had been “a very vocal advocate for abused children”, with his decision to ban her from campaigning on section 59 of the Crimes Act, which was to remove the defence against assaulting children?
The Families Commission has a stated position in relation to the referendum, and as a Families Commissioner it makes sense for Christine Rankin to make sure that she does not contravene that line and speak out by campaigning in a way that would be inappropriate. Having said that, I would expect more from the Opposition. When National was in Opposition, we still cared about abused children and we did not spend our time playing political games. All those members care about is politics; they do not care about the abused kids of New Zealand.
I define that as if Christine Rankin had turned up to the press conference yesterday, but she did not. In fact, most sectors of the media are arguing that she has been muzzled. I go back to the point I just made: members on this side of the House care about abused kids. We look in the hospitals of New Zealand and see thousands of abused kids, and Christine Rankin has spoken out about the damage that is happening to those kids. We are going to do something about abused kids, because not enough happened under the previous Labour Government.
Sue BradfordIs it true that Christine Rankin was originally offered the post of Children’s Commissioner and that it was her choice to turn the job down because she did not want to move to Wellington, rather than the Government’s choice because she posed too big a political risk?
Firstly, I am more focused on the kids than on political point-scoring—but that is OK. Secondly, I do not believe Christine Rankin has been defiant; most sections of the media believe that she has been muzzled. Members on this side of the House care about abused kids, but members on that side do not.
John BoscawenIs the Prime Minister saying that a New Zealander appointed to the Families Commission loses his or her right to free speech and the right to express his or her public and very well-known view that a light smack given to a child by a loving parent should not be illegal, and was not this silencing of dissent roundly rejected at the last election?
No, I am not saying that. As I said at my press conference yesterday afternoon, I was quite relaxed about the comments that Christine Rankin made. I do not think they were terribly provocative; nor do I believe that they were anywhere out of line; nor did I expect Christine Rankin to express a view she does not hold. But if a Families Commissioner has an agreed position, although he or she can express a broad view in the context of the overall responsibilities, he or she cannot get out there and campaign for the “No” vote.