Boscawen John: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Boscawen John: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:656;Page:5932] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 We are debating the Budget. We heard earlier from the Minister of Finance that the country is in a recession and that there are a number of challenges facing us. We all know that taxpayers’ money is not always wisely spent. In my speech this evening I want to address a particular item of expenditure. I refer to the recent referendum on the issue of whether smacking should be a criminal offence. There was a lot of coverage given to the referendum and its cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of $9 million. That cost has been paid by the taxpayer and I believe it is a cost we need to discuss this evening. Although the organisers of the referendum received a lot of criticism I believe such referendums or the access of the New Zealand public to referendums to call politicians to account are absolutely fundamental to our democracy. The referendum could have been held at the last general election but the previous Government chose not to do that. I believe very strongly that the reason this referendum has cost us far more than it should have lies firmly with the previous Government and the Prime Minister in particular. 
Earlier today my member’s bill was pulled from the ballot and within 4 hours the Prime Minister of New Zealand had called a press conference to say that the National Government would not be supporting it. I think that is a very very big shame for the people of New Zealand. At 2 p.m. yesterday when Parliament sat for the first time this week I sought leave for my Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill to be introduced and there was opposition from throughout the House. Yesterday afternoon the ACT Party stood as the only party prepared to stand up and represent the 87 percent of New Zealanders who voted No. From discussions I had with other members of the House earlier this afternoon I was optimistic that I may have been able to get support for my bill. But within 4 hours the Prime Minister ruled it out. 
I think that is very sad because the public of New Zealand were asked a specific question: do they believe smacking for the purposes of correction should be a criminal offence? It currently is an offence. The amendment that was passed in legislation 2 years ago clearly sets out that a smack for the purposes of correction is not a valid defence in a charge of assault. The people of New Zealand were told by members of the Government and by various other lobby groups that this was a make-believe referendum and that it was confusing. I do not believe the people of New Zealand were confused at all. There will be people listening to this debate tonight who voted No in that referendum who were not confused. The only way that we can make smacking for the purposes of correction not a criminal offence is to change the law. 
I think the Prime Minister dismissed my member’s bill out of hand without I assume consulting his own caucus because it was dismissed very very quickly. I say that in particular because I would like to again quote from a speech that John Key gave as Leader of the Opposition at a function organised by the Salvation Army in April 2007. He said “In reality no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. But if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child then don’t make it illegal.” It seems to me that the Prime Minister— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has spoken now for 4 minutes. This is a debate on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply Bill and I ask the member to relate what he is saying back to the Budget. This is a Budget debate and the member has 6 minutes left. I would like him to come back to the Budget. It is all very well what he is saying but he must relate it to the Budget. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I can relate my comments back to the Budget in very many ways. The cost of the referendum and the cost of child abuse in New Zealand is spread across many many departmental votes. I see the Minister of Police Judith Collins is smiling. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: I’m a happy person. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: The Minister of Police tells me she is always smiling. There is money spent in her budget that covers the cost of policing and the police are involved in enforcing the current law. There is money involved in the Ministry of Social Development budget in the Child Youth and Family budget and for Child Youth and Family staff. I am told there has been something close to 1000 investigations by Child Youth and Family into families over the last 2 years. They may have resulted in only 13 charges but a huge amount of taxpayer money has been spent on investigations—a huge amount of wasted money. 
The reason I say this is important is that the Prime Minister clearly said 2 years ago that people will not be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. He said that if that is the case then why have a law that makes it a criminal offence. Mr Key has again said to the people of New Zealand this afternoon that he gives his assurance that people will not be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. I say to Mr Key that if it is not his intention that police prosecute people who lightly smack their child why have a law on the statute book that provides for it? 
Eighty-seven percent of people were not confused by the referendum; they voted No. Look Mr Deputy Speaker you want me to bring this debate back to the cost but what is the cost to New Zealand? What is the cost in the policing budget? What is the cost in the Child Youth and Family budget? An amount of $9 million was spent on this referendum and it is a pity to ignore what the people of New Zealand are saying. I ask members to think of the money that we spend in this debating chamber and to think of the money that is spent on the salaries of parliamentarians and their officials. Think of us as lawmakers who have to pass laws that will be of benefit. It would seem as though the five ACT Party MPs are the only MPs prepared to represent that 87 percent; we have become the “87 Percent Party”. I see the Minister of Finance is smiling. He knows that what I am saying is true. He must be embarrassed that the five ACT Party MPs have become the “87 Percent Party”. Members can smile but ACT has become the “87 Percent Party”. I have been sent correspondence this afternoon that members of the public have forwarded to National Ministers and National members of Parliament in the last 2 days. There is huge disappointment that the Prime Minister has decided that that $9 million should be wasted that the people of New Zealand will not be listened to and that we the ACT Party are left as the only people who will listen. 
I ask this Parliament these parliamentarians and the people here this evening who are being paid a salary by the taxpayer to think again about the children of New Zealand. Good parents are trying to raise their children as law-abiding citizens. Now parents are forced to tell their children that there are some laws it is OK to break. That is right; parents are being forced to tell their children that there are some laws it is OK to break if the Prime Minister has said it is OK. That is confusing and inconsistent for children. How can we be helping children if we pass laws that we acknowledge are not intended to be enforced? When the section 59 amendment was passed 2 years ago there was a provision in the amendment that said the police will have some discretion. In other words our parliamentarians knew that they were passing a law that was never intended to be enforced. I say to the National members what their Prime Minister said 2 years ago to the Salvation Army: if the reality is that people will never be prosecuted for lightly smacking why make it illegal? Do not make it a crime. 
Mr Chester Borrows is in the House this evening. I put up a member’s bill that was based entirely on what Mr Borrows promoted 2 years ago. I might add that it was a bill that Mr Key talked about on breakfast television on 3 August—his Prime Minister’s salary was being paid by taxpayers. He said that had National been the Government 2 years ago it would have passed the Chester Borrows amendment. My member’s bill was drawn out of the ballot this afternoon. The salaries of the people administering the drawing of the ballot were paid by taxpayers— 
Hone Harawira 
: Thrown in the dustbin! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Yes it might have been thrown in the dustbin Mr Hone Harawira tells us. But we stand here very proudly as the party prepared to represent 87 percent of New Zealanders. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.