Volume 637 Week 38 - Wednesday 14 March 2007 
Volume 637 Week 38 - Wednesday 14 March 2007 
[Volume:637;Page:7953] 
Wednesday 14 March 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Chamber Sound—Testing 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just draw to members’ attention the microphone in the middle of the Table. Some questions have been raised over a period of time about the sound in this House—in the Chamber as well as the gallery—so there is an investigation under way and that microphone is for testing the sound. 
Questions to Ministers 
United States President—Discussion Topics with Prime Minister 
1. KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When she discusses trade Afghanistan and instability in the Pacific with George W Bush at the White House next week will she also be raising climate change the United States’ human rights record and the war in Iraq? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The time for such meetings is always limited and my intention is to focus on progressing areas for cooperation. I have made it clear that Iraq is not on my agenda to raise. I have participated in discussions involving President Bush around energy security and climate change in APEC within the last 4 months and I would observe that raising human rights issues is a two-edged sword. 
Keith Locke 
: What will she say to George Bush about the United States’ barbaric treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the American Government’s practice of rendering prisoners to torture in third countries? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not on my agenda to raise issues of that kind with the President. As I have already observed raising human rights issues is a two-edged sword. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Given the reference made by the Prime Minister to a two-edged sword what kinds of human rights issues might the United States President raise in relation to New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is the practice of the US State Department to issue each year a report on human rights practices in other countries. The one for New Zealand released just recently drew attention to the level of violence against women. It drew attention to the poor socio-economic status of indigenous people to attacks on Jewish cemeteries in our country and to other issues. I observe that once one opens up issues then the comeback could be interesting. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will she be telling George W Bush about her aspirations for New Zealand to become carbon neutral which I think have been stated since the APEC meeting 4 months ago and will she be asking him to meet the challenge put forward by the European Union by committing to reduce his country’s greenhouse emissions to 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to help tackle climate change? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am perfectly happy to advise the President of what New Zealand is doing with its aspirations to be truly sustainable and carbon neutral in time. I would observe that the President contributed fully to a discussion at APEC around issues of better energy efficiency more energy security and investing in the sorts of technologies that would be helpful over time. 
Heather Roy 
: When she is meeting the President of the United States of America will she reinforce the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ statement that Iraq would slide into total chaos if United States troops were pulled out or will she say that was the personal opinion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that her Government’s position is different or will she not be mentioning the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his policies at all? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I refer the member to the first answer that I gave when I said that Iraq was not on my agenda to raise. With regard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs I would note that he has already formed a very good working relationship with the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and I am absolutely certain that that good relationship will be referred to in the course of my visit. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has she observed in her time as a Prime Minister or as a parliamentarian that when one spends all one’s time criticising one’s host the opportunity for the host to have any regard for one’s views is severely limited? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is a highly common-sense observation in my opinion. 
Keith Locke 
: When the Prime Minister says that raising human rights issues is a double-edged sword is she saying that the human rights violations committed by the United States at Guantánamo Bay and in the rendition programme are in some way comparable with the human rights issues raised in the United States report on New Zealand and should not New Zealand take the high moral ground in an exchange of human rights standards between the two countries? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure that if New Zealand had had detainees at Guantánamo Bay as other friendly countries such as Australia or the United Kingdom have had the issue of Guantánamo Bay would be on my agenda. It is not because we have not. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to impress upon the President that the solution to the world’s climate change problems depends more on the largest nations including the USA doing their very best and that New Zealand with its very limited population can do little more than be a good global citizen? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said I have participated in a discussion around these issues in a forum with the President present and fully participating. It is my belief and it is the Government’s view that we do need the major emitters on board to make a real difference and that our contribution although of course important to us because we want to be seen as a good international citizen—and to be one—is critical. I am mindful that even a large industrial economy such as the British one contributes only around 2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions so we really are looking over time for the United States China India and other large economies with a lot of emissions to come in. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a European Parliament report just issued on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners. 
Document not tabled. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a document  
Close Guantánamo—Symbol of Injustice 
 a recent Amnesty International report. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two documents as evidence of Mr Keith Locke’s support of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and his support for the heinous Pol Pot regime. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table a report in the  
Scientific American 
 of the European leaders’ resolution to slash greenhouse gases with very much more stringent targets. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table a news report from Brussels from the  
Environment News Wire 
 of the European Union members’ decision and debate on that matter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Corrections Minister and Department—Confidence 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Corrections and his department; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As I told the member in response to exactly the same question yesterday yes because the Minister is hard-working and conscientious. Although the department clearly has room to improve I am confident that with its current leadership that will happen. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister has confidence in the Minister of Corrections why was he not allowed to front up to the media on the release of the three reports and why was he not allowed to front up the debate in Parliament yesterday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I also addressed that issue in response to questions yesterday. The issue cuts across three Ministers’ responsibilities. It cuts across those of the Attorney-General who appoints the Parole Board it cuts across those of the Minister of Justice who is responsible for criminal justice policy and it cuts across the portfolio of the Minister of Corrections who is responsible for operations. That is why I as Prime Minister decided to speak last week and that is why the Deputy Prime Minister spoke yesterday. 
John Key 
: What does it say about the Minister of Corrections that yesterday in Parliament he was almost thinking of apologising to the family of Karl Kuchenbecker because the tragic death of their son was being debated in Parliament but that he frankly could not be bothered to actually apologise to them for the fact that their son died with the responsibility lying with his department? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised that when the Minister and the local member of Parliament met with the family the Minister said to them in person that he was very sorry for what had happened. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will be heard. 
John Key 
: If the Minister of Corrections is so keen to have his apology transmitted to the family why does he not say it in Parliament then rather than just in private? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Because he is not a grandstander unlike the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members on the Government benches do not be quiet so that the member can be heard they will be leaving the Chamber too. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister of Corrections offered his resignation to the Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No nor would I accept it. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1994 she stated in relation to the Michael Joseph Savage team: “He knew the answers lay in the Government taking responsibility. Nothing has changed. That is still the right answer.” or is that just another example of the “Maharey principle”: what one says in Opposition does not quite work when one is in Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member had bothered to complete his historical research he would have found that in the term of the first Labour Government the concept of a Minister being set out as responsible and not to blame was fully articulated. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Implementation 
3.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received regarding the implementation of the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This week marks the beginning of an information campaign with television ads and the launch of an information line for parents. There have already been more than 500 calls from parents keen to get more information about this very popular policy. At the same time the Ministry of Education has been running face-to-face workshops with early childhood education providers in order to work with them on how the scheme applies to them specifically. The reaction has been extremely positive. Feedback from the workshops found that 90 percent of attendees clearly understood the policy and felt confident about how they would apply it to themselves. 
Lesley Soper 
: What other reports has the Minister seen regarding the policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a range of reports. One stated: “The 20-hour entitlement will be welcomed by all families”. Another report stated an intention to scrap the scheme and another suggested a replacement with a tax credit. Other reports championed the scheme arguing for higher funding rates and an extension to all under-5-year-olds and another argued there should be no campaign to inform parents. Amazingly all of those contradictory statements come from members of one party—the National Party—which shows that they understand nothing about this policy. But I predict that they will fully support it by the next election. 
Paula Bennett 
: Will the Minister avoid all smarmy words such as “may be eligible” or “could potentially access 20 free hours” and tell New Zealand parents right now how many children will actually receive 20 free hours of early childhood education come 1 July; if not why did he and the Prime Minister promise it to all parents before the election? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I have told that member numerous times the policy clearly talks about 92000 young people being eligible for this policy on 1 July. What members would like to know from that member is how she intends to pay for her promise made in the House last night to extend the scheme—despite not liking it—to every single child under 5 years of age. That policy would cost over $1 billion for a tax-cutting party. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth is the Minister not paying greater regard to the views of the last questioner given that when the leader of the National Party made a speech about the “underclass” he put that underclass in the charge of Paula Bennett; and more particularly what on earth did that group do to deserve her? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That last comment was not necessary. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the essence of the question concerned what people had done to deserve the National Party’s policies. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I did indicate that that part of the question was out of order. The Minister is not to address that part. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The first part of the question was whether the Minister thought it was in order to pay more attention to the question. So does that mean that Mr Peters would like Ms Bennett to repeat the question so that the Minister can give us an answer? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: As usual  
Hansard 
 will record that I did not say that at all. Gerry never gets it right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order either. The Minister was asked to comment on something that was within his ministerial responsibility but not to comment on the member personally. Would the Minister please address that part of the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Just so I stay within the Standing Orders I say that my interpretation of the question was what people had done to deserve National Party policies. I have to say that if those policies are the answer then people are asking the wrong question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. That is out of order. 
Parole—Corrections Department Investigation 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he stand by the statement in his department’s investigation into the management of Graeme Burton’s parole that the failure to undertake a home visit scheduled for November 2006 was “not considered material”; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The report identifies areas where mistakes were made and makes clear recommendations. I am in the process of implementing those recommended changes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did his department conclude that the failure to conduct the November home visit did not matter when police asked the Department of Corrections that day whether Burton could be recalled because he did not seem to be living at home only to be told by the department that if there was food in the fridge that was good enough for them to believe he was living at home? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I understand that the home visit should have been completed in November but when the police did call at the end of November—on 30 November—they concluded he was still living at the address. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the failure of his department to visit Burton’s home in November be considered “not material” when Burton had already been warned for not being there on 10 October when in November he had failed to report on time when he had two non-association orders issued against him and when it was not just the police but the armed offenders squad that searched his house on suspicion of possessing firearms? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As I have indicated the report does identify areas where mistakes were made. We are moving to make changes to ensure that those mistakes cannot be made again. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the mistakes he is referring to include a failure to act immediately over Burton’s second breach of parole on 12 December when the probation officer was on leave; that another mistake was the failure to conduct a home visit; and that the department knows that both of these mistakes are exactly the ones that occurred in the management of William Duane Bell’s parole just before he killed several people? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I accept that they are mistakes that were made. That is why we have made changes that are already under way—firmer guidelines for probation officers when breaches or suspected breaches of parole occur. There will be changes and more appropriate and timely responses when information is received regarding a parolee’s behaviour. We will ensure the transfer of responsibilities when staff take holidays. A number of changes will result from these reports to prevent this from happening again. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that one result of the tragedy of the Mount Wellington - Panmure Returned Services Association murders was a zero tolerance register set up by the Department of Corrections which includes requirements for home visits and immediate action for repeated parole breaches; and in light of the fact that the department failed on both counts to carry out its own guidelines for the zero tolerance register what is the point of a zero tolerance register for serious offenders on parole? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There was a requirement for immediate action to be undertaken when parole officers were in receipt of information that might have identified a breach. The fact that they then took too long to action that is a mistake it has been acknowledged in the report and it is something that will be changed. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister finally understand that the public believes that the Government failed in its duty to protect the public in the case of Burton and in the Liam Ashley case and that the public believes that when there is no accountability for that sort of terrible failure it is almost certain to happen again because that is the record of this department? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There is clear accountability for the lessons to be learnt from any mistakes or failures in the system. The accountability is with the Ministers and the people involved to make the changes to ensure that such mistakes cannot occur in the future. 
Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill—Alternative Medicines 
5.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Why have the complementary medicines and natural health products sectors been included within the scope of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Complementary medicines and natural health products are included within the scope of the agreement with Australia and not within the bill itself which will ratify the agreement. New Zealand’s existing therapeutic products law is outdated and unsustainable and does not adequately manage the public health risks associated with the use of complementary medicines. Serious side effects of complementary medicines including three deaths have been reported to the New Zealand centre for adverse reactions monitoring. Complementary medicines have been found to be adulterated with pharmaceutical medicines—such as Viagra—or to contain dangerous amounts of heavy metals such as lead. It is therefore important to regulate those products so that consumers are assured that their health and safety is safeguarded. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Who or what led the Minister to change her mind and include these sectors when earlier she had indicated that she was prepared to exclude them and to look to some form of opt-in regime? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Negotiations with Australia took place over a number of years. It was raised with me on a number of occasions that what we needed was for Australia to mutually recognise our complementary medicines sector. When I raised that with our Australian counterparts they made it clear that it is not possible to have mutual recognition with a country that does not have a regulatory framework or regulatory regime. There is nothing to mutually recognise with when it comes to complementary medicines so we would need to regulate within New Zealand. We have gone for a First World system not a Third World system. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is it true—as Tony Ryall claimed yesterday—that the Government has ratified the treaty with Australia against the wishes of this Parliament? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No that is not true. The treaty has not in fact been ratified. It will not be ratified until the passage of legislation in both countries. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that once the proposed agency is operational and the transitional period completed an effective traditional remedy or dietary supplement that is not on the approved list will be illegal and not be able to be sold in New Zealand even if it has been safely used for centuries and has had overseas regulatory authorities’ approval such as that of the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: One of the big issues in terms of this regulator is to ensure that we could have some mutual recognition with other countries. What we will not have now is an agency like the FDA agreeing to anything being safe in New Zealand because there is nothing for it to be able to acknowledge. What we are trying to stop is that in the future we have a country like the United States and its regulator the FDA making decisions for us. What we want is a joint regulator between two friendly nations. We are looking at some countries having to make decisions for other countries because those countries are unable to have the quality assurance themselves. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister given any assurances to the Australian Government about the likely fate of this bill; if so what are they? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The only assurance I have given to the Australian Government is that we will introduce the bill in the form that members have seen it and that we will allow the public of New Zealand to have submissions and make their views known on this bill. Out of that a bill will emerge. It will then be at the will of Parliament to decide whether that bill goes forward. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand’s two largest producers of complementary medicines in support of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill are in fact Australian-owned and that the third-largest producer Comvita—which I understand served on her advisory panel—is totally opposed to the bill although it would support the regulation of complementary medicines under separate legislation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No; I can certainly say that some in Comvita would prefer not to have those products regulated in New Zealand. But interestingly enough most of its products are in Australia now and they meet the standards already. I can tell the member that 75 percent of the products available through the normal retail outlets in New Zealand are already on the shelves in Australia and their producers have the advantage of being able to make a therapeutic claim—something that is illegal in New Zealand at present. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A major part of my question was to ask the Minister whether the two largest organisations in this country were Australia-owned. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister— 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I said no I could not. I then went on to talk about Comvita. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister understand why New Zealanders are so strongly opposed to her plan to cover natural health products when the Government’s own papers state that 60 to 65 percent of the products that are currently on shop shelves now will be wiped from those shelves under this proposal and when the advice of one of New Zealand’s leading natural health products companies is that the cost of regulating a product will go from $2700 to $64000 under her plan—a plan that she has mucked up completely? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would much rather have had the opportunity to do something positive than to sit where that member has for 7 years doing absolutely nothing but whinge. To answer the member’s question he has totally misinterpreted the consultation document on fees and charges and I am happy for officials to give him a personal briefing. But this is not the first time the Opposition has misinterpreted an official document. Another example of misinterpretation was that of the Australian regulatory impact statement. Those members opposite got that wrong as well and they were shown to have got it wrong. The member got this wrong as well. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table correspondence that shows that the Minister of Health said handing a set of overheads to a National MP was consultation. 
Document not tabled. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table two documents from an Australian consultant for Valio and Chr. Hansen one pointing out that the indicative cost to register a new natural product would be A$52000 and another one pointing out that there was a 28 percent increase in product annual charges and a 20 percent increase in application fees last year for the Therapeutic Goods Administration. 
Documents not tabled. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a point of clarification. I have never claimed that handing out overhead transparencies is consultation. Mr Ryall said that I said it was consultation. Certainly there had been overhead presentations to something like five health spokespeople. I cannot help it if they keep changing them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Point of order Mr Brownlee? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No. When the Minister has finished making her ministerial statement I am happy to respond. 
Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could the Minister confirm— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a supplementary question or a point of order? 
Steve Chadwick 
: It is a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that is not a point of order; it is a question. 
Parole Board—Application of Parole Act 2002 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied with the way in which the Parole Act 2002 has been applied by the Parole Board; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am satisfied that the Parole Board has generally operated within powers provided in the Act. However the Government is making further amendments to the Criminal Justice Reform Bill currently before the House. These will deal with the board’s right to receive information its power to call evidence or witnesses and its right to receive direct applications from the police for recall where they believe there is a risk to public safety. This will ensure that the Parole Board can make full use of all available information. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that section 28 of the Parole Act states that the Parole Board should release offenders only if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that they do not pose an undue risk to the community; if so why did the Parole Board fail to meet that basic duty in the case of Graeme Burton? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As the member knows I cannot comment on individual cases; I do not have that responsibility. But I can confirm— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You cannot accept that from the Minister. Earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister stated that the reason she has been involved in this case the reason the Deputy Prime Minister has been involved in this case and the reason other lesser Ministers have not been involved in this case is that there is cross-ministerial involvement in it. For the Minister now to say that he is not going to answer that question because he does not deal with individual cases flies directly in the face of the advice the Prime Minister has given this House. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Prime Minister’s advice was clear—that there was multiple ministerial responsibility: the Attorney-General for the appointment of the Parole Board the Minister of Justice—myself—for the policy of the Parole Board and the Minister of Corrections for operations. The member’s supplementary question has moved on to an operational matter around a certain case. I am happy to complete my answer however and comment on the area of policy the member has raised—but not this specific case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please complete the answer to the question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member’s reference to the Parole Act I believe is correct but I would add that the Government already has legislation with a select committee that further strengthens the provisions of the Parole Act—in particular ensuring that public safety will be the sole criterion for release on parole after a minimum of two-thirds of a sentence has been served. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister read the guiding principles of the Parole Act of 2002 particularly section 7(1): “When making decisions about or in any way relating to the release of an offender the paramount consideration for the Board in every case is the safety of the community.”; if he has read that can he tell the House whether he believes that the Parole Board’s recent decision to put Mr John Clarke who is a recognised high-risk sex offender back on home detention despite the fact that the last time he was on home detention he breached all its terms and conditions was a sensible decision? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: My recollection is that the member’s quotation is correct. As I said to the previous questioner I cannot comment on individual cases but I say that one of the driving purposes of the legislation the Government already has before Parliament is to ensure that the safety of the community not only is paramount but becomes the sole criterion to ensure that community safety is properly protected. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister at all concerned by the way in which the Parole Board had already come to a pro forma decision or view that Graeme Burton should be released subject to an updated psychological assessment when it was that assessment that outlined the allegations that Burton had beaten at least three prisoners had been segregated for hits on guards and had continued to rate as “high” for high risk of reoffending consistent with the five prior psychological assessments? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member knows that I cannot comment on individual cases but as I have already pointed out to him the Government is moving to further strengthen legislation already before this Parliament to ensure that for the Parole Board in future there will be no doubt about the full range of information it can and will have available to it and will take into full consideration. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not recall in this House in 2005 the concerns expressed by New Zealand First to the then Minister of Corrections Paul Swain about Mr Clarke who was a man convicted of kidnapping raping beating and leaving for dead a 15-year-old child—a man who was released on home detention into a social services centre where he made victims out of a staff member and a client—and our concerns that he should be recalled to prison and does he not recall that Mr Clarke was subsequently recalled to prison from home detention; so what has the Minister now to say to the Parole Board that has put Mr Clarke back on home detention from which he has again absconded resulting in a manhunt to recapture and re-imprison him? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I do recall that; and no I do not have ministerial ability to comment on that individual case. It is not appropriate for me to do so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Parole Board came to a pro forma view about a prisoner suggesting that prisoners should be released subject to an updated psychological assessment when that assessment stated the prisoner had beaten at least three prisoners had been segregated for soliciting hits on guards and continued to rate as “high reoffending probability” and had done so in five previous psychological reports would the Parole Board be operating inside his policy by releasing such a prisoner? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have made clear to the member that whilst I am not commenting on individual cases this Government has already moved to toughen and strengthen the parole legislation. It will introduce a further Supplementary Order Paper which I look forward to the member supporting to ensure that all information is available to the Parole Board and will be taken into consideration. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked about a situation that could exist. If the Minister does not want to answer a question on the basis that it is hypothetical then I guess that is a way out but some of us would like to know how policy does actually operate inside his department in this particular responsibility. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. He does not have to respond to hypothetical ones. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that in addition to ignoring the psychological reports indicating that Burton was at high risk of reoffending the Parole Board released him in spite of the submission from his victim’s sister who was also concerned about his lack of remorse and his risk of reoffending; and does not this make a sick joke of victims’ rights provisions in the Parole Act when there is no direction to take their views into account? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Without repeating the obvious from my earlier answers I point out that the Government is already moving to put in front of this House a further Supplementary Order Paper in addition to the legislation— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s what they said after Bell. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The legislation is in front of the select committee. If the member opposite who chips and chips wants to support it he should do so. I look forward to that member and his party providing the support for this legislation to ensure that victims of crime are indeed well protected because that is precisely what this Government’s legislation will deliver. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it the case that against all the best advice the Parole Board decided to release Graeme Burton knowing that he was at high risk of reoffending why are those same people still sitting in a position that sees them releasing the likes of Graeme Burton Kevin Neil Paul and John Clarke to wreak havoc and tragedy on the communities throughout New Zealand and why has not the Minister sacked them? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Had the member paid attention earlier in the afternoon to what the Prime Minister actually said he would know that I am not the Minister who appoints the Parole Board and therefore I simply do not have the ministerial responsibility for the issue he raises. The member really should ask the questions of the appropriate person. 
Afghanistan—Level and Nature of New Zealand Assistance 
7.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What is the level and nature of assistance that New Zealand is contributing to security and reconstruction in Afghanistan? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Cabinet decided on Monday to renew the commitment of our provincial reconstruction team to Bamian on the basis that it has done a hugely impressive job there in contributing to both stability and reconstruction and that it is warmly welcomed by the community. The total deployment of the provincial reconstruction team will again be around 120 people in and around Bamian. That deployment will be supplemented by five staff officers working with the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul and a couple of NCOs helping to train the Afghan National Army. There will also be a new deployment of two medical specialists to help the Multinational Medical Unit in Kandahar and for a short period a redeployment of the frigate in the Arabian gulf as part of the maritime interdiction operation. 
Dianne Yates 
: Is this an adequate level of assistance given the call for additional efforts in this area? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes it is. Of the 37 nations providing military contributions to Afghanistan New Zealand ranks on a per capita basis in the top half. Of the non-NATO nations we have the second-highest per capita contribution. We will have spent something like $30 million in financial contributions this year to support that deployment in addition to development assistance. That contribution also needs to be seen alongside the very significant contributions we are making in other areas such as the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. 
Dianne Yates 
: Has the New Zealand Defence Force’s contribution made a difference in Afghanistan? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Absolutely. The New Zealand provincial reconstruction team is regarded by the Afghan people themselves and by other contributing forces as a model for others to follow. It has worked closely with local authorities and the local community. It has built up an excellent rapport with the people there. It has helped to ensure stability. It has made a major contribution to both physical and social infrastructure. In fact it has done such an impressive job that other countries such as Singapore have made application to provide further troops to work under the New Zealand provincial reconstruction team in Bamian. 
Cancer Patients—Radiotherapy Waiting Times 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What are the current radiotherapy waiting times in the six regional cancer centres for category C which includes patients diagnosed with breast and prostate cancer? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The waiting time for category C patients is generally within 8 weeks though some patients are waiting longer. Where that is the case the centres are taking action to reduce the waiting times. I think it occurs mainly in the Auckland and MidCentral district health boards at this time. More urgent patients are also getting their treatment within the clinically appropriate time frame. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister’s speech to the Labour Party asking: “Why are cancer patients waiting so long for radiotherapy that their cancer is dangerously progressing? I have a friend who waited for 3 months and still does not know for sure whether that wait will have proved fatal.”; and in light of information from the Auckland District Health Board today and from other district health boards that shows that numerous cancer patients are waiting in excess of 3 months to begin their radiation treatment why are those patients waiting well in excess of the 4 weeks that the Prime Minister’s Government says is the best time in which to start radiotherapy treatment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will be well aware that the 4-week guideline sits on the ministry’s website but the ministry—and indeed the oncology community—has long held the view that waits of up to 12 weeks for category C patients have little or no effect on the cancer outcomes. Indeed in some cases they are suggested to be of value to patients because patients need to prepare for the radiotherapy. The long and the short of it is that this Government has increased the number of radiotherapists by more than 30 percent and has increased the number of radiotherapists in training by more than 100 percent. 
Maryan 
 Street 
: Has the Minister seen the report in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that the Auckland District Health Board advises a waiting time of 14 to 16 weeks for category C patients and that a letter to this effect was made available to the  
New Zealand Herald  
as proof? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have seen the report in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which says that a letter was made available to the  
New Zealand Herald  
by Mr Ryall. Mr Ryall assured the  
New Zealand Herald  
that the letter was current. It is not. The letter is out of date. The current letter advises that the waiting time is not 14 to 16 weeks but 8 to 12 weeks. Importantly the letter handed to the  
New Zealand Herald  
had no date on it. Again Mr Ryall has sought to maximise mayhem and again he has been caught. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Minister thinks it is so good for patients to wait 12 weeks for treatment why then have 89 women from Auckland and 55 women from the MidCentral region been sent to Australia for treatment to avoid that 12-week waiting period which he says is so good for women with breast cancer? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not saying it is good. I am saying that— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: You did say it was good. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I wonder whether I could be heard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes order please. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I did not say it was good. I said that a very substantial meta-analysis said that it did little harm. Sometimes there are cases where patients set out to wait perhaps because they need to have chemotherapy ahead of their radiotherapy or for whatever reason. But the long and the short of it is that I am proud that our district health boards are so keen to make sure they can deliver radiotherapy to our citizens in a timely manner that they will expend extra time and effort on sending some patients to Australia if that is what those patients want. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Is the Minister aware that under Labour despite the population increasing by 8 percent the number of functioning linear accelerators in New Zealand has increased by only one and does the Minister consider that this is a factor in cancer patients waiting longer and longer for care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member needs to be careful. She needs to reflect on how many extra patients have received radiotherapy. What she might have inadvertently just done is point to an increase in productivity in the New Zealand health system. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Does the Minister not realise that doubling the number of radiation therapist technicians being trained and calling this a solution is meaningless when the graduates cannot find a job in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is far better for this country to have a mild excess of radiotherapists than an extreme shortage. Under National we did; under National there was a substantial shortage of radiotherapists and that is why at the beginning of the term of this Government there were waiting times that were really excessive. That situation has now been brought under control because my predecessor Annette King made sure that we had people trained up. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Is the Minister aware that growth projections for future radiotherapy capacity are based on data that is up to 13 years out of date and does he not think that this is evidence of a Government that has been hopelessly negligent in its planning for an ageing population and an increasing cancer burden? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Now it seems that the member wants still more linear accelerators. I am sorry to advise the member that that is what we think too and there will be a gradual increase in linear accelerators. What is more there will be a further increase in the productivity of their use. In fact only on Monday linear accelerator use in Auckland was extended by a further shift. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document that shows that in the past 7 years despite the population increasing by 8 percent the number of functioning linear accelerators has increased by a total of only one. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document that shows that the growth projections for radiotherapy planning are based on data that is up to 13 years out of date. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can the Minister confirm that when Labour became the Government the number of radiotherapists being trained per year—that is under the previous National Government—was 16 and that that had meant that National had had to send patients to Australia to receive cancer treatment; and that this Government has taken cancer treatment seriously and has invested money in training and services to improve those services? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can confirm that that is precisely the case as it is in many other areas of health. Do not forget that under the previous Government not only was radiotherapy training trimmed right back but dental therapy training was cancelled altogether! 
I seek leave to table a sample letter that goes out to all Auckland District Health Board radiotherapy patients today—the current letter—which states that the average waiting time is approximately 8 to 12 weeks not 14 to 16 weeks. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows the record numbers of patients sent to Australia under this Labour Government compared with the numbers sent in any other time in history in New Zealand. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table for the benefit of members the Prime Minister’s speech where she asked why cancer patients are waiting so long for radiotherapy including her friend who had had to wait 3 months which is now quite common. 
Document not tabled. 
Electricity Act 1992—Review 
9.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Is the Government reviewing the Electricity Act 1992 which allows for remote parts of the electricity network to be cut off from 2013? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Yes. Section 62 of the Act as passed when National was last in Government presently allows remote areas to be cut off from electricity networks from 2013. This does not seem a fair outcome so Labour is cleaning up after National by reviewing section 62 to ensure that one way or another the lights stay on. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has the Minister received any reports on misunderstandings of the section 62 review process? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes. I have received a report that Gerry Brownlee has demanded the review of section 62 be called off. He asserts that he is trying to protect rural users. Sadly Mr Brownlee has it completely wrong. As it stands remote rural areas could be powerless after 2013 and the review is needed to ensure the lights stay on. He obviously does not understand the current law. Again National has it completely wrong as it does with so much of its climate change and energy policy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If his Government is so concerned about preserving the networks—or those who are on the end of network—beyond 2013 why does he not just announce that he will change the law rather than go through a review process that leads everyone to believe that he actually wants to cut those people off? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I again reinforce to the member that that is the effect of the current law—the law that we are reviewing. I would like to quote from the Major Electricity Users Group newsletter last week which does get it right. It notes that it is a complex issue—I admit that it is a complex issue; the member obviously does not get it but it is a complex issue—but the Major Electricity Users Group agrees that it is better to conduct a review. I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a press release from last week from the befuddled Gerry Brownlee which states: “This review is completely unacceptable— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister knows better. Just make the point of order straight without any comment about the member. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a press release dated 6 March 2007 from Mr Brownlee which states: “This review is completely unacceptable.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a report from the Major Electricity Users Group that acknowledges that the issue is complex but states that it is probably better to review it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 My question is to the “Minister for Deforestation” and asks: does he stand— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I have just asked members to please stick to the script and not edit or interpolate. It is the Minister of Forestry please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Madam Speaker I note that 17 times National’s leader has been referred to as the co-leader and you have taken no action so why have you suddenly taken offence to the “Minister of Deforestation”? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I did take action. Would the member be seated. Now please just ask the question as it is on the Order Paper. 
Carbon Credits—Forestry Owners 
10.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Forestry 
: Does he stand by his statement that the argument that forestry owners have a right to the carbon credits for forests “is not worth a cup of cold water”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) 
: 
 Yes. Kyoto Protocol sink credits are the result of Government to Government agreements in which benefits and liabilities rest with Governments. It was a National-led Government that negotiated and signed the Kyoto Protocol and it was a Labour-led Government that ratified the protocol not the forestry industry. Forest owners have no more right to carbon credits than farmers motorists or households in New Zealand have a personal financial liability for their emissions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If that is the case why did the Cabinet minute in January 2001 state: “It is agreed in principle that some portion of the carbon credits would go to those undertaking sink activities.” and: “All or most of the sink credits derived from sink activities would be tradable by those that had them.”; why did Cabinet in January 2001 agree to just that when the Minister now says that that is wrong? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I could just answer that that was looking to the future—where the member never looks. The Government of course is currently consulting on a proposal to allocate carbon credits to those who plant new forests from next year. That is entirely consistent with the in-principle decision taken by Cabinet in 2000. If the member is referring to trees already in the ground before Kyoto was ever thought of then I suggest he reflect on the fairness of retrospectively allocating a windfall gain to people who planted trees to grow wood while at the same time granting a windfall loss to those such as farmers who can do little about the emissions of their stock. The Government I say to the House is developing climate change policy that will assist the entire economy to transition to a carbon-constrained future. We are not proposing retrospective windfall gains for a few at the expense of farmers and taxpayers. Instead we have a forward-looking policy that will over time move to have the costs and benefits lie where they fall. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Can the Minister tell the House who owns the forests that generate carbon credits? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: A large number of Kyoto forests that generate carbon credits are owned by large corporate overseas investors such as the Japanese-owned Pan Pac Forest Products Singaporean-owned Earnslaw One and American-owned Blakely Pacific. Even the Roger Dickie syndicates were heavily subscribed to by wealthy individuals from North America Asia and even Switzerland. So the National Party’s latest flip-flop on how to give away carbon credits for forests already in the ground represents a large transfer of wealth from New Zealand taxpayers to foreign investors. Perhaps the member or the leader of the National Party would like to tell the House what assurances he gave—or those members gave—about how many hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of carbon credits from the pockets of ordinary New Zealand taxpayers the National Party would give to those investors when he met yesterday in Wellington with the managing director of one of those foreign-owned companies. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: If forestry owners were to receive carbon credits would it be reasonable to assume that they would also own carbon debits; if so what would the likely costs of those be to forestry owners? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: That is a very good question. Of course if the credits were allocated to forest owners they would also have the liabilities. We always hear from the proponents of this about the credits; we never hear about the liabilities and all the problems that those would create. They should start to do some thinking about the counterfactual here. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Prime Minister state last week that there was never any promise to the industry that the credits would be devolved when the Government document entitled  
Forest Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol 
 signed by Pete Hodgson in 2001 states on page 10: “Cabinet confirmed that … the benefit from sink credits would accrue to those undertaking the sink activities.” and on page 12 gives an example of a Mr Pine planting trees after 1990 and states: “He will therefore be eligible for sink credits proportional to the carbon stock increase between 2008 and 2012”—or is that just another example of the Prime Minister being economical with the truth? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Prime Minister is reflecting the exact objective fact about this policy. There are 168 countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol including key trading partners such as countries in the European Union and Japan. Of those 168 countries New Zealand is the only country in the world that has a policy to devolve Kyoto sink credits. In New Zealand’s case this is a permanent forest establishment under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative which enjoys the unanimous support of this House. The member seems to forget that he voted for it. Furthermore the Government is presently consulting on a range of options to encourage afforestation. One option proposed is to devolve credits to those who plant new forests from 1 January next year for normal rotational harvesting. That is completely in accord with all the Cabinet decisions that have been made and with the statement of the Prime Minister. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister believe that in order to protect the best interests of foresters more information on the private ownership of carbon credits is required and that hasty decision-making could cost foresters in the long term? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: A lot of farm foresters for example have been stirred up by a few people who have a very significant financial interest in this matter. I can assure the House that in almost every case those farm foresters will not be caught in this kind of deforestation issue because the compliance cost of dealing with less than say 100 hectares of farm forest will not matter. Almost all of the people who have been going to the meetings and being stirred up by people like Mr Dickie are not caught up in the great catastrophe that they have been told they are caught up in. The consultative process we are going through is eliciting submissions from the people whom we have been consulting with—all of the stakeholders—and they will inform the basis of some solid policy going forward. That might be a complete revelation for the National Party members across the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why has not one Minister nor any member of the Government fronted up to the 16 public meetings on the Government’s forestry and land-use policies which have been attended by over 2000 people—or when the going gets tough does this Government simply pay expensive flunkeys to take the stick for its broken promises and policy botch-ups? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think it is really quite instructive for this House to hear from someone who aspires to be in executive Government refer to highly qualified and principled public servants as “expensive flunkeys”. That member has quite a reputation for attacking the Public Service. This Government has empowered and rebuilt the Public Service since it came to office. The reality is that these meetings are not for political grandstanding by Mr Dickie or by the member who is shouting across the Table; these meetings are to elicit— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please be seated. The Minister has been asked a question; he is addressing it. Would those members who ask questions please have the courtesy to listen rather than answer them for the Minister. The Minister is attempting to answer the question. Constant and repeated interruptions do not assist that process. Will the Minister please answer succinctly if possible. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: These meetings are to elicit information from the Government advisers on this policy; that is what the meetings were set up for. When I hear that people like Mr Smith are going to them and orating at them I am very pleased I am not present. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I assure the Minister that the public members there welcomed me. They gave me almost universal applause. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just ask the question please. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept that the “Minister of Deforestation” is a fairer description of his role— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have asked the member to please use the Minister’s correct title rather than the “Minister of Deforestation”. [ 
Interruption 
] I know Wednesday is members’ day but would the member please just ask the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it not a fairer description of the Minister’s role to be the “Minister of Deforestation” given that he is the first Minister to hold the portfolio when there has been overall net deforestation that at public meetings organised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry from Invercargill to Whangarei there have been unanimous motions of no confidence in him as Minister and that even the very moderate New Zealand Timber Industry Federation on Monday stated: “For some time the federation has been sceptical of Mr Anderton’s commitment to the success of the forest industry.”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Having motions of no confidence in me moved by Mr Dickie and seconded by the member who has just spoken is an absolutely positive honour. I am pleased it has happened. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On the accusation that I second motions of no confidence I have to assure the House it was totally unnecessary for me to do so. Over a hundred members of the public at the meeting were fighting to be able to second the motion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Cabinet minute from January 2001 in which the Government said that a portion of the carbon credits from forests would be allocated to landowners. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document signed by Mr Pete Hodgson that was also distributed. It is titled  
Forest Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol 
 and states that foresters will receive the credits for their Kyoto— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
State-owned Enterprises—Management 
11.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: E matauana ia kei te tukua te whakahaere o ngahua me ngataunaha a te Karauna peraiera katoa a ngahinongaKawanatangai te wanei matetahi huarahi whakakahaakeaii te wariu o ngahaumi a te Kawanatanga meinaae he aha ai? 
[ 
Is he confident that the management of the Crown’s assets and liabilities in the case of all State-owned enterprises is currently delivered in a way that enhances the value of the Government’s investments; if so why? 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In a financial sense yes. In the 12 months ending 30 June 2006 State-owned enterprises earned nearly $1.5 billion in profit and saw equity growth of nearly $2.7 billion or over 30 percent. Of course individual issues of one sort or another will always arise. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What explanation then does the Minister have for the following comment made by the Prime Minister on Monday: “It has come as something of a surprise to many of us that Landcorp was disposing of land at the rate that it was particularly land in sensitive areas.”; and would the Minister agree that the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit’s management is less than satisfactory if even the Prime Minister is unaware of the business operations of that State-owned enterprise? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not directly responsible for the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit. That unit is the responsibility of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. In any case the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit is not responsible for the decisions made by a State-owned enterprise; it is responsible for oversight. In terms of the member’s original question that issue of course is not one about the value of the Government’s investments being enhanced; it is about whether some of those investments should not have their value enhanced in a financial sense but be used for other purposes. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s management of Whenuakite Station which has recently been described as patches of woolly nightshade ragwort half-sprayed gorse and cattle carcasses of skin and bones rotting in the paddock is an insult to the Hauraki iwi who have been fighting to get that land back in good working order or does he see it as most people do as being symptomatic of a Government that has no genuine consideration for the Maori partner to the Treaty settlement process? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I completely reject the latter assertion. Of course no specific claim has yet been lodged by a mandated group over Whenuakite Station. The issue here is that land with potential value was being disposed of particularly coastal land without Ministers being made aware of it. Quite different processes are now in place to deal with that kind of issue. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s comments at her press conference on Monday that Landcorp is not just any other commercial farmer and that the Crown has entrusted its land to Landcorp to use properly; and why did it take the actions of Ngati Kahu at Rangiputa Station of Tuwharetoa at Taurewa and of Hauraki iwi at Whenuakite before the activities of Landcorp were brought to the Prime Minister’s attention? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I know the member will find it hard to believe this but the actions of the iwi at Whenuakite did not cause Cabinet’s reaction. Cabinet’s reaction was around the potential disposal of very high-value coastal property in a very sensitive area in terms of coastal values. This highlighted the need for both a review of the processes and also a review of the total landholdings of Landcorp where some of those landholdings might be better situated within other agencies such as the Department of Conservation. 
Child Youth and Family—Confidence 
12.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she have confidence in Child Youth and Family Services; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes; but there is always room for improvement. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why after removing a 7-year-old boy found in a P lab during an armed offenders squad raid by 40 police did Child Youth and Family in Tauranga not advise the police or the courts that it was placing the child with his grandmother before his drug-dealing parents were bailed to the same address later that day? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In instances like that it is a requirement for all Child Youth and Family staff to follow the accepted procedures. If at any stage that has been breached that will not be supported by me as Minister. But too often the member has made allegations in this House that have been totally disproved on the slightest shred of investigation. Nothing that the member says in accusing any Child Youth and Family staff member has much credibility. 
Anne Tolley 
: How bad is it that a child who is taken out of a P lab to protect him from his P-addicted parents then ends up in the same house as his parents because nobody has been told; what is the Minister going to do to make sure that it never happens again? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I said in reply to the previous question very little that that member accuses Child Youth and Family staff of doing has on any investigation turned out to be correct. If there are breaches of appropriate professional social work practice I will not support it. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What are the key pieces of work that Child Youth and Family is engaged in that contribute to the well-being of New Zealand children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A great of work is under way actually—too much to list here—but it includes helping to raise awareness in the community about caring for our children and preventing abuse; implementing the differential response model to ensure that all families receive the right support from the right agency; responding faster to increased notifications and completing investigations in a timely way; increasing the number of qualified social workers and in particular the number of registered social workers; and increasing the workforce training and capacity of youth justice services. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why did Child Youth and Family take weeks and weeks to adhere to a court order to return an 11-month-old baby to his parents as it did with the Carter family as seen on  
Close Up 
 last night? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Because before returning Joshua to the care of his parents the department needed to be assured that no harm would come to that child. 
Anne Tolley 
: What is her response to the serious concerns raised publicly by an experienced British social worker recruited to Child Youth and Family who claimed that the standards of Child Youth and Family social workers fell far short of what was expected they used unethical practices they acted like police rather than social workers they broke families apart unnecessarily they were inexperienced and they were not properly trained? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I absolutely agree that it is very traumatic particularly for an inexperienced social worker to be party to the removal of a child from his or her family. That would be traumatic for anyone let alone someone who is very new to the New Zealand environment but we do have very high standards of social work practice backed by statute and in my view our primary consideration of the safety of the child is the best. 
Anne Tolley 
: If this British social worker’s claims were important enough for the Prime Minister to pass on to the Minister herself why did she not take them seriously enough to meet whistle-blowing Mr Ward as she promised the public she would? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yet again the member is misrepresenting the facts. I made no promise at all to meet Mr Ward. I gave him a commitment that senior officials in the department would meet him to listen to his concerns and that promise was delivered. Mr Ward himself when I responded and said I wanted officials to meet him said: “Great. How do we go about arranging it?”. The meeting was arranged and did take place. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table a story published in the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
 detailing the case of the 7-year-old Tauranga boy who was uplifted from his parents in a P lab. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the transcript of the  
Close Up 
 programme shown last night in which the British social worker describes standards falling far short of what he had expected in Children Youth and Family and unethical behaviour. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
General Debate 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. We saw something interesting in the House this afternoon. Mr Key Mr English and Mr Brownlee asked questions of the same Minister. Mr Brownlee was the most effective Mr English was the best prepared and Mr Key was a total flop. What that tells us is that the honeymoon is coming to an end for the new National Party leadership. It is marked by two major trends: first the growing differences between the two leaders Mr English and Mr Key; and secondly the mounting pile of flip-flops on policy. 
Mr Key’s problem is that he knows what he wants; he wants to be Prime Minister. But his problem is that he does not know why he wants the job nor what he wants to do with it and that is becoming clearer and clearer. This is a man who does not even know where he lives. Where does Mr Key live? 
Hon Member 
: It’s pathetic. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed it is pathetic. Mr English is right—it is pathetic that Mr Key does not know where he lives. 
On  
Agenda 
 on Saturday morning there was a great debate around Hobsonville where Mr Key says he lives. Well what is the palace on three sections in Parnell about then? Is that the holiday home for Mr Key? Is that not where he actually lives? Or does he just live there for electoral purposes whereas for social purposes he lives in Parnell? The thing about the Hobsonville debate is that it is about housing. Mr Key wants to give muesli bars to the underclass but he wants to give them muesli bars to keep them away from living in Hobsonville—in his electorate. The last thing he wants is to have State houses in Hobsonville and have to explain that to his voters. 
But what about the differences? I rehearsed those yesterday. Mr English is now the new fiscal conservative. He said there is no room for large tax cuts. A week before Mr English’s statement Mr Key said that there was plenty of room and that there was not an inflation problem. Then he said—after Mr English—that they are not big tax cuts anyway and that National was never going to have big bang tax cuts. Well what was all that excitement in the press gallery about I wonder? When it was all taken away from them I noticed that it was not even reported on television—no tax cuts. 
Then of course we have had all these other ones. Mr Key said that National will not have a bar of the Exclusive Brethren—not even a muesli bar. Then Mr English goes and meets them in his electorate office in Invercargill! 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member seeks leave to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In the middle of a speech—yes there is. The member should make it at the end. There is objection. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a personal explanation? 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that? There is. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: So Mr English meets the Exclusive Brethren and now we are beginning to realise why the honeymoon lasted as long as it did. Mr Key and Mr English could not agree which way up to hold the sex manual during the honeymoon. That was the problem they faced. 
Then of course we have had all these promises about spending. Just this afternoon Mr English said that we should cut Government spending and Mr Ryall said that we need more money for radiotherapy Dr Blue said that we need more money for Herceptin and Mr Finlayson said that we need more money for Waitangi Treaty settlements. Mr Key says that we should have free lunches and free breakfasts and that we should pour money into sport and into community-based solutions; Mr English says we should cut back Government spending. It is just this series of flip-flops—flip-flops on every topic one after another. 
It is because of Mr Key’s weakness. When he is faced with a question from the media that he does not like and that exposes a problem in National’s policy he backs off from the policy. It is not thought through. He never thought through the policy on State house rentals. There was no discussion in the National Party caucus about backing off from State houses going to market rentals. He just responded to a question and said: “I am out of here”—and Dr Smith is nodding his head in disagreement. That just goes to show what happens. 
Mr Key even said on  
Agenda 
—members should get this one—“We made it quite clear that National would not have sent troops to Iraq.” Well hang on a minute. At the time Mr English said that National would have sent troops to Iraq. Dr Brash said when he was leader that if he had been there at the time they would have sent troops to Iraq but later on he changed his mind. Why did Mr Key say that? Because he knows that New Zealanders did not want to send troops to Iraq. Yet of course he claims: “All I want to do is to change the tone of things.” The tone of things! Iraq market-based rentals and everything else is out of the window and jettisoned. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Members 
: What’s it about? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: About what? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have given me leave and the Government is continuing to interject. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I have sought leave for the member but it has not been given because members of the Government want to know what the personal explanation is about. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is in regard to Dr Cullen’s allegations concerning the Exclusive Brethren. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is given leave. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Last week I carried out as I sometimes do a constituent clinic in Eric Roy’s office in Invercargill. I was seeing constituents when a journalist from the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 came into my office and said to me that he recognised some people out there who were Brethren. I told the journalist that they must be constituents whose names were on the list and were coming to see me with issues. The journalist with whom I have dealt with on other matters subsequently left. I continued seeing constituents as I do about their whole range of issues and thought nothing more of it until the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 decided that apparently some people because of their religious affiliations have no right to turn up to a constituency clinic. I explained to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that I do not screen constituents on the basis of their religious affiliation—in this case I had no idea what their religious affiliation was—and what is more I do not intend to. 
I regard it as a fundamental right of every New Zealand citizen—and in fact of people who are not New Zealand citizens who come to see me and who may be illegally in the country—to attend a constituent clinic without being harassed by the media. I want to take this opportunity to apologise to those constituents who came to see me about a completely normal constituency matter after making an appointment to come to my office and who found themselves on the front page of a national newspaper. Their confidence in the parliamentary system was violated. Their trust in the journalist—and my trust in that newspaper—has been violated. I assert in this House despite the fact that Helen Clark and the Labour Party do not like some New Zealanders that those people have a right to come to my constituency clinics and they will continue to be allowed to do so. I would hope that is the rule that all MPs in this House will follow and I believe they do. 
I informed the editor of the newspaper that in recent weeks I have dealt with people who have been subject to allegations of child abuse I have dealt with convicted rapists I have dealt with people who believe they are under surveillance by the police and I have dealt with people who live completely normal and blameless lives. It is unacceptable to me and very unfortunate that the media and the Labour Party believe that some New Zealand citizens must not talk to their member of Parliament. I want to reassure my constituents—all 55000 of them—that they are free to come to my constituency office if they ring up and make an appointment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First that was not a personal explanation at all because it was not about the member’s actions. Mr English confirmed that he saw Exclusive Brethren and did not tell us what they talked about at that meeting. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: What I want is what everyone wants in this world and that is order. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Nothing Dr Cullen says can avoid the public sense of outrage that two people died at the hands of our justice system. And no one is accountable—no one. Dr Cullen came down to the House yesterday and moralised on how good people did their best. I say to him that it does not matter whether good people did their best: Liam Ashley was fed to a monster by the Government. Karl Kuchenbecker was fed to a killer by the Government—by the Parole Board the Department of Corrections and the probation service. 
Here is the story about Graeme Burton—some of it anyway. He missed a home visit in October. He was not there when the probation officer visited. On 30 November this well-managed offender’s home was raided by the armed offenders squad. He was on the zero-tolerance list. The armed offenders squad rang the probation service and said: “This guy’s not here and he should be.” The probation service said: “Have a look in the fridge.” They did and because there was food in it the probation service said: “That’s fine with us.” The Government said it is OK the chief of the Department of Corrections said the case was well managed and the Minister said—well I do not know what he said because Labour will not let him say anything. Oh he said he was apologetic because we have raised it. The Prime Minister says that so many Ministers are in charge that no one can be held responsible. The guy Kuchenbecker is dead and no one cares! 
Actually this case is as bad as the Liam Ashley case—a case where every skerrick of common sense told one that putting a mixed-up 15-year-old into a van with a convicted serious killer was a stupid thing to do. Imagine what experience Liam Ashley had in the back of that van—imagine it! It was a desperate terrifying paralysing suffocating deadly experience. The public believe that the Government should be protecting us—Karl Kuchenbecker and Liam Ashley—from people who are known to be dangerous and Burton was known to be dangerous. He had breached parole several times and despite the fact that he was on the zero-tolerance list the armed offenders squad raided his home. He was not there. He was in breach of his parole. The probation officer went on holiday—just like William Duane Bell. And that is why the public is angry. 
They are angry because the Government has no sense of honour relative to its obligation and of the terrible consequences of failing in that obligation. The public want to see and think that it matters enough to Helen Clark that she will take action to ensure such occurrences do not happen again and to show the accountability to make it happen. If I were a probation officer I would now know that I have the protection of the Prime Minister against anything I do. If I were a security officer involved in transporting dangerous prisoners I would know that if I do something really stupid like putting a kid in the back of a van with a cold-blooded murderer and the kid gets murdered the Labour Party will defend me. That is what it is doing: it is defending stupid people who did the wrong thing and who caused violent deaths to harmless New Zealand citizens. 
Those members opposite still do not get it. My colleague John Key is right; they care more about Labour than about the public. Helen Clark’s mantra is never to apologise—or to apologise only for things one did not do 50 years ago. But her mantra is never to apologise never to concede and never to look like one is not on top. The price that will be paid is the next death at the hands of the Department of Corrections. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I want to spend my time of course talking about the problems of the National Party. But first I want to acknowledge that Bill English has raised a very serious argument this afternoon. Yesterday I understand there was an urgent debate in which Dr Michael Cullen outlined very clearly what the Labour-led Government is doing. I want to mention to people who are listening at home—because that was a passionate angry heartfelt speech by Mr English—that yesterday Bill English sat and laughed through the debate on that very issue. He sat and laughed. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That accusation is untrue. Yesterday I did express some amusement at the pathetic attempts of Dr Cullen to argue that he had no responsibility. I take deep offence which I am allowed to do— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated for a minute please. The member is claiming misrepresentation and there is a time and place to do that: at the end of a speech. The member should look at the Speakers’ rulings on that matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take deep offence at the allegation by that Minister that I regarded the death of Karl Kuchenbecker as a laughing matter and I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I was watching the speech. What has been referred to—when Mr English was laughing yesterday—was not during my speech; it was during Mr Key’s speech. Mr English was not the only member of the National Party front bench to laugh at times during Mr Key’s speech on an extraordinarily serious matter related to the death of Karl Kuchenbecker. I think that was rather typified today when Mr Key raised the point that for Mr O’Connor to apologise personally up front face to face with the family was somehow less important than grandstanding in Parliament and apologising. 
Hon Bill English 
: Dr Cullen’s point is irrelevant. I have taken offence and I have asked that the member withdraw and apologise—and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is a matter of fact that Mr English was laughing during Mr Key’s speech. He cannot take offence at somebody pointing out a matter of fact. 
Hon Bill English 
: This is a highly unusual process to follow over a matter where a member has taken offence. Mr Maharey’s allegation was not that I laughed during John Key’s speech; it was that I regarded the death of Karl Kuchenbecker as a laughing matter. I have taken offence and you will either follow the Standing Orders Mr Assistant Speaker or you will not. Please let us know what you are going to do. I have taken offence; I have asked the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am happy to take the member’s word on this matter but I just want to say before I get to this thing— we are having an unusual debate here—that I would expect the same from the member in respect of members on this side of the House. Does he think for a single second that there is anybody in the country never mind on this side of the House who does not take this matter seriously? I think that if he is to demand that people regard his behaviour with the kind of respect he is asking for now then he should give people respect himself. On that note I say that I accept the member’s word and I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I just say that all members are honourable members; their word is their bond. If there is any course of action to be taken on that then it is a matter for the Speaker to deal with through a matter of privilege. 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr English—the member has apologised. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a well-known procedure here to which we stick—and we stick to it because it is important that we do so—which is that when members withdraw and apologise they get up and that is all they say. It is not acceptable to do it at the end of a speech at the beginning of a speech or in the middle of a speech. That member is required to get up withdraw and apologise and sit down. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr English; that is right. Would the member please do that. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have taken extraordinary offence on behalf of all other members in this House at the member’s implication throughout his passionate angry and heartfelt speech that there are people in this House who unlike himself do not feel sincerely that what happened in both those cases was wrong and disgusting that they would not want to see that happen again and that they would not move heaven and earth to make sure it does not. I take offence at that and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: That member is a senior member who knows that he cannot take offence on behalf of other members and that if he wants to take offence he has to take offence at something I have said about him. In my whole speech I did not mention him. I mentioned Dr Cullen Helen Clark and the Labour Party. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members can take offence only on their own behalf not on behalf of anybody else. I would now like to get the debate back on an even keel— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do take offence at what Bill English said. I did not laugh at all yesterday at what anybody said in that debate. I did not smile or laugh—and Mr English knows that he did—during that debate. He smiled and laughed as did a number of his colleagues. And I take deep offence at what he said in his speech today implying that I did not care about what had happened. I would have thought the speech yesterday made it very clear firstly that I cared and secondly that there is responsibility and accountability that needs to be acknowledged and remedies that have to be engaged in. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that good order— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Assistant Speaker you have just forced a member to withdraw and apologise for stating a fact. As long as a member takes offence then the other member should withdraw and apologise. I take deep offence at what Mr English said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will quote here Speaker’s ruling 42/2: “If a member against whom the reference is made objects it will be ruled out. But if that member takes no objection it will only be ruled out if it is offensive on the face of it.” Therefore as offence has been taken I request the member to withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You might also read a bit further in your Standing Orders Mr Assistant Speaker to where it says that if offence is taken the member should call it to the attention of the House immediately. Twenty minutes perhaps have passed now since Mr English spoke and it was not until Mr Maharey raised the matter on behalf of the party and it then became clear it should be an individual situation that Dr Cullen raised the issue. I suspect for good grace should you rule it so that the appropriate apology would then be offered. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for the offer Mr Brownlee. I request the member to do so. 
Hon Bill English 
: I am happy to do so if Dr Cullen can in compliance with the Standing Orders tell me what I actually said—the remark made about him that he has taken offence to. A member cannot take offence at the tone of a speech or its general argument; offence has to be taken at something said in respect of the member. In my recollection that did not occur. But I would be happy to hear Dr Cullen’s version of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We seem just to be going round in circles. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr English in his own point of order just a few minutes ago stated that he did make such comments and that it was up to myself or Helen Clark—who is not here of course—to take offence. I do take offence at the implications of what he said in that respect. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say again that all members in this House are honourable members and their word is unreservedly accepted. That being the case I think it is time that both sides moved on. I now call the Hon Steve Maharey. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that Mr English himself pointed out before that when a member is asked to withdraw and apologise he or she rises and does so without comment. Mr English rose and said that he was happy to withdraw and apologise and then went on to comment at length—and we still have not heard the withdrawal and apology. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Hon Steve Maharey does have a point there. I ask Mr English— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be considered trifling with the House if members one after the other were to stand up and say that they took offence at something whatever it might be—to the general tone of a speech that was given some time ago. That would be trifling with the House; it would breach the Standing Orders. All that has been asked for here is for Dr Cullen to say what was so offensive to him personally in the speech given by Bill English—what was specific to Dr Cullen. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that Mr English had offered to withdraw and apologise— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What for? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: —and then he continued. So I ask Mr English to withdraw and apologise on that issue please—to stand and withdraw. 
Hon Bill English 
: Look I referred— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No—I am on my feet Mr English. Would you please be seated. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: Mr Assistant Speaker in order to maintain the Standing Orders—look I am happy to leave the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No Mr English be seated. I am on my feet. I am not asking the member to leave the House. I am trying to show some tolerance here for a situation that has got a little out of hand. The member himself actually rose to withdraw and apologise and then added something to it. I am asking him to think seriously and then we can go back and he can raise a point of order. I ask him to withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What are you asking Mr English to withdraw for? What was the offence? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. Mr English— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Was it just for a general dislike of the tone of that speech because— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee please be seated. I am asking Mr English to withdraw and apologise because he offered to do so. He actually did rise to do that and then he carried on—which was the point that the Hon Steve Maharey raised. I am asking Mr English to withdraw and apologise without adding any of the extra bits that he did. That is where we are back to I tell the member. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What Mr English said when you asked him to withdraw was that he would be happy to do so if he knew what it was for. Then he went on to ask what he had said that was so offensive. It staggers me that Labour Party members can some 2 months after the event start beating their breast and saying how sorry they are about Karl Kuchenbecker’s death when they have for so long been defending the indefensible running around hoping that this issue would go away and hoping that their backsides would be covered— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can the member be seated. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will be seated please. You know Mr Brownlee that Standing Order 84(3) states that points of order must be terse and to the point. I was not aware of or misunderstood what Mr English was doing. If Mr English is now saying he wishes to know what the apology is for then I will permit that. But that was not my understanding of the situation and I am sure  
Hansard 
 will show that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: As it is now abundantly clear that any withdrawal and apology would be insincere and without honour I withdraw my request. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As one commentator has put it the honeymoon for Mr Key the leader of the National Party is over and what we are doing now is trying to find out—as the commentator put it—whether there is wood beneath the veneer that Mr Key represents. As that assessment says Mr Key is now known as a man of sizzle but is not really understood to be a man of substance. 
In Mr Key’s maiden speech as leader we know he talked a lot about a State house upbringing about how he was a passionate rugby player—although he does not remember the Springbok Tour—and about how he went away to London to become a currency trader before returning to seek the leadership of this nation. To bolster up his leadership he has gone out on a series of forays into poor housing districts. He went around a series of people at McGehan Close. Those people now say they felt used by those visits. He went to a local school and offered the children muesli bars which local people said they did not need or want. 
During all of that sizzle there was no policy. But now Mr Key is under a bit of pressure and as a result he has had to start talking about policy. But having no policy of his own he is doing something extremely clever: he is adopting Labour policy. In fact that has led to so many flip-flops by the National Party that its members are now nailing up above their offices all over the country signs to go alongside the National Party signs. Those signs state “Jandals ’R Us”. The National Party has so many flip-flops that “Jandals ’R Us” is the new title for that party. “No nukes” is now its policy superannuation is OK the foreshore and seabed legislation will stay as it is and the real doozy I think is a policy of having no market rents for State houses. 
That policy is interesting because it goes right to the heart of National Party philosophy. National Party people say they stand for people buying their own houses as opposed to paying all those awful State house rents. I see Mr Williamson—the far-right extremist—grinning away over there. He knows that the idea that the National Party now agrees with the policy of building State houses and having income-related rents will stick in his craw as someone on the extreme right of the National Party. 
Flip-flops can also be seen with regard to the 20 free hours early childhood education policy. What an extraordinary policy National has on that issue. I say to Opposition members that I will put $100 down in a wager that by the next election it will be the National Party’s policy to back 20 hours’ free early childhood education. I ask Maurice Williamson whether he will take me on for that. Will Gerry Brownlee take me on for that? Will Bill take me on for that? I wager $100 that the National Party will adopt the policy it now says it is fighting against. 
Meanwhile this is what we have to put up with. The National Party says that the families of this country will love the 20 free hours policy—that was said by Bill English. The National Party also says it will scrap that policy because National’s policy is to have a tax credit. People will have to save up their chits all year in their kitchen drawers taken them down to the Inland Revenue Department file them with the big bureaucracy there and get the money back at the end of the year having paid it out over the year. That is the policy of the National Party which hates bureaucracy! That party hates public servants. It hates them yet it wants to build up more and more of them to run that tax credit policy on early childhood education. 
Last night we learnt from Paula Bennett—what a rocket scientist that woman is proving to be—that it is not good enough that the 20 free hours policy which she hates and is campaigning against is only for 3 to 4-year-olds. She wants it to apply to all under-5-year-olds. I could not believe it! National is the tax-cut party. Paula Bennett is fresh off the street and has been promoted to National’s front line. As Mr Winston Peters said today if she is the answer the question being asked of the National Party is wrong—that is all we can say. Paula Bennett made a billion-dollar promise in the House last night while National’s leader is trying to run a policy of massive tax cuts. 
The National Party also says the 20 free hours policy should not be promoted. National says people will not take it up but we should not promote it. National says we should not promote that $340 million - policy—for God’s sake—because people will find out about it and then they might come to use early childhood education services. That is an extraordinary flip-flop—a “Jandals ’R Us Party”. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 The year 2007 is Export Year— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Ha ha! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: It may very well be that Gerry Brownlee would laugh and we would expect him to laugh because we know that he does not care about exports. We know that the National Party does not care about exports and we know that National Party members will laugh because they do not care about farmers. They do not care about farmers and it is about farmers whom I want to speak. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take deep deep offence at the mistruths and reckless behaviour regarding the truth being exhibited towards me by Mr Woolerton at the present time. I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will just say that frivolous objections or points of order designed to break up a speech lead to disorder and are unacceptable to progress in the House. I say to Mr Woolerton that I am sorry but I was distracted with the Clerk at the time. The member has taken offence. I did not hear what was actually said so I am not sure. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: The statement made by Mr Woolerton was about the National Party; it was not about an individual member sitting on that side of the House. Therefore I know that under the Standing Orders offence cannot be taken by an individual as a result. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. The member will continue. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Williamson I have already spoken about frivolous objections. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yes I am very clear. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If I am not happy with this then Mr Woolerton will start his speech again. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I can tell you now very clearly and I am happy to go on the record and I am happy to go before the Privileges Committee that Mr Woolerton singled out Gerry Brownlee by name. He said that Gerry Brownlee does not care about farmers if you check the tape. I think Mr Woolerton will have the grace to say that he did actually say “Gerry Brownlee”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Whether it is seen as a personal reflection is another matter. The reality is that members make disparaging remarks about each other all of the time. It is when offence is taken at a personal reflection that members are actually asked to withdraw. Is the member taking personal offence? [ 
Interruption 
] He is. I ask the member to withdraw. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Mr Speaker I am— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to withdraw please. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Mr Speaker I am happy to withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Thank you Mr Speaker and I appreciate your protection from bullies. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are a couple of things. The first point is I think it was inappropriate for you to suggest that some frivolous activity was going on here when we have just been through the absolute debacle led by Michael Cullen a few minutes before. Secondly if Mr Woolerton is to withdraw and apologise he should stand do just that and then recommence his speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. Can I say—[ 
Interruption 
] No can I just say that I asked Mr Woolerton to withdraw. The member will withdraw and continue. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. As I said I appreciate your protection from bullies—I really do—and I think you are doing a marvellous job in the Chair. 
It is obvious that the National Party is going to filibuster but we will rely on the public to make a judgment on that. As I said before 2007 is Export Year and New Zealand First is very proud because it is one of our initiatives. 
 We need world-class companies in this country. We need companies that have world-class products. We have one in Fonterra. It has been built up over many many years by farmers in this country. This company is at the leading edge of exporting in this country. It is at the leading edge of products worldwide. New Zealand First is passionate about companies such as Fonterra and about the fact that the ownership of such companies should stay in New Zealand hands—and in this case in farmers’ hands. 
About a month ago I responded to an article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 
written by an Auckland academic that said one of the options Fonterra was looking at in a capital restructuring programme it was considering was to list the company in part or in whole on the New Zealand sharemarket. The gentleman said that if that were to be so Fonterra would be lost to the farmers of New Zealand. In a press release I responded that I agreed with him and that I believed that if that company was listed it would be lost to farmers. After that press release was put out I had a ring from the Fonterra chairman who said he believed I was confusing the farmers and my comments were not helpful. I have greater faith in New Zealand farmers than he does obviously. I know that farmers can work out what they should do with their company. I believe that farmers understand that if Fonterra was listed it would be lost to them and I believe that the directors of Fonterra should desist from going down the path of listing Fonterra on the stock market in part or indeed in whole. It is not necessary for Fonterra to go down that path. This is the biggest company in New Zealand; it is our most innovative company and it is essential to the health of this country. 
I am not standing up here just waffling on about a little issue that is of some concern locally. This is of vital interest to the country. I do not believe that the Fonterra board has the interests of farmers at heart if it could even consider listing this company on the stock market in part or in whole. I challenge the Fonterra directors and the chairman to come out and say how they will keep that company in farmers’ hands if indeed they do list it. They have said they are passionate about keeping the company in New Zealand farmers’ hands that ownership will not be an issue and that it will not be allowed to go into the hands of financiers and takeover artists. 
We know that it is impossible for that to happen and I challenge the directors of Fonterra to tell New Zealand and their farmer shareholders how they will accomplish that feat. We have watched over the years company after company of iconic standing in this country go to overseas owners—many of them to Australia and many of them to American and English owners. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The interesting thing this afternoon is that Labour speakers have chosen not to speak a single word about their own policy. They have chosen not to offer a single defence of their current governance of this country. Rather they have concentrated entirely on non-existent issues as far as they are concerned in Opposition parties. They have loudly proclaimed that everybody else has a problem but that they are OK. Well we know that when a political party is in trouble the last thing its members want to do is talk about themselves. 
The issues causing a problem for the Labour Government at the present time are ones that New Zealanders will be most unforgiving of. The first issue is the debacle in the Department of Corrections and the failure of the Parole Board and the terrible tragedies that resulted from that in the case of the release of Graeme Burton. It was awful to see Government members today and a little bit yesterday trying to be very righteous about all of this and trying to say how terribly remorseful they are about the losses those families suffered when in fact we know that it has taken them almost 2 months to get to this position. Up to this point they have not offered a single apology to the public of New Zealand and they have never offered a single hope that they might really be looking at these issues with a view towards fixing them. They have simply gone back in their burrows and decided that they are going to protect the incompetent Damien O’Connor that they are not going to put on to the front line the Minister responsible for justice in this country Mark Burton and that they are somehow going to try to tough it out by letting the Prime Minister get involved backed up by Michael Cullen. 
Well it will not work because the sad facts of this case are starting to come out. Graeme Burton was nothing but trouble in prison. He assaulted several other inmates. He tried to organise paid hits on guards. Given the current state of the Department of Corrections we cannot help wondering whether it really wanted to get him out of there because it was too dangerous to keep him. Graeme Burton went before the Parole Board—a bunch of people who are supposed to represent the community’s views about whether someone should be released from prison—and board members were made aware of all those facts. They got a psychological assessment which said they should not release the guy because he was mad and would reoffend. They did not receive that report just once twice or three times; they received that report five times. But still they said they would let him out. 
Then the people who should have been keeping an eye on him—the people in the probation service who should have made sure that he conformed with his parole requirements—failed miserably in their duty. They failed so miserably that we have heard over and over today that when there was an armed offenders alert around Graeme Burton it all petered out. The probation officer said Graeme Burton might not be at the address he was supposed to be at but if on looking in the fridge any food was found there that was good enough—the probation service would be prepared to accept he was living there. That would be OK. Where was Graeme Burton? He was out making mayhem in the community which ultimately led to the death of an innocent young father. 
For Government members to say as Michael Cullen did yesterday that the only person to blame was Graeme Burton himself because he pulled the trigger is unacceptable because society had said it wanted him put away. But the people who represent society on the Parole Board despite all the evidence—the extraordinary evidence—said that they would let him out. So the question simply is that if Damien O’Connor is not to blame and the Prime Minister is not to blame why is the Parole Board still in office? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 It is four months on from the election of John Key as the leader of the National Party and clearly this week the honeymoon is over. It has been a dreadful week for John Key. It started with the  
Agenda 
 programme on television on Saturday morning. I have to say that even I felt embarrassed notwithstanding the fact that the person I was embarrassed for was the Leader of the Opposition. Lisa Owen began the interview by saying there was a real question out in the community as to “whether Key was all publicity and no policy”. More and more people are seeing that. They are seeing spin and strutting; they are not seeing substance and policy. Gerry Brownlee asked where our policy is. We articulate our policy and put it into effect every day. There is no policy on the other side of the House. 
John Key got a snap debate on a tragic mistake that was made leading to the death of a man in the Hutt Valley and he blew it. He blew it because he could not address the substance of the problem. He did not look as though he wanted to find a solution; he looked as though he wanted to massage the issue. We saw that again in the House today. John Key accused the Minister of Corrections of not apologising. Damien O’Connor had gone personally to the family of the man who was killed and had said how sorry he was about what had happened. Damien O’Connor does not do what John Key does. He does not go up to a place without care without concern totally insincerely and make a media occasion out of it. Damien O’Connor went to the family and said how dreadfully sorry we were about the death—as indeed are all New Zealanders. 
John Key has blown it not only because he lacks the substance and the experience but also because he has a man who sits beside him Mr Bill English who wants only one thing: to get revenge on John Key because he committed the act of treachery. John Key turned up at Bill English’s home on the night before the day of the leadership election in 2003 and said he would be supporting Bill English the next day yet the next day he turned his vote and got Don Brash elected. It is no wonder that Mr English sits there and daily undermines John Key; he will never forget that act of treachery. Mr English will never be satisfied until he sees John Key go the same way that Mr English engineered for Don Brash to go. Let us ask not who leaked the emails; let us look at the deputy leader of the National Party. He is the one who set out in a machiavellian way to undermine Don Brash and he did so. He did that very effectively. That is why John Key is so fearful of the man who sits alongside him. 
But John Key has some other things to answer for. I heard Bill English deny that he had met the Exclusive Brethren about any political matter and I accept the word of the honourable member. I accepted the word of John Key when he said that he had seen the Exclusive Brethren but that it was not to talk about politics. But then the next day an email turned up from the Exclusive Brethren to say that after the discussion the Exclusive Brethren had had with Mr Key they wanted to put a million dollars into getting National elected. John Key went on TV before that was disclosed and said that he knew nothing about the pamphlets and that he knew nothing about the campaign. Then that email was released which made him look like a liar and John Key said he had never opened the email—nobody had shown it to him. That email promised the National Party $1 million and no aide told John there was someone who wanted to give him a million dollars? “Yeah right!” the Tui billboard would say about that. 
We have seen the flip-flops and they are incredible. John Key said on that  
Agenda 
 programme that National had made it clear it would never have sent troops to Iraq. Don Brash said that he would have sent troops. Worse than that John Key said he believed that the Americans should go to Iraq but that New Zealand would not follow. So he did not have the courage of his convictions. We know National would have sent troops. We remember what Simon Power said: that whatever the British the Americans or the Australians tell us to do National would do. He said that to the National Party conference and he was caught out and sacked as spokesperson on defence—not because he said that but because he was caught out and the media ran a story on it. There have been so many flip-flops from National. On 1 April there was meant to be $3 billion worth of tax cuts. Bill English said there would have been none now. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 It is always hilarious to hear Mr Goff talking about flip-flops. This was the man who on a Saturday afternoon defended his legislation that would have decriminalised some sexual activity between 12-year-olds. Within 24 hours he was backing away from that and saying he was never meaning to do that and would never do it again. The bits of the legislation that would have removed the incest stuff—he did not really mean to do that either. So let us just remember that Mr Goff as the Minister who wanted to decriminalise some sexual activity between 12-year-olds was very happy to do a flip-flop— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That’s not true and the member knows it. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am happy to table the papers that show that the Minister was proposing to do that. He does not like hearing about it. 
When that man was Minister of Justice William Duane Bell killed three people at the Panmure RSA. After quite some period when Mr Goff and other Ministers tried to keep the information under control a report from the probation service came out that said the service missed several opportunities to recall William Duane Bell from parole. The first of those opportunities was when the probation officer gave William Duane Bell his instructions and the conditions of his parole. Bell screwed up those instructions and threw them in the rubbish bin but the parole officer allowed him to carry on. The second of those occasions was when William Duane Bell failed to turn up for his appointments with his parole officer. The parole officer failed in that situation. In another circumstance the parole officer failed to make the required visits to William Duane Bell’s home address. 
This is where the parallels with the tragic case of Mr Kuchenbecker become so clear. In the William Duane Bell case New Zealand parole officers failed to do the basic work that we expect of the probation service and that was to make the home visits to check that he was there. In the case of Graeme Burton the parole officers also failed to make those checks. When the police said to the Parole Board that he was not at his residence and they could not locate him the probation service said: “If there’s food in the fridge don’t worry.” so no efforts were made by the probation service. 
This is at the heart of the issue of ministerial accountability. We have a department that time and time again has failed to carry out the very basics of public safety. Under Minister Gosche the Department of Corrections was constantly explaining why its officers had not followed basic parole provisions. Under Minister Swain the department was constantly explaining why the probation service had not been following parole conditions appropriately. And now under Minister O’Connor we are getting another never-ending series of reasons why the probation service is not following its own procedures. 
The probation service plays an important role in public safety. When these people are let out on parole most New Zealanders know that a huge proportion of them will reoffend. Part of trying to prevent that reoffending is to have good monitoring and support from the probation service. But time and time again that service has been found wanting. Report after report on Ministers’ desks has said that this department has failed in its very basic responsibilities of public safety. So what have Ministers done? It appears Ministers have done nothing. Since the tragic situation of William Duane Bell nothing has changed in the Department of Corrections. 
The fact that nothing has changed is even indicated by the Government’s response to the reports of the various parole handlings. I have here a  
New Zealand Herald  
article of 18 December which was written after the Government received a report on William Duane Bell’s parole conditions. Do members want to know what the headline of that article states? It states: “Government satisfied with parole”. The parallels are frightening. Even with William Duane Bell the Government was saying it was satisfied with parole. In the subsequent 4 years this Government has done nothing to improve the public safety of New Zealanders through the New Zealand probation service. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 What a month we have had. What a month of U-turns fast and fancy footwork some loose lips and contradictions and large doses of blatherskite. That was from the co-leadership of the National Party. 
People are now starting to call John Key “Jandal John” “Mr Flip-Flop” and he will soon graduate to “Mr Slip-Slop” as well. Just take a look at what has happened over the last few weeks. He has done a U-turn on market rentals for State houses; he has done a flip-flop on Iraq; he has had a contradiction on the air strike force; he has done a U-turn on the foreshore and seabed; he has had a contradiction on the Employment Relations Act; he has had a flip-flop on climate change; he has done a U-turn on nukes; he has had a contradiction on civil unions. And that happened in a mere few weeks since he became the leader of the National Party. What we have had is policy on the hoof. So much for democracy in the National Party caucus. Its members do not get much say over what the leader is going to announce as policy at any time. The policy is what the leader says. It seems to me that the party is rapidly becoming a pinker shade of blue. 
It has been an extraordinary month. Just imagine how National Party backbenchers are feeling at this moment. As I look across at them—when they are there—I can see that they feel they have no role no responsibilities and no decision making. They are supposed to represent the new faces of the National Party. Well I have to tell members that they are increasingly looking like the collective grumpy face of the National Party. The smiley face has been replaced by Mr Grumpy. 
We have people like my old friend Mark Blumsky who was the previous mayor of this great city. He has been written out of any effective role in the National Party. He expected promotion with the new leadership and so he should have. He was the Mayor of Wellington the capital city of New Zealand. He had dealt with complex issues. He has the smarts and he could sell shoes to Imelda Marcos. What happened to Mr Blumsky? He has been written out of the script. He is bored. He is brassed off. He is out of this Parliament and I say: “Go well Mark.” 
Then there is Chester Borrows a thoroughly nice bloke and I know that because we come from the same stock. He is a former police officer and highly regarded. But what happened to him this week? He was set up by a very jealous colleague Mr Power. Mr Power was the spokesperson on police but he got the bump by the new leader. Chester Borrows was put in place because John Key wanted to make good with the police after Mr Power had done so much damage to the police service with the comments that he was making. 
John Key dumped Mr Power put in place Chester Borrows and what happened this week? He was given a bum steer by Mr Power. He handed him information that Mr Power got from a parliamentary question but he did not give him all the information. What happened? Mr Borrows put out a press statement about speeding tickets around schools and he got it wrong. He got it wrong because the tickets related to the Speed Kills Kids programme; that is what it was about; he said it was revenue gathering. The backlash has been severe from the police officers and from the parents. They say they like the policy. He was set up and he was set up by a very jealous front-bench member. 
It is not a happy caucus that we have across the way there. In fact its members are full of jealousy they are full of anger and they are full of frustration. Very large amounts of Polyfilla are being used to cover the cracks and that is evident to any observer. Brian Connell who sits on the outside of the National Party—he is not allowed in the door—is on the way out. John Hayes who sits at the back of the House watches his former Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade colleague get the promotion while he gets to make cameo speeches on unimportant bills. Dr Paul Hutchison who is a man of talent and integrity had the health portfolio taken off him and given to Tony Ryall who only ever plays gutter politics. 
John Key is telling New Zealanders that it is time for a change. I ask: a change to what? There is no policy. There is no principle. This is no time for a change. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the speech of the Hon Annette King but throughout her speech Mr Auchinvole was making interjections and he is not seated in his correct seat for interjections in the Chamber. He might like to just trot back to the back of the Chamber if he wants to keep parroting away during the general debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not need any help. I am aware of the Speaker’s ruling on the issue but I have to say that Mr Auchinvole is taking part in this debate and therefore I have allowed the issue to go on. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 William Duane Bell killed two New Zealanders in the Auckland RSA and New Zealanders understand that. Another killer killed the New Zealander Liam Ashley a young man in the back of a van and Kiwis understand that. Graeme Burton another killer murdered Karl Kuchenbecker in the bush not some months ago and Kiwis understand that. What they cannot understand is why this Government is putting up speaker after speaker in this House today to talk about everything else but those murders that have occurred in this country because of the Department of Corrections making error upon error because of the Ministry of Justice and the Parole Board making error upon error and the lives of those New Zealanders being lost because of all the mistakes in those Government departments. 
It is not that Bill English said that the Government the Prime Minister Dr Cullen and Damien O’Connor were not taking those seriously. Mr English knew they were taking the murders seriously. What he said was that they were taking the murders seriously for all the wrong reasons. The Government should be protecting Kiwis. That is what the Department of Corrections should be doing—protecting everyday Kiwis like Liam Ashley Karl Kuchenbecker and those at the RSA. It should be protecting those everyday Kiwis from murderers like William Duane Bell Graeme Burton and that murderer who killed the young Liam Ashley. 
The Government should be protecting Kiwis from murderers but this Government is not. It is protecting its own Ministers. It is protecting Damien O’Connor. It is protecting its own reputation. It does not care about those being murdered but about its own reputation in the public arena. We heard today that the Parole Board heard five times that Graeme Burton was a deadly killer and dangerous. Yet the board let him out on the streets. We heard today that the armed offenders squad was even alerted to Graeme Burton being out on the streets. When the squad visited his home this Government’s probation officer said: “Well you may not find Graeme Burton at home but we know he’s OK. Just check the fridge.” They checked the fridge and found food in it. So because this killer was not home but there was food in the fridge they figured he was safe and Kiwis were safe. 
I am wondering whether the probation officers rather than seeing whether convicted killers are safely in their homes out amongst the New Zealand public just check the fridge or do they want the killers to front up to them as they should to the probation service—or do they just check the letterbox and if the mail has been collected then the killer is home and everyone is safe? Do probation officers just ring up and if the phone is engaged do they assume that he must be home and that New Zealanders will be safe? What is the probation service relying on? We discovered that Damien O’Connor has a department that is running around giving the armed offenders squad advice like that. 
The newspaper today states that the Prime Minister described Damien O’Connor the Minister of Corrections as being humane and compassionate because he keeps saying that he will make sure that it will not happen again. When William Duane Bell killed at the RSA Mr O’Connor said that he would make sure it would not happen again. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Minister’s decision to review the sale of Landcorp land is very welcome but significantly overdue for two key reasons and I would like to address both of them today. 
The first is that Landcorp’s record of land use is frankly disgraceful. It is contributing to the destruction of indigenous forests and to the ongoing unsustainable land use that is causing environmental havoc in our own country. Just as an example earlier this week it was revealed that Landcorp is currently facing prosecution under the Resource Management Act for clearing more than 100 hectares of native vegetation without having a resource consent. Landcorp was wanting to develop the Hakuraki Farm in the Maroroa Valley by clearing it of native grasses and manuka. In doing so Landcorp went ahead without bothering to get the resource consents it needed for the clearing from the local councils. Although the company secretary has admitted that it was a big mistake—and good on him for doing that—frankly in our view the full force of the law must be brought down on Landcorp. 
All over this country the community is going to enormous efforts to protect indigenous forests and encourage its growth. Farmers who often get a bad rap are replanting wetlands and are allowing areas of scrubland to grow precisely so that they can encourage indigenous forests on their own land. Manuka and native grasses are the beginning stages of the indigenous forest regeneration and as precious ecosystems they provide a nursery for a number of indigenous species. They need protection and not further destruction. The Resource Management Act operates to prevent landowners from such wholesale destruction on their private land and it is regularly enforced against ordinary landowners. Landcorp is no different and it should be made a very serious example of. 
The second reason is that not only is Landcorp terrible when it comes to these issues but also it has an awful record of dealing with Maori land. So this review is especially good news for those iwi who are fighting to retain their interests in Landcorp land such as those in Hauraki and those on the Rangiputa Station. I am particularly pleased about the Rangiputa Station land having discussed that claim in this forum just a few weeks ago. But although the process is being reviewed for current and future Landcorp holdings the Government must take responsibility and find a way to remedy the failure of Landcorp to protect Maori land in the past—and I am not talking about 10 20 or 50 years ago; I am talking about just 5 or 6 years ago. 
I refer here to the place known as the Blue Bay Motor Camp or Opoutama by its original and rightful Maori owners. It was a small motor camp on the shores of the Mahia Peninsula. Landcorp owned this land and was leasing it out to a private firm. It then sold that land in 2000 to Fern Holdings. Landcorp made no effort whatsoever to speak with find or consult with the Maori owners of that land—those who had a Waitangi Tribunal claim on that land those who had made sure that there was a section 27B memorial on that land to protect their interests. The hapu wrote to the then Minister Paul Swain to ask what was going on and why that land was being sold without the hapu even being told about it. His response was that consultation was necessary for Crown-owned land only and that Blue Bay or Opoutama was not owned by the Crown but by its own State-owned enterprise Landcorp and therefore there was no duty to consult. 
As a result of this unconscionable neglect by the Government for this piece of land the Blue Bay camping ground was sold to a private developer who has turned it into about 40 excessively priced condos for the wealthy. Some of the people who used this camping ground had been going there for over 30 years every year with their family. Third-generation people were using it for their own kids as well as Maori being involved with that land and being involved with that same community. The hapu and the community together fought that sale every step of the way. As a last-ditch attempt to try to retain that land the hapu established an occupation on the foreshore just in front of that land during the whole of the last election campaign in 2005. But at that time if there was one thing the Government was not doing it was listening to Maori. 
The struggle to retain that land as a community resource was so significant that it was even captured on film. I would strongly encourage all members and members of the public to see the film  
The Last Resort  
in order to understand this issue. Thank you. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We operate under legislation called the Health and Safety in Employment Act. Somebody has laid a cord across here—I do not know for what reason—and has put a carpet on top of it. The carpet here is actually presenting quite a hazard to members who could very easily trip on it and injure themselves. I ask that some remediation is made of this particular thing so that members are not put in danger. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Donnelly. I will have the Serjeant-at-Arms look at that obstacle which may be an impediment to members and may cause an accident. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I understand that the leader of the National Party and his sidekicks have been roaming around the country trying to find out information on Maori. They did not have to roam around and try to pep it up and find out; I have the facts and I can tell them about those. At the moment we have the lowest Maori unemployment rate on record. It has dropped by 68 percent since December 1999. More Maori are working fewer are unemployed and fewer are outside the labour force. The number of Maori in employment increased by 22000 between December 2005 and December 2006. Again there are more Maori in real jobs. Certainly as this great gentleman in the House is shifting the mat and moving it around that is exactly what the National Party is trying to do in terms of the great things that are happening with Maori. 
Let us have some of the facts. Earnings growth for Maori was 11.5 percent. In 2005 nearly 29000 Maori participated in industry training. Irrespective of what the floor covering looks like Maori are doing a whole lot better. More facts: Maori are participating and achieving in education and training and more are qualified. This morning I released information on Maori succeeding in tertiary education. We now have 275 Maori students doing doctoral studies. If we look back 7 to 8 years we see we barely managed a half-dozen to 10 such students. Last week I was privileged enough to be at the presentation of nearly 61 PhDs. That is the transition that is happening in Maoridom. We are growing up and we are participating in a lot better fashion. 
This morning the Maori Affairs Committee—with pushing and prodding from members from the other side of the House—heard a delivery from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Maori Affairs that cited all of these great achievements. And Tau did not show up—no show Tau. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is experienced and he knows that he cannot use just the member’s first name. He must use the full name of the member or his title. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: A person to whom I gave a lot of advice in the past when he was the Minister of Maori Affairs did not show up. As my colleague Hone Harawira who worked for me for a few years told the select committee Maori are sick of the focus on deficits. I agree with him—and I know about Hone and deficits. 
There are more facts around but I want to get back to the charade that was performed today in this House. What I saw yesterday was one of the most gutless ridiculous things with people chortling and laughing all through the discussion of the sad events that involved Graeme Burton and company. To hear the denial today was outrageous. What did Key say? He said: “I mean fundamentally Don and I share the same view …”. and that all he wanted to do was change the tone of things. That is right. There were U-turns and flip-flops on Iraq employment and housing. It goes on and on. The issue about Orewa was quite pointed. The statements on the underclass were quite pointed. Discussion of the removal of the Maori seats was more than pointed. This Government has certainly got on with it. On 1 April we will extend. We have Working for Families paid parental leave being extended to 14 weeks rates rebates for senior citizens and changes to help small to medium sized businesses. That is serious stuff.  
I am always fascinated by price takers and people who play the futures market. I am not as learned as Dr Cullen but he has certainly proved his prowess in managing the financial benches of this country. We are seeing one of the best performances in 100 years. I have learnt about people like John Key who hedge play the futures markets and are principally price takers. They prep up the market and use false assumptions and Chinese walls. They build it up and then take out the profit. That is what happening here. One National leader is making a great statement about tax cuts and the other is saying nothing.  
Paula Bennett just accelerated it. What one learns if one has been in this game long enough is that one always has to be careful of people who play the futures markets with dreams and make-believe quanta of money. Dreams are what Mr Key’s financial and tax policies are starting to become. What did Paula Bennett do today? She increased it by $1 billion. Somebody else increased it by $1.5 billion. What is the impact of that? It would be about losing hospitals good health services and good education forums—all of those great things this Government is doing. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 What does the public want from the Department of Corrections? The public wants efficiently and ethically run prisons that provide security for the public from those who are locked up. The public expects safety for those who are imprisoned and whose normal rights have been removed. The public wants to know that those in prison will be engaged in activities that will result in a level of reform by the time they are paroled and released. Above all the public wants to know that a quality of supervision will be provided through the whole period. 
The only way the public can get that is through having a responsive and responsible Minister of Corrections. How frequently are these straightforward requirements being met? We do not know and we cannot tell because we have a Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections who has zero credibility attached to his public utterances. We also have a present Minister of Corrections who has become so pliant in the hands of his chief executive that it seems he has become putty-minded to the extent of brooking no criticism of the service beyond saying that there may have been mistakes or similarly denying any acknowledgment of guilt over events that led to the scandalous and totally avoidable loss of life connected with a convicted killer Graeme Burton. 
Has it occurred to the present Minister that he is becoming complicit in the chronic failure of that which he has responsibility for? Has it occurred to the present Minister that his obdurate refusal to acknowledge fault is starting to implicate his Cabinet colleagues in the same level of complicity? Is the Minister aware that he is actually supposed to be the public representative in this calamitous issue? 
There are two aspects of this dreadful episode in the department’s history that indicate that the Minister is complicit in denial. The first is the claim by the chief executive which was crowed from the rooftops: “there’s no blood on my hands.” and which was echoed by implication by the present Minister. The second is the assertion yesterday that it was Burton who pulled the trigger. That was an assertion by Dr Cullen in an attempt to deflect criticism of the Government. 
Last night I asked a person with considerable military experience what action he would take with any commander who used the expression “There is no blood on my hands.” in connection with a disaster involving loss of life under his authority. We agreed that someone in a command position making such a remark should in itself be sufficient cause for an independent inquiry. In the case of the Department of Corrections there should be an inquiry through a select committee. Has that happened? Oh no! Weasel words—wimpish woofty weasel words—have been used instead to say that although technically and legally it was a well-managed situation it had a regrettable and tragic result. I feel myself getting very angry inside even thinking about this so I will move on to the next point. 
We were told yesterday by the present Deputy Prime Minister Dr Cullen that it was Mr Burton who pulled the trigger. It was no one else; Mr Burton did it. It is as if everyone else is exonerated. The New Zealand public will not buy it. It is a bit like saying that if a lion is released from a zoo it is the lion’s fault for biting and killing someone and not the fault of the keepers who let it out of captivity. I guess in the parlance of Labour Government - speak—that endless lexicon of louche statements designed to deflect criticism—even there it would earn only four out of 10. So it was a disappointment to hear it come from Dr Cullen. 
It is also though a recognition that the present ministerial denial will only make bad things worse. I have had sufficient corporate experience to know that denial leads to no change and no change leads to repetition. The question I am asked as I tour the West Coast - Tasman electorate is how many people have to die before someone fixes this. What needs to be done? The public is little interested in the niceties of procedure; they want action. There are three things that have to be done. The Minister has to face it acknowledge that it is a mess and stop using the glib and redundant defence of “There is always room for improvement.” The Government has to factor in a select committee inquiry to restore some ethical confidence in the service. Finally the present Minister needs to fade out of the picture so that others can pick up the responsibility and develop an improving situation. Face it factor it and fade out. Thank you. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Tabling of Documents 
Early Childhood Education 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that will show the misleading of the House today by statements from Mr Maharey and the Minister of Maori Affairs. They have made statements about things I said in the House last night. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The House is in Committee on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Before we start I remind members that this bill is constructed a little bit differently from what members are used to. Members have become accustomed to some latitude in debate on the title clause. However this latitude is limited to a bill that is drafted in parts and where the title clause is considered at the end of the debate on the parts. That is the procedure we usually have. This bill is drafted in clauses however and there has been no agreement to have a wide-ranging debate on this clause or any groups of clauses. Each clause is to be treated separately. The first clause is about the title of the bill. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I listened carefully to your comments relating to the title and I understand the point you are making. However I think it is appropriate for two or three points to be made at this stage prior to the discussion. As I am sure every member of the Committee is aware this is a significant bill and it is controversial to say the least. It is also a conscience issue and it is not whipped in the strict manner of whipping. Although there may well be some split votes and some votes cast on behalf of parties it is accepted that it is a conscience issue. It seems to me that there are two or three things that you might also want to reflect on Madam Chairperson and I intend to seek leave on one matter following your comments. 
Given that it is a conscience issue and it is controversial—and I am sure there will be significant interest in it from a good number of members—it is not unusual on conscience issues that are controversial for the Chair to be more tolerant about the number of speakers allowed. There is some precedent for that and I just wanted to comment on that at the beginning rather than have fights as we go part-way through when you accept the closure etc. Perhaps the promoter may make a comment on this I do not know but I think it would be fair and reasonable to allow some reasonable discussion rather than to have the normal limit to the time allowed. 
The second point I make is that normally these speeches are restricted to 5 minutes each. I just wonder whether the Committee might consider both the promoter and the member with the amendment of significance Chester Borrows being allowed to speak for more than just 5 minutes. Although the promoter can get a second call I wonder whether it might be appropriate to seek leave to allow the promoter to have two 5-minute speeches on end if she wishes then also for Chester Borrows to be allowed 10 minutes in response to put his amendment as we go through. 
I intend to seek leave for that to happen and following your comments on the title Madam Chairperson I also intend to seek leave in relation to the title the debate on which as you say is limited. Under the way in which the bill is structured that is true. It would seem more appropriate to consider a wider-ranging debate than normal under this clause otherwise the debate on the title is quite honestly very limited in what it allows. I wonder whether the Committee might think it appropriate to allow a reasonable debate to take place at the beginning rather than have what is set down under the Standing Orders which is that the debate is limited to what the clauses state. 
It seems to me that it might be more appropriate for a more fulsome debate to be had upfront because that is normally how we now structure debates in Committee. It makes more sense. We changed the Standing Orders to allow that to happen. I am sorry I have not had a chance to talk to anyone else about this but it seems to me to make good sense for the promoter and others to have a more wide-ranging debate at the beginning rather than narrow it down. 
So I want to seek leave on two matters and of course any member can object. First I want to seek leave that both the promoter and Mr Chester Borrows—the promoter first of course—get two 5-minute slots on end if they wish to take it. Chester Borrows would then be allowed leave for two 5-minute slots as well— 
Anne Tolley 
: What’s happening? 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is a conscience issue. 
Anne Tolley 
: It’s not a conscience issue. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I beg your pardon Madam Chairperson I am mistaken then. I apologise to the Committee and I retract everything I have said. I am sorry I thought it was a conscience issue. I had understood that this— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Can the member repeat his statement? 
JOHN CARTER 
: No thank you. I apologise Madam Chairperson and I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee. I thought it was a conscience issue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for his comments. I assure the member that there is wide-ranging debate on clauses 3 and 4. It is quite clear what the other clauses are such as the title. But there is plenty of opportunity for a wide-ranging debate on clauses 3 and 4. The member can still seek leave for anything he wants. 
John Carter 
: No no thank you. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Just before we start I want to check that we are going to debate this clause by clause. Have I got that absolutely right? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes as I said at the beginning this bill is structured in clauses which is something we are not all used to so there is a debate on clauses. But because it is on clauses people must be relevant to the clause. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to raise a bit of a concern given your explanation about clauses 1 and 2 that there is a limited debate in regard to them. Perhaps you could clarify the reason for that for me. To me the title is important and the commencement date is important. These are issues on which the Committee should be allowed to determine the outcome of the debate in regard to those two clauses. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I clarify for the member that it is not a limited debate but debate on clause 1 is limited to the relevance of the matter of the title and that applies to about three or four clauses in this bill. Clause 1 is just a clause and the debate is limited to the relevance of the debate on the title; members can speak about the title in debate on the first clause. Then as I said debate on clauses 3 and 4 is wide ranging. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I appreciate that and I think it can be said of every clause that it must be relevant. The debate must be relevant. There is no question about that—that can be applicable to clause 1 to clause 2 and right through however many clauses we have. That is the point I am making. Why should we point out clauses 1 and 2 when in fact the question of relevancy in debate applies to all clauses? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As I started to say this bill is structured differently from most bills. Usually debate on the title clause is now used at the end of a bill as a wrap-up speech and it tends to be wide ranging. I think that is what a lot of people assume and it is the only reason I reminded people at the beginning that this bill was structured differently. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Perhaps you could clarify for me why this particular bill is different from every other bill in that regard because I do not quite understand what you are actually saying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As I said at the beginning these are clauses not parts—OK? 
Clause 1 Title 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I should like to briefly start this debate on the title clause by explaining the reason for the change of name as recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee. The earlier title of the bill the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill indicated my original purpose in putting this bill forward—that is to completely get rid of the statutory defence of reasonable force for parents who use force against their children for the purpose of correction. However during the course of the select committee process as many members will be aware by now some of those on the committee felt that rather than simply abolishing the defence of reasonable force we should substitute a new clause amending the principal Act instead. This is the new clause 4 which we will be debating in more detail shortly. 
But just to summarise new section 59 in the new clause amends rather than abolishes the reasonable force defence. Entitled “Parental control” the change aims to clarify and reassure parents that should this bill go through they will stop having a reasonable force defence if they for example stop a child from coming to harm or from engaging in criminal conduct prevent a child from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour or if they are carrying out a normal task of parenting like pulling a sweater over the head of a struggling toddler. 
The new provision also makes it very clear however that the retention of a reasonable force defence for these purposes does not mean that parents will still be able to use it as a defence if they use force for the purposes of correction— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but she needs to come back to the title. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I am Madam Chairperson. Because we have introduced a new clause 4 it has therefore subsequently been necessary to amend the title of the bill because it is no longer a simple amending bill. Now is not the time to debate the pros and cons of the new amendment to the original draft—we can do that later on—but I thought it would be useful to state why the change has been made. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title of this bill—the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I suggest that the bill’s name should be changed to the “Crimes (Anti-smacking) Amendment Bill”. The reason for that is that this is in fact the “Anti-smacking Bill”. 
We have had months and months of debate about what is actually in this bill and consequently what should be the title of the bill. The bill is first and foremost an anti-smacking bill. It does not for instance outlaw somebody from attacking their child and beating them around the head with a stick because that is already outlawed. It is already a crime under the Crimes Act; to say otherwise is simply not to tell the truth. This is an anti-smacking bill. It is designed to prevent any good parent saying to his or her child: “I’ll give you a smack if you keep doing that.” That is the sort of threat that works for most children and most parents. That is what the bill is designed to do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Could the member please come back to the title. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The title does not reflect the true nature of this bill and I think that it is very important to look at why it does not. The bill does not deal just with force as a justification for child discipline. The reason is that at the moment should one as a parent attack one’s child beat him or her to a pulp and say: “I did that because I wanted to use child discipline and now I want to rely on section 59” that protection is not afforded to the parent—nor should it be. We have discussed previously in the media and elsewhere why this bill is called the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill and not what it should be called—the “Anti-smacking Bill”—because that is what parents understand it as and that is exactly what it is. When we look at that title we see that it is important we change it so that we call the bill what it is. When we give it a nice big long name that nobody is ever going to remember we hide behind the title and refuse to call the bill what it is. This is the “Anti-smacking Bill”. 
It is a bill that could equally be called the “State Knows Best and Parents are Simply There to Do as They are Told Bill”. It could well be called that because that again reflects the fact that parents—including the 83 percent of parents who say they have smacked their child—under this bill are going to be treated as criminals should they do that or even threaten to do that. As the member Sue Bradford should know even to threaten assault is actually held to be assault under the Crimes Act. If members do not know that then they have no right to be here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has had two warnings. She is going away from the title. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: When we call the bill the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill we put in place within the minds of the public a title that does not adequately reflect just how serious this bill is and what it does to families. The title of this bill as I have said should focus on the fact that it is about anti-smacking and about removing the rights of parents. It is a title that should look at the role of the State in the home. The title at the moment does nothing like that. What it does is hide the fact that this bill concerns a home invasion for many people. It gives people a right to say: “I can tell you what you do in your home. I can be in charge of you in your home because you as a parent have no greater right than a school teacher over your child.” We have seen where this sort of abuse can happen. We have seen it with Child Youth and Family and we have seen it with other agencies. That is one of the reasons I believe that this is a badly titled bill. The title has no relevance to what is actually in the bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak in support of the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. It is an appropriate name for the bill. It is a common-sense name. It is not a repeal; it is an amendment—and I acknowledge at this time the assistance of the Law Commission—that acknowledges the concerns raised by some people who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee heard almost 200 submissions. There was a concern that people would be criminalised for caring for their children—a concern that the previous speaker Judith Collins and other people were prone to promote out in the community. 
So I speak very strongly in favour of the title of the bill. I feel it is very appropriate. The “Anti-smacking Bill” would not be appropriate; it is not a title that describes what the bill is about. Yes there are concerns out there because that member Judith Collins has gone out saying that that is what the bill is about. That is not what it is about. It amends the principal Act and it amends it in a very meaningful common-sense way that gives assurance to good parents and protection to children. In that case I am very proud to stand as chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee and support the majority report and the amendment to the title of the bill. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in respect of the title of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I note that the returned bill from the Justice and Electoral Committee suggested it be entitled the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. 
The reflection of the initial title that the bill was given indicates the hodgepodge of ideas that went into the creation of this bill. The insertion of a substituted section 59 may be one that fairly directs or reflects where the bill is now in the mind of its proponent Sue Bradford but it does not reflect where her mind was at the time that the bill was constructed nor where the minds are of those who are supporting it. I believe it is important that the title of a bill reflects not only what the bill will achieve but also the motivation behind the bringing of the bill. 
In the course of the debates and the discussions on this bill we have heard a number of things about it and what it intends to do. We have already heard from my colleague Judith Collins that it should be relabelled the “Anti-smacking Bill” because that is what people know it as. For the point of certainty and clarity when the public go looking for this bill they will be looking for the words “Anti-smacking Bill” within the title. 
This bill will affect only those parents who want to smack their children occasionally or feel the need to smack their children occasionally because of their experience and because of the way that they have opted to rear their children. The problem is that the discussion has been skewed around whether smacking is good and whether smacking works. It has been skewed around whether good parents smack their children or do not smack their children. The fact is that it will affect only good parents who smack their children. 
It has also been said that it will send a message. So maybe the suggestion is that it should be entitled the “Send a Message Bill” but one must ask who it is going to send the message to. If this bill is directed at combating child abuse then it seeks to send a message to people who abuse their children. It is accepted by proponents of the bill that in actual fact this bill will not save one life and it will not save one child from being abused and beaten because those people who commit those acts are currently living outside the law. And what do you know? Those people are not going to read the newspapers and they sure as eggs will not be listening to this debate. 
Maybe it should be called the “Send a Message on Behalf of Those Who Want to Brand Their Party Bill”. We have heard from a number of members within the House that this bill is going to send a message; for instance that the Maori Party stands against child abuse. Well it is not about political branding; this is about children and their parents. This is about—in the best interests of children—protecting parents from the possibility of being prosecuted for smacking their children. It is nothing more than that. One cannot skew it one way or another. 
Although the debate has been taken off to other places and the suggestion has been made that parents want to beat their children—that they want to continue to assault their children—one continually finds that that is where the public debate has gone. It has gone right away from the actual wording of this bill. I believe that for certainty for clarity and for just plain honesty the bill should be named the “Anti-smacking Bill” because it is the parents who choose to smack who will be the most affected by this legislation—and everybody knows that their children were never in danger. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill I presume there is the opportunity to refer to one or two of the alternative titles put forward. I would like to talk to the previous title the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I actually preferred that earlier title. People have suggested the bill should be called the “Anti-smacking Bill”. 
I want to make this point—it was suggested by Judith Collins who is a lawyer; she knows the law—and that is to ask where in the Crimes Act it is actually stated that parents or people acting in the place of parents have the right to smack their children. It is not actually stated. There is nothing in the law to state that parents have a right to smack their children. In fact with the way the law is set up parents do not have a right to physically remove their children to the naughty mat either—as Mr Copeland referred to. In fact those actions are under the existing law an assault. But there is a defence within the law that talks about reasonable force by way of correction. 
Reasonable force is a public standard and there is nothing within the current law that may in the future prevent someone from being prosecuted for smacking his or her child and a jury saying that that is unreasonable force. Therefore to suggest that this bill should be named the “Anti-smacking Bill” is totally and utterly illogical. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I want to raise the issue that colleagues have talked about—that is the importance of people understanding what this bill the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is about. I think its old title the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill was very relevant. Most people understand from the words in that title that this legislation is about removing the right of parents to smack their children. It is the more appropriate title because it is relevant to most New Zealanders’ understanding of what this legislation is about. 
Not many people understand what section 59 of the Crimes Act is about. I think that if we quoted section 59 of the Crimes Act to them most would not know what the heck we were on about. So it is ridiculous to have in the bill’s title a technical term relating to the Crimes Act. As far as I am concerned the question of the title should be relevant as Madam Chairperson talked about the relevancy of our debate in terms of limiting what we say to the title. The title should also be relevant to most people’s understanding of the bill. 
As I think Judith Collins has already said this bill has been debated up and down this country for goodness knows how many months and we know that about 80 percent—perhaps more—of parents and people in the wider New Zealand electorate oppose this bill. For them the relevancy is about making good parents face possible criminal charges. Perhaps we should name the bill the “Possible Criminal Charges for Parents Bill”. Maybe that is a more relevant title for us to discuss. We are not talking only about smacking anyway. Maybe we should be extending it from just anti-smacking and looking at other ways in which children are disciplined. Smacking is not the only way that children are disciplined. I am sure that over the years parents have used other methods to discipline their children. 
I think Brian Donnelly made a point when he talked about using reasonable force as a defence but he said that there is no clear wording that gives parents the right to hit their children. I accept that but what is clear in the legislation is the fact that for many years parents have had the right to use reasonable force. That is another issue that perhaps needs to be considered in the title. It is along the lines of the sort of amendment Mr Borrows has talked about—that is the definition of what reasonable force is. That is relevant in terms of considering the title as well. 
I think that the Chair has made a very important point about relevancy and this debate generally is focusing on the title. But I do not think that the title the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill actually fits the legislation. It nowhere near defines or explains most people’s understanding of what the bill does. Therefore I have great objection to the title. It should be changed so that it is relevant to the understanding of most people. 
The issue of the title is important in other ways in the sense that we have many diverse communities in New Zealand. The debate has included maybe in submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee the attitudes that different ethnicities have to discipline. We have a Christian perspective on discipline which everybody knows comes from the good book and we have the Pacific and Maori perspectives on discipline. The diversity of cultures within New Zealand means that there are different understandings of what discipline and of what relevant discipline those cultures should use in the raising of their children. 
I think it is important that we debate—and understand from the wording of the title—the relevancy of raising children. It is a God-given right that parents have to raise their children to know what is right and wrong and it is the right of parents to correct them. That is the responsibility of parents not the responsibility of some policeman who because of hearsay comes into the homes of families and starts interfering in the way parents should discipline their children. To me that is also a relevancy in relation to how we address the title of this bill. I think that all those issues need to be considered and considered in a way that the title should represent all of those issues that are before the New Zealand public. 
So Madam Chairperson you are right: the title is important. The title of this bill bears no resemblance to the content of the legislation and it is not relevant to people’s understanding of it. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make just a short contribution at this stage. I rise initially to say that I support the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I think it explains very clearly what the member who is promoting this bill Sue Bradford is trying to achieve—not on behalf of herself but on behalf of children in New Zealand society. 
The bill could have been named many things. One of the titles could have been the “Reduction in Domestic Violence in New Zealand Bill” because that describes what is quite likely to occur when this new legislation—I hope sincerely—is passed into law. I most certainly will be voting in favour of it. Organisations that work in the area of reducing domestic violence have stated that the passing of this amendment bill will work towards reducing domestic violence in New Zealand. I am sure that the member who has just resumed his seat Taito Phillip Field will support me in saying that we all want to see a reduction of domestic violence and violence of any sort in New Zealand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the title. All members are getting too general. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Absolutely. This bill is far-reaching in its aims. The title is very clear about what the bill wants to achieve. What perhaps has been lost sight of to a degree during the whole debate that has ensued over recent months is that violence against a child is a crime. A child who witnesses violence in the home is being exposed to a crime. This is a good title and I am pleased to speak in support of it. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 When I first decided to take part in this debate—and I know how limited this particular debate is in that it is on the title clause only—I sat down and tried to ask myself what an appropriate title would be so that people in years to come when looking up this bill would know what it was. I thought something like the “Elimination of Violence Against Our Children Bill” would be a good title. Then I suddenly realised no that is not what this bill is about. If it were about the elimination of violence against our children not a member in this Chamber would not be voting for it. It would not even be debated; it would go through unanimously. There is not a member in this Parliament who does not want to take action against people who beat their kids with weapons and implements who leave marks and welts and who draw blood and so on. 
So then I thought that it was more of a send-a-message bill to people out there—a bill about how to look after their kids and how to teach those kids right and wrong. But calling it the “Send a Message to People About How to Look After Their Kids Bill” would not be a good title because the problem with calling it that is that it would go to the wrong people. By far the people who are doing the shocking bashing and some of the dreadful stuff we have seen—and family names like Delcelia Witika the Kahui twins and others will roll off the tongue—will not even know that this bill is being passed and if they do they will not care. If members in this Chamber think that passing this bill will deal with those serious high-end offenders we all want to get to they are dreaming. 
So I thought it might be more appropriate to get to what the bill really is about—that is the “Making Good Parents Criminal While Not Addressing the Actual Issues Bill”. That is what it is—that is what it is saying to good parents who are trying to teach their kids what boundaries are acceptable—what right and wrong mean. I am happy to say that I have brought up three kids. Luckily they did not inherit my genes because they are all adopted but I am happy to say that those three kids had to learn some boundaries. And they tested and they tried out me and my wife about those boundaries: “Go on make my day. I can take it a bit further to see how you go.” I am happy to say they got a smack. It was not a hard smack; it did not make any marks leave any welts or draw any blood but it actually started to put a boundary in place. So I thought maybe that the elimination of violence was not the right idea and that the “Making Good Parents Criminal While Not Addressing the Actual Issues Bill” would be a good title. 
Then I went on to think that no it is actually a bigger issue than just that. A good title for this bill would be the “Nanny State Knows Best Bill”. That would be a brilliant title for this bill because we are saying that to good parents up and down the country—and let us get it clear: very very few parents beat their kids. Most parents give their kids a smack on the bum to say: “Hey that was wrong and you know it.” Most of them give a warning. I have never smacked my kids in anger; I have never done it to hurt them or do anything other than just teach them what is a boundary that it is not acceptable to cross. 
I have to say that a number of members taking part in this debate have never had kids—and that is on both sides of the Chamber—but they really should have three of them dropped off at their houses for a week so that the little monsters can really show them what is good and bad about how good they are at trying parents. 
So then I thought no the “The Nanny State Knows Best Bill” does not encompass enough so I think I will narrow it down. I thought a good title would be something like the “MPs (Some of Whom Have Never Had Kids) Know Better Than Good Parents How to Care for Kids Bill”. That is what this bill is about. Members of Parliament in this Chamber many of whom have never done the toughest job there is know that it is the job that people get no training for in life. It is the hardest job the worst-paid— 
Jacqui Dean 
: The best job. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —but the job with the best rewards if we do it right. That is what this title should be. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The only person on the committee who had not had children to my knowledge was Christopher Finlayson— 
Phil Heatley 
: That’s not a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member will withdraw and apologise. He knows there will be silence during points of order—OK? The member knows that very well. 
Phil Heatley 
: I sincerely withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. That is a warning to everyone; when a member raises a point of order—and I rule that that was not a point of order; but that is irrelevant until it is heard and I have dealt with it—there will be silence. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: So that was the next thing I thought—and I meant all members in this Chamber from all sides—the “MPs (Some of Whom Have Never Had Kids) Know Better Than Good Parents How to Care for Kids Bill”. Then I thought no—actually that is just trying to be too provocative. Let us go for what it really is about: the “Removal of Learning What Boundaries Are for Children Bill”. That is what this bill will do. 
I will be the first to help arrest any parents who beat their kids. I will be the first to actually go with the police to arrest someone who uses an implement—a spoon a bat a whip or anything else—but I will also be the very first to defend the right of good parents to be able to teach some little monsters who can grow up badly if they are not taught boundaries what is right and what is wrong. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I will make just two simple points in relation to the title of this bill. The first one is that the title reads that this is the “Crimes”—I will leave out the bit in brackets—“Amendment Bill”. It is vitally important at the beginning of this debate tonight to remind the Committee that this legislation is an amendment to the Crimes Act. We are not here writing a good parenting manual. Therefore I support the reference in the title to the Crimes Act. 
It is vitally important that we understand that in this legislation we are changing the criminal law of New Zealand. We are changing the criminal law of New Zealand to bring into the orbit of assault under the Crimes Act for the first time actions such as light smacking and taking children to time out. Those are the things we are changing about the criminal law in New Zealand. That is very important because if we forget we are amending the Crimes Act we can forget that that Act involves the police and very serious penalties for people who break the law under that Act. This is not the Summary Offences Act this is not the “Do-Gooders Act” and this is not the “Let Us Send a Message to Violent Families Act”; this is the Crimes Act. This is not about sending some sort of hypothetical message to some hypothetical recipient; it is about crime—crime in New Zealand. That is my first point. 
The second point is that I think the Justice and Electoral Committee has erred gravely in dropping the original name of this bill and I am surprised that the member in charge Sue Bradford has actually allowed the committee to do that. The original name of the bill was the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. If we look at the purpose clause which we will discuss separately we see that the bill’s purpose is the abolition of the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. So in my opinion the more accurate title would be the “Crimes (Abolition of the Use of Parental Force for the Purpose of Correction) Amendment Bill”. That title would be consistent with the purpose of the bill. To say that the bill is just a substitution of section 59 of the Crimes Act is most unhelpful. It does not tell anybody what the heck this bill is about. 
I have received emails today and one said: “I want to draw your attention Mr Copeland to section 58.” I have not read section 58 incidentally but a lot of people are just using the section as some sort of code and we assume that people automatically in some magical way will know that section 59 means a section of the Crimes Act. It means that we are establishing new criminal offences for the first time in New Zealand’s history through this bill tonight and that those criminal offences for the first time in relation to parental force are for the purpose of correction. That point should therefore come through in the name of the bill. Otherwise we will start the debate on the wrong foot. My main purpose now though is to remind all members in their speeches tonight to recognise and appreciate that through this bill we are changing the criminal law of New Zealand. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to bring members’ attention to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill before them. The original title of the bill contained the words “Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline”. I think the member Sue Bradford must have got the words “Force as a Justification for Child Discipline” mixed up when she first put the title on the bill; child discipline as a justification for force is really what Sue Bradford is fighting. In other words “I beat the buggers. I got a whip and I thrashed them. I got a piece of four-by-two and I conked them on the head. And my justification is child discipline.” I think that is what she originally meant—and she might like to correct me—when she first introduced the bill. Rather than force as a justification for child discipline she meant child discipline as a justification for force—and wrongful force at that. 
Who in this House who in the gallery and who in New Zealand would think that beating children in the ways I have described and persecuting them so much and bringing them so much harm and pain could ever be justified as just disciplining a child. No one who is voting against this bill tonight as I will be doing thinks that using force in such a way can ever be justified by people simply disciplining their children and saying that they want their children to grow up just like them and to be wonderful people—as if it ever could. 
I am attracted to Chester Borrows’ suggestion that the title should be the “Send a Message Bill”. It should be the “Send a Message Bill No 3”. As a dad of three children I can tell members that my children have already been sent two messages in the last few years from this Parliament. One is that prostitution is OK. That is the “Send a Message Bill No 1”. It is OK for my daughters to sell their bodies for sex—to get cash and to give sex. It is OK for my two little girls to do that when they grow up. That is the first message they have been sent. 
The Green Party and Nandor Tanczos would like to send the “Send a Message Bill No 2” to kids—to Phil Heatley’s kids—that it is OK to smoke dope. It is not OK to smoke cigarettes but here it says in the “Send a Message Bill No 2” that it is OK for those three kids to smoke dope. 
This is the “Send a Message Bill No 3” and what is intriguing about that is that although Parliament through voting for all those other things seeks to undermine my family by saying it is OK for my girls to sell their bodies for sex and it is OK for my girls and my boy to smoke dope it removes all the tools parents use to try to prevent that stuff. 
Does it spend any money on parenting courses? Does it spend any money at all for groups and counsellors to go across the country to give parents the tools to help raise kids in difficult circumstances? I am not talking about healthy families like mine where my wife loves being a full-time mum and has the best and most important job in the world I love being a dad and we love our kids. I am talking about really struggling families—those with solo mums or those holding down a job— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to come back to the title. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: But this “Sending a Message Bill” simply is that. This Government and the member sponsoring it want to undermine me as a father in all those other areas and to take away the tools that will help me protect my children. This is another “Burden the Majority to Fix the Minority Bill”. The Government will help the prostitutes. It will send a message to every family in New Zealand that prostitution is OK. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank you Madam Chairperson for the opportunity to speak on the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. If ever anything is important about this bill it is that we want clarity in terms of every aspect of it including the title. That indeed is one of the reasons I will be supporting Chester Borrows’ amendment later on. But to come to the title the bill originally stood as the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill and that was pretty clear as to what this legislation is about. I am deeply concerned when I see that the proposers and supporters of this bill want to change the title to what seems almost a euphemism and that is to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Because even this morning one of my local editors rang me and asked me what section 59 was. That in itself demonstrates the confusion that those out there in the constituencies are experiencing over this bill. That is why it is important to have clarity or as much as possible with every aspect of it including the title. 
One of the areas that has caused considerable confusion has been the fact that New Zealand has been a signatory to ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Even the debate on that has caused tremendous confusion like this title. Might I say that although it was under a National Government in 1993 that New Zealand along with another 131 countries ratified that convention the Parliamentary Library has provided us with evidence just on 8 March that New Zealand ratified the United Nations convention but reserved the right to interpret and apply the convention as it considered appropriate. New Zealand’s initial report to the UN therefore stated that parents had the right to smack their children for the purpose of correction but the use of unreasonable force against a child was a criminal offence. 
So in going back to the title that is why I am so deeply concerned that here we have a change from an explicit interpretation of what this bill is about to one of a euphemism which will only cause more confusion to those out there. 
When I talked to my local editor in Port Waikato about the interpretations of this bill supplied by Mr McKenzie QC and Sir Geoffrey Palmer again he was totally confused. On the one hand we have an opinion from a highly eminent barrister suggesting that when children were taken to the “naughty mat” by their parents those parents could be wrongfully criminalised and on the other hand Sir Geoffrey Palmer from the Law Commission stated that that would not be the case. 
So therefore when we get back to this title if we look at every aspect of this bill it is hugely important that we do indeed seek clarity at every possible turn we can. 
The other thing that has been suggested by the proponents of this bill is that it sends a message against child abuse. As my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson pointed out this bill and this title may in some respects be huge distractions from the huge tasks that we in New Zealand really have to undertake if we are to reduce the horrific OECD statistics that we hear about New Zealand on a daily basis. So when we talk about the title of this bill it is very important that we have clarity within it and it is quite inappropriate that it be amended as suggested. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of ACT to speak to the title of this bill. Like those who have spoken before me I agree that the current title Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill does not cut the mustard is very confusing and in fact does not tell anybody what the bill is about at all. I commend my colleague Gordon Copeland for his speech on the title. He was absolutely right that we should acknowledge that this is an amendment to the Crimes Act—so it is entirely appropriate that that stay in the title—but the portion in brackets is the bit that is hotly contested. “Substituted Section 59” tells us not one thing about what this bill stands for and not one thing about what this bill will actually do or achieve or about what its intent is. 
The member responsible for the bill Sue Bradford began her speech by saying that her intention had changed and that the change was best reflected in the current title. But if we or Television New Zealand or TV3 went outside this Chamber at this very moment and interviewed half a dozen people along Lambton Quay or anywhere in this country and asked them what section 59 meant to them most people would have absolutely no idea. Some people will have paid a great deal of attention because of the publicity this matter has caused but if we went out 3 months hence and asked ordinary New Zealanders what section 59 was they would have absolutely no idea. 
There has been a large number of suggestions for a title many of them very good and certainly a much better reflection of what this bill is about than “Substituted Section 59”. We have had the “Anti-smacking Bill” the “Removing the Right of Parents to Smack Their Children Bill” the “Send a Message Bill” and the “Nanny State Knows Best Bill”. They are absolutely right—each and every one of those titles is a much better description. I had jotted down in the same vein that the title should perhaps be the “Crimes (We Know Best How to Discipline Your Children) Amendment Bill” or the “Crimes (Limit Parent’s Right to Discipline Their Children) Amendment Bill”. Certainly those titles would be a much better reflection of what this bill is about and what the intention is. 
This bill as Mr Gordon Copeland pointed out is about crimes. It is about criminal activity. It is about breaking the law. We should be very mindful of that when we are voting tonight and are considering Chester Borrows’ amendments which ACT will support. 
Nathan Guy 
: Very good amendments. 
HEATHER ROY 
: They are very good amendments indeed. In fact we must be mindful of the fact that we are talking about criminal activity and whether parents should and will be prosecuted for the type of disciplining that occurs in the home. 
As the sponsor of the bill has said the intention of the bill is to give a message against child abuse and against the terrible violence that some children are subject to. I am afraid that this bill sadly fails in this respect and the reference in the title sadly fails in the respect that it is thought any attention might be paid to the bill. Those people who are already doing these things—abusing children and creating terrible violence against them—will pay no attention to this bill at all regardless of whether it is called the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Not only do they not know what this bill means but they do not care what it means. 
That is a pertinent message for those of us sitting here in this Chamber tonight who are about to tell parents how they should discipline their children what is acceptable within the eyes of the law and what is not. It brings no solace to any loving parent who wants to discipline his or her children in a way where they will be taught the difference between right and wrong. No matter what techniques they might use they will not be reassured by this title or even by this debate on the title. 
So ACT will oppose this title. We certainly oppose the change. I agree with other members who said that it would have been best for the sponsor to plug for the retention of the original name. Certainly at least that title told us a bit about what this bill is about rather than “Substituted Section 59” which says nothing to anybody in this country. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to take a call on the bill and to speak in particular on the appropriateness of the name. Other speakers have said that this legislation could have all sorts of other names. Well I am supportive of the current name but I agree that there are other ways the bill could be described. 
It could equally be described as the “Crimes (Giving Children the Same Protection from Assaults as Adults) Bill”. It could equally be fairly described as the “Providing Reassurance to Parents by Providing Protection in Situations of Restraint for Purposes of Keeping a Child or Other Person Safe Bill”. It could be equally ably described as the “All Use of Force to Punish a Child will be Illegal and This is Clear to Parents Bill”. 
It could be described as the “Making a Smack Equally Unlawful Along With Other Harsh Punishments of a Child Bill”. It could be called the “Sending a Very Clear Public Message that Violence Against Children is Unacceptable Bill”. It could be called the “Making Legislation Consistent With the SKIP Initiative and Other Positive Parenting Initiatives Bill”. It could be called the “Making it Clear that Private Schools Cannot Get Parents to Physically Punish their Children for the School as Currently Happens Bill”. It could be called the “Making it Clear that it is Illegal to Hit Children Anywhere on their Bodies Bill”. 
It could be called the “Making New Zealand’s Legislation Consistent with International Human Rights Obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Bill”; that would be an equally apt name for this legislation. It could be called the “Making New Zealand’s Crime Laws Consistent with the Children Young Persons and their Families Act the Domestic Violence Act and the Care of Children Act Bill”. It could be called any of those names because they describe what the bill does. I support the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I want to put the case very strongly that this is a crimes bill. I have become very concerned about the debate by the proponents of this bill such as Sue Bradford and Helen Clark that it is somehow all about writing some sort of parenting manual and sending a signal. No it is not. It is about determining in this country what is a crime—what is a criminal offence. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: No it’s not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Who has piped up? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Smacking is a crime already. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member who was thrown out by the people of Napier has piped up. He wants to pretend that somehow this is not a crimes bill. Well I say to this Parliament that we should do the job we are here to do which is to provide clear guidance to the courts and the police about what is a crime and what is not. 
I remember this Parliament throwing the Treaty of Waitangi into a whole lot of laws. We said it was because we wanted to feel good. We wanted to recognise a historic document. 
Jill Pettis 
: His name was Jim Bolger. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No actually it started in 1987. A whole lot of Parliaments passed laws to put the Treaty of Waitangi into legislation without the blindest idea as to what it would do. Now there is general consensus across this Parliament that that was an error—that that was one of those symbolic stupid things we do that gets us in trouble with the courts. We are now in fact not putting it into laws. 
I come back to this bill and say that this is not about writing a good-parenting manual. This is not about trying to give a signal to those who beat and bash their kids. This is about this Parliament providing clear law for the courts about what society thinks is a crime and what it thinks is not. So this bill should be a Crimes Amendment Bill. 
I am one of those who is backing Chester Borrows because I think he has done the job that Parliament should be doing which is to provide a clear line in the law between what is criminal conduct and should be punished by the courts and what should be left to the discretion of families to do. 
Jill Pettis 
: It’s not clear in the current law. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Jill Pettis says that it is not clear in the current law. Well I think there have been some bad examples. I think there have been some cases where parents should have been prosecuted under the existing section 59 because they went over the line of that which is socially acceptable. 
But the problem with this bill and Sue Bradford’s and Helen Clark’s advocacy is that it goes to the other extreme. As we have seen from the legal opinions from the likes of Peter McKenzie we are going to make criminals out of parents who give their child a tap on the bum and that is wrong. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s wrong. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite says that is wrong. I want to know why we have an opinion from an eminent Queen’s Counsel like Peter McKenzie backed up by the Law Commission that says if we pass this bill in this form then we will make criminals of parents like me who give their kids time out. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They say “Rubbish!”. Well I have a 5-year-old boy and sadly he has too many of my genes. He can sometimes be very stroppy. I have picked him up kicking and screaming and given him time out in one of the rooms in our home. I think it is wrong that we will make criminals of parents who do that sort of thing. 
I have listened to those who advocate for the bill. They do not want to engage in the debate about what should be in the law. They simply say: “Oh there are too many kids dying in New Zealand from abuse”—and there are—“so let’s send a signal.” I say that is the wrong approach. We should be writing accurate law and again I urge parliamentarians to back the sensible law that an ex-cop and qualified lawyer Chester Borrows will give to this House. 
This bill in the form that Sue Bradford and Helen Clark are backing is another chapter of social engineering from this Labour Government. Those members think they know better than parents and I say that is the wrong approach to this important area of law. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a call as well on the title of this bill. I can sympathise with the point that my colleague Nick Smith made—that this is a crimes bill. But I am not sure that that is what we would like it to be because we do not want to make parents into criminals. My view is that this bill could better be called the “Parental Limitation Bill” because it imposes limitations on good parents. 
Speakers have said that this bill is to protect the vulnerable. This bill does not protect the vulnerable. The first point is that it will have no effect whatsoever on those people who abuse their children. Those people ignore the law in many fields and they will again ignore any law on the statute book that says they should not abuse children. They abuse children for a whole lot of reasons not because a law is or is not on the statute book. 
Secondly this bill does not protect the vulnerable. If this House was seriously concerned about the vulnerable and wanted to protect them it would do that. Where is the most vulnerable place for children today? It is in the womb. We murder 17000 a year and if the proponent of this bill was at all serious about the vulnerable she would be doing something about that rather than doing something about the odd smack that a parent might give. 
I say that this bill is an absolute nonsense. It could also be called the “State Control of Parenting and Children-raising Bill” because in effect that is what it does. It takes away the rights of parents and imposes State control over them. 
Those listening may think I was some kind of brutal parent. I have four children and have raised a few foster children at various times as well. I can recall three occasions when I spanked. Those children were brought up on a farm where there were a number of hazards. On each of those occasions the spanking was for disobedience where their safety was involved. With only one parent around to supervise five or six children there had to be some rules and the children had to know that if they crossed those lines and their life was in peril then there would be a very very clear message. I can recall only three such occasions but I do not know whether my children can recall other instances. 
We are deluding ourselves if we think amending the Crimes Act will save and protect the vulnerable. In absolutely no way whatsoever will the vulnerable be protected by this bill. This is about State control. This is about reducing parents to automatons out there who do what the State says about their responsibilities as a parent. For a few thousand years we have relied on parents and on empowering them to do the job. Right now empowering parents does not mean reducing their options. If we seriously want to improve parenthood then we should be providing more options not limiting options that are there. 
Let me stress that no one I know in this Chamber or out of this Chamber wants to see children abused. There is a very clear line between abuse and parenting using reasonable force—a very very clear line. I say that the Committee must take very clear notice of the number of emails calls telephone calls polls etc. that say this bill is a nonsense. It is not just one or two people speaking on this side of the Chamber who say that. This bill under the title of Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is deluding New Zealanders if they think this amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act will reduce abuse of the vulnerable. 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We have two amendments. The first amendment is in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson. I rule it out of order as it is not a serious title amendment. The second amendment is in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to replace the title with Crimes (Making Good Parents Into Criminals) Amendment Bill. That is also ruled out of order. The question now is that clause 1 stand part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 5 (Brown Mark Paraone Peters Stewart); United Future 2 (Copeland Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I just remind members who have cast a split vote that they need to give the split vote to the Table. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 In the last Parliament and to a lesser extent in this term United Future like all other parties was inundated with lobbying from thousands of people who were advocating for binding citizens initiated referenda. People felt disenfranchised by the fact that legislation that was often unsignalled in party manifestos but on which they had strong opinions and on which they felt their opinion was mainstream was passing through this Parliament against the tide of public opinion by the slimmest of majorities. That was of concern. 
In response to this United Future decided on a series of policy positions on citizens initiated referenda and on the Government’s response to referenda. In particular we developed a policy to address what appeared to be the issue of greatest concern—that bills that were voted on largely as a conscience issue and were of high public interest were often passed by tiny majorities. In fact in the last Parliament one such bill passed by one abstention. 
We plan to move similar amendments to any bill that is largely decided by conscience vote. Although we do not support the purists’ view of binding citizens initiated referenda we do believe that a strong case can be made for this Parliament if it believes that it truly represents the New Zealand public to allow for binding referenda on issues that receive questionable support in Parliament. We have set a 60 percent benchmark to protect the integrity of the process so that decisions can be binding only when voter turnout and voter support are equally clear. 
This issue of amending section 59 is a classic example of a large number of voters having serious concerns about the potential outcomes from a bill. Unlike with many other conscience votes recorded in the last 4 years this bill has seen a huge outcry because people believe themselves to be personally implicated in its intentions. Yet their ability to register a vote is not catered for. United Future’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 95 would push out the commencement date to the date of the next election when a referendum could be held if—and only if—this bill passed its third reading with less than a 60 percent majority. 
So I call on those in this Committee who do believe that this bill is seriously out of step with public opinion to give the public the chance to have their say if we elected representatives cannot make a substantial and clear-cut call on this issue. I also call on those who support this bill to consider supporting the Supplementary Order Paper on the basis that although they are constrained in this Chamber by their own conscience they are willing to let those most directly implicated have their say if we fail to deliver a decisive outcome. 
I believe that it is fitting in a democratic society that those privileged to enter the House of Representatives should see their role as one where they promote the ability of citizens to better engage in the democratic process where practicable. The amendment in my name allows for the consideration of the section 59 issue by the public in general at a general election. We understand the expense of running a referendum and we think that a general election when we are already taking people to the polls is an ideal time for people to give their views on a range of issues that impact on their lives and on which often there are not fixed party positions. We think this is an ideal situation. If Parliament chooses to put a proposal before its members and then cannot give a clear and distinct position as a Parliament on that proposal it would be wise and fair that the general public most affected by it get a chance to have a say. 
We set the threshold at 60 percent because we felt that it was quite possible—as has been proven historically on these types of votes—for us to creep over the 50 percent line yet for the public at large to feel genuinely dissatisfied with the outcome and to feel that if they had been asked they could have delivered quite a substantially different outcome. 
So that is why United Future is putting up this amendment to this bill. It is not a particular tactic to try to stall or delay this bill; it is something we are now going to employ with all bills that are voted on by way of conscience. It is our party policy. We would really like the Committee to consider this proposal understanding that it would kick in only if the third reading of this bill passed with a very slim majority. We see that that would be an ideal time to allow the public of New Zealand seeing that they are the most affected by the outcome of this bill to have their say. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take just a quick call to explain why the Green Party will not be supporting Judy Turner’s amendment to clause 2. We believe that trying to put in a clause asking for a referendum as part of a bill undermines the parliamentary process and the sovereignty of Parliament. Members have a job to do. Whatever political background we come from and whatever party we are from we were elected to represent our party and to represent the voters who voted for us at the last election. At times that can be difficult. On really intense issues such as this it can get very difficult. But this is the place where we work these things out and we have to have the courage of our convictions on these difficult issues; it does not matter where we are coming from on them. It is the job of members of Parliament to show leadership not to run away from difficult issues and not to run away from all those emails from both sides of the debate that are pouring into our offices as we speak. 
The whole reason for Parliament is that we have the processes in place that enable us to make informed decisions. We have the research facilities of our staff and of Parliament itself that allow us to look at the whole range of issues; it does not matter what legislation it is. We also have the select committee process through which we had thousands of submissions on this bill—and all that public input. We have the officials who support us—in this case from a number of different Government departments. We have the whole consideration process inside the select committee. That is a part of our democracy that is based on information consideration and public input not on blind prejudice. 
Almost all select committees make amendments as part of this process as the Justice and Electoral Committee did in this case based on official advice on submissions and on our own debate between us as members of Parliament. We are simply doing our job and amendments like Judy Turner’s undermine that process. Changing the law is not just about public will; it is also about informed decision-making. 
The other thing I would like to say very strongly about Judy Turner’s amendment is that children should be at the centre of this debate. They are the ones who are most affected by the retention of section 59 of the Crimes Act—the defence of reasonable force for the purposes of correction. It is children who still do not receive the same protection from violence as adults do. Babies children and young people do not have a direct voice in this Parliament. They have a voice only through adult MPs. We all have our own approach as to how we bring that voice in here but sadly children’s voices are not often heard in this place of power. 
It is not easy for children’s needs and priorities to be heard in this Parliament and that is what a lot of us are trying to do here tonight. Although it is difficult to have children’s opinions expressed in Parliament it is even harder for their views to be expressed through referenda because no one under 18 can sign a referendum if it is part of the official referendum process. So although referenda are very easy to engage with—people can simply sign them—children have no access to them. It is just another way in which children and young people are completely disenfranchised. 
Judy Turner’s amendment is a recipe for a decision made on ignorance and prejudice especially given the nature of some of the input to this debate over the last 2 years. Far from being a democratic amendment in fact it totally undermines the process of parliamentary democracy in this country. The Green Party will certainly be voting against it and I call on other parties in this Chamber to do likewise. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I stand to talk about clause 2 “Commencement” of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I am concerned about the commencement date because I do not think the public are ready for it. We have already heard from many people in the Committee tonight that the public are confused by the title and they feel deceived by what it is actually saying. Polls tell us that somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of New Zealanders do not support this bill so why are we as the representatives of the people debating the bill as it is and how could we possibly think that this commencement date is reasonable? 
Sue Bradford has just said that Parliament has a job to show leadership and to make decisions for the poor uninformed public whom she considers cannot make good decisions for themselves. I would argue that we have a job to represent constituents and to respect their vision of how they want to live their own lives. I believe that this bill is technically a poor piece of legislation and it is so badly written that I predict it will cause a lawyers’ fee feeding frenzy. We should consider simplifying and clarifying this bill before the commencement date. 
This bill cannot fulfil the expectations of its promoters. We have already heard that people want to use it to send a message about child abuse which is about the criminalisation of parents who use force even very small amounts of force to carry children to time out in order to correct them. I know that Sue Bradford does not want to criminalise parents—she has told us that in the Justice and Electoral Committee—particularly if they are only putting their kids in time out. So perhaps we should consider a review before the commencement date of what this bill can achieve. 
I do not believe that this bill addresses the issues that are identified as the core factors of child abuse. We should perhaps consider detailing an inventory of those drivers of child abuse that have been identified and perhaps the methods to combat them before this commencement date. 
This bill restricts the options of parents and has the ability to criminalise good parents—the very people whom we need to rely on to provide the protection and nurturing environment for our kids. We need to find a way before the commencement date to support parents and raise the skill levels of parents. This bill has a very unhealthy Goody Two-Shoes Government-knows-best attitude when every scrap of evidence on successful child-rearing indicates that happy homes and strong families are the best places for kids. 
We should find before the commencement date a way to allow for a diversity of parenting methods and for new initiatives that will keep families happy and healthy. But probably the very best thing that we could do with this bill is to postpone the commencement date until we have got it right—or perhaps even indefinitely. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in respect of the commencement date of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Although I have some sympathy with the amendment from United Future in respect of seeking a referendum I am aware of the points that have also been made around the sovereignty of this House. I find it ironic that one can invoke the sovereignty of this House enter into the process participate in it then decide to withdraw the bill if one does not get one’s way. What is that about if it is not defecating on the sovereignty of this House? In this place we have the idea we put it up and we see how it goes. We make our arguments for and against we articulate them as best we can and we win or we lose—and whether or not we like it we have to eat that. What we do not do is to spit the dummy toss our toys and say that if someone else wins we are off. We do not take our ball and go home because that is acting just like a child. I would expect children to have a far more reasonable approach to this matter in any little class discussion they might be having in primary school than what has been suggested will happen when my amendment passes. 
Currently there is a petition before the public of New Zealand that is being strongly supported. It is being strongly supported right across the community and by Maori and Pacific Island peoples. I understand that the petition was circulated on the weekend at a gathering celebrating Pacific Island lifestyles. As fast as the petition was being photocopied it was being signed by concerned New Zealanders who want to live in a country where their sovereignty within their households is sacrosanct. They want to live in a country where the State does not come bursting in through the doors and police good parents over the way they look after their children and the way they discipline their children. It is not—as has been suggested by members opposite—that this has anything to do with the tragic child abuse statistics that we have in this country. That may be some sideline motivation but everybody knows that the passing of this legislation will not save one child who is currently being beaten and it will not save one child who may be killed tomorrow by some errant parent who is living outside the law. This legislation is about righting the law to police good parents. 
I can understand the sentiments of United Future in wanting to move this legislation back until it has been the subject of a referendum. I have some feelings for the petitioners who are expecting to get an even bigger level of support and hopefully they will in order to bring the petition before Parliament for its consideration—and of course that petition can remain open for a period of 12 months. I can understand that. However I believe that overriding that is the point I have already made in respect of the sovereignty of this House. I believe that when we stand by our convictions and stand for something we get up we make our arguments we put them before this Parliament of peers and they will decide how it will fly and whether it will stand or fall. I do not believe that it is right just to remove the bill and I cannot agree with the amendment that the matter should be put before a referendum. 
Ms Bradford made the point earlier that children do not have a voice. Well parents being the people who know children best have a voice in respect of a referendum and they have a voice in respect of this Parliament. We are elected to come to this Parliament in order to do a job. We had a lot of submissions during the select committee process about children and what children think about smacking—even videotape submissions—and there were arguments about how children feel when they are smacked. Well what do we know—they do not like it! We might as well ask them what they want for tea. What do members think they would say? KFC lollies a bit of ice cream—why not? They would say that because they are children. That is why we are here as adults to argue this debate. That is what it boils down to. Would we really want to open up the whole of the democratic process to children? Do members think that parents lack the ability to make good decisions on what is in their children’s best interests? No one disagrees. Well that is great; I am very happy with that. With that I will sit down. Thank you Madam Chairperson. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a quick call. I cannot understand the intentions of Judy Turner with her idea of a referendum. That member is usually very sensible. 
But I just want to speak tonight about timing. This clause is about the commencement date of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill and I think the bill is long overdue. Simply the tolerance of society to allow the continuation of smacking is long overdue. I will read this email: “I have just heard the news that the Maori Party will not support the Borrows amendment. If your party is going to support the Bradford bill then as the most senior Maori lawyer in practice who spends a lot of time acting for kids I applaud you.”—the Maori Party—“Now is the time and opportunity to put a stake in the ground and send a message to all people that violence in any shape or form is not on. In particular our people need to sit up and take notice. The Borrows amendment was bizarre anyway. It allowed an adult to do violence to a child which it couldn’t do to another adult. I admired Sue Bradford for saying she would withdraw her bill if the amendment succeeded—and rightly so. I now equally admire the stance of the Maori Party in helping to push the bill through.” 
This is an email sent to Tariana Turia from my husband who is the most senior Maori family lawyer in New Zealand. It is quite unusual for him as a Labour Party supporter to be writing to the Maori Party to say “Well done” and to say that it has put a stake in the ground and that the time— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the bill. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: —to act is tonight. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I have a few amendments here on the commencement date so I would like to contribute a little bit. Sue Bradford has been a colleague for some years. I know she has her heart in the right place in what she is trying to do but I think that on this occasion she is misguided. I believe that a commencement date for this sort of bill of a day after its Royal assent is far too soon. That is why I believe we should try to delay its passage through this House. We should also look at allowing time for a petition that is going around the country that gives people the opportunity to oppose the timing of the bill and to oppose the bringing in of the provisions. 
A lot of arguments have already been stated up and down this country as to why there is strong opposition out there. The opposition is to what we believe is the State’s inference in the rights of parents to raise their children and to determine the discipline that should be exercised to bring those children up in terms of knowing what is right and wrong. I believe that exercising a smack or a mild form of discipline in no way harms the child. 
This is lawmaking gone mad. It is insanity in the sense that we have completely blown the whole thing out of proportion. As previous colleagues have said this bill will make criminals out of parents who are really trying to do a good job of raising their children and as we said before not only teaching children what is right and wrong but actually keeping them safe when on many occasions they endanger themselves and perhaps other children in the process. 
I believe that this provision here is completely out of kilter with the opinion of the New Zealand public. We have to allow time for the debate to be considered and for people to exercise their right to express their opposition to this bill being brought in at this time and to what is being proposed in terms of the commencement date. 
I believe that this bill will have a hugely negative impact on the Pacific and Maori communities and on many other sections of our society and on a lot of parents with their own Christian perspectives of their God-given rights as parents to raise their children in the proper way and to provide that discipline. I believe that there are many politicians who will regret supporting this bill because I think it will backfire. I do not think our law enforcement agencies will be able to cope with the sort of frivolous allegations that will be made publicly in relation to anybody who is seen giving a child a smack. 
Another thing that I have heard about recently and that really concerns me is the relationship between the parent and the child if that child—an older child—reports something and it results in the prosecution of a parent. What will happen to the relationship between that parent and child as well as to the relationship with the other siblings in the family? What happens to that relationship as a result of a parent being prosecuted? How does that help relationships within a family? That is an issue that needs to be considered by those who are supporting this bill. 
I come back to the commencement date. It is too soon particularly with the strong opposition to this bill by the New Zealand public for it to be rammed through this House and commenced on the day after its Royal assent. So I have a few amendments as I believe any person in this Parliament who opposes the legislation should also try to delay and slow down the passage of this bill—certainly with the petition that is going around the country—to allow time for New Zealanders to express their strong opposition by way of that petition. That is what my amendments are designed to do. 
I am in opposition to what is being proposed here not only in relation to the commencement date but also to other provisions of the bill. Thank you Madam Chair. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise at this stage of the Committee debate to speak on the commencement date of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. In the 5 minutes available to me there are three points I want to touch upon: first the role that criminal law plays in our society; second the way the debate is being conducted and whether a referendum would advance the issue very much further; and third by way of anecdote the pressing need to move ahead with this legislation. 
First of all though I will deal with the way this debate has been conducted in the media so far. It ignores totally many of the submissions that were made to the Justice and Electoral Committee subcommittee that heard them. There were submissions from a wide variety of very well-respected people who work intensively with children and families including paediatricians doctors clergy churches and non-governmental organisations who were all in support of the outright repeal of section 59. Yet in the media we get the conflict the overstatement the hype and the rhetoric. What we get in the media was echoed today in a speech made by Nick Smith from the National Party. The media totally overlooks that at present it is a crime to smack a child. The smacking of a child is at least the crime of assault and has been a crime for over two centuries. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will get his chance to bark later. Section 59 merely provides a defence should the matter get to court and the court decides there is enough evidence to convict. Only then does section 59 come into play. So to say that Sue Bradford’s bill will criminalise normal adults is totally misleading and misguided and when said by some people is dishonest. 
It is a crime to smack a child. What we are discussing here is the defence that is available if the crime is made out in the first place. The defence that is made available is one that has been evolving over time. In 1893 when the defence was first put on our statute book it included the right of ship captains to punish their crew the right of teachers to punish their pupils and the right of parents to punish their children. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the commencement date. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: When we look at the need to introduce this bill as soon as possible it is important to consider two things. Criminal law sets criminal standards but the enforcement of criminal law relates to the community standards prevailing at the time. Crimes on our statute book are sometimes enforced and in another period they are not. We see that with cannabis. We saw it previously with sodomy and homosexuality. We see it with other offences that are currently on our statute book which most of us here would not know existed. They are not enforced because social standards have moved on. The debate of time is a mere delaying tactic because the public will not be better informed. We do not have time. 
I conclude my speech on this clause with an anecdote. I am probably the only person in this Chamber—for my sins—who has defended people who have invoked section 59 by way of defence. In my experience section 59 has been invoked by way of defence by people who have habitually hit their children with spades lumps of wood leather straps and the hand. Section 59 has been invoked by adults in the belief that it will be a defence to a charge of murder or manslaughter. I will tell members about an incident when I was called to a very high-profile fatality of a child who received notoriety in his death. The child was bitterly beaten. I took instructions on the night the child was admitted to hospital before he died and before the police became involved. I spoke to the family whom I did not know and the male adult said to me that yes he had hit the child. I gave him the only appropriate advice that could have been taken then. At the police station the father of this man—I had not known him before either—said he thought he had caused it to happen. I asked him what he meant. This was a man who worked in a responsible position. Everyone would have admired his work ethic and family commitment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the commencement date. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: He said he had grown up in an environment of extreme physical punishment and it just got bigger and bigger in his family. Now is the time to make this legislation pass. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in this debate on the commencement date of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. New Zealanders will not be ready for this bill no matter what the commencement date is. Many of my constituents have contacted me—as have hundreds of other New Zealanders—to tell me that they are not ready now and that they will never be ready. 
But what are they ready for? You know the proponents of this bill do know what New Zealanders are ready for. They are ready for an end to child abuse. They are ready for a strong message to go out there that child abuse is not OK. They are ready for that but that does not mean that the commencement of this bill will bring it. 
 Repeal of the element of section 59 that we have heard others in this Chamber speak of—the element that allows the defence of reasonable force in the circumstances that allows a defence for a child who is hit with a horsewhip a four-by-two or a hosepipe—needs work. It needs to disappear. That is fine. But this bill does so much more than remove that defence. So that problem should be sorted but commencing this particular bill will not only sort that problem but also create unintended consequences for the non-abusers. 
I too was tempted to read out some of the emails that have come to me. They have been fascinating over the weeks that have preceded the debate on this bill but I am not going to read them out tonight. I will simply give members the way I see it. 
New Zealanders are not ready for interference in their family life. They are not ready for the confusion they tell me they still feel as to what this bill means about their right to discipline their children. I am not talking about just smacking. This is more than an anti-smacking debate. This is a debate that creates confusion when it comes to the discipline of children that might require one to reasonably remove them through force to pick them up and take them out of the room because their actions are simply unacceptable and one wants to correct them. 
The police are not ready for the responsibility of investigating the many complaints and having to use discretion. I read here from a column written by the president of the Police Association Greg O’Connor who states: “The Commissioner except behind closed doors cannot become involved for fear of being seen to be influencing the parliamentary debate. This is despite the fact that those in favour of the repeal of section 59 are very reliant on the belief that police will use discretion in deciding to prosecute.” That is a huge responsibility on the police—not on the judges and juries but on the police the enforcers. “Does any frontline officer believe that he or she despite being confronted with evidence from a complainant a witness and often corroborated by an admission will be permitted to do other than prosecute under current policy?”. We know now that the police are bringing together guidelines on how they will deal with this—an unenviable task for them. 
Schools are probably not ready for the commencement of this bill either. Schools are unsure how it will affect some of their discipline policies and I have spoken to principals on this matter. 
New Zealand is ready for an end to child abuse. The commencement of this bill will send a message but it will not end child abuse. My colleague Phil Heatley suggested that this bill would catch the majority when we are wanting to deal with a minority. Commencement of this bill will not deal with that minority either. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I will not take a long call; I simply want to put my views on the record. My view is simply that the passing of this legislation will not prevent there being another James Whakaruru it will not prevent there being another Coral Burrows it will not prevent there being another “Lillybing” and it will not prevent girls such as the Howse girls from being murdered in their beds. This legislation will criminalise caring loving parents caregivers grandparents foster parents and adoptive parents. 
In fact this legislation will leave the police absolutely no choice whatsoever other than to investigate and prosecute every alleged and reported case of child abuse that is a case of smacking. For those who say the Police Association is overstating its case I say it is the association that is telling the mistruth. Those people who counter Mr Greg O’Connor’s views and the views of the Police Association know that when the Police Association said what would happen with lowering the drinking age it did the one thing the police were too scared to do—it told the truth. And it was proven right. 
I also add into the mix the Department of Child Youth and Family which is so often criticised as being a zealot in the way it applies the law. I am waiting for someone to tell me that Child Youth and Family will not be required to swoop on every home where a schoolteacher has reported that a child has come to school and said he or she was smacked. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the commencement. 
RON MARK 
: The commencement of this bill is an abomination. The commencement of this bill will be a blight on society and on good caring parents. The commencement of this bill will see Child Youth and Family with no choice but to act. 
I challenge Sue Bradford. I believe she has her heart in the right place and I believe that in commencing the passage of this bill she was quite rightly focused on child abuse. I applaud her and I thank her for raising those issues. But Miss Sue Bradford is misguided. In relation to the commencement of this bill I will be here along with the other members who like me will vote against it and they will be saying that at the time that Ron Mark warned about these things during the commencement of the bill he was right. In 1 year 2 years we will be looking at the results and saying: “By gee we got it wrong.” 
We do not want to see in the commencement of this bill parents having their children removed from them for months on end while Child Youth and Family which has a national reputation for not always getting it right conducts its investigations. I seriously ask every MP who has been forced against his or her conscience and whipped into voting for this bill to consider what the commencement of this bill means for the rest of the nation. For those who do not have children and grandchildren I challenge them to take up the task of being a parent for 1 week 1 month 1 year or 10 years and tell me that they are right in their view on this bill. 
At the commencement of this bill people need to be thinking very clearly about one simple fact: children commit acts of violence even though they are not taught to do so. I have seen my own grandchild grab a toy and hit another child. I see nothing wrong with taking that little hand smacking it and saying: “Don’t do that. It hurts and now you know that yourself.” I can say with a lot of pride that I could count on half a hand the number of times I have ever had to physically discipline any of my children. But that does not mean that I should have the right to remove that means of disciplining and guiding children from normal caring loving parents in some misguided belief that I should be adding to the pile of legislation that is meant to have an educative purpose. 
I simply say to those learned people who have said that law needs to be educative and law needs to send messages that that is what we have television advertising for it is why we have an education system it is why we run programmes such as anti-smoking programmes and it is why we jail and imprison people who clearly abuse. That is where the education is best had. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly on the commencement date of the legislation but before I do I would just like to turn to a point made by a couple of earlier speakers and that is the supposed enormous level of opposition in the Pacific community to this legislation. Some of us who are young and of the Pacific know a large number of Pacific families who have opted out of violence and deliberately refrained from practices of the previous generation. We have decided not to perpetuate the cycle of violence. There are many people in that category and I hope that I am thought to be one of them. It is patronising and a bit sickening to hear speaker after speaker talk about how the Pacific community—this mythical monolith—is opposed to this legislation. That is not so. There is a generation of young Pacific people in this country who are achievers and who are very proud of the fact that we have broken cycles of abuse and poverty. This sort of legislation is what we support. Let it not be said that there is a monolithic Pacific community against this legislation—that is a myth. 
In turning to the commencement of this legislation I want to speak in particular to Judy Turner’s amendment which I oppose for many of the reasons that were articulated by previous speakers including Sue Bradford and Chester Borrows. 
 Fifty percent is the normal vote by which this House passes legislation. The only exception that we make on a precedent basis is for electoral law which is for good and proper reasons. None of those reasons are applicable in this case. Similar logic applies to the notion that there ought to be a referendum over the coming into force of this legislation. Referenda are largely foreign to our system except in the case of citizens initiated referenda. According to the proper procedure no citizens initiated referenda has been called for in this case. It ought to be the case if that is the route that proponents of this measure want to go down. They should go down the proper channels and call for a referendum in the recognised way. 
As I have said referenda are foreign to our system. This is a House of Representatives and all MPs are paid good money to come and exercise their votes in this House. It is wrong when a tough issue suddenly comes up and MPs seek to abrogate that responsibility and push it back on to the people who pay us to do our jobs. We ought to do our jobs. We ought to get on and vote on this legislation—and certainly vote for it. Thank you Madam Chair. 
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. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not know how this works but Jill Pettis—I am not sure whether she wants to take a call—yelled out some incomprehensible statement to me while you were talking. That meant I could not hear what you were saying. I do not understand how a Labour MP can sit there yelling out across the Chamber while the person in the Chair is trying to give an instruction. I do not understand why she does not get disciplined but if I say peep I am out of here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Jill Pettis continued to do that across the Chamber while you were speaking to me again. Again I make the point that if I open my mouth or even look as though I am going to you throw me out. What is it? Are Labour MPs allowed to do what they like? 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I suggest humbly to the member that when I shout most people know. I was not shouting at the member at all. He reminds me of the senior clergyman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sorry. That is not a point of order. Please be seated. I was tolerant of the member’s points of order. There has been a lot of interjection tonight. 
Rodney Hide 
: All right I’ll interject on you too. Is that what you are saying is OK? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member. I am trying to say to him that there has been a lot of interjection tonight. I have not pulled up everyone consistently but if that is what the member wants I will do it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I just want to know what the rules are. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We will apply them across everyone. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to speak about clause 2 “Commencement”. I have thought about this long and hard and the more I have seen clips in the media about this bill—and in particular when it would commence—the more I realise there is a bitter-sweet irony that I cannot let pass. The bill is going to pass through the House because Labour is pulling the whip. On an anti-smacking bill the whip is to be used to get it through! That is the first bit of the irony and I thought it amazing. Labour is going to pull the whip in order to get an anti-smacking bill through. Then I thought well I do not know whether the Labour whips will have that sort of power. I do not know whether they know about this. So I wondered who the Labour whips were. I had to look that up in a book and I found out they are Tim Barnett and Darren Hughes. I thought that was interesting. How many children do they have between the two of them? They do not have any. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh that’s appalling. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Hang on Lianne Dalziel needs to know that I said before that there are members on both sides without children and there are members on both sides who should not be taking an active role in this debate if they have not been through the baptism of fire of bringing up children. It is the hardest job in the world. It is the job for which one gets the least training and Labour has pulled the whip. The two whips doing it have never brought up a child. But that is their choice and I respect their right to have that choice. 
Then I suddenly saw that it was actually Helen Clark who said that Labour was going to use the whip. I thought: “Wow! It’s gone right to prime ministerial level and that’s amazing because it is not a Government bill.” I understand why one would as Prime Minister whip a Government bill because one has to have the numbers to get one’s programme through. But this is not a Government bill; it is actually a member’s bill from a Green MP. And Helen Clark again says: “No we’re going to use the whip.” 
So in regard to the commencement date I have moved a number of amendments that are now tabled. I have moved them because I find it really hard to believe that legislation as important as this legislation will get through the House even though it has become apparent that a majority of members do not support it. I say that because I know a number of Labour MPs who are making it clear to those who will listen that they do not support this bill. They are being whipped by a couple of whips and a Prime Minister on a member’s bill promoted by a member of another party. In my 20 years in Parliament I have not seen that occur. 
So the commencement date now is under the whip. My amendments are one each for the Hon Dover Samuels the Hon Harry Duynhoven the Hon George Hawkins the Hon Damien O’Conner and so on. They say that instead of this legislation coming into effect on the day after it gets the Royal assent it comes into effect on the day after it gets the Royal assent and—here members’ names are substituted for example the Hon Damien O’Connor—has signed a statutory declaration that he personally supports the Act. If those members would do that then this legislation is fine the commencement date is fine and the passing of this bill is fine. It will have been the will of the majority. It will have been democracy. It will have been this House voting for a bill. 
But if those members do not do that then what we are seeing here is something we are likely to see in Zimbabwe—Robert Mugabe using all sorts of underhand tactics to get his way even though it is not what the majority wish. I am very clear about this. I find it absolutely repugnant that the whip has to be pulled—I think it is hilarious that it is being pulled on a smacking debate—and I find it absolutely repugnant that a number of Labour MPs are sitting there just absolutely fuming but they are doing it because this whip is being pulled on a vote that should be a conscience vote. 
I say that those amendments are done seriously. They are not done frivolously; they are done seriously. If the members named in those amendments genuinely support this legislation then I say it should go through this Parliament. That means a majority supports it. What I do know is that Chester Borrows has 58 as his number of members who support his amendments—amendments that I think are the most sensible compromise one could get for this bill and I will sign up to signing for it and voting for it if the trifling and transitory nature of his amendments gets through. But I will not sign up to any commencement date the way the situation stands. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 It is almost providential that I should be following on from that speech made by Maurice Williamson. Supplementary Order Paper 95 proposed by my colleague Judy Turner states as members know that unless this bill is passed by a majority of 60 percent of this Parliament it will go to a referendum to be held concurrently with next year’s general election. If that referendum decides by a majority of 60 percent that this bill should become law then and only then will it become law. Effectively this very good Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Judy Turner means that the commencement date is deferred until after the 2008 election and until after the people of New Zealand have for once had a chance to have their say on this legislation. 
I know full well there is no way this bill will achieve a 60 percent majority in this Parliament and we have just heard why from Maurice Williamson. We heard that the only reason it will pass is that Labour Party members are being whipped. I would like to go back for a moment to the origins of the idea of a 60 percent majority. It came actually from a former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie-Boys. He suggested following the passing of the Prostitution Reform Bill into law on the basis of one abstention that on conscience votes we should raise the threshold from a bare majority to 60 percent. If in fact the Prostitution Reform Bill went through on one abstention then raising the threshold is much more necessary on this particular bill which we know will pass only because the Labour members are under the whip. 
I also want to respond to some of the comments that have been made by Sue Bradford in speaking to Judy Turner’s Supplementary Order Paper. Sue attacked the Supplementary Order Paper saying that it undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. I wonder how many people in this Parliament have never heard that democracy has been defined as “government of the people by the people for the people”. Parliament is not sovereign in our form of democracy; the people hold sovereignty. People are not answerable to Parliament; Parliament is answerable to the people. 
Believe you me people who vote for this bill will find out the truth of that when we come to the 2008 elections because as I speak I know that whether or not this excellent Supplementary Order Paper of Judy Turner’s is adopted it is highly likely that a referendum will be held in 2008. My former colleague Larry Baldock and a young woman Sheryl Savill are right now in this country collecting signatures for a citizens initiated referendum. I have been informed tonight that a coalition of radio talkback hosts has been put together today and that from now until 2008 they will first oppose this bill and secondly promote the citizens initiated referendum. I know that as we are sitting here debating hundreds and hundreds of volunteers are coming forward to start collecting signatures. Believe you me Larry Baldock and I collected 203000 signatures on the Prostitution Reform Bill and that issue is not as important to most New Zealanders as this issue. Most New Zealanders are not involved in prostitution. They have a peripheral interest in it. 
This issue is very different. All parents in New Zealand are personally involved in it. In my time in Parliament—coming up to 5 years now—I have never seen as many impassioned emails and letters on any one issue coming to Parliament as there have been on this bill. People are telling me they strongly oppose this bill. The reason is that it is State interference in our right and responsibility to correct and discipline our children. Child abuse I should add is a separate case. The Chester Borrows amendment talks about light smacking—not beating not thrashing but light smacking. Virtually all parents in this country are now aware of that reality. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was very very interested in the speech made by Gordon Copeland the member who has just resumed his seat. I invite the member and his former colleague if he is serious about getting a petition on this to have the decency to come to the local MPs in the area where Larry Baldock lives because New Zealand First would be willing to promote that petition. We would be willing to promote it in Tauranga. I ask him to please tell Larry Baldock that if he wants to do something he should do it in a meaningful way. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask the member over there Mr Clarkson whether he knows—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there we are. We have three MPs—from both sides of the Chamber—who would welcome Larry Baldock coming to talk to them. Maybe I had better clarify it when I say “welcome Larry Baldock coming and speaking to us”. Perhaps I could say “welcome Larry Baldock coming and telling us about the petition”. 
I was very interested in Maurice Williamson’s idea. I think he was somewhat frivolous on it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says no but let me just develop the idea because it was a damned good idea. Why single out Harry Duynhoven Dover Samuels and the other members he mentioned? Why not make it a statutory declaration for all of us—the 121 members? New Zealand First by majority vote at least will support that. 
Hon Member 
: Yeah right! 
PETER BROWN 
: Yeah right—by a majority vote we would support that. I would be surprised if we did support that seven to zero because as members might know there is a difference of opinion in New Zealand First in terms of this bill. 
Rodney Hide 
: Tell us some news. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member wants some news. If he were here a little more frequently he would know a lot more news. 
I want to talk about Judy Turner’s Supplementary Order Paper 95 because I know that Judy is a very sincere person and New Zealand First would—at least by majority—support her Supplementary Order Paper if she removed the requirement for 60 percent of enrolled voters to have to cast a vote for the answer “Yes” in a referendum. In fact that is just removing proposed new subclause (3)(b). If she made the provision to be passed by simple majority at the general election then I think she would get a significant number of New Zealand First votes. She would not get the total vote because some of my colleagues believe that it is a referendum too little too late and we also prefer referenda on the substance of the bill whereas this would be on the date. But I can tell the member that if United Future considered that then New Zealand First would be on board. We are compelled to vote against it as it is now because it seems somewhat hypocritical to say that it may be passed here in Parliament by majority vote but the public has to win 60 percent of its vote—it is one or the other. 
I also draw the member’s attention to the fact that if there is a general election United Future is bound to get 60 percent or more of the electorate voting one way or the other—absolutely bound to. So it is just a small change to delete part of the amendment in order to make it compatible with what we are actually doing and saying here. 
I listened to Sue Bradford’s response to that and I tell the member that when I saw her on television some years back in the protest line she certainly gave the impression that she wanted the public to have a greater say. Now she is in Parliament she is saying that we will speak for everybody: “We know more than you guys out there.” Well I say that that is a sad day for Parliament. The day that Parliament accepts the sort of philosophy that members know better than the people out there then we are going downhill. If the member shakes her head she should agree to some sort of referendum along the lines that Judy Turner has proposed and along the lines of my amendment—New Zealand First’s amendment—to Judy Turner’s amendment. 
We are talking about the commencement date. Taito Phillip Field has a number of amendments that in effect delay the commencement date. In theory we are not really comfortable with some of the rationales but we believe that the public has to have more say on this bill. So New Zealand First will be voting for every one of Taito Phillip Field’s amendments by a majority vote—a split vote. Indeed Colin King whom I saw was anxious to take a call also has an amendment that effectively delays the commencement date by some considerable time. New Zealand First is interested to hear what the member says is the reason because I think New Zealand First will be supporting that amendment by majority. I keep saying that because we are having a split vote. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to take a call on clause 2. I have a handwritten amendment in my name primarily because I believe there needs to be an education programme around the wider implications of this bill. Just looking at the editorial in my local paper today which said people should support the anti-smacking bill I saw that it made the comment—which is quite relevant if we think about it—that a law change in itself will not accomplish everything that is required. It will not change attitudes but it may give parents a very good opportunity to think before they lash out. So on that basis I recommend that we have a considerable delay so that we in Parliament here do not believe that by just making a considerable change to section 59 of the Crimes Act we are able to walk away and say we have done our bit. 
When it comes to the education programme we also recognise that the police are currently looking at issuing guidelines as to how they will administer the altered section 59 of the Act. I also recommend that it would be appropriate to have an education programme around Child Youth and Family because that agency in fact will become the front-line police in terms of this legislation. Child Youth and Family staff will be the ones to have to act; they will be the ones who confront parents alleged to have smacked or abused their children. 
It is very important that parents listen to the voice of this Parliament and especially to the member who is the proponent of this bill the Green member when she says that democracy is at work in this Parliament. It is clearly evident by the entrenched nature of the members across on the Government benches in this Parliament that they are indeed being whipped. We know in fact that if they were able to vote according to where their consciences sit they would be voting according to the way their consciences lead them just as I intend to do. I will support Chester Borrows’ amendments; I see them as being a very intelligent forward-thinking way to proceed. When it comes to Judy Turner’s recommendations about having a greater process around the input of the public I certainly see a great deal of merit in that and I have always seen Judy Turner as being somebody who acts very sensibly and who always thinks first about what is best for society. 
On that basis my reference to the timing of the implementation of this bill is that it needs to be pushed well out in front of us to 2009 not only to enable the alteration of section 59 but to allow us to do more. We can completely wipe out that insidious aspect of violence and abuse exhibited in our society instead of just feeling that by altering section 59 in a slight knee-jerk reaction as parliamentarians we can wash our hands of any responsibility for child abuse. 
Interestingly when I was looking at the title of the bill and the time when it should be implemented I went to the Parliamentary Library and got some information on what we were actually looking at. The most recent information we could get from the Parliamentary Library effectively around section 59 of the Crimes Act was that only 15 cases could be located. Out of those there were four cases in which section 59 was used as a successful defence and ten cases in which it was used unsuccessfully. In one case nobody could tell who the winner was. 
So I believe that with everything considered and given the very wise manner in which the matter has been canvassed by members on the Opposition side of the Chamber it would be very appropriate to engage in a full and comprehensive education programme so that we do not let off the hook the parliamentarians who are forcing this change through contrary to the intentions of the greater public. I will be supporting the amendments that Chester Borrows has put forward as I see those to be the only sensible and logical way forward for the betterment of society. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to talk on clause 2 the commencement clause and I want to make this point right at the very beginning: although it is true that this bill is in the name of Sue Bradford let us make no mistake that the reason it will go into law on its third reading is that Helen Clark the leader of the Labour Government has forced it through this Parliament. Helen Clark is the person who is responsible for this legislation. She will be the person who makes this bill commence on the day it does because she has driven her caucus. Helen Clark the leader of the Labour Party will be responsible for making good New Zealand parents criminals. Let us just get that clear on the record. 
 I want to support the very good amendment put in by my colleague Chester Borrows. It is one of the most sensible things that we will debate in this House for some time and he is to be congratulated on it. I also want to congratulate Colin King on the amendment that he has put forward. 
I also want to refer members to a further amendment that has been put forward by my colleague Maurice Williamson. It reads: “… and all 121 existing members of this House have signed a Statutory Declaration that they personally support the vote that was cast in their name in the passing of this Act.” The reason for that amendment is that we want to know that everyone is accountable. We want to know that Helen Clark has not driven some of her party members to vote for this bill. We want to know that they are able to stand up and speak for themselves. Are they doing that or are they driven by Helen Clark and her Labour Government? I say they are being driven by Helen Clark. 
Let me make it clear that this bill tonight will not stop one child being abused in this country. This legislation will not stop any kid from being killed or whipped or thrashed by a four-by-two or a pipe. The parents of those children do not even know where Parliament is. They do not care a squat about what laws we pass. They could not give a stuff about what we do here tonight. They will carry on abusing beating and manipulating their children in the way they do and if anyone thinks this is going to help those kids one diddly-squat that person is deluding himself or herself. 
There is another thing that worries me with this bill. A 13 or 14-year-old child—boy or girl—brought up in a good home may say one night: “I am going out to a party Mum and Dad.” The mum and dad are going to say: “No you are not.” “Yes I am” says the child “I am going to go; I don’t care what you say.” “No you’re not” say the mum and dad—and what will happen? The kid will ring up the police and say: “My parents are abusing me.” All of a sudden the cops will come around and the parents will be under scrutiny. They will have to go through the whole trauma of being investigated by the police because of this legislation. 
Good parents will be persecuted by this legislation. What will be worse is that the dad will stand there and say: “Yes I wanted to discipline my child.” He will be told: “Off you go you can’t live here with your kid.” Mum is going to stand there and say: “Hang on a minute I’m backing Dad.” She will be told: “You can’t go or we’re going to take the kids and put them in with Child Youth and Family.” The children will probably end up being put in with Black Power or somewhere where they will really get abused while the parents are trying to sort out with the police the fact that they have not abused their children that they are good parents and that they should not be under the scope of this bill. 
I say tonight that the people in the Labour Government—Helen Clark particularly—who are driving this bill are absolutely doing this country the biggest disservice. It is of course part of the Government’s social engineering it is part of its social manipulation and it is part of what Helen Clark believes. Absolutely! It is the nanny State saying to good parents: “Don’t worry about it. We’ll look after you.” Nanny State and “Nanny Helen Clark” will go about telling good parents how to operate. It is not good enough and the people of this country know it. They will finally have their say soon enough and when that happens there will be a change of Government because those people know what is good for their children. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise this evening as an electorate member of Parliament representing the Wairarapa. Last year I sent out 26000 forms to survey members of my electorate to find out how they wanted me to vote on this bill and 2½ out of every three told me to vote against it. I am standing here tonight to oppose this bill coming into force at any date. I say to the people of New Zealand that across the Chamber from where I am standing there are about 11 members of Parliament in the Labour camp who are sitting on the benches across from me. Three of the 11 are responsible to electorates and one of those three supporting this anti-smacking bill is personally responsible for ramming a tennis ball down a student’s throat. Has Mr Benson-Pope no shame? What is he doing here supporting this bill? 
I say to Dover Samuels in the back row that we know that he does not support this bill but he is being whipped into place here in this capital of our country called “Helengrad”. Those members might smile but each of those members in the Labour camp and in the Greens is undermining the social fabric of our country. They are passing this bill on the back of having undermined every teacher and every policeman in this country. Two weeks ago at the Golden Shears in Masterton a couple of young kids were sitting on the bonnet of a car causing trouble and abusing old people. Someone said to them: “Listen boys. Naff off!” It was not me doing the telling; I witnessed this. “You can’t tell us that mister. You can’t do that” the boys said. The guy said he was going to get the police. “They can’t do anything either” he was told. That is why we have so many children out of control in Masterton and elsewhere in the small towns of the Wairarapa. It is because this Labour Government has pulled the rug of authority from every institution in this country whether schoolteachers police officers or now parents. 
I stand here because 2½ out of every three people in my electorate oppose what the Labour Government is doing. I have never in my 18 months in this Parliament seen so many emails from people saying that they oppose what the Government is doing. Two weeks ago on the streets of Masterton Sue Reid began a petition that will cause this Government to face a citizens engaged referendum on this issue. I can say that more than 2000 names were collected in two 2-hour bursts on Queen Street in Masterton; people are queuing up to sign this petition. I asked one lady in her 80s whether she was sick of this Government telling her what to do all the time. That lit a fire that went on for 20 minutes. 
People out in the community the people whom we represent and who put us here—I say to Darien Fenton who is a list candidate—are asking us to stand against these Labour people because they are crucifying this country. They are creating a situation of social disruption. A headmaster from one of our religious schools in the Wairarapa said to me the other day: “John suppose somebody opposes what I am doing in running this Christian school. Under this new piece of legislation if they bring a charge against me and I am convicted for smacking one of my children under my roof at home that will be classified as assault under this bill.” And what is the penalty of that for schoolteachers? They lose their livelihoods. 
I think this bill is absolute and utter nonsense. It is something we inherited from my predecessor Georgina Beyer and her Labour mates who are embarked on yet more social engineering under the leadership of that well-known parent Helen Clark. I at least have two children. I know the problems that people in our community have to face in bringing up kids— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: So do your children! 
JOHN HAYES 
: I tell Mr Benson-Pope to find himself another tennis ball and go assault another student then to come back into this Chamber. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 As I listen to the debate from those who are not in support of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill I am reminded of that saying of the senior retiring clergyman as he gave advice to the new young preacher: “Argument weak here—shout like hell!”. That is a bit like what is going on amongst those who are not in support of this bill. When people have to resort to personal attacks on other members of Parliament over an important bill like this it means that their argument is very weak. 
 The commencement of this legislation cannot come soon enough if we are sincerely and genuinely concerned about facilitating attitudinal change towards the care of our children in this country. It is not a comfortable thing for New Zealanders to say that we do not care for our children as well as we should. Statistics in New Zealand—which are independently gathered; they are not gathered by people who have a political axe to grind—show that our care protection and support of children is not as good as it should be. The commencement of this legislation as soon as legally possible will facilitate a significant attitudinal change towards the way we care for and protect our children. 
I have never been the victim of domestic violence but I am emphatically opposed to domestic violence. One does not have to be a parent to be emphatically in support of care and protection legislation for children. I resent any implication that people who support this bill but who do not have children are not entitled to a view. We are entitled to views on a whole range of matters purely and simply because we have been democratically elected and to abrogate that responsibility is not what we were put here to do. 
The rights of parents have been mentioned a great deal during the debate. What about talking about the rights of the child? We hear the statement that all should be equal under the law; why are we saying that children should be less equal? I do not understand that. Children should be more equal because they are precious and important to us. Some of us have had the gift and the privilege of being grandparents—and it is a gift and a privilege. When our precious little bundle was born I said to my husband that that little girl would never ever be hit. It was lovely as a grandparent to be able to say that with absolute confidence. Our precious little bundle will never ever be hit because her parents have moved on from the beliefs of previous generations in New Zealand when physical discipline was the norm. We used to do things to children in generations past that are no longer acceptable. People know there are alternative methods and they are using them. 
We want to use this bill as a vehicle to provide more and more support for parents and to give them the information and power to be better parents. Every parent wants to be a good parent. Every parent wants to be the best possible parent he or she can. Finally I say that the passing of this legislation and its commencement cannot come soon enough. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 That member may well have just blown her chances of being the Ambassador to Niue with that speech. She exposed in a very simple line that this bill will cause significant attitudinal change—those were her words. She said that this bill would cause significant attitudinal change. That tells us that Labour members think that the vast majority of parents in this country who do the right thing by their children day in and day out who care about them who love them and who want to put them on the right path need significant attitudinal change. That is the thrust of what Labour members are saying. 
It is also interestingly the reason why Labour is in such terrible political trouble at the moment. This bill is not about the Government supporting people. This bill is not about making life better for people. It is a bill that puts Labour and Helen Clark right into the living rooms of the families of this country on a watching brief. That is the situation. Labour is watching every little moment. No one can doubt that that is the case. 
We who are constituency MPs—some MPs of course have been booted out of their seats—will be aware that a lot of the work we get revolves around disastrous cases in the Family Court. There would not be an MP in this Chamber who has not had a letter from a constituent on either one side or the other of a Family Court argument. What bothers me seriously about this is that if one is having trouble with custody one can simply allege that the partner one is aggrieved with has smacked the kids. If anyone thinks that that is unlikely to happen he or she should stand by and watch what happens if this bill is passed. That situation will become form. We already know that a range of allegations are regularly made in the court because lawyers advise people that if they can get this this or this it will help their case. This legislation will just be something else. For the children that this bill is supposed to protect it will become in those circumstances at least a disaster. 
It is also interesting that Jill Pettis stood up tonight and put on that mock fervour about the need to have a gentler kinder less violent society when Labour has spent the last 2 months refusing to take any responsibility at all for the actions that resulted from Graeme Burton’s unfortunate release from prison. That is a fact. In the Chamber today the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both said not to blame the Government. They said they were terribly sorry about it—it took them 2 months to get there—but that Graeme Burton was the problem. He pulled the trigger said Michael Cullen so he was the problem. Despite the fact that five psychological reports said that that man should not be released and he was that he was then not monitored and that it was known he was going to run amok—the armed offenders squad even had to be brought out—the authorities could not go after him because that in some way might infringe upon his rights as a paroled prisoner. 
So Labour members should not come in here and suggest that to criminalise the normal disciplines of a household is in some way about caring for the future. No one will believe Labour members when they say that. We know that this bill will pass only because Helen Clark wants to stay as Prime Minister for a time longer. That is what it is about. Otherwise those people in the Labour caucus who understand the people they represent who are connected to their constituencies and who do care about families in this country cannot exercise their vote in the way they want to. Helen Clark wants to be in Parliament as Prime Minister for a good time longer and that is unacceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next speaker I say that although I have been in the Chair for only a short while the contributions made since I have been here do not seem to be very relevant to this clause. There may have been some other understanding previously—I do not know. Please make speeches relevant to clause 2. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak about the commencement date. I want to talk about it because the commencement date is not about just this bill. The commencement date is the day when Helen Clark and the Labour Government take charge of our households. The other members from the Labour Government who have spoken tonight have told us how they are here for their own brilliance they are here because they have been chosen by Helen Clark and they are here because they are so brilliant and they know so much more than the ordinary New Zealand parent. I represent the people of Clevedon and I represent the National Party. I know exactly where I stand and it is not standing on some little pinhead like those members are trying to make out that the commencement of this bill will somehow change the attitudes of people who kill babies—because it will not. These people are already living outside the law. They are already outlaws. They are already murderers. They are already killers. The people whom this bill will affect are good good parents. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I ask the people in the Labour Government who are shouting out whether they were ever smacked as a child. Were their parents criminals? I tell them that my parents are not criminals and I am not a criminal. I smacked my child and I am damned proud of it because I have a good kid and I am really pleased about it. I represent those people unlike some members in this Chamber—when we talk about the commencement date—who have not talked about what they have done and who are too ashamed to stand up and say what they have done. 
I am not going to stand up like Mrs Chadwick the current MP for Rotorua and read out an email from my husband to the Maori Party. How pathetic is that? The woman cannot even work out how to do her own emails. I will not stand up here and read out the thousands of emails I have had from people saying: “Leave my home to me. Let me be in charge of my home. Let my children be my responsibility because they are my children because nobody will ever care when this commencement date comes around about my child as much as my husband and me.” The reason is that that is what parents do. It is nothing special. It is normal. I know this is new for the Labour Government but that is normal because normal parents care about their children. 
When this bill goes through and we get to the commencement date those parents will be criminalised. Under this bill a parent who smacks a child’s hand for being naughty by way of correction will be a criminal. We can see how this will be abused in the Family Court system. Many people know this. How many people here have ever been involved in any way with the Family Court in any sort of custody battle anything like that either themselves with members of their family or as lawyers for clients? I tell members that one of the things we all know is that when people go into that Family Court process unfortunately even the most sensible nice and decent people can become somewhat strained. Sometimes people say things they should not say and they do things to each other that they should not do. Unfortunately this legislation when it starts on that commencement date will open up a whole new avenue for fathers to be accused of beating their children. It will set up a whole new avenue for mothers to be accused of losing it and smacking their children. It will absolutely disempower those parents. 
We are not talking about the people who kill babies. We are not talking about the people who whip children. We are not talking about the people who take a cane to a child and beat its bottom until it bleeds like some people in this Chamber could talk about. We are not going to talk about that because we want to outlaw that. That is why we support Chester Borrows’ amendment from this commencement date. But we do say that ordinary parents will smack their child aged 3 or 4 on the hand or the bottom to stop that child doing something he or she should not be doing. That is by way of correction. This bill even if the commencement date is amended specifically says that it will not protect a parent if a smack is used by way of correction. It specifically says that. So when I hear those women from the Labour Government screaming and shouting and trying to rip the paint off the walls I say they should read the bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 That was absolutely appalling. I am really pleased to take this call on the commencement date. It is time that the law was changed. There is so much misinformation out there and I want to talk about that. That member sitting on the other side of the Chamber was skiting about how many times she smacked her kid—good for her! But she is misleading people. What is the law about? It is about parents using a defence when they are prosecuted for using implements such as riding crops—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is. Those members are telling whoppers. Chester Borrows is hanging his head in shame. He is so embarrassed. 
I will tell members something. This bill is not about introducing a prosecution; it is about removing a defence in cases when children are beaten. Chester Borrows was very very concerned about that in the select committee. Very few members on that side of the Chamber sat and heard the submissions from Plunket Barnardos and Every Child Counts as well as a petition from 20000 people. That is all discounted. To them it is all about the right to smack their children. I have to say that the media has aided and abetted them in that. That is not the debate. The debate is about people who hit their children with riding crops who are prosecuted and who get off. That is what it is about. That woman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Please come back to clause 2. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am sorry Mr Chairman. I am not showing the same discipline as members on the other side. 
All I can say in closing is that this bill is long overdue. The commencement date is appropriate. Members on the other side of the Chamber have talked about the SKIP programme. Education is great. The commencement of this bill will mean that it reinforces that education; it follows it. The parents I speak to say: “Look all this scaremongering where are the Nats coming from?”. They said: “I feel really sorry because Paula Bennett has been talking to us and she doesn’t want to vote for Chester’s amendment but she’s in a terrible position.” So the commencement date is very important and that is why I think the commencement of the bill should occur as stated in the bill. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Members do not seem to have taken too much notice of the comments I made previously. I really will be insisting that contributions be relevant to this clause otherwise I shall terminate them. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this bill and specifically to the commencement date. The people of New Zealand do not want a commencement date for this bill. That is what the people of New Zealand are saying about this bill. Eighty-five percent of people in this country say they do not want a commencement date and that is what I will speak about tonight. That is so not only across the country but also in the Napier electorate where I represent some very fine people. 
I took the opportunity before Christmas to go out and hold a series of public meetings and to walk the streets with a clipboard in Marewa Napier Ahuriri and Taradale and ask people what they thought about this legislation. Eighty-five percent of my constituents did not want to see a commencement date for this legislation albeit they did want to see a change to the definition of “reasonable force”. That is what we are here to debate tonight not the misleading information of Lynne Pillay across the Chamber who says we are here to get rid of section 59 because many parents are whipping their children with riding crops. That is misinformation. 
Many polls have been done. Even in my own electorate today I have had many phone calls about this issue to my team. They were on the phone to me this afternoon saying: “Chris we’re having phone call after phone call from constituents saying they do not want to see a commencement date for this— 
Jill Pettis 
: Rubbish! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: That member should go to Napier and see for herself. Eighty-five percent of Napier constituents do not want to see a commencement date for this bill. That is a fact. We even had a phone call from a policeman in my electorate today a policeman who said: “I’m going to can the police force as a result of this. We’re being told that we have to give priority to these sorts of situations over burglaries because they will be seen as assaults.” That is what he told my office today. The police do not want to see a commencement date for this bill the Napier constituents do not want to see a commencement date for this bill and I can tell members that I certainly do not want to see a commencement date for this bill. It is a shocker and it should never even have come to Parliament. 
I can understand when the majority of the public sits in one position but the logic is clearly in another position on a particular piece of legislation. But here the public have got it right. Eighty-five percent of our constituents say “No!” and the logic—the empirical evidence—whenever one looks around the world says that the introduction of anti-smacking legislation has not made one iota of difference. Let us have a look. No decent research shows that a smack by a loving parent breeds violence— 
Jill Pettis 
: Commencement date—commencement. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I have been speaking all night about the commencement date—I am right into it. No decent research has shown there should be a commencement date for this bill. The Otago University study implied there should not be a commencement date. It says that children who are smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression substance abuse adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all. That study shows there should be no commencement date to this bill. 
The 2003 Unicef report on maltreatment in deaths showed that of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates four allowed smacking. Here we are arguing that New Zealand has a high amount of child abuse—and I am not going to disagree with that; that is clearly the case—but the Unicef report says that of the five best countries four of them have not wiped out a provision like section 59 and they still allow smacking. So we have clear evidence that there should be no commencement date for this particular piece of legislation. 
Ms Pillay stood up and said that section 59 should be outlawed because we need to stop parents using riding crops and implements. Only 18 legal defences have been successful over 30 years yet we are going to change the entire legislation for 18 people and criminalise the remaining good parents in this country. Eighty-five percent of parents do not want to see a commencement date for this bill and I support them totally. The logic is just not there; the Unicef report and the Otago University reports are just not there. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish to raise it under Standing Order 137(3): “The Speaker may accept a closure motion if in the Speaker’s opinion it is reasonable to do so.” This is an extremely contentious bill this evening. We have a lot of speakers wishing to speak on the commencement clause of this bill and I urge you to let the debate carry on. 
Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not think I need any assistance. We have had 22 speakers some of them relevant to the clause but Jacqui Dean has not spoken on this clause. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the commencement date of this bill the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. The first comment I would make about this bill is that the public of New Zealand are not stupid. The public of New Zealand know exactly what this bill is about. The public of New Zealand do not want to see this bill commence. The public of New Zealand do not want this bill to commence because they understand very very clearly that this is a bill in which the Government comes in their back door into their kitchen into their family room into their bedroom and tells them how they may or how they may not raise their children. 
I have the great pleasure of being a constituency MP and as part of my duties as a constituency MP I receive a number of people in my office. I was particularly struck by a man who came in to see me. He made an appointment and took some time off work and I hope he is listening this evening. He took a morning off work so that he could come in and see me and express his dismay at the provisions of this anti-smacking bill including the commencement date which of course is integral to the bill. He said: “You know Jacqui it’s my job to raise my children. It’s not the Government’s job to raise my children.” Those members over on the other side of the Chamber—the unionists—are scoffing but this is a man’s heartfelt belief. If members can scoff against that then I guess they can scoff against anything. 
I spoke to a lawyer this morning on the telephone because I was interested to see how in fact this bill would pan out should the commencement date come into force and the bill be turned into law. That lawyer who has done quite a bit of family work ran me through the scenario of what would happen out in the real world should this unfortunate and vile bill ever become law. What would happen is that if a complaint was made to the police about a parent or caregiver smacking a child it would be regarded by the police as the same as a domestic violence incident. Under police current practice should this happen in Oamaru the police would go along to that Oamaru home knock on the door and arrest the person. The person—and remember we are talking about a parent here—would be taken to the police station and held in custody. That parent would be removed from his or her child and taken into custody. That person—that citizen of New Zealand who is now being regarded as a criminal—would be put before a judge or a justice of the peace in order for bail to be discussed because in this instance of family violence so-called the police would not be considering that. 
So here we have a situation where if this bill should ever become law—which I certainly hope it does not; I do not want to see this bill ever commence—a person who taps his or her kid on the bottom is going to spend quite a bit of time in police custody and in police cells. If the politicians on the other side of the Chamber who live in la-la land want to argue that then they should go and speak to a lawyer in their own community. Do we want this for our society? Do we want this for our children? Do we want this for our parents? I would say we do not. 
So let us have a look at another scenario because I got a little bit interested at this point. It is all very well talking about principles but what actually happens out in the world? Well here we have a situation where a couple separates. There is an awful lot of bitterness going around when couples separate and divorce and when there are children involved. OK Dad’s feeling very bitter about Mum who has found herself a new partner. He picks the kids up and one of the kids is a bit angry with Mum because Mum has sent them off to their room to do their homework or something. So the kid says—because the kid knows that he or she can—“Mum hit me.” Well members can guess what will happen then. The cops will have to go around and once again our good decent parents will be regarded as criminals. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Motion agreed to. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I have had advice from the Clerk’s Office in relation to Judy Turner’s Supplementary Order Paper 95 and I seek leave that the vote on this Supplementary Order Paper be taken as a single vote. I have checked out that matter with the other whips so I seek leave accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Judy Turner to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Taito Phillip Field to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “on the day” and substitute the words “one month”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 5 (Brown Mark Paraone Peters Stewart); United Future 2 (Copeland Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just ask you to explain a little about the amendments in my name that you have ruled out. I am looking especially at Standing Order 257(1). It quite clearly states: “A bill must include a distinct clause stating when the bill comes into force.” If the clause stays the way that it is it states that it will come into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent. Well the Royal assent date is an indeterminate date. We do not know when that will be. Maybe the Governor-General is not around for some weeks; he may be overseas. I want to know how it is acceptable for it to be an indeterminate date such as when it receives the Royal assent—that is acceptable—but the Standing Order quite clearly states that a bill must include a distinct clause stating when the bill comes into force. My amendments state—especially the first four which relate to individual members—that it should be after that day and after they have signed the statutory declaration stating they personally support the way that the vote was cast in their name. I cannot understand why that date which would be some date after the legislation has passed through is in any way less determinate or more determinate than that of the date it receives the Royal assent. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson perhaps to begin with I could refer you to Standing Order 311 “Bills passed to be printed fair authenticated and presented for Royal assent” which states: “When a bill has been passed it is printed fair by direction of the Clerk who authenticates two prints of it and presents them for the Royal assent.” Of course one could argue that the Royal assent may not be forthcoming but as the Royal veto has not been exercised since 1707 and is regarded by most constitutional historians and lawyers as now defunct the Royal assent may be regarded as something that follows automatically from the provision of the fair copies presented by the Clerk of the House. A commencement date that is contingent upon another member—or indeed upon anybody else—doing something that that person may or may not do whether or not that person does it is no indication of what that person actually means by his or her action or inaction and is a totally indeterminate event. It is precisely the kind of matter that was the subject of the Speaker’s ruling in October last year. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the members for that. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Dr Cullen refers to Standing Order 311 which states: “When a bill has been passed it is printed fair by direction of the Clerk who authenticates two prints of it and presents them for the Royal assent.” I do not understand how that has any overriding effect on the Standing Order that I read out which states that a bill must have a clause in it that states clearly when its coming into effect will be. I would have thought that there is a degree of certainty that there will be a Royal assent at some stage afterwards. My amendments are stating that there is a degree of certainty—that we are asking members of Parliament to sign a statutory declaration. I simply do not understand why those two events are different. Certainly the Standing Order that Dr Cullen referred to does not actually refer to that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member can adopt a date that is certain in that respect with a specific date such as say 15 November—which of course is the other form of the date of commencement where an actual specific certain date is given. The Clerk of the House has no choice but to present a fair copy. That must be done. I think it is now reasonable constitutional law that when that is being presented to the Governor-General the Royal assent must be given. These events must occur and therefore the event will happen. It is a certain event. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for that. I am persuaded by the argument from Dr Cullen which is an argument that has been made before on very similar issues. The statement I made that the amendment was out of order is quite correct. An amendment to a commencement date must provide certainty. For the reasons that have been outlined those amendments did not do that. We will move on now to the much-awaited clause 2A. 
Clause 2A Principal Act amended 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak in relation to clause 2A “Principal Act amended” which I will read for the benefit of those who are listening: “This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.” So I take it we can talk about the Crimes Act 1961 and how it is amended by this particular bill. 
At the moment should parents smack a child not for the purpose of correction but because they do that every Friday or every day after they come home from the pub or because they feel like it it is against the law. That is not condoned by the law because it is not for the purpose of correction of the child. This is already the law. It is already against the law to hit a child for any reason other than for the purpose of correction. It is absolutely the law. 
Occasionally the law can be abused by people being overly keen to prosecute a parent but it can also sometimes be abused by people thinking they have the right to do that. It is quite wrong to have discussions in this House that imply that somehow there will be a change of attitude towards children and the beating of them. I have heard people in this Chamber talk in this debate about how we need to send a message. The way most of us send messages is by phone calls emails letters television and radio adverts and by talking to people and educating them. We do not actually prosecute parents because we want to send a message. 
This bill should not be about what the Green Party and the Labour Party want it to be about which is who is in charge of our kids. Those parties think they are. This bill should be about what is in the best interests of children. What is in the best interests of children is for them to have responsible empowered parents who put their children first and who make decisions that sometimes the children do not like but they are in their best interests. 
I heard the most appalling suggestions tonight from Labour Party members that we should not now do anything that children do not like and that we should have a voice for children here in Parliament. They say we should definitely do that. Well why do we not just give children the vote? That will solve the problem. We have heard Labour Party members saying that children should not be forced to do things they do not like. I do not know of any parent here of a teenager who could say to his or her child: “You decide dear when you would like to go to bed at night. You decide dear whether you do your homework. You decide who you get to hang out with. You decide where you go. You decide whether you would like to go to a pub when you are 14. You decide.” 
I would just like to say to those members who do not live in the real world—unlike those of us who do who represent real people and do not live in some la-la land along with la-la land people—that on Monday I was at the Bethany Centre in Auckland. The centre does not really do adoptions these days; what it does is teach parenting to mums who are absolutely at risk. In other words we are talking about people in the underclass area—people who have absolutely no hope without the help and intervention the Bethany Centre can give them. Staff at the Bethany Centre have said to me that one of the biggest problems they have is kids who come in there who have no idea about being parents. 
They have parents who come in to visit their children and who are trying to do the right thing but who have never said “No”. They have never set boundaries or actually said they do not want to be the best friend of their child but want to be that child’s parent. Because guess what? They are different—just like those members who are former teachers and who like to stand up and say that once they used to smack children once they used to beat them with a cane but they do not do that any more because they have learnt the way. They try to equate the relationship between a parent and child with that of a teacher and a child. They are completely different relationships. 
A teacher will have a child for a certain number of hours every day and not in the holidays. A parent has a child 24/7. I have never seen a teacher get up at 3 o’clock in the morning and take a sick child with earache to the doctor which is what normal parents do. Those teachers who are parents will have done it for their own children but they do not do it for other people’s children because they are not those children’s parents. There is a basic difference between the relationships. 
It is absolute twaddle for some members to come into this Chamber and talk about how they used to be a teacher and cane children but now they have learnt better. Forget it! We are not saying parents should be able to cane their children; we are saying that a light smack on the hand or the bottom of a child by way of correction will not harm him or her. In fact it may actually stop a situation escalating. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Speaking to clause 2A “Principal Act amended” which states: “This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.” reminds me very strongly of the fact that that Act was amended when I was a young teacher—well not so young actually; probably a middle-aged teacher. I say to the member who spoke before me that I am both a teacher and a parent. I actually know the difference between the two roles and I also know the similarities between then. At that time it was said to us that it would be impossible to exert any discipline in a classroom or a school when corporal punishment was taken away. I have to say that that was not so; that was incorrect. Anyone who was taught by me—and at least three people in this particular organisation were—knows that he or she was equally scared of me before that provision was repealed and afterwards. 
But I want to talk about something that is quite serious and is above party politics. I believe that even though this debate has not been argued away this is very serious legislation. I want to tell members a story because many people are alleging that the police will arrest every parent who slaps his or her child. This story happened in relation to my child when she was about 2 or 3. There had been a murder and I am sure Gerry Brownlee will remember the child from Bexley who was abducted and murdered. This story happened about 2 weeks later than that. I was at school and my husband had taken Claire—and I apologise to Claire for bringing her into the debate—to the library in Papanui where as a 2-year-old she threw a class A tantrum. He picked her up under his arm and with her arms and legs going he walked through the town of Papanui bundled her into the car and drove her home. 
Five minutes later there was a thunderous knock on the front door and a policeman was there. Claire answered the door all sunny smiles and the policeman said: “Is your daddy here?” and she said: “Yes he’s just here.” and went and got poor Geoff. The policeman said to Geoff: “Oh you’re the father?” and he said: “Yes she threw a tantrum in the library and I brought her home.” The policeman said: “Look that is perfectly OK. We are just terribly concerned at the moment because of the abduction and because of the murder of the kid in Bexley.” 
That policeman used his common sense. He did not prosecute my husband for abducting the child. He did not prosecute my husband for putting her on a mat and taking her home. He did not prosecute my husband for physically taking the kid up. That was common sense. To say that our police force would do other than that at the moment is to belittle their priorities and to belittle their common sense. I do not often bring my family into the debate here but I wanted to tell that story because it is a true story and is pretty damn real. 
Also another argument has been put up in here. It is an argument that says that this amendment is the Government or the State interfering in our families. The Government and the State interfere in our families when people commit domestic violence. When there is rape within marriage of course the State is inside the bedroom on those occasions because if one wants to play religion that is against the Ten Commandments. That is pretty basic. Whether those Ten Commandments are broken on the street or inside the home they are still broken. Murder committed inside the family home is still murder; it is still against the Crimes Act. Assault committed inside the family home is still against the Crimes Act and that is why this amendment is not actually saying that suddenly the State will go inside the family home. The State ought to be in there for murder assault and domestic violence and I stand by that. 
The other argument we come up against is the one being put up by the Opposition at the moment in relation to the weakest time in our lives—and I have been through the Family Court several times—which is when one is in divorce proceedings and there is a contest over the children. Everyone grasps at different straws. They grasp at the abuse of children by different partners; they use that argument already in there. But to say other than that and to say that judges and the lawyers for the child do not argue against spurious cases that are put up is I think again to belittle our judges. 
I stand in here in support of our police; I stand in here in support of our courts. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Clause 2A highlights how the proponents of this Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill have wildly over-claimed what it is they are doing legally but have clearly underestimated the impact they are having on parental attitudes. Clause 2A states: “This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.” If this bill is passed there will still be a section 59. I do not know whether the lobby groups that have spent millions of dollars on this realise that there will still be a section 59 and that it will still have a set of conditions for defence against prosecution. It will not be a particularly sensible set of defences—Chester Borrows’ ones are much better—but that will still be the case. 
The legal difference between this bill and what Chester Borrows is proposing is actually not very large but the key to this debate is what my colleague Gerry Brownlee said when he quoted the Labour member who said that this is about attitudinal change. Well I want to tell the Labour Government why so many people are worked up about this bill. They do not believe that the way to solve abuse and violence against children is to force a change in the attitude of all those parents who do a great job. That is what is being proposed here. I resent that. I resent being told by people over on that side of the Chamber that for the 20 years I have spent raising six children I have had the wrong attitude; I was wrong my attitude was wrong and as a result of that wrong attitude “Lillybing” was killed and it is my fault. 
 This Government has spent the last 3 months avoiding responsibility for the death of Liam Ashley and more recently for the death of Mr Kuchenbecker. Government members do not know who is responsible for those deaths but they do know who is responsible for the awful violence against young vulnerable children in New Zealand: it is me and it is the other members who do not support the bill and it is the hundreds of people who sent me emails and letters—they are responsible. Nobody in the Government is responsible for the death of prisoners who were in the Government’s care but it is the attitudes of all normal parents who have done a good job over 20 years that are responsible for extreme violence against children. 
That is why clause 2A is so telling—because it makes it clear there will still be a section 59. All those people who have emailed me because they were told by Sue Bradford and the child lobby that section 59 will be repealed have been misled again. The amendment to the Crimes Act is simply to replace section 59. I say to Sue Bradford that she should tell people the truth. 
It is really grinding on New Zealand parents that they are being told that their good intentions towards their kids are not of the same moral value as the good intentions of the child lobby that somehow the child lobby’s good intentions have to be legislated over and above theirs and that the answer to fixing parents who do a bad job is to attack all those parents who do a good job. I want the next Labour speaker to explain to me just what it is about the attitude of the thousands of parents who do a good job every day that has to be changed in order to save some other child who may be killed in the next wee while. I want him or her to argue that. 
I will tell members about symbolism. I resent my relationship with my children being legally and fundamentally altered to prove a symbolic point. Our relationships might be regarded by Labour and the child lobby as being grist to the mill of symbolism strategies and politics. But for us they are human heartfelt and real; they pump blood tension love and warmth every day. I never again want to hear people say they are performing some political trick of symbolism on that fundamental human relationship. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I want to introduce a little bit of calmness and common sense into this argument by explaining—and I think that is what he requested—to the member Bill English the amendment from the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Basically I think it would be fair to say a number of members of the select committee would have preferred straight repeal of section 59 as would have the myriad organisations that submitted to us in support of the bill. But to their credit they accepted the amendment not because it was absolutely essential but because it gave reassurance to parents. The silly nonsense going out from the National Party members from members of the media and from other people was that parents would be arrested and prosecuted for minor acts of violence. So it was the intention of the select committee supported by the non-governmental organisation sector—and we are very appreciative of that—and also with the assistance of the Law Commission to create an amendment that gave clarification to people and therefore gave reassurance to good parents in New Zealand and still kept our children safe.  
The previous speaker Bill English—when I could understand what he was saying; he was shouting a lot—actually argued that Chester Borrows’ amendment was more sensible. Chester Borrows’ amendment goes against what modern parents are learning today with the SKIP programme. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to members opposite that they should cut the hysteria and settle down; they should stop being bullies. This legislation reinforces the SKIP programme. The nanny programme on television has taught people about this issue and they are very receptive. They say that yes the SKIP programme is great. This legislation reinforces that programme. 
This bill will give reassurance and I thank everybody who was part of making that happen: all the organisations that give so much advice and support to parents in our country the Law Commission and the majority of members on the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
We often hear National members in this Chamber talking about unions. That is another group they like to whip up saying what terrible people from the dark ages union members are. In particular National members take a few swipes—if members excuse the use of the word “swipes”—at the engineering union. I want to talk about one of the organisers of this union who spoke with me a couple of days ago and told me about the attitude of fitters to this issue. These fitters many of them middle-aged said they were not worried about the bill and that of course they would not get arrested for minor acts. They said that people do not hit their kids nowadays; they just put them in time out or take their iPods from them. That attitude was from quite a conservative section of our society. 
So if the concern from the Opposition benches is genuine I want to try to reassure those members in some way. But the cynical side of me thinks their concern is not genuine. I think that they are deliberately misleading the public in New Zealand and that what they are doing is reprehensible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No the member may not say “deliberately misleading”. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: What can I say Mr Chairman? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is understood that the member should not have said it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The Opposition members are creating misunderstandings out in the public with the words they are speaking so frequently so passionately—and so hysterically in fact. I think that if we take a breath and read this amendment bill then we will know that it gives reassurance to people. It gives reassurance to the good parents in New Zealand—along with the police who do have prosecution guidelines—and we know that people will not be criminalised under this bill. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 In speaking to clause 2A which confirms that this Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is an amendment to the Crimes Act I believe we need to have a think about why we are amending that Act. It is obvious; it is because an assault comes under the Crimes Act. In fact if the Chair recalls learning verbatim the definition of assault under section 2 of the Crimes Act he will be able to confirm that “Assault means the act of intentionally applying … force to the person of another directly or indirectly or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another if the person making the threat has or causes the other to believe … that he has present ability …” to do so. 
So what has been found to be an assault? Well what has been found to be an assault is contact as light as a kiss and goes on a continuum all the way through to bashing someone around the ears with a lump of wood. That is about the state of it. So the argument around this legislation and this amendment concerns whereabouts on that continuum we start or stop. The point was made earlier that Sue Bradford’s bill provides a defence for parents who use reasonable force to control their children. But my amendment provides a defence for people who use reasonable force for the purposes of correction to raise their children. There is only a gap between us; it is not very wide. 
Let us have a little think about when the changes to the bill came up because initially of course the only thing that was before the House and before the Justice and Electoral Committee was repeal of section 59—to take it away completely. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.