Borrows Chester: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8871] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I was so pleased this afternoon to see the response from the Police Association which stated: “Police officers feared that the repeal of section 59 would leave them with no ability to use discretion when a smacking complaint was received.” That comment was from Police Association president Greg O’Connor. It goes to the nub of the real debate that was around the words used in the versions of the amendments and the bill as they came from the select committee. The debate was always about whether parents who smack should be rendered liable for prosecution. If the answer is no they should not should the defence be written in the law or should it be in practice? Those of us on the select committee will recall that we had that debate on numerous occasions and we came down on opposing sides. 
I think I am the second lawyer to speak in this debate. It is interesting to note that my legal friend Russell Fairbrother saw it exactly on the opposite side from where I am talking now. Maybe that is appropriate. He affirmed quite strongly his view that parents were not criminalised. My view is that this legislation did exactly that because it was written into the law that reasonable force could not be used for the purpose of correction. Now force that is used and is reasonable in the circumstances even if for the purpose of correction will not be prosecuted due to the amendment given tonight. That gives some assurance. 
I have to restate a point too that John Key made earlier on. That point is that whenever there is compromise nobody is entirely happy. Where we are tonight is that we are living with a fall-back position as is the Labour Party as is the Green Party and as are those on all sides of the debate. National’s preferred position was my amendment which I withdrew earlier in favour of a compromise. There was a realisation that the Government had the numbers and if we did nothing we would end up in exactly the situation that we did not want to continue—that parents would be criminalised for smacking their children. I know that probably on either side of the Chamber we are all going to see that in different ways. Nevertheless I believe that that is where it was. We will wait for the next lawyer to jump up and argue against me. At least members can rest assured that that lawyer cannot send a bill. 
I must say that although we came down on opposite sides of this debate members of the select committee never allowed this debate to get personal amongst ourselves. All through the debate we acknowledged that we could understand the arguments and took pains to understand the arguments that each side was making. I am grateful for the convivial nature of the select committee hearings in spite of the fact that we were diametrically opposed as to where each of us was going. I guess that is the nature of politics. Members learn a hell of a lot in a short time in this job and in my few months here I guess this is the occasion where I am learning that sometimes one is not always entirely happy with the outcome although one sees that there are important wins for those proposing the bill and for those who will have to live under it. 
Today we have seen two marches on Parliament with both of them bringing their views to the House. I believe that it is an endorsement of the country we live in that we can actually have the freedom to do that. In fact people can enter the grounds in their thousands and they can make their views known. They can have access to their representatives they can argue with them or pat them on the back. In many many countries around the world people cannot do that. 
I am pleased to say we have reached a compromise. It is one that maybe we will be caned for. Let us make no mistake there will be those on both sides of the debate completely polarised who will get stuck into National Party members for eventually voting for a bill they said they would not vote for. Yes we are receiving our emails—more than Ms Chadwick’s 10 I must say. And there are those who will be disenchanted with the Labour Party and the Greens for compromising in the way they have too. Nevertheless that is the nature of politics. If one believes in the democratic process one has to believe that one can make an argument that one can put up ideas that people will listen and that minds can be changed. Even those who are annoyed or feel frustrated at where this debate has gone to and the conclusion that it is reaching surely will take some heart from the fact that although they may bitch and moan continually that all we do is bitch and moan at each other on this occasion there has been consensus and there has been compromise. On some occasions where not everybody is entirely happy that is good for the people of New Zealand. Thank you.