Borrows Chester: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8008] 
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.