Copeland Gordon: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8017] 
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.