Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8885] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I actually enjoyed Mr Guy’s speech and I thank him very much for that. But he missed out a key point. Yes it was a Sue Bradford bill—and good on her and the Green Party—which the Labour Party under Helen Clark decided to get wholeheartedly behind. Then the public became alarmed when the numbers were there to pass it. Something like 80 percent of New Zealanders were opposed to the bill so Helen Clark had a huge problem. The National Party then came to Helen Clark’s rescue telling her not to worry because it would vote for it making it no longer a political debate. That is what actually removed the political debate. As I said at the start: Sue Bradford has done a remarkable job as a non-Government MP on the backbenches getting the support of the Government and of the National Party for her bill. 
But do not worry I say to you Madam Chairperson and to the Committee because the ACT party is here. We are here to help and this is what we have learnt in the last remarkable 24 hours. We have learnt that the Labour Party is prepared to vote for Sue Bradford’s bill. We have heard that the National Party is prepared now to vote for Sue Bradford’s bill. Well the question before the Committee is this: in this great spirit of MMP when we all come together and of actually getting some resolution to this matter and just to test where the parties lie on the issue is the Labour Party prepared now to vote for Chester Borrows’ amendment? That would be the true MMP thing actually—not for National to concede and to vote for Labour and Sue Bradford’s bill but for Labour to see the sense of what Mr Chester Borrows proposed and to vote for his amendment. 
In fact we can lay to rest a very important issue here which is where the National Party is on the bill. Is National prepared to vote for Chester Borrows’ amendment and make its vote for the bill conditional upon that amendment succeeding? I want to remind the Committee what Chester Borrows’ amendment does. It is a very good amendment. It defines what unreasonable force is—which is the problem with our current law. It says it is unreasonable if it is against the law for sure. Then it goes on to state that it is unreasonable if “it causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory and trifling.” How clear is that? So a person can smack a child as long as it does not cause harm that is more than transitory or trifling. 
The trouble with the amendment that Peter Dunne has tabled and what National is voting for is that it is not that. It is not that at all. It is whether it is inconsequential or is in the public interest. So Chester Borrows had it in a word when he said that yes smacking is OK but harm is not. That captures it in his amendment now happily in my name for the Labour Party to vote for for the Greens to vote for and for the National Party to vote for. Chester Borrows’ amendment goes on to state that the use of force is unreasonable if “any weapon tool or other implement is used;”. Of course the Committee is against that. I hope the National Party is against that and I hope the Labour Party is against that but not against a light smack on the hand which is what Nathan Guy talked about in his speech. 
So here is the test I say to Mr Guy: vote for this amendment; if this amendment does not go through then do not vote for the bill because it is not achieving what he just argued should be the law. The amendment goes on to state that the use of force is unreasonable if “it is inflicted by any means that is cruel degrading or terrifying.” This is a test for what the law will be and who is actually voting for the bill. It is not Helen Clark and the Labour Party voting for a National Party change; it is actually the National Party voting for Sue Bradford’s original bill. 
I propose my amendment and look forward to the support of the entire Committee in the spirit of MMP for common sense for families and for good lawmaking. Thank you.