Brownlee Gerry: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8861] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 That was a very interesting contribution from Lynne Pillay to the debate but it overlooks the fact that had it not been for the position taken by John Key that this was an issue that was starting to divide New Zealand unreasonably then Helen Clark would not have made the overtures she did yesterday and the words in the amendment which are substantially the words of John Key would not be the words the Committee is debating right now. 
Labour members sitting opposite might like to shake their heads but the fact is that as the bill stood New Zealanders who are doing their best by their children who are exercising their right to ensure their children are brought up with some discipline in their life could have found themselves before the courts. They could have found the police at the front door and found themselves under some accusation inside the community of not being good parents. That is why John Key made the efforts he did to try to get through the impasse. I think it is disingenuous of Labour members not to recognise that. 
I think it is good that they recognise the involvement of the Hon Peter Dunne because he also recognised that this was causing the sort of wedge in society that this country does not need. I hope that over the next few days we do not see too many Labour members going out there trying to say that they are the great saviours of families in this nation. I am simply saying that this is not the right issue to pick division on. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You are better than this Gerry. This isn’t the right time for that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Cosgrove from up the back there said that that is an inappropriate thing to accuse him of. But I have not heard one Labour member in this Chamber outline what the facts were in this case. It was Helen Clark who came to John Key yesterday and said: “We need to talk because this is a problem.” It was a problem for the Labour Party because most New Zealanders were saying that they were being put in an untenable position by the Prime Minister and her party. At least she had the courage to recognise that something had to be done—we are prepared to give her that. But then of course it was in the later part of yesterday evening that the contribution from Peter Dunne meant that we were able to get some progress. 
I think it was also very good that Sue Bradford was prepared to accept that the intention of her bill—to protect children—would be most satisfied by this compromise. I do not think it is good for Labour members not to acknowledge that it is a compromise. We know that had it not been for the need to ensure that the Greens continue to support this Government effectively by abstaining on confidence and supply votes this would never have been a whipped vote inside the Labour Party. 
 So Labour members should not try to make a virtue out of what has actually been a severe political problem for them. The fact is that we will now end up with a bill that ensures that parents can comfortably go about their business can comfortably have a family arrangement without fear that at any time the State might enter their living rooms and start telling them how to run the place. 
I think it would be good if one or two Labour members recognised that they have actually got out of jail today to some extent. There are Labour members over there in seats where the polling has shown that this was the issue that would tip them out. From our perspective this bill is far too important a piece of legislation for Labour to have played games in the way it did. One of the things that was really most irritating was Helen Clark taking a hard position in favour of Sue Bradford’s bill because it was politically expedient to do so and then finding that the political expedience exercise to stay in this place was costing her. Thank goodness she saw good sense.