Guy Nathan: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8884] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I am probably one of the younger parents in this Parliament. I have two young children and I want to reflect for a moment on how difficult parenting actually is. It is extremely stressful. It is extremely hard work. At times as a parent one is sleep deprived. At times young children will push parents to the limits and they need to learn the boundaries. So for me a light smack on the hand is a tool that needs to be in the tool box at some stage because parents may need to change a bad behaviour. 
I am sure that we all in Parliament agree that there is far too much abuse of young children. I take that as a given. I also want to reflect on the true politics of this bill the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill because in the last couple of months I think we have had time to reflect on how this Green Party bill is supported by Labour because of the confidence and supply arrangements. When the polls started going against the bill and against the Government the Government realised it needed to panic. It tried to move the bill into urgency but it could not get the support to do that. Then before Easter it tried to take over the bill as a Government bill. Again there was no support. So I think we need to be aware that Labour and the Greens have been extremely poorly supported by the majority of the public on this bill. 
It is interesting to sit here tonight and see some Labour Party caucus members who I believe have actually been against the bill all the way along. It has divided the Labour Party caucus. It was interesting to hear Mr Jones and Mr Cunliffe speak this evening and also Mr Duynhoven who stood by his convictions. He told the Committee this evening what he believes in and he has not succumbed to some of the pressure in his caucus. The other member I look forward to possibly hearing from this evening is Mr O’Connor if he chooses to take a call. 
What this has come down to is the very good leadership I believe of John Key. He has been around the country listening to people and to parents who are concerned about this bill. He tried to broker a deal with the sponsor of the bill Mrs Bradford. Unfortunately they could not reach agreement. Then there was the chance to reach agreement across the Chamber which I believe is what we have now. I believe that this amendment is the result of the good work done by John Key. Brian Donnelly this evening acknowledged that good work—he might have been putting out a bid for the next coalition talks I am not sure. 
What people were really upset about with the bill as it was proposed by Mrs Bradford was the nanny State approach. They felt that the Government was coming into their homes and telling them what they as parents should be doing. I know that being a parent is a difficult job and that people are sick to death of having the way they believe they should bring up their children interfered with. 
Now we have a practical common-sense amendment that will go through the Committee this evening. It is interesting to see that the Commissioner of Police has come out pretty much in support of it and he is probably breathing a sigh of relief on behalf of the New Zealand Police force. So although I am not necessarily 100 percent happy I think the amendment is the right way forward. 
I want briefly to acknowledge Chester Borrows who worked hard in the Justice and Electoral Committee for months and months trying to reach some sort of consensus on the bill. When we analyse it overall I think we see we are all the better for this debate. The whole country is the better for having the situation around child abuse raised. National when it gets into Government in 2008 and 2009 looks forward to being able to review the legislation and seeing whether the amendment before us is actually working.