Chadwick Steve: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8453] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I heard the same hysterical highly emotional and rhetorical debate on the smoke-free environments amendment legislation. It spun out of control in the public perception because of misinformation. We are dealing tonight sadly with a lot of misinformation that has gone out to the public and has raised among the public anxiety and concern that do not even need to be there. I think tonight some members in this Committee need to look at their own behaviour and look at their hypocritical attitudes. I chair the Littlies Lobby in this House— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member cannot say that. She needs to withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Apologise for that. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I withdraw and apologise. We need to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Just a minute; please be seated. Mr Brownlee I was on my feet and I was ruling. You know that you cannot talk over me. You will withdraw and apologise. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am talking to Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I also withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I assume now you are going to ask Steve Chadwick to withdraw and apologise for her appalling remark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Brownlee she had already done that before I called you. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. In actual fact what you said to her was “No no I’m not calling you; I’m calling Gerry Brownlee.” Well I accepted your call and made the apology so theoretically there is no apology from Steve Chadwick yet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: All I would say to Mr Brownlee is to go back tomorrow and read the  
Hansard 
. You will see very clearly that Steve Chadwick withdrew and apologised before you were on your feet. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take your advice. Thank you very much. I assume you are going to make Steve Chadwick’s  
Hansard 
 available for us to check tomorrow? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I just remind members across the Chamber— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. What is the answer? We do not get Steve Chadwick’s  
Hansard 
 for over 2 weeks. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows the rules. Please be seated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows the rules very clearly. That is up to the member. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You have instructed me to take a look at the  
Hansard 
 tomorrow to see that there was an apology from Steve Chadwick. I cannot do that tomorrow because Steve Chadwick’s  
Hansard 
 will not be available for some time. But if you as the Chair were to suggest that the  
Hansard 
 should be made available then of course it will be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. As the member knows very well it is up to the member to do that but I would suggest that the member will be able to read the  
Hansard 
 when it is available. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am happy to table my  
Hansard 
 tomorrow for the benefit of members in the Committee and if it is required I am happy to withdraw and apologise again. 
But I want to also draw the attention of members in this Committee to some rather hypocritical behaviour. I chair the Littlies Lobby along with these wonderful advocates in the House tonight: Barnardos Plunket Women’s Refuge Save the Children Unicef and EPOCH— 
Judith Collins 
: They are not in the House! 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes they are all in the gallery tonight hearing the screaming and hysteria in this Committee from members. I recall that members in this Committee tonight who are point-scoring on the backs of our children came to that meeting to hear Joan Durrant a leading world expert who talked about the repeal of section 59. They all said what a wonderful thing that was and that they supported any initiative that would make a difference to the dreadful levels of child abuse in this country. Something has dramatically changed the minds of members of the Opposition and they have conveniently forgotten the role that we all agreed: to work together as a political lobby group in order to make the lives of our children better in this country and to rid ourselves of the dreadful reputation we have for violence to our children. 
I would like to acknowledge Brian Donnelly here tonight. He stood up long before the repeal of section 59 had popularity and bravely voiced that it was one initiative just one initiative that will not solve issues— 
Anne Tolley 
: It won’t solve abuse. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is right—it will not solve abuse. But repeal of section 59 will put out very strong social messaging to the parents in the community whom I have dealt with that we no longer tolerate violence of any sort to our children. I believe that we are all saying the same thing in the Committee tonight. 
I also really believe that Chester Borrows has genuinely tried to find amendments that reflect the level of concern from parents who are anxious and feel they may no longer be able to discipline their children for purposes of correction. I believe that it is a matter of definition and I prefer the amendments put up by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I think they are more lucid— 
Chester Borrows 
: He wrote mine too. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes I know he wrote that member’s amendments but we know what he thought of them too. 
I have heard in the Committee of instances where section 59 has not been used as a defence in the courts. Well 20 years ago—I used this example in my first speech to the House—I admitted a child to the children’s ward of a hospital. I managed the children’s ward and set up the first child abuse service in Rotorua so I do not appreciate or respect Opposition members saying that some of us have no professional expertise or standing on the issue of child abuse. It has been my life’s work. That child I admitted was in a little pushchair cowering. When I lifted him to put him into a cot his body collapsed like a witch’s wand. Twenty-four bones in his body were broken. That father went to court and hid behind section 59 saying he had used reasonable force. We had to get care and protection and have paediatricians involved to remove that child from his father. People cannot hide behind section 59.