Cosgrove Clayton: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9288] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I rise in support of the third reading of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Before getting into the substance of the bill I would like to firstly place on record my congratulations to all the parliamentary leaders in this House who accepted the Prime Minister’s offer and worked together to reach a sensible solution which the vast majority of members in this House accept and perhaps in time the vast majority of the public will come to accept. 
As I said in the Committee stage leadership is not simply about being popular. It is also about doing what one believes to be right even in the face of potential criticism. The sensible solution that has been agreed on and is now written into this bill has the rare virtue in politics of being popular but also fundamentally right. 
I also want to place on record my firmly held belief that despite all the hype that has surrounded this bill from before its introduction not one member of this House does not support the underlying intention of this bill which is to ensure that our children can live in a safe and secure environment free from violence. For me that has always been the key issue. As I said previously I took a lot of convincing over this bill. It is no secret to both those across the House and indeed my colleagues in the Labour Party that I do take a more conservative stance than many in this House over these sorts of issues. 
I have spoken face to face and more important listened to hundreds of people in my constituency of Waimakariri and all over the country about this bill. I have listened closely and taken advice from those people on all sides of the public debate. I pay tribute to those constituents of mine for having the fortitude to express their views whether for or against the bill. I worry though about the few—very very few—parents who spoke with me who felt to quote one that they had “a God-given right to hit their children with a cane or an implement.” I am a Catholic an Irish one. I am not the best Catholic in the world—there is plenty of testament to that—but I have a very different interpretation of the Bible than that individual who spoke with me. 
As I said previously I am charged as a constituency MP not simply to do what is popular but I am after listening and discussing issues with my constituents charged with making a judgment and doing what I believe to be right even though that may risk unpopularity or criticism. As I said in the Committee stage when I voted against the Prostitution Reform Bill the Civil Union Bill and the euthanasia legislation many of my constituents said I was right many said I was wrong and history will be the ultimate judge. My constituents pay me to do this job. Doing this job means listening to them carefully considering their views but also having the guts to make a judgment—a judgment in the best interests of all our communities not just a judgment based on the last person one speaks to. Kiwis are indeed fair-minded. I respect the legitimate fears of good and decent parents up and down the country. 
New section 59(4) inserted by clause 4 makes it clear that the police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints where the offence is so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with the prosecution. I have been confident all along that the police will not lay frivolous charges against decent loving parents. Police have made these judgment calls every day of the week for years. They are trained to do so. New section 59(4) puts this beyond doubt and underpinned by prosecution guidelines represents an important safeguard for parents. 
The other important safeguard in this bill is new clause 6 which requires the monitoring of the effects of this legislation and which after 2 years requires a review of the effects of this legislation to ensure that it is achieving its purpose as set out in clause 3. I promoted and fought for that provision and I am glad it has been included. 
Should it turn out that the fears of those on either side of the debate around this bill are realised—the audit will make this clear—then Parliament and the public can take another look after an appropriate period of grace. Both these changes new section 59(4) and new clause 6 provide added safeguards for parents. Both make explicit that which was always implicit. Both address the legitimate concerns of good and caring parents throughout the country who deserve reassurance that the bill will achieve its intended purpose. 
Last time I spoke in this House on this bill I said that when people who have been misled by mischief-makers realise that this bill does not try to tell parents how to run their families they may tend over time to take a different view. There are members of course who made outrageous claims and who drove people unfairly into a frenzy and that I think is a shame on this House. Katherine Rich is a National member of Parliament. We often disagree. But I have respect for her. I say this: the threat made against her children during this debate was an appallingly low period in this debate. Every fair-minded Kiwi—the vast majority of Kiwis—would have seen that act as it was: appalling. 
President Bill Clinton once said and it is apt that the “whole nature of public service is by definition a reflection of the nature of life. It is passing. It has seasons. It is a process not a destination.” I am convinced that this legislation’s time has now come. I am firmly convinced—and I have reflected carefully on this legislation—that what this House is doing today will be seen in history as the right judgment and as the right thing to do. I am convinced that the review that was insisted on and gained and that has the support of this House will ensure that this bill is a process and not a destination. 
The signal that this House is sending today is that violence against our children is unacceptable. Having a sizable majority vote in favour of this bill ensures that a powerful message is sent to our communities loud and clear. This bill by itself will not eliminate violence from the lives of our children. We have a long way to go before we can guarantee that our children live in a safe and secure environment free from violence. However it is a historic and necessary step along the road towards that destination. 
I want in the rare times of non-partisanship that we have in this House—times that our communities I know would hope would extend beyond the debate on this bill—to thank and pay tribute to members on all sides of the House especially those members in the Justice and Electoral Committee who were at the sharp end; to those eminent persons in the Law Commission; to the officials who often get kicked around in public life but who are there in the engine room making things happen; and to all those who contributed in a positive way to making this bill both workable and acceptable to the House and ultimately the public. I urge members to support it in this third reading.