Williamson Maurice: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8016] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to speak about clause 2 “Commencement”. I have thought about this long and hard and the more I have seen clips in the media about this bill—and in particular when it would commence—the more I realise there is a bitter-sweet irony that I cannot let pass. The bill is going to pass through the House because Labour is pulling the whip. On an anti-smacking bill the whip is to be used to get it through! That is the first bit of the irony and I thought it amazing. Labour is going to pull the whip in order to get an anti-smacking bill through. Then I thought well I do not know whether the Labour whips will have that sort of power. I do not know whether they know about this. So I wondered who the Labour whips were. I had to look that up in a book and I found out they are Tim Barnett and Darren Hughes. I thought that was interesting. How many children do they have between the two of them? They do not have any. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh that’s appalling. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Hang on Lianne Dalziel needs to know that I said before that there are members on both sides without children and there are members on both sides who should not be taking an active role in this debate if they have not been through the baptism of fire of bringing up children. It is the hardest job in the world. It is the job for which one gets the least training and Labour has pulled the whip. The two whips doing it have never brought up a child. But that is their choice and I respect their right to have that choice. 
Then I suddenly saw that it was actually Helen Clark who said that Labour was going to use the whip. I thought: “Wow! It’s gone right to prime ministerial level and that’s amazing because it is not a Government bill.” I understand why one would as Prime Minister whip a Government bill because one has to have the numbers to get one’s programme through. But this is not a Government bill; it is actually a member’s bill from a Green MP. And Helen Clark again says: “No we’re going to use the whip.” 
So in regard to the commencement date I have moved a number of amendments that are now tabled. I have moved them because I find it really hard to believe that legislation as important as this legislation will get through the House even though it has become apparent that a majority of members do not support it. I say that because I know a number of Labour MPs who are making it clear to those who will listen that they do not support this bill. They are being whipped by a couple of whips and a Prime Minister on a member’s bill promoted by a member of another party. In my 20 years in Parliament I have not seen that occur. 
So the commencement date now is under the whip. My amendments are one each for the Hon Dover Samuels the Hon Harry Duynhoven the Hon George Hawkins the Hon Damien O’Conner and so on. They say that instead of this legislation coming into effect on the day after it gets the Royal assent it comes into effect on the day after it gets the Royal assent and—here members’ names are substituted for example the Hon Damien O’Connor—has signed a statutory declaration that he personally supports the Act. If those members would do that then this legislation is fine the commencement date is fine and the passing of this bill is fine. It will have been the will of the majority. It will have been democracy. It will have been this House voting for a bill. 
But if those members do not do that then what we are seeing here is something we are likely to see in Zimbabwe—Robert Mugabe using all sorts of underhand tactics to get his way even though it is not what the majority wish. I am very clear about this. I find it absolutely repugnant that the whip has to be pulled—I think it is hilarious that it is being pulled on a smacking debate—and I find it absolutely repugnant that a number of Labour MPs are sitting there just absolutely fuming but they are doing it because this whip is being pulled on a vote that should be a conscience vote. 
I say that those amendments are done seriously. They are not done frivolously; they are done seriously. If the members named in those amendments genuinely support this legislation then I say it should go through this Parliament. That means a majority supports it. What I do know is that Chester Borrows has 58 as his number of members who support his amendments—amendments that I think are the most sensible compromise one could get for this bill and I will sign up to signing for it and voting for it if the trifling and transitory nature of his amendments gets through. But I will not sign up to any commencement date the way the situation stands.