Borrows Chester: General Debate 
Borrows Chester: General Debate 
[Volume:638;Page:8838] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a very uncommon week in Parliament and in political life in this country when one hears some good news from the Labour Party. Last week taxpayers had the good news from the Labour Party that it would finally pay back the $800000 it managed to steal from the taxpayers of this country. Of course one has to wonder why the Labour Party would pay the money back because it never conceded for one moment that it had stolen the money. It paid back $400000 - plus for the pledge card—the pledge card that promised to deal with burglars but has not dealt with burglars and that promised to deal with youth offending but has not dealt with youth offending plus another $400000 on top of that. Labour does not know where it is going on this issue and it does not know where it is going on several other matters within this Parliament. 
I have to talk—as did the member who has just resumed his seat Phil Goff—about the debacle of Labour’s position on the smacking bill. Of course it has been said time and time again over the last couple of years that it is not a smacking bill. But here I have a press release put out by the author of the bill Sue Bradford dated 6 October 2003 and entitled “Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill”. When people tried to confront the Green Party and say that the bill was exactly that the Green Party said it was definitely not an anti-smacking bill. The threats and the words we had from the Prime Minister that this was a totally new position and that the bill as it is at the moment was not a smacking bill runs totally against everything that Sue Bradford had said it was. 
Labour was forced into a position and it becomes clear now that there was an agenda all the way to ensure that this legislation would pass. In this press release from 2003 we have Sue Bradford saying: “I can’t understand why the Government is delaying doing anything about Section 59 until the next election year. The safety and welfare of our children is too important to put on hold.” Sue Bradford knew—and no doubt the Green Party knew—that all the time the Prime Minister would back her legislation in spite of the fact that only a couple of weeks before the last election the Prime Minister said on television in Canterbury and on Radio Rhema in Auckland with Bob McCroskie that she would never vote for any legislation that criminalised parents for smacking their children. 
All the way through we have had the debate around the mechanics of the bill and how it would continue with the issue of defence. On this side of the House we have always argued that a defence for parents who smack their children should be written into the law. Members on the other side of the House have always said that we can rely on the police and on Child Youth and Family and that that they will not enforce the law as it will be written. When one looks back through  
Hansard 
 one finds a quote from the previous Minister of Justice Phil Goff who said: “Maintaining a law that we do not intend to enforce brings the law into contempt and frankly is an exercise in hypocrisy.” Well he is bang on the nail there. What has happened in the last couple of weeks though is that the leader of the National Party approached other leaders of parties within this House to in effect reach a compromise. The Minister for Social Development treated that with complete disdain and arrogance. What a surprise! He did his best to shove a tennis ball down the throat and stuff it. But the situation was that when his leader was confronted with some reason and common sense on this legislation she actually pulled his leash and he stepped back into line. 
The fact is that the amendment that has been offered today is something that falls far short of where the National Party stood on this issue but the National Party leader has used his role as statesman and has offered a compromise which I am pleased to say Labour has accepted. 
It will be a huge step today. It is a win for the parents of New Zealand because the legislation will state that they can smack their children for the purpose of correction and that the Government and this Parliament do not want them to be prosecuted for it. That is where the guts and the mechanics of this amendment will take this law. It is a huge step down for the Labour Government and a huge step down for the Green Party but no doubt they will have to live with that. 
The Green Party has been supporting this Government all the way through. It has been the party that has allowed the Government to move on the bill and to make the bill its own. The Government would not do that earlier on in order to shut the bill down because it realised it was taking the flak from the public on this issue. The Government moved to take over the bill but it did not get the support to do that. Then the Government wanted to debate the bill under urgency but it did not get the support to do that. The Government is left today swallowing the rat while we claim the victory on behalf of New Zealand parents.