Brown Peter: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8890] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Well I hate to put the member who has just resumed his seat ill at ease but I can tell the honourable member that it has been just the case in premier league soccer that there was a tackle and there has been a court case. Indeed there have been some serious accidents on the soccer pitch where it has been contemplated on more than one occasion that there has been an assault. I do not want to give the member any ideas because the Government might move down that direction but it is not true to say by any means that a tackle on a football pitch—a soccer pitch in particular—does not from time to time end up with an assault charge made against the tackler. 
 New Zealand First will again record a split vote on this clause but to my mind this is an exceedingly important clause—exceedingly important. Personally I have to say I do not think we have got this bill right. I do not think we have got the issues the way the general public want them. I think we have made a huge step forward tonight; we have clarified the police role in the issue and I think that will be a help. But I for one have not made up my mind whether I will support the third reading. I am going to see how the public react and what the polls say about this because I think we could have done a better job. This clause gives Parliament the opportunity and dare I say it we do not have to wait for Mr John Key to be Prime Minister as he alluded to tonight— 
Mark Blumsky 
: Won’t be that long. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well he might well be there but with this clause we are not depending on his being the Prime Minister before we have a constructive look at what this bill will do when it is an Act. So to my mind it is important. Some of my colleagues in New Zealand First do not share that view; they do not believe in reviewing an Act. But I think in Parliament we should do more of it. I think it is particularly important with this bill because it is a controversial bill. To my mind this is the sort of bill that should go to public referendum. This is not a bill on which the 121 of us in this Parliament should totally decide the outcome. I believe that this is the sort of bill that the public could easily be allowed to have a say on by way of binding referendum. But we have chosen not to do that and we are now faced with passing legislation that may or may not work. ] 
As I have said I have reservations about it working the way people say it is going to work. I have some real reservations. I noticed that on  
Close Up 
 tonight the member Sue Bradford was challenged by Simon Barnett. I have to say that Simon Barnett made a lot of sense to me—a good deal more sense than the MPs there. The member was challenged as to whether she would resign if a parent was singled out by police and prosecuted. She did not answer that. Maybe she would like to answer that now because I was glued to the TV; I thought I was going to hear the answer to that question. If under this legislation that is about to be passed or to be passed in the next 2 weeks there is a parent—a caring parent not one who abuses his or her children—who inadvertently or for some reason smacks for the purpose of correction if that parent is prosecuted and ends up facing some sort of judicial or embarrassing court action will the member resign? That is what we are saying tonight is not going to happen. I have my doubts as to whether we have done enough to protect caring parents. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well this member’s voting for it. 
PETER BROWN 
: No this member is not voting for it. [ 
Interruption 
] No I have made that quite clear Mr Hide that New Zealand First members are reserving our decision. Two of our members will certainly be voting for it but the other five are waiting a fortnight. 
Rodney Hide 
: If you vote for it will you resign? 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Rodney that he never ceases to amaze me with his daft questions. I want to get back to being a little bit more serious because this is a darn good clause. It is an essential clause in my view. It gives Parliament the opportunity to take a really good look at the way this legislation after it is passed operates and I hope this clause gets through. As I say New Zealand First members are split on it but we will vote with I think a majority for it. But I believe this serves a very good purpose and I would personally like to see many more bills of this nature having review-type clauses inserted in them. I congratulate the Hon David Benson-Pope on putting this forward. I think it is a positive move. As I say I for one will be supporting it.