1. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
to the Member in charge of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill
Will she discharge her bill if it is amended to allow reasonable force for the purpose of correction?
SUE BRADFORD (Member in charge of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill) Link to this
Yes.
Does she stand by the comments she has made all the way through the debate that her bill will prohibit smacking, or does she now put political expediency before principle and agree with the Prime Minister that the bill will not prohibit smacking?
The bill is not a ban on smacking. Smacking is already illegal under section 194 of the Crimes Act, relating to assaults on children.
Madam SPEAKER
Peter BrownYou can have a point of order, but the normal practice is that two supplementary questions can be asked on questions to members.
I respectfully draw to the Speaker’s attention that normal practice is to give the first call to the senior party in this House. New Zealand First has seven members, as against United Future’s three.
That would be the case, except that the member of the senior party did not rise first. Gordon Copeland rose first.
Gordon CopelandWill the member be introducing an amendment to her bill to make it clear that taking a child to time out will not be a criminal offence, given her public statement that that matter could and would be ironed out in the Committee stage, or is it her intention that time out for the purpose of correction should be a criminal offence?
In response to the first part of the question, no. In relation to the second part, I say an amendment was already made in the select committee process—and it is part of the amended bill before the House today—that makes it clear that actions like putting a child into a room for time out will be covered by a reasonable force defence.
How does the member reconcile her answer to the principal question that she has just been asked with her earlier statement in the House, whilst we were debating the need or otherwise for a referendum, that Parliament must decide the outcome of the bill?
Perhaps the member would like to clarify his question, for the benefit of members of the House. [ Interruption] Let the member ask his question.
During the debate on the commencement date, Sue Bradford took a call and said that she would not accept a public referendum because it was the obligation and responsibility of Parliament to decide the outcome of this bill. Yet we heard her answer here that if she does not get the outcome she likes or wants, she will withdraw the bill. How is that democracy?
I have no objection to anyone in this country organising signatures for a referendum. What I said earlier in the House was that I believe that the parliamentary process is the process of our democracy and that we, as members of Parliament, have every right to continue with that process.
I seek the leave of the House to table a document in which Ms Bradford is quoted as saying that she will sort out the issue around time out during the Committee stage of this bill.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice that your ruling has now been given twice this afternoon. Can I take it as gospel that you will not take a call from any member of Parliament who is not the fastest to get to his or her feet, at all? I have on many occasions seen a call be awarded to members out of turn or when they were not as quick to get to their feet as another member.
That is true, actually. But if you are slow, then it is a bit difficult. The first member who catches my eye gets the call, and on occasion one does get out of order. That happens to members of all parties, because people are sometimes preoccupied with matters other than the business before the House.