2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by her statement prior to the last election when asked whether she supported a ban on smacking: “Absolutely not. Well, I think you’re trying to defy human nature.”?
Why will the Prime Minister not just tell the public of New Zealand that it is her intention to adopt Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill as a Government bill, and that the reason for doing so is that the Government wants to take this deeply unpopular legislation off the table as quickly as it can?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Precisely because—as I said in my answer to the first supplementary question—a decision has not been made. I suggest that the member might want to consider following some of the very sound advice from the Press, for example, which suggests that members might regard the bill as an opportunity to demonstrate their own boldness and leadership by doing what is right for society rather than what might seem politically expedient for themselves. []
Madam SPEAKERThe member’s question was heard in silence; the answer was not. All members in the Chamber are entitled to hear both the question and answer. I remind members of that—otherwise, they will be leaving the Chamber.
When will the Prime Minister make the decision about whether the Government intends to adopt Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill as Government legislation, and what will influence the making of that decision?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
A decision will be made in due course, and all relevant factors will be taken into account.
Hon Steve Maharey Link to this
Given the Prime Minister’s support for amending legislation so as to remove the defence of someone who uses excess force against a child, as is currently under the Crimes Act, can she give us a steer on the kind of advice she is receiving on the kinds of groups that are advocating that there should be no change to this kind of legislation?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I have in front of me pages explaining the position of one such group that the National Party seems proud to be associated with— The Christian Foundations of the Institution of Corporal Correction—which states: “If the child is angry after the smack (slamming doors, pouting, etc.), you have not smacked hard enough,”. Who wants to be identified with that sort of position?
Sue BradfordCan the Prime Minister confirm that dozens of credible individuals and organisations are supporting my bill, including the Children’s Commissioner, the Families Commission, the Child Poverty Action Group, Parents Centres, the Parenting Council, Presbyterian Support, the New Zealand Psychological Society, the National Council of Women, and many others, and that my bill does not create a new offence of smacking or anything else but simply removes the defence currently available to parents who inflict quite serious damage on their children?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I absolutely agree with the analysis of the bill that the member has just offered. I am proud to be associated with organisations like Barnardos, Save the Children, and Plunket, which are very supportive of the amendment bill. Further, I draw the attention of the House to the injunction of the Christchurch Press that said members should not contemplate supporting the weak-kneed compromise being promoted by Mr Borrows—a compromise, I believe, that National MPs are bound by caucus decision to support.
Is the reason the Prime Minister will not tell the people of New Zealand today whether the Government intends to adopt Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill as a Government bill that the last time her Government gave notice of trying to sweep this off the political agenda, just last week, Dr Cullen said he was going to have an urgency motion, and what we saw then was that Dr Cullen failed, just in the same way that she will fail?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The member might one day understand something about decision making, and that is that one consults widely. I understand that his caucus finds his style of leadership rather less than collaborative. That will never be said over here.
Does the Prime Minister realise that if she were not whipping her unwilling caucus and forcing the likes of Annette King, Harry Duynhoven, Dover Samuels, and many others into forcing this legislation through the House, the bill would not pass; does she realise that she is out of step with 83 percent of New Zealanders who do not want it to pass; and has it finally dawned on her that her Government has become so arrogant that there is only one way for it to go, and that is out of office?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Not only do I not realise any such thing, I wonder whether the member might consider releasing—
Order! Please be seated. It is impossible to hear through the barracking. A question was asked. An answer is to be given. We are all entitled to hear that answer.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Not only do I not realise any such thing but I note that there are good-hearted members of the National caucus who do not want to be whipped into voting for the Borrows amendment.
Heather RoyWill the Prime Minister answer my question that she failed to answer yesterday, which asks what right she believes she has to override the view of the majority of New Zealanders and her own caucus in order to tell me, as a mother of five, how to raise my children?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Presumably, the member, being an ACT member, also objects to being told that her children must be sent to school.
If the Prime Minister thinks Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill is such a good bill and that the 83 percent of New Zealanders who have consistently opposed it are so completely wrong, why will she not simply give her caucus a free vote?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The Labour caucus has discussed this bill, as I am sure the National caucus has. The National caucus made a decision to support the Borrows amendment. The Labour caucus made a decision to support this bill.
Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider question time, because it has become unruly. Every MP gets an opportunity to ask a question. In the case of the ACT party we get one supplementary question. Heather Roy came down yesterday and asked a question of the Prime Minister. It was our one question, and we sat here quietly through question time to ask our question. It is a serious question, and I think it should be seriously addressed. We actually used our supplementary question again this time to put the same question. Yesterday we got some statement from the Prime Minister about what Jenny Shipley had to do when she was Prime Minister. That answer could not possibly have addressed our supplementary question. Today we asked a specific question, again with our one supplementary question, about section 59, and we received a throwaway, flippant remark from the Prime Minister about compulsory schooling. That cannot possibly be addressing the question, and I have to say that it pulls our chain a bit. We come to the Chamber respectfully asking questions, respecting the Government, and expecting an answer from the Prime Minister of this country—and so do the people of New Zealand, who deserve better.
The Prime Minister was asked a question. She was asked for an opinion. She gave an opinion, and that is one of the problems with those sorts of questions. It was a rhetorical answer. The member may not have liked it, but it was an answer. The answer was given in the form that the question was asked. That is one of the difficulties, I believe; when members ask for an opinion, they get one.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Does the Prime Minister accept that it is the Government’s and Parliament’s duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society, and in that case it is perfectly legitimate to have laws that make it quite clear that beating up kids is illegal?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Absolutely. I believe that this Parliament has a duty to defend the most vulnerable. Let us remind ourselves that in the Unicef report of 2005, New Zealand ranks third-worst out of 27 OECD countries in terms of children’s death from maltreatment. I know that that statistic does not worry the National Party; it worries me.