Southerners speak out against bill

from http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/southlandtimes/3995372a6011.html

By STAFF REPORTERS - The Southland Times | Saturday, 17 March 2007

Anoverwhelming majority of southerners are opposed to a private member's bill that could outlaw smacking as a means of disciplining children.

Most parents and children questioned yesterday by The Southland Times spoke against Green MP Sue Bradford's bill, saying smacking was a necessary form of corrective behaviour.

But there was a limit to how far parents could go, they said.

One of the children spoken to, West Gore Primary School pupil Corina MacKenzie, 10, felt parents should not be allowed to smack children all the time - "just sometimes when they are really bad".

Her mother Karen MacKenzie believed enforcing the law under the changes would be hard on police.

"Who's to say what a light smack is?" The guidelines were not clear.

Invercargill's Cameron Forde, 8 said : "I hate it (smacking)." Cameron said his mother often sent him and his siblings outside to play instead of smacking.

However, Cameron's dad Phil took a different view. " I think the idea of the Government being concerned about it (smacking) is good but to me it's another instance of the Government telling New Zealanders what to do." Meanwhile, a petition has been circulating in Queenstown over the past few days calling for a referendum on whether smacking should be a criminal offence.

The petition is the initiative of former United Future MP Larry Baldock. He spoke in Queenstown last night and will speak in Roxburgh tonight.

Otago MP Jacqui Dean said people had arrived in her office "shaking with rage" over the proposed new smacking legislation.

People were just starting to get their heads around the possibility of "CYF delving into our lives".

National Party deputy leader Bill English said the people pushing the bill had implied that anyone opposed to it was in favour of violence against children. "If I said I'd smacked one of my kids after breakfast, they (police) would ask me if I did it for correction and if I did I would be prosecuted for assault."

Bradford's opponents taking to city streets

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00019074-4A17-15FA-80E083027AF10130
5:00AM Saturday March 17, 2007

Street marches are being planned around the country in a bid to turn the tide against the bill that would prevent parents from using reasonable force to discipline their children.

And pulpit messages against the anti-smacking bill, or at least urging church members to have their say, are expected to be delivered tomorrow.

Parliamentary debate stalled on Green MP Sue Bradford's bill on Wednesday night, and will resume on March 28.

The bill - presented by opponents as a ban on smacking, a description rejected by its supporters - has polarised the community but appears likely to become law.

A posting on the Solo website, founded by right-wing political commentator Lindsay Perigo, advertises a march to Parliament on the day of the bill's next debate.

Bob McCoskrie, national director of the Families First lobby group, which opposes the legislation, said yesterday that street marches in main centres were among moves to try to persuade MPs to vote against the Bradford bill.

"We've had lots of calls for a street march and we are considering that. That's from around the country."

Families First was negotiating with the author of the Solo posting and might join forces to organise marches in Auckland and other cities.

"We're looking at simultaneous marches on the 28th. We need to get the pressure on early. There is huge energy. In just about every centre, we know of people itching to sign the petition."

Two petitions are running on the issue, one of which asks if smacking as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence. They will force a national referendum if they gain about 303,000 signatures.

Mr McCoskrie said other strategies being used were to lobby Labour MPs who "understand family life and what it's like to be a parent", asking them to demand from their caucus the freedom of a conscience vote in Parliament.

"We are fundraising to put the petition forms in major daily newspapers so that people have easier access to them because we are being inundated with inquiries as to how people can get access to the forms."

Destiny Church spokesman Richard Lewis said copies of the petitions were in its churches. Destiny strongly endorsed it, and members were signing.

He said church leaders had frequently spoken to members about the bill, which the church opposed.

Geoff Macpherson, a Christchurch pastor in the Grace Presbyterian Church - which told MPs last year it opposed the bill because it "seeks to override our God-given responsibilities" - said yesterday that he expected to speak about it at church tomorrow but members were free to make up their own minds about the legislation.

"I think on Sunday I will be encouraging people to be aware they can get involved in the process and they should think about contacting their MP or writing an email."

If you are interested in getting involved with any of the marches, email me (click here) and I will put you in touch with the coordinator nearest to you.

Sue Bradford's confession

Sue Bradford: "I'm not naive about the police or the courts.  I've been, um through both on many occasions.  And I've been charged with assult, and know what that's about"

From the debate of Section 59 with Craig Smith, Peter Dunne and Sue Bradford.

See this video on YouTube to hear Sue saying this.

Smacking: not an offence,just removing a defence

from www.kiwblog.co.nz

Bradford and Clark are still insisting that their law does not ban smacking because it does not create a new offence of smacking, it just removes an existing defence.

Now this is a ludicrous assertion which fails the common sense test. They are arguing form over substance. But in case anyone is stupid enough to actually give it credence, let look at applying their logic further.

Section 59 is just one of many defences under the Crimes Act. Another is Section 48:

Self-defence and defence of anotherEvery one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

Now think if Helen and Sue came along and got rid of Section 48. You and I would say they have banned using force in self-defence. They would argue no they have not - that they have merely removed it as a defence!!

Or think if Section 56 went:

Defence of land or buildingEvery one in peaceable possession of any land or building, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting by his authority, is justified in using reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing on the land or building or to remove him there from, if he does not strike or do bodily harm to that person.

Now you and I would say they have banned people from forcibly evicting trespassers. But Sue and Helen would claim no they have just removed it as a defence.

Pathetic isn't it? I mean how stupid do they take us to be, and how much contempt do they have to try such puerile attempts to deceive? Why can't they just tell the truth and say "Yes the bill will ban smacking".

Independent MP Taito Phillip Field is running the show!

Radio New Zealand - 9:08pm on 14 Mar 2007

Newly independent MP Taito Phillip Field has moved to delay voting on the bill outlawing the use of force when disciplining children by introducing 50 proposed amendments.

The House was debating Green MP Sue Bradford's bill clause by clause on Wednesday and has passed a vote on the title of the bill.

The title was changed to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill during the select committee process, after Ms Bradford's original bill removed justifiable force as a defence to assaulting a child.

Labour has shrugged off criticism from National that its MPs have been whipped into line to support the bill, saying it does not regard this as a conscience issue. Labour MPs were holding firm ahead of the debate that they would vote as a bloc in support of the bill.

The National Party says there are at least eight Labour MPs who disagree with the bill and if they could vote according to their conscience the bill would be defeated.

Radio New Zealand political staff say it is understood a handful of National MPs who have declared their support are coming under pressure to change their vote.

Meanwhile, Mr Field has introduced 50 amendments to the bill, which all have to be voted on individually, meaning the final vote could be up to a month away.

Case for referendum

United Future deputy leader Judy Turner put her case to Parliament for a referendum on the bill that would extend the start date of the bill until the next election to allow for a public referendum.

She says a large number of voters have serious concerns about the outcomes of the bill.

Bid for limited force

The bill returned to Parliament for another critical debate on Wednesday when a bid by the National Party to water down the legislation looked set to fail.

MPs were to consider an amendment by National's Chester Borrows which would allow parents to use limited force, but Radio New Zealand political staff say that is unlikely to pass.

Mr Borrows told Morning Report on Wednesday he will not stop pushing for an amendment until all the votes are cast.

The bill, which would amend Section 59 of the Crimes Act, passed its second reading in Parliament by 70 votes to 51 on 21 February.

Radio New Zealand political staff said votes in favour of the legislation would come from Labour, the Greens, Progressives leader Jim Anderton, United Future leader Peter Dunne and two New Zealand First MPs. With the Maori Party support, the bill would have 63 votes to 57.

Copyright © 2007 Radio New Zealand

My bill doesn't ban smacking' - Bradford

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3994829a10.html

"Green MP Sue Bradford wants a Government campaign clarifying the legal position of parents as she struggles to explain how her bill outlawing physical punishment of children is not a smacking ban.

The call came as Prime Minister Helen Clark was forced to reconcile Labour's support for the bill and her comments before the election that a ban would "defy human nature".

Opponents of the bill, which removes the statutory defence for parents who use reasonable force on their children for correction but allows force to restrain them, seized on the statement as evidence Miss Clark had gone back on her word.

National deputy leader Bill English said the pre-election comments and Labour's decision to fully back the bill showed she could not be trusted. "It does ban smacking, because it says you cannot use force for the purpose of correction. The reason it explicitly forbids correction is because that's an explicit ban on smacking."

Ms Bradford has insisted that under the bill good parents will not be prosecuted for light smacking.

"There's a whole lot of misinformation about what this bill means," Ms Bradford said. "It has unnecessarily terrified many parents, and I'm really sorry about that because the intention was never to criminalise parents who occasionally or lightly smack their children."

Ms Bradford said she had been saying for two years that her bill was about removing the existing defence for force against children for the purposes of correction, and explicitly included other purposes where the use of reasonable force was permitted.

"I have never called it an anti-smacking bill – my opponents did, and the media adopted the phrase," she said.

"Smacking a child is already an assault under section 194 of the Crimes Act. It has been this way for over a century. If my bill is passed that will not change."

However, she conceded widespread concern about the implications, and said the Government should run a campaign explaining the law. It should air in the month between the bill's passing and coming into force, a delay supporters had to accept after former Labour MP Phillip Field proposed amendments to slow its progress..."

The following Labour MP's identified as being anti the repeal.

This from the section 59 blog

The following Labour MPs have been identified as being opposed to the repeal of Section 59.  Stand up for New Zealand's democracy.  Email these five men, and encourage them to vote according to their consciences and how New Zealand feels about the issue.  Helen Clark is forcing all her MPs to vote for Bradford's bill, but this is anti-democracy.  This debate should come to a Nationwide public referendum.  But the least we can ask is that the MPs vote for what they believe, not what they're told to vote for!

Damian O'Connor
doconnor@ministers.govt.nz and robin.hyams@parliament.govt.nz

Dover Samuels
dsamuels@ministers.govt.nz and lisa.ngaia@parliament.govt.nz

George Hawkins
ghawkins@ministers.govt.nz and g.hawk@xtra.co.nz

Harry Duynhoven
hduynhoven@ministers.govt.nz

Mahara Okeroa
mahara.okeroa@parliament.govt.nz

Strangers Can but Parents Can't

Bradford's misguided Bill to repeal Section 59 is incredibly short
sighted in a number of ways. One is that she failed to notice Section 60
of the Crimes Act, right next door to Section 59. Section 60 justifies
the use of "reasonable force" toward children, elderly and anyone else
at the captain's or pilot's command by even passengers and crew on a
ship or aircraft "for the purpose of maintaining good order and
discipline".

Will that force be considered justified if used by parents in the home,
in the car or in the shopping trolley? Isn't "maintaining good order and
discipline" also "incidental to good care and parenting" (which Bradford
says is to be legal), or will it be defined as correction (which
Bradford will insist makes it a crime)?

It is not at all clear what Bradford means by "correction". Is it not
reasonable that parents should have as much authority in their homes and
vehicles and shopping trolleys as captains and pilots have on their
craft? Or will this Bill land us in the situation where strangers in the
form of passengers and crew can use reasonable force on my children to
maintain good order and discipline on the ferry ship in the calms of
Wellington harbour, but my wife and I are not allowed to use it on our
own children in our own van to maintain good order and discipline while
driving through the chaos of Wellington highways.

This ridiculous Bill is focused on criminalizing the benign corrective
force used by nearly every good and caring parent in the
country.....while doing nothing whatsoever to weed out the dysfunctional
child abusing households. Dump the Bill.

Craig Smith, Family Integrity www.familyintegrity.org.nz

further self-contradictions

Sue Bradford - "It is still, in this supposedly enlightened 21^st century, within the law for parents to beat their children." Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, 21 Feb 2007, Second Reading. However, this goes directly against another comment made by her: "This is not a bill which outlaws smacking".

And how should we take her comment: "The law now, says it is a crime to hit anybody, but the reality is our police are sensible people". If it were really against the law to hit anybody, then the police would not be sensible people, because they are not prosecuting all the thousands of parents around New Zealand who do smack their children from time to time.

According to The New Zealand Herald (see here), Helen Clark said "smacking is already illegal, as is all hitting." when asked by Bob McCoskrie of Family First if she supported a ban on smacking, she said "Absolutely not. Well, I think you're trying to defy human nature", which she made if she supported a ban on smacking. (Radio Rhema interview, 2005).

Sue Bradford - "...However, police did not prosecute parents for smacking children under the current framework and she did not think that would change even though she acknowledged a legal defence would have been removed..." (New Zealand Herald). So, what is her reason for attempting to criminalise the use of force in parental discipline then?

Clark, Bradford don't understand their own Bill

from tv3.co.nz

"Prime Minister Helen Clark has been forced to clear up the confusion surrounding Sue Bradford's so-called 'anti-smacking' bill.  When pressed by reporters today, Clark said that under the new bill parents would be allowed to give their children a light smack.  Green MP Sue Bradford also seems to agree. She says that a light smack will not see a parent brought before a judge."  Click here to download the short clip of Helen Clark saying: "I do not want to see smacking banned"

Both Sue Bradford and Helen Clark are making incoherent statements regarding their attempt to stop parents from using force in parenting.  While Bradford's bill clearly states that any smack will be a criminal offense, she and Clark are saying that they do not want to see parents criminalised for giving their child a "light smack".

Despite these claims, if the bill does go through, then a parent who does smack their child will be on the wrong side of the law.

How do these politicians get to sleep each night, I wonder.  They are quite obviously misleading the public through their media releases.

Grant Illingworth QC…“an unmitigated piece of nonsense”.

from www.kiwiblog.co.nz - a comment by dad4justice | March 14, 2007 3:54 PM

The following is a collection of comments about the proposed repeal of s59 from those with 'questionable sanity & agendas', those who ignored, those who tried and those who lied.Where is my nurofen, as my head hurts as I am dreading watching the utopian freaks on the TV News kissing each other when the appalling bill passes .

Sue Bradford, Speech (October 2006)… "Personally I have no problem with sadomasochism carried out by consenting adults using safe sex practices - what I do have a problem with is a legacy of hidden sexual violence practiced on children and young people under a mantle of so called discipline…section 59 of the Crimes Act, has been protecting the perpetrators of a vicious mix of sexual and physical abuse for generations".

Grant Illingworth QC…"an unmitigated piece of nonsense".

Simon Maude, Chair of the Family Law Section of the NZ Law Society…"appears to be a prescription that widens rather than narrows what is permissible and certainly does nothing to create certainty".

Stuart Grieve QC…"I agree with your analysis that the amended section does not prohibit parents from smacking at all".

Bob McCoskrie, Family First NZ..."banning smacking is a failure to deal with the real causes of child abuse" and "Sue Bradford should not threaten to run roughshod across this democratic process, which she initiated".

Pacific Island leaders…"will do more harm than good to Pacific Island parents and families".

Eroni Clarke (ex All Black)…"I oppose this bill because I want to be a parent that loving raises my children and if it means to use corrective smacking, I want to do it without the possibility of breaking the law".

Linda Vagana (ex Silver Fern)…"it's going to effect Pacifica families, especially parents who are doing a good job".

Rev. Tavake Tupou (Tongan church leader)…"parents should retain the right to discipline their children to ensure they have the best possible future".

Litea Ah Hoi (Porirua Councillor, Samoan)…"repealing s59 will not stop the small percentage of people, parents, guardians who proceed to use violent physical abuse and the killing of our children".

Olinda Woodriffe (Lawyer, Samoan)…"to me this bill criminalize innocent parents who occasionally exercise a little slap to keep the child in line".

Tony Fuemana (musician, Niuean)… "the proposed law change will punish parents who are doing a good job of raising their kids, but will have no effect on the actions of actual child abusers who have little regard for the law anyway".

Young Labour (Labour Party youth wing)…in a poll on the Young Labour website 80.7% oppose Bradford's Bill.

Peter McKenzie QC…"complaints may be made by children who have resented their means of correction or denial of privileges".

Phil Goff (Cabinet Minister)… acknowledged that under the current family violence policy of the police, they were already obliged to investigate suspected or reported assaults.

Otago University Study 2006…Children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievements than those who were not smacked at all.

Fergussen and Lynsky (Christchurch School of Medicine)… found no difference between no smacking and moderate physical punishment… "it is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences".

The Voice of New Zealand, over 12 polls between June 2005 and March 2007, 83.33% of the public (by average) rejected Bradford's bill to repeal s59. (lowest poll 71%, NZ Herald July 2005; Highest poll 90%, NZ Herald March 2007). In a democracy, the Bill would have been dismissed long ago.

Proposed bill: "impossible for any sensible person to understand"

NewsTalk ZB - 14/03/2007 8:12:02

Rodney Hide is accusing the Maori Party of letting its people down over the anti-smacking bill.

The Maori Party has decided to support Sue Bradford's legislation. The ACT leader cannot see the wisdom of its decision. He says Maori families will suffer the most for having police investigating them for smacking their kids.

Rodney Hide says that is because they are the ones who tend to be in the lower socio-economic group and tend to be inarticulate.

Prominent members of the Pasifica community are also calling for MPs to reject Sue Bradford's bill. They are concerned the community's emphasis on suitable discipline - which is not necessarily abuse - will bring unwarranted attention from social workers.

Former Silver Fern Linda Vagana says corrective smacking, like stopping a child from touching something they should not, is not going to do much damage, and that is where the line should be drawn. She says the anti-smacking bill would only put unnecessary pressure on families to parent in a particular way.

Lawyers have also joined the chorus of voices opposed to the bill. The bill looks likely to be passed, now the Maori Party has decided it will not support any bid to water down the original proposal.

But Grant Illingworth QC says what is being proposed won't be enforceable. He says it is impossible for any sensible person to read the bill and know what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do.

Meanwhile, the MP who wants parents to be allowed to lightly smack their children - legally - is refusing to give up the fight. National's Chester Borrows concedes it is unlikely he will have the numbers to pass his amendment today, but he still hopes common sense and individual consciences prevail.

Mr Borrows says it is about whether it is in the best interests of children to have their parents prosecuted for smacking them. He says the debate has been skewed into whether smacking works or whether good parents smack or do not. Chester Borrows says he knows there are a number of Labour MPs who are conservative in nature, who do not want to vote against his amendment, but will be forced to follow the Party line.

More Green Hypocricy

from NZ Conservative blog

Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation is a classic example of late
liberal interventionism, and is just the sort of state interference
which traditional conservatives are opposed to.

There has been no public campaign calling for a ban on smacking or any
serious social crisis that would justify such a top down initiative.

The problem the anti-smacking bill is designed to solve, is apparently
only occurring among one section of one ethnic group- in this case
low-income Maori.

However, the liberal left deems that all ethnic groups must now be told
how to discipline their children instead of leaving Maori to deal with
their own issues.

The introduction of unpopular liberal reforms from above is a relatively
new phenomenon.

Prior to the late 1960s, progressive reforms were either introduced for
serious pragmatic reasons, such as to deal with an economic crisis like
the Great Depression, or because of sustained popular activism from
below.

The introduction of religious toleration was in large part a response to
the carnage caused by the 30 Years War, while universal suffrage in
Britain was won through the persistent campaigns of the Chartists in the
early 19th Century.

What makes Bradford's meddling in the private lives of the country's
citizens particularly galling is that she is a member of a party that
claims to be dedicated to conservation. Unfortunately, this doesn't
include conservation of mainstream social norms.

Its high time the Greens made up their mind whether they wish to focus
on conserving the environment or indulging in anti-conservative social
engineering. Given that not all environmentalists are left-liberals, it
is highly disingenuous of the Green party to be claiming to do the
former while also trying to do the later.

Police prepare rules to act on smacks

By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 14 March 2007

Police chiefs are preparing to send out guidelines for dealing with complaints about smacking as a bill outlawing the use of physical punishment looks set to become law.  The guidelines for dealing with complaints under the new law are likely to be delivered to police officers as soon as it comes into effect, which will be days after its final vote, as early as a fortnight from
now. Police headquarters said yesterday it could not comment on the final shape of the guidelines because they were still in draft form and dependent on the final shape of the law.
But Police Association president Greg O'Connor said police guidelines in their current form made it clear they would have no choice but to act on smacking complaints.  "We believe that under the policy as it exists it will be referred to as domestic violence." Unless there was a change to the guidelines once the law was passed, police would have no discretion.  "If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear, the offender must be arrested.  "That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack.
Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint."  The bill's passage appears almost certain now that the Maori Party's four MPs say they will vote against a "smacking clause" put up by National MP Chester Borrows, which will be voted on tonight. Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples acknowledged yesterday the decision of his MPs would not be popular with many people.  "But we're asking New Zealand to be brave - to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children and that we can actually find an alternative way of bringing up our children." The clause would have rewritten the bill to allow parents to smack their children so long as they did not leave bruises and the effects were only trifling.

The champion of the so-called anti-smacking bill, Green MP Sue Bradford, said yesterday the Borrows amendment had posed the biggest threat to her bill and the Maori Party decision meant she had the numbers to pass her legislation into law. Yesterday, she issued a legal opinion from Law Commission president Sir Geoffrey Palmer rejecting claims from the bill's opponents that it would criminalise parents for lifting a child on to a time-out mat. Mr Borrows was refusing to give up, saying he thought he could still sway the minds of some MPs. However, that would require either NZ First MPs Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly or United Future leader Peter Dunne to change their votes, and all three yesterday confirmed their support for Ms Bradford's bill. Prime Minister Helen Clark welcomed the Maori Party's stance, and defended Labour's decision to make the issue a party vote, rather than a
conscience vote. "We believe it's such a serious issue and it's so important to deal with
violence against children that as a government, we believe the right thing to do is to back a change in the law which will help. As a party, we have decided this is the position we will take."

Criminalising Acts Of Parenting

Heather Roy, MP - ACT Party

I know my own children are too old for smacking, as soon I will be the shortest in our household.  Even when they were small I seldom used physical chastisement.  My husband was even more restrained than I was, but if the "Anti-smacking Bill" had been enacted 18 years ago we would both have been on the wrong side of the law.  There would, however, have been little chance of prosecution, because we would have been in the same situation as hundreds of thousands of other parents.  The police couldn't possibly deal with them all and would only act when there was a complaint.  The Bill to outlaw smacking currently before Parliament - which repeals Section 59 of the Crimes Act - fails at the most basic test.  Laws must be enforceable and routinely enforced - otherwise they are meaningless.

I don't doubt for a moment Sue Bradford's good intentions in sponsoring the anti-smacking bill.  Like many of us, she has long campaigned for initiatives to end the violence done to vulnerable youngsters.  But good intentions are not enough.  This debate - which has been going on for some time now - has relied on emotion rather than reason, and focused on rules rather than results.

There is not one MP in Parliament who condones abuse of children.  Each of us wants every Kiwi child to grow up in a loving environment, safe from the abhorrent treatment meted out to the Kahui twins, Lillybing, James Whakaruru – and the list goes on. But there will be more cases, and our natural inclination is to take action. As legislators we are in a powerful situation - we can try to make a difference by changing laws to reflect the sort of society we want for our children. But the laws we make need to be enforceable and regularly enforced. This Bill fails on both these counts, and sadly, it will not save the life of even one child, or stop the abuse of children who are subject to such mistreatment that it's difficult to even read their life stories, because they are just too distressing.

The easy option, taken by many MPs, was to vote in favour of this Bill to show that violence against children is being taken seriously – in the hope that it would change those who victimise our defenceless children, and to clear their consciences.  But all we will achieve by repealing Section 59 is to turn loving parents into criminals.  In the course of doing so, we will make no difference to the real problems.

Caring for those who cannot defend themselves is one of the finest things about our civilisation.  But the unintended result of the smacking ban will be to criminalise thousands, hundreds of thousands, of good parents.

The original version of the Bill outlawed any form of physical punishment or restraint.  It made even the lightest uninvited but deliberate touch punishable by law.  Holding your child still while dressing them would have made parents into criminals.  The current version, still before Parliament, does little better.

I don't need to be persuaded that it is essential to reduce our level of family violence.  Violence is a plague that haunts our New Zealand communities and I agree that violence begets violence.  But this Bill is not the answer to stopping child abuse.  Our existing law against child abuse is already strong. Section 194 of the Crimes Act - Assaulting a child under 14 - attracts a maximum sentence double that of common assault.  Section 195 - Cruelty to a child - brings a 5 year maximum sentence, and abandoning a child under 6 means a 7-year prison term, under Section 154.

Enforcement of the law is the key.  Enforcement involves doing three things properly – reporting the behaviour, trial, and conviction followed by sentencing.  If any one of these three elements fails, criminals will go free.

The police are struggling to cope already.  CYF are struggling to cope.  Most abuse is not reported to authorities until severe damage has been done to young lives.  Around 70 per cent of serious abuse occurs to children not already known to CYF.

Much of this debate rests on the difference between 'smacking' and violence.  Proponents of the Bill believe these are the same, but as a parent, I believe they are not.  Reasonable people know when discipline ends and abuse begins. The rest – an abusive minority – will not notice, or care, that a law change has been made.  The threat that this Bill is intended to be will get ignored by the very people who should heed the warning.  Those parents who care for their children already and take their responsibilities seriously will be the only ones who suffer.

The greatest good can be done by helping vulnerable families directly. There are already many successful initiatives operating around the country.  Mentoring, going into homes and providing advice and assistance with parenting, health, education and welfare issues, will do much more to keep children safe.  Plunket is perhaps the best example of mentoring already in action, but they are constrained by funding.

ACT will continue to oppose this Bill, but not because we don't care for children.  We simply want caring parents to be able to make the best decisions for their children – decisions that we as legislators cannot anticipate or control from our comfortable parliamentary chairs.  Acts of abuse are already illegal - unfortunately enforcement of the law is frequently totally inadequate.  This Bill will not change any of that, but it will succeed in criminalising acts of parenting.

Parliament To Ignore Public On Smacking Bill

Tuesday, 13 March 2007, 1:33 pm
Press Release: ACT New Zealand - Rpdney Hide, leader

ACT Leader Rodney Hide says he is disappointed that the "Anti-Smacking
Bill" appears to have the numbers to pass into law.

"The people of New Zealand have not been consulted on this proposal.
Once again, Parliament is arrogantly foisting its view on the rest of
the country", Mr Hide said.

"I asked the people of Epsom what they think in a scientific poll, and
they are overwhelmingly opposed.

"If those MPs supporting the Bill have actually asked their
constituents' opinions, I challenge them to release the results.

"Where is the openness and accountability in passing a law that would
affect thousands of families - without even asking what people think?"
Mr Hide asked.

Poll Question [put before the Epsom community] and result as follows:

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the so called
"anti-smacking bill" before parliament. Do you support the proposed
changes to Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which will abolish the use of
parental force for the purpose of correction?

Yes 21%
No 68%
Don't Know 11%
Refused 1%

Turner seeks support to amend anti-smacking Bill

Monday, 12 March 2007, 5:54 pm
Press Release: United Future NZ Party
Monday, 12 March 2007

United Future deputy leader Judy Turner announced today she was seeking
support from all parties to include an amendment at the committee stage
of the Sue Bradford-sponsored anti-smacking Bill

Debate on the Bill is expected to resume next Wednesday. [14 March 07]

She said "My amendment seeks to ensure that if this Bill passes its
third reading with less than 60% support from the House, that it will
not become law until it has been confirmed by a referendum at the next
election.

"The amendment would mean that if a referendum was required, that it
could only be binding if 60% of voters participated and 60% supported
it.

"This is in keeping with United Future's policy position on bills that
are voted on largely by conscience, to ensure that unless there is clear
support within the House, such a bill can not proceed without public
opinion being considered.

"United Future has given serious consideration to the issue of Binding
Citizens Initiated Referenda and has focused our position on defining
what issues should be put to a referendum, and under what circumstances
should they be held.

"The experience of countries that have BCIR on any issue, is that voter
fatigue sets in and there is a low turn out on most issues, making a
mockery of the system.

"United Future's policy focuses on issues of conscience that are rarely
signaled in party policy manifestos and which can often succeed on the
slimmest of majorities," said Mrs Turner.

Deterioration of Democracy

A nation-wide referendum is the obvious solution for the massive public debate and wide variety of public opinion on each side of the issue of whether or not Section 59 should be repealed. If the many internet polls, (which show that on average, 80% of Kiwis think parents should be able to smack their children) are not enough, then the petition of Sheryl Savill, on it's way to 300,000 signatures against the repeal should be a good indicator of the seriousness of this impending change in our law.

Considering that the Government of New Zealand has been set in place to represent the people of New Zealand, what is the sense in getting the MPs in parliament, many of whom have not had children to vote on this issue? It's got to be about what is good for New Zealand. Not what Cindy Kiro wants. Not what Sue Bradford wants.

This is a big step in the wrong direction for New Zealand, and will only result in further break-up of the family.

They can say: "oh no, ordinary parents who give their children the odd smack will not be criminalised" until the cows come home. If the law says you can't smack your kids, and then you do smack your kids, then you are a criminal – despite what these decievers say, and you will be open to the full extent of legal action being taken against you.

They are walking all over us.

Please do not sit there and go "ahhh...", instead, lobby the MPs!

Kiws want to keep Section 59 – use this website to email the MPs.

The new Section 59: Un-enforcable due to lack of definitions

Craig Smith, Family Integrity, 12 March 07 - Press Release

"The "Home Invasion" Bill of Sue Bradford's to rewrite Section 59 is so thoroughly subversive of traditional, common-sense parenting, it will be impossible to enforce. Smacking is not defined. Bradford constantly equates it with hitting and beating, but this Bill neither affirms nor denies her sentiments on that. Historically smacking has been lumped into the category of "reasonable force" in Section 59, and this has been Bradford's argument: that even severe hitting and beating are constantly hiding behind the phrase "reasonable force". But does Bradford's rewrite of Section 59 eliminate the phrase? No! Her nutty Bill actually says, "reasonable force" is justified when "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting." If Bradford's rhetoric has any credibility at all, then also "severe hitting and beating" are justified when done "incidental to good care and parenting".

Bradford's Bill also fails to define what actually constitutes "the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting." Most folks would agree that it covers things like correction. But "correction" is the one thing Bradford has been careful to specifically forbid in this bill. "Correction", however, is not defined either, so it will become a lawyers' feeding frenzy to get as many of these cases to court to hammer out definitions, damaging another child and another family with every case.

This Bill's purpose is to criminalise parents for correcting their children, a core duty of parenting. It has absolutely nothing to offer abused children in dysfunctional families. Dump the Bill.

see the new website: Kiwis want to keep Section 59

Force is either ok, or it's not ok.

UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY has Sue Bradford decided that it is ok to use force with your children in some circumstances, but not in others?

Sue Bradford's new bill says that it's ok to use force to do the following:

- Prevent harm to the child or to stop the child committing a criminal offence.

- Stop 'offensive or disruptive behaviour'.

- Perform 'the normal daily tasks incidental to good care and parenting'. It forbids the use of force 'for the purpose of correction'.

Either the child is autonomous, or it is not autonomous. Autonomy means that a person is completely in charge of himself and may make all his own decisions.

Who is Bradford to say: "you can pick up your kid and carry him kicking and screaming out of a supermarket, - but you can't smack them for this tantrum, heck no".

Let's say little Jimmy wants to jump infront of the bus. What right should his mum have to grab him, pull him back and wack him on the bottom to reinforce the stupidtity of jumping infront of the bus?

Well she's his mum, of course she should be allowed to. She's not doing it for kicks.

Smack your child - you won't be a criminal. Yeah right.

This from the Waikato Times:

"....The main reason the "anti-smacking" law has been so contentious is the continued mistrust of Labour and the Greens by a large portion of the electorate on social issues. There continues to be a worry we are becoming more politically correct and that the State wants to have more say over how we run our lives. It has not been helped by the bill being fronted by someone as flaky as Ms Bradford.

Everyone says there is no intention that repealing section 59 will result in parents hauled before the court for smacking their child. That probably won't be tested till some brat reports his parents to police for giving them a tickle-up. Woe betide anyone who gives such complaint traction."

I ask you.  If, - as the repealists keep saying, "ordinary parents who give their child the odd smack will not be criminalised", then for the love of Mike, what is the point of repealing a perfectly fine piece of legislation.

I smiled when I read this in the article (see above), - smile, and forward it on to your mates.

"It [repeal of s59] has not been helped by the bill being fronted by someone as flaky as Ms Bradford."

Government Admits Every Reported Smack Will Be Investigated

media release - 1 March 07

The Government has confirmed Family First's argument that any cases of suspected or reported smacking will have to be
investigated if section 59 is repealed in its current form.

In reply to a question from National MP Chester Borrows in Parliament today, Cabinet Minister Phil Goff acknowledged
that under the current family violence policy of the Police, they were already obliged to investigate suspected or reported
assaults.

"This admission today confirms what we have argued from day one about this bill – that good parents will be treated as
criminals under the law," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.

"The police have already confirmed that smacking a child would be assault. They will have to investigate any complaint
made against a parent for smacking or even forced removal to 'time out'. This will immediately place a family under
enormous pressure," says Mr McCoskrie. "The police have to enforce the law, regardless of what politicians say."

"The claims by Sue Bradford and the Prime Minister that the anti-smacking bill will not result in parents getting into trouble
for lightly smacking their children is now hollow talk, and should sound further alarm bells to kiwi parents about the danger
of this bill."

Mr McCoskrie says that if the Prime Minister and Bradford are genuine about their intent, they should have no problem
supporting Chester Borrow's amendment, which effectively lowers the bar on what is reasonable force, but doesn't
criminalise parents who lightly smack their children.

"The Prime Minister and Sue Bradford can't have it both ways," says Mr McCoskrie. "Their preferred option for the Bill will
open up every parent who corrects their child with a smack to investigation by the Police and possibly Child Youth and
Family."

This is an unacceptable burden to place on good parents.

Bob McCoskrie JP - NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42