United Future says NO to urgency on Bradford Bill

this from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00472.htm

Friday, 23 March 2007, 9:29 am
Press Release: United Future NZ Party

United Future leader Peter Dunne says his party will not support Sue Bradford's smacking Bill being rushed through Parliament under urgency.

"Although United Future MPs are exercising a conscience vote on the Bill, we will vote as a party to oppose any move for urgency.

"The Bradford Bill is a Member's Bill and should be treated as such.

"It should not be rushed through under urgency, just to get the issue out of the way," he says.

Mr Dunne says that United Future MPs will continue to have a split vote on the Bill itself.

"We believe very strongly in the right of individual MPs to exercise a conscience vote.

"We deplore Labour's decision not to let its MPs do so on this Bill, and call on the Labour caucus to reverse that decision," he says.

However, Mr Dunne rejects calls for United Future to bloc vote against the Bill if it proceeds under urgency.

"It would be the height of hypocrisy, to say the least, to be critical of Labour not allowing its MPs to have a conscience vote, and then to withdraw our MPs' right to a conscience vote, just because we disagreed with the procedural tactics being followed," he says.

Stuff.co.nz: the Fielding March

this from http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4004340a6003.html
By EVAN HARDING - Manawatu Standard | Saturday, 24 March 2007

Dianne Woodward is all fired up.  So much so, the mother-of-four is organising a protest march against the  anti-smacking bill in Feilding on Monday.

The bill, brought by list MP Sue Bradford, is set to be passed in Parliament next week, barring a backtrack by a number of MPs.

Mrs Woodward believes parents should have the right to smack their children to "correct and protect", as she did on occasion.

She is riled because the Government is extinguishing that right.

When hearing the bill may be passed with urgency in Parliament, she said
she got on the phones to garner support for the Monday protest march
which starts at noon from the Feilding clocktower.

"The march is to let the Labour Government know we will not be dictated to on how to raise our children. I don't care if people agree or disagree with smacking, but let's not be dictated to," she said.

"I don't want to be criminalised for smacking my children if they need protecting, or their behaviour needs correcting.

"Time-out might work for one child, and they may never need a smack, but don't take away our right to smack if we have to in order to protect and correct."

Her four boys are aged from six to 18. It's the future parents that she feels for.

"God help New Zealand if this bill gets through. Our children are our future generation and mums matter heaps. Don't upset the hand that rocks the cradle."

Child abusers were not people that lightly smacked their children to curb errant behaviour, she said.

"Will criminalising adults who smack children ever stop child abuse for our poor defenceless babies? I think not.

"I have talked to lots of young people and asked them if they were smacked as kids, did they deserve it, and did they get over it. They answered yes to the whole lot."

"I am only one mum but if the march makes a difference I will do it. I have probably never been more passionate about anything in my whole life."

Govt faces uphill battle rushing bill through

this from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10430510
6:50PM Friday March 23, 2007

The Government may face an uphill battle in attempting to fast-track legislation that would restrict parents' right to smack their children.

Leader of the House Michael Cullen yesterday said the Government had not decided whether it would move urgency, which could see Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial bill passed into law next week.

Ms Bradford said the Government had sought its support for an urgency motion which requires a majority.

But the Government would still need others to back the move before it could take urgency to pass the bill through its remaining stages.

It would need the Maori Party, which supports Ms Bradford's bill, along with the six Green MPs, plus at least one other -- one of the two New Zealand First MPs who support the bill -- to get the 61 votes it needs to bring in urgency next week.

NZ First deputy leader Peter Brown said his party would discuss the issue at its caucus meeting on Tuesday.

Procedural matters such as for an urgency motion were usually issues for the caucus as a whole to decide but Mr Brown told NZPA he would not pre-empt any of the discussion by MPs ahead of the Tuesday caucus or rule out the possibility of a free vote on this issue.

"We're split on the bill itself, whether that's reflected in the urgency motion I don't know."

Mr Brown said he had been contacted by Dr Cullen last Friday afternoon and received a follow-up letter asking NZ First to consider the urgency motion.

He said one NZ First had already raised whether it was appropriate to have an urgency motion on a member's bill.

The Maori Party said it would also discuss the issue at its caucus meeting on Tuesday.

National leader John Key said Labour was acting arrogantly and was showing contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process.

ACT's whip Heather Roy also said that to put Parliament into urgency to pass the bill would be unacceptable and anti-democratic.

It is already illegal to hit children but Ms Bradford's bill will remove the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents who physically punish their children.

Opponents of the bill say it will outlaw smacking.

National managed to delay the bill at its committee stage, meaning that under normal parliamentary processes it would not face its third reading until late April or even May.

Debate on the bill's committee stage, when MPs can attempt to insert amendments, recommences on Wednesday and a protest is being staged that day against the bill.

Under urgency the bill could proceed to its third reading and be passed into law straight after its committee stage concluded.

Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki said he intended to stage a "mass gathering" at Parliament Grounds on Wednesday, May 2, to coincide with the final reading of the bill, should it carry over from Wednesday's session.

Police confirm: "smacking will be assult - we will investigate"

from Family Integrity

letter from Craig Smith to the Commissioner of Police:
Rob Robinson
Commissioner of Police
PO Box 3017
Wellington
Dear Mr Robinson,

Should Section 59 of the Crimes Act be repealed, what assurances can you
give to the parents of New Zealand that they will not be charged with
assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act if they subsequently were
to smack their child(ren) on the clothed buttocks with an open hand by
way of corrective discipline?

Yours faithfully,

Craig S. Smith
National Director


 

Here is the reply is from Dr A. Jack, Legal Services, Office of the
Commissioner of Police and is on Police letterhead.
11 August 2005

Mr Craig Smith
National Director Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
Dear Mr Smith,

On behalf of the Commissioner I am writing in reply to your letter of 26
July 2005 concerning Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961.

As you will be aware, section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 authorises
parents to use force by way of correction towards their children, if the
force used is reasonable in the circumstances. If section 59 was
repealed in its entirety parents would not be authorised to use
reasonable force by way of correction. Having said this, I am advised
that parents would still be authorised to use force to prevent harm to
their children. For example, if a parent stopped their child from
running out onto a busy road or stopped their child from climbing over a
balcony on a building.

However, smacking of a child by way of corrective action would be an
assault. I am advised that the Police in investigating such cases, as is
the case with all assault investigations, would consider the amount of
force used in the circumstances before making a decision about whether a
prosecution is required in the public interest. An aggravating factor in
any such decision may be the fact that a child is generally more
vulnerable than an adult.

I trust this matter clarifies this matter for you.

Yours sincerely,
A Jack (Dr)
NM - Legal Services
Office of the Commissioner

National: "Urgency Tactic - an admission of weakness and fear"

this from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00479.htm

Friday, 23 March 2007, 10:59 am - New Zealand National Party - www.waynemapp.co.nz

Shutting down debate is a tactic adopted by those who fear the public.
That is exactly the position the Labour Government is taking in relation
to Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.

Next week the government wants to rush the Bill through all stages in a
single debate on Wednesday and Thursday. Sue Bradford said there had
been enough debate, and it should now be passed. To shove a member's
bill through under urgency is unheard of, especially when it is
allegedly a conscience vote - but of course in the Labour Party that
means Helen Clark's conscience.

Parliamentary procedure provides for separate debate on each stage of a
Bill for good reason. It is to allow Members of Parliament to reflect,
and for the public to make their views known before the next stage is
debated. So there have been occasions when a Bill has passed the
Committee stage, but gets defeated on the Third Reading. That is because
the two or three weeks between the two stages allows an opportunity to
reconsider.

The only reason to terminate Parliamentary procedure is to avoid
accountability. Labour knows that many of their MP's don't want the
Bill. They know a three-week recess when the public can talk to the MP's
will mean that many of them will rebel.

The urgency tactic is designed to stifle democracy. But ultimately it is
an admission of weakness and fear. Labour may think it can avoid
accountability now, but the voters will have their say in 18 months
time, and that is a date Labour can't avoid!

Anti-Smacking Bill now a Labour Bill

this from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00297.htm

Friday, 23 March 2007, 9:54 am Press Release: Family First Lobby.

Labour's decision to attempt to ram through the 'anti-smacking' bill under urgency has revealed that this private members bill is now a Labour bill in all but name.

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First says that this action, as well as Labour MP's being told how to exercise their conscience, is ample proof that the criminalisation of good parents is a clear agenda of the Labour party leadership.

"The Prime Minister can no longer hide behind Sue Bradford as sponsor of this bill," says Mr McCoskrie. "It is unheard of for a private member's bill to be put into urgency, but this shows the desperation by the Prime Minister to get this legislation rammed through before her MP's hear the voice of their constituents during the Easter recess and change their vote."

Mr McCoskrie says that the Labour MP's must be finding this incredibly difficult, especially as they campaigned before the election that it was a conscience vote. Electorate based MP's should be concerned about a voter backlash at the election next year.

"It is ironic that Labour have legislated themselves to be innocent over election spending, yet are willing to pass legislation that criminalise and threatens every good family in NZ. To make a light smack a crime shows just how out of touch this government is."

Family First calls on all National, Maori Party, United Future and NZ First MP's to immediately withdraw their support for the bill.

Heather Roy on Anti-Smacking Bill

this from http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2007/03/heather-roy-on-anti-smacking-bill.html
23 March 2007

ACT MP Heather Roy is not impressed with Helen Clark's plans to "fast track" the anti-smacking legislation.

From her latest press release

Putting Parliament into urgency to pass the "Anti-smacking Bill" is unacceptable and anti-democratic, says ACT's Deputy Leader and Party Whip, Heather Roy.

"Around 80% of Kiwis are opposed to banning smacking by good and loving parents. Using urgency to force through a Bill simply because it's unpopular is no way to run a democracy", Mrs Roy said.

"Banning responsible parents from lightly smacking their children as a disciplinary measure is not urgent to the welfare of our country, and
the argument that it's slowing down the Government's agenda is rubbish - as a Members Bill, it's only able to be debated on Members Days.

The reality is that the Bill's supporters are trying to shut down public debate, and are prepared to suspend the normal rules of Parliament to do so.

ACT will oppose urgency just as strongly as we have been opposing this Bill".

And I (Andy Moore) say: "good on you Heather - you're just fantastic!"

Bradford Panicking

this from http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/sue-bradford-panicking/
23Mar07

Sue Bradford was on Morning Report, and she was clearly panicked. She
was talking about a mile a minute, and didn't even pull out her usual
bull about the bill not banning smacking.

They also played a clip of Dr Cullen in the house, who fell over his own
words owing, presumably, to his nervousness.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/03/government_panicking_over_smac.html>
DPF makes some excellent points:

The Government looks to be panicking over the damage being done to it by
the smacking ban bill. Nothing else can explain the extraordinary,
possibly unprecedented, plan to progress the bill through its remaining
stages under urgency.

Bradford denies railroading smacking bill

hmmm, but that's what Bradford does, isn't it?  She denies things.  That's all she does.  Apart from when she's lying to the public.

this from http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=114471
23/03/2007 5:33:50

Sue Bradford denies she is helping the government to get the
anti-smacking bill off the radar by supporting the fast-tracking of the
legislation.

Labour is seeking support for the bill to be passed through the
remainder of its stages under urgency next Wednesday. National MPs had
managed to delay the bill at committee stage and it was not due to face
its final reading until April. Ms Bradford says urgency is a good idea,
because the normal process would have seen a number of other private
members' bills languish on the order paper for several months. She
rejects any suggestion the move is an abuse of the Parliamentary
process.

Lobby group Family First claims the government is ignoring the views and
concerns of parents and families by trying to push through the
legislation. Director Bob McCroskie says the law targets good families
and will do nothing to lower the unacceptable rates of child abuse.

"The government is not even willing to allow time for an appropriate
debate on a bill that invades every home."

Mr McCroskie claims the government is panicking because of the
overwhelming tide of public opposition. He says marches will take place
next week and a petition will demand a referendum on the issue. He also
wants Labour MPs to demand a conscience vote.

The bill removes the defence of "reasonable force" from Section 59 of
the Crimes Act

Labour lacks numbers to rush bill; Rangiora March report (audio)

Labour won't be able to rush bill through (Audio + story)
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Govtfacestoughtaskinpassingantismackingbillunderurgency/tabid/209/articleID/23787/Default.aspx

Report on the Rangiora March (Audio + story)
http://www.tv3.co.nz/200peoplemarchagainstantismackinglegislation/tabid/209/articleID/23786/Default.aspx

attempt to rush Section 59 repeal through Parliament set to fail.

from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10430358
5:00AM Friday March 23, 2007

A Government attempt to fast-forward Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial smacking bill looks set to founder, with New Zealand First unlikely to support Parliament taking urgency to push it through.

Urgency is taken for important business and it is highly unusual for it to be taken for a private member's bill, let alone such a bill sponsored by another party's MP.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen approached Ms Bradford to gain her approval for the extraordinary measure, before talking with United Future leader Peter Dunne and New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown.

Opinions within each of those parties is divided on the bill, and it seems likely neither will support urgency being taken.

Mr Dunne supports the bill, but United Future's other two MPs oppose it. Last night he said the party would oppose urgency being taken as the bill did not need to be debated hurriedly.

Mr Brown said New Zealand First's caucus would vote on the suggestion next week. He would not comment further, but with two MPs for the bill and five opposed, it seems doubtful that the urgency motion will gain New Zealand First support.

Those 10 votes, plus the 51 from MPs already opposed to the bill, should see the urgency motion defeated.

Yesterday Dr Cullen would not confirm if the Government was considering the move.

The Maori Party, whose support for the bill is vital for it eventually passing, confirmed it had also been approached by Dr Cullen. Its caucus will discuss the issue next week.

The bill has the numbers to become law, but its passage has been stymied by delaying tactics by opponents. Debate on the committee stages of the bill, which will effectively outlaw smacking, began on Wednesday last week. It proceeded at glacial pace, thanks to swathes of amendments and its opponents taking every opportunity to speak against it.

The bill is due to return for debate next Wednesday, but at its current rate of progress a final vote to make it into law may not happen until May.

National said the urgency motion showed Labour was desperate to rush the bill through.

"This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue," National leader John Key said.

Opponents of the bill will march on Parliament next Wednesday.

The bill as it stands allows parents to use reasonable force to protect their child or others from harm, or to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. However, it would not allow parents to use force for punishment.

Ms Bradford said: "Any sensible reading of the police guidelines on prosecution will show that police will exercise their discretion."

Government panicking over smacking ban bill

from www.kiwiblog.co.nz March 23, 2007 6:47 AM

The Government looks to be panicking over the damage being done to it by the smacking ban bill. Nothing else can explain the extraordinary, possibly unprecedented, plan to progress the bill through its remaining stages under urgency.

Urgency is almost always used only for Government bills, not private members bills and I doubt it has ever been used for a private members bill of an MP not in Government. I think this confirms it is now Helen Clark's bill, not Sue Bradford's.

As a sure sign this is political panic, not a legislative logjam, No Right Turn points out the already thin legislative agenda has become anorexic. Yes the Government has run out of bills, which makes any urgency a total abuse of the legislative process.

Luckily it looks like the numbers are not there for urgency as NZ First and United Future won't support it. But we should mourn the lack of integrity the Greens are displaying in that they were willing to support urgency. When Rod Donald was alive the Greens were renown for not supporting urgency motions, even on bills they supported, unless it was really necessary such as with tax legislation. Instead their reputation as a party of integrity now is reduced to Bradford saying "It would be great to finish it."

Bradford is also lying when she says that without urgency the debate could stretch on for months. As I have posted previously there are well known guidelines for how long each clause of a bill can be debated during committee stage. This is merely an attempt to ram it through, despite a majority of the public and of MPs being against it.

My message for opponents of the bill is that your campaign is obviously working, why else would the Government be panicking. The focus for the campaign needs to be on giving Labour MPs a conscience vote on the issue.

National accuses Government of trying to railroad anti-smacking bill

from http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/PoliticalNews/tabid/188/articleID/23724/Default.aspx#top
Thu-22-Mar-2007 4:44pm

National believes Labour is planning to railroad the so called
"anti-smacking bill" through Parliament by placing it under urgency.

The bill from Green MP Sue Bradford is in committee stage, following
long and drawn out debate last week that delayed a final vote until May.

In Parliament today, National's Gerry Brownlee called on the Government
to come clean about any short cuts it might try to take.

He also accused the Government of wanting to kill two birds with one
stone, by introducing other legislation at the same time.

www.politik.co.nz (Andy Moore, Christchurch, New Zealand)

Dear friends,

I am writing to let you know of the new website: www.politik.co.nz
which is currently soley devoted to the Section 59 debate currently taking place in New Zealand Aotearoa.

Sue Bradford, Greens MP is attempting to make the use of force in parental discipline of children illegal.
If Sue Bradford's bill is passed through Parliament, then many many good parents will be made criminals.
The Police force and CYFS will be entering homes and forcefully evicting children who they have heard have been smacked.
Bradford's poorly written bill will surely be more harmful to New Zealand's children than it will help them.

Whichever way you feel on this issue, I would encourage you to email your MPs.  www.politik.co.nz will help you do this.

section59.blogspot.com is a blog where myself and two friends post our views, and other people's views, as well as news clips, related to the Section 59 debate.

www.politik.co.nz also has news of the peaceful protest marches to take place on Wednesday 28 March in Wellington and Christchurch.  It has constantly updated news on the whole Section 59 debate.

Please check it out, and feel free to ask questions, or comment - or disagree!

Kind Regards,

Andy Moore
www.politik.co.nz
section59.blogspot.com

if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
GOOD PARENTS WILL BE CRIMINALISED

Wellington: March on Parliament - details

DO YOU VALUE THE RIGHT TO RAISE YOUR CHILDREN THE WAY YOU CHOOSE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE?

Then do something about it BEFORE it is too late! Sue Bradford's bill WILL be passed into law unless Helen Clark gets the message that the voters don't want it. As such, there will be a:

MARCH ON PARLIAMENT

Wednesday 28th March 2007, 12pm.

The march will start at Civic Square, and proceed to parliament, where we will give those politicians who think they can run our lives something to really think about.

This bill will do nothing to stop child abuse. Does anybody really think those people who beat children respect the law, or can even read this poster? Instead, Bradford's bill will turn good parents into criminals, and waste valuable police resources arresting and charging YOU, when they could be chasing the real child abusers and criminals. "It only takes a few determined people to make a difference."

Helen Clark was only smacked "once" as a child, and look how she turned out. I was smacked and I turned out fine.

*This march will be peaceful, and children will be present. If anyone turns violent, we will be helping the police cart you off to jail.

SmackingBack Press Release

Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of members of parliament in a democracy: "government of the people, by the people, for the people." With polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders' in opposition to Sue Bradford's proposed anti-smacking bill, this is the strongest indication yet that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of democracy, ["Antiantismacking"/
"Too Many Groups Against Bradford & Clark to Count"/insert name here] will be staging a peaceful march on parliament in order to remind our politicians who they are elected to serve. If our message is not heeded, the continued employment of those MP's responsible will be reviewed at the next election.

Sue Bradford's bill, which proposes the removal of the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, strikes at the very foundations of the family structure and will turn loving parents into criminals. It will see do-gooder Kindergarten and Primary School teachers actively trying to break up families whose parents smack their children for their benefit later in life, as indicated by the words of one unnamed teacher: "People who smack their kids are ignorant morons".

This proposed law would compel the wasting of valuable and already stretched police time and resources getting involved in cases where they have no place, regardless of whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of parliamentarians when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger – hardly what they need at any time, let alone in the current environment.

I like many other New Zealanders' was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me (or even threatened with it) is incomprehensible. They have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It's time to push back.

www.smackingback.blogspot.com

By What Standard?

Bradford's bill to repeal parental authority is simply insane. The only
reason anyone pays it any attention at all is out of a sense of being
polite and unwilling to say in public that this idea is completely
detached from reality. First, it demonises "correction" of children.
This is a core responsibility of parenting. We correct our children's
behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress and even tone of voice.
Bradford is clearly subversive toward parenting in her intentions.

Second, it is clearly unwanted by the vast majority of the population.
To continue to drive it through is not just unrepresentative and
undemocratic, it is highly irresponsible and exposes its thoroughly
ideological rather than any logical or beneficial motives. It will wreck
any chance of forming the social peace and harmony the MPs all say they
want to develop.

Third, it is hopelessly vague and unenforceable. "Reasonable force" is
allowed to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. But the Bill fails to
specify by what standard "offensive" and "disruptive" are to be judged?
If the 13-year-old daughter wants to strut around topless in the privacy
of her family house, how can the parents claim it is offensive if
neither the police nor the city councils of Palmerston North, Auckland
and Christchurch would declare toplessness in the centre of town at
midday to be offensive, even though it was performed before
pre-schoolers and some school children to promote pornography?

Will the parents be trusted to make the call, according to the dictates
of their own privately held standards, or will they be forced to conform
to some national standard deemed to be acceptable on an ad hoc basis? If
it is Bradford's standards - which include approval of prostitution,
dope smoking, lowered drinking age and lesbians getting a guy at the pub
to impregnate one of them and casting him aside so the lesbians can have
a live baby to toy with - it will only prove that this country is no
longer a good place to bring up kids.  Dump Bradford's Bill.

Craig Smith of Family Integrity

Smacking Quotes

from www.smackingback.blogspot.com

Sue Bradford ... was asked whether it would be possible to smack children after her bill becomes law - and she said no."
- Newtalk ZB, March 15, 2007

"This whole debate is about whether or not parents who smack should be prosecuted."
- Chester Burrows, March 13, 2007

"It should not, one would have thought, have been beyond the ability of our Parliamentarians to come up with a law which says a slap on the hand or bum with the open hand is OK, and anything else is not. But it looks like they can't manage that."
- Transtasman, 15 March 2007

Bob McCroskie: "So you do not want to see smacking banned?"
Helen Clark: "Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature."

- Radio Rhema, 2005

Flawed Anti-smacking Bill - by Richard Long

from http://www.cyfswatch.org/index.php?mod=article&cat=media&article=522

The Dominion Post - Tuesday 20 March 2007 - Richard Long

Social engineering. Labour likes it, but the words send a shudder through the electorate. Accordingly, having got civil union and prostitution law reform on to the books, Labour decided to clear the slate before this third term and not buy into any more of the troublesome stuff.

Georgina Beyer's transgender equality plans were quietly sidelined before the election and never revived afterward. That move would have made it illegal to discriminate against employing transgender, including in the police and armed forces, which would have resulted in continuing ructions.

Even the move to allow public access to waterways across private land was quietly put on the back-burner pre-election. Labour initially thought it was on a winner on this one, expecting it to come down to a fight between the general public and farmers. But the move instead roused support for private property rights. The proposal has just emerged in greatly watered-down form.

On the election campaign Prime Minister Helen Clark saw the dangers in supporting anti-smacking plans in a radio interview, which has just resurfaced. She responded when asked if she wanted to see smacking banned: "Absolutely not. Well you're trying to defy human nature."

Explaining her support now for Green MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill, Miss Clark says there has been no change of stance. "This is about people who thrash and beat children".

Ms Bradford similarly argues black is white about her quaintly named The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification of Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. It is not an anti-smacking bill, she proclaims.

It is too. The repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use "reasonable force" to discipline children, in effect makes it a criminal offence to smack. The only exceptions are cases where children are likely to hurt themselves – or when they are bashing other kids or animals. But in the latter cases the corrective smack can be administered only if the child's actions are likely to cause injury (to siblings or the family pet).

In another words, in the split second before a parent has the chance to deliver an admonishing, corrective smack, they have to make this calculation without consulting a lawyer or doctor. The wrong choice means breaking the law.

Ms Bradford's supporters argue smacking would be against the law, but argue the police would never prosecute. That's great. So our MPs are passing a law which they acknowledge will be ignored. And even if the police don't prosecute, they will have to follow up complaints. The waste of their time and resources will be immense.

Children are pretty resourceful. Some of the little devils, miffed with parents, are quite likely to dial 111 to claim they have been beaten.

What happens after an investigation clears the parents? Will they then be charged with allowing their child to waste police time?

So how did we get into this mess, with Parliament and the country so polarised on legislation which everyone expects parents will ignore?

Labour's backing for Ms Bradford's bill was not part of the formal confidence and supply agreement with the Greens, but the belief among many MPs is that it was part of an unofficial understanding, made when Labour saw parliamentary majority problems down the track with the likely defection of Mangare MP Taito Phillip Field.

That also explains why Labour MPs earlier said they were expecting a free vote on the bill. Then came the caucus instruction for a bloc vote in favour.

And why not support the sensible compromise amendment from National MP and former policeman Chester Borrows, which would still repeal Section 59, but allow corrective smacks for the temper tantrum and hitting other children? The problem is the Greens would then lose their sovereignty. Ms Bradford would rather burn her bill. Labour will not back the amendment because it would lose the Greens and give kudos to National.

The bill's supporters are being cynically manipulative when they claim this will cure our appalling record of child abuse. The Lilly-bings, Kahui twins and Craig Manukaus are totally different tragic social problems not cured with this piece of paper.

Richard Long is a former chief of staff for National leaders Bill English and Don Brash

Maxim Institute: the major problems with Bradford's bill

The major problem with repealing section 59 is that it would make it a crime for parents to use any kind of force, no matter how minor, as a part of discipline. This is because their actions would come within the definition of "assault" in section 2 of the Crimes Act. "Assault" is defined very broadly as:

the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly  or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose ...

Without section 59, any use of force as part of the discipline of a child would be a crime. A light smack on the bottom would be an illegal assault. In fact, even picking up a child to put them into "time out" against their wishes would be an assault. Parents who did these things would have committed a criminal offence and could find themselves prosecuted.

GreyPower: Concerned About Bradford's Bill

from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00237.htm

Tuesday, 20 March 2007, 3:05 pm - Press Release: Grey Power New Zealand

There is a fast growing concern amongst the majority of middle class and elderly citizens of New Zealand with regards to the "Anti Smacking Bill" bandied around Parliament recently.

"Not only are senior politicians, including the Prime Minister, unsure of the consequences of this legislation [Helen Clark's statement, that this Bill will not alter the present situation] but Grey Power is confident that 75% or more of their membership are of the opinion that parents and or caregivers must retain the right to discipline children under their care in an appropriate way, which includes smacking, if necessary", says Hamish Perry, Grey Power's Law and Order, Justice spokesperson.

Grey Power definitely do not and will not condone beatings, but seriously consider this Bill will be a further stage towards the increase in violent offending as shown in a graph indicating a steady increase in violent offences following the introduction of similar "soft soap" legislation since 1970. Police records show 43,534 violent offences in 2001 with a projected 682,538 violent offences in 2010.

A public Referendum would be appropriate in this case.

National MP, Simon Power leads the way

Feilding Herald | Tuesday, 20 March 2007

Rangitikei MP Simon Power will vote against Sue Bradford's "no-
smacking" bill when it comes back for a third reading in Parliament in
May.

He says he has spent the past two or three months getting feedback from
the electorate, speaking to police, church ministers, social workers,
teachers, parents and retailers.

"This is an extremely difficult issue. I have been deeply concerned
about the way some of our children are treated.

"Equally, I went into politics to make the state's role smaller in
families, not larger."

Mr Power says that, in the eight years he has been in Parliament, this
is one of the hardest issues he has had to deal with.

"But in the end, I trust the families of Rangitikei, and not the state,
to raise our children."

Annette King's fooling herself but not New Zealand.

from http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article.asp?aid=8743

by Nicola Brennan - Saturday, 17 March, 2007

THE police and courts will not see a drastic increase in their workload if the proposed smacking bill goes ahead, despite police concerns
stating otherwise, says Police Minister Annette King.

"I cannot believe the police and courts will see an increase," she said during a visit to Gisborne on Thursday.

However, Police Association president Greg O'Connor has said under current guidelines police 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."

Gisborne police already have their hands full with domestic violence complaints. If smacking complaints are added to that, they most
definitely will see an increase in workload, Gisborne police have told The Herald.

Ms King brushed aside those concerns, saying the only thing the bill would change was the defence people could use once a complaint was laid. Green MP Sue Bradford's bill removes the defence of "reasonable force" for the "correction" of children from section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Ms King fully supports the bill, saying removing the defence of "reasonable force" would make it easier to prosecute and charge people who abuse children.  It was important for people to understand the facts.

"If you hit a child in the street now, you can be charged. It is against the law now to hit anybody. But if you are charged for that you can do a U-turn and get off because you have a defence called section 59."

Abusers had used that defence in the past to avoid prosecution for hitting their children with whips and other objects, she said. This
amendment would narrow down the defence a person could use.

"Everything else will be exactly the same up until the point a person is charged."

Ms King said the bill was "not out to get" people who disciplined their children. She believed the police would use their "common sense" when choosing whether to prosecute a case or not.

"What I have never been able to understand is why it is ok to hit a little child, but it is absolutely wrong to hit an 80-year-old person
with dementia."

Countries with "no-smacking" policies had much lower rates of child abuse and she hoped New Zealand would soon be one of those.

Opponents to the bill raised enough debate earlier this week to have voting postponed. The amendment is likely to be put to the vote in two weeks' time but it will not come up for its final third reading until after the Easter recess.

Borrows Confident Of Smacking Support

From TV One's Agenda program - Monday, 19 March 2007, 8:38 am

National MP Chester Borrows says he is confident his amendment to Sue Bradford's 'anti-smacking' bill will gain the support of Parliament.

Speaking on TVOne's Agenda programme, Mr Borrows was confident his amendment bill would pass.

When asked if he thought he had the support to get his bill through the House, Mr Borrows replied;

"Yeah I think we can, it depends on what support we get and who's prepared to stand up and be counted."

He suggested Prime Minister Helen Clark should act on her 2005 election comments and vote for the bill.

"If the PM really wants to achieve what she said in 2005 she'll be voting for my amendment, and not Sue's [Bradford] bill."

Agenda Transcript: Chester Burrows & Sue Bradford

from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00293.htm

Agenda Transcript: Chester Burrows & Sue Bradford

Monday, 19 March 2007, 8:33 am
Article: Agenda
AGENDA Saturday March 17 Chester Burrows, Sue Bradford, Lynne Pillay,
Barbara Stewart TO SMACK OR NOT TO SMACK?

And Bridget Liddell on NZ businesses in the USA


©Front Page Ltd 2007 but may be used provided attribution is made to
TVOne and "Agenda"


Part 1


LISA Green MP Sue Bradford's anti smacking bill is expected to pass into
law, but last minute stalling tactics by her opponents this week
succeeded in delaying the vote. The controversial bill would make it
illegal for parents to use any kind of physical force against their
child unless the child is in danger of hurting themselves or other.
Critics say it will criminalise good parents as well as bad. Sue
Bradford and National MP Chester Burrows who has proposed an amendment
to the bill join me now.


Sue if I can come to you first how are you gonna hold together your
support in the next few weeks seeing as you have this hiatus as such?


SUE BRADFORD - Green MP In fact I never expected the bill to be finished
this week, it's a bit of a misapprehension because on controversial
bills like this it's almost inevitable that the committee stages of the
bill are gonna take at least two or three sessions.


LISA So how are you going to hold your support over that time?


SUE Well so far we're doing fine, I think the MPs that have made up
their mind to support this bill are pretty staunch in that support now
and of course I'm hoping we might win one or two more over over the next
couple of weeks.


LISA But there has been talk in the media about some Labour MPs who
aren't exactly 100% behind it, who might waver within Labour, who do you
need to keep an eye on and keep talking to?


SUE I think you'd be best placed to ask a Labour MP that question but
I'm also aware of the other side of the coin is that there are National
Party MPs who strongly support what I'm trying to do and who are as
concerned as the Green Party is about the level of violence against
children in our community, so I think it goes both ways and in fact I'd
love to see the National Party MPs who support my bill freed up to give
their vote as well, so it works both ways.



LISA Should this be a conscience vote do you think?


SUE I think that it's up to each party to decide.


LISA You don't think that it's such a personal issue that people should
be able to cast their vote as their conscience directs them?


SUE Well I think it is up to each party, in our party it's a party vote
because our party has such a clear policy of non violence and belief in
what we're trying to do here, so I think it's up to each party to make
that decision.


LISA Okay let's bring Chester Burrows in here. Any particular Labour
Party MPs that you're gonna be chipping away at over this time Chester?


CHESTER Well I'm not gonna name them here because that would be contrary
to my purpose, but if you look at the voting history of about eight or
ten of their conservative MPs you'll know they're unhappy and when
they've been asked on television they've been obviously unhappy.


LISA So what discussions are you having with those people?


CHESTER Just restating the position and I think that the moves from the
Prime Minister this week has sort of changed all that, well the
revelation of the pre 2005 election comment shows that it's a whole new
game as far as the Labour Party caucus goes.


LISA So in your mind that comment you are talking about is some people
would suggest that Helen Clark has flipped in her support.


CHESTER Well it's quite obvious that she has, she's said she wouldn't
vote for a piece of legislation that prohibited smacking all the way
through this debate, Sue has agreed that her bill does prohibit
smacking.


SUE Can I just make a point on that, but it's actually illegal now to
smack your child. This point seems to have been missed throughout the
debate that under Section 194 of the Crimes Act an assault on a child
under 14 is actually a crime and what my bill is attempting to do is to
get rid of the defence of reasonable force for the purposes of
correction which provides a defence under law for people who assault
children under 14. I'm not creating some new offence of smacking which
seems to be the implication of some of my opponents.


LISA Look obviously there's much debate over this so arguably you could
say that neither side has a clear mandate, this is so hotly debated by
the public, so why legislate why not just educate?


CHESTER Well the fact is the legislation is there, at the moment you're
looking at removing it, so that's part of it. I believe the mandate is
there and if you look at public opinion the way that that's been gauged
nearly 20 times over the last two years it's about 80% of New Zealanders
think that parents shouldn't be liable for prosecution for smacking
their kids, that's the way it is.


LISA So do you think you're still in realistically with a chance when it
comes to the vote?


CHESTER Very strongly, you know there's a few people in the middle, we
know there's more than enough people who are unhappy. If this was a
conscience vote right across the parliament I'm absolutely convinced
that my amendment would win.


LISA Why isn't it a conscience vote for National then?


CHESTER Well we're in exactly the same boat as the Green party here
funnily enough. I put up my proposal, 48 people in the caucus agreed
with it, not a single dissenting vote as far as my amendment goes, so
that's why it's a party vote.


LISA But you're still gonna have MPs if your amendment's not successful
who are gonna back Sue Bradford.


CHESTER Yeah and our party position is that we are voting against it,
those who want to exercise their conscience are able to do that, and
there's indications that they will.


LISA Let's bring our panel in on this discussion let's go to Bernard
Hickey, who is father of two, are you a proponent of smacking or not?


BERNARD HICKEY - Managing Editor, Fairfax No, no. I'm pleased to see the
bill go because as much as anything it creates a debate about this in
New Zealand. I think the mood is shifting particularly after the Kahui
twins, I personally think it's wrong to smack my children and I sort of
can't understand why people are so aggressively campaigning to retain
the right to hit their kids.


CHESTER But that's because the bill isn't about that, I've never been a
proponent of smacking either, I've never made the stupid comment that
you know it never hurt me or never did me any harm. This is purely about
whether parents who do smack should be rendered liable to prosecution,
it's not about whether smacking is good or bad or good parents smack or
good parents don't.


BERNARD Has anyone actually been prosecuted for smacking their kids?


CHESTER That isn't the point. What your saying if you go along that
track is well you know parliament doesn't make the law the Police do or
the courts do or whatever, in actual fact it's our job to make the law
and if we don't like it we should go somewhere else.


BERNARD And do you seriously believe that Police will prosecute parents
for smacking their kids?


CHESTER Some will and some have been prosecuted for similar acts
especially in the middle of a sort of custody dispute where there's been
estranged parents and access visits and I've got people in my electorate
who have been in that position, you know we are getting a lot of
anecdotal stuff.


LISA Let's bring Richard Long in here, is this muddying the waters do
you think for Sue Bradford's bill?


RICHARD LONG - Columnist Well I mean nobody likes smacking but it seems
to be this has created an almighty row and divided everybody including
parliament and it could have been solved so why on earth not have
accepted Chester's amendment which seems to me to have proved what a
trifling or transitory impact of a smack, like the kid throwing a
tantrum in a supermarket, or deliberately smashing an ornament, some
mild touch like that, and then parliament would have been totally united
if that had been accepted.


SUE To accept Chester Burrows amendment would be the worst possible
thing we could do for the kids of this country it would make the
situation worse than the status quo we have now because what it would
mean would be parliament and the state legitimising the level and degree
of violence that it's okay to use against children. What people keep
forgetting in this debate is it's about kids, about our babies, our
children and young people, we have such high levels of violence against
kids in our country as a result of this legacy of a culture of violence
we've brought with us in the 19th century and to turn that around we've
got to give kids the same protection under law that adults have. At the
moment if a husband beats his wife we wouldn't say well it's okay to
beat her in a trifling and transitory manner, what Chester's saying is
that if his amendment went through it would be okay to beat our kids in
this manner. So if you put a child's hand on an electric fence for a
moment that's okay, that's transitory, so it's actually - it's the State
legitimising the use of violence against kids and that's even worse than
what we've got now.


RICHARD It can't be worse than it is now, that woman got off for horse
whipping a child for goodness sake, that's really bad, so that wouldn't
take place under your bill or under Chester's amendment, but it wouldn't
provide the rather silly situation that we have now where someone could
report a mother for giving a child a mild slap in the supermarket for
kicking down a display, or deliberately breaking an ornament.


LISA So do you argue that that's not the case that you can actually use
a light smack, let's be clear on what your position is.


SUE Should my bill go through in its current form using physical force
for the purposes of discipline there will no longer be the defence of
reasonable force, but that does not mean that every parent who ever
smacks their child will suddenly be prosecuted and taken to court for
doing it.


CHESTER That's not what the words of your bill say.


SUE That's the myth that's been put out there in the community and has
unnecessarily terrified tens of thousands of ordinary decent parents.


RICHARD Can I focus on that one? I mean can you imagine the Police in
this day and age with their call centre that's always under criticism
not responding to a complaint, they'd have to?


SUE They're obliged to respond to complaints of assault on child and
don't we all think that's a wonderful thing, every time we hear of a
child death we say why didn't the Police do more, so of course they
should investigate, that does not mean that they arrest and prosecute,
they look at the Police prosecution guidelines how trivial the offence
was.


LISA Let's bring Chester in on this, are the Police going to actually
follow up all those calls?


CHESTER Yes they are and if you look at the Police family violence
policy it says that if there's an offence disclosed the Police must
investigate. Now what's going to happen in an investigation, well the
Police come in are they going to allow the accused parent then to remain
in the house with a child who they consider a victim at that stage while
the investigation goes on - the family violence policy says at the
moment that when someone's going to be prosecuted it should be processed
by an arrest and the arrested person should stay overnight in a Police
cell, so you could look at an investigation being worse than the
prosecution when it eventually comes and parents being taken out of a
house or children being removed from the house for instance if the
mother supports the father who gave the smack the child could well be
removed from the house during the course of the investigation. It's
huge, you have to look at the black and white stuff that's in Sue's bill
and what that says, not say well we're just gonna hand this over to CYFS
and the Police to decide where the law is on this.


LISA So can you overturn it then?


CHESTER Yeah I think we can, it depends on what support we get, who's
prepared to stand up and be counted and if the Prime Minister really
wants to achieve what she said in 2005 she'll be voting for my amendment
and not Sue's bill because my amendment does what she said she wanted to
achieve.
Part 2 - To smack or not to smack?


LISA Well this morning we're discussing Sue Bradford's anti smacking
legislation and to carry the conversation on we're now joined by Lynne
Pillay from Labour and Barbara Steward from New Zealand First. If I can
start with you first Lynne, why can't Labour MPs vote according to their
consciences on this?


LYNNE PILLAY - Labour MP Well we discussed it in our caucus and in fact
the discussion happened just after the UNICEF report that very clearly
showed our appalling statistics actually around violence against
children.


LISA This is the one that showed New Zealand was in the top three for
child deaths under the age of 14, violent child deaths?


LYNNE That's right, and so there was a lot of discussion on it and we
decided as a caucus that we couldn't and that it wasn't really a
conscience issue it was an issue, a party issue about violence against
children in our society, and in terms of Section 59 the bill isn't about
anti smacking it's about the instances where Section 59's been used when
children have been literally thrashed and their parents have got off and
Richard referred to before with riding whips with blocks of wood and
also instances where children have been chained to their parents. We as
a caucus don't think that in this day and age that's acceptable
behaviour for parents to get off on.


LISA Alright let's bring Barbara Stewart in, you voted for the bill on
its second reading, you support Chester Burrows' amendment, why is that
the way to go?


BARBARA STEWART - New Zealand First MP I believe that that will allay
the fears that the parents of New Zealand actually have, I think there's
been a lot of misinformation about this particular bill and parents are
quite worried about the legalistic cloud that's actually hanging over
their heads at this particular point in time.


LISA So do you seriously believe if Sue Bradford's bill went through
that good decent parents would be dragged off from the supermarket if
they smacked their child, they'd be going to court?


BARBARA Well no not necessarily but that is the perception that the
parents have and of course we're here to represent people and the other
side of the coin has never ever been explained in the media or to
parents.


LISA Let's bring our panel in here, Lynne Pillay has brought up the
point that in the past Section 59 has been used as an excuse for rather
vicious beatings, but does anyone here believe that Sue Bradford's bill
is going to stop that kind of abuse of children, would the Kahui twins
still be alive if we had this law?


RICHARD It seems to me it's totally unfair to link the two, I mean New
Zealand is in a very bad way, every report that comes up says just how
bad we are, there's a certain - and it's non confined to the underclass
out there, but there's a lot of beating of children and a lot of killing
of children and just this week we had a father gaoled what 17 years for
drowning his baby and another woman in court for bouncing her baby off
the kerb, but this bill's got nothing to do with that, that's a
particular violence that's part of New Zealand society and it's not
confined to the underclass.


LISA So how is this bill going to stop that?


LYNNE It has everything to do with it because Section 59 is about a
defence it's not introducing a prosecution, the only time the defence is
used is when parents' behaviour has been so abhorrent that they have
been prosecuted and they have got off under that defence, the very case
you referred to, so the message to society is it is okay to hit your
child with a riding crop because parents got off. Now when the Police
are considering prosecution at the moment they have to look at the
likelihood of the prosecution succeeding. The benchmark is that because
some of these cases is that well it's not going to succeed because we've
had successfully defended cases where it has been deemed okay to hit our
children with blocks etc.


LISA I see Barbara shaking her head here.


BARBARA Well I believe that the Police are obliged to investigate any
complaint that is made to them, that is what they're there for, so if
somebody phones up with a case or an example they're obliged to follow
it through.


LISA Is it all about though Bernard Hickey, is this all about saying we
have zero tolerance for violence?


BERNARD It's great that we're having this debate and that we're saying
to people it is wrong to hit your kids and to raise the level of focus
on this horrible record we have with killing our kids, it's perhaps the
Kahui twins is a case that's separate from this it would have obviously
not applied here, but when people are using a defence to allow them to
hit their kids with a horse whip and we're allowing this law to stay on
the books, that should be changed.


RICHARD But then why not have a compromise which would - I mean if
parliament is at loggerheads on this so is the entire community, so a
compromise along the lines of the Chester Burrows thing would have
brought parliament together as well as the community.


LYNNE Well I think in fact Plunket, Barnardoes, all the credible
organisations said exactly as Sue did, please don't introduce an
amendment that prescribes how to hit our children, because the SKIP
programme which is very successful in educating parents about
alternative ways, it will undermine that education process that you
spoke about before, so this is actually, the amendment to section 59 is
actually about protecting children in extreme situations. As Sue said
before, every time a parent actually takes their child out of school not
for illness but if they're going to go and see granny for the weekend in
Tauranga and they leave on Thursday or Friday, technically they're
breaking the law, are the Police marauding in and arresting them for
that, of course not. When high profile rugby players hit their mate in a
bar with a handbag do the Police maraud in and arrest them, of course
not. Commonsense prevails and it will continue to with guidelines.


LISA Barbara I just want to bring you here into the conversation again.
Phillip Field and Tariana Turia have both expressed concerns at various
points that this bill could criminalise good Maori and Pacific Island
parents, are those legitimate concerns?


BARBARA Well I believe they are because once the Police are phoned they
are obliged to come along and investigate, that is what we expect the
Police to do. There mightn't be a prosecution but your name perhaps
would be down there on the files and I believe that good parents don't
want that to happen, we all try our best as a parent.


LISA Richard how much do you see this as Labour paying back the Greens
for their support with the coalition?


RICHARD It's not in the formal understanding for support, but a lot of
people are thinking that maybe there is something particularly now that
Helen Clark's comments from pre the election or during the election
campaign have come out where she said she's absolutely against smacking,
and now maintains there's not change of stance, well demonstrably there
is a change of stance, so there may be a lot of people are thinking that
there's an understood arrangement between the two even though it's not
part of the formal agreement for confidence and supply.


LYNNE Lisa can I respond to that? That is absolute nonsense, and in fact
to do the right thing is not always the popular thing and as I said
before there was a bit discussion around it in our caucus and our
position is still the same. Parents will not be - I'd love to get this
group together in six months time and see how many parents have been
prosecuted for lightly smacking their child at the supermarket, it
simply won't happen. Every prosecution, any government intervention
always has to be in the best interests of the child.


LISA Let's bring Bernard in here because he is an anti smacking
proponent. Do you think Lynne Pillay is saying that sometimes you have
to do the right thing even if it's hard but does this go far enough,
could it be argued that Labour is sitting a little on the fence with
this as are the Greens they're trying to soften it a little bit to make
it acceptable for people?


BERNARD I think it's perfectly reasonable to remove that Section 59
which gives support to those people who are hitting their kids in a way
that the Police recognise is a problem and the prosecutors have taken
them to court.


LISA But this bill still would, according to Sue Bradford allow you to
give a light tap or a smack, so does it go far enough?


BERNARD I don't think that's an issue, we're really talking about people
who are abusing the law to abuse their kids, and I don't think it's a
problem that the nation's parents are afraid that they're gonna be
dragged out of their homes, that's simply not true, and anyway we have a
Police Force and a legal system which on the whole is sensible and I
don't think we're gonna have you know marauding bands of policemen
raiding people's houses.


LISA I want to bring Richard Long in here just for the final word. You
don't believe in smacking either but you just don't think this is gonna
work do you?


RICHARD I don't think this is the right bill no, but I would go along
with the Chester Burrows amendment and the problem that we're also
having to address, okay Police are not gonna go around grabbing parents
for smacking and throwing them in gaol or taking them to court, but
they're going to have to investigate if they get complaints, but it's
the waste of time, the waste of resources.

LISA Well will leave it there.

Chester Borrows' Section 59 ammendments explained

20 February 2007

 

"I am seeking a sensible compromise with the amendments I intend to make to Sue Bradford's Member's Bill," says National MP Chester Borrows. 

 

"The full National Party caucus supports my amendments, should the bill get to the committee stages.

 

"I regard my amendments as a commonsense compromise and hope that other MPs in Parliament see the sense in what I am proposing.

 

"Essentially, my bill alters what constitutes 'reasonable force'.

 

"I do not want to see parents and guardians using the law to get away with committing serious assaults on children, so some amendment to the Crimes Act is desirable.

 

"But I believe that simply repealing section 59 is problematic in that it would leave the decision about whether to prosecute in the hands of the police.

 

"Parliamentarians make the laws of this land and they should spell out clearly what the law is.  Leaving interpretation over to the police is unfair on both the public and the police.

 

"Parents should have some limited protections in law, rather than leaving it to the authorities to interpret.  So my amendments would seek to limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed."

 

Ends

 

Inquiries: Chester Borrows 021 722 636

Nat MP changes sides on the s59 debate

"I have decided to vote against the third reading...

...I voted for it at the second reading.  I was keen to see the issue discussed further and for the House to vote on the Borrows amendment.  I worry deeply about vulnerable children but in the end I trust the families of my electorate of Rangitikei to raise our children not the state.  As a lawyer I am also gravely concerned about the certainty of application of this proposed change."

Simon.

Simon Power, National MP for Rangitikei - voted for the full repeal of Section 59 in the first and second readings, but has now stated that he will be voting against it on it's third reading.

Rangitikei