Bradford's own people will lose most in smacking law

by Michele Wilkinson-Smith

"Changing the law on smacking will have disastrous consequences for some vulnerable people."

One of the great ironies of the anti smacking debate is Sue Bradford's touching faith in the police and the justice system – and even more ironic given her former life as a protester and champion of the powerless, during which she certainly clashed with police on occasions. I have two perspectives on the debate. As a mother of preschoolers I have my personal views, which have changed since I had children. But whether I choose to smack or not to smack – or whether anyone does – isn't the issue. I know that as a middle – class woman in a happy marriage my chances of being prosecuted are practically nil. I have another perspective,As a criminal lawyer who has both prosecuted and defended people charged with assaulting a child I think the repeal of section 59 of the Crime Act will have disastrous and unnecessary consequences for a small group of people. The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community – and their children. I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that – unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59. I drafted an indictment against a man who was convicted of smacking his 4-year old son about 5 times on the backside with and open hand, leaving marks. I think the jury convicted because the man smacked his boy too hard and because the boy was smacked not for a deliberate misdemeanor but because he soiled himself. I prosecuted a man, a loving father, for using a belt on his mildly intellectually handicapped and very challenging daughter after she damaged her bedroom. The jury were hugely sympathetic to the father but when I asked them in closing if they would not have intervened to stop the man had they been in the room at the time I knew they would find him guilty. I saw the realization dawn in their eyes. Not one of them would have stood by and let that happen "as a father's right" so they could not say it was reasonable discipline. I've had fewer cases as a defense lawyer, but I've never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: "Look, bashing that child with that jug cord was perfectly reasonable." Of course there will be the occasional case where section 59 has excused parents who have overstepped the mark, but these are not cases where a child has been thrashed or beaten or injured. In my experience of those sorts of cases, the section 59 defense simply isn't used. The accused denies the assault. New Zealand juries are not stupid. Sue Bradford doesn't trust the New Zealand public so I find it amazing that she has so much faith in the police and the justice system. She is proposing to give a huge amount of discretion to individual police officers. She expects them to wisely ignore the letter of the law. They won't. I know this and so does National MP Chester Borrows, with whom I worked and who was a superb, wise and compassionate detective sergeant. The police may not, and I'm sure they will not, prosecute every case of smacking, but they will be obliged to at least investigate – and therein is the harm. Picture this: a child at the center of a custody battle comes back from an access visit. Mum questions the child: Did Daddy smack you? Has Daddy ever smacked you? The child says yes. Mum takes the child to the police station. She is vocal and upset. "Investigate" sounds benign. It is not. That child will be put through the evidence interview process. It's not a process you want your child involved in. Dad will be asked to go to the police station to make a statement. All this will probably be good for lawyers. Probably no charges will be laid, but the child and the family will have been through a traumatic and damaging experience. This scenario will happen without a doubt. It will happen over and over again and the children at the center of Sue Bradford's concern will suffer it. The poor and powerless will be far more vulnerable. Most police are honest and upstanding and we are lucky to have them. Some are not. Some get caught up in a "means to an end" approach to criminal law. Some will use this legislation – and the discretion it gives them – for the wrong purpose. It won't be me or people like me who suffer this. It will be the very people Sue Bradford has fought for in so many other ways. The Government should forget party politics on this one. We are lucky to have an experienced former police officer, who also has a law degree, sitting in the House. He is saying, for many different reasons, don't give the police this much discretion. He's right, and we should listen to him.

(Michele Wilkinson-Smith is a lawyer)

this from http://clintheine.blogspot.com

Whale Oil makes a damn fine point about the supporters of changing section 59:

If we ever needed any more proof that Labour is right behind (so to speak) this bill then there it is right there. Members of their own Youth wing , who are actively and overtly homosexual and childless protesting something they would know almost nothing about.

Lets get to the point. Helen Clark doesn't like children. Her front bench cannot contain many parents, let alone her party. Helen is not a supporter of discussing things when she can bully her MPs into voting the way she wants - how could we expect her to tell us to do the same wth our kids?

Many Labour bloggers (the prominent ones) also have no experience with kids, nor will ever have children. Why are they jumping up and down supporting this amendment?

CYFS and police are saying now that they WILL investigate ANY accusations of smacking made against parents. Parents will all be put into the same category as child molesters and violent parents. And you wonder why parents are pissed off.

If you read the leftie blogs look at how they tackle the issue. They call their opponents fundamentalists and child beaters. They go to protest and all they do is lampoon their opponents and not discuss the issue. I remember when the Exclusive Brethrens were villified in their own country by Clark. She called them every name under the sun because they spent their own money opposing them.

Helen is a woman who is willing to damage her own partys credibility so that she gets her own way. Her arrogance has led her to believe that she knows best and not 80% of the population.

Feilding Mum organising second march

this from http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatustandard/4012134a6502.html
Manawatu Standard | Saturday, 31 March 2007

click here for details of the second Feilding March

Feilding mum Dianne Woodward will unleash her strong views against the anti-smacking bill on the nation on Monday night.

Mrs Woodward, a mother-of-four, has been invited to feature on a Campbell Live debate on TV3 with several other people, she said.

She will put forward her views on why the bill should be smacked into touch, while others will say why it should be passed.

So incensed has Mrs Woodward been with the proposed Sue Bradford bill - which would take away parents' rights to use "reasonable force" when disciplining their children - she has organised two protests in Feilding. The first, last Monday, attracted 350 people to the Feilding clock tower. The second is on Monday at the same location at noon. She will then wing her way to the big smoke and appear on Campbell Live, she said.

Meanwhile, NZPA reports the number of National Party MPs backing Ms Bradford's bill to change the law on smacking has dwindled to two.

Last night only Katherine Rich and Paula Bennett were still prepared to vote for the bill. Rangitikei MP Simon Power, Jackie Blue and Paul Hutchison, who initially indicated they would support it, are now in line with the rest of their caucus in opposing it.

National is allowing its MPs to cast conscience votes on the bill, meaning there is no party instruction on it.

Mr Hutchison said he had been influenced by a survey of his Port Waikato electorate, where he found an overwhelming number of people opposed the bill.

Ms Bradford does not need any National MPs to get her bill passed into law. She has 63 votes from Labour, her own Green Party, the Maori Party, one from United Future and two from New Zealand First. A majority in Parliament is 61.

The bill is halfway through its committee stage, and unless the Government takes it over it will not be debated again until after the Easter recess.

The Government is expected to decide on Tuesday whether to adopt it, which would mean it could be pushed up the order paper and quickly put through its remaining stages.

Bradford loses three National votes

this from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10431814
5:00AM Saturday March 31, 2007

Only two National Party MPs are now backing Sue Bradford's bill to change the law on smacking.

Last night, only Katherine Rich and Paula Bennett were prepared to vote for the bill.

Simon Power, Jackie Blue and Paul Hutchison, who initially indicated they would support it, are now in line with the rest of their caucus in
opposing it.

National is letting its MPs cast conscience votes on the bill rather than following a party line.

Dr Hutchison said a survey of his Port Waikato electorate showing overwhelming opposition to the bill had changed his mind.

Ms Bradford does not need National MPs to get her bill passed into law. She has 63 votes from the Labour Party, her own Green Party, the Maori Party, one from United Future and two from New Zealand First, giving her two more votes than she needs.

The bill is halfway through its committee stage, and unless the Government takes it over, it will not be debated again until after the
Easter recess.

The Government is expected to decide on Tuesday whether to adopt it, which would mean it could be pushed up the order paper and sped through its remaining stages.

The bill amends the Crimes Act, removing the defence of justifiable "reasonable force" against a charge of assault on a child.

Opponents say it means parents who even lightly smack their children will be turned into criminals.

Supporters say removing the defence means people who savagely beatchildren won't be able to use it to escape conviction.

S59 Repeal is now a Government Bill

this from http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/03/s59-repeal-is-now-government-bill.html

It's official,  http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/audio2/28164434.wma the Section 59 Repeal is now a Government Bill. To be debated and passed whenever the Government wants. Yet, apparently http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/03/michael-cullen-may-withdraw-urgency-on.html> this bill is not important to the Labour, according to Michael Cullen a couple of days ago.

Helen Clark has also compared the outrage New Zealanders feel over this to the opposition over homosexual law reform and then the civil union bill. I think she hopes to continue her line that Christians are the only people outraged and are whipping everyone else into a frenzy.

The only problem with this type of comparison is that both the homosexual law reform and civil union bill only impacted directly upon a
minority of people. While as the Section 59 Repeal will impart directly upon the majority of New Zealanders. It's no longer one of those things that only affects people out there - it's going to affect all of us. Any parent who smacks will be committing a criminal offence.

The first two laws were also liberalisation laws, while as the Section 59 repeal is an authoritarian law, restricting freedom rather than
expanding it. Which goes to show how authoritarian laws will always follow liberalisation. Increased freedom, or license to do as what one
wants without regard for other people will lead to increased societal problems. Like our massive child abuse statistics that have followed the dramatic increase in single mothers following the liberalisation of divorce laws and societal relaxation of sexual norms. Therefore the
natural outcome is increased interference in everyone's lives. The beginning of the end.

So, any bets on what they are going to do? Pass it now and hope the electorate forgets, given time, or wait until all the furore has died
down and pass it then?

By Lucyna

Press release from Family Life International, New Zealand

this from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00365.htm
Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 11:11 am
Press Release: Family Life International

New comprehensive US study shows yet another cause of child aggression that isn't smacking

A new study in the March/April 2007 of Child Development shows that the more time that children spend in centre-based care before kindergarten the more likely they are to display aggressive and disruptive behaviours during later stages of development.

The study, led by Jay Belsky, Ph.D., Director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues and Professor of Psychology at Birkbeck University of London, focused on 1364 children who had been tracked since birth as part of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.

The study showed that teachers reported more frequent problem behaviours such as: argues a lot; cruelty, bullying or meanness to others; destroys things belonging to others; disobedient at school; gets into many fights; lying or cheating; and screams a lot from children who had been in day-care.

The study confirms the findings of research conducted in Canada last year which showed that children in day-care were 17 times more hostile than children raised at home, and research conducted in the UK in 2005 which showed that day-care was linked to "higher levels of aggression."

"This research adds to a large and growing body of research which shows that child aggression and disruptive behaviours are not linked to
smacking; contrary to the unscientific claims continually promoted by many supporters of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill" says Family Life International media spokesperson; Brendan Malone.

In today's edition of the NZ Herald the Prime Minister states that "New Zealand has it on its conscience that our rate of child death and injury from violence, including in the home, is appalling."

"If the Government is really is so concerned with child welfare then why are they targeting loving physical discipline of children, when research clearly shows us that is has nothing to do with child violence?" says Mr Malone.

85% of Kiwis child beaters according to Bradford and Clark

this from www.kiwblog.co.nz

If one refers to those against the Clark/Bradford smacking ban as "child-beaters", does that mean you believe 85% of New Zealanders are child beaters?

Also do people not realise that Sue Bradford's bill no longer repeals Section 59? It in fact retains it, enlarges the number of grounds on which you can use reasonable force, yet removes it for correctional purposes only.

So the entire website linked to is ir-relevant and fraudulent. It is asking people to support a bill which will not do what they claim - it will not repeal section 59.

Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford's own people will lose most in smacking law

this from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10430966

One of the great ironies of the anti-smacking debate is Sue Bradford's touching faith in the police and the justice system - and even more ironic given her former life as a protester and champion of the powerless, during which she certainly clashed with police on occasions.

I have two perspectives on the debate. As a mother of pre-schoolers I have my personal views, which have changed since I had children.

But whether I choose to smack or not to smack - or whether anyone does - isn't the issue. I know that as a middle-class woman in a happy marriage my chances of being prosecuted for smacking are practically nil.

I have another perspective. As a criminal lawyer who has both prosecuted and defended people charged with assaulting a child I think the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act will have disastrous and unnecessary consequences for a small group of people.

The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community - and their children.

I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that - unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59.

I drafted an indictment against a man who was convicted of smacking his 4-year-old son about five times on the backside with an open hand, leaving marks.

I think the jury convicted because the man smacked his boy too hard and because the boy was smacked not for a deliberate misdemeanour but because he soiled himself.

I prosecuted a man, a loving father, for using a belt on his mildly intellectually handicapped and very challenging teenage daughter after she damaged her bedroom.The jury were hugely sympathetic to the father but when I asked them in closing if they would not have intervened to stop the man had they been in the room at the time I knew they would find him guilty.

I saw the realisation dawn in their eyes. Not one of them would have stood by and let that happen "as a father's right", so they could not say it was reasonable discipline.

I've had far fewer cases as a defence lawyer, but I've never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: "Look, bashing that child with a jug cord was perfectly reasonable."

Of course there will be the occasional case where section 59 has excused parents who overstepped the mark, but these are not cases where a child has been thrashed or beaten or injured. I challenge anyone to find a case where section 59 has excused a real bashing that left a child injured.

In my experience of those sorts of cases, the section 59 defence simply isn't used. The accused denies the assault. New Zealand juries are not stupid.

Sue Bradford doesn't trust the New Zealand public so I find it amazing that she has so much faith in both the police and the justice system.

She is proposing to give a huge amount of discretion to individual police officers.

She expects them to wisely ignore the letter of the law. They won't. I know this and so does National MP Chester Borrows, with whom I worked and who was a superb, wise and compassionate detective sergeant.

The police may not, and I'm sure will not, prosecute every case of smacking, but they will be obliged to at least investigate - and therein is the harm. Picture this: a child at the centre of a custody battle comes back from an access visit. Mum questions the child: Did Daddy smack you? Has Daddy ever smacked you? The child says yes.

Mum takes the child to the police station. She is vocal and upset. "Investigate" sounds benign. It is not.

That child will be put through the evidential interview process. It's not a process you want your child involved in. Dad will be asked to go to the police station to make a statement.

All this will probably be good for lawyers. Probably no charges will be laid, but the child and the family will have been through a traumatic and damaging experience.

This scenario will happen without a doubt. It will happen over and over again and the children at the centre of Sue Bradford's concern will suffer it. The poor and powerless will be far more vulnerable.

Most police are honest and upstanding and we are lucky to have them.

Some are not. Some get caught up in a "means to an end" approach to criminal law. Some will use this legislation - and the discretion it gives them - for the wrong purpose.

It won't be me or people like me who suffer this. It will be the very people Sue Bradford has fought for in so many other ways.

The Government should forget party politics on this one. We are lucky to have an experienced former police officer, who also has a law degree, sitting in the House. He is saying, for many different reasons, don't give the police this much discretion. He's right, and we should listen to him.

Greens acting against the late Rod Donald's will

this from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00529.htm
Monday, 26 March 2007, 3:34 pm - Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Gerry Brownlee MP - National Party Shadow Leader Of The House

"The Green Party is doing the memory of Rod Donald a disservice if it entertains a Labour plan that would see the smacking ban become law before the end of the week," says National Party Shadow House Leader Gerry Brownlee.

Mr Brownlee is referring to the views of the late Green Party co-leader, who said during 2001 that 'urgency should only be used for matters which are genuinely urgent ... The only exception is that from time to time we have considered - and will continue to consider - approaches for extra sitting hours, and then only for one stage of a bill at a time'.

"The suggestion that the current group of Greens are considering supporting an urgency motion to railroad the smacking ban into place would appear to fly in the face of Mr Donald's deeply held view.

"It would appear that the Greens were once very sceptical about the use of urgency to clear the decks of a controversial issue. I'd invite them to rediscover their roots on urgency and the democratic process."

Mr Brownlee is also urging other parties to "firm up their views" against the urgency which Labour is seeking to secure.

"The public see this as an arrogant abuse of the parliamentary and democratic process. Any party that agrees to steamroll the process should expect the full force of a public backlash.

"This is now much bigger than the anti-smacking legislation. This is about a Labour Government that is so out of touch with New Zealanders that it will ride roughshod over their wishes because it is hurting politically."

Urgency on anti-smacking bill to be dumped

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=114697
26/03/2007 19:28:02

The government has confirmed that it will no longer seek urgency on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.

Labour had been seeking support for the final stages of the private member's bill to be considered under urgency on Wednesday.

But a spokesman for the office of Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen says that will no longer happen.

Amendments to Sue Bradford's bill will still be debated by Parliament on Wednesday.

Government Poll shows majority against smacking bill

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4006301a10.html
NZPA | Monday, 26 March 2007

A new poll showing a majority of New Zealanders oppose Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill was released today ahead of another debate on it in Parliament on Wednesday.


The Research New Zealand poll, which questioned 497 people, found that nearly three-quarters opposed the bill and believed it was unenforceable.

Research New Zealand director Emanuel Kalafatelis said the poll showed 73 per cent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the bill's provisions.

It also showed that 72 per cent of those questioned thought the bill, if it was to be passed into law, would be unenforceable.

The bill is designed to change the Crimes Act and remove the defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.

Opponents say it outlaws smacking, while supporters argue smacking is already illegal.

Mr Kalafatelis said the poll showed very little variation across age, gender, income, ethnicity and whether or not a household included children.

"The one difference that we found was that those aged 15 to 29 were more inclined to support the anti-smacking legislation than those in older age groups," he said.

Meanwhile a coalition of Christian families is paying for a full-page advertisement in newspapers tomorrow calling for signatures to force a
referendum on the issue.

More than 50,000 signatures have been gathered so far, with 300,000 needed within the next 12 months before the Government would have to arrange a referendum.

Opponents plan to march on Parliament on Wednesday, when the committee stage debate on the bill is due to resume.

If the Government puts Parliament into urgency on the bill, it could pass its final third reading by the end of the week.

Ms Bradford is confident she has at least 63 votes backing the bill. A majority in Parliament is 61.

And I say: *Ms* Bradford, so you think you have just over 50% of 121 MPs do you?  How's your concience *Ms* Bradford?  Consistently, polls have shown 80% of Kiwis are opposed to your bill."

Vast number against anti-smacking bill

this from http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425825/1037215

26 March 07

Anti-smacking campaigners have been dealt a fresh blow, with a new poll showing an overwhelming number of New Zealanders support parents' right to smack their naughty children.

The news comes as MPs prepare to once again debate the controversial bill banning smacking, and those against it are promising to keep turning up the heat.

A ONE News Colmar Brunton poll has found 83% of those surveyed believe it is okay to smack naughty children.

Just 15% disagreed with that, but supporters of Sue Bradford's bill say it is not aimed at those who lightly smack their child.

"The point of the Bradford bill is to enable the police to successfully prosecute serious child beaters," Prime Minister Helen Clark says.

It is already illegal to hit children but if prosecuted you have a legal defence that you were simply using reasonable force to correct their behaviour.  The bill removes that defence because Bradford and others believe it was being wrongly used to get people off the hook for hitting their children with a riding crop or wooden sticks.

But there does not seem to be much faith that the bill will actually help those children. Just 18% say it will cut child abuse rates while 78% say it will do nothing.

With the bill to be debated again on Wednesday, the pressure is being racheted up.

A new advertising campaign against it kicks off on Tuesday.  Family First, For the Sake of our Children, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Grey Power are placing a full page newspaper advertisement to encourage people to sign a petition against the bill.

So far the petition has received more than 50,000 signatures.  The aim is to hit 300,000 so the government is forced to hold a referendum.

More protests are also planned and one party is even threatening its own MPs with the boot next election if they do not vote against the controversial law.

Results supported

The Colmar poll results are backed by a Research New Zealand survey, which showed that of the 497 people polled 73% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the anti-smacking bill.

The poll also showed that 72% of New Zealanders thought that if the bill were to be passed into law, it would be unenforceable.

The poll also found those aged 15 to 29 were more inclined to support the legislation, with a quarter strongly supporting the bill.

Fourteen other polls conducted by various organisations show on average about 80% of people oppose the legislation.

A text message poll run by Bay of Plenty Times over the weekend found a staggering 94.6% opposing the legislation.

"Supporters of the bill have always tried to argue that the 14 polls done over the past two years, and averaging 84% support for section 59, are not accurate," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

"Yet here is yet another independent poll showing that 83% of Kiwis either strongly disagree or disagree with the bill, or have no clear support for the anti-smacking bill.

"The message is clear to our politicians," says McCoskrie. "Reject the bill, don't criminalise our good parents, come back to the drawing board, and let's tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by UNICEF reports, CYF reports and national and international research - namely family breakdown and dysfunction, drug and alcohol abuse, and poverty and stress."

Also on this page - this poll:

Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?
8%
Yes
87%
No
5%
I don't smack them anyway

Must watch footage of Rangiora March

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/1036871
Click on the above link - there is a link to the footage on this page.

Destiny Church to march

this from http://www.niufm.com/?t=3&View=FullStory&newsID=1819
Date: 26 March 2007

Auckland 6am: The Destiny Church is planning another march on Parliament grounds, this time over the anti-smacking bill.

Brian Tamaki, from the church, says they'll be staging a mass rally in May in protest at yet another attempt by Government to undermine
traditional family values. The Destiny Church has protested about two other pieces of Government legislation, the Foreshore Bill in 2004 and the more recent Civil Union Bill.

Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill continues to gather controversy.

Today, locals in Feilding are marching against it while ructions have erupted in New Zealand First after president Dail Jones threatened to demote two MPs for voting for the bill.

New Zealand First is voting on conscience lines  - with five MP's voting against it and two for it.

MP and former party president Doug Woolerton supports the bill, and says he's not going to be told how to vote.

And I say "Doug, who are you voting for?  Yourself?  Or New Zealand" For crying out loud, listen to the nation, you people in Parliament.

Winston Peters warns MPs about consequences of supporting anti-smacking bill

this from http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200703260832/nz_first_party_president_warns_mps_about_consequences_of_supporting_anti-smacking_bill
Posted at 8:33am on 26 Mar 2007

The head of the New Zealand First Party is warning two MPs that there will be consequences if they support an anti-smacking bill which would amend section 59 of the Crimes Act.

President Dail Jones says MPs, Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly, are acting irresponsibly by voting in support of the bill - disregarding a party remit that says the section 59 defence should stay.

Mr Woolerton says the president should not tell MPs what to do or think in a conscience vote.

But Mr Jones told Morning Report there is a party stance on the issue and MPs could be demoted if they choose to disregard it.

He says list MPs report to the New Zealand First board, which may decide not to reinstate an MP into Parliament if they vote against party policy.

The bill passed a Second Reading in Parliament by 70 votes to 51 on 21 February. Consideration of amendments began on 15 March when one clause was debated for almost two hours by 23 speakers. By the time the House rose for the day, only the name of the bill and its start date had been voted on.

NewsTalk ZB report

this from http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=114664
26/03/2007 11:28:02

Opponents of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill have stepped up their campaign to stop it being passed.

Family First, For the Sake of our Children, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Grey Power have re-launched a petition against the bill. To date the petition has more than 50,000 signatures. It is aiming to hit 300,000 by the end of the year.

Tomorrow full page advertisements will be taken out in four of the country's major newspapers.

Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie says it is deplorable the bill is being rushed through Parliament under urgency. He says if 300,000 signatures are collected the Government will be forced to hold a referendum.

Smacking law gets BIG thumbs down in Bay

this from http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz

26.03.2007 By CARLY UDY

Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial anti-smacking bill has received an overwhelming thumbs down from Western Bay residents.

A special Bay of Plenty Times text message poll on Saturday asked readers Do you think smacking should be outlawed? A staggering 94.6 percent of the 354 respondents said "no", with only 5.4 per cent saying "yes".

The Government will this week decide whether they will attempt to fast-track legislation that would restrict parents' right to smack their children.

If they do so Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial bill could be passed into law by the end of the week.

Hundreds turn out at Protest Rallys NZ wide

this from http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/PoliticalNews/tabid/188/articleID/23976/Default.aspx#top

A petition is being circulated nationwide as part of a push for a referendum on the controversial smacking issue.

Green MP Sue Bradford's bill to restrict the right to smack could be debated further this week, if the Government is successful in rushing it into urgency.

Protests today in both Nelson and Feilding have attracted hundreds who are angry the Government is telling them how to parent.

Former United Future MP Larry Baldock is spearheading the campaign against the bill, including full-page advertisements in major papers
tomorrow.

Mr Baldock says it is important New Zealanders are given their say.