section59updates

Section 59 One Year On

2008-04-27T04:36:00.001-07:00

I have just had a look at this blog, and noticed that my last post was exactly one year ago today.

http://s59news.blogspot.com ran for 51 days, between 8 March 2007 and 28 April 2007. It formed the news updates section of the www.politik.co.nz website (down currently, but will be up and running again shortly I hope). At the end of April 2007, I decided to write updates for the Section 59 blog, and simply direct www.politik.co.nz visitors there. The Section 59 blog has 366 posts from when it started on 11 September, 2006. I have been greatly supported in this work since 10 November 2007 by Simeon Brown, who I also run the NZ Debate blog with.

As we approach the 2008 General Election, and as, once again the Anti-Smacking Law debate is raised again, the Section 59 blog will continue to comment on and link to articles relating to the issue.

This will be the last post on the S59 News blog - thanks for reading!

Kind Regards,

Andy Moore
blogging at starstuddedsuperstep.com

Robert E. Larzelere: In New Zealand

2007-04-28T20:38:00.001-07:00

ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD
Associate Professor of Psychology
Dept. Human Development & Family Science - Oklahoma State University

will be asking the questions...
• what is the sound scientific evidence on the benefits / harms of smacking?
• how does appropriate smacking compare with other forms of parental
correction in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes?
• do smacking bans reduce child abuse according to international experience?

Doctor Larzelere, one of the World's Foremost Researchers on Child Correction For Past 30 Years is...
• One of three social scientific expert witnesses on the side of successfully defending a
similar section to NZ's s59 of Canada's Criminal Code.
(The social scientific expert witnesses on the other side included Joan Durrant. Durrant
has been painted as the authority on smacking bans in NZ yet was ignored in her own
country!)
• Member of Task Force on Corporal Punishment - American Psychological Association.
• One of 7 experts invited to present at 1996 Scientific Consensus Conference on the
Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Corporal Punishment - co-sponsored by
American Academy of Pediatrics.

Doctor Larzelere is the author of 70 publications including...
• Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary
tactics: A meta-analysis. Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,
8, 1-37.
• Sweden's Smacking Ban: More harm than good. Larzelere, R. E. (2004) Frinton on Sea, Essex, UK:
Families First
(Refutes research presented by Joan Durrant which has been used as evidence for repealing
s59 by NZ's Children's Commissioner, UNICEF, Barnados, Plunket and other groups
supporting repeal.)
• Children and Violence in the Family: Scientific Contributions
Larzelere; R. E. (2005) A Submission to the UN Global Study on Children and Violence
• Physical discipline and child behavior problems: A study of ethnic group
differences.
Polaha, J., Larzelere, R. E., Shapiro, S. K., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Parenting: Science and Practice, 4, 339-360.
• Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful?
Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Comment on Gershoff (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 580-589.
• The effects of discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences.
Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1996). Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 18, 35-57

For more information on Doctor Robert E. Larzelere and his visit to New Zealand, click here.

One National voice out of 48 backs Bradford bill

2007-04-27T15:33:00.001-07:00

this from www.nzherald.co.nz

Katherine Rich

National MP Katherine Rich is likely to be the last MP standing in her caucus of 48 who supports Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill when it finally passes.

"It is not what I expected," she said last night. "But I am privileged to be in a party that allows me to express those views."

She said National had always had a "small pocket" of social liberals.

"When Ralph Hannan [Justice Minister in the Holyoake Government] started talking about the equal distribution of matrimonial property and getting rid of capital punishment, people thought he was a nut. But slowly over time the community changes."

The National caucus has allowed a free vote on the Bradford bill, which bans the use of physical punishment on children.

West Auckland list MP Paula Bennett was thought to be another supporting the private member's bill but she said she had not made up her mind and had sent out 19,000 letters to voters seeking their views in a telephone poll.

By yesterday she had received only 200 replies and 66 per cent wanted her to oppose the bill, so on the basis of that she probably would.

"I am honestly and genuinely conflicted," Ms Bennett said.

National Party leader John Key said he was quite relaxed about Mrs Rich's position.

Mr Key said he had not given up attempting to gain support for an amendment that would state that minor and inconsequential smacks by parents would not be covered by the bill.

But Ms Bradford, a Green MP, confirmed yesterday that she would withdraw the bill if that happened anyway.

Mr Key plans to contact Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia over the weekend and New Zealand First MPs next week.

Meanwhile, the Anglican Church is organising an ecumenical service for peace in families at the Wellington Cathedral on Wednesday at 1pm.

At the same time, across the road at Parliament, Destiny Church will hold a protest rally to mark the return of the bill to the debating chamber.

The Anglican Church's social justice commissioner, Anthony Dancer, said last night that the rally would involve Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians and other mainstream church members on an individual basis.

No smack compromise for Key and Bradford

2007-04-26T22:07:00.000-07:00

this from www.stuff.co.nz
NZPA | Wednesday, 25 April 2007

National Party leader John Key and the Green's Sue Bradford have failed to agree on a compromise over her controversial bill to change the law on smacking. They met for an hour in Parliament today for talks Ms Bradford described as "genuine and friendly" but did not find a way to overcome National's strong opposition to the bill. The bill's future did not depend on the meeting because there are 63 votes behind it, enough for it to be passed into law, but it has divided Parliament and is causing bitter debates. The bill removes from the Crimes Act the statutory defence that allows "reasonable force" to be used to correct children. Opponents, including National, say that means even the lightest smack would be a criminal offence. Supporters say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and the defence is allowing people to get away with savagely beating children. Ms Bradford said Mr Key proposed an amendment to the bill at their meeting which would insert a clause stating parents were justified in lightly smacking a child, if the smacking was minor and inconsequential.

It is similar to an amendment already proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, although the wording is different. Ms Bradford said it was not acceptable, because it would legitimise violence against a child. Mr Key initiated today's meeting and Ms Bradford said she believed he had made a genuine attempt to cut through the problems National has with the bill. "I think Mr Key does want to reduce the level of violence against children. . .I think he tried really hard to come up with something," she said. Mr Key was due to hold a press conference later today. A spokesman said the meeting had been cordial "but there was no outcome".

Fielding Protest Rally 23 April

2007-04-20T21:32:00.001-07:00

Diane Woodward is organising the third rally in Feilding to protest
against the passage of Bradford's Bill to re-write Section 59.

The aim of this rally is to draw attention to the meeting between National's John Key
and Green's Sue Bradford proposed for ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April

Where: Feilding Clock Tower
When: 12 Noon Monday 23 April (two days before ANZAC Day)

Be there.

Smacked kids hurt animals says MP

2007-04-19T15:00:00.001-07:00

from www.stuff.co.nz
The Dominion Post | Friday, 20 April 2007

Key Labour ally Jim Anderton says men who were smacked as children are far more likely to abuse animals.

In a speech to the SPCA, the Progressives leader - who is in coalition with Labour - cited a United States Justice Department report in 1999 that said nearly 60 per cent of men who admitted mistreating animals had suffered corporal punishment from their fathers.

About a quarter said they had abused animals, but had not been physically punished as children. Corporal punishment was defined in the survey as "spanking, slapping or hitting".

Mr Anderton supports Green MP Sue Bradford's bill, which removes the statutory "reasonable force" defence for parents who smack their children for the purposes of correction. Polls show more than 80 per cent of voters are against a change to the law.

Mr Anderton said the study showed that people "emotionally damaged through violence" were more likely to be violent or have no empathy for others.

His reference to the US research was dismissed as a desperate measure by National MP Chester Borrows, who has drafted an amendment to the bill that would allow light smacking. Mr Borrows said yesterday that the research Mr Anderton used - which was based on interviews with 84 university undergraduates - was demographically flawed and inferior to other studies that showed no effects from smacking. The research "wasn't anywhere near as clear-cut as he says it was".

Mr Borrows said research from the groundbreaking New Zealand longitudinal study, which has tracked participants since birth for more than 30 years and covered a range of backgrounds, painted a much different picture .

"What you find is that children who are raised in a loving, nurturing home and who are lightly smacked are indistinguishable from those who weren't smacked." ...

Accept anti-smacking bill is flawed says Key

2007-04-18T04:06:00.001-07:00

from http://www.scoop.co.nz
Wednesday, 18 April 2007, 3:06 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party

National Party Leader John Key says backers of the anti-smacking bill need to accept that the way the bill is currently drafted will make it illegal to use light smacking for the purposes of correction.

"I will not support a bill that leaves otherwise good parents at the mercy of the police and the judiciary.

"The Greens and Labour now have an opportunity to get closer to the public they serve, by agreeing they've got a major problem with the current wording."

Mr Key says his offer to get around the table with Sue Bradford and Helen Clark remains open.

"But there's no point in proceeding unless Sue Bradford and Helen Clark will accept that light smacking for the purposes of correction will be illegal under their proposals.

"That is the first step towards finding some common ground."

Mr Key has laid down a counter-challenge for Labour to explain how it is that the bill in its current form won't criminalise parents.

"If Labour really believes that 'light smacking for the purposes of correction' will not be outlawed, then they need to explain that. But no matter how you read this bill in its present form it will be illegal to 'lightly smack for the purposes of correction'.

"The way to send a strong message on child abuse is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. This bill as it stands does the opposite.

"So again I say to Helen Clark and Sue Bradford, if you are genuine in your statements, and genuine in your intentions, then let's get around the table and come up with a set of words we all agree on.

"For me, a result that sees the criminalisation of parents for a light smack is simply not on the table."

World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ

2007-04-16T22:52:00.001-07:00

from http://www.scoop.co.nz
Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 3:05 pm

Family First NZ, with the support of For the Sake of Our Children Trust and Sensible Sentencing Trust, is bringing to New Zealand ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD, Associate Professor of the Psychology Dept. Human Development & Family Science at Oklahoma State University to present the dangers of the 'Anti-Smacking' Bill on the important role of parents and the well-being of our children.

Dr Larzelere will be in NZ the week of the next vote on the Bradford / Clark 'Anti-Smacking' Bill (May 2nd). This is an important vote because the sensible amendment of MP Chester Borrow's (which substantially lowers the definition of what is 'reasonable' without criminalising good parents who give light smacks) will be voted on.

Dr Larzelere has been one of the world's foremost experts on the research on child correction outcomes for the past 30 years - including: One of three social scientific expert witnesses on the side of successfully defending a similar section to NZ's s59 of Canada's Criminal Code. (The social scientific expert witnesses on the other side included Joan Durrant. Durrant has been painted as the authority on smacking bans in NZ yet was ignored in her own country!) . Member of Task Force on Corporal Punishment - American Psychological Association. . One of 7 experts invited to present at 1996 Scientific Consensus Conference on the Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Corporal Punishment - co-sponsored by American Academy of Pediatrics .

His expertise will help answer the following questions regarding the Anti-Smacking Parental Correction debate:

1. what is the sound scientific evidence on the benefits / harms of smacking?

2. how does appropriate smacking compare with other forms of parental correction in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes?

3. do smacking bans reduce child abuse according to international experience?

You can find out more about Dr. Larzelere and his visit to New Zealand by clicking here

CIR Petition past half way

2007-04-16T18:45:00.001-07:00

from http://www.scoop.co.nz
Monday, 16 April 2007, 4:27 pm
Press Release: Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill

CIR Petition coordinator Larry Baldock announced today that the petition
to force a referendum on the Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill had
passed the halfway point towards the required target of 300,000
signatures.

As of today, 150,745 signatures had been received on Sheryl Savill's
Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question, "should a smack as part
of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

The law allows twelve months to collect the required 300,000 signatures.

"To have arrived at the halfway mark after only six weeks must make this
the fastest petition gathering exercise in the history of the CIR Act,
and needless to say all of us involved are very encouraged by the
support we have received from all over the country," he said.

"While the supporters of Sue Bradord's HOME INVASION, ANTI CORRECTION,
ANTI-SMACKING Bill continue to argue about the accuracy of all the polls
that have been conducted that show an overwhelming majority of
opposition to her bill, we can confidently say we are going to be able
to require a referendum to be held at the next election. There will be
no disputing that result and politicians would be unwise to continue to
ignore the voice of those who elected them into parliament," said Mr
Baldock.

Muriel Newman on S59

2007-04-16T05:20:00.001-07:00

from www.murielnewman.co.nz

New Zealand is being conned over the so-called anti-smacking bill.

Touted as being the way to prevent child abuse, this bill is part of an international movement designed to undermine parental authority and increase state control over children. While a dozen or so countries have succumbed to the pressure of the anti-smacking lobby and the United Nations, the overwhelming majority have not (see "Smacking Laws in other Countries" BBC News Online>>>).

The promoters of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill want to remove section 59 of the Crimes Act, so that parents who discipline their children using "reasonable" force will no longer be protected from the charge of assault. They claim this is necessary because section 59 is being used as a shield to protect child abusers. Yet since 1990 there have only been seven successful defenses using section 59!

The public can recognize a con job when they see one. That is why they are fighting back with email campaigns, newspaper advertisements, marches, meetings, petitions and debates. It is this organised opposition that is threatening Labour to such an extent that they are now plotting to undermine the democratic process by calling the House into urgency. If they succeed, the bill will be fast-tracked through Parliament with the rest of the committee stages and the final third reading all held this week.

At the centre of the controversy over the bill is the Prime Minister. She reassured the country before the last election that she would not support a smacking ban: "As you know I do not support a ban on smacking. I am opposed to that because I think it defies human nature. No one wants to see a stressed and harassed parent who in exasperation lightly smacks a child dragged before the court." (see >>> )

The Minister of Justice at the time, Phil Goff agreed saying that while he supported the bill going to a select committee, he did not want to make criminals out of parents (click here to read the Herald article >>>).

When the bill was first introduced into Parliament, Labour MPs were asked to support it to a select committee on the understanding they would be given a conscience vote for the subsequent stages. However, when Philip Field resigned and Labour needed the Green Party's support to stay in power, all of that changed and the Prime Minister now expects all Labour MPs to vote with the party.

But in a Parliamentary democracy they don't have to do that. MPs have sovereign rights and history is rich with stories of brave MPs who cross the floor over important matters putting the best interests of their constituents and the country ahead of party politics.

When the anti-smacking debate started, the government funded a Canadian anti-smacking advocate Dr Joan Durrant to visit New Zealand to promote her controversial view that Sweden's smacking ban – introduced in 1979 - had reduced child abuse to "virtually zero". It is a view that had been discredited a few years ago by other researchers (see Herald >>>)...

Read the rest of the article here

Ruby Harrold-Claesson on S59: MUST READ

2007-04-16T04:56:00.001-07:00

read the full article on www.murielnewman.co.nz
24 March 07

In the Dominion Post article (14/3) "Police prepare rules to act on smacks" the New Zealand public is informed that police chiefs are preparing to send out guidelines for dealing with complaints about smacking as the bill outlawing the use of physical punishment as the final vote draws nearer. The Gisborne Herald article (17/3) "New bill 'unlikely' to drastically lift police workload" is based on a quotation from Police Minister Annette King. The Police Minister's views are quite irrelevant because the police, prosecutors and the criminal justice system are obliged to enforce the letter of the law. Thinking New Zealanders have known all along that the proposed law would lead to policing and criminalising responsible parents. Being a lawyer in Sweden under the regime of the anti-smacking law, I have known that all along, and I am still trying to warn New Zealand before it is too late: The anti smacking bill will turn parents into criminals. If the Bill becomes law it will mean the abolition of parental authority. That is exactly what the Editor of the Swedish newspaper The Day, (Dagen) wrote in his editorial "An unnecessary law" on November 11, 1978. (click to view >>>)

In Sweden the supporters of the Bill - the law was passed by 344 of 350 votes "to protect children from abuse" - claimed that no parent would be prosecuted under the anti-smacking law because it was promulgated in the Parents and guardianship Code. However, When I state in lectures, debates or public talks, etc., that the anti-smacking law is invoked to support the criminal charges against the parents and that the law has made parents afraid of their children, that the children intimidate their parents by threatening to report them to the police and the social services, etc., my opponents say that I am scaremongering or that I don't know what I am talking about. However, my statement is confirmed in the article "European Report: Mummy and Daddy spare rod -- or go to court", published in 2000. Well, there you have it. (See >>>)

In a government-funded speech in February 2006, Joan Durrant, claimed that Sweden 's smacking ban has reduced child abuse to "virtually zero". (See >>>) . The ideological advocates, led by Sue Bradford, claim that a smacking ban will reduce child abuse in New Zealand . However, Dr. Chris Beckett's paper (2005), that bears the title: 'The Swedish Myth: The Corporal Punishment Ban and Child Death Statistics', shows that it did not reduce child abuse nor child homicides. It is just a myth. (See >>>).

...Prosecuting parents for physically forcing or punishing their children when words and admonitions prove to be insufficient is in no way in the best interest of children - neither in Sweden nor in New Zealand . It is, and must remain, the parents' duty and right to educate and socialise their children within the context of their family.

Who has the right to decide what is right? The politicians or the parents who know and love their children and want what is best for them? Sweden 's politicians decided what was right and best for the children of Sweden , and the parents were forced to abdicate or be dragged through the criminal and administrative court systems. Today both parents and children suffer at the hands of the social bureaucracy with the right to separate children from their "abusive" parents and put them in foster homes. However, separating children from their parents constitutes the greatest abuse - both physical and emotional - that can be inflicted on children and their families.

...I am convinced that New Zealand has enough intelligent, level-headed politicians so they will not want their fellow citizens to have to make the same mistakes that Sweden has made. Bradford 's Bill is not being progressive; it is being destructive and repressive. The French reporter, Jean-Francis Held, wrote the article "Smacking: Those Swedes must be crazy!" (see >>>)

... By the way, if the New Zealand MP's want to follow Sweden 's example, then I can inform you that we had a change of government in October 2006.

Ruby Harrold-Claesson,
Attorney-at-Law,
president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights
Gothenburg, Sweden.

150,000 signatures on smacking referendum petition

2007-04-16T03:50:00.001-07:00

this from www.stuff.co.nz
NZPA | Monday, 16 April 2007

A petition for a referendum on proposals to change the law around smacking has reached the half-way mark.

Sheryl Savill's Citizens Initiated Referendum petition asks if smacking a child as part of good parental correction should be made a criminal offence.

Petition coordinator former United Future MP Larry Baldock said 150,745 people of the required 300,000 needed to force a referendum had signed.

Green Party MP Sue Bradford has a bill before Parliament which changes the Crimes Act and removes the statutory defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.

Opponents say it will turn parents into criminals if they even lightly smack their children.

Ms Bradford and her supporters argue that smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years, and removing the defence means people will not get away with savagely beating children.

Petitioners have one year from when they start to gather signatures.

"To have arrived at the halfway mark after only six weeks must make this the fastest petition-gathering exercise in the history of the CIR Act, and, needless to say, all of us involved are very encouraged by the support we have received from all over the country," Mr Baldock said.

Think Again: Family Violence

2007-04-15T19:02:00.001-07:00

from Maxim Insitute
John Fox - 5 April 07
Printed in Joy Magazine, April 2007

The campaign against 59 of the Crimes Act, otherwise known as the "anti-smacking Bill", arouses strong feelings. Those who support the Bill draw attention to New Zealand's violent culture, and our damningly high rates of child abuse. It is natural to feel that something ought to be done, even if it is just a gesture; a step in the right direction to prevent tragedies like the Kahui twins occurring and to tackle our culture of violence. We should, we must, do that. But this Bill will not achieve it.

Ms Bradford and the Prime Minister chime together that the Police will use their discretion and leave good parents and families alone, however, the Bill will still put good loving parents on the wrong side of the law and leave them open to investigations and prosecution. In the process it will undermine parents' authority over their children.

Child abuse is already illegal. We have laws which punish family violence already. This Bill would criminalise "reasonable" corrective force such as the light smacking used by thousands of Kiwi parents as a disciplinary technique. The best research available, Dr Jane Millichamp's, suggests that such light smacking (differentiated from beating, or hitting, or child abuse, which is illegal), is not harmful to children, and most Kiwi parents would agree.

The common argument the supporters of the Bill are mustering, is that the Bill will "send a message" that violence against children is unacceptable. But that message is already sent by laws against abuse.

If criminal law "sends a message", it is about the kind of behaviour we as a society find wrong, unacceptable, and criminal. Things like murder, rape, and child abuse come into that category. By passing the Bill, we would be putting light smacking into the same category, something to be prosecuted in a Court.

Our politicians are right to be concerned about family violence, but they should not be passing a law that they do not want the Police to enforce simply to "send a message". There are speeches and soap-boxes and press releases and TV cameras for that. Law is for crime, and for behaviour that is harmful and criminal and should be prosecuted.

Further, the Bill would do nothing to address the root causes of child abuse and family violence. UNICEF has said what some of the risk factors for abuse are: family breakdown, alcohol, drugs, poverty, low education and so on. The Bill does not tackle these risk factors for family violence.

The State and the Police should certainly intervene when there is crime or severe dysfunction, domestic violence and child abuse. There are decisions under the current law that we don't all agree with, and they show the need to improve and tighten the situations where parents can use discipline, but banning all reasonable correction goes too far and good parents should be left alone.

We are all attracted by a vision of the kind of society we can be; a country without violence, where children are safe. But after we have all agreed on the destination, it comes time to chart the path to take us there. Our MPs could have begun a deeper look at why our society is violent, why families and lives are broken, and the risk factors for family violence. Instead, they are choosing to make thousands of parents into criminals and license interference in good families. That is a wrong turn, the wrong path, and the wrong way.

Timaru mother: "I have never beaten my children"

2007-04-14T22:30:00.001-07:00

this article from Saturday's Press

"The Timaru mother acquitted of assaulting her son with a cane and a riding crop – and now facing a new trial for allegedly assaulting another son – says parents should be free to use implements to deliver a "short and sharp" shock to their children.

In an internet video, the mother defended her use of physical discipline and railed against proposed child-discipline legislation.

"I have never, ever beaten any of my children," she said in the 10-minute clip, posted to YouTube. com on Wednesday.

"I've disciplined them appropriately when they've needed it. As a last resort, I've used physical discipline; not a first resort."

The mother has name suppression and her face is pixellated in the video to prevent identification.

She and her husband appeared in the Timaru District Court on Thursday and were remanded on bail for a trial date to be set.

The woman's teenage son told the court he was hog-tied and kicked by his stepfather and punched by the pair during a journey together in January.

The stepfather pleaded guilty to two charges of assault and not guilty to one charge of assault with intent to injure. The woman pleaded not guilty to three charges of assault and one of assault with intent to injure.

Her earlier acquittal was cited as justification for Green Party MP Sue Bradford's bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use reasonable force against their children.

The mother said yesterday that Prime Minister Helen Clark and Bradford had "deliberately lied about the facts of our case and manipulated the truth to fit into their own political agenda".

In the video, she called on parents to oppose the bill. "If section 59 is removed, parents in New Zealand need to be very, very afraid – not just of disciplining their children, but of CYF (Child, Youth and Family) intervention ... CYF will take your children.

"Even putting your hands on your child to take him to time-out will constitute assault. You will be charged and you will face losing your children through CYF.

"Even though I've been acquitted, CYF still say I'm a violent abuser... They paint me as being an angry woman who beat her child.

"I wasn't angry. I didn't beat him. The discipline was completely controlled."

In the video, she displays the riding crop and the cane she used on her son. She said the discipline "radically changed" his behaviour for the better.

The mother said yesterday it was "very appropriate" for parents to mete out discipline with implements, provided it was reasonable and controlled.

"The sting from a cane or crop is short and sharp, but not injurious. The sting only lasts 30 seconds but is memorable and effective," she said.

The man who filmed and posted the woman's video, Renton Maclachlan, of Wellington, said she had been unjustly treated.

He saw her story as part of the bigger cause and had posted several other videos on YouTube dealing with the child-discipline debate.

Child welfare group Barnardos said the fact the woman was back in court showed the need for a law change to reduce child abuse.

"When the 2005 Timaru jury acquitted that mother they gave her and her partner a false message concerning physical punishment of children," chief executive Murray Edridge said.

"Now the consequence of that earlier vindication is all too apparent.

"Perhaps the latest incident would have been avoided if the community, through the court, had told the family that the use of physical force in child discipline was unambiguously wrong."

The child-discipline bill will have its third and final reading when Parliament resumes in a fortnight."

Murray Edridge says: "Now the consequence of that earlier vindication is all too apparent." - groundlessly. The two situations are entirely different. The first case was concerning the mother smacking her son with a short cane, and then later with a riding crop. The son said afterwards that the riding crop hurt less than the cane. The second case has nothing to do with the first case.

Sweden's overall reported crime has increased dramatically

2007-04-11T04:53:00.001-07:00

this from the Sweden's National Council for Crime Prevention website: http://www.bra.se

The number of reported crimes has increased for the majority of offence types during the period 1975-2004. Exceptions to this include amongst others fraud offences and burglaries, including residential break-ins. The trend over the past ten years reflects an increase in reported violent and sexual offences, whereas the number of reported theft offences is more or less the same as it was ten years ago.

The number of reported crimes against life and health, 1975-2004. The largest proportion of reported violent crime is comprised of assault offences. A total of just under 67,100 such offences were reported in 2004. The number of reported assaults against both children and adults has increased since 1975, and today stands at three times the level reported at that time.

Criminality over time Since 1950, overall reported criminality in Sweden has increased
dramatically. Various factors have contributed to this increase in the number of reported crimes in the post-war years. The primary explanation is the improvement in living conditions, which has resulted in greater access to goods that are prone to being stolen, in combination with reduce social control between people.

1950-1990
Up until 1964, there was a gentle increase in the total number of reported crimes. The period between 1965 and 1980 is characterised by a greater rate of increase and by major variations between different years. In 1970 just over 656,000 crimes were reported, while in 1980 the number of reported crimes reached around 928,000.
The period between 1980 and the beginning of the 1990s is characterised by an even greater rate of increase. On average, the number of reported crimes increased by 31,000 every year. Almost 1,219,000 crimes were reported in 1990.

1990 onwards
The number of reported crimes remained relatively constant during the 1990s, with slight increases and decreases in certain years. Over the past ten years, the number of violent crimes reported to the police (chapter 3 of Criminal Code) has increased by 35 percent (from 56,574 reported crimes in 1996 to 76,118 in 2005).

Section 59 is doing the job!

2007-04-09T02:23:00.001-07:00

Report of the Riding Crop case from
http://familyintegrity.blogspo t.com

1. The mother was controlled. "The discipline was entirely controlled, over with very quickly and was very effective. AFTERWARDS he gave me a hug and apologised."

2. The small bamboo cane ("about the thickness of my little finger and between 12 and 18 inches in length. The type you use to stake a small pot plant") left a slight red mark that lasted less than an hour.

3. The riding crop left no red mark - it was two light smacks over trousered bottom on a 12 year old

4. Love was shown at the time of the smack (no yelling and swearing). "He apologised for his behaviour and I reassured him that I loved him but disliked the behaviour."

5. The boys behaviour changed. "After the discipline we had a well behaved, loving and compliant boy." "FROM this point on the boys behaviour changed radically for the better. We had a happy laughing cheerful child who was obedient and a pleasure to have around."

From reading the reports in the link above and from talking with the mother Section 59 worked very well in this case. This Timaru mother used reasonable force in the circumstances. (The Newsmedia reports, the MPs and the NGOs are not to be believed)

Report of the Wooden Spoon case from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz
Mum who hit son faces jail - 5:00AM Monday April 09, 2007

A Hawkes Bay woman faces a jail term for taking to her son with a wooden spoon and leaving him with 4cm welts - a case being heralded as proof that the law forbidding assaults on children works.

The Flaxmere woman pleaded guilty in the Hastings District Court last week to assaulting her 7-year-old son.

The boy described his state after the beating as "sad, angry and unhappy".

He has been removed from the home, though the mother is trying to regain custody.

She will be sentenced in the Napier District Court on May 3.

Last November, she became angry with her son because he was taking too long to get ready for tee-ball. She started yelling and swearing and belted him on his palms and the insides of his arms with the spoon until his father intervened.

The boy showed his teacher the following Monday and the teacher alerted Child, Youth and Family.

He was taken to hospital where his bruising was checked. The mother later told police she had taken on too much and realised she needed help.

The case became a political football this week when National MP Chester Borrows hailed it as showing that the Crimes Act - and section 59 which permits reasonable force in the right circumstances - rightfully caught out parents who assaulted their children.

But Green MP Sue Bradford, who is trying to amend the act, said she never held the position that the present law failed in every case.

"There are cases where section 59 is used successfully, and I'm pleased it was in this case, but I have a fundamental objection to the fact that the defence of using reasonable force exists at all."

Her bill would remove the legal defence for using reasonable force against children for correction, but allow its use to restrain a child.

The Long Arm (And Short Fuse) Of The Law

2007-04-07T20:31:00.001-07:00

this from http://nzhumanrightslawyer .blogspot.com
Saturday, April 7, 2007

Politics makes strange bedfellows and there are no stranger metaphorical night-time companions at the moment than Sue Bradford and the New Zealand Police. Ms Bradford's own career as an activist saw her in the High Court at least once (see Bradford v Police) and one would have thought she and the Police were not the most natural of allies. The fraught passage of the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act however has seen her extolling the even-handed manner in which the Police conduct prosecutions to reassure the Bill's opponents that they will not see frazzled but otherwise law-abiding parents in the dock for an open handed paddle of their toddler's backside in the canned goods aisle of the supermarket.

That argument rather fails if my experience of the exercise of the Police discretion to prosecute is anything to go by. I have defended people in the Wellington District Court of some dire crimes against humanity including chalking slogans on the footpath outside Marion Hobbs' electorate office ('wilful damage'), taking discarded food out of supermarket skips (`theft') and dressing up in kangaroo suits and hopping around the Australian Embassy (`burglary'). The power of the anti-smacking argument for me is undeniable-how can you square hitting the most vulnerable members of society with a desire to end violence in our community? Whether you need to bolster that argument with airy claims of Police forbearance is another matter.

Mark Lillico
- lawyer at Ord Lillico in Wellington, New Zealand(mark@ordlillico.co.nz). My practice deals with human rights issues mainly in the context of criminal defence work, prisons and immigration.

Pita Sharples on Section59

2007-04-05T14:41:00.001-07:00

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

A piece of legislation that is getting everyone talking around town is the Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act. You will no doubt be aware of the background to this Bill.

Basically, Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 states that the parent of a child, or a person in the place of a parent, "is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child, if that force is reasonable in the circumstances".

Now I guess there will be lawyers amongst you, analysts, and those who indulge in the craft of word-smithing that will know exactly what sort of a challenge would face a jury, in deciding if the force used was 'reasonable' in the circumstances.

How much harder though, to determine whether the parent had grounds to use reasonable force to get his/her child to perform their normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting. Because this sounds uncannily like correction.

Is it reasonable for a father to hit his eight year old son eight times with a piece of wood 30cm by 2 cm?

A 30cm ruler for crying out loud - since when do we call rulers "pieces of wood"? Why not just take the thing to it's logical conclusion and tell New Zealand that the man hit his son with a branch? Click here to see the "piece of wood"

Is it reasonable for a father to hit his 12 year old daughter with a piece of hosepipe, leaving a raised 15cm-long lump with red edges? Apparently so, according to some recent jury decisions.

Well not everyone thought so, and consequently a humble little Bill, consisting of a mere three pages, came upon the order paper. And before you know it a cyclone of fury and indignation had swept throughout the country, as New Zealanders expressed their horror that
the State would seek to intervene in matters that they felt were best left to the domain of the parent.

It's an ethical issue, it's an issue of integrity; it's an issue of courage. We, in the Maori Party, are firmly committed to the concept of self-determination, of ensuring the people drive their own journeys forward; are supported to achieve their own dreams. But we are also staunch advocates of the notion of collective responsibility - which translates in this case, to all of us having a role in the upbringing and care for children.

By this I think of the vertical and horizontal care which takes into account the roles of grandparents, siblings, aunties, uncles in helping to impart the duties, responsibilities and obligations that exist within whanau. Literally layers of generations are able to be drawn on to
parent the child.

One of the incredible gifts that whakapapa provides us with, is the wide range of choices which genealogies offer.

In my own case for instance, I have the histories and legacies of Ngai Te Kikiri o te Rangi and Ngati Pahauwera of Ngati Kahungunu to draw from. The inspiration of my ancestor, Toi Kairakau; the expansive breadth that flows from this genealogy, is my history, my bonding to these islands.

And I also draw on ancient Anglo-Saxon history, the Sharples of Bolton near Lancashire.

Every child born has a huge range of ancestors to learn from; the history of their people; the origins and the adventures of their ancestors; the songs, proverbs and folk stories left to them.

The responsibility for nurturing that character rests with us all. It is our responsibility to create the desire to learn; to inspire the confidence to take risks; to motivate and encourage.

It was Galileo who said, "You cannot teach a child; you can only help him to find it himself".

Even the best of us get it wrong some times... Of course you can teach a child.

And the greatest thing about this is that if we do believe in collective care, we can be confident that even if it is not I, myself, Me - who unlocks the key, there will always be someone in the greater family, who will see the gifts in your child, that perhaps you are not looking for.

In a thesis written by Averil Herbert, Whanau Whakapakari: a Maori-centred approach to child rearing and parent-training programmes, she explains how these vertical and horizontal care arrangements I have referred to, work.

The thesis was informed by eight kaumatua, who all consistently referred to the many generations who were part of their upbringing. One kuia described the impact this parenting had in her own parenting practice today, in her words:

"I have one sister and her children are very close to me. I see them as my own children. My sister's mokopuna, they are my mokopuna. The children of my first and second cousins are like my nieces and nephews. I am very close to them".

The influence of senior female relatives in teaching and instilling Maori values was consistently referred to. One kaumatua spoke of this as 'the kuia model'.

This model is still very active today. We know in some of our smaller rural areas, that say if a teenager was to get in trouble with the police, the community constable knows the most effective outcome is often to ring up one the kuia known for caring for these kids, the ones who know to pick up the responsibility.

That same role of being 'everybody's nanny' may also mean they turn up in homes, when they suspect the environment is failing to keep children safe, and abuse free.

What has become startlingly clear to me over the debates of the last few months, if that we must be vigilant to promote violence free homes, to raise the bar, to set standards which truly seek to uphold peace and justice in our families.

Yes Pita, even though 85% of New Zealand says that Repeal of Section 59 is not the way to achieve this.

John Key on Section 59

2007-04-05T07:55:00.001-07:00

some comments from a letter from John Key, Leader of the Opposition to Peter Burns 20 March 2007. See the full letter here

"...Thank you for contacting me regarding Sue Bradford's Member's Bill proposing the repeal of Section 59. I have voted against the bill in previous stages and over 40 of my National Party colleagues have done the same. I will be continuing to vote this way, and will continue to make media comments against the bill. I am more constant on this issue than Helen Clark, who said prior to the election that she would not support such a bill.

A lot of people have spoken to me in recent months about this issue. I've heard from many who are worried they'll be criminalised for being ordinary parents, and giving the odd light smack.

I've also heard from people who support the bill and think that no one should be able to hide behind Section 59 and get away with assaults on children. What people who support the Bill hope is that by changing the law we will send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable.

I agree that a message needs to be sent. Child abuse is not acceptable. However, I do not believe the bill to repeal Section 59 will change anything for the children growing up in violent families. Nor do I see any good in criminalising good, ordinary, parents doing their best..."

"...The pressure can, and should, continue on the MPs who are working with the Greens in forcing this issue – specifically the Labour Party and Maori Party."

"Within the National Party several MPs have been given permission to vote for the bill. They have not taken this move lightly, and it has been the subject of much discussion within our caucus, but allowing people to follow their wishes on such votes is a long standing precedent within the Party. The Labour Party is not allowing such a process, and is forcing those MPs who do not agree with the bill to vote for it. The Maori Party has also come out for the bill, despite huge community concern. This means that Sue Bradford has the numbers to pass the bill, without any National support."

Maxim Institute: Think again - family violence

2007-04-04T21:41:00.001-07:00

original article at
http://www.maxim.org.nz
John Fox | 4 April 2007

The campaign against 59 of the Crimes Act, otherwise known as the "anti-smacking Bill", arouses strong feelings. Those who support the Bill draw attention to New Zealand's violent culture, and our damningly high rates of child abuse. It is natural to feel that something ought to be done, even if it is just a gesture; a step in the right direction to prevent tragedies like the Kahui twins occurring and to tackle our culture of violence. We should, we must, do that. But this Bill will not achieve it.

Ms Bradford and the Prime Minister chime together that the Police will use their discretion and leave good parents and families alone, however, the Bill will still put good loving parents on the wrong side of the law and leave them open to investigations and prosecution. In the process it will undermine parents' authority over their children.

Child abuse is already illegal. We have laws which punish family violence already. This Bill would criminalise "reasonable" corrective force such as the light smacking used by thousands of Kiwi parents as a disciplinary technique. The best research available, Dr Jane
Millichamp's, suggests that such light smacking (differentiated from beating, or hitting, or child abuse, which is illegal), is not harmful to children, and most Kiwi parents would agree.

The common argument the supporters of the Bill are mustering, is that the Bill will "send a message" that violence against children is unacceptable. But that message is already sent by laws against abuse.

If criminal law "sends a message", it is about the kind of behaviour we as a society find wrong, unacceptable, and criminal. Things like murder, rape, and child abuse come into that category. By passing the Bill, we would be putting light smacking into the same category, something to be prosecuted in a Court.

Our politicians are right to be concerned about family violence, but they should not be passing a law that they do not want the Police to enforce simply to "send a message". There are speeches and soap-boxes and press releases and TV cameras for that. Law is for crime, and for behaviour that is harmful and criminal and should be prosecuted.

Further, the Bill would do nothing to address the root causes of child abuse and family violence. UNICEF has said what some of the risk factors for abuse are: family breakdown, alcohol, drugs, poverty, low education and so on. The Bill does not tackle these risk factors for family violence.

The State and the Police should certainly intervene when there is crime or severe dysfunction, domestic violence and child abuse. There are decisions under the current law that we don't all agree with, and they show the need to improve and tighten the situations where parents can use discipline, but banning all reasonable correction goes too far and good parents should be left alone.

We are all attracted by a vision of the kind of society we can be; a country without violence, where children are safe. But after we have all agreed on the destination, it comes time to chart the path to take us there. Our MPs could have begun a deeper look at why our society is violent, why families and lives are broken, and the risk factors for family violence. Instead, they are choosing to make thousands of parents into criminals and license interference in good families. That is a wrong turn, the wrong path, and the wrong way.

Govt: "You parents have always been criminals"

2007-04-03T01:56:00.000-07:00

this from www.familyintegrity.org.nz

A text without a context is a pretext.

This is what Labour and the Greens are doing now with the Bill to criminalise parents. They are saying that the historical and accepted understanding of smacking and time-out as legal expressions of Section 59's "reasonable force" have, in fact, been illegal all this time.

That is like saying it has always been illegal for police to make arrests.

Looking solely at the legal definition of Assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act shows that time-out, smacking and arresting all constitute acts of criminal assault. But taken in the context of the entire Act, it becomes obvious that Section 59 recognises parents have legitimate authority to use "reasonable force" - not unreasonable force - to correct their children and that several other sections of the Act give police and even bystanders legitimate authority to use force - sometimes the Act doesn't even specify that it must be "reasonable" - to arrest people for various reasons.

So Labour and the Greens reference the text of Section 2 of the Crimes Act, without the context of the rest of the Act, for the pretext of claiming that smacking and time-out are already illegal.

The second pretext employed by Labour and the Greens is to say that "all this Bill does" is remove the defense of "reasonable force" for correcting a child. So after telling us that the Bill won't criminalise parents, because those who smack are already criminals, they add that from now on parents who smack or use any force at all to correct will have to be found guilty of assault, for there will no longer be a legal defense.

Labour and Green are saying, "You parents have always been criminals. From now on you have no refuge in law. If you use even reasonable force to correct your children for anything they do, you will be guilty of child assault. If you are seen or even suspected, you will be investigated. If you have corrected your child, you will be charged and you will be found guilty, for there is no longer a legal defense for correcting a child."

- Craig Smith

Public Relations war for anti-smacking bill

2007-04-02T16:39:00.001-07:00

read full story here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10432282
5:00AM Tuesday April 03, 2007

"The Government is relying on child welfare groups such as Plunket and Barnardos to convince the public of the merits of Green MP Sue Bradford's so-called "anti smacking" bill.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Helen Clark ruled out the government taking over the private member's bill, saying it "just has to take its course".

Labour had been widely expected to adopt the bill as its own to push through the controversial legislation, which if passed would stop parents using the defence of "reasonable force" to defend a charge of assaulting a child.

Labour strongly supports the bill, but has been daunted by polling numbers that show overwhelming public opposition to a measure many feel would intrude on parents' ability to discipline a child as they see fit. Labour will not drop its support for the bill, which is destined to be passed thanks to the support of the Maori Party and two New Zealand First MPs.

However, yesterday's announcement means the final vote could be months away, with debate not scheduled to resume until May and delaying tactics from opponents of the law change likely to postpone the bill's passage until June or July..."

Phil Goff Misleads Parliament over Bradford Bill

2007-04-02T04:32:00.001-07:00

excerpts from the document "Minister Misled Parliament over Bradford Bill"
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00024.htm >
Monday, 2 April 2007, 4:43 pm - Press Release: Society for the Promotion of Community Standards

"On Thursday the 29th of March the Hon. Phil Goff misled the House during Question Time when he answered a question put to him by Taito Phillip Field, Independent MP for Mangere. Mr Field asked the Acting Minister of Police whether he could assure "good parents" that they would not be prosecuted for smacking their children for corrective purposes, should Sue Bradford's bill ever become law. Mr Goff misled the House on two counts in his answer (see Hansard full transcript below).

Goff replied in the affirmative: "the police guidelines, which follow the Crown Law Office guidelines, make it ABSOLUTELY clear that MINOR forms of offending will NOT be prosecuted". [Emphasis added].

However, once Bradford's bill becomes law, the police cannot treat smacking for correction involving a child as "MINOR forms of offending". Every formal complaint involving a child will have to be investigated promptly and current police guidelines dealing with "family violence" make this very clear as police spokespersons and leading lawyers have repeatedly pointed out. Whether they proceed to prosecute will be left to police discretion, but this does not provide the assurance the public are seeking.

If there is no justification in law under Bradford's bill for parents to use any form of "reasonable force" for correction, then a child's claim (possibly exaggerated) as to how hard he was 'hit' or the extent of pain caused, and/or a by-standers perception of the these matters; will be the critical factor(s) that may lead an officer to charge the parent. If an officer knows there is no chance of a s. 59 defence being used by the parent, and no chance of any defence under summary law being relied on, (both defences are removed in Bradford's bill), and he is somehow convinced that the case is not a "MINOR" one, then he will find it much easier to take a risk and press charges than under current law. What's there to lose, he night ask? Why shouldn't I prosecute? His attitude may very well be: let the Courts decide not the police. Under current law, with s. 59 in place, there is a safeguard for "good parents" to rely on, should a false allegation lead them into Court proceedings...

...The case Mr Goff cites shows how police have prosecuted and will continue to prosecute adults who have formal complaints lodged with the police against them for administering a "pat on the bottom" to a child when no justification exists in law for the use of such "reasonable force" (s. 59 did not apply as a defence for the creche worker, nor will it apply to parents under Bradford's bill). Once s. 59 goes, should Bradford's bill become law, parents and those in the place of parents will find themselves as vulnerable to prosecution for assault as any creche worker, for merely carrying out parental duties involving the application of "reasonable force" for the purpose of correction. The role of parenting is demeaned to the level of child minder/creche worker (no disrespect intended towards creche workers!). Parents are not just child minders. The parent-child relationship is a sacred one with special and unique features. The parent for example is responsible for the moral upbringing of the child.

The fact that the appellant endured a seven day trial and two hearings before the Court of Appeal, for what the Court of Appeal effectively said were only trifling matters, and matters that were three or four years old, shows sadly how police can get it so very, very wrong.

Mr Goff misled the House to claim the police guidelines and a single Court of Appeal judgement can provide "good parents" will "quite strong confidence" that they will not be prosecuted by the police for lightly smacking their children for the purpose of correction, should Bradford's flawed anti-family bill become law."

Bradford: 80% Kiwis are savage child-beaters

2007-04-02T02:46:00.000-07:00

this from http://www.stuff.co.nz/4014017a11.html
By PETER WILSON - NZPA | Monday, 2 April 2007

The Government is not going to adopt Sue Bradford's bill to change the law on smacking, Prime Minister Helen Clark said today.

It had been considering turning the controversial bill into government legislation so it could speed up its progress in Parliament and shut down the row over its provisions.

But Miss Clark said even if that was done, its opponents could still hold it up and it would probably not be passed into law before the three-week Easter recess.

Because it is a member's bill it can only be debated every second Wednesday Parliament is sitting, which is why it has taken so long up to now and its opponents have had many opportunities to stage protests and demonstrations.

"I really think it just has to take its course as a member's bill," Miss Clark said at her post-cabinet press conference.

"It will be debated in May. There is really no reason to change the way in which it is being handled."

The Government considered speeding it up so it could get it off the agenda before the May budget, but Miss Clark said keeping things the way they were would give supporters more time to have their say.

"What we've seen in the last couple of weeks is the very substantial organisations in our community, like Plunket, Barnados, Save the Children and many others who have decades of service to children in New Zealand come out and strongly support the bill," she said.

"And in the intervening period I'm sure the organisations that have been really shocked by the campaign against the bill will have a chance to have their voices heard."

The bill changes the Crimes Act and removes the statutory defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.

Opponents say it will turn parents into criminals if they even lightly smack their children.

Ms Bradford and her supporters argue that smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years, and removing the defence means people will not be able to get away with savagely beating children.

The Government had been waiting for New Zealand First to take a position on whether it should be turned into a government bill, but Miss Clark said the party had not opposed the idea and Cabinet made the decision to keep it a member's bill.

There is a solid 63 votes behind the bill, enough to pass it into law, and two National MPs are expected to add their backing to it as well.

A majority in Parliament is 61 votes."

Open letter to the Prime Minister from the Timaru mother

2007-04-01T20:57:00.001-07:00

Dear Ms Clark,

I refer to your many comments in the media in respect of repeal of S59 about people hitting their children with riding crops and getting off.

I am the mother who disciplined her son with the riding crop. This was controlled discipline, not an angry assault. My son had just swung a baseball bat at his stepfathers head. He could have killed my husband.

After the discipline we had a well behaved, loving and compliant boy. A riding crop is designed to give a stinging sensation but is not injurious. There were no marks left on my son at all.

I may have been acquitted, but I certainly have not "got off". Even though I was acquitted CYF seized custody of my son, tore our family apart and nearly three years later I am still fighting to have him returned as CYF do not agree with the fact I physically disciplined, even though all forms of non physical discipline had not worked with this child and this was the only thing that did.

My almost 15 year old son is desperate to be at home where he feels loved and secure.

I am a responsible Mum who dearly loves her children. My sons behaviour was unacceptable. I corrected it. Repeal of S59 removes a parents ability to correct a child. Many politicans have lied about our case in order to bolster their agendas.

I am fed up with people who were not party to the facts of our case using it as a reason to make a very bad law change.

We have been through hell at the hands of CYF.

My son was placed on Risperdal whilst in CYF care to modify his behaviour. This has been banned in the states for use on children because of the life threatenning side effects. The side effects of Risperdal and the psychological damage to him by being removed from a family who love him, were much worse than the thirty second sting to his bottom.

I am still fighting for my son to be returned to my custody. The hell we have been through at the hands of CYF is a worse punishment than any the court could have issued if I had been found guilty.

Please do not for one moment think I got off. CYF have seen that I did not.

I ask that you reconsider your stance on repeal of S59.

Your constituents do not support your stance according to online polls.

If you support repeal you are supporting the destruction of many more families through state intervention as the police will involve CYF (as they do already) when investigating complaints. Even if the complaints are unfounded CYF will still hold children from their parents. I know this as I am a support worker for PANIC (parents against negative intervention of CYF) and have seen many cases like this.

Ms Clark you are not a Mum, so you can only speculate what hell it is for a parent to have her child taken away. This punishment is worse than any that could be inflicted on a parent, short of a child dying.

I might have been acquitted but have been punished as if guilty.

Please do not quote our case again, unless you are properly representing the facts. Tell the public how the state have punished me even though I was found NOT GUILTY.

If you wish to discuss any part of this email with me, please call me on...

Winston's choice: NZ First or Labour First

2007-04-01T17:05:00.001-07:00

this from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0704/S00006.htm

Monday, 2 April 2007, 8:07 am Press Release: New Zealand National Party

Winston Peters has a very important choice to make on the anti-smacking bill on his return from overseas, says National's Shadow Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee.

"New Zealand First or Labour First - that is the question for Winston Peters over the anti-smacking bill," says Mr Brownlee.

"If Mr Peters turns around and makes the decision that the Labour Government can progress the bill as government business in Parliament this week, then he is putting Labour First - not New Zealand First.

"The polls show that 80 per cent of New Zealanders do not support this legislation.

"New Zealand First's own supporters will be hoping that Mr Peters doesn't desert the principles his party was founded on - one of which is protecting the public against bad government.

"This will be a real test for Winston Peters.

"It's up to you Mr Peters: New Zealand First or Labour First."

Bradford's own people will lose most in smacking law

2007-03-31T21:52:00.001-07:00

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)

2007-03-31T00:24:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-30T18:40:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-30T13:41:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-28T02:08:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-27T22:37:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T22:10:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T13:09:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T02:13:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T02:01:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T01:44:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T01:22:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T01:18:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T01:02:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T00:58:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T00:44:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-26T00:12:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-25T23:01:00.001-07:00

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.

United Future says NO to urgency on Bradford Bill

2007-03-24T21:51:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-24T21:50:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-24T21:45:00.001-07:00

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"

2007-03-23T21:42:00.001-07:00

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"

2007-03-22T22:54:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-22T22:38:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-22T20:53:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-22T19:59:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-22T19:40:00.001-07:00

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)

2007-03-22T19:10:00.001-07:00

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.

2007-03-22T18:21:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-22T14:17:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-22T03:36:00.001-07:00

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)

2007-03-21T06:10:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-21T05:20:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-21T05:18:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-03-21T03:07:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-20T21:44:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-20T14:12:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-20T07:28:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-20T03:11:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-20T03:06:00.001-07:00

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.

2007-03-20T00:48:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-19T17:17:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-18T18:06:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-18T03:57:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-18T03:54:00.001-07:00

"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

Southerners speak out against bill

2007-03-17T13:46:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bradford's opponents taking to city streets

2007-03-17T05:18:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue Bradford's confession

2007-03-16T04:31:00.001-07:00

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

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

See this video on YouTube to hear Sue saying this.

Smacking: not an offence,just removing a defence

2007-03-16T04:12:00.000-07:00

from www.kiwblog.co.nz

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

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

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

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

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

Or think if Section 56 went:

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

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

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

Independent MP Taito Phillip Field is running the show!

2007-03-15T23:53:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case for referendum

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

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

Bid for limited force

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2007 Radio New Zealand

My bill doesn't ban smacking' - Bradford

2007-03-15T13:49:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-03-15T13:30:00.001-07:00

This from the section 59 blog

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

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

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

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

Harry Duynhoven
hduynhoven@ministers.govt.nz

Mahara Okeroa
mahara.okeroa@parliament.govt.nz

Strangers Can but Parents Can't

2007-03-15T13:08:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

further self-contradictions

2007-03-15T04:55:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

Clark, Bradford don't understand their own Bill

2007-03-15T03:11:00.001-07:00

from tv3.co.nz

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

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

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

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

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

2007-03-14T02:25:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-03-13T15:10:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Green Hypocricy

2007-03-13T14:02:00.001-07:00

from NZ Conservative blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police prepare rules to act on smacks

2007-03-13T13:49:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

Criminalising Acts Of Parenting

2007-03-13T03:22:00.001-07:00

Heather Roy, MP - ACT Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parliament To Ignore Public On Smacking Bill

2007-03-12T22:33:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turner seeks support to amend anti-smacking Bill

2007-03-12T14:54:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deterioration of Democracy

2007-03-12T14:02:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

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

They are walking all over us.

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

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

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

2007-03-11T22:43:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

see the new website: Kiwis want to keep Section 59

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

2007-03-11T19:32:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

- Stop 'offensive or disruptive behaviour'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-03-11T17:37:00.001-07:00

This from the Waikato Times:

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

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

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

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

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

Government Admits Every Reported Smack Will Be Investigated

2007-03-11T16:31:00.001-07:00

media release - 1 March 07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an unacceptable burden to place on good parents.

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

Plunket and Section 59

2007-03-10T03:41:00.001-08:00

information from www.plunket.org.nz

If Section 59 is repealled, will I become a criminal if I smack my child?
Plunket: "...The police will only take action when it goes too far."

Answer the question Plunket. Will you be a criminal or not? Police prosection has got nothing to do with it. There are plenty of criminals out there (house-hold robbery for instance), who have not been caught, but are nonetheless criminals.

Plunket: "...Section 59's repeal is not about criminalising ordinary parents. It will simply remove a legal defense that is used when parents seriously assult their children..."

Could you remind us again exactly how many times it's been used Plunket? Maybe seven times - in the history of Section 59.

Plunket: "Children are number one - that's the only statistic worth recording"

Really? Why is that? If the child is number one, then are the parents number two and three? No, the child is part of the family. No rank needs to be assigned, thankyou. Good parents are those who care enough to, at times, smack their children to reinforce the serious nature of the rule that has been broken.

Among the list of "things that children respond really well to", as incentives or reasons for doing what they are told, are the following:

- having a good example set for them
- communication about what is right and wrong
- consistent, authoritative discipline
- routine
- clear boundaries and expectations
- time out
- removal of privileges

How are things such as removal of privileges, routine and time-out to be enforced? What if your child doesn't want his privileges removed?

What then?

If smacking is assult, then so is innoculation

2007-03-10T03:15:00.001-08:00

Several times throughout the early years of a child's life, it is common practice for him to be brought before a nurse, and have a sharp thing stabbed in his arm. It hurts like anything, and the child cries. The child's mother stands by, watching, and then comforts the child once the process is completed.

This is called innoculation. The child will be unhappy about this. The reason it is done, is because it will help the child in the long-run, making his immune system much stronger, and able to resist dangerous diseases that would otherwise kill him.

Several times (admittedly, a few more) throughout the early year's of a child's life, it is common practice for him to be brought before his father or mother, and experience the sting of a smack on his hand or his bottom. It hurts, probably not quite as badly as the innoculation, and the child cries. The child's parents comfort the child, and the ordeal is over.

This is called smacking. The child will be unhappy about this. However, the reason that it is done is that it will help the child in the long run. It will part of the parenting process that will help to make his heart much stronger, able to resist dangerous situations that could otherwise kill him.

What is the difference? Both processes involve pain on the child's heart, and empathy on the part of the parent. One process is for the betterment of health, the other is for the discipline of the child. If smacking is assult and violence, then so is innoculation. And we can say that this is Government sanctioned abuse of children by way of violent assult. This is the language that the repealists are using.

So Killing unborn children is fine, but smacking is not?

2007-03-09T17:09:00.001-08:00

Green Party MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill is political correctness gone berserk.

It Is deplorable that the Government has refused Labour caucus members the democratic right to excercise a concience vote on this controversial and unnecessary bill. This is dictatorial and a threat to our democracy.

In supporting this bill, the Government continues to pursue it's social engineering, ignoring public opinion which is overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.

The Government says that it is opposed to violence against children. Violence against children begins in the womb. How can a government that supports this bill accept, sanction and fund the violent death of more than 17,000 defenceless unborn children in New Zealand each year?

The message the Government is giving to the community is that parents have a right to kill their children before birth, but after birth they may not smack them.

Ken Orr, Right to Life NZ - The Press, Letters to the Editor, February 22

"My bill will not stop those things happening" - Bradford

2007-03-09T17:08:00.001-08:00

Green MP Sue Bradford, who has previously said she could never imagine hitting her five children (now adults), said the bill was about changing the culture in New Zealand. "In many, many cases where children are badly injured or killed, it's in the name of discipline. "My bill will not stop those things happening, but what it's trying to change is the point of view that it's OK to hit your kids." (www.stuff.co.nz)

Bradford's explanation of the legislation she wants to pass is fantastically incoherent. "My bill will not stop these things happening", she says. Well, the question is screaming at me, why even bother repealling it then, Sue? What is the point of "changing the point of view that it's OK to hit your kids", if "the bill will not stop this happening"?

Bradford states: "In many, many cases where children are badly injured or killed, it's in the name of discipline." Obviously, this "discipline" is disgusting, and not real discipline at all. Section59 as it stands will not let cases like this slip through. If Section59 is repealed, the bad parents will continue beating up their children, while the good parents will be criminalised for performing what they believe to be their duty in parenting.

We are not the pro-smacking lobby. We do not believe that a child must be hit to be good. None of us anti-repealists have ever said that "smacking is the only way". We do not enjoy the act of smacking/spanking. What we are, however, is a group of people concerned about the future of the family in New Zealand.

"Sue Bradford never smacked her children, but she yelled at them (Feb22). Smacking can hurt for a minute, but words can hurt for a lifetime" – Ross McKerras The Press, letters to the Editor, Feb24

What do we take from this? Psychological abuse is perfectly fine, but a smack on the hand, or bottom is not ok? Let's just yell at our kids, ok. When they do something wrong, what should we do? Take them to the bathroom and lovingly talking to them, explain what they've done wrong, make sure they understand, and then give them a smack or two, only to the hand or bottom. Or should we just blast them? Lose our temper and yell at them?

It seems pretty straight-forward to me. Leave it up to the parents as to how they will discipline their own children.

THE PRESS waves the red flag

2007-03-09T17:07:00.001-08:00

Here are some excerpts from the article: "A ban on smacking is the right way forward for New Zealand" in The Press, Feb22

"Smacking is a form of discipline which belongs to another age"
Says who? The approximately 80% of New Zealanders who have voted in various polls, saying that smacking is ok?

"Bradford's anti-smacking bill will not prevent the worst cases of child abuse, such as the death of the Kahui twins, for the origins of this sort of violence lie deep in our society."
What's this? Whereabouts to these "origins of violence" lie?

"Labour adopted the smart tactic of block voting on the issue, making it more difficult for any of its individual Mps to be targeted for supporting the measure".
What a cop out. A poor excuse for bull-dozing the opinions of the majority of Kiwis.

"The passing of the anti smacking bill through it's second reading at Parliament was a welcome step towards dealing with child abuse."
What? This is one heck of a small step to be taking.

Simon Barnett: "smacking bill is home-invasion"

2007-03-09T15:27:00.000-08:00

Christchurch radio personality and devoted father of four Simon Barnett is speaking out against the anti-smacking bill, which he describes as a "home invasion". Barnett, co-host of More FM breakfast show and sometime TV celebrity, says he is sick of misinformation about Sue Bradford's bill which he says will criminalise caring parents. The bill, removing a defence for parents against assault charges if they use reasonable force to discipline their children, is likely to come up for its third reading in Parliament this month. Most commentators predict it will pass.

Barnett told The Press yesterday that the bill meant parents could not smack or restrain their child for corrective purposes, or even forcibly send them to time-out. The police would be obliged to investigate any complaint, whether it came from a manipulative child, an angry neighbour, spurned lover or someone "who hates your guts", he said. Barnett and wife Jodi have four girls aged six to 13. He no longer smacks his older two girls, but says the others still occasionally need physical discipline as an immediate consequence for repeated bad behaviour. He gave the example of six-year-old Lily who kept getting out of bed one night this week. "I told her maybe eight times, 'Don't come out of bed again'. I said it and I said it and I said it." After a final warning - "If Daddy has to come in there again, I'm going to smack you" - she continued getting up, standing up in bed, looking out the window." I smacked her, she cried and then I said, 'I love you so much. I'll see you tomorrow'. She was asleep in three minutes.

"I know that it works. It's quick, it's effective and it's minimum fuss." Barnett, who says he has read every parenting book, looked at every website and attended several parenting courses, said even though the bill's supporters say police will not enforce the law when parents smack their children for discipline: "I want to parent within the law." He said it would not help teach his children a respect for the law otherwise, as children hated any hint of hypocrisy. He acknowledged New Zealand's "massive" problem with child abuse. "I'm the first to be alarmed. But most sane, normal parents know there's a huge difference between abuse and assault and a smack for corrective purposes."

The law change would do nothing for those children affected in the most horrific cases, such as James Whakaruru, Lillybing, Chris and Cru Kahui, he said. "Those are broken, broken people. Poverty, family breakdown." Barnett, who attends Grace Vineyard Church, said his convictions did not come from a Christian "spare the rod and spoil the child" stance. "I've been a parent for far longer than I've been a Christian. To me it's nothing to do with that. "I don't want (the bill) to pass because I fear for my children's future, that there will be no boundaries." Green MP Sue Bradford, who has previously said she could never imagine hitting her five children (now adults), said the bill was about changing the culture in New Zealand. "In many, many cases where children are badly injured or killed, it's in
the name of discipline. "My bill will not stop those things happening, but what it's trying to change is the point of view that it's OK to hit your kids."

By JOANNA DAVIS - The Press | Saturday, 10 March 2007

"discipline was the best thing that ever happened to me" - Timaru boy

2007-03-09T14:54:00.001-08:00

"...A 30-second sting on the bum has cost my son three years of life with his family. And I'm still fighting for custody of my son. It hasn't mattered that I was found not guilty..."

For the full article, - Fearful of Bradford's bill, click here

This is the riding crop and cane used in the ``horse whip'' case. It has been supplied by the woman who used them as she believes people have the wrong idea of what was involved.

A warning was issued yesterday that families will be ruined under Green MP Sue Bradford's proposed anti-smacking bill. Rachael Comer reports.

A former Timaru woman at the centre of the infamous "horse whip case" says she is fearful of Sue Bradford's bill.

The woman, whose name is suppressed to protect the identity of the child involved, fears that other parents will encounter the same destruction she, and her family, have endured, should the bill become law.

In 2005 a jury in the Timaru District Court acquitted the woman of assaulting her 13-year-old son with a bamboo cane and a riding crop. However, further unrelated assault charges have been laid against the woman, and her partner, and they will appear in the Timaru District
Court on April 12.

Despite being found not guilty the woman says, since the court case, Child, Youth and Family have treated her as guilty.

"A 30-second sting on the bum has cost my son three years of life with his family.

"And I'm still fighting for custody of my son. It hasn't mattered that I was found not guilty."

She claims the incident was "totally controlled. The anti-smacking bill is opening up for a lot of trouble."

"It's entirely destructive and that's what will happen to average families. They will be ruined." Under the law parents would not be allowed to discipline their childrenby way of correction, she said.

"There's a difference between discipline and beating. Look what happens now, disciplining has been taken out of schools."

The woman claims she used every form of non-physical discipline on her son and he hadn't responded.

"I really love my boy and I didn't have a choice. I've been painted as being violent even when I'm not."

She denies being reported as saying the Bible justified her actions. "It being for religious reasons was a load of bull" [she said].

"They've been painting me as some sort of religious nutter which couldn't be further from the truth."

"But he says the discipline was the best thing that ever happened to him."

The bill recently passed its second reading in Parliament by 70 votes to 51.

The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 10 March 2007