2 April 2007 - Family Integrity #213 -- Labour backs off

Dear Friends,

Here is a press release from Bradford's Office.

The great news is that the Labour government has decided to back away from pickiing up this Bill, so it may go on past May and into June.

Bradford here treats us all with her usual contempt by saying we will continue to spread misinformation about the Bill. Yet she says out of one side of her mouth, "this is an anti-beating, anti-child-violence bill, not a piece of legislation that will see tens of thousands of well-meaning parents dragged into court for the occasional light smack," and from the other side comes out with, "my original goal: To remove the defence of 'reasonable force' for the purposes of correction under s59 of the Crimes Act."

The only way one can make sense of this is to equate, as Bradford does every time she speaks on this, "reasonable force" with "beating" and "child-violence", for she claims that "severe beatings" and "violent abuse" and "thrashings" all regularly hide behind the label of "reasonable force". Yet her amended Bill does not get rid of this terminology, a move I thought would be her primary objective, since she calls it "an anti-beating, anti-child-violence" bill and since she reguarly claims that these terrible things parade around unnoticed behind this terminology. No! Her amended Bill allows for "reasonable force" or if I do as she regularly does and swap that term with others, we find that her Bill now allows for "severe beatings" to stop harmful or criminal or offensive or disruptive behaviour and allows " violent abuse" that is incidental to good care and parenting.

Her arguments are as illogical as ever.

Now, she also says her office is flooded with SUPPORT mail. OK. Let's flood her office with mail opposed to her Bill, pleading with her not to criminalise us and not to terrorise our families by having police and CYFS hanging over our heads all the time for simply using "reasonable force" to correct our children. For crying out loud, that is a core duty of parenting.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

Our Home....Our Castle


2 April 2007
Bradford still confident of Bill's success

The Government's decision not to pick up the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill will give opponents more time to further their misinformation campaign, but the Bill's sponsor Green Party MP is confident it will get through in the end.

"I intend to continue to work alongside the many organisations and individuals who support my Bill during the next two to three months to get the message out that this is an anti-beating, anti-child-violence bill, not a piece of legislation that will see tens of thousands of well-meaning parents dragged into court for the occasional light smack," Ms Bradford says.

The Bill is now unlikely to go through its Third Reading until June.

"This means that the opponents' campaign of misinformation is likely to continue until the bitter end. I am really concerned that this will continue to cause unnecessary fear among many ordinary decent parents.

"I am not surprised that the Government has chosen not to pick up my Bill. All along I felt this was far from certain given the length of time the remaining debate is likely to take and the controversial nature of the issue.

"What is most important to me is that the Bill passes in the end, in a shape that retains my original goal: To remove the defence of 'reasonable force' for the purposes of correction under s59 of the Crimes Act," Ms Bradford says.

Letters and emails and other forms of support continue to pour into my office at Parliament, far outnumbering communications from the Bill's opponents.

United Future MP Gordon Copeland's amendment to my Bill around the issue of 'time out', while well-meaning, is unnecessary.

The amendment put forward by the Select Committee already covers this - in sections (c) and (d) under 'Parental Control'.

While Mr Copeland does have an opinion from Peter McKenzie that the Bill as drafted does not deal with 'time out' the Law Commission has rejected this opinion, Ms Bradford says.

For more information

Sue Bradford, MP, 04 470 6720, 027 243 4239
Fran Tyler, 04 470 6679, 021 473 900