Bradford confirms Anti-Smacking law unnecessary
The Kiwi Party
Press Release
May 20, 2009
“It just gets more and more difficult to trust Ms Bradford’s motives for introducing her so called Anti-smacking bill
and turning the social fabric of the nation upside down by the long debate on the amendment to section 59 of the Crimes
Act,” said Larry Baldock, Kiwi Party Leader and Anti-smacking referendum petition organiser.
"Back in December 2007 Sue Bradford admitted on National Radio that, “the epidemic of child abuse and child violence in
this country continues. My bill was never intended to solve this problem.”
"Now on TV One Breakfast this morning she admits that her bill was not really necessary when she confirmed that the
prosecution and conviction of James Mason in the Christchurch District Court for allegedly punching his son in the ear
would have been possible under the old section 59, before her bill was passed.
"Surely the whole rationale for her amendment of the Crimes Act was supposedly because those who abused their children
were being acquitted by appealing to the defence of reasonable force under section 59. Ms Bradford and her supporters
made this argument in countless debates across the country.
"If Sue Bradford’s private member’s bill was not needed to allow for a conviction in the James Mason case then it is
simply not needed at all. Not now, not ever, full stop.
"Ms Bradford has opened her mouth once again and confirmed her confusion and raised the doubts over her real motivation
for her bill that 113 MPs were duped into voting for two years ago," said Mr Baldock.
Ends