Two years since 'anti-smacking law' came into force.
The Kiwi Party
Press Release
21 June, 2009

Today marks the 2nd year anniversary of Sue Bradford’s anti-correction law coming into force and 3 days ago was the third anniversary of the murder of the Kahui twins.

Kiwi Party Leader and referendum petition organiser Larry Baldock said today that it has taken two years for Sue to come clean about the real purpose of the law and its consequences. On morning report on Thursday she finally admitted the truth that the law does criminalise any parent that uses a ‘tap on the bum’ of their children for correction, said Mr Baldock.

“While constantly claiming that we were wrong to suggest the new law would criminalise parents, she must now admit that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands have already been criminalised.

“My being criminalised does not depend on my being caught, charged and convicted. For example, if I slip into the corner dairy and steal a few items of food without detection, have I become a thief and a criminal even though not apprehended by the police? An act is either criminal or it is not.
If I am convicted for my offences, my status then changes from criminal to convicted criminal.

“This fact has been strenuously denied for a long time by the supporters of the law change as they have claimed there were never going to be large numbers of good parents criminalised by the new law.

“So how should the referendum question be answered?
If people believe that any physical correction, even a light smack, is an assault on a child then they should vote “yes”, thereby supporting the law as it now stands.

“If people believe parents should be permitted to smack their children for a corrective purpose without being criminalised and they want the current law changed then they should vote “no”.

“Sadly this law was not about fixing our awful child abuse statistics. While police time and resources have been wasted investigating good parents, the killer of the Kahui twins remains unconvicted after three long years!

"The real purpose of the law was being hidden as much as possible during the whole debate, and as a result there has been the confusion existing amongst the general population about what the new law actually does. The real purpose of the ‘Bradford law’ was to completely abolish any form of physical discipline, for the purpose of correction. This, in addition to smacking, also includes taking a child, against their will, to time out. That is clearly contained in the purpose clause of the Act, “…by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”

“Attempts this week to further confuse the issue by trying to attack the clear meaning of the referendum question will eventually be exposed as well.

“This attack on the question is really nothing more than desperate attempts to try and discredit the referendum in the hope that sufficient numbers might boycott the process and reduce the impact of the result.
In reality it is not the question that concerns them but the impending overwhelming “No” answer!

“I believe that the vast majority of Kiwis understand that the referendum question, “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?” is asked in the context of the debate that has been raging in this country for the last three years at least.
After all, the Green Party’s own press release dated 6th October 2003 announced they would draw up “their own Anti-smacking bill to stop parents physically punishing their children in line with United Nation demands.”
“The anti-smacking name has stuck ever since, even though in its final form the new law should have been more correctly called the 'anti-correction law.'

ENDS

© Scoop Media