15 March 2007

PM's comments on smacking not in conflict with Bill

Green Party MP Sue Bradford today described the furore over the Prime Minister's 2005 comments on smacking as being misguided, and said that the Prime Minister's statements were consistent with the aims of her Bill.

"For two years now, I have been saying that my Bill is about removing the existing defence for force against children for the purposes of correction. In its amended form it explicitly includes other purposes where the use of reasonable force is permitted. I have never called it an anti-smacking bill - my opponents did, and the media adopted the phrase.

"Smacking a child is already an assault under section 194 of the Crimes Act 1961. It has been this way for over a century. If my Bill is passed this will not change.

"If my Bill was an anti-smacking Bill it would define smacking, propose a list of penalties for it and criminalize parents who violated the definition. Some countries have gone down that route. I did not. My Bill merely removes the defence contained in s59 of the Crimes Act which has enabled cases where extreme force has been used to avoid conviction.

"My Bill does not create an offence when parents smack a child. That has been a technical assault for over 100 years. I repeat, what it does is remove the defence for using force for the purposes of parental correction.

"Today's storm in a teacup helps to explain why I am glad the House last night supported Taito Phillip Field's amendment, which has allowed the House a month to further consider the issues. Misunderstandings are still rife about the content and consequences of my Bill.

"I welcome the breathing space it will give the Government. It allows more time to prepare informative material to explain to the country just what the Bill means, and how little it will impact on the behaviour of good parents," Ms Bradford says.

ENDS

© Scoop Media