Key's s59 offer fails to give children necessary protection

Green Party MP Sue Bradford welcomed the chance to talk face to face with National Party leader John Key today, and also the fact that he'd clearly put time into trying to think of changes that might mean National could support the bill.

"Unfortunately, Mr Key's proposed amendment was essentially still just a milder form of the Chester Borrows' amendment - which Mr Key has already conceded in his speech last week is likely to be voted down in the House." Ms Bradford says.

"Mr Key's proposed wording - which uses the words 'light' 'minor' and inconsequential' where Mr Borrows used ' 'trifling' and 'transitory' - still contradicts the fundamental purpose of my Bill, which is to remove the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction.

"The result of Mr Key's proposed wording would still result in the state legitimising the hitting of children in a way that it doesn't legitimise the hitting of adults. The state does not condone husbands hitting their wives in a 'minor' or 'inconsequential' way, nor does it condone the hitting of the elderly in that fashion. When it comes to violence, our position is that we want children and adults to be treated the same under the law..

'Mr Key's amendment would also leave courts in the position of having to define 'smacking' (which has not been defined in law) and 'minor' and 'inconsequential.' Overseas experience with similar compromises shows that courts take a varied approach, and one person's 'minor' can be another''s 'serious'.

"We want NZ to come into line with its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and with related UN recommendations that repeal s59 of the Crimes Act would be in the best interests of children.

ends

© Scoop Media