Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Bradford's Intentions are Irrelevant

Press Release
For Immediate Publication

Bradford's Intentions are Irrelevant

Family Integrity published material months ago claiming that repeal of Section 59 would not only make smacking a crime but would also criminalise the pro-repeal group's favourite alternative to smacking, "time out". Since then many strands have come together confirming our predictions.

A letter from the Police Commissioner's Office August 11, 2005, confirmed that any smacking at all would become an assault if Section 59 was repealed and that "parents would not be authorized to use reasonable force by way of correction," totally undermining their authority and criminalizing virtually any act of hands-on parenting.

Children's Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro opened a forum on effective child discipline in Wellington on February 9, 2006, with comments dismissive of the claim that repeal of Section 59 would criminalise parents. She closed the forum that same day saying that the criminalisation of parents was an issue that could not be glossed over but had to be dealt with.

Investigate Magazine just published an article in the June 2006 issue in which Queen's Counsels Stuart Grieve, Grant Illingworth and Nick Davidson all confirm that repeal of Section 59 would define any smacking as assault and would criminalise even the enforcement of "time out".

Sue Bradford now disingenuously claims it was never her intention to make a light smack a crime, although her Explanatory Note in the Bill makes it clear that was always her intention.

In an effort to sound big-hearted about it, Bradford now says she'll probably re-word the Explanatory Note of the Bill to make clear her intentions. So what? She may "intend" that pigs should fly, but who cares? Her intentions in the Explanatory Note are totally spurious and irrelevant when it comes to the wording of Acts of Parliament. As the Institute of Policy Studies has said:

"Legislative intention" is synonymous with "whimsical nonsense." What matters is what Parliaments "enacts", not what anyone "intends" to see happen.1

Public opinion is against Bradford's Bill: academic research as well as popular polls consistently show 80% of New Zealanders do not want Section 59 repealed.

Police opinion shows Bradford's Bill will criminalise parents as well as reduce their authority.

Top QCs' opinions agree that Bradford's Bill will also criminalise even "time out", meaning even most supporters of this Bill will find it coming back to bite them if it ever passes.

It is high time Sue Bradford quits wasting Parliamentary time and resources on a dead duck of a Bill and do the honourable thing: withdraw it and dump it.

Note:
1.
Quote:
The critical element remains "what Parliament has enacted" rather than what Parliament (or anybody else) intended to achieve. (It has been suggested that "legislative intention" is synonymous with "whimsical nonsense".)
End of Quote.
(From the Institute of Policy Studies Newsletter, August 1997, No. 51, p. 8, "Regulatory Management: Achieving Intended Results with Minimum Compliance Costs".)

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

Sector Opposes Bill: Local Government Bill Timeframe Extended

The Minister of Local Government Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has asked the Select Committee to extend the report back date for the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2). More>>

ALSO:

Breed Laws Don’t Work: Vets On New National Dog Control Plan

It is pleasing therefore to see Louise Upston Associate Minister for Local Government calling for a comprehensive solution... However, relying on breed specific laws to manage dog aggression will not work. More>>

ALSO:

Not Waiting On Select Committee: Green Party Releases Medically-Assisted Dying Policy

“Adults with a terminal illness should have the right to choose a medically assisted death,” Green Party health spokesperson Kevin Hague said. “The Green Party does not support extending assisted dying to people who aren't terminally ill because we can’t be confident that this won't further marginalise the lives of people with disabilities." More>>

ALSO:

General Election Review: Changes To Electoral Act Introduced

More effective systems in polling places and earlier counting of advanced votes are on their way through proposed changes to our electoral laws, Justice Minister Amy Adams says. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On Our Posturing At The UN

In New York, Key basically took an old May 2 Washington Post article written by Barack Obama, recycled it back to the Americans, and still scored headlines here at home… We’ve had a double serving of this kind of comfort food. More>>

ALSO:

Treaty Settlements: Bills Delayed As NZ First Pulls Support

Ngāruahine, Te Atiawa and Taranaki are reeling today as they learnt that the third and final readings of each Iwi’s Historical Treaty Settlement Bills scheduled for this Friday, have been put in jeopardy by the actions of NZ First. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Damage De-Regulation Is Doing To Fisheries And Education, Plus Kate Tempest

Our faith in the benign workings of the market – and of the light-handed regulation that goes with it – has had a body count. Back in 1992, the free market friendly Health Safety and Employment Act gutted the labour inspectorate and turned forestry, mining and other workplace sites into death traps, long before the Pike River disaster. More>>

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news