Greens tell the media that Bradford's bill is an anti-smacking bill

Sue Bradford claimed in March that she has never called her bill an anti-smacking bill "my opponents did, and the media adopted the phrase".

What about this media release from the Greens: Green's draw up their own anti-smacking bill (hat tip dpf)

Perhaps the media adopted the phrase from a Green Party media release.

UPDATE 9:30am Wed I have been advised that Labour and National is finally getting its heads together to nut out a compromise on the smacking bill which both parties will agree to, in that parents will not be prosecuted for light smacking. More info as it comes to hand. A media release is to be issued later today

I don’t want to play with you anymore, John

Further to yesterday’s post, Sue Bradford says she won’t meet with John Key over her smacking bill because Key wants her to admit that her bill effectively outlaws correction. But Bradford’s response is surprisingly ignorant.

I now find that unless I agree to change my bill in the way that he wants even before the talks begin, he seems no longer willing to meet with me.

But Key is not refusing to meet with her, nor is he asking Bradford to change her bill before the meeting, he is merely asking her to publicly interpret its intent in line with the view of the Law Commission – i.e. this bill bans correction - or plainly state why it doesn’t.

If she’s not going to do that for purely political reasons, the talks won’t happen and just confirms what everyone knows, that this bill bans corrective smacking, Bradford knows it, the public knows she knows it and also knows that she hasn’t got the balls to admit it.

Helen Clark also knows the bill bans correction but wont publically admit it either, which is perhaps why she didn’t want the Government to take the bill on. That refusal to admit the facts early on in the piece was a political mistake and led to the Labour PR cock-up on this bill.

Key and Bradford to meet over smacking bill

It is clear that although Helen Clark and Sue Bradford know it, they will not publically state that light smacking for the purposes of correction is illegal under Bradford’s smacking bill with a possibility that parents could be prosecuted for corrective discipline.

National leader John Key wants to meet with Bradford to see if they can come to some sort of consensus. Yesterday, I read one of his speeches - where he noted three things that most MPs agree this bill should do:

• To prevent violence against children being protected by the defence of reasonable force.
• Not to criminalise good parents who occasionally give their children a light smack.
• To lower the threshold for acceptable physical discipline.

Problem is that the bill criminalises corrective discipline, and Key wants to come to a consensus to pass the bill without parents to be criminalised for light correction. There are two options: Either pass the Burrows amendment, or an equivalent, or to legislate for police to ignore the law with regard to light correction. As it stands, one is not politically achievable and the other is legislative nonsense.

However Key, in his speech said

if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child, then don't make it illegal. Don't make it a crime.

Key does not want to make corrective discipline a crime, Bradford doesn’t “intend to” make corrective discipline a crime. The bill, as it stands does not reflect either position, and nothing constructive will happen in any discussions if Bradford refuses to admit her bill criminalises parental correction.

Meanwhile over at the No Right Turn blog, the blogger has criticised John key, saying that there is nothing to compromise over and all parents who hit their kids are bad parents. He believes that bill is so badly worded that it “does not deserve to pass”? If the bill doesn’t deserve to pass it should be either scrapped or fixed. Yet NRT doesn’t want to scrap it, he doesn’t want to fix it and he doesn’t want it passed in its current form. In other words, he doesn’t have a clue, but as long as John Key and his “fundamentalist Christian mates” don’t get involved, that’s okay.

its Bradford's bill after all

The Government has decided it is too risky to take on Bradford's anti-smacking bill, so it's the second back down after deciding against urgency. So the bill won't be passed until at least June because Labour can't get what it wants.

So backdown one, urgency, backdown two, making it a Government bill. I`m now awaiting backdown three, the removal of the Labour whip on the bill vote.

The whole thing is just a big yawn. Labour currently needs NZ First more than the Greens. It also needs more percentage points in the polls. The Greens and the smacking bill is just a big liability.

It is still Government bill in all but name. Only the withdrawal of the Labour whip will change that.

Bradfords logic

Green MP Sue Bradford conceded last year that her bill removing the defence of "reasonable force" when disciplining children should not outlaw light smacking.She has accepted a rewording may be necessary so this is clear.

The rewording never happened, so National had to draft a supplementary order paper to make it clear that the bill should not outlaw light smacking. Sue Bradford wants to pull her bill if the amendment passes because she doesn't want to see a set level of force.

But the status quo has a set level of force called reasonable. So how can you change a bill so as to prevent smacking becoming a criminal offence without stating a set level of force? Answers please.

smacking bill looks set to pass

The Maori Party has announced that they will support Sue Bradford's smacking bill through the committee stages irregardless of what their constituency thinks, but it is going to be close. This means that the Greens, Labour, Progressive and the Maori Party look set to oppose National's amendment. That means four votes have to change - Peter Dunne and the NZ First MPs, who will have to support Chester Borrows amendment to allow Sue Bradford to carry out her threat and smack the bill out of Parliament.

If the amendment is not passed and the bill gets to the third reading, I recon it will have 63 votes.Now, if only Helen Clark would let her MPs use their conscience votes.

Update Apparently, two NZ First MPs - probably Barbara Stewart and Doug Woollerton, voted for the bill so they can vote for the Borrows amendment. If they do so, and the amendment fails, it will be interesting to see their vote for the third reading.

Anyway, if the bill is not intended to make light smacking an offence it is poorly drafted. If Bradford does not think people should be criminalised for light smacking then her trenchant opposition to Borrows' amendment makes no sense. Bradford's continual deliberate confounding of light smacking with assault makes it very clear what her intent is.

violence in schools

It is interesting that Green MP Sue Bradford is appalled that a Christian school has not denied smacking naughty kids.Bradford says that schools are supposed to be a safe place, where children are able to learn, free from the threat of violence.

One wonders when she is going to speak up against bullying in schools - or is only certain types of violence condoned. Bullying is just as illegal as physical punishment in schools. The former is more violent than the latter.

If Bradford cared about violence in schools, and was less interested in promoting her own ideaology, she would address bullying.