NEWS: Labour adopts version of Key s59 amendment

27 Comments
02 May 2007
NEWS: Labour adopts version of Key s59 amendment

National Party Leader John Key is pleased Labour will adopt a version of his amendment to the anti-smacking bill which he thinks will give parents confidence they will not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children.

Mr Key met Prime Minister Helen Clark last night, at her request, and agreed to an amendment to Sue Bradford's bill on section 59.

"The amendment is similar to the one I put to Sue Bradford at the meeting on Anzac Day, but which she rejected," says Mr Key.

"But Helen Clark contacted me yesterday with a revised wording which provides the kind of guidance to the authorities that I was seeking all along.

"The revision makes it clear that the police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence is considered to be 'so inconsequential' that there is no public interest in the prosecution going ahead.

"I understand from the Prime Minister that the Greens agree with this amendment.

"This is exactly the kind of guidance I was wanting inserted in the Bradford bill, and National will now vote for it.

"Good parents want to have confidence that they will not be criminalised by this legislation if they give their children a light smack.

"I believed when I gave my speech to the Salvation Army in mid April offering to talk with other parties that most MPs do not want to criminalise good parents doing what is one of the hardest jobs. I continue to believe that, and I'm pleased that Labour has seen the value in my amendment.

"I would hope that this amendment attracts the House's unanimous support.

"It sends a strong signal that the level of violence against children in our society is unacceptable, but at the same time gives parents confidence that they will not be criminalised for carrying out their normal parenting duties.

"I believe that this amendment will be welcomed by the overwhelming bulk of New Zealand parents."

[click here for a PDF format copy of the exact language of the proposed amendment]

To listen to John's Radio NZ interview on this amendment, click here

Posted by admin in News release Trackbacks: (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Malcolm Bishop said:
2007-05-02 12:15 - (Reply)

To say I'm surprised by National's support of the bill would be understating it somewhat. This bill will damage our country, we all know that. Can someone clue me in on why there is so much pressure to accept this foolish thing that most NZ'ers are so violently objecting to? Giving police descretion depends on the officer! An idiot officer pulled me over the other night. I hadn't been drinking, I was within the speed limit and my car was fully legal. He spent over 10 minutes searching my car over (and found nothing) and yelled his rights at me and left. I have no confidence in the police if this kind of thing can happen!

#1.1 - Michael Beaumont 2007-05-03 14:41 - (Reply)

National had the best issue it could have, with Labour losing support from all communities. National has let Labour of the hook. John Key has just committed politcal suicide. I have to say that Sue Bradford and Labour Party are the winners and the losers are 80% of the NZ population and the National Party. Why would John Key do that??? Does he want to lose the next election??

#2 - Malcolm Bishop said:
2007-05-02 12:46 - (Reply)

I guess that will get rid of green party votes next year. bradford has no place in govt. Her agendas are misplaced there.

#3 - Nicholas O'Kane said:
2007-05-02 13:52 - (Reply)

Your compromise is a sell-out. It dissapoints me that you will vote to ban smacking for the purposes of correction. Even though it will be at the discretion of police as to wether or not to prosecute, there are no guarentees as to how the police will use that discretion. It also means that CYFS can take children away from parents for a light smack.

#4 - Carl Lawson 2007-05-02 14:04 - (Reply)

Clark 1 Key 0 - Standing on the right hand of the enemy a'la Chamberlain just beggars belief - It's politics not business John. What a sellout. Clearly there is now no alternative for a vote of common sense within a parliament that further erodes personal responsibilty and the rights of parents. Let the police decide means we're practically a police state.Thanks for the hope you provided John but clearly that's all it was. Now where does this longterm Nat sign up to vote 'Destiny Church' - you utter fools ! Carl Lawson

#5 - Alister 2007-05-02 15:15 - (Reply)

So National no longer stands for anything. The problem is not the police. The problem is CYF. This ammendment will do nothing to prevent the persecution of good parents - if it did, Labour wouldn't have a bar of it, as the whole point of the Bill is to make good parents criminals. If National won't make a stand on this, on what will they?

#6 - Nina Lawgun 2007-05-02 15:16 - (Reply)

This amendment is not good enough. The only acceptable amendment would be the removal of section 3 of the Bill which states that when there is any doubt as to whether the use of force is preventative or corrective section 2 must prevail. This amendment does not even address the actions and investigations of the Child Protective agencies such as CYFS who can act to remove a child from their home without police authority and without their being any criminal charges in place. I think that if something even close to the current amendment is included then it should also state that CYFS and Police must both be satisfied beyond all doubt that any charge or accusation of unreasonable use of force was in fact illegal and unreasonable. I also think that there should be an allowance for parents to use minor corrective force to train children towards becoming conscientious citizens. As an adult if you commit an anti-social offense or a criminal act you would be dealt with by the department of corrections so "correction" is considered an acceptable and legal method of training. This current Bill amendment sets a precedent for undermining other forms of correction currently in use in the New Zealand justice system. Stand tall and strong National do not cave in to Labour. We voted for YOU not them!

#7 - Korina 2007-05-02 15:30 - (Reply)

How disappointing that parents will be now criminals and our police can legally decide to prosecute or not! Parents are left with no standing against a bad attitude police officer, or more scary - CYFS - because the last people you want involved in your family is that organization. I was counting on National to stand firm on what was common sense. I hope National will listen to the public when they are elected, and hear 160 000+ voices and have a public referendum on this. How is it that 42000 public signatures can change daylight savings and 160 000+ voices aren't heard when they are trying to tell the government about their own families!

#8 - John Marks said:
2007-05-02 15:34 - (Reply)

What a disappointment John. We thought you would be our champion against home invasion by the forces of the state. Instead you join it. You have shown political immaturity in my view. You just got done over by a very clever woman.

#9 - Rod Rowlands 2007-05-02 16:21 - (Reply)

What I can't understand is that National has repeatedly claimed this to be a conscience issue. So how come they are suddenly supporting the bill with the amendment? National constituents are telling their MPs very strongly to oppse the bill - and now suddenly they all fall in line to support it? No point in voting national now, it just means more of the same.

#10 - Daniel Porter 2007-05-02 16:56 - (Reply)

Mr Key, you are wrong if you think the majority of NZers are now going to support the S59 repeal. The new amendment changes absolutely nothing , that's why Helen and Sue are so happy with it. There is NOTHING to stop loving parents who lightly smack or physically restrain their children from being dragged into court by an overzealous copper using his/her "discretion" as they will clearly be criminals under the law.

#11 - Liam McKay 2007-05-02 16:57 - (Reply)

How intresting it is that you are claiming this as a victory John. Helen Clark has once again shown her political genius, this time by convincing the National Party to support a Bill they were so vehemently opposed to by inserting a paragraph that offers no substantial changes. Also, the flip-flop regarding treating the Bill as a conscience vote is hypocrisy to say the least.

#12 - Alasdair 2007-05-02 17:04 - (Reply)

To state that police have a discretion NOT to prosecute in the event of complaints against a parent/person in place of a parent in relation to the "use of force" against a child if the offence is considered to be inconsequential to public interest, naturally implies the following: 1. that such complaints could validly be made, whether or not the complainant believed that there was any public interest in making such a complaint; 2. that mischievous or malicious complaints could be validly entertained by the police; 3. that the personal interests of either the child, the parent or the best outcome for the education and raising of the child IS OF NO CONSIDERATION, but is subsumed under an UNDEFINED 'public interest'; 4. that ANY 'use of force' against a child, including a 'smack,' is illegal, criminal and liable to prosecution, while it is still considered by many New Zealanders to be a valid tool for the exercise of parental responsibility; 5. that the police RETAIN the discretion to prosecute if they so choose, even if the alleged offence is considered to be inconsequential to the public interest, and that a person alleged to have committed such an offence is only waived prosecution because the police or the courts are too busy with other things to bother with the matter. All of these corollaries would seem to be both mistaken and mischievous in both principle and intent. The Bill itself seems to be in essence an attempt by a small number of persons seeking to impose their own particular ethical views upon others, who may hold different and perhaps equally valid views. It is difficult to see how harmonious relations between the various groups within our plural society could be enhanced by such a project. Therefore, it would be better for us all that the whole bill be withdrawn from before Parliament.

#12.1 - Ed 2007-05-02 19:21 - (Reply)

"The Bill itself seems to be in essence an attempt by a small number of persons seeking to impose their own particular ethical views upon others, who may hold different and perhaps equally valid views." Sounds like [a] certain right wing part[y|ies] "Therefore, it would be better for us all that the whole bill be withdrawn from before Parliament." Everyone, except the children who get beaten on a daily basis. Pro life only means you support someone before they're born. After that, you'll do all you can to deny them rights. Not very fair is it?

#12.1.1 - Neil 2007-05-03 17:01 - (Reply)

Once again we see support of a light smack being converted by some 'super smart' individual to child beating. Mr Ed, they are not the same thing, never have been; furthermore, the proponents of this bill acknowledge that the bill will have no effect whatsoever on the people who beat their children. (Remember the recently imposed dog laws!!!!!!) This being the case, why do we need the bill - short answer - we don't. What we do need, is for the judicial system being reined in so that smart lawyers cannot get bad people of on minor technicalities, and the courts to start imposing realistic sentences for crimes.

#13 - ex Nat voter 2007-05-02 18:57 - (Reply)

I am deeply disappointed in John Key. This was worth dying in a ditch for. Note the next step: reduce the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years old!

#14 - Neil 2007-05-02 19:20 - (Reply)

I had every hope that the National Party would stand strong in their opposition to this bill, not cave in to a minor amendment which does absolutely nothing to change the intent of this misguide piece do social engineering. Giving an organisation which is already under serious pressure the right (note that a right has been removed from parents) to decide what if any action to take. I now have no idea who to vote for in the time to come - voting with an aeroplane seat is looking more attractive all the time. Shame on you John.

#15 - Jake 2007-05-02 19:45 - (Reply)

I wonder if the Prime Minister is taking some time to read these comments and judge the mood of National voters. I'm sure it will make her most happy if she is! Nothing but deeply disappointed National voters who wanted something completely different and are now left feeling like their party really does stand for nothing more than tax cuts! John, this is a sell-out pure and simple, the ammendment does nothing! Politically National have just asked and answered a very important question: "why should anyone vote for us?"...answer "God only knows!" I think ACT, New Zealand First, Labour and even Destiny NZ must be rubbing their hands in glee! Keep betraying ideals that we hold dear and you may yet get a lower election result than your deputy did in 2002!

#16 - Maurie Hooper 2007-05-02 21:04 - (Reply)

Sorry John - 80% of people - certainly ALL good parents did not ask for a sop. There is no honest EVIDENCE, nor normal family experience, to justify that this bill was ever even needed. We need someone to fight for us against the continued social engineering that is going on, not join it.

#17 - Paul 2007-05-02 22:43 - (Reply)

What a joke you are John Key, Sir Robert Muldoon will be spinning in his grave with disgust! and David Lange with laughter. You and your apologists are a bunch of losers, you make me sick!. We need men not mice, we need leaders with positive clear views not this wishy washy rubbish. You have no right to sit in parlament and expound this rubbish, and by god you will get dumped ASAP you spinless idiot. EX National Voter. Vote Brian Tamaki at least he has a spine.

#18 - Jim Maclean 2007-05-02 22:46 - (Reply)

Once again I am uncertain who I will vote for at the next election. As a long term Labour voter, it appeared that on this issue the party I had always supported would make me a criminal by definition, and I feel this is wrong. This was the watershed which would have me vote National for the first time ever, and now John Key has surrendered his principled stand. The act is the CRIMES Act. However it is spun, parents smacking their children at any time will be by definition CRIMINALS. The big hearted Police will almost certainly not prosecute, but it doesn't change the law, or the "Anti family" agenda he has now signed up to. National has joined Labour in showing the uttermost contempt for the opinin of the electorate, and will pay the price at the next election. The question remains; Who do I vote for now? Jim Maclean Te Atatu South.

#19 - Steven 2007-05-02 23:00 - (Reply)

Just when I thought the National Party was becoming a party worth voting for. You may as well pack up an go home now, what a shame. Sad day for the National party, but an even sadder one for NZ.

#20 - Michael Wallace 2007-05-03 00:59 - (Reply)

I was always on the fences with this issue, on the one hand I don't believe smacking is the answer to disciplining one's child, however on the other hand I also don't believe the state has any right to tell one how to discipline one's child (within reasonable limits of course). So such an issue ain't a vote turner for me. But what really gets up my nose is that Helen once again delved into manipulative bag of tricks, and that John was so easily manipulated. I know (and everyone should know) the majority of the public oppose this bill, amendment and all, so why jeopardise all those votes. I'm not looking forward to seeing the upcomings polls where 49% Nat will crash to something like 30% or less. ACT is looking more appealling too, at you know what they stand for LOL.

#21 - Glenn McMillan 2007-05-03 13:38 - (Reply)

I can't believe you did that deal! Labour were on the ropes and you could have won a lot of votes over this smacking bill, all you had to do was back the majority of this country and say NO. Well you have lost me after 24 years of voting National, the centre right now has nobody to vote for.

#22 - Tracy 2007-05-03 14:40 - (Reply)

With respect I think that some National supporters posting on this blog are missing the point. Sometimes to win the war you have to lose a battle. We know that elections under MMP are no longer won at the ballot box but are won by parties that gain support from minor parties. Yesterday John Key bailed out the Greens, The Maori Party and even made United look good. The bill was going to be passed anyway, Helen Clark may have thought she came out on top, but John Key is a former currency trader and supreme strategist. Curency traders are known for patience, discipline and taking a long term view. If you don't believe me look it up on Google. National supporters need to remember what lost Don Brash the last election...

#23 - Neil 2007-05-03 17:38 - (Reply)

Don't let it be forgotten that the very same people who are telling parents how they are allowed to raise their children in a disciplined environment are the same people who are scratching their heads and wondering why children are becoming uncontrollable and now need legislation to enable 12 year olds (children) to be imprisoned. Socialist politicians have a very poor record of identifying 'cause and effect' Note the colour of John's tie yesterday. Lavender = Blue + Red.

#24 - Swampy 2007-05-04 20:49 - (Reply)

There is a great problem for me in that Sue Bradford still gets to achieve her original agenda all along, to weaken parental authority. Labour and friends have been in the business of passing many laws to do this, as well as weakening the youth justice system which is now really a joke. This is a very bad law for doing this, and the effects on the country of Labour's ongoing liberalisation of societal and parental controls on youth are an increasing negative trend of juvenile delinquency, antisocial behaviour and crime. I understand of course that the law was still going to pass anyway, without the amendment, and that getting the amendment has got a slightly better outcome, but I sincerely hope that this law will be reviewed and possibly repealed by a future National government, along with many other Labour party policies that have had such a negative outcome in the youth area. The second issue I am concerned about is that the media has leapt upon this as an opportunity to claim that National has abandoned its conservative constituency, especially the Christian community. The media has joined in with Helen Clark and others in marginalising Christians for their opposition to this Bill when in fact it came right across the whole community. I think that as a member of that community and having many friends there who are very concerned about the direction that Labour has taken this country in the last 8 years, we would hope that National is still willing to represent the views of the conservative Christian community at some level.

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.