Dr Muriel Newman
NZ Centre for Political Debate
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Burns
To: firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: Nation wide march's for our parental rights.
Thank you for contacting me regarding Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill proposing the repeal of Section 59. I have voted against the bill in previous stages and over 40 of my National Party colleagues have done the same. I will be continuing to vote this way, and will continue to make media comments against the bill. I am more constant on this issue than Helen Clark, who said prior to the election that she would not support such a bill.
A lot of people have spoken to me in recent months about this issue. I’ve heard from many who are worried they’ll be criminalised for being ordinary parents , and giving the odd light smack.
I’ve also heard from people who support the bill and think that no one should be able to hide behind Section 59 and get away with assaults on children. What people who support the Bill hope is that by changing the law we will send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable.
I agree that a message needs to be sent. Child abuse is not acceptable. However , I do not believe the bill to repeal Section 59 will change anything for the children growing up in violent families. Nor do I see any good in criminalising good , ordinary , parents doing their best.
My colleague Chester Borrows is proposing an amendment to the bill. It is intended to be a sensible compromise, and I attach a copy for your information. The proposed amendments limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so , for example , the use of implements would be outlawed.
You will be aware that the debate on this bill has been extended due to the excellent work done in the House by my colleagues. This means the pressure can, and should, continue on the MPs who are working with the Greens in forcing this issue – specifically the Labour Party and Maori Party. Within the National Party several MPs have been given permission to vote for the bill. They have not taken this move lightly, and it has been the subject of much discussion within our caucus, but allowing people to follow their wishes on such votes is a long standing precedent within the Party. The Labour Party is not allowing such a process, and is forcing those MPs who do not agree with the bill to vote for it. The Maori Party has also come out for the bill, despite huge community concern. This means that Sue Bradford has the numbers to pass the bill, without any National support.
John Key MP
From: Peter Burns [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, 17 March 2007 11:04 a.m.
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Judith Collins; John Key; Judy Turner; TV One; Tariana Turia; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; CourtDads; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Nation wide march's for our parental rights.
We must preserve the Family Unit . This Bradford Bill will sentence more people to misery , particularly children and fathers .
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Subject: FW: PR: Borrows - Section 59 amendments explained
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:03:21 +1200
From: "Emma Holmes"
To: "Emma Holmes"
National Party MP
20 February 2007
Section 59 amendments explained
“I am seeking a sensible compromise with the amendments I intend to make to Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill,” says National MP Chester Borrows.
“The full National Party caucus supports my amendments, should the bill get to the committee stages.
“I regard my amendments as a commonsense compromise and hope that other MPs in Parliament see the sense in what I am proposing.
“Essentially, my bill alters what constitutes ‘reasonable force’.
“I do not want to see parents and guardians using the law to get away with committing serious assaults on children, so some amendment to the Crimes Act is desirable.
“But I believe that simply repealing section 59 is problematic in that it would leave the decision about whether to prosecute in the hands of the police.
“Parliamentarians make the laws of this land and they should spell out clearly what the law is. Leaving interpretation over to the police is unfair on both the public and the police.
“Parents should have some limited protections in law, rather than leaving it to the authorities to interpret. So my amendments would seek to limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.”
Inquiries: Chester Borrows 021 722 636
Attached: Supplementary Order Paper