28 March 2007 - Helen Clark gives her view on the "smacking ban". Below are a few excerpts from the debate - read the whole discussion here.
Heather Roy: "Will the Prime Minister answer my question that she failed to answer yesterday, which asks what right she believes she has to override the view of the majority of New Zealanders and her own caucus in order to tell me, as a mother of five, how to raise my children?"
Rt Hon Helen Clark responds: Presumably, the member, being an ACT member, also objects to being told that her children must be sent to school.
John Key: "Why will the Prime Minister not just tell the public of New Zealand that it is her intention to adopt Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill as a Government bill, and that the reason for doing so is that the Government wants to take this deeply unpopular legislation off the table as quickly as it can?"
Sue Bradford: "The bill is not a ban on smacking. Smacking is already illegal under section 194 of the Crimes Act, relating to assaults on children."
No, the bill is a ban on smacking. Even the official Parliament website calls it the Smacking Ban. Section 59 exists explicitly as a clause to Section 194 of the Crimes Act. Any fool can see that. Bradford is not a fool - she is intentionally attempting to mislead and decieve all New Zealanders.
The main part of the second reading of Bradford's bill is very interesting. Read it - or at least flick through it here. It's amusing and as I said, most interesting.