Banks highly critical of Labour Three Strikes back down
Labour are well-known for their soft on crime approach – but to campaign on softening the penalties for our worst recidivist violent criminals doesn’t make sense.
“At a time when serious crime including murder is finally on the decline, we cannot get weak-kneed on violent crime. Three Strikes works and it will continue to work because it provides a tangible deterrent to violent criminals.
“It is no coincidence that homicide and related offending has dropped 23.8 percent over the past year, while crimes intended to cause injury has fallen by 3.9 percent, and serious assaults not resulting in injury are down 7.5 percent.”
Mr Banks said Ministry of Justice figures show that over roughly the same period 700 people have received a First Warning by Court under the Three Strikes law.
“The ACT Party is very proud of its role in getting Three Strikes passed into law" said Mr Banks.
Banks highly critical of Labour Three Strikes back down
Labour are well-known for their soft on crime approach – but to campaign on softening the penalties for our worst recidivist violent criminals doesn’t make sense.
“At a time when serious crime including murder is finally on the decline, we cannot get weak-kneed on violent crime. Three Strikes works and it will continue to work because it provides a tangible deterrent to violent criminals.
“It is no coincidence that homicide and related offending has dropped 23.8 percent over the past year, while crimes intended to cause injury has fallen by 3.9 percent, and serious assaults not resulting in injury are down 7.5 percent.”
Mr Banks said Ministry of Justice figures show that over roughly the same period 700 people have received a First Warning by Court under the Three Strikes law.
“The ACT Party is very proud of its role in getting Three Strikes passed into law" said Mr Banks.
Hon Judith Collins Address to 2011 ACT Conference
Hon Judith Collins Address to 2011 ACT Conference; Barrycourt Accommodation and Event Centre, Parnell, Auckland; Saturday, March 12 2011.
ACT Leader Hon Rodney Hide, ACT Parliamentary team, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for that warm welcome. It is a pleasure to be with you here today.
All our thoughts are with the people of Japan this afternoon as they confront an unimaginable crisis.
As a nation that is, itself, coming to terms with a major catastrophe, we share their grief and their sorrow at this time of great loss and uncertainty.
When the earthquake struck Christchurch on 22 February, Japan was quick to offer help.
Their people were on the ground just days after the quake struck.
I'm sure that we will be there for them, in whatever capacity we can, in the difficult weeks and months ahead.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the heroic men and women who have been working so incredibly hard in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake.
Over the past three weeks we have been in awe of the courage of our emergency services.
Time, and time again, they have put their own safety on the line to rescue others.
Many of the Police and emergency teams are, themselves, from Christchurch. Their homes have been damaged and their lives uprooted.
Yet every day they show up to work, to help others in need.
I think this speaks volumes about the sort of people who serve in our Police, Fire Service and Search and Rescue.
I met one firefighter who crawled into the Pyne Gould building in the hours after the quake to search for survivors.
He told me of crawling through tiny spaces with tonnes of unstable concrete balanced above him.
All around him the building was shifting, the floor sinking as the aftershocks hit.
He told me that he prepared himself for death with each jolt.
Several people in that building owe their lives to him and his colleagues.
What incredible courage.
I’m sure you will join me in acknowledging their feats in the rubble of Christchurch.
Without them this terrible disaster could have been so much worse.
I would also like to pay tribute to another group of people whose efforts following the quake have been an inspiration to us all.
I’m talking about the vast numbers of people, from all walks of life, from every town and city in the country, whose immediate response to the disaster was to help others.
Thousands pitched in with whatever they had – shovels, food, equipment or just their bare hands.
Thousands turned to their neighbours in need and offered food, support and comfort.
Thousands more organised car washes, cake stalls, raffles and collections to help the victims through this extremely difficult time.
Normally we don’t read about these people in the papers because they’re not the types who seek publicity.
And when they give so generously, they don’t seek thanks.
They do it because they care so deeply about their communities.
They care about the people that live over the fence, that live on their streets, who their kids visit after school, who coach sports on Saturdays.
This is why communities such as Christchurch are so strong and resilient in the face of incredible adversity.
These people are the heart of this country.
And, you know, when we hear so much about what is wrong, and the dark side of human nature in the news every day, it is wonderful to hear about what is good and decent.
Today, I would like to talk to you about the huge amount of work that this Government has done in the area of law and order.
In recent years many New Zealanders would have looked on in dismay as some of the values that underpin our good and decent society have been eroded.
This has certainly been the case with our criminal justice system.
When this Government came to office, there was a strong feeling in the community that the scales of justice were tilted too far in favour of the criminals, rather than their victims.
Victims felt that the cards were stacked in favour of the offender and that they were being revictimised by the system.
There was a strong feeling that dangerous criminals were being given a slap on the wrist and released into the community when it was known there is a high likelihood they would reoffend.
I believe one of the big changes that led to this situation has been a decline in individual responsibility.
Too many people believe that they are not responsible for their actions.
They believe that their actions are always somebody else’s fault – usually the government, Police or society in general.
Fleeing drivers is a good example.
Until recently, it was common to blame Police when a fleeing driver killed themselves or someone else.
The excuse was that if the Police hadn’t been chasing them, they wouldn’t have been forced to drive dangerous speeds.
But the Police are not to blame.
The driver who runs from Police is to blame.
They choose to run from Police.
To suggest otherwise is to say they are not responsible for their actions. They can choose to stop at any time.
If they had chosen to stop, many innocent people would be alive today.
Just as there has been a growing belief that criminals are not responsible for their actions, there has been a growing belief that criminals have certain rights.
These rights proliferated to the point where the lines became blurred between right and wrong, victimiser and victim, law breaker and law enforcer.
Criminals are quick to exploit their rights, which make their victims feel more powerless.
Criminals shouldn’t be able to play the system by electing jury trials for relatively minor crimes.
Criminals shouldn’t be able to hide behind legislation over submitting DNA samples that can help quickly resolve crimes and give victims closure.
Criminals, whose offending has taken away the rights of innocent people, shouldn’t have the right to vote while serving their sentence.
Criminals don’t have a right to smoke in prison, and possess lighters and matches that they can use to endanger Corrections staff.
I’m very pleased that steps have been taken, or are being taken, that go some way to addressing this imbalance.
We are fortunate the vast majority New Zealanders have not lost sight of the clear values on which our justice system should be based.
They have given us – both National and ACT - the responsibility of restoring those values, reducing crime, and sending a very strong signal that criminal offending won’t be tolerated.
During the past two years we have all taken that responsibility very seriously.
Law and order is one of the Government’s biggest priorities.
National has worked very closely with ACT on a range of new laws aimed at rebalancing the justice system and making our communities safer.
I would like to thank ACT, and in particular the Hon Rodney Hide, for its support, and acknowledge those who worked behind these scenes to make these initiatives possible.
Some policies have required our caucus to make compromises.
I know the same has been true of the ACT caucus.
But this is what coalition politics is all about.
That we are willing to engage, debate and find common ground in the pursuit of common goals, shows the strength of the relationship between our parties.
One of the best examples of what this partnership has achieved was the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill.
The legislation upheld the Government’s election promise to remove eligibility for parole for the worst repeat violent offenders, and incorporated significant aspects of ACT’s three strikes policy.
As at 28 February there were 229 offenders convicted and issued with their first strike.
They were for a range of serious offences.
- 31 were for indecent assault on a woman over 16.
- 23 were for aggravated robbery with a firearm.
- 9 were for indecent assault on a female under 12 year old.
- 20 were for indecent assault on a female aged 12 – 16.
- and 14 were for committing burglary with a weapon.
The first second strike warning was handed down just a few weeks ago for a 20-year-old man who admitted aggravated burglary.
The legislation has had its critics who argued that it breached the rights of offenders.
Well, I’m happy for victims to take precedence.
I understand that when repeat, violent offenders stay in jail it reduces their opportunity to reoffend and create more victims.
Some critics said Three Strikes was not fair on Maori because Maori would be disproportionately represented among those who receive longer sentences.
This argument is insulting to Maori.
This law is about criminality, not race.
One more thing we should remember:
A disproportionate number of victims of repeat, violent offending – particularly domestic violence - are Maori.
This law is about protecting them, and all victims of violent crime.
One of the biggest law and order issues facing this country is the spread of organised crime.
I’m sure you’ll be aware that in recent months one of Australia’s largest and most troublesome outlaw motorcycle gangs has been attempting to set up a franchise here in New Zealand.
Yesterday, Police and other agencies raided a gang in Nelson that was linked to the Hell's Angels.
Among the items seized was bomb making equipment.
It’s evidence that gangs are no longer groups of small-time thugs, but large criminal businesses with global connections and a willingness to use violence.
The game-changer has been methamphetamine.
The vast amounts of money to be made from the sale of this evil drug have bought gangs previously unheard-of wealth and influence.
The Police estimate that the combined profit from methamphetamine and cannabis sales alone is between $1.4 billion and $2.2 billion per year in New Zealand.
One of the biggest concerns is that when criminals gain access to large amounts of money it increases the possibility of corruption taking root.
Corruption undermines the rule of law, erodes the effectiveness of government regulations, strangles government revenues and contributes to a slowing of economic growth.
Left unchecked, criminal gangs would begin to exert significant influence over our institutions and way of life.
This simply can’t be allowed to happen.
This Government has made sure our law enforcement agencies are well equipped to deal with this threat.
ACT has been right on side, supporting changes have given Police new powers to intercept gang communications, take down gang fortresses and seize gang assets.
These changes are already starting to bite.
Last year a record 30.4kg of methamphetamine was seized by Police and Customs, up from 20.8kg in 2009.
That’s around $30 million that won’t find its way into the shadow economy run by organised crime.
As I mentioned earlier, gangs are now multi-national businesses.
They exist for the profits that can be made.
We are going after those profits.
Police have used their new powers to seize $37 million worth of assets from criminals – around $22 million of which was from people with known links to organised criminal groups.
The assets seized include cars, boats, heavy machinery, jewellery and property.
The strong message we are sending is that crime shouldn’t pay.
Another area where the Government has much in common with ACT is ensuring offenders do the time for their crime.
When I took over as minister of Corrections it quickly became apparent that the previous government had not invested enough in prison capacity.
We faced the prospect of a serious capacity crisis.
It was unacceptable to us that prisoners be released back into the community without serving the appropriate sentence.
We didn’t want prisoners being driven around in vans until beds became available – as happened under the last government.
And we didn’t want judges to feel constrained in their ability to sentence lawbreakers to custodial terms.
To address the short-term shortage, we have double bunked almost 900 additional prison cells across our four newest prisons.
Increased use of double bunking has given us the capacity to make extra prison beds available in emergency situations, such as the recent Christchurch earthquake.
Of course, there were plenty of people who felt prisoners shouldn’t be inconvenienced by having to share a cell.
They said it breached their rights.
We disagreed.
Offenders must take responsibility for their actions.
When they commit a crime, they forego some of their rights.
We will also be banning smoking in our prisons from July 1, which will make our prisons healthier and safer.
People said this breached prisoners’ rights too.
I don’t see why our Corrections Officers should be the only New Zealanders required to work in a smoke-filled environment.
If people want to smoke, they shouldn’t commit crime.
To cope with forecast prisoner numbers we also introduced shipping container cells at Rimutaka which were built in half the time and at roughly a third the cost of traditional cell construction.
The usual apologists for criminals said that this was inhumane and talked of container cell slums.
The container cell block has turned out to be some of the best accommodation we have and is proving to be very popular with prisoners.
We are also planning a new men’s prison at Wiri in South Auckland.
That prison will be the first in New Zealand to be financed, designed and built under a public-private partnership arrangement.
The last Labour Government changed the Corrections Act to prohibit private management of our prisons on purely ideological grounds.
They overlooked the fact that when ACRP was under private management in the early 2000s, it was a resounding success.
Currently, it costs around $91,000 to keep a prisoner behind bars for a year.
We believe we owe it to taxpayers to find ways to lower this cost.
Greater involvement of the private sector not only has the potential to deliver more efficient prisons, but also prisons that are safer and have new, innovative approaches to the rehabilitation of prisoners.
ACT was fully supportive as we changed the law to allow greater private sector involvement.
Already a contract to return Mt Eden-ACRP to private management has been awarded to Serco, a company with a strong track record of managing custodial facilities overseas.
This new facility opens at the end of the month and will be fully under private management by the end of August.
A tender process to select a consortium of overseas and local companies to build and manage the new prison at Wiri is also under way and progressing well.
Both National and ACT have faced a lot of criticism for their tough on crime approach.
This is what happens when you try to put the responsibility for crime back where it belongs – on the criminals.
Not the Government.
Not the Police.
Not the moon or the sun.
We are tough on crime, and we are unapologetic.
We are unapologetic because we know that setting clear boundaries and having clear consequences for criminal offending is effective.
Making excuses for offending only encourages more offending and creates more victims.
People who are committed to a good, decent society understand this.
Thank you again for inviting me to join you today.
And thank you for standing with us as we work to make New Zealand a better, safer place.
Enjoy the rest of your conference.
ENDS
ACT Pushes Anti-Smacking Referendum
ACT New Zealand Leader Rodney Hide and Deputy Leader Heather Roy have taken out a half page advertisement in tomorrow's 'Sunday Star Times', urging New Zealanders to sign a petition calling for a Citizen's Initiated referendum on the anti-smacking law passed by both National and Labour last year.
"We believe that New Zealanders should have their say on this controversial law, not just politicians," Mr Hide and Mrs Roy said.
"A Citizen's Initiated Referendum will enable New Zealanders to tell politicians what they think. The organisers of the petition have done a great job getting signatures, and people are keen to sign - 280,000 signatures have been collected so far, but the organisers need 300,000 by the end of February to ensure a referendum.
"That's why we have pitched in; it's vital that New Zealanders get to have a say. ACT was the only Party that voted against the anti-smacking law - which equates good parents who smack their children with child abusers and criminalises them.
"That's wrong; ACT believes that parents should be able to choose the best method of raising their children and teaching them right from wrong.
"National and Labour passed the anti-smacking Bill against the wishes of 80 percent of New Zealanders. We believe it should be up to New Zealanders to choose whether they want to make smacking a criminal offence. It's time they had a say.
"We urge New Zealanders to sign the petition, which calls for a referendum on this law. Copy the petition and get your friends and colleagues to sign it too - that way we can ensure that the voices of the people of New Zealand can be heard," Mr Hide and Mrs Roy said.
ENDS
ACT President Garry Mallett - Speech
ACT President Garry Mallett
Speech To Hamilton Public Meeting
01 May 2007
The reasons why parents must be permitted to use reasonable force.
Defeating Sue Bradford's irrational case for the repeal of section 59?
"As a parent I’m trying to teach my children to understand right and wrong.I’m trying to teach my children manners and courtesy and high level concepts like self-responsibility, justice, that actions have consequences.
Raising children is one of the biggest challenges, the highest responsibilities and the greatest pleasures that any parent can assume.
Smacking is not the only tool – not by a long shot. But smacking – the use of “reasonable force” - is a vital tool that all parents must have available to them in that process.
No one is suggesting that smacking be mandatory but it must not be outlawed.
The section 59 defence of “reasonable force” must remain in our law."
Full Text Of Speech To Hamilton Public Meeting - 01 May 2007:
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, mums and dads, sons and daughters. My name is Garry Mallett - welcome and thank you for your attendance.
I always feel good addressing a group like this – a group of ladies and gentlemen, mums and dads, sons and daughters. Because I know that I’m addressing a group of New Zealanders who live the New Zealand ideals.
We’re people who take great pride in earning our own way through life. We contribute enormously to our communities through our work, through our involvement with voluntary organisations and through our families. I salute you.
And, very importantly, we live in the real world.
Compare that with the world from whence this hideous bill was spawned, that unreal and very unusual world - the world of politics.
Politics is a weird, strange, messy, Kafkaesque world.
Far too often it’s an alternative universe where - because of the nature of their role - the participants are frequently far removed from the real world we live in.
And due to that separation from reality it becomes very easy and seductive for politicians to believe they can change the very nature of that reality.
But the real world – reality – the world where normal people work, raise families, live and die – is a world that follows the laws of reality. And the laws of reality don’t change at the stroke of a legislator’s pen.
One of the most fundamental laws of reality is:
“That entities act according to their nature.”
“Entities act according to their nature.”
Let me say that one more time because it is just so important …
“Entities act according to their nature.”
You may be more familiar with this concept as “the law of cause and effect” or maybe “actions have consequences.”
This is a metaphysical law - a law of reality. And laws of reality – like the law of cause and effect will trump the edicts of the politicians every time.
And this anti-sacking bill is a perfect example of politicians trying to evade the laws of cause and effect - of evading the axiom that entities act according to their nature.
By-the-way has anyone else noticed the rampant hypocrisy. Sue Bradford is crusading to criminalise the use of “Reasonable Force” i.e. parents smacking their children.
This is the same Sue Bradford, who in a former incarnation as spokesman for the beneficiaries union, didn’t bat an eye-lid when it came to using brutal force - trespass, destruction of private property and physical force - to impose her opinions on others.
However there is one prominent politician who, to her credit, can not be accused of hypocrisy.
Helen Clark, may well have lied when, just prior to the last election, she told the electorate that she would not support a smacking ban. So Helen may have lied - but she certainly did not engage in any hypocrisy on this.
Because – as far as I’m able to determine – Helen Clark never, ever smacked any of her children.
But anyway I digress.
My first point is.
And here I will ask your help to illustrate my point.
Would all of you who are parents please raise your hand - doesn’t matter if your kids are grown up.
Now please keep your hand raised if you smacked your children by way of discipline and/or instruction.
Now please keep your hand raised if - as a consequence of smacking your child – your smacking escalated from reasonable force to abuse – rising to bashing, assault or even murder.
Not surprisingly there is not a hand aloft in the room.
Yet one of the fundamental premises justifying the anti-smacking crusade is “escalation”.
By escalation I mean - in the same way that people believe using marijuana escalates to harder drugs – so the proponents of this bill claim that smacking escalates to bashing and more brutal forms of abuse.
The proponents of the anti-smacking bill would have us believe that parents develop a blood lust – a hunger - after that first smack and somehow, similar to the feeding frenzy of sharks, that first smack escalates up to the horrible beatings which appall us all.
But this is simply wrong – it’s a lie, a falsehood, a con-job. Because it’s an evasion of that law of reality that “entities act according to their nature”
The entities – “loving parents” - do not, by definition, bash and abuse their children. It is not in their nature.
In fact let’s just for a second drop the “loving parents” label.
Good parents, average parents, indeed below average parents do not escalate from smacking (i.e. using reasonable force) to bashing and abusing their children. It is simply not in their nature.
So, without need of academic studies, or a “commissioner of child discipline” costing millions of taxpayers’ dollars, I hope you can see that this “escalation theory” of smacking is a departure from the truth.
My second point.
At the start of this talk I welcomed you as ladies and gentlemen, mums and dads and sons and daughters. I did that for a purpose.
Every single one of us is a son or a daughter and every single one of us was once a child. And nearly every single one of us was smacked as a child.
How many of you were smacked as children. Please raise your hands?
The proponents of the anti-smacking bill maintain that you poor souls grew up in a culture of violence!
Now – all you sons and daughters – please keep your hands raised.
Now keep your hands raised if you believe that your parents’ smacking bred into you a culture of violence. That your being smacked as a child turned you from a decent human being into the type of person who beats and destroys your own children.
Every arm has fallen – there I’ve just saved New Zealand taxpayers more millions of dollars in studies, reports and commissions we don’t need.
So the entity – “loving parents” and the entity “children who’ve been smacked as they were raised” have acted according to their nature – they have not perpetrated a culture of violence – they have not beaten, bashed, abused or murdered their children.
No those “loving parents” and those “children who were smacked as they were raised” are the decent people we meet every day, they’re the people teaching our kids, they’re the people serving us in shops, they’re your workmates, the people living next door - they’re the decent people sitting in this room – they are us.
My third point.
I don’t want to paint too rosy a picture here…
There are savages living amongst – savages who do bash, abuse and destroy – quite literally murder – their children. And I use the word “savages” quite deliberately.
Now for last time (and I know you hate this) - can I please ask you to help me again? Can you all please raise your hands?
Please keep you hand raised if you think Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill will alter the behaviour of those savages.
As I expected every hand fell.
No one truly believes that the savages who mercilessly smashed Chris and Cru Kahui to death would suddenly think
“hey – I’m no longer accorded a defense against assault because Section 59 has been repealed – I’d better stop smashing these tiny little heads against this wall.”
The section 59 defense of “reasonable force” does not allow the beating, abusing or destroying of children.
Section 59 is just what is says – a defense of “Reasonable Force”.
What politician could ever believe that what happened to Chris and Cru Kahui or Lillybing was “Reasonable Force”?
Well I suppose we do know which politicians believe that – they’re the ones voting for the anti-smacking bill.
And the savages who commit these barbaric acts do not follow the law – no matter what the law says.
They are “savages” - and it comes back to that law of reality - “entities act according to their nature”
“Savages” – by their very nature don’t follow the law. They didn’t follow the existing law and there is no way on earth they will follow this one?
Just for the record – I am not saying that savages can not change. As much as we may like to deny it – those savages are human beings - and human beings have the faculty of free will. Human beings can choose to change their behaviour.
But I say to you - not a single savage will change his or her behaviour because of Sue Bradford’s bill. You see, as much as the may hate it; politicians can not defeat the laws of reality.
In fact, the more I watch Sue Bradford and the other promoters of the Anti-Smacking Bill the more I question their motives.
Their arguments are so devoid of reason, so far removed from the facts of reality that a reasonable person has to question whether or not one can give the promoters of this bill the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t think that even they believe this bill will stop the savages – no one could be that stupid, naïve or detached from reality.
I’m tempted to believe that they are simply engaging in a cynical PR effort. It’s as if, by promoting this bill, they can point to it and say “look how much care - I made smacking illegal.”
• Even though it won’t save one child trapped in that savage nightmare
• Even though it will cause irreparable damage to families, to parents and ultimately to children.
One can only speculate as to the motives of these people.
So far I’ve shown that the laws of reality totally contradict the fundamental premises underpinning Bradford’s horrendous bill. I’ve shown you:
1. That loving parents do not escalate from smacking to abusing and destroying their children
2. And that children who have been smacked do not turn into thugs perpetrating a culture of violence
3. And that Bradford’s bill will do nothing to change the behaviour of the savages who destroy children
But I don’t think that’s enough – I think it is still incumbent upon me to provide an actual justification of smacking – it’s not just enough to say that smacking doesn’t do the things that Bradford and her supporters suggest – that is eminently observable to everyone but the mainstream media and left-wing politicians.
And, as you’d expect, the best justification of smacking again comes back to that law of reality – that “entities act according to their nature.”
So this is my fourth point.
The entity we are talking about is “children”. And children by their nature are incapable of adult reasoning – unfortunately that this dreadful bill has made such progress suggests that many adults are also incapable of adult reasoning.
Children are children. By their very nature they do not have the knowledge and reasoning of an adult. That’s why our society withholds from children many of the rights and privileges enjoyed by adults. Children are not permitted to vote, to drive vehicles, to purchase alcohol etc.
We can debate when an individual’s status changes from child to adult - but no reasonable person denies that there is a stage in every individual’s life when he is not capable of adult reasoning.
One of a parent’s most critical and challenging roles is to guide and direct that journey from childhood to adulthood. In the early years it is simply impossible (due to the nature of children) to use reason to teach, to discipline, to guide and protect your child.
In many cases a parent has to use coercion. That coercion may be – restraining a child, time out, the removal of privileges or property, the imposition of chores. And smacking is a totally appropriate option.
Different parents will use smacking to a greater or lesser degree and in differing circumstances.
Some parents may choose not to smack at all (good luck to them). But smacking - the application of reasonable force - is a totally moral and justified method for teaching, disciplining and protecting children.
We don’t have time to debate the pros and cons of smacking versus other forms of discipline but two spring to mind immediately.
Firstly - smacking provides almost immediate feedback to a child – so it quickly teaches the child that a specific inappropriate action has a negative consequence.
Secondly smacking can be used almost anywhere. Try putting a child grabbing sweets into ‘timeout’ while at the supermarket.
Let’s just remind ourselves what parents are doing - parents are raising the next generation of New Zealanders. They are primarily responsible for teaching their children the difference between right and wrong.
Initially the only way to do that is to teach a child that good behaviour has positive consequences and bad behaviour has negative consequences.
And smacking is a proven means of doing that.
It’s not the only way - and in some circumstances – it’s certainly not the best way. But there is no honest and rational argument for criminalising parents who smack.
And let me just explode one more of the many, many distortions perpetrated by the promoters of Bradford’s Bill.
These people frequently claim that our current law gives more protection to animals than it does to our children.
I’m no expert on animal law but I know it permits the use of force in disciplining or controlling an animal. For goodness sakes we shoot dogs that attack people or stock - but much, much more importantly…
Sue Bradford evades the fact that a child is not an animal.
Sue Bradford needs to understand that raising a child and controlling an animal are totally different endeavours.
As a parent I’m trying to teach my children to understand right and wrong.
I’m trying to teach my children manners and courtesy and high level concepts like self-responsibility, justice, that actions have consequences.
The job I’m doing as a parent is much, much, so much more important than simply controlling an animal.
Raising children is one of the biggest challenges, the highest responsibilities and the greatest pleasures that any parent can assume.
Smacking is not the only tool – not by a long shot. But smacking – the use of “reasonable force” - is a vital tool that all parents must have available to them in that process.
No one is suggesting that smacking be mandatory but it must not be outlawed.
The section 59 defence of “reasonable force” must remain in our law.
I’m more than happy to say that I have smacked my children when appropriate. I love my children and take my responsibilities as their father very, very seriously – to do otherwise would be an absolute betrayal.
