I don't think that we should blame Sue Bradford for the passage of this Bill. If it wasn't for her they would have found another way to pass it.

What she is guilty of is being so incredibly stupid as to put her name to it as a "private members Bill". She must have known that that would ruin her political career.

The campaign to end S59 of the crimes act, and to take away the right to discipline your own children, has existed since at least 2001. It was first "mooted" by Lailla Harre, the then minister for youth affairs (remember the allience party?) It was later taken up by Steve Maharey with great gusto, and admitted that it was a UN demand! Helen Clark admitted that in a press release and also on several occasions that it was a UN demand, so therefore, it had to be done no matter what.

It seems that what ever the UN wants takes precedence over what NZers want.

On 5.12.2001 Steve Maharey was reported as saying "the government's consideration of the situation was in response to the 'UN convention on the rights of the child'".

He added: "Article 19 of the convention requires all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse while in the care of parents guardians or anyone else". (I think it specifically excludes governments).

He claimed that "parents and caregivers who used force were able to use the defence that the law allowed them to do so". However, when asked to provide figures of how many parents have claimed this, they were unable (or probably more accurately unwilling) to do so.

By 2003, Helen Clark had committed the country to spending 40 million on a "public education campaign" to "educate you to agree with us".

And on 14 May 2003, Steve Maharey admitted "the government has now agreed to consider changes to the legislation law on the physical punishment of children once EARLY EVALUATIONS of the public education campaign are available. At that time THE CABINET WILL DECIDE WHAT TO DO in relation to section 59 of the crimes act."

In other words "the public education campaign' is in reality just 'window dressing', and we will really make the decision and we don't care whether or not you agree with us"

So Sue Bradford was really just the vessel through which the government chose to impose this on us. If she hadn't agreed to put her name to the Bill, they would have found someone else.

I just wonder if she got her 30 pieces of silver.