The lawyer who has upset Sue Bradford with his interpretation of her anti-smacking bill says it does little good to shoot the messenger.
United Future MP Gordon Copeland has presented findings from Peter McKenzie QC, who believes the bill will make potential criminals of parents using any force, such as placing a child on a naughty mat. Copeland claims the bill will result in ludicrous outcomes.
But Bradford says that is not the case and she calls the legal opinion flawed and a wilful misrepresentation of her bill.
"My bill, as amended in select committee, explicitly states that parents can use reasonable force on several grounds, including 'preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, or 'performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting'".
McKenzie, who has represented several groups such as Right To Life, the Society for Protection of Community Standards, and Viewers for TV excellence, says he is happy for people to look at his assessment and make their own judgement.
National Director of Family First NZ Bob McCoskrie believes that McKenzie's views add weight to Family First's opinion that Pacific Island communities will be at risk from Bradford's bill and should speak up against it.
"The Pacific Island Sector will be particularly at risk from unwarranted and inappropriate intervention by Police and CYF who are responding to complaints about smacking - complaints made either by members of the public, or by children themselves who have resented their means of correction or denial of privileges," says McCroskie.
Family First says the bill is a dangerous law for all New Zealand families and will not do anything to deal with the real causes of child abuse.
A final vote on the bill, which repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act, which gives parents the right to use reasonable force on their children, will take place in around a fortnight.
