I think "hands off" parenting might mean cumulatively both parents are more engaged in workforce participation these days and spend many less hours on the duties of parenting, Sam(#19).

New Zealanders are working longer and longer hours and perhaps societal adjustments to the raising of children are not keeping up. This, together with the advent and ever increasing prevalence of drugs in society must have a substantial influence on the "product" in child raising when making comparisons with earlier years. These factors must be weighted into your statistics about more child crime.

I would be absolutely sure that a greater proportion of those imprisoned at a young age have been used to physical force being applied to them throughout their bringing up than is the case with those raised in the luxury of not having ever been smacked.

You are too young to have witnessed the continuum, Sam(#19), and indeed, you are still deemed too young to be responsible for a vote on the issue.

If you were a little bit older than Helen Clark and Sue Bradford you would probably be told that "children should be seen and not heard" and that "you should respect your elders and betters", which would mean that you definitely should not contradict them.

Contradiction could well have resulted in the physical force being administered towards you. It would have been "reasonable force". "Reasonable force" was administered in the application of corporal punishment at schools and the law deemed six strokes with a cane rod administered to the buttocks to be quite reasonable.

Do not let the smackers tell you to forget about all this and concentrate on the fact that (as yet) child abuse has not been lessened by the new legislation, Sam(#19).

upon reading all of your comments I find myself even more in agreement with those who wish(ed) to vote "no" in the referendum, the reasons being, I am fifteen (year 11) and as such am closer to the age of those who are most affected by this whole affair-namely young kids- (and so feel that I can view things from close to ground level (excuse pun))Plus I was smacked as a child for "acting up" whereas Sue Bradford and Helen Clarke are both middle aged and, more to the point, were not disciplined in this way (through use of smacking) when they were young. How do they know what it is like to be smacked? how do they know that smacking a child will damage them and have negative affects in later life? Granted, statistics can tell lots of trends, but I have yet to see a convincing study/survey that shows how smacking contributes to rises in crime and/or depression, on the other hand I have seen evidence that the rise in youth crime coincides with the increase in "hands off" parenting (letting kids have free reign) We learn from experience. Also, I find it hard to believe that the referendum is purely "for the sake of the children" in that what is really gained by making it illegal to smack kids? those who smack their kids now have to (but hopefully don't) resort to other less effective "nonviolent" forms of punishment(why fix something that isn't broken?) while those who beat their children, with blatant disregard for the law, will continue to do so, resulting in children without sense beaten into them and children with the sense beaten out of them, making a bad situation worse. Lets face it, people who beat children are criminals. CRIMINALS BREAK THE LAW.even if the law is changed they will continue to ignore it- and many cases of domestic violence go unreported, letting them escape justice- this law, apart from wasting taxpayers money, will do very little by way of decreasing the number of child beatings.

There is a fine line between a light smack, and a hard smack and the road towards child abuse. As a father, I have made a vow not to punish my child physically 'cos of this fine line.

Remember people, when you apply physical punishment to a child, you, as a fully mature adult, can inflict injury, physical and / or psychologically, on an immature human body.

John Key says that the current law is working, by allowing the police to decide when to prosecute and when not to. In this way he claims that a light smack is not actually a criminal offence. A large amount of the comments I've read are anti smacking. By sticking with the current law smacking is still allowed!

The real issue is that citizens should not have to trust the police to decide what is and is not okay. Laws should be black and white not coloured like this one is. This law should be 'unconstitutional' in any good democracy. It reeks of a police state mentality.

I happen to be pro smacking. But voting yes doesn't mean parents are going to be punished for smacking their children. This will only happen when the police state decides that is in their interest.

A little group of dads that are a subset of the tiny minority 15% or less that support the Yes Vote.

So What. And if a group that support the 85% majority of Kiwis that despise the Rape of Democracy...what do we call them? The Media call them a minority group and fundementalists. They try to emphasise religious terms that will promote images of extremism.

The multi year Media Crusade to get smacking banned and its bias is incredible. They have refused to take issue with the false stats used by the Anti Discipline campaigners. The Sweedish abuse figures violence rises after legitimate authorities were banned from using force. They kept their lips pressed tight when "studies" were peddled month in month out that deliberately mixed data of Gratuitous Beating with that of disciplined discipline to try to brainwash the masses. They made nothing of extremely rigourous studies that absolutely contridict the masses of Junk studiespeddled by trendy sociologists.

Still dispite all this...before and after the law the masses can see the sense and so the logicless anti smack mob turn to mocking referendum process and all things they can to get around the truth. Media stunts, especialy in New Zealand, do not reflect the truth nor the majority. So for these Dads that don't represent me and the 85% of fathers that are constantly confirmed to disagree with these media pawns or stuntsters. They only represent extremism and nonsense.

Sarah (#10) The government (or anybody else) isn't trying to stop you "using a light smack on the hand on my child where it is appropriate". There is no evidence that people are being prosecuted, or even cautioned, for mild disciplinary behaviour! If this legislation helps the prosecution of a parent who gives their kid a wallop or a hiding as retribution for being bad, then great. Child abuse is a big issue in NZ society, and people have their heads in the sand about it.

My comments above have been misunderstood. I am not advocating smacking - though I am sure a light smack does little harm. I am offering a more meaningful method that works. The parents with badly behaved children are often the ones who use smacking a lot, or a wooden spoon or worse, so I know that doesn't work. And yes, some of those children do hit others, so the right lesson has not been learnt.

We did use smacking in the early days of parenting (a carry-over from our own upbringing), but it was much less effective than my own methods (which were instinctive). I absolutely hated my husband coming home and smacking long after the event, so I don't agree with that. What I'm saying is that children understand why their own action is wrong if you do much the same thing back to them straight away (and I stress - not in a harmful way). They get it - instantly, and quickly learn what is good behaviour and bad. Bad behaviour becomes few and far between, so there is no need for smacks, or anything else!

When you see a child chasing a cat with a stick and do the same thing back to them, it doesn't teach them to copy your actions - it teaches them to stop doing it themselves, because they know how it feels. My concern is that anyone seeing me doing this today could report it as abuse and totally misunderstand what I was doing. When parental behaviour is set down in law, the danger is that people see different things, and a parent who is doing what I would consider the right thing could end up facing court or supervision.

The above method relates to things children have done - you also need a method to get things done. We would count slowly to three, with the threat of further consequences if they didn't do what was needed. It gives the child the choice of complying or not, and time to think about it. Sometimes it took a second or third chance with the counting, but they usually did comply, with subsequent praise for doing so.

These days, most people think of Time Out or the Naughty Step as alternatives to smacking. Personally, I see these as another form of abuse. I never once told my children to go to their rooms when they were naughty, and would hate to shut them in there, kicking and screaming. Their bedrooms should be their own haven where they can sleep, play, read a book, and most of all feel safe and relaxed. It should not be a place of punishment, anger and fear. I have seen the TV programmes that show these methods working, but the children are usually ones who are extreme in their behaviour. With the methods I used, I can't even imagine this level of bad behaviour, and my children were usually well behaved instead.

I am not saying I want my grandchildren to be smacked by their parents. I am saying I will approve if my children use the common-sense harmless methods I used, that work. I don't want bratty grandchildren, any more than I wanted bratty children of my own. In our case, we didn't even have the usual teenage problems that people talk about. How many teenage BOYS do you know that would make their mother a beautiful card saying "You are the nicest, coolest, best best best mum in the world"? And how many siblings do you know that would willingly go flatting with each other? I'd say the proof is in the pudding that my methods did work.

Gotta love how the 'pro-smackers' say that they use 'light smacks' and the 'anti-smackers' have the view that this is the same as beating the living heck out of someone... CHILD ABUSE IS BAD AND IS/WAS/ALWAYS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL, but it is not the same as a 'light smack on the butt or hand'. I doubt very much that many of either side of this continual media circus have actually bothered to sit down and read the act.

Darrell smacks all the time and it works. Harder and harder we presume. It's difficult to apply a single light smack when one is really angry, and repeal of section 59 is one small step in reducing the culture of violence still present in many families. Despite the propaganda, it is highly unlikely that a light smack is ever likely to result in police action. The current misleading referendum is hardly worth a vote either way.