for my opinion i think that smacking kids is not good 4 , i noe i dnt have eni kids but its still not good for the young kids, they are to young to get hit on the buttom and across from the face with a open hand.

The fact that you can't master a three letter acronym says a lot Fiinkensein.

You're the perfect representative of the smacking minority.

You are plain flat out wrong.

You totally ignore the elephant in your room which is the fact that thousands of good young Mums and Dads are scared to smack their misbehaving kids in the street or the supermarket <b>for fear of being dobbed in and having to endure a police investigation</b> and the interference of people from SYPS or SIPS or SYRUP or whatever they call themselves these days.

Totally agree with Evans. Good parents ends up in court just because the Act have criminalise them. Those pushing for smacking bill should have chosen their 'words' carefully & likewise their target population. It is unfortunate that NZ has had to spend so much of tax payers money trying to untie the mischief that had been created by drafting this law which has resulted in innocent/caring & loving parents being frowned upon as criminals.

Penfold - For you and your type, exactly what special training have you got to be able to tell the rest of us how best to raise a child? There are almost no child psychologists who advise to smack children “as part of good parenting”. Are you a professional child psychologist; are you a trained and experienced caregiver? Or do you just happen to have children and use suspect anecdotes to justify your stunted thinking? I wouldn’t leave my children in your care. Can you see why that might be?

I'm so sick of this "anti-smacking bill" BS. Between the media and Sue Bradford, so many people have no idea what the repeal of Section 59 actually means. Lots of good parents think they have been criminalised when in fact they haven't. Let me explain:

Section 59 originally stated that if you had been convicted of assault on a child in a court of law you could still get off if you claimed you had been trying to discipline your child. There were cases where people were acquitted of horrific abuse under Section 59. The repeal of Section 59 simply means that if you have been convicted of child abuse you can no longer use this loophole to escape justice.

Unless you have seriously hurt a child, the Section 59 repeal will not apply to you at all. There will be the odd busybody who will call the police because they saw you smack your kid, but the police will treat this report with the contempt it deserves.

The government is right to ignore this stupid referendum, because the question has nothing to do with the law it supposedly refers to. The real question is how circus was allowed to cost taxpayers $9m!

"I doubt the parents who have historically done the wrong thing by a child paid little attention to any laws" - just as drunk drivers don't pay attention to the law that says driving while drunk is illegal. Should we scrap that law just because some people ignore it?

"ll the 'anti-smacking' bill has done is throw good and honest parents under police suspicion and potential prosecution." - Except that it doesn't and hasn't. Name one 'good and honest parent' who is under police suspicion and parental prosecution. You can't. Unless you're going to claim the 'punch in the face = ear flick' guy is a 'good' parent.

"What's more, the politician have arrogantly approved this law with little consideration to the wider community - their electrets." - If you can't even spell electorates politicians shouldn't listen to you. When women got the right to vote the majority of the population or at least the men were against it. It was still THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

"They can undermine the referendum...bla bla bla" the people who wrote the referendum underminded it mate. They wrote the question. The question has nothing to do with the ammendment to section 59 so nothing at all can be achieved from the referendum. It's like asking "Should it be illegal to cook a dog on a BBQ" and then using whatever answer you get to overturn MMP.

Use your brain.

the people who abuse kids will continue to do so, regardless of this stupid anti-smacking law.

agree with comments # 2

Most of us in our 30's got a smack a few times a kid, most likely deserved it, didnt hurt us any did it. Most people know the difference between a smack and a belting so why treat us like idiots with that stupid law, its like they are trying to say we don't know the difference. Sue Bradford is a fool and needs to get into the real world for once.

I doubt the parents who have historically done the wrong thing by a child paid little attention to any laws. All the 'anti-smacking' bill has done is throw good and honest parents under police suspicion and potential prosecution. What's more, the politician have arrogantly approved this law with little consideration to the wider community - their electrets. They can undermine the referendum and attempt to deflect its validity as much as they like, but it's still a sizeable portion of New Zealand who have undertaken this process as a cold testament to their disapproval.

Is it maybe just a little bit insensitive to call an abused child a vegetable?