There is a oft quoted proverb, ... "Money doesn't buy happiness"

We had nine years of comparatively prosperous times during the term of the Helen Clark Labour Government. We were able to build up reserves such as the 12 billion dollars which is in the NZ Superannuation Fund. We were able to reduce public debt and pay for certain infrastructure from revenues. Unemployment was at record lows as those out of work were offered training and case-managed into suitable long term employment and real jobs.

Dr Cullen was proved right in that surpluses were not "structural", and therefore, tax cuts were only minimal. He made sure we had something to show for the good times, when it was our tendency to leverage and borrow and create "asset bubbles" which one day had to implode, and would have left us deeper in hock.

But when you reflect, didn't we find a lot of trivia to go on about?

This "smacking law" simply gave the common law a fresh start when there was obvious unsatisfactory case precedent. It simply removed a clause which firmed the law against the abuse of children, which had previously had more exemption than that against the abuse of an animal.

We vehemently worked ourselves up over that and invented vague issues like "political correctness", "social engineering", "nanny state" and fabricated that the state was intruding into our lives and we were losing our freedoms; but all along we didn't know that we were so fortunate.

We fabricated belief that the state was weakening family life, when the "Working for Families" restored a material strength to the family without which the present-day difficulties would be much greater and causing more deprivation. We bemoaned that the government "wasn't listening to the people" because it had the strength to consider the point of view of minorities.

I do not know whether Mr Boscawen is a happy man - it doesn't appear that he has been so for the past nine years.

But frankly, I wish he would get over it, because he is an MP and now we do have some real issues to be concerned about.

It is no longer just over to us to mess it up for ourselves.

I am deeply concerned by the number of adults who feel they must smack children to 'correct' their behaviour. I pose this question...would you smack your elderly parent with Alzheimer’s who has got lost at the fair or who has let go of your hand to run across the road towards the beautiful flowers?

Most people would be outraged if the above was acceptable common practice(think about the rest home cases last year). Why then is it ok to smack/hit children?

A light smacking when coupled with losing one's temper when exasperated by unacceptable juvenile behaviour usually translates into the "damn good hiding" beloved by older disciplinarians. Not for nothing does New Zealand have a reputation as a violent society.

It's not the smacking that's problem, it's the bashing, shaking and killing!

"Mr McCoskrie said the child abuse rate had continued unabated since the law was passed, with 12 deaths in the last 21 months. - Today's NZ Herald

This waste of time and money, and the similar waste of time and money with the carrying-out of the proposed referendum will do nothing to stop the child abuse rate continuing unabated.

If the National/Act "we know best how to save money" government is "in", this waste of time and money referendum is the first thing that should be knocked on the head.

Boscowen's adjustments to the law will provide sureity to parents who wish to parent within the law. 80% of parents (of children under 12 surveyed) continue to voice disapproval of Bradford's law change - we owe it to parents to give them good, sound legal structure so they can get on with the job of being a good mum and dad. Maybe with this law chnage that Boscowen proposes we can all get on with targeting the REAL abusers and root causes of family breakdown, dysfunction and child deaths - drugs, alcohol, poverty, etc.

Finally. Some sanity returns to NZ Government.

s59 should be repealed and returned to the original wording permitting only "reasonable" force for the purpose of correction.

The original s59 was only ever used 17 times and in 11 of those the jury found the defendant guilty. Seems average NZers are a very wise bunch.

I call on the NZ government to adopt this bill as one of their own and save the country the $8m price tag of the referendum clark left us as her parting shot.

About time! A smack is NOT child abuse.

The original law addressed the issue of the use of "force".

The amendment states that "force" must not be used for the purposes of correction.

Both Mr Boscawan's proposals and the proposed referendum question should address the issue of "force".

The term "light smacking" gives a different peception to the term "force" and there has not been undue concern about "light smacking", although I am quite sure that even the conservatists and religious fundamentalists, after having given the matter some deeper consideration, are now of the opinion that the use of "smacking" is not the better way to bring up children.