"So the sky hasn’t fallen in and law-abiding parents haven’t been prosecuted. So why do we need a referendum?"

So if nobody is being prosecuted under the amended Act, why did we need the amendment at all?

Silly logic, Colin. Just because a bad law hasn't yet been abused doesn't justify it. And it was never going to be abused in election year with the Government that passed it super-sensitive to its consequences. That's just naive twaddle.

Why should New Zealanders put up with having bad and potentially very destructive law? Answer: we shouldn't.

Also you say the new law <i>closed a defence used by child abusers to avoid prosecution</i>. Rubbish. Give one example.

Perhaps the 'smacking' referendum could be held mid-term along with the promised MMP referendum, to cut down on costs?

<i>law-abiding parents haven’t been prosecuted</i> Another bit of meaningless rhetoric.

How can you or anyone else judge if those who have been prosecuted are law-abiding or not? The best we can do is find out whether anyone has been prosecuted under the new law who would not have been prosecuted under the old law. Apparently your answer is no-one has, in which case Roscoe's question is both pertinent and conclusive.

One reason that little of consequence has flowed out of this foolish legislation is that people, by and large, simply ignore it.

That's a very good reason to not pass such dopey stuff in the first place: a citizenry which becomes accustomed to ignoring small inconveniences, will extend the attitude to more and more. After all, to quote an old Chinese maxim "the hills are high, and the Emperor is far away'.

And that attitude ain't good for civilisation, in the widest sense.

I feel sorry for the children whose parents have taken to the grandstand over this issue. They are more likely to get beaten, as their parents try to make a point, then they were before the amendment. A million dollar referendum for the right to hit children, with or without reason, is not only a waste of taxpayers money, but a disgrace to this country. Why would we want to give abusers back the right to batter their offspring and get away with it? You can't tell a well meaning parent from a bad one from a distance, so at least the discretion given to police on whether to prosecute or not allows society to have a look at what's happening.

Roscoe

Your Logic is dumb all it does ,is show that most New Zealand Parents are Law abiding the bill wasnt even required!! The ones that beat their children will never be stopped by Bradsfords Bill ,and everyones knows it!!

So the police investigated 99 cases as a consequence of this bill of which 3 are proceeding to prosecution ? So police time was taken up with 96 pointless investigations while <a href='http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2008/06/22/chart-crime/' rel="nofollow">real violent crime </a>continues to rise ?

You miss the point Colin. The people of NZ are voting against labour for interfering with an essential family choice - that is having the right to smack your child as a disciplinary measure.

Whether the police prosecute or not under the amendment Act is totally irrelevant.

Colin "a petition seeking a referendum on the right to return to beating their children" and Robert "Why would we want to give abusers back the right to batter their offspring and get away with it?"

So before this bill was passed parents were able to batter their children by 'right'? Oh please, spare me the over dramatisation. It was NEVER okay to batter your children before this bill (not in recent history anyway). The bill stopped parent's using 'reasonable force for the purpose of correction' as a defence. Fair enough too, but to imply that people who signed the referendum are wanting to change the law back so they can legally beat their kids up is ridiculous and over the top.

I don't smack my children, I think there are far more effective ways to discipline them. But I have two issues with this new law. Firstly, numerous studies world wide point consistently to several factors being the cause for child abuse. The time, effort and money spent on getting this bill passed should have been used to address these factors. Secondly, every single incident looked into by the police must also be looked into by CYFS. This agency is already grossly under staffed and resourced. Many of the families involved in the shocking deaths we hear about month in and month out are known to CYFS already. These are families where they know for sure abuse is going on, but their limited powers and resources mean they can't always protect the child. Now to compound matters, their time is further stretched to investigate trivial incidents.

Meanwhile children are still being abused and killed by their caregivers. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but it makes me so angry that so much time and effort has been directed towards something which wont make a blind bit of difference to those children caught up in shocking cycles of abuse.