Good to see some clear thoughtful words regarding the 'anti smacking' debate. If only everyone WOULD take the time to read all the facts, and if only the media reported things honestly and clearly rather than trying to make headlines.

"But I like the law, because it stops child beaters who bash their kids with lengths of hose pipe from getting away with it."

Tell that to the 3 children killed in the last couple of weeks, and how many more others that have been killed & maimed since the law was passed.

All that you described was illegal before the law was changed, but the law has done absolutely nothing to reduce the problem of actual violence.

In fact the old law was one of the best worded pieces of legislation, because it allowed the definition of what was reasonable to be defined by the people (a jury), which means that the law automatically changed to represent the view of society at that particular time.

Personally I consider the new law to be a dogs breakfast. Ill conceived and ill worded. Far more confusing than the referendum question. It is an ideological band aid on a gaping sore.

If you really want to send a message about child abuse then up the penalty (heck make it a hanging offense, that should send a pretty clear message), but set realistic and sensible levels for what is actual abuse.

"First though he's got to figure out what they're saying."

People are saying they don't like the law and the uncertainty it puts in peoples minds.

Saying it is working so far is like claiming riding a bike with no hands is safe because you have not fallen off yet.

A "light smack" if it is followed by a complaint of assault, must be prosecuted under the law. But what constitutes a"light smack" That are the problems.

Police figures show that a person has been convicted of assault after smacking their child since the law has come into force. So why did you outright ignore that fact?

I don't feel sorry for poor John Key's predicament. He's the man now so he better sort this mess out. Colin, this whole thing was never really about the legality of smakcing. Most of us who are way inclined, will still give our kids a clip, and then take them to the cop shop so they can have a go a dobbing us in. The threat of that alone make sthem behave nicely for another few weeks or so anyway. No the whole thing is still about forcing through laws that the nation as a whole does not want. End of story. My next post will explain my thinking a bit better.

The other day I heard Paul Holmes on the radio asking himself why he even bothered to vote, so I sent this to him:

Hi Paul

You voted to take a stand as an ordinary citizen who was ridden roughshot by politicians.

You voted to give the finger to a manipulating MP who, without a mandate by a constituency, pushed her own personal agenda.

You voted to show up the arrogance of the system in which a woman, with no real parenting experience herself, can force her minority views onto the whole the country by ordering all her MPs to vote against their own conscience.

You voted to tell John Key that should he choose to ignore the result, it will bite him in the backside with more pain than six smacks of a cane.

You voted because, no matter what law is forced on us, nothing will stop the Kahuis of this world if they choose to abuse or kill their children.

You voted because that is exactly where Sue Bradford could have, Helen Clark should have, and now John Key will probably not, get tougher than ever before.

Do you still want to know why you voted?

"Personally I think the law is perfectly clear."

In which case I have no interest in your opinion, Colin, since it is obviously uninformed.

Well said Colin.

Children deserve more protection than adults from assault and they now have it, unlike the old law where parents could and did get away with striking children with hoses, pieces of wood or horse whips. Would they have been allowed to get away with this if they had done the same thing to another adult?

There are far more important issues for parliament to concentrate on at the moment and the response that John Key has signalled of education and providing clear guidelines for government agencies should address the fears and mis-information that are out there. Of course, this will have a far better chance of succeeding if the media deny oxygen to those whipping up the hysteria around the denial of parental rights.

When it comes down to it, I want my children to be protected from assault, before I want a right to smack them. The current law has not affected my ability to be a good parent and to build good behaviour and character in my children so I don't see it as a restriction of any of my parental rights.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of New Zealanders have children's best interests at heart and there are far more productive ways to support parents and children than focussing our energies on repealing this law.

Good parents have nothing to fear from the current legislation. The stats so far are clear - there have been no convictions for light smacking.

And, no-one appears to have proposed any alternative, apart from going back to the days where parents have got away with hitting their kids with, amongst other things, a hose, a piece of wood and a horse whip. (These examples are in the court records for anyone to view).

This is not a situation that I believe most people would want to see again. It's time to move on.

@Peter S

I don't usually like attacking other people's posts, but I feel compelled to in your case. There are two points to make:

1) "Three kids have been killed so the law doesn't work". I am so sick of this argument. If you follow the same argument, people continue to drink drive, so we shouldn't have a law about it etc. The fact is that people do break the law (whatever it is), and have therefore committed illegal acts and will be prosecuted according. No law will ever have 100% adherence. The point of the law change is to make hitting your kids publicly unacceptable - the same way that it is now publicly unacceptable to hit your wife.

2) Under the old section 59 people could, and did, get away with some pretty spectacular abuses of kids by claiming they were using "reasonable force". For some parents, hitting a child with a piece of hosepipe has been considered reasonable, although for the majority of us, we find it abhorent. Because that defence was there, some (few) parents got away with abuse.

If the new Section 59 makes even one parent stop and not hit their kids, instead of giving them a good thrashing (possibly to death, as James Whakaruru's stepfather did), then it has worked, but this change may take years, and we will still see kids being killed (just as domestic violence still kills).

I have several issues with this blog post.

1.) The first person to call the law "The Anti-Smacking Law" was Sue Bradford herself (6 October 2003) when she announced it. (http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844) In there she specifically states that Parents were using the old Section 95 in order to "get away with, not only smacking their children, but also whacking them with bits of wood and other objects"

She is clear repeatedly that she is not only against whacking with bit's of wood and other objects (something most of us NO voters are also against) but also she wanted to stop people getting away with smacking their children. (I.e. you included Colin)

2.) The wording of the question in the referendum was because of how the Law itself is worded.

3.) Ms Bradford herself has on several occasions given conflicting messages about what the new Section 95 does, vacillating between saying still isn't a criminal offence and saying it is illegal.

4.) Both Otago University and Christchurch University have published studies that clearly show that smacking does not have long term consequences, and is just as effective if not more so than other forms of discipline (to cite local studies, there are others across the world that concur)

the Law is clear, and it clearly states that is you smack you child (for correction of the child's behaviour) you have committed a criminal offence, regardless of whether or not the cops choose to prosecute. What New Zealand has said overwhelmingly is that we disagree with it being a Criminal Offence.

Some good reading: http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/the-anti-smacking-law-only-a-law-change-is-morally-acceptable/ and http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/08/dear-national-party-caucus.html