Parents "know better than the Children's Commissioner"

Smacking a child is meant to be a way of discouraging a child from fulfilling selfish and carnal ambitions (e.g a child deliberatly spilling other people's glasses of drinks at a bbq).It was not meant to be a way forcing children to be clones of their parents in behaviour and attitude.

And here we go again. Excuse me, authoritarian religious fringe organisations do *not* have the years of medical training that pediatricians and developmental psychologists within child health, welfare and development agencies do. The latter work long hours and deal frequently with the destructive consequences of parental violence and abuse of children.

I would far rather trust these dedicated medical professionals than fringe fundamentalist zealots masquerading arrogantly as the voice of 'all' New Zealand parents.

Earth to wingnuts. The CIR Act 1993 only provides for indicative referenda, not binding ones. With any luck, the Clerk of the House will listen to the Legislation Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Justice and can the Kiwi Party's latest inane publicity seeking referendum proposal stunt.

If you ask me, even that's too much. There was no debate whatsoever about the CIR Act back in 1993, and now it's starting to show. For the good of our nation, the benighted legislation that allows these potty populist plebiscites needs to be repealed, now.

Scott, we are both arguing the same case, I am dead against this bill, and so are 87% of those who voted in the referendum. What I'm against is a PM who is more PC than the last one we had, but at least one of them had balls, and it's not the current one. He doesn't care about democracy, or the people he was voted in by. He has proved he is a money trader and with the ETS, ACC, Health Cuts etc, it proves my case. He is a whimp.

Helen, the point is that light smacking is NOT reasonable force. That is typical of how lawyers exist, the scurge of society. There is no real force applied in a light smack. It is taking the physics definition of FORCE too far. Worst of all, there is nothing reasonable about a force sufficient to cause injuries! So, how the argument of reasonable gets bandied about by the scurge of society is totally beyond me. Mind you, that is how they exist and have done so for too long now. The legal profession should be ashamed of themselves but this is how they protect their industry - nothing JUSTICE about it, just self preservation.
If in doubt, look up what the words JUST and JUSTICE means.

Worst of all, this bill is a sock to the UN so that auntie Helen got her job and uncle John is allowed to be one of the elite! That's why he can poke fun at you lowly serfs. Its all about raising generations of children who look to the state to run their life's.

Regardless of who passed the bill though, it can't be ignored that John Key is the one who didn't listen to the people. He was the one who ignored the concept of democracy upon which this country was meant to be founded. And that's the scary thing about all this business. And the Children's Comissioner's argument that this isn't ABOUT democracy is him trying to skirt over what matters. The act is paradoxical, too. It was designed so that parents couldn't claim reasonable force as defense, yet the government is trying to say that good parents won't be prosecuted for light smacks - indicating that reasonable force IS allowed. So would someone explain the point?

Bill, I went back in time and found that only 7 mps voted against the bill. John Key did the deal, to include that the Police had the power of discretion. Otherwise, it would have been even worse - the way Sue Bradford and the Labour party wanted it was to prosecute all cases, and that would have gone through.
In my view, this still causes the enormous confusion to the parent, and I do not think it is fair for the Police to have to take the burden in case a good parent was to be prosecuted. They did not make the law, Sue Bradford did.

Bill, as I understood it, Key was the first to say that National would repeal the Act "if it was shown that it did not work". That does not mean that any Government can ignore referenda - some sort of Act was necessary but it should have been written better! And the maker of the bill did not want to write it better. Good parents are in limbo and what concerns me what will happen if a good parent gets taken to Court, at the mercy of unscrupulous lawyers, costing the family heaps. And in the meantime, parents such as Taryn do not know what to do, which is totally confusing and does not do any good. I abhor any violence at any level and at any age but unfortunately I have no confidence in the legal system. Sooner or later it will cost good parents and that must be prevented.
I suggest that we try to remain positive and argue that the law is not working, because good parents are at a loss - see for instance Taryn. The only point she has wrong is that 87% want her to discipline the child but only 13% would take steps for her to appear in Court.

Sorry Scott, how wrong you can be. Key and his cronies backed this legislation and that's how it was passed otherwise it would have fallen over without their support. Also, we have had a referendum on this and 87% wanted it repelled, but Key and his Cronies said to hell with the population, we know best. By the way I have been a Liberal Supporter all my life, never have and never will vote labor. But from now on just won't bother voting for any of the brainless chooks in this country.