If Section 59 is amended to protect the authority of the parent/caregivers then will there be provision for those parents/caregivers who may have already been criminalized for the use of reasonable force to be exonerated and have their records cleared?

I am particularly thinking of the grandfather who rolled his grandson from a beanbag onto the carpet in the lounge and was then held at the local police station for two nights before going to court. Also for your info, the child was in a rage, the grandfather did not physically touch the boy, just picked up the corner of the beanbag and said something like "that's enough". Unfortunately he also pleaded guilty to the charge after being advised it could cost him $60,000 to defend himself.

I wonder, if an injustice like the above can not be put right by a law change now, then how can we trust any new law change to have the real teeth needed to protect parents from cyf's who don't appear to come under any authority but their own !!!!

However, any change will be a good start.

AT LAST! Some common sense! You can put my name down if you want support for this one I can promise you that. This has to be the most ridiculous law that anyone ever wasted time and money on. My husband and I have raised two lovely children who have turned into two exemplary adults - both of them clearly understood who the adults were in our home when we were raising them and we never had many occasions to have to smack them - a certain look or short command usually stopped them in their tracks - but when they needed it, a swift slap on the backside worked wonders - there is a major difference between disciplining your kids with love and beating them to death as seems to be the case with a number of people in this country! It is a total travesty of justice that perfectly normal and upstanding parents are tarred with the same brush as child batterers and denied the right to discipline their children. This law as it stands is a disgrace and an insult to intelligent parents who have nothing but their children's best interests at heart for the good of society. Clearly the Labour Party with its warped sense of social engineering should never be allowed to govern NZ again - the number of ridiculous pieces of legislation brought into effect by them is mind-boggling! A disciplined child is a loved child - we have sought to bring our children up to take their place in society and to behave in a socially acceptable way because thats the way life works - Labour and the Greens should get over it instead of acting like a bunch of has-been rebels without a cause and trying to change things that work! Hopefully we will soon be rid of this crazy situation.

Please don't quit on this, Mr. Boscawen !
Kids have learned that their worst punishment is removal of video privileges or loss of a play-date. This is simply inadequate for raising kids. Clearly, Sue Bradford does not live in the real world of young children, or has forgotten. She has done incredible damage to the family, in the name of helping us. What an idiot !

Well done! Please pursue this till it happens. Please simply repeal Bradford's re-write of Section 59 and go back to the original version: it was so simple and clear: parents were justified in using force by way of correction as long as the force was reasonable in the circumstances. See? The context is taken into consideration, the force must be reasonable and it must be for the purpose of correction.

Bradford's re-write introduced 4 new purposes, two of which were totally redundant, already being covered by other parts of the Crimes Act. The real target of her bill was parental authority and duty and responsibility to correct their own children. It is reflected in the title of Section 59: it used to be called "Domestic Discipline." Bradford changed it to "Parental Control". She would have the nanny state to discipline and correct children according to the philosophies and political agendas fed through the public schools, but parents were only to control children. Please work hard to correct the current state of insanity.

The issue for me is wider than just the law on smacking. It is about whether the State or parents should have the major say about how children are brought up. I do not think it realistic to bring up children that they should not have sex until they are married. However, some parents do and they should not have what they teach their children about sex undermined at school.

Below is a link to what is being purposed in the UK under a Labour government.

“Parents should NOT tell their children what is ‘right or wrong’ about having sex, say ministers”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1152021/Parents-NOT-tell-childre...

I hate to think what would have happened here if Labour got another term. I have heard some of what goes on in schools here but it sounds a lot worse in the UK.

Schools should not let children know if they chose to have sex under the legal age the school will supply contraceptives and abortions if desired.

Some might consider I am slightly off topic but the issue is parental rights.

The test whether the new law is working must be wider than how many parents have been prosecuted for smacking their child. For a start there is no way of knowing. If a parent was reported for smacking their child in a supermarket they would be charged with assault or assault on a child. They may choose to plead guilty to avoid publicity.

Some of the effects of the new law are:

Parents receiving a warning from police either official or unofficial often with the child’s knowledge.

Children blackmailing parents. Parents giving in which gives children power they should not have. Alternatively, parents tell the children that if they complain to authorities they will likely be removed and have to live with another family. This will cause insecurity for the child.

CYFS will investigate allegations. Questioning of children will undermine the authority of parents. Even if parents are not charged they will have a permanent black mark on their record with CYFS and the police.

There will be false or greatly exaggerated complaints in cases of separation.

Let us hope that this move by Mr Boscawen will motivate people to cast their postal ballot. If his bill is not drawn ACT will be the only party opposed to this ideologically driven anti family law that has any chance of getting it changed.

About bloody time! I hate stupid pc policies that don't work and destory the healthy family unit! At least ACT has the backbone to fight for the rights of good New Zealand parents.

The Anti-Smacking Law is an outrage.

There are loving parents who discipline their children with a smack on the bum or the hand because they did something that was wrong. This is to make the child understand not to do the same action again.

Then there are extremists who smack their children who land on the floor with a thump or even across the room - this is CHILD ABUSE.

The government must understand and so does Sue Bradford that the extremists child carer / parent is the person under scrutiny. These are the people that should be caught NOT the normal parents disciplining their child to understand the better point of what is good and bad.

Without proper discipline, children will grow up without proper distinction between GOOD and BAD. This will in the long term turn out badly for the whole of New Zealand as a country. Children who are not disciplined to understand good and bad and then grow up may end up becoming criminals.

Keep up the good work Mr Boscawen.

I voted no to the smacking referendum and I would like to see future referenda become binding. However the question in a new referendum needs to be not just “whether the results of referenda seeking repeal or amendment of any law should be binding” but also “when a majority of 75% of referendum participants is reached”.
Lets not have any ambiguity right? Otherwise it will fail and be just a waste of effort.