Found on Kiwiblog:
To all those who insist on focusing on the rather narrow subset of activities governed by the modifications made to s.59 which involve “bashing”, “hitting” etc (insert other inflammatory hyperbolic term here) their kids, maybe a quick reference check to the actual bill / act.
Firstly, it considers use of force. smacking is only one small subset of this.
Secondly it specifically prohibits any use of force for the purpose of correction. Anyone with a child will quickly tell you that pretty much anything you do for your kids is for the purpose of training them for their life ahead, and this means correcting behaviour.
Try teaching your 2 yr old to brush his teeth without contravening this law.
And for anyone that takes the above statement to infer that I must be abusing my son when trying to teach him to brush his teeth, I’d suggest you get some counselling for some obviously deep-seated issues - oh, and read the law again. I’ve never raised a finger to my son, and I don’t intend to. However whatever I do for my son will be what is best for him, not what suits some politician’s agenda.
And finally, consider what would happen if we took the power to use force for correction away from the police. We wouldn’t be able to enforce law any more. Think of all the money we’d save being able to close all the prisons. The reality is that force IS a solution to some problems (e.g. your country being invaded, people resisting arrest, self-defense and defense of another etc etc etc). We should just accept that, instead of trying to perpetrate the lie that it isn’t. Teaching that lesson to our kids is therefore just one of the lessons they need to learn in life before they become responsible for their own actions.
John Key lobbed some curly questions across the House yesterday:
John Key: Has the Prime Minister noticed the trend that all other New Zealanders have noticed, that her Government does not like the New Zealand public being able to express their view on democracy—they are about to be stopped from being able to exercise their democratic view through a referendum on the anti-smacking legislation at the election, and they are being stopped from exercising their democratic rights through the deeply flawed and cynical Electoral Finance Act—and why does the Prime Minister not just admit that she finds the voters of New Zealand an annoyance?
John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that to run a referendum outside of election time would cost millions and millions of dollars, or, once again, does she have so little respect for taxpayers’ dollars that she is prepared to have them wasted when she could just run the referendum at election time; or is she running scared of that election?
This is a radical tack rarely seen in Parliament: namely, *representing* the people of New Zealand, rather than nannying them!