You are correct – clause 1 of the new S59 is the bulk of the law change, and talks about when you can or cannot use ‘reasonable force’. Clauses 3 just restates clause 2, and clause 4 says police can use their discretion as to whether they prosecutre or not. Given police have always had such discretion, clause 4 is totally redundant. Which leaves clause 2.

Clause 2 of the new S59 is the crunch point – it overrides clause 1 (which allows reasonable force in some circumstances) and bans use of force for ‘correction’, but does not define correction. So, the public, police and judges all have to try and decide what correction is, versus “offensive or disruptive behaviour” (clause 1(3)) or “good care and parenting” (clause 1(4)).

Add to that, the fact that clause 1 still uses the phrase “if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances”, which is identical to the original ‘get out of jail for smacking’ phrase that Sue Bradford objected to as ‘allowing child abuse’.

So, I’m afraid there is no solace in the new S59 at all. In fact, if it were taken literally, even the lightest of unwanted physical contact would constitute assault, with up to 1 year in jail… crazy, surely!?!

But the main beef of the post was the undemocratic officials attempting to block a referendum based on shonky ‘counting’ methods.