A few points
1. To Larry Baldock, my sincere thanks for furnishing Granny Herald with a photo that makes anything I might write about your lust for child-punishing redundant.
2. To the 88%-of-54% who voted “no”, many of whom thought they were just being practical, and fair, and don’t want “good parents” punished, I invite you to consider that people like Larry Baldock don’t actually care what you thought, because all they wanted, and all you’ve actually done is given them more credibility when they say “oh, and not just light smacks, but rulers and wooden spoons too.”*
3. Finally, to anyone who thinks a referendum based on such a loaded question actually means anything, I can do no better than leave you with Sir Humphrey:
Any no-voters reading this? Please feel free to preface your comments with a single incident of a parent being “criminalized” for a “light smack” or GTFO.
Ideologically Impure 
Do you actually have any children?
Do you have any experience raising children?
Do you understand how democracy works?
Would you be denouncing the referendum result had it gone the other way on the same figures?
Ah, Iain. The classic “if you don’t have children you obviously Cannot Understand and have no right to an opinion” strawman. It’s funny, you see, because they didn’t ban non-parents from voting in the referendum, nor did they report the results broken down by how many children each voter had, or had raised.
I’m at a loss to understand how disagreeing with the validity of a referendum based on a ridiculously ambiguous question means I don’t “understand how democracy works” either. I do understand how Citizens’ Initiated Referendums work in NZ, though – do you?
And yes, I would still denounce the referendum – as a total waste of time, which it was; as based on inaccurate misinformation about the current law and its enforcement, which it was; as being motivated and instigated not by “good parents” who need smacking in their “toolbox”, but people who honestly believe they have a right to use physical force against children which they would be arrested for using against other adults.
Some questions for you: do you think Barnados, Unicef, and Plunket are unqualified to discuss child welfare? Do you think the question was not ambiguous (as was agreed by both the PM and the Leader of the Opposition)? Do you think “good parents” have faced prosecution and criminal conviction for “lightly and lovingly” assaulting their children, and if so, can you please provide details, because the No Vote campaign definitely didn’t?
Qot
You certainly are very quick to jump to conclusions and to extrapolate what you think is my deeper (darker) purpose from a few simple questions aren’t you?
If I was intending to make the argument you postulate I would have done so. But I am actually in Australian and what I am trying to workout just why you are running so “hot” on this issue.
As an outsider I thought the question was quite straightforward, perhaps you would care to enunciate just what wording you think would have been better?
So you are saying that had the referendum made a ban on smacking the law that you would be campaigning vociferously against it?
Hmm I can’t say that they are any more qualified than anyone is because when it comes to raising children we all work it out as we go along.
I thought the question was simple and to the point, once again how would you have phrased it?
I have no idea about other people all I know is that I have managed to get through the last ten yeas of raising my children without having to even threaten physical punishment more than a couple of times but because frankly I don’t think it is the most effective sanction for bad behaviour. But that should be my judgement call not the government or the courts. As an Aussie I have no idea how the campaign for either side was run.
Iain, perhaps you can explain exactly why you need to know about how many children I may or may not have? Clearly you think it’s important in this debate.
The question of how the referendum should have been worded has been gone over a hell of a lot, and the issues with it, especially the “as part of good parental correction” clause, are well-documented.
The fact that you refer to the referendum “making a ban on smacking the law” definitely indicates you’ve got a bit more research to do, since Citizens’ Initiated Referendums in NZ are non-binding and don’t “make” anything the law.
“You certainly are very quick to jump to conclusions and to extrapolate what you think is my deeper (darker) purpose from a few simple questions aren’t you?”
LOL. Fail.