agreed

Yes the phrase “childbeating” is an err… beatup.

But then so was the term “Anti-Smacking Bill”. That came from the well-funded fundamentalist groups who believe that they have a Divine Right to beat their children in order to instill the “Fear of God” into them. Yes I’m serious. I’ve listened to them with my own ears. But at the same time I accept that the vast majority of kiwis who have opposed the Bill are at the same time totally opposed to physically abusing children.

So why then is it so hard to understand that those of us who supported the Bill were in the main not at all interested in banning the trivial and transient smacking that some parents occasionally resort to out of either monemetary frustration or lack of a better alternative to hand?

The repeal of S59 was NEVER about most of the nonsense that has been spouted about it. It has however achieved two simple things:

1. It placed the legal questions around assault on children on pretty much exactly the same grounds as assault on adults. There was never any reason why children should have enjoyed LESS protection at law than do adults.

2. It has generated a long overdue debate over some deeply held and dysfunctional attitudes New Zealanders have around child-rearing, domestic violence. If it had done nothing else, this has made it all worthwhile.

OK, that just pegged my bullshit meter again. You don’t need to take my word for it, the links are right there upthread for all to see. You bizarre Cullen obsession is yours and yours alone. I think you saw his photo in The Herald piece and just switched off your brain. Then you then ignored several direct statements that Cullen had nothing to do with it. Sorry HS, this is not your best work.

as an aside in relation to your wittering about Richardson – remember why that budget was necessary

Nice cut and paste plagiarism HS, that’s really putting the thought in. Yes, the incoming National government inherited a financial mess (though a much smaller one than the incoming Labour government before it in 1984). It was a mess created by the right wing extremists who went on to found ACT. Hurrah for right wing economic theory! And yes, bizarrely, that happened under the flag of a Labour government.

A budgetary response was certainly required. But it didn’t have to be a sustained attack on the poor. Richardson could have raised taxes instead. She didn’t. The National government made a conscious effort to have the poorest members of society carry the can for failed right wing economic policy. This lead to increased poverty and child poverty in during the 1990s in NZ. Despite your delusional rearguard actions HS, the history of this period has already been written.

Helen Clark as deputy Prime Minister and Labour’s key strategist at the 1990 election helped perpetrate the big lie of that campaign.
In 1990, New Zealand was teetering towards economic recession. But the Labour Cabinet kept claiming right up to election day that the Government’s accounts were in surplus.
National Prime Minister Jim Bolger’s plans for a decent society were scuppered when he was confronted by officials just one day after the election with news of a serious fiscal crisis that they had kept secret under Labour’s orders.
The Bank of New Zealand was about to go belly-up, something senior Labour ministers had known about for weeks, and the Treasury was forecasting a $3.7 billion deficit for the 1991/92 year which would blow out to a $5.2 billion deficit by 1993/94 unless drastic actions were taken.
Bolger’s Cabinet had to cut costs to avert a major credit rating downgrade for New Zealand.
These are the conditions that led to the mother of all budgets

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you go to such lengths as persistently blaming Michael Cullen when it was repeatedly explained to you that he had nothing to do with the material cited. Why are you so desperate to avoid truth? Is it because you couldn’t bring yourself to vote for National if you acknowledged it?

As a medical professional you must know first hand the long lasting health effects of child poverty (especially via maternal / prenatal / childhood nutrition). You are also presumably trained to evaluate facts. Perhaps you should take off your blinkers long enough to do so.

This is my final contribution to a discussion that has gone on much too long. Farewell.

Well you’d better tell The Herald (which was who I was quoting). And you’d better tell Save The Children, because they seem pretty concerned.

if you’re talking about the indicator of child income poverty in isolation I would suggest that this is a little misleading as

First it was a plot by Michael Cullen. Now the stats don’t mean what they mean. Heaven forbid that HS is simply wrong.

why not quote the deprivation index wherein NZ lies towards the middle or better of the field or medical deprivation etc etc

Ask The Herald. Ask Save The Children.

My point being as I said before it would be worthwhile

So you did, and then you tried to blame it all on Michael Cullen.

Ruth Richardson is not running for parliament.

Which has nothing to do with the legacy of child poverty that her government left New Zealand.