Good or bad...everyone has an opinion.

The controversial smacking law divided a nation so fast it was incredible. On the flip side well done Sue for raising the minimum wage.

Your thoughts?

I am disgusted that she has bought about one one of the most controversial law changes this country has seen, and then leaves politics when the going gets tough. I guess I would resign too after those referendum results, and being snubbed by your party as the new potential leader.

However, I will give credit where it is due, and getting rid of the youth minimum wage was good. However she lost all popularity with me, and porobably many NZ'ers with the Anti Smacking Bill.

I think alot of NZ'ers were disgusted, not due to the fact that they weren't allowed to hit their children, but that they had their freedom taken from them.

I am a parent also and I believe in being able to do whatever I want, when I want. However, hitting your child is wrong. Looking at the parents/caregivers that have beaten their defenseless children, killed them even. I understand the why, but punishing parents for giving their child a smack on the bottom for being out of order i.e. the kid almost runs onto the road is not cool. Words hurt also and can have just as much of an impact as a smack on the hand.

She will be one of those politicians that will go down in NZ history, however not for the good she has done but she will always be remembered as the lady that took people's freedom away from them.

When ever I see someone talk about "hitting" children (as opposed to "smacking" them) it virtually negates what they have said. Of course we should not "hit" children. Using this word conveys the wrong impression.

It is just like, when this issue was first raised (IN ABOUT 2000) when the - then - minister of youth affairs, Lailla Harre, first announced that she would have a campaign to "rid the country of this dreadful S59 of the crimes act" which stated that the "use of reasonable force" was a defence. I sent a fax to her office and when I got not reply I telephoned her parliamentary office. Only to get hold of a secretary who insisted "no it's not about "smacking" or "disciplining" children at all, it's all about hitting them over the head with lumps of concrete and iron bars" - seriously these were her words.

She sounded oh so concerned and oh so patronising.

I was just about too speechless to say anything further.

I don't think that we should blame Sue Bradford for the passage of this Bill. If it wasn't for her they would have found another way to pass it.

What she is guilty of is being so incredibly stupid as to put her name to it as a "private members Bill". She must have known that that would ruin her political career.

The campaign to end S59 of the crimes act, and to take away the right to discipline your own children, has existed since at least 2001. It was first "mooted" by Lailla Harre, the then minister for youth affairs (remember the allience party?) It was later taken up by Steve Maharey with great gusto, and admitted that it was a UN demand! Helen Clark admitted that in a press release and also on several occasions that it was a UN demand, so therefore, it had to be done no matter what.

It seems that what ever the UN wants takes precedence over what NZers want.

On 5.12.2001 Steve Maharey was reported as saying "the government's consideration of the situation was in response to the 'UN convention on the rights of the child'".

He added: "Article 19 of the convention requires all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse while in the care of parents guardians or anyone else". (I think it specifically excludes governments).

He claimed that "parents and caregivers who used force were able to use the defence that the law allowed them to do so". However, when asked to provide figures of how many parents have claimed this, they were unable (or probably more accurately unwilling) to do so.

By 2003, Helen Clark had committed the country to spending 40 million on a "public education campaign" to "educate you to agree with us".

And on 14 May 2003, Steve Maharey admitted "the government has now agreed to consider changes to the legislation law on the physical punishment of children once EARLY EVALUATIONS of the public education campaign are available. At that time THE CABINET WILL DECIDE WHAT TO DO in relation to section 59 of the crimes act."

In other words "the public education campaign' is in reality just 'window dressing', and we will really make the decision and we don't care whether or not you agree with us"

So Sue Bradford was really just the vessel through which the government chose to impose this on us. If she hadn't agreed to put her name to the Bill, they would have found someone else.

I just wonder if she got her 30 pieces of silver.