The Children's Commissioner disagrees with the UN
A key focus of the Office of the Children's Commissioner is to advocate for Children’s Rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child upon the principle of the "best interests of the child".
Cindy Kiro should read this UN document out this month which explains the United Nation's approach to physical discipline. Kiro believes all forms of physical discipline constitute violence and abuse and should be outlawed, with perpetrators charged and convicted if the police so choose.
The problem for her is that the UN Commitees don't. The UN does not believe all parents who lightly physically dicipline their kids should be charged or convicted for assault.
Dr Kiro supported Sue Bradfords bill to repeal section 59 from the Crimes Act without amendment, which means she is happy for police to uphold the law and convict parents for light smacking. If she is not, then her submission to the select committee is flawed and illogical - PhD or no PhD.
But the bill as drafted actually breaches the interpretation of the United Nations Committee overseeing the Convention of the Rights of the Child because it allows for parents to be criminalised for administering light smacking.
According to the United Nations, it is not in the best interests of the child for their parents to have the potential to be prosecuted for lightly disciplining children. In addition, the UN states that removal of a child (such as in cases like the riding crop case) should only proceed when it is "necessary to protect the child from significant harm, and the childs views should be given weight"
And if this is disregarded, Cindi Kiro should step in.
She has never done so in any case where children have been taken away without determining a test of "significant harm". Kiro should either come clean with the truth or chuck her job in if she refuses to adhere to her UN masters.