I don't support the bill
Well after yesterdays post when I said I support the amendment to the smacking bill, some would automatically think I support the bill.
I don't. That's because the purpose of the bill is still to remove force and makes smacking technically against the law,as opposed to technically within the law as we have now. This is despite the intent of Parliament to make what is illegal lawful within the legal framework via the courts. But given that the bill would have passed anyway, and as I mentioned yesterday, due to Labour's politicking, there are only two politically options options other than what was on the table yesterday morning, I supported the amendment as the other option was not politically achievable and neither was any other sensible option.
The bill is better with the amendment than without it. Although I don't support the bill, I do think it is better than what we had in the weekend. But not much. However, you can be sure that if an inconsequential smacking case comes before the courts, going against the intent of Parliament, the Borrows amendment will be introduced after the election, and if that person is unnecessarily convicted, Key will announce this move before the election.
NB: Just a clarification: when I said support the smacking amendment, I meant I support the amendment going through Parliament. There are some bills I have supported their passage through the House where I have disagreed with some clauses,and this amendment is no different. I don't like it 100%. the Burrows amendment was much better. There.