Sue B has a new press release on the official Party site detailing some new research into public opinions on the §59 changes. UMR research shows that more than 80% of those polled agree with the Green Party rationale for the changes- that the law should offer consistent protection from assault for children.
It also showed that there was plurality support for the law among those who understood that the changes merely removed an additional defense for assault against children, rather than changing the criminal status of those assaults.
There’s a lot more in the document, including the incredible attitude shift around the acceptability of violence against children, at the full report, which indicates that there are many other positive side-effects, such as increased awareness of non-physical discipline, compliance with our UN obligations in terms of safety and rights of children, and a dramatic downturn in support for physical discipline. (Measured by asking a pro-smacking question similar to historical surveys for comparative purposes)
Note to commentors: Please keep it civil. I know this is a heated issue. Most people have been good so far on other topics, so I hope we can keep to respectful disagreement on this one.
g.blog 
Thanks for highlighting this… I can’t believe the drama caused by trying to offer our kids the same rights as our pets.
It’s sparked a huge debate which is always a good thing. Some of the misinformation has been incredible – a lunchroom conversation brings out fears that parents will be arrested for grabbing their kids from running into traffic etc.
I see from the report that “Awareness of the law change is high, although understanding of what the law means, is lower.” We still have a way to go busting the myths.
Indeed, this has been one of the more insidious myths perpetrated by the opponents of the act- it is indeed completely legal to hold/restrain your child for their own safety.