If, after all the debate, it can be shown that as a consequence of the repeal of S59:
(1) parents who previously assaulted children using implements can no longer claim a defence under law, and
(2) parents who occasionally lightly smack or similarly correct their children are not being prosecuted under current law*,
can someone who wants to appeal the law clearly explain what change they are seeking?
[for the proponents of family first's campaign, it's a return to (1), but they'll never admit it directly. And why do they want it? Because their ancient book authored by men in an ignorant age says it is so].
* despite plenty of opportunity, not one example of an unfair prosecution under current law has been put forward.