This election brings renewed interest in the anti-smacking bill as NZ First leader Winston Peters stands by a non-negotiable referendum.
NZ First said in 2014 they would not enter any coalition or confidence and supply agreement with a party that refused a referendum.
In a speech in Northland earlier this year Peters affirmed that statement and said they would repeal the law as it had not worked, had seen greater violence towards children and attacked good parents.
Both National and Labour said they would not consider a referendum on the anti-smacking law as part of any coalition arrangement with NZ First.
The Green Party agreed. Social issues spokeswoman Jan Logie said the party didn't support referendums on human rights issues as "children and their rights shouldn't be decided by a majority vote".
The University of Auckland's Growing Up in New Zealand study found one in 10 parents said they frequently smacked their children for misbehaving. And only two-thirds of mums reported that they never used physical punishment.
The law was introduced to the New Zealand Parliament as a private member's bill by Green Party MP Sue Bradford in 2005, after being drawn from the ballot.
The bill was passed on its third reading in 2007 by 113 votes to eight and the law came into effect on June 21.
It removed the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents prosecuted for assault on their children.
Just over 87 per cent of people voted no to the 2009 referendum question "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" But only a little over half the country turned out to vote.
The result was non-binding and the Government did not change the law in response to the outcome.
Inquiry into abuse in state care
Thousands of Kiwis who were abused in state care have pushed for a public inquiry and apology this year.
The sufferers banded together with the Human Rights Commission to present an open letter to Parliament on June 6. A petition titled "Never Again" has almost 12,000 signatures.
Every party has expressed their support for the inquiry except National.
Prime Minister Bill English virtually ruled out an inquiry in February when he said he prioritised the care of current state children and ensuring that abuse did not happen again over an inquiry into past abuse.
A National spokesperson said the confidential listening service, for people to speak of the abuse they had suffered, provided more help than an inquiry would. It ran from 2008 to 2015.
Labour leader Jacinda Ardern has previously urged the Government to heed the "growing chorus of leading opinion" calling for an apology and an independent inquiry.
"Labour has long committed to issuing a public apology when we are in Government. We must acknowledge publicly the mistreatment of so many young children in state care. There should be an independent inquiry; their voices need to be heard."
The Green Party and NZ First back the call for an inquiry.
Between the 1950s and 1990s more than 100,000 children and vulnerable adults were taken from their families and placed in either children's homes or mental health institutions.
While there, some suffered sexual, physical and psychological abuse. It's impossible to estimate the extent of the abuse, because it has never been subject to a full public investigation.
Although the Government has so far paid out $17 million on a case-by-case basis, apologising directly to 900 victims.
The background to the inquiry started in 2001 when the Government issued an apology and compensation to a group of former patients of the former Lake Alice psychiatric hospital. A report by a retired judge had interviewed them and found their claims credible.
The issue then spread to former patients of other asylums and the Government set up the listening service.
The head of that service, Judge Carolyn Henwood, recommended creating an independent body to resolve historic and current complaints.
But last year the Government rejected that recommendation.
Euthanasia
The euthanasia debate is heating up with another punt at legalising voluntary death set for later this year.
Act leader David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill was pulled from the ballot in June after lying dormant in the House's infamous biscuit tin since 2015.
Euthanasia would be a conscience vote - MPs would vote individually, rather than along party lines.
Speaking after his private member's bill was selected, Seymour said 40 MPs had indicated they would support it, while 27 said they would oppose it. Another 50 had said they were undecided.
He needs 61 votes for a majority at the first reading.
English, a practising Catholic, previously said he is firmly against legalising euthanasia.
NZ First wants whatever Kiwis want. The party said they would pay close attention to public submissions and call for a referendum after informed debate.
Labour leader Jacinda Ardern supported the idea of giving Kiwis choice but wanted protections put in legislation to safeguard vulnerable people.
The Green Party has similar ideas to Labour, backed by their Medically-Assisted Dying policy. It does not support extending assisted dying to people who aren't terminally ill because the party is not confident that this won't further marginalise the lives of people with disabilities.
A similar bill put forward by NZ First MP Peter Brown in 2003 was narrowly defeated, 60-57.
The current bill would allow mentally competent New Zealand adults who have either a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months or a grievous and irremediable medical condition, the choice to ask a doctor to help end their life at the time of their choosing.
The Director-General of Health would establish a group of medical practitioners who would maintain a register of health professionals willing to participate in assisted dying.
Two medical practitioners would be required to be satisfied a person met the criteria.
Early last year, former Prime Minister John Key announced a parliamentary inquiry into euthanasia, by the health select committee.
The committee received 21,533 submissions on the issue for their report released in August, indicating intense public interest. Most of the submissions were opposed to changing the law.
Committee chairman Simon O'Connor said the report did not make any formal recommendations to the Government about whether euthanasia should be legalised. It instead gave a summary of the arguments for and against assisted dying.
