This summarizes as follows:

“There appears to be general agreement that a parent has the right to apply force to a child (with or without the child’s consent) when it is necessary to protect the child, to protect others (such as a younger sibling), and to teach a child social values and behavioural limits.”

“Neither the exercise of prosecutorial discretion nor the common law defences of necessity and de minimis would be adequate to protect parents who were carrying out their duties.”

“the requirement of the rule of law suggests that the criminal liability of a parent who touches a child for a proper purpose should not depend on the vagaries of prosecutorial discretion (removal of objective tests) or on criminal law excuses (de minimis).”

The research can be read here. Our full response is in the PDF below