KEY POINTS:
The Government is relying on child welfare groups such as Plunket and Barnardos to convince the public of the merits of Green MP Sue Bradford's so-called "anti smacking" bill.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Helen Clark ruled out the government taking over the private member's bill, saying it "just has
to take its course".
Labour had been widely expected to adopt the bill as its own to push through the controversial legislation, which if passed would stop parents using the defence of "reasonable force" to defend a charge of assaulting a child.
Labour strongly supports the bill, but has been daunted by polling numbers that show overwhelming public opposition to a measure many feel would intrude on parents' ability to discipline a child as they see fit. Labour will not drop its support for the bill, which is destined to be passed thanks to the support of the Maori Party and two New Zealand First MPs.
However, yesterday's announcement means the final vote could be months away, with debate not scheduled to resume until May and delaying tactics from opponents of the law change likely to postpone the bill's passage until June or July.
The bill has been a public relations nightmare for Labour, which has found itself inextricably linked with the proposal and suffering a political backlash as a consequence.
Sources said the Prime Minister had decided Labour's best option was to tough out opposition to the bill, inside and outside Parliament.
Yesterday, Helen Clark dropped a heavy hint to child welfare organisations, which have been strong supporters of Ms Bradford's bill, to consider a public relations offensive to combat the strong and well-financed campaign of the bill's opponents.
"What we've seen in the last couple of weeks is the very substantial organisations in our community like Plunket, Barnardos, Save the Children and many others, who have decades of service to children in New Zealand, come out strongly in support of the bill. I think some other voices are starting to be heard and that's a good thing," she said.
"There's not really a prospect of actually completing the bill this week. Whether it became a government bill or status quo as a member's bill, it would be debated in May, so there was really no reason to change the way in which the bill is being handled.
"In the intervening period I'm sure that the organisations that have been really shocked by some of the campaign against the bill will have a chance to have their voice heard."
Barnardos chief executive Murray Edridge said his organisation and the Prime Minister had a common interest in seeing the legislation passed.
Plans were already under way for his and other groups to get out into the community to explain the bill and its consequences, he said.
Barnardos was concerned about the abusive and vitriolic level of debate and wanted people to "take a deep breath" and think more deeply about issues raised by the bill.
"It is a highly contentious and emotive issue and there is an awful lot of misinformation and hysteria around the outcome of the bill," Mr Edridge said.
"We will continue to push for greater understanding about the bill."
Ms Bradford said she accepted the Government's decision and was not surprised, given the controversy.
"It would be very unlikely we would finish the bill before Easter, even if the Government did take it over. My main regret about the fact that the bill is very likely to take us through until June now, is that it means the opponents of the bill will have even longer to spread their misinformation around the countryside, which is alarming people unnecessarily."
Yesterday, United Future MP Gordon Copeland announced he would be lodging an amendment to the bill to clarify that parents could pick up a child and place it in "time-out".
Ms Bradford said she had not studied the proposed amendment closely, but said the select committee that considered the bill had included an amendment to cover time-out.
