KEY POINTS:
Green MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill is poised to pass another parliamentary stage tonight - but it will then run into a determined rearguard action to preserve parents' ability to use physical force to discipline their children.
Until yesterday Ms Bradford had believed the vote would be too
close to call, as many parties allowed MPs a conscience vote on the issue.
But yesterday Labour said all 49 of its votes would be in favour of the bill, and United Future leader Peter Dunne also said he would support it.
Six Green MPs, six National MPs, four Maori Party MPs, three New Zealand First MPs and Progressives leader Jim Anderton are also expected to support the bill, giving it a comfortable majority.
But several MPs said their "yes" votes would be cast only so they could then support an amendment proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, which would limit rather than abolish a parent's right to use reasonable force.
Ms Bradford said Mr Borrows' amendment was dangerous as it sought to define reasonable force, and she did not believe any force was reasonable.
"Even if we win the vote, the battle won't be over," she said.
"There will still be a very intense debate during the committee stages, so I'm not counting on victory until we get through the third reading."
Mr Borrows said he and colleagues Katherine Rich, Simon Power, Jackie Blue, Paula Bennett and Paul Hutchison would vote for Ms Bradford's bill today.
All 48 National MPs supported his amendments, he said.
"The wording I have used is straight out of common law and so it is already in the legal realm and legal people know what it means.
"It's fairly easy to explain to parents. At the moment it's easy to injure your children and hide behind section 59, so my amendment takes that away.
"The main thing is it doesn't criminalise parents for smacking their children now and again."
The Family First lobby group yesterday presented an open letter to Parliament, signed by more than 1200 people, urging MPs not to vote for Ms Bradford's bill.
Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie called Ms Bradford's proposals a home invasion bill.
"Parents want to parent within the law," he said. "They don't want to be looking over their shoulder worried about the fact that somebody is going to come along and say, 'You can't smack your child. No matter what they've done you can't smack them, and we're going to have you prosecuted'."
Ms Bradford said Family First's letter was the latest step in a campaign of hysteria, fear and disinformation.
"They have been creating fear in the minds of ordinary parents and it is quite unnecessary."
Unicef statistics which last week rated New Zealand behind other industrialised countries in several child welfare areas have added fuel to what is expected to be a fiery debate.
"What was significant about the Unicef report, I think, was that it said that New Zealand has a really shocking record in our attitude to babies and children," Ms Bradford said.
"We see them as worth less than adults, and to me the fact that we have a law on our books which makes it legal in some cases for people to assault children and babies when it's illegal to have any assault on adults is part of that culture.
"All my bill can do is start to change that culture."
THE DETAILS
The Bradford bill
Abolishes section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct their child. The bill was amended last year to allow parents to restrain children to prevent them harming themselves or someone else, to stop them being disruptive, or to stop them committing a criminal offence.
The Borrows amendments
National MP Chester Borrows wants to alter what constitutes "reasonable force". He wants to ban cruel or degrading treatment of children as well as harm which is "more than transitory and trifling " - anything more serious than a sting or redness from a smack which disappears after a few minutes.
