KEY POINTS:
Sir Geoffrey Palmer, one of the proponents of MMP, must have been fair glowing with pride this week when he and the rest of the nation witnessed Helen Clark and John Key, side by side at a Parliamentary press conference, announcing with no small hint of smugness that they had reached a compromise over Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.
Bradford was there in the background, hovering like a nervous mother, as Clark and Key announced her sickly child would survive after all.
And somewhat incongruously, United Future's Peter Dunne made up the foursome. He looked rather like a refugee from The Simpsons who'd strayed from TV2 into the news channels. But there we go. It was a little Parliamentary love-in, and heaven knows, there are precious few of those.
All sides were claiming victory. John Key announced that Labour was adopting "his" version of the amendment, although he conceded that he had met the Prime Minister at her request and "his" amendment had been revised - by her and Palmer.
Young Labour crowed that Clark had "cut through the political flip-flopping of the opposition and produce[d] the best outcome for New Zealand". And Bradford, bless her, took the moral high ground by proclaiming that both Labour and National had put aside petty politics to support her bill and afford the children of New Zealand the protection they desperately deserved and needed.
Except of course, as we all know and this is what is so frustrating, children will still die, even when Bradford's bill is passed into law. Tiny bones will still be shattered and skulls cracked and young brains damaged.
This whole furore has been such a waste of time, money and emotion. You wouldn't believe the passion of the (mainly) men who've rung me telling me they have a God-given right to smack their child when he or she reaches for the jug cord. The reaching for the jug cord appears to be the most common transgression and it's such a dumb argument. Here's a thought. Move the jug. Make your home child-friendly so your child doesn't need to be hit because you were careless. And who has a jug with a cord these days anyway? What a load of codswallop.
But at the same time, I can understand the fury of good parents who have occasionally smacked their kids being told they're in the same category as the thugs who've murdered so many New Zealand children over the years.
I have no doubt that if Bradford could offer an assurance that with the passing of the bill, the wholesale destruction of children would cease immediately, we'd all be voting the damn thing through.
But she can't and it won't, and parents will still smack and thugs will still beat, and children will still die.
I'm sure Sue Bradford's heart is in the right place and maybe the politicians are right - a zero tolerance policy towards hitting anyone may result in a safer community for our kids.
But I doubt it. And the wording of the bill is still flabby.
What's inconsequential to you may not be inconsequential to me - personally, I think hitting your child with a wooden spoon or a strap is not OK today. However, there are plenty of erstwhile good parents who think they're doing the right thing.
Oh, it's a mess. And it's going to take a couple of test cases before we all know where we stand. What was Labour thinking in harnessing its golden three-term carriage to Sue Bradford's nag of a private member's bill?
It's going to be an uphill battle for this administration to win an historic fourth term - although if anyone can do it, Helen Clark can. By coming out so vocally in support of the anti-smacking bill, Labour's made that task so much harder.
John Key has saved Labour's butt and scored himself a few points by coming across as Mr Reasonable - and he only has to ask Peter Dunne how much voters love reasonable men.
But as we get closer to election year, he won't be quite so ready to rescue the damsels in distress on the other side of the House.
