KEY POINTS:
Two weeks of intense public debate, opinion polls, advertising costing thousands of dollars and protest marches around the country seem to have done nothing to shake MPs' opinions on Sue Bradford's "anti-smacking" bill.
The bill, which is going through a clause by clause debate in Parliament, last night comfortably passed its first real hurdle, the first of a series of amendments proposed by National Wanganui MP Chester Borrows, by 63-58.
When debate resumes on the bill MPs will debate Mr Borrows next amendment, which seeks to permit reasonable force, defined as a light smack with the hand with a trifling and transitory impact.
The Government now stands poised to undermine National's stalling tactics by co-opting the Green MP's private member's bill as a Government bill.
If it does, the bill is likely to become law before Easter.
Labour has faced a blizzard of negative publicity over a bill, which public opinion is increasingly linking with the Government, and is keen to see it passed as soon as possible.
Prime Minister Helen Clark and her deputy, Michael Cullen, were coy yesterday when asked whether Labour would co-opt the bill.
Helen Clark said no decision had been made yet, and the Government was "exploring all options". It is understood a final decision will be made on Monday.
Yesterday Labour also offered a sweetener to opponents of the bill, by proposing a review of its impact if it is passed.
Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope's amendment - the first proposed by a Labour MP - indicated the party was preparing the ground for assuming control of the bill. It would commission the chief executive of Mr Benson-Pope's ministry to review whether the bill was achieving its aim.
"It's not my view that we are going to see any unseen, unintended consequences, but I think it is appropriate, because there is that concern in the community, to put in place a formal report-back regime," the minister said.
The review was the idea of Labour Waimakariri MP Clayton Cosgrove, who last night admitted it took a lot of talking before he was convinced to back Ms Bradford's bill.
"I firmly believe the review after two years will reveal that people's fears about the bill will be proven to be unfounded."
Ms Bradford said Mr Benson-Pope's amendment was a sensible one and she was very happy with it. She was equally pleased that Labour had approached her to take over the bill.
"I'm delighted if they do [pick it up], because it gives it more credibility and mana in the long run, that it's a Government bill and not a private member's bill ... it's like the Government has really strongly come in behind now, they were a little bit more stand-offish earlier on."
About 250 opponents of the bill staged a noisy protest outside Parliament yesterday, heckled by 30 bill supporters.
Mr Borrows told the marchers that they represented a cross-section of society.
"Helen Clark is wanting to turn a blind eye to those 85 per cent of parents whose children are never in danger because when they discipline their children they are loving, they are caring, and they have those children's best interests at heart.
"For Helen Clark to come out today and say that this group of people here in front of me and 85 per cent of New Zealanders want to thrash and beat their children is a complete insult to every last one of them."
Last night Corrections Minister Damien O'Connor, who National have painted as one of several Labour MPs resentful at being ordered to vote for the bill, said he supported the bill.
"I cannot in all good conscience stand in this house and not support a bill that will attempt to remove a defence that has allowed, time and time again, parents to abuse children, to beat them, to stand in a court of law and say that I am allowed to do this because of section 59," he told Parliament.
"That is abhorrent, that is something that this house has to do something about. If there is any criticism, it might be that this bill does not go far enough."
Woolerton condemns own party's pressure
New Zealand First MP Doug Woolerton has condemned his party hierarchy for pressuring him not to vote for Sue Bradford's child discipline bill.
Mr Woolerton and fellow list MP Brian Donnelly support the Green list MP's private member's bill, but New Zealand First's five other MPs oppose it.
Both MPs have been warned by party president Dail Jones that they are responsible to New Zealand First's selection committee, and that they would have to apply to that board to get back on the party's list.
Peter Brown, the New Zealand First deputy leader, has tried to downplay the row, and yesterday said there was no angst within the party over Ms Bradford's bill. But a visibly angry Mr Woolerton last night staunchly defended his right to vote as he chose.
"I want to say to anybody who believes I do not have a right to speak as a list MP on a conscience issue, I want to say to anybody who would seek to demote me in a situation of a party list ... that there are good God-fearing people in New Zealand First who believe that Section 59 should be removed," Mr Woolerton said.
He told Parliament that he had opposed Ms Bradford's bill at its first reading but had been convinced to vote for it by Parentline founder Maxine Hodgson, who told him that if he did anything as an MP he had to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act.
That section, which Ms Bradford's bill seeks to replace, allows parents to use reasonable force against their children for the purpose of correction.
"This is the beginning of a very, very long road towards reducing child abuse in this country," Mr Woolerton said.
"This is about the children ... this is about the first step in a long journey to do something about a curse on our society."
Mr Jones could not be contacted for comment.
