KEY POINTS:
The anti-smacking bill looks certain to be passed by Parliament in a slightly weakened form.
The Herald has confirmed claims by the bill's sponsor, Green MP Sue Bradford, that she has enough votes to ensure it will become law.
The bill will change the Crimes Act to remove the defence of "reasonable force" that parents can invoke if charged with assaulting a child.
But the select committee that approved the bill yesterday has forced a compromise which will permit parents to use reasonable force to exercise necessary parental control.
This would include restraining a child to prevent it from harm, or from causing others harm, or to prevent it engaging in disruptive behaviour.
This may include, for example, stopping a child from running across the road, or forcibly removing one from a supermarket.
But the law will say that such force cannot be used for "corrective" purposes.
Ms Bradford said yesterday that she was disappointed at having to compromise and was worried that disputes over the interpretation of the "reasonable force" provision could create "a fiesta for lawyers".
But she added: "I understand political compromise, and I think this bill is 100 per cent better than what we have at the moment."
The Greens, Labour and the Maori Party yesterday said all their MPs would vote for the bill, as will several New Zealand First MPs.
Ms Bradford said she hoped United Future leader Peter Dunne, National MP Katherine Rich and possibly other National MPs would also vote in favour.
Ms Rich said yesterday National MPs would be required to vote against the bill for the second reading, but would be allowed a conscience vote for the third reading, when she would support it.
Fellow MP Simon Power said he had an open mind, but "was not a fan of the status quo".
The amended bill's second reading is not expected until February.
Justice and electoral select committee chairwoman Lynne Pillay said the bill wasn't designed to criminalise parents but to prevent children being thrashed.
The committee had been given strong assurances by the police that "frivolous cases", where a parent administered a light smack, would not be prosecuted.
The committee rejected a proposal by National MP Chester Borrows for a different compromise which would have defined, and allowed parents to use, limited reasonable force.
It would have allowed light smacking that did no more than cause "transitory and trifling discomfort" and did not cause bruises, welts, skin cuts or broken bones.
Mr Borrows will try to re-introduce the amendment when the bill comes back before the House.
Child advocacy groups welcomed the committee report yesterday, although they were concerned about the compromise clause.
Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she was glad the committee agreed the law had been used "to justify child abuse, with cases of parents or caregivers using riding crops or implements to punish children".
But she had serious concerns about replacing that section of the Crimes Act with the parental control clause.
"We need to repeal it, full stop," Dr Kiro said. "We don't need to substitute it with another section that still allows reasonable force under a list of still unclear circumstances that are open to interpretation."
Although the new clause banned use of force for disciplinary purposes, she believed the definition would lead to confusion and argument about what was reasonable, and this issue needed further debate.
Every Child Counts spokeswoman Deborah Morris-Travers raised similar concerns but "welcomed the efforts of MPs to reach a compromise", and Barnardos said it had supported a full repeal.
But Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said the bill should "cause parents to shiver in their boots".
"We have just heard about the right of a teenager to effectively 'divorce' their parent because they don't like the family rules, a 12-year-old being sneaked off to get contraceptives by their school and now this bill.
"Parents should be horrified by the way their authority and responsibilities are being undermined."
