Parliament has passed Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill through its second reading.
MPs voted 70 to 51 in favour of the bill. It would repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which gives parents a defence of "reasonable force" when disciplining a child.
Under the changes parents would only be able to use reasonable force to prevent children harming themselves or someone else, or to stop them from being disruptive or committing a criminal offence.
Labour, the Greens, the Maori Party and the Progressives all voted in favour of progressing the legislation. National's vote was spilt, with 42 against and six for.
Two United Future MPs voted against the bill, one voted in favour.
ACT's two MPs voted against, as did independent MP Taito Phillip Field.
MPs will debate whether to pass the bill into law in a few
weeks.
But National MP Chester Borrows has the chance of scuppering the
bill.
Borrows has put up an amendment to the bill, defining reasonable
force. He says it is unfair that police will need to decide
whether a light smack warrants an arrest.
Borrows says it is a dangerous concept and most parents do not want
it. He says his amendment would limit, rather than abolish, the use
of reasonable force in disciplining children which he says is
commonsense.
Bradford threatened
The question of whether smacking a child is discipline or abuse is one of the most highly charged parenting debates of our times.
The debate turned nasty on Wednesday with threats of physical violence being made against Bradford.
She has been targeted on the controversial Cyfswatch website by people who are upset over her bill.
One person says they want to punch her in the face and that she is a worthy candidate for New Zealand's first political assassination.
There is also a request for the MP's residential address.
Bradford is distressed at the threats, saying the smacking debate has obviously turned very nasty. She says the threats are indicative of some of the people who are campaigning against her.
"I don't know if you've seen the Cyfswatch site which I've just seen, which details a graphic physical assault on me and asks people to send in my home address," she says.
Bradford says it is disgraceful a member of parliament can be treated this way. She says some of the people who are defending a parent's right to hit their children are quite fanatical. She says the threats against her are a manifestation of that.
A vocal critic of the anti-smacking bill is also condemning the threats to harm the Green MP.
Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie says the smacking debate does not warrant personal threats against people with opposing views. He says he understands the frustration some people are feeling, but says the maturity of a country is shown through its ability to debate issues and find solutions, without resorting to threats
Bradford has taken her concerns to parliament's police and security.
Police say they are aware of the comments and are keeping a watch on the situation, but say the threats are difficult to act upon as they are anonymous.
Diplomatic Protection Squad head Inspector Bruce Blaney says if the comments break the law, police will prosecute. But he says finding the culprits is often impossible.
Mixed views
Plunket members converged there on Wednesday to show their support for the legislation.
Plunket president Kaye Crowther says it has taken a decade of campaigning to get the bill this far. She says the recent UNICEF report criticising the way New Zealand caregivers look after their children highlights the need for the legislation.
But some parents are speaking out against it, saying it is a bad law which will make criminals out of good parents.
"I would smack my children about once a month," says broadcaster
Simon Barnett. "My two biggest girls, 13 and 11, I never smack. But
the little ones, if they touch a power point I'll give them a tap
on the hand and say 'don't do that darling, it's dangerous.'"
The Pacific Island community is divided on how the anti-smacking
legislation will affect them.
Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua says some Pacific Islanders feel physical punishment is at the core of their culture. He supports the bill, but is concerned that it will make corporal punishment in the home invisible to the authorities.
The ban also has implications for religious groups.
Meanwhile, an open letter was delivered to MPs on Tuesday urging them to vote against the bill.
The letter was signed by more than 1,200 parents and professionals saying the removal of section 59 from the Crimes Act will turn parents into criminals.
Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie says parents must be able to discipline their children. "We parents know that smacking does work."
But he is also condemning the threats to harm Bradford.
McCoskrie says the current smacking debate does not warrant personal threats against people with opposing views.
He says he understands the frustration being felt by some, but the maturity of a country is shown through its ability to debate issues and find solutions, without resorting to threats.
