A poll out today shows most people still oppose legislation that made physical discipline against children a criminal offence.
A postal referendum on the issue is to be held next year.
Following cases where parents hit their children with whips and pieces of wood but escaped conviction, Green MP Sue Bradford sponsored legislation restricting parents' right to use force to punish children which has been dubbed "anti-smacking legislation".
Under the law parents were only allowed to use "reasonable force" to prevent children harming themselves or others, not for discipline.
After a compromise with National, a proviso was inserted that the police had discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent if they considered the offence to be inconsequential.
However, opponents say the legislation outlaws smacking of any sort and was state interference in family life.
The poll of 600 people in the New Zealand Herald today asked "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
The noes were 86 percent, with only 9 percent in support and 5 percent unsure.
However, when asked if respondents agreed with the law, 34 percent said yes, 50 percent said no, and 16 percent said the situation was better than before or OK in part.
Family First said the poll was proof that the law was fundamentally wrong and should be changed.
However Ms Bradford said the results showed confusion.
"While this survey shows that many of the people polled believe `a smack should not be a criminal offence', the question fails to recognise that smacking has never been a criminal offence, and still isn't," she said.
"Last year's amendment simply removed a defence of `reasonable force' for the purpose of correction which allowed some parents to get away with assaulting their children.
"This then meant that police often didn't take prosecutions when they perceived the reasonable force defence could be used."
Ms Bradford said the law, which was supported by 113 MPs across Parliament, gave children the same legal protection as adults.
There had been very few prosecutions.
Family First director Bob McCoskrie said good parents were targeted by the law.
"Appropriate smacking for the purpose of correcting, training and teaching should never be a crime, exposing parents to possible police investigation and CYF intervention," he said.
"The law is fundamentally flawed because it fails to deal with the problem it was supposed to -- child abuse -- and implicates law-abiding parents in the process."
