All over effectively
March 29th, 2007 at 7:10 am by David FarrarParliament voted down the Borrows amendment 63-58 last night. This is a real shame as I think it was a imminently sensible compromise which achieved everything Sue Bradford claimed she wanted her bill to achieve, without having the uncertainty over smacking.
Those in favour were:
Labour 49
Greens 6
Maori 4
Progressive 1
Peter Dunne, Brian Donnelly, Doug Woolerton 3
Against:
National 48
NZ First 5 (of 7)
United Future 2 (of 3)
ACT 2
Field 1
The bill will pass its third reading comfortably, by at least the same margin but probably more. They did not complete Committee stage though so it seems likely the Government will officially adopt the bill on Monday and pass it next week. They have also added in a clause to have David Benson Pope’s Ministry review the law in two years. This means nothing – his Ministry has been reported as threatening to sack any staff member who didn’t support the bill, so the chance of their review being anything other than a glowing endorsement is zero.
No tag for this post.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
“his Ministry has been reported as threatening to sack any staff member who didn’t support the bill”
I’ve been hearing this rumour all over this blog, could you back that up or withdraw it?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
On what authority are you asking for a withdrawal sonic? You are probably the one person who lies outright on this blog. snivel off somewhere else.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Oh gosh Vanzylnz – this is YOUR blog? I had no idea.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
A bit like the review of MMP I suppose.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
no you are quite correct, I am out of line , i got rilled by some-one who trades in lies, jumping up and down about rumours. My apology to david, however my opinion of sonic stands.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Sonic – it was widely reported some months ago. Two social workers at a training session said they did not support Section 59 repeal. The other social workesr, including their superiors, were horrified that they could hold such a view, and said they could not be social workers if that was their view.
CYFS does not allow a dissenting view internally on this issue. The review is stolen from the pages of Yes Minister quite literally as a meaningless placating device.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
How bloody awful
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Thats slightly different from threatening to sack any staff member who didn’t support the bill, but thanks for the clarification.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
The snake sonic strikes with lightening speed “ I’ve been hearing this rumour all over this blog, could you back that up or withdraw it? “
Just for the record Judith. I have many social workers and cops tell me that they’re against anti-smacking saga and this is an over the top piece of legislation.Hopefully it will topple your utopian government for once and all as the people have spoken, time for a brand new game plan. For the children best interests we need to start caring about protecting and encouraging responsible parenting skills, as we are sick and tired of the most family unfriendly government we have had in this once proud nation. May I humbly suggest that this social engineering has become the last straw for the parents of New Zealand?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
“Thats slightly different from threatening to sack any staff member who didn’t support the bill, but thanks for the clarification.”
If your boss says you can’t be a ‘insert job description here’ if you hold ‘insert opinion here’ optinion.
That is an overt threat relating to continued employment.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Problems at the Beehive sonic , oh gosh my dear -lol .
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
“…May I humbly suggest that this social engineering has become the last straw for the parents of New Zealand?”
You may, but given you are clearly barking mad you are almost certainly wrong.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I agree that a labour led review will be academic in any instance and if left up to the Department will amount to nothing. A real Claytons move.
But – Labour will no longer be the government. I fully expect National to form the Government from 2008 and if National want to get another boost in support, my view is that they should promise to introduce the Chester Burrows amendment at the earliest opportunity.
I cannot understand why National has not yet done this. (I still believe it can be a conscience issue across the house and without the nasty vile one dictating her conscience across the Labour lickspittle.)
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Hi Tom hows things on Trade Me opinion nowdays ?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I would agree DPF. It appears that the left will win a victory over the people of this country and the Bradford ammendment will proceed. My question to the bloggers here is why is HC and co so keen to get this out of the way? Why was there an attempt to take urgency and now this adoption of the bill by the government so it can be passed quicker? Answers such as:” We just want to get it out of the way” won’t be accepted either.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Only one problem Peter, if anyone got sacked for a political opinion they would win a unfair dismissal hearing, easily.
You cannot sack anyone for their political views, that is why I found that story hard to believe.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
A year or two ago I made a decision, and told a number of people, that I would never, ever vote Labour again in my life.
I have voted for Labour (and a number of other parties) in the past.
I suppose that I might have to reconsider that view if I were faced by a situation where no other party was worthy of a vote, and Labour had changed significantly from their current form. But the chances of that happening seem so remote as to be negligible. It would take something huge for me to break my word on this subject.
I have seen and heard quite a number of people saying the same thing over the S59 issue.
The question in my mind is whether these people are any less true to their word than I am?
I don’t think there is anthing that makes me significantly better than anyone else. So I guess the reasonable conclusion is that the people I am hearing are every bit as serious about keeping their promises as I am.
I think that Labour has pushed the boundaries of people’s support.
This is not unusual. National did something similar with the driving license issue, which did cost it votes. Many National voters stayed away for 2 elections.
I don’t remember hearing many people say they would never vote National again.
That is the big difference between then and now.
Sure it may be 20 months to the next election. But is it reasonable to assume that someone who says they will never vote Labour again will have forgotten that so soon?
I don’t think so.
I guess I posted this because I am interested in hearing people’s opinion on why Labour’s actions are or are not going to lose them the next election.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“You may, but given you are clearly barking mad you are almost certainly wrong.”
Thanks TomS – That was my first belly laugh of the day.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Long way to go until the next election Peter. Lots of the same sort of talkwas heard around the civil union bill, then people wake up the day after it happens and the sky has not fallen.
It’ll come down to the economy (as usual)
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Sonic,
“You cannot sack anyone for their political views, that is why I found that story hard to believe.”
I can fully understand your position on this. If you remember, when d4j raised this I asked him where he had got the information from because I too struggled to believe it.
There is a difference, though in actually sacking someone and what is being done. It is a form of intimidation bordering on a threat of constructive dismissal.
It would never stand up in court if it were taken through to its conclusion. But I doubt if there were any intent to pursue it that far. It was done in a way to intimidate by suggestion rather than by action.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Sonic; I thought this was a conscience vote – I am suggesting that state funded people understood (public servants) that they would face disciplinary action if they attended gatherings. Some people that work for government agencies do have consciences, you know. I would hate to think that my boss told me if I went to vent my frustration over a political issue I would face disciplinary action. I was just wondering about the office rumour about offending public servants – would they be smacked on the bottom if they attend?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Oh Please let this Bill pass Then we will have the joy of reminding the citizens in 08 And with it all the cases that the Police will have prosecuted especially those of the (cough cough) ethic minorities resulting in the race card being played.Lovely jubbly.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
“they would face disciplinary action if they attended gatherings”
Again D4J that is totally against the various employment acts.
Perhaps they just told you that to get some peace?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
So, if it comes down to the economy, will the fact that houses are the least affordable they have been since 1989 (about 1 year before Labour were last turfed out on their ear for 3 terms) have a bearing?
In 1999 the economy was pretty good from my memory of my financial situation, it was National party arrogance that tipped the balance of my vote against them.
With the CU bill I did not hear the sheer number of people saying about never voting Labour again.
This bill affects, and ticks off more people. Considering the narrow margin that Labour got in by, it would not take more than a couple of % swing to make them fail to achieve largest party status.
I’d suggest its a big call to disregard the effects of social policy agendas.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Hi pj how many public servants in Wellington again? I can’t remember off hand again? eh boy , that’s why we got a thousand odd at the gathering in Christchurch yesterday in the rain.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
“will the fact that houses are the least affordable they have been since 1989 (about 1 year before Labour were last turfed out on their ear for 3 terms) have a bearing?”
Conversely those that own homes now have a far more valuable asset than they did in 89, so that cuts both ways.
I’d not disregard the social issues vote, I’m certainly not an economic reductionist when it comes to politics, however it is usually the deciding (though not only) factor.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
David, I think you should reread the Herald article. The critical Borrows amendment has not been voted on yet.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Sonic – “Perhaps they just told you that to get some peace?” Good one lol.
I am always empathic to the children and parental common sense needs.Pity the government wasn’t .
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Still think that the Labourm Greens, Maori Party block looks stromger than the National NZ first, UF block. The Bill won’t change this.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Translate please pj
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Fair enough D4J:
Still think that the Labour, Greens, Maori Party block looks stronger than the National, NZ first, UF block. This Bill won’t change this.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Gong back to the question of civil servants being against the bill it seems logical to me that if about 85% of the country is against this bill that some of them will be working in Scoial Welfare and other similar Government Departments.
They are just not allowed to speak out.
Watch out for `hate speech’ legislation next.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Sonic,
“Conversely those that own homes now have a far more valuable asset than they did in 89, so that cuts both ways.”
Since the calculation was based upon affordability (% of income), is the asset actually any more valuable? I’m not sure. Do you have any info on what the % of Labour voters are home owners as opposed to home renters?
Just asking because, from the look of things it could be argued that the ones who have benefited the most from the rise are less likely to be Labour voters anyway.
pj,
You have a point at present, certainly. The question is, since minor parties have a history of gaining votes from major ones in the run up to an election, who UF & NZ1 are likely to take votes from (my pick is dissatisfied Labour voters).
Also, if National got the biggest block of votes, would the Maori party be most likely to go with the big block, or form a coalition with Labour to gain an overall majority?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Peter, the Maori party is playing it cool of course, but if they went with National their voters would disown them.
Is not going to happen.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
on current polling labour are constantly slipping and are generally below 40% and usually around 36-38%. Add the greens at 7%. And the left is about 45 %
National are polling constantly at 45%, plus Act (up to 2%) add UF (another 2%) and assume winston will not be there.
Maori Party holds balance of power. Anderton will hang up his cloth cap – if it is evident he is going to spend time in opposition.
Then think about this – Labour are most likely to drop off support. Either their supporters will not turn up (because of the election fraud / Phillip Field corruption / and anti-smacking ) or may instead support a minor party to “keep National Honest”
Also I think the Greens support may taper off somewhat – over the past three elections their support has dropped each election and the Bradford interference will lose them a little support as well.
Not to say it is impossible but labour have a very steep mountain to climb – fighting everything from their fraud and corruption to third term paralysis and the “they have had enough of a chance” syndrome.
My guess is that the next poll out will open up to a 23 point lead between National and Labour.
The minor party’s will scrap it out for the balance of support being about 15%.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Peter you ignore the fact that this may be as good as it gets for the Nats. Midterm governments always suffer a slide in support, only to pick back up as the election nears. To stand a chance Key needs a big lead before the pre-election period begins.
He is running out of time to establish it.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“I was just wondering about the office rumour about offending public servants – would they be smacked on the bottom if they attend?”
If I recall correctly (and by all means, someone correct me if I err) the public service code of conduct asks that senior public servants refrain from overt & public political behaviour such as protests, or at least declare your intention to march with your manager.
However, less senior public servants, they couldn’t really care less about.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
peter mck,
Like the election before last, only in reverse?
Similar to my opinion.
I’m not writing NZ First off yet either. I wonder if the cozying to the Greens by Labour is a measure to counter the inevitable pre-election distancing between NZ1, UF & Labour as the the minor parties try to foster votes. Winston is a supreme opportunist, and, if he sees the opportunity to jump 10% in the polls he will take it like a shot.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Peter,
you forget perhaps that labour was trailing National by the same amount in early 2005, and the election is hitory.
“National are polling constantly at 45%, plus Act (up to 2%) add UF (another 2%) and assume winston will not be there.”
here’s the TV3 TNS poll from February
Lab – 44%
Vote:Nat – 41%
Grn – 8%
NZF – 2.8%
Act – 0.8%
UF – 0.8%
MP – 2.0%
March 29th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Sonic
Take off your blinkers and your eye patch – Key is substantially ahead of Labour at the present time (two latest polls had the gap at about 10% points.)
Labour has run out of ideas – they are running a lame duck government. Key continues to be popular and certainly one indicator being preferred PM is showing he is almost tied with Helen – not too bad for an opposition Leader.
For 18 months Labour has lurched from crisis to crisis and the latest is only a continuation of that. The only thing I am wondering is what the next failure of Labour is.
I rejoice when I meet 17 / 18 year olds who are finishing school who express their hate of nanny Government and are politically aware enough to understand the restrictions of socialism, high taxes, massive surpluses, benefits of tax cuts, and how they think John Key is a good bloke.
Of course I point out to them the corruption, lies and fraud that Labour has fed the sheeple such as yourself for the past 8 years.
I think much as National continued to slip in its third term leading up to the election in 1999, labour are also now being killed by the death of a thousand cuts. They are getting to the point where nothing will be able to save them, and then watch rats like Winston jump the sinking ship in a vain effort to save himself from political death.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
It will be interesting to see the review. Lets guess, its going to endorse the bill. If Labour really does want a proper review, instead of a waste of taxpayers money in a congratuary endorsement, why not have an independent review, with public submissions.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
PJ – why id the TV3 poll always so out of sorts with the other polls that are conducted – they have never shown National ahead – and I beleive they are generally the most inaccurate.
I think they must poll in to residential addresses in south Auckland during the day when only parasites are at home watching TV and eating unhealthy food all paid for by hard working tories such as myself.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Don’t you find that people who use words like “sheeple” are always the ones you avoid talking to in the pub?
“My guess is that the next poll out will open up to a 23 point lead between National and Labour.”
Lets see.
x
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“hard working tories”
Now that is funny!
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I puzzled about all the fuss over the swimming coach in Australia. He only gave his daughter a smack. Most of us would agree with his actions
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
> Don’t you find that people who use words like “sheeple” are always the ones you avoid talking to in the pub?
You go to the pub? I doubt it.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
As far as I am concerned we no longer live in a democracy. The politicians only believe that it is a democracy when they want votes, once they take power they revert to fascism.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Ross we don’t let snakes in the door at my watering hole . poor sonic having another bad day , oh dear !
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I would suggest national is not saying it will introduce the amendment if it were to win the next election to avoid looking stupid when the repeal of S59 turns out to be a great success, as many other changes to social laws have been in the past after being strongly opposed prior. eg homosexual law reform
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Sheeple is a word picked up from Lindsay Perigo – and I love it – refers to classic labour voter who are incapable of understanding why they vote for such a bunch of corrupt lying thieves.
I of course would not bother talking to sheeple (socialist labour voters) at the Pub because my time is too precious. I do admit that one of my best friends is a labour voter – but I excuse firemen – they are not the smartest people around and not having to work (but rather sit around eating scones all day) they have plenty of time to get indoctrinated by the Union.
Fortunately even the “fireman” is now getting so sick of this corrupt bunch of interfering socialists that he has woken up and tells me he will now vote Act at the next election. But it has taken effort over eight years for me to show him the stupidity of his ways. – The effort has been worth it.
By the way I meant national will open up a solid 13% point lead over labour at the next poll – not the 23% I accidentally typed in.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
For what it is worth an acquaintance of mine who has for many years proudly proclaimed himself as a Labour voting farmer (hard to do in the Far North) exclaimed to all and sundry at the Golf Club today that this was the final straw and from here on in Labour has lost his vote forever because of this piece of social engineering.
Maybe not a vote for National but certainly minus one for Labour.
How many times will that repeat itself throughout NZ? Sonic … think you should be very, very, very afraid.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
pj,
National scraped in for a 3rd term proped up by NZ1.
Using your logic and the polls prior to both that election and the 1999 one, a National 4th term would have been a reasonable prediction.
Considering the furore over the last month, how accurate a reflection of current voter position is a poll that was taken in late January/Early February, at a stage when this legislation looked unlikely to pass?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
“As far as I am concerned we no longer live in a democracy. The politicians only believe that it is a democracy when they want votes, once they take power they revert to fascism.”
So you think that we used to have democracy in New Zealand? You don’t seem to remember 1991 when, in the space of 3 weeks, 500,000 people marched against National’s Employment Contracts Bill – National of course went through with it, because the party was run by neo-liberal idealouges, and still is.
It’s called parliamntary democracy mate. If you want democracy you should be backing a movement aimed at bringing in binding referendum, not crying about the smacking bill.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
“National scraped in for a 3rd term proped up by NZ1.”
well yes, but only because people voted for winston on his promis that he aimed at getting National out of government. People wised up in 1999 and the voters left NZ1st in droves. The result was a clear centre left majority in New Zealand, which is still the case.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Time for change pj ? I think it is a prima facie case , ooops sorry !!
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
And why don’t you envisage something similar happening now, with a centre right coalition, now that Labour has drifted so far to the left?
Isn’t there a difference between a freshly elected govt with a large majority introducing controversial legislation and a tired looking 3rd term minority one doing the same?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Since the word Sheeple refers to people acting with a herd instinct and reportedly 85% of people are opposed to the so called ‘anti smacking’ bill then Lindsay Perigo would seem to be miss directing his comments.
I also take issue with Perigo saying that ‘the real child abusers are in that building (parliament) as we speak’, DPF lamented the ‘lies damn lies and more lies’ in a post yesterday but today praises Perigo for being in fine form. I guess with DPF it is only a lie if it comes from someone you disagree with.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Phillip John
The employment Contracts Act was necessary because it freed up the employment market at a time when unemployment was increasing, the economic cost of wages and salaries being paid were not reflecting the economic benefit (thanks to years of compulsory unionism). It was also a time when NZ was just about on the pint of bankruptcy. Something major needed to be done.
It was one of the structural changes to the economic infrastructure of NZ that Labour have not changed in 8 years of Government, the ECA made NZ economically viable and competitive internationally, and also forced people to therefore re-evaluate their career paths usually for the better . Yes the ECA was painful – but as painful as it was it was also necessary. For the past 10 years we have enjoyed as a country the economic benefits that have accrued from those types of hard nosed policies.
But of course without the analysis it is too easy for the socialists to refer back to this as the failed economic policy of the past – whereas if you were not so economically illiterate you would understand the benefits of such a policy.
My biggest fear is that Labour has spent three terms slowly (under the influence of it’s union support base) winding back the clock so that at some point NZ would have to have a major correction and go through the pain all again. It is maybe to the credit of Cullen that to date most of those “Failed Policies” are still in place today. But let us not forget that he is running obscene surpluses.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I tell you what, Helen; I think to settle things you should call for a snap election. Sounds like a good idea to me?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
haha david have you seen this….
http://www.dpf.com
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
No mention that National whipped their MPs to support Borrows’s amendment,
A tad hypocritical DPF.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
The important thing is not to forget the individuals who carry out this afront on democracy at the next election – name them and shame them including the snagess Rich.
KR voted against your rights as a parent
Vote:vote for your rights as a parent
vote against KR
March 29th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
David,
I think you should reread the Herald article. The critical Borrows amendment has not been voted on yet.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
What a joke NZ has become. Whipping yourselves into a frenzy over such an inconsequential piece of legislation. Omigod it must be the imminent demjise of the family and civilisation as we know it.
So glad I live elsewhere….
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
We are the joke the left has made us. Dont bother coming back.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Unfortunately i am next week for a holiday. What in the fuck am I supposed to talk about? They will be obssesing about the ‘smacking bill’ and I can’t think of anything less interesting to talk about.
C’mon mum, there’s a war happening out there and real people are dying….
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
For anyone wanting to know the celebrities (and Auckland City Councillors) who support the banning of smacking, there are pictures here
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
James Dean I will welcome you to the deluded – pc utopian – state of the South Pacific. War is a big worry for me too, but I find talking about it cool ?Cheers mate .
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Deborah Coddington, Hilary Timmins, Jude Dobson and Mark Leishman pledge their support with hand prints – yeah right – no doubt all highly paid and they all do like so nice in utopia , talk about a load of hogwash mate .
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
So the dyketator is preparing her grave. Whip your members to support a piece of legislation that 4 out of 5 kiwis oppose. Do this to cover up your woeful inadequacies dealing with: Phillip Field, Corrections, NZPolice, rampant public sector growth, lab contract debacle and on and on and on. Have they got anything right?
Supporting a hopelessly unpopular bill to deflect attention from your useless performance in govt…priceless
Labour are history. The only question I ponder is who are the 19 labour fools opposed to the smacking bill toeing the party line. They are likely the first 19 to get the chop when labour get sacked at the next election.
They might as well break ranks now and tell Helen to get bent. It would help their cause more.
Goofy has been quiet lately, I wonder why? Plotting his next move when this lunacy goes soon? He’ll have at least 19 supporters!
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Which Labour party government made this the country with the lowest family income taxes in the western world?
first, second, third or 4th?
and it’s onto a 4th term …?
18 months from now – when no one has been prosecuted for smacking with the open hand on the hand or buttocks, but there have been prosecutions for strapping, whipping, caning and punching – opposition to the legiaslation will diminish.
Parents oppose legal condemnation of what they do, not what more violent parents do.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Which Labour party government made this the country with the lowest family income taxes in the western world?
Which Labour party government made this the country with the highest family income marginal tax rates in the western world?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
So you would rather pay more tax to pay a lower marginal rate?
Are you for real?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 12:48 am
anyone read the “Care of Children 2004 Act” that came into force in 2005?
anyone care to comment whether a smack resulting in a conviction for assault will be deemed physical abuse under that act, and render people ineligible to be guardians of kids?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 1:53 am
“A year or two ago I made a decision, and told a number of people, that I would never, ever vote Labour again in my life.”
In my case my vote is switched from United Future as Dunne has just become a Labour poodle in the last term. I think he has outlived his usefulness but the Nats may yet try to keep him in Ohariu to do a deal with.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 2:39 am
“anyone read the “Care of Children 2004 Act” that came into force in 2005?
anyone care to comment whether a smack resulting in a conviction for assault will be deemed physical abuse under that act, and render people ineligible to be guardians of kids?”
If CYFS have anything to do with it then already the case. They are already on record in number of instances having a policy that smacking is not allowed
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 6:37 am
KA its the 1995 Domestic Violence Act , brought in by National you are referring to read section 3
http://rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/public/text/1995/se/086se3.html
Under the 1995 Act a child ‘hearing’ verbal disagreements between partners is deemed to be a victim of child abuse. Physical abuse is definitely covered as well.
All covered under Nationals intrusion into familyies private affairs
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 8:04 am
“In my case my vote is switched from United Future as Dunne has just become a Labour poodle in the last term. I think he has outlived his usefulness but the Nats may yet try to keep him in Ohariu to do a deal with.”
I voted for Dunne 2 elections ago.
I had met one of the UF candidates (Paul Adams), and was impressed by him. He came accross as someone that was sincere & with pesonal integrity.
Last election Paul Adams stood as an independant, something that reinforces my opinion of both him and Peter Dunne.
It is unlikely that I will vote for UF again in the future.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 8:10 am
You misrepresent the act CHOGM:
“(c) Psychological abuse, including, but not limited to,—
(i) Intimidation:
(ii) Harassment:
(iii) Damage to property:
(iv) Threats of physical abuse, sexual abuse, or psychological
abuse:
(v) In relation to a child, abuse of the kind set out in
subsection (3) of this section.
(3) Without limiting subsection (2) (c) of this section, a person
psychologically abuses a child if that person—
(a) Causes or allows the child to see or hear the physical, sexual, or
psychological abuse of a person with whom the child has a
domestic relationship; or
(b) Puts the child, or allows the child to be put, at real risk of
seeing or hearing that abuse occurring;—
but the person who suffers that abuse is not regarded, for the purposes
of this subsection, as having caused or allowed the child to see or hear
the abuse, or, as the case may be, as having put the child, or allowed
the child to be put, at risk of seeing or hearing the abuse.”
“verbal disagreements” are not abuse under the act
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Of course misrepresentation has become standard practice for Bradford and her supporters.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 8:33 am
“Of course misrepresentation has become standard practice for Bradford and her supporters.”
We have
Sue Bradford- Miss. Representation
Vote:Heather Simpson- Miss. Appropriation
Helen Clark- Miss. Information
Margaret Wilson- Miss. Management
Judith Tizzard- Miss. Inginaction
Georginia Beyer- Miss. Takenidentity
March 30th, 2007 at 8:35 am
You could lump them all together as the sort of N.Z. representation at Miss World.
They would be known as
Miss. Useofpower
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Hahaha jamesdean
“Whipping yourselves into a frenzy over such an inconsequential piece of legislation.”
jimbo – ask your mum to explain the primary importance of the functioning family unit to the stability of civilization after you’ve been to Rainbow’s End. Then ask her to introduce you to the many forums with kiwi views on the war. Then ask her to explain all the “big” words in those last few sentences.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 9:37 am
I forgot one off the list.
David Benson Pope- Miss. Tressivebeenanaughtyboy
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:59 am
“On 10 January 2007, Clark passed Sir Joseph Ward to become New Zealand’s seventh longest serving Prime Minister. On 24 July 2008 she will pass Sir Robert Muldoon to be fifth longest-serving Prime Minister.
Some commentators have praised Helen Clark (along with the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen) for overseeing a period of sustained and stable economic growth, with an increase in employment that has seen a gradual lowering of the unemployment rate to 3.6%.
Even though some commentators saw stable government within the relatively new MMP electoral system as unlikely, Clark’s supporters credit her with maintaining two terms of stable MMP government, as well as being able to form the current government given the close election result
In 2005, Forbes ranked Clark as number 24 of “The 100 Most Powerful Women” in the world, and then higher at number 20 in 2006.
Police statistics report a drop in the rate of recorded offences by population over the period of Clark’s leadership, which continued the trend shown in years prior to her leadership.
Clark has actively promoted New Zealand arts, and this has partially been responsible for the growth in New Zealand music being played on radio.”
Great Prime Minister or Greatest Prime Minister?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am
A friend of mine was just telling me yesterday about how her daughter was playing up the night before. My friend doesn’t believe in smacking but has resorted to it about 3 times in the child’s life when the 11 yr has been intractable rude and highly disrespecful.
So the other night this 11 yr old now claims when she receives a smack for continued and escalating appalling disrespect “you can’t do that!, you’re not allowed to smack me!”. Turns out her teachers are already telling kids that it’s illegal to smack.
Teachers are planting seeds in childrens minds that their parents are a threat. This is directly affecting child behaviour. It’s appalling abuse of power. Do I have to start pre-empting this by training my kids that teachers can’t be trusted to tell the truth?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
maybe that child is aware of New Zealand’s appalling child-abuse record and doesn’t want to get the shit beaten out of her?
Or maybe this child could be a little more understanding – child to parent: ‘even though i am aware of the issues surrounding smacking – i don’t mind if you smack me. It hurts and all but i can take it.’
Kids have opinions too – kids are allowed to be informed about these issues – kids are allowed to make their own minds up about these things. Parenthood is not a dictatorship – or maybe it is in some circles?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
idiotboy
Parenthood is not a democracy, even though there is a place for democratic decisions within a family.
At some point a parent has to make a decision, and take responsibility for the decision.
Authority and responsibility go hand in hand, and to have one without the other, or even an imbalence, is a recipe for disaster.
It is no surprise that Helen Clark, who revels in the exercise of authority, but has no concept of responsibility, should be pressing a law that helps create an imbalance.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
BTW, idiotboy, by your measure, HC is not yet as good a prime minister as Muldoon.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:52 am
“A friend of mine was just telling me yesterday about how her daughter was playing up the night before.”
“Kids have opinions too”
Of course.
“kids are allowed to be informed about these issues”
As a parent I think that generally things should be explained to kids clearly in terms they understand.
“kids are allowed to make their own minds up about these things.”
Sure, they should be told the truth, people, wheather adult or child, will make up their own minds.
“Parenthood is not a dictatorship – or maybe it is in some circles?”
Parenthood is a dictatorship, I don’t ask the kids if they want to go to school, or if they want to clean up their bedrooms, or if they want to behave, or if they want to go to bed at their bed time, or if they want to…
Nor do we have a democratic election to decide who is going to be the boss or who goes to school and who goes to work.
Do you have kids? If so, do you make these decisions democratically in your household?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:58 am
In Parliament on Wednesday evening it was stated Section 59 has been used only 18 times in the past 10 years and in only six cases were the accused found not-guilty, leaving 12 Guilty.
Contrast this with the actual problem . . .
“Every day 30 children are abused and neglected in New Zealand. Seven are admitted to hospital daily because of the injuries inflicted on them by assaults. And 10 children a year are murdered by their so-called caregivers.”
The response from Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and their moronic lapdog supporters –
a law change that still allows the use of force but in circumstances so confusing that no one can define them properly, and with a reliance on the discretion of a police force that the Government is in the process of massively discrediting.
And
John Key is hesitant in pledging that if National becomes Government next Election they will again change section 59 – he says there is a problem in getting the wording to express exactly what they mean, and it would depend on possible coalition support. Bloody hell – is National not going to put forward any Election policies that cannot overcome these two problems? They are dead in the water already.
quote from: Press Release – For The Sake Of Our Children
Vote:3 August 2006
March 30th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“BTW, idiotboy, by your measure, HC is not yet as good a prime minister as Muldoon.”
Well i thought it was pretty obvious that she will have served longer than muldoon before the next election so…
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
OK, so even by the next election (assuming she survives that long), she will still not be as great a leader as Mugabe, by your measure….
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
ok – sure – point taken – parents are in charge – have authority.
Its just that I am getting sick of hearing people talking about their children as if they are some sort of rebellious force who will rise up and destroy their parents lives if given the slightest chance.
Come on parents of nz – talk to your kids about these issues – what do they think of being smacked? How does it make them feel? Would they prefer some other method of discipline?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
lol!!!!!
The fact that this proposition is made in argument:
‘she will still not be as great a leader as Mugabe’
is actually quite an embarassment. ya – i know the drill – those words you said are somehow supposed to be pinned on me – sorry – you said it you eat it. The quality of argument here is very, very low.
The Right Honourable Helen Clark – Prime Minister of New Zealand:
Great Prime Minister or Greatest Prime Minister.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Yeah parents have authority – but that authority must be used fairly and wisely. If it is not – children will quickly learn to disrespect that authority.
Disrespect for authority begins with bad parenting. The parents of today that harp on about kids having no respect for authority have no-one to blame but themselves and eachother.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
idiot boy .. “Come on parents of nz – talk to your kids about these issues – what do they think of being smacked? How does it make them feel? Would they prefer some other method of discipline?”
Are you serious f**cked in the head?
So the kids say “yeah I really like being sent to my room with the playstation. Nah I hate getting a smack it hurts and makes me think seriously about what I have done and why it pisses you off Dad – so much so that you know what? It generally makes me modify my behaviour.”
WTF are you going to do idiot? Say “there there little idiot junior, in response to you deliberately riding your trike into the side of the new BMW you may go to your room?”
good luck with bringing up your kids – just keep the little feral pricks well away from my place.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I think Key is happy to sit back and watch Labour self-destruct, there will be a referendum after the next election, and the new National government will have the numbers to change the law to comply with the result.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Section 59 provides a defence on the charge of hitting/landing a blow (assaulting) against a child. This is what allows parental discipline including violence.
Without it, of course smacking becomes an issue for police and the courts (while some teachers might have called smacking assault – it was likely within reasonable force allowance).
As to what will now happen. For open palm of the hand hitting of a child on the hand or buttocks – I would imagine police would manage the complaint inflow by informing shop management AND teachers NOT to report such cases to them. As the instances are too minor to concern them. This will be common knowledge within a year of the legislation passing.
This is within the police’s jurisdiction.
Given most parents confine themselves to acting within the limits of this form of force based discipline, they will lose any concern about this matter. When people are prosecuted for whipping and strapping and hitting and beating and caning they will support the prosecutions from the jury.
Remember, convictions only occur if the jury allow this and most parents would allow a smack on the hand or buttocks. The police knowing this would not waste time on futile prosecutions. Thus ignoring open palm smacking of hand or buttocks is within police jurisdiction as to likelihood of successful convictrion and the need not to waste police time on minor matters.
As to things like parental custody rights – moving a child out of a shop or into a time out area, this is not hitting or landing a blow against a child – it is an act enabled by parental custody right. Similar custody rights are held by the police court and penal system staff. They flock manage and this is not regarded as assault. Nor is it, or would it be, for parents.
Those concerned about losing the right to discipline their kids – are either paranoid, or have something more to hide than the average parent about their form of parenting.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
SPC you miss the point. Any law that can be so selectively enforced is not good law.
No one from the “abolish S59″ lobby has actually been very convincing about what is wrong with the current situation and it’s application.
I would hate to think that the role of deciding who should be reported to the police and who shouldn’t should be delegated to shopkeepers and teachers in the first instance and if it isn’t delegated, just how much police time will be consumed investigating prior to decisions to prosecute or not, how many kids will be removed from their parents (remember the proportion of one parent families these days) while investigations proceed and how many people will spend a night in pokey because that is the procedure in domestic violence complaint cases.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
“Yeah parents have authority – but that authority must be used fairly and wisely. If it is not – children will quickly learn to disrespect that authority.”
Fair enough
“Disrespect for authority begins with bad parenting.”
Yep
“The parents of today that harp on about kids having no respect for authority have no-one to blame but themselves and eachother.”
Believe it or not Idiotboy while my kids can be boisterous, it’s not my kids that the teachers complain about, are you somehow making me responsible for the lack of discipline in other households?
Discipline needs to be consistent, and meaning full, many parents can rear good kids without smacking, others rear kids without smacking and there is no control, the result being the little monsters that DavidW refers to.
Smacking is a tool that most parents use, and it’s one of several tools in rearing kids, each serves a function, and it’s how the tool is used that counts.
If you accept that “parents have authority – but that authority must be used fairly and wisely” You are placing trust in their judgement. Read Sofia’s comment again, smacking has nothing to do with the abuse she highlights.
Parent need to have authority, and sometimes that authority will require the use of reasonable force. Compare it to the police;
Vote:The police need to have authority, and sometimes that authority will also require the use of reasonable force, it’s the misuse that’s the problem in both instances, if a cop is found using excessive force, deal to him, don’t make the police potentially guilty of assault everytime they tackle or handcuff a suspect.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
there are only two choices when it comes to diciplining your children – whack them or send them to their room. Nothing else. whacking always works, sending children to their rooms never works.
At least thats what some would have us believe. But then its no big secret that the relationship skills of the average nz male wouldn’t rank too highly in the scheme of things. ‘Leave the kids stuff to the wife – unless the kid needs a good whack of course’
My parents taught me that most any problem can be solved by communicating about said problem. Works well – not just for parents and kids but for all relationhips in life.
haha – I would have had to have done something pretty bad to my kids to have them want to run into my car on purpose. Maybe I whacked them for no good reason or something.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
David W
Even those opposed to the legislation would limit the extent of violence allowable under current law.
How is law selectively enforced, if police criteria is a smack on the hand or buttocks is acceptable to most parents and thus no jury would convict for this?
Go beyond such smacking with the open hand and only then does one place themselves at risk before a jury of your peers.
The Burrows amendment has essentially publicised the jury standard – one many parents would accept for legal purposes.
Police direction to shop managers and teachers not to refer cases of open hand smacking of hand or buttocks avoids limits any practical application problems.
Prosecution would only occur if a jury might convict (which would ususally require victim complaint).
“how many kids will be removed from their parents while investigations proceed and how many people will spend a night in pokey because that is the procedure in domestic violence complaint cases.”
How many people beat up their kid with weapons or punch them out?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
SPC, you obviously haven’t read Michele Wilkinson-Smith’s article
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“are you somehow making me responsible for the lack of discipline in other households?”
I’d like to see all New Zealand parents step up to the plate over this matter – rather than just saying ‘my kids are fine – its everyone elses kids that are the problem – therefore for me there is no problem.’ But there is a problem – we live in a country with some of the worst child-abuse statistics in the world.
I guess you are right – there’s no reason for you to take any responsibility for the problems other families are having – ah well.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Many complaints will be laid simply because smacking is illegal, irrespective of whether there was harm to the child, if a teacher smacked a child most parents today would complain because it’s illegal, not because there was any harm to the child.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
David W
And if this article had not been written what arguement would you have now made to support your own position?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
The police will ignore complaints about smacking and then people will stop making them.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
SPC, are you sober? how can the police possibly ignore a complaint of assault against a child? What if it’s a serious matter, isn’t investigated and the kid ends up dead a week later? Surely all assaults will need to be investigated or the negligent cop will be in the gun. And if in doubt, well, just hand the kid to CYFS, they can deal with it, the buck mustn’t stop here.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
And isn’t ther a legal requirement for teachers and medical staff to report all suspected cases of child abuse?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
SPC go look at this
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4011184a10.html
The police will report all complaints to CYPS regardless of wether they (the police) take any action or not.
You are seriously deluded if you think this law amendment is a good thing.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
As smacking children is so common (rightly or wrongly) in NZ, we are going to see a flood of complaints, it really is going to turn into a lottery as to who gets their family wreaked by an investigation and which cases are missed that should have been delt with.
A situation alot like that which we see with the enforcement of infringements of road speeding, most break the speed limit, perhaps 1% get caught as a result of any given infraction. The result is a system that (as far as minor infractions go ie As smacking children is so common (rightly or wrongly) in NZ, we are going to see a flood of complaints, it really is going to turn into a lottery as to who gets their family wreaked by an investigation and which cases are missed that should have been delt with.
A situation alot like that which we see with the enforcement of infringements of road speeding, most break the speed limit, perhaps 1% get caught as a result of any given infraction. The result is a system that (as far as minor infractions go ie <20 km/hr over the limit) has nothing to do with safety and everything to to with getting a quota, or in this case, a collar.
So those who are naive enough to admit they smacked their child get done, those who are comfortable with lying to the police get off, as there will be plenty of easier fish to catch.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Andrew and Chicken Little
The police are capable of determining the difference between smacking and a serious assault. Don’t ya think?
Teachers currently report cases of child abuse, NOT smacking and that won’t change.
And once the public is aware that police will do more with smacking complaints than refer the matter to CYPS – complaints to them will diminish because they will realise it’s not a criminal matter. Thus referrals to CYPS will also diminish.
And if CYPS focus on smacking complaints before more serious issues they will not be doing their job. Thus smacking cases will rarely be sufficient cause on their own to warrant any investigation.
Are people on the right doped up and paranoid?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
SPC, If only ~80% of NZers were on the right! Infact by your measure most of the population is paranoid, perhaps it’s just ~ 20% who are stupid
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
the politics of the right = the politics of paranoia. Dont mention dope to these people – that would tip them right over the edge.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
what about parents being judged by their kids?
whether or not you believe smacking is wrong or not, and whether or not you are worried about being prosecuted or not that isn’t the point.
the point is your kids live with you, you have to live with them, and maintain an ongoing relationship. If your kids judge you as a bad parent because one day you give them a smack and they’ve been taught at school that it’s immoral and illegal, then you are doomed.
And boy are kids judgemental.
so parents who care about acting within the law will not be able to smack purely for this reason. This then affects a lot more people than just those the police choose to prosecute.
So to justify the law by saying the police won’t prosecute you doesn’t address this issue at all.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Bloody hell you’re giving damn good reasons for no law change SPC!
Your arguments centre around the theory that their will be not affect on parents who smack anyway. therefore people are paranoid about the law change.
So why do you support the law change again??
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
What I would like to know SPC is how YOU know all this stuff.
Are you high up in the police ?
Are you high up in the Labour Goverment/Greens?
Are you high up in CYPS?
You appear to have alot of information that the people who are writing this amendment seem confused about.
We are getting conflicting stories through the media. ie
It makes smacking illegal/It doesn’t make smaking illegal.
The Police will have to prosecute because thats the law/ The police will use their discretion and no one will be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child. etc etc
You however seem to have the lines drawn very firmly – how do you know all this?
You agree that any case brought to Police attention will be refered to CYPS regardless of a charge being laid – how will this information be used? Will parents reported for smacking be visited by CYPS and children interviewed even though they have done nothing wrong under law?
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
i guess its understandable that you people dont understand that any discipline other than smacking is effective.
afterall – you were smacked.
if you were not smacked maybe you would have learnt some effective communication skills from your parents – skills like listening to other peoples points of view, compromise, knowing a good argument when you see one. But no.
oh yeah – and then there’s the fact that people with pea-sized brains are generally pretty hopeless at accepting things outside of their own experience. i.e. other races, cultures, religions, homosexuals, australians, intelligence…
Ah well – what can you do? hahahaha
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Chicken Little
It’s not hard to follow the clues given.
The government has said people who smack will not be prosecuted.
While they cannot direct police in their prosecution decisions, police only prosecute when a conviction is possible – and juries will not prosecute for smacking.
Thus they have already said they will refer smacking allegations onto CYPS.
The government CAN direct CYPS policy. They can direct CYPS to regard open palm smacking on the hand and buttocks as mainstream parental discipline and to be ignored for their purposes.
The government is very confident that what the legislation does will have no effect on those who just smack their children – they are in a position to ensure this.
This right wing paranoia is ridiculous.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Andrew
There is case precedent under the old law – where beating children with weapons did not result in a conviction – because the parent claimed they used reasonable force in their disciplining.
This will be rendered mute by changing the law.
This will enable prosecution when parents go beyond smacking and punch out, beat up, whip and strap their children.
adrien
“what about parents being judged by their kids? the point is your kids live with you, you have to live with them, and maintain an ongoing relationship. If your kids judge you as a bad parent because one day you give them a smack and they’ve been taught at school that it’s immoral and illegal, then you are doomed.”
Is it really illegal, if no one has been prosecuted for smacking? No one has been. Nor is this likely.
For some it is an issue of morality or ethics -the right of people to be safe from violence. Teachers are in no position to say what is moral or immoral in matters of parenting. They can only discuss the issue in relationship to moral behaviour and ethical choices. People make differen parental choices. The classroom would probbaly reflect a difference in circumstance between their families in any discussion.
“so parents who care about acting within the law will not be able to smack purely for this reason.”
You assume the law change criminalises smacking – no one has been prosecuted for this, nor is likely to be (the government is very confident about this).
“This then affects a lot more people than just those the police choose to prosecute.”
The decision ovwer whether to smack or not to smack has always been one for every parent. It still would be. It’s still their choice.
And yes, children may be disappointed that they have parents who resort to smacking when other parents don’t. Some parents may have to live with that.
But the real change is that anyone who now goes beyond smacking will know they have crossed the line into assault on a child/minor.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
SPC, If what you claim is true, you would be infavour of the Borrows amendment, that would have resulted in exactly what you advocate.
Obviously that is not the case.
Infact you are in no position to make the claims that you do, claims that directly contradict the way the police say they expect to have to interpret the law.
You still have not addressed Michele Wilkinson-Smiths view of how the legislation will be used in the instances she describes.
All you have done is claim that the law won’t be enforced – because you say so, and then suggest that this nonenforcement is a good thing, but that even though this nonenforcement will occur, the law is essential to stop incidents (7 in the last 15 years) where section 59 has been used successfully as a defence when an implement has been used, even though the Burrows amendment would cover such cases.
Your stupidity and dishonesty is nauseating.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Idiotboy, It is you who have failed to use “skills like listening to other peoples points of view, compromise, knowing a good argument when you see one.”
And what’s this about?
“oh yeah – and then there’s the fact that people with pea-sized brains are generally pretty hopeless at accepting things outside of their own experience. i.e. other races, cultures, religions, homosexuals, australians, intelligence…”
What do you know about my views on “other races, cultures, religions, homosexuals, australians, intelligence…”
It seems to me that in your pea sized brain you not only assume that 80% of the NZ public are right wing, but also that your can steriotype all that disagree with you on this debate as having views opposing your own on everything else. Well idiot, I have three core mottos:
1. We all need to accept responsibility for our own actions.
Vote:2. We all should have the freedom to live out lives and look after our families as best we can.
3. We are all individuals, we shouldn’t steriotype people by race religion, politics, etc, there are enough idiotboys doing that already.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
the ‘i know you are, i said you are so what am i?’ argument got old for me when i was about 10 years old. Seems to get used a lot around here:
“Idiotboy, It is you who have failed to use “skills like listening to other peoples points of view, compromise, knowing a good argument when you see one.”" – i know you are, i said you are so what am i?
“it seems to me that in your pea sized brain…” – i know you are, i said you are so what am i?
really – its much more fun and interesting and less childish if you come up with your own criticisms.
“And what’s this about?” Oh – that was just a general dig at the religious right and right-wing politics in general – no need to take it so personally.
But hey – I will give you this – those 3 mottos sound just super!
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Andrew Davies
“Infact you are in no position to make the claims that you do, claims that directly contradict the way the police say they expect to have to interpret the law.”
Police do more than interpret the law, they consider whether there can be a successful prosecution. No jury will convict for smacking so therefore they will lay no prosecuttions.
When a government claims they expect no prosecutions to result, they have this basis for their claim. It is a reality. Police can consider the legality of something all they like, but only the jury in the court room can convict.
This trumps all the opinions people have about what the new “anti-smacking” law would mean and how it would be enforced.
“Your stupidity and dishonesty is nauseating.”
Your failure to get it, will become legendary if you remain so close minded.
The law change will increase the number of successful prosecutions for vioelnce agaisnt children. No more than the Burrows amendment perhaps, but it is not the purpose of law to say what one can legally do (thats a civil liberties human rights area). While some clarification would be of some purpose, the government has no inclination to signal that it has any opinion on parental discipline choices (whether to smack or not to smack).
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
SPC –
“It’s not hard to follow the clues given.”
Right, so you don’t actually know any more than anyone else, (I assume since you haven’t answered any of my questions regarding your inside information) you are baseing all your statements of ‘fact’ on clues that you believe that you have seen.
I’m sorry but that is not acceptable to me.
The people that have drafted this amendment are confused about what it actually means. You appear to be taking their confusion and turning that into ‘clues’ which then you turn into ‘facts’.
In reality you have no idea how the Police or CYPS are going to handle this law change, you have no idea how many families are going to be disturbed by this law change – actually you know little more than anyone else.
Andrew W – All you can really say about idiot is that he is very, very well named. Beyond that I wouldn’t bother.
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
“But hey – I will give you this – those 3 mottos sound just super!”
Thanks! You should try having principles you can stick with too!
SPC,
If a parent admits that they have smacked their child, the CYFS and the police can use this, either to get a guilty plea – so there is no jury trial, A case like this was publicised recently when some foster parents smacked a child after the boy deliberately did thousands of dollars in damage to a tractor, legally they had the right to use reasonable force to discipline, they weren’t breaking the law, just CYFS rules.
Or as a lever to get a confession on other charges.
“it is not the purpose of law to say what one can legally do”?????????????????????????
Vote:or the threat can be used that “if you plead not guilty, and are convicted, you will face a stiffer sentence than if you plead guilty”, and it only takes one case where a jury convicts for smacking to make this a real threat to a parent facing seperation from their kids and the possibility of imprisonment vs a noncustodial sentence.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
oops!
“it is not the purpose of law to say what one can legally do”?????????????????????????
was supposed to be the last sentence
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 12:08 am
SPC, you need to do a little more research about how this country works. there are 3 branches. The parliament, the executive, and the judiciary. They are intended to be separate. this is so the judiciary can protect the people from corrupt governments.
So actually what a politician says has no bearing on the judiciary, which includes the police and justice system.
is it really illegal if noone has been prosecuted for smacking
eh? The bill hasn’t been passed yet
You assume the law change criminalises smacking – no one has been prosecuted for this, nor is likely to be (the government is very confident about this).
eh? Your tendency to swap between past and future tenses without regard to the passage of time (or this impending bill) is fairly disturbing mate.
people haven’t been prosecuted for smacking because it is currently legal – parents are granted the right to use reasonable force in discpline.
Parents will be banned from using any force for correction under the new bill.
As for your claim that just because helen says noone will be convicted it’s not illegal.. well that’s pretty moronic, the statutes are blindingly clear on this point. Try reading them and applying basic logic.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 12:19 am
Chicken Little
“In reality you have no idea how the Police or CYPS are going to handle this law change, you have no idea how many families are going to be disturbed by this law change – actually you know little more than anyone else.”
It is a safe assumption – that because juries would not convict parents for smacking, prosecutions will not occur. Thus police will not handle any such complaints, but refer them to CYFS. They have already indicated they would pass the “baby”. CYFS would only take such alone seriously, if the child had made the complaint (as this indicated a family problem). Even then they would have more important things to worry about than smacking and more likely than not move on.
I am not persuaded that there is any more likely alternative.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 12:28 am
Andrew Davies
“If a parent admits that they have smacked their child, the CYFS and the police can use this, either to get a guilty plea – so there is no jury trial,”
There is no crime of “smacking” – admitting to smacking, is not admitting to any crime on the statutes books. Parents who smack will deny that they broke any law. Police would be hard pressed to convict any parent for assault – if they simply smacked their child – and the police know it.
“Or as a lever to get a confession on other charges.”
If people are that stupid and that easily intimidated they should not play poker or vote.
“you will face a stiffer sentence than if you plead guilty”,
That is not for police to decide but the judge. We don’t have plea bargaining over sentences – judges decide sentencing.
“and it only takes one case where a jury convicts for smacking to make this a real threat to a parent”
Yeah right. Even most of the 20% supporting the bill would not convict someone for smacking. But sure a successful prosecution and conviction would change everything. But wonder why the government is so sure this would not happen. They expect 2 years of no such convictions and public acceptance of the change.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 1:01 am
adrien
“So actually what a politician says has no bearing on the judiciary, which includes the police and justice system.”
The link between the government, legislature and the judiciary, is the public which elect the parliamentary majority government and which also make up the jury.
When a politician says they don’t expect anyone to be prosecuted for smacking their child – they do so with some cause.
Police only prosecute when there is liklihood of a conviction. Juries are unlikely to convict anyone for smacking and thus police won’t prosecute.
Politicians do polling on public opinion. They have every confidence that the public will not convict anyone for smacking.
“Your tendency to swap between past and future tenses without regard to the passage of time (or this impending bill) is fairly disturbing mate.”
You overlook the fact that the government has said that smacking children has never been legal. Yet there has never been a past conviction. This speaks to whether any change would occur because of the withdrawal of the reasonable force defence. The only reason for the lack of conviction has been public jury reluctance to criminalise smacking, this is not changing whatever law change parliament makes.
“people haven’t been prosecuted for smacking because it is currently legal – parents are granted the right to use reasonable force in discpline.”
That is a historic public jury decision and what has changed, is to remove reasonable force and allow a “good parenting” loophole to excuse parents who smack. Juries will cite this in future, if they don’t think the force used was execessive to good parenting restraint limits.
“Parents will be banned from using any force for correction under the new bill.”
How will this ban be effected? Parents will still smack – the few cases of this becoming a public issue might (if anyone wants to waste their time) result in a test case where a jury decides smacking is a good parenting option.
“As for your claim that just because helen says noone will be convicted it’s not illegal..well that’s pretty moronic, the statutes are blindingly clear on this point. Try reading them and applying basic logic.”"
There is no reference between an illegal act and any action by any person until they have been convicted of that offence. So you have failed to apply any logic to this at all, despite your pretense.
No one has been convicted of smacking a child -there is no such offence. There is no case of smacking a child resulting in a conviction for assault. Until that changes … (and I doubt that it will) … there is no basis for saying smacking a child is an illegal act. What juries may do is send a message that smacking a child is good parenting and refuse to convict anyone charged, this for all effective purpose legalises smacking (and is a de facto referendum on the issue).
You see in the end, it’s not legislators or lawyers who decide what is legal in matters which go before juries.It’s the people who vote in governments – and any politician has an understanding of what a jury is likely to do based on their polling. Thus when the PM says she doubts anyone will be proseucted and convicted for smacking, she is very well aware of how the system works. Unlike some.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 1:22 am
SPC – you’ve been watching too much american TV.
A judge will coach a jury into making the only possibly correct verdict. In some cases will even overturn the verdict.
You so obviously don’t have kids.
Otherwise you wouldn’t be so gung ho about risking them to the whims of politicians, police and CYPS.
Answer me this – do you actually have any kids?
In your eyes Helen has never used spin to sell something? Yeah right.
And your view of causality is completely backwards. You opine that since politicians say it won’t be prosecuted (in the face of the judiciary who say it must be) means they have the power to stop the judiciary? Yeah right. This is Monsanto telling you whatever they want you to believe in order for you to buy their product.
Why don’t you go off and drink a cup of nutrasweet if you’re that keen to believe everything you are fed.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 1:30 am
But wonder why the government is so sure this would not happen. They expect 2 years of no such convictions and public acceptance of the change.
hmmm, maybe you’re right there – maybe they do have some sway with the police. How else would Labour have gotten off without being charged under the electoral act for illegal (and pre-warned) overspending. I guess in your eyes Labour saying before the election they would pay it back, and after the election saying they wouldn’t doesn’t constitue lying? And then after the furore and they finally agree to pay it back (but still haven’t) that makes it all ok? Stealing is ok if you pay it back?
So maybe they plan to lean on their puppets at the police until after the next election to make sure noone is convicted, because if that happened they would go down in flames.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 1:37 am
You overlook the fact that the government has said that smacking children has never been legal. Yet there has never been a past conviction. This speaks to whether any change would occur because of the withdrawal of the reasonable force defence. The only reason for the lack of conviction has been public jury reluctance to criminalise smacking, this is not changing whatever law change parliament makes.
You overlook the fact that it is the Crimes Act 1961 section 59(1) that makes it not illegal to smack – that PLUS case law dating back centuries. Not whatever your beloved Helen Clark says, or whether or not someone has been convicted. Of course they haven’t been convicted, it hasn’t been a crime!!! It’s explicitly permitted to use reasonable force in discipline.
Removing that permission MAKES it a crime. You really need to sort out your temporal system. The future happens after the past, not the other way around.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 2:00 am
SPC, sorry I don’t mean to get rude.
You and I both seem to agree that smacking currently is legal (contrary to claims made by HC that it has never been legal).
Our reasons are different however. You say
There is no case of smacking a child resulting in a conviction for assault. Until that changes … (and I doubt that it will) … there is no basis for saying smacking a child is an illegal act.
whereas I say that case law hinges on the statute. The statute specifically grants permission to use reasonable force. Interpretation of what sort of force is reasonable is “a matter of fact” under the bill, and this is established by common law precedents. It still hinges on the statute however.
Removal of the right under the statute means that case law that was dependent on the statute can’t be used – the law change is sending a clear message to judges and juries alike that NO force is reasonable.
So there WILL be prosecutions and convictions of assault for smacking (as has happened overseas). Also it’s not correct to say noone has been convicted of assault for smacking, there are cases of it here. The classic one bandied around being the one about the guy who was convicted for smacking his 4yr old for soiling himself.
This is what the judiciary is confirming. So, unless you are a professor of law or sit on the high court bench, I’ll believe them over you sorry.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 2:25 am
Reasonable force has always been what juries meant it to mean.
A judge did not direct a jury to allow horsewhipping, the jury decided that.
There is no part of the new legislation which says it is illegal to smack children. Juries have a choice as to what the new determination “good parenting” is. This is all they need to prevent “assault” convictions for smacking.
I write this more slowly this time – politicians awareness of public opinion leads them to have confidence that police will not waste time prosecuting people for smacking – this because juries will not convict. Police will be directed by public opinion/juries in this.
“Interpretation of what sort of force is reasonable is “a matter of fact” under the bill, and this is established by common law precedents. It still hinges on the statute however.”
The problem was the precedent – allowing horsewhipping/allowing use of weaponry.
“Removal of the right under the statute means that case law that was dependent on the statute can’t be used”
There goes the horsewhip.
“the law change is sending a clear message to judges and juries alike that NO force is reasonable.”
Juries will, if asked, say they see good parenting as including smacking.
“So there WILL be prosecutions and convictions of assault for smacking (as has happened overseas).”
Such would be legal just as in the past. But very rare. It’s conceivable in the case of babies under 2. And possibly also involving manhandling teenagers (a little dubious in some step parent cases, sexual overtones and using force to establish parental status). I doubt it would occur for children aged 2 to say 12.
“This is what the judiciary is confirming. So, unless you are a professor of law or sit on the high court bench, I’ll believe them over you sorry.”
While judges interpret and adjudicate law, they ultimately take lessons from juries about law premised on public sentiment – such as “good parenting” choices. Politicians (even those who may oppose the smacking option) are very aware of public opinion and the ultimate court of referendum on this is the jury.
Vote:March 31st, 2007 at 10:17 am
There is no part of the new legislation which says it is illegal to smack children. Juries have a choice as to what the new determination “good parenting” is. This is all they need to prevent “assault” convictions for smacking.
Sure, the proposed bill doesn’t specifically refer to “smacking”. But by removing the right to use force in parenting when it comes to discipline (the new bill specifically prohibits use of force for corrective purposes, and that overrides the grant of use of force for “good parenting”) the protection against an assault charge is removed, and therefore smacking becomes legally illegal.
Juries of lay-people have to sit in session in many complex cases. They are coached by judges to come to decisions on key points of fact.
Confused juries will be reminded by judges that all they must do is determine whether any force was used for discipline or not. End of story.
So anyway, you may feel confident and have faith in HC and CYPS (I don’t) and if you don’t have any kids anyway what’s the difference for you?
That confidence is not shared by the rest of us however. Especially when you see the monster coming out of Helen Clark et al calling all opponents of the bills child abusers, or perverts or “strange”. She really is deeply insulting all parents. An insult that won’t be quickly forgotten I might add.
Oh and the police are saying they have to prosecute, and the judiciary are saying it’s clear smacking will be a crime. The only people saying nay to this are the ones trying to sell us this bill. Yeah right.
If my child is abused, it will be over my dead body, and CYPS should think about that – most normal parents feel that way. I will go to much further lengths to protect my kids than the state will, and frankly I won’t be considering contemptible law as having a priority over the safety of my kids.
A much bigger issue that is constantly ignored is the fact that the government will use the new law as mandate to roll out education initiatives. They already are.
This is where the government will come unstuck at the next election. They are counting on NZ “forgetting” the issue, or thinking “oh, it’s not so bad after all”. But in fact parents are already seeing the effect of having their kids play up because they’ve been told that smacking is illegal.
This will serve as a constant reminder to parents for the next election.
Parents don’t want to smack their kids. They don’t like it. The situations in which parents feel a smack is necessary are situations that parents would really prefer didn’t happen.
Just like the state doesn’t want to put everyone in jail for murder. The state would prefer its citizens to not go round murdering each other. Doesn’t mean the state gives up the right to use force to deal with murderers though. That force is necessary so that the state can have ultimate authority in the land. Parents need to have ultimate authority in the home, the home is not a democracy regardless of what the UN thinks. There are some decisions that need to be made that children are simply not capable of making.
The voters in NZ are not children though. Labour would do well to remember that.
Vote: