General Debate 22 November 2007
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 pm by David FarrarThe 2nd reading of the Electoral Finance Bill will start at around 3 pm. I’m too busy to be there for it, but others may want to cover it.
Related posts:
- General Debate 18 December 2007
- General Debate 2 November 2007
- General Debate 5 November 2007
- General Debate 23 November 2007
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I dare you to watch this without misting over…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/0a26241.html
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Yesterday, Annette King, in the house, suggested that Nick Smith consume Hemlock.
Now, is she Threatening to Kill, or is she encouraging a person who has received treatment for a Mental Illness to commit suicide?
That is not a good look, either way.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
llew cool vid , good stuff as I like moo -cows .
http://www.moocowfanclub.com/
Annette King is clearly in a deranged state and should step down immediately for the best interests of New Zealand. Time to go Ms King !
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
A letter to Chester
Dear Chester,
The Masterton case of a father being convicted for smacking his son in a normal parental disciplining situation must be of great concern – or I would hope so anyway. As a parent of 3 children aged 10 or less this case represents the scenario that is every parents nightmare. It is also a scenario that proponents of this legislation said was one it was not designed to capture – common sense would prevail they said. This morning I read that Sue Bradford is applauding this conviction and so far I have not seen a strong statement from National saying the opposite. I look forward to hearing such a statement from the appropriate spokesperson – I assumed it would be you. To not do so would indicate tacit approval of this legislation and the way it is being implemented. It would also be further confirmation for me that National are as disconnected from the electorate as Labour are.
Your sincerely
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I didn’t mist over llew, culled too many old cows; now for some lighter entertainment:
Vote:
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Will we have to default the series against Bangladesh if any more Black Caps get injured in South Africa?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
casual watcher What was it that Bradford et al said that this wasnt designed to criminalise good parents.
And lets compare this to a 1st time offender who punches an adult say in the Houses of Parliament and lets compare the 2 sentences and lets ask what protects one class of citizen over another class of citizen and whether justice was done and senn to be done viz a viz the House of Parliament case.
Come on Socialists cat got your tongue.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Dear Chester ,
Vote:As a father of four kiwi kids . Did you think that it was a good idea kissing Sue Bradford in Parliament after the NO SMACKING BILL was socially engineered from a socialist nanny fucking Moa !!
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“Will we have to default the series against Bangladesh if any more Black Caps get injured in South Africa?”
More pertinent is will I be asked to open the batting if another one falls over?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Is what the father did to the kid acceptable?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
What is the government doing about alarming figures of child abuse ? Nothing !! The nanny state has failed David c , look at stats and then cry you twisted socialist engineer nutbar .
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“What is the government doing about alarming figures of child abuse?”
What would you have them do D4J?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Destroy the clearly CYFS as it is a dysfunctional gender bias pit of indoctrinated socialist bohemian dumb wits . The Minister is gender bias and family unfriendly .
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
And what are you doing D4J?
But is injuring a child such that one parent photographs the injuries, and some other relative goes to the police, not an indication that this may have crossed the line?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Family (smack) first (pow) is (whack) family (thump) friendly?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
And heaven forbid he should be forced into getting counselling so that he doesn’t do it again – or something worse.
Seems to me the process is working well.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Excuse me but the Ministry of Education don’t even refer sexual abusers onto police , eh Chris ?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Excuse me – CYFS employees nearly 100% WOMEN !!
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Psst – mothers are 100% women. Even the population is about 50% women.
Should we be afraid do you think?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“Should we be afraid do you think?’
I’ve been afraid of this government since they have twice voted not to treat mothers and fathers the same , you know equal in status in law , not NZ , out of step of the majority of countries that voted for the family at United Nations !!!
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Let us hope that this legislation does not destroy the family. People can write letters but that will not change the minds of ideologues. The only way to change the law is to let the people decide by way of referendum. http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
D4J: I’ve been afraid of this government since they have twice voted not to treat mothers and fathers the same
Interesting, I’ve never seen that before. Can you link to the source, please? I’d like to read more about this.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Andrew W, you’re a sterner man than me.
Nice dancing bird though.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Chuck,
With regards to “unity for liberty”… which sounds like a bit of a contradiction in terms really. How much is the said group actually interested in “liberty” and how much are they just a religious group.
Those that I saw on the weekend, seemed to be more a group of religious conservatives than those truely interested in liberty.
Again this was just based on those I saw on the weekend – and I have no idea of the background of the group. But for now it seems to be a single issue group… rather than one interested in liberty.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Hmmm
Vote:The child in Masterton also had a bruise on his shoulder. Bad enough for a picture to be taken. This doesnt seem like a simple case of smacking. The law was suppose to stop this sort of incident having an excuse. Looks like it worked.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I don’t know Chuck, while I know you have the best of intentions do you really think the power crazy goons in office would really give a rats toss about your referendum. I’m afraid your referendum along with many others presented to these fascists over the years would be treated with the same respect as a dead rat. But good on you for trying, I must sign it.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
The father has admitted he lost control, got counselling, (paid for by the state, now that he has been sentenced to supervision), and all is well.
But Chris Kahui is still out on bail, pending trial!
Now jusy who was this bill supposed to capture again? Well done CYFS, another easy one dealt with, another hard one not dealt with!
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
“Those that I saw on the weekend, seemed to be more a group of religious conservatives than those truely interested in liberty. ”
You silly indoctrinated commie. What is it with the left in NZ that they think that those who pioneered the concept of liberty are nowadays a threat to that institution? The men who fought the war of Independence in America and who established the most free nation on earth, and wrote the document that underpins freedom in the US like nowhere else on the globe, (the US Constitution) were all god fearing men. There is no logical connection between religious groups and a threat to freedom.
The connection only exists in the minds of one dimensional half educated ignorant of history “progressive” Marxist dipshits. People are for freedom or not. Religion is not part of the equation. The Klark government, the biggest threat to individual freedom that NZers have ever faced, is made up mainly of non-believers, yet is only in power because of the support of a couple of NZ churches. Explain that contradiction to your theory.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
What a complete and utter failure Labour has become on reducing our gereen house gas emmissions.
As usual all noise and suck the greens in and deliver nothing.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
If the electorate saw the Greens for what they really are (i.e. maladjusted commies and dopers) rather than “kaitiaki of the environment” (which I have yet to see proven in any shape or form), then they’d be in the shite.
They are yet another example and beneficiary of the general apathy and blissful ignorance of 90% of the electorate.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I think anyone who has ignored the bouncing ball calls for tax cuts as long as Cullen has – with the same disinterest in playing any scoring shots on the issue – should be allowed to open the batting against Bangladesh. After all delivering the shot-making only when the (local) conditions are right is the hall mark of an opening bat. He’s a natural.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
MikeE … Those that I saw on the weekend, seemed to be more a group of religious conservatives than those truely interested in liberty.
Now there’s an open & tolerant attitude eh MikeE??
Fair to say it’s not the religious conservatives you need to watch out for. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot … yikes, weren’t they all atheists? Yikes, socialists too! And such great fans of liberty, human rights, value of human life … etc etc
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Buggerlugs … I can’t for the life of me see why National hasn’t really got behind a conservative Green agenda. Stephen Rainbow and the Blue Greens should be much more prominent, and National could/should have a kick-arse Green platform.
There is NO reason why a right-wing party can’t also be an environmentally-sensitive one.
Apart from methinking there’s too many old staggerers in the National Party who can’t drag themselves into the 21st century.
Look at it this way … if you could attract 2% of the electorate from the Greens to National by being a lot more environmentally with it then … the Greens are gone. History. Under 5% and out the back door.
These are the sort of things that make me despair about the National Party’s ability to think (i) modern-ly (is that a word?) and (ii) strategically.
God I’d love them to ditch McCully as party strategist.
Come on DPF, fill us in, what’s the National Party’s mindset on environmental issues???
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
virtualmark, very good point! If National becomes the most environmentally-friendly political party (which wouldn’t be too hard since the greens hardly even care about the environment) they should annihilate the Greens!
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Virtual Yes I agree they could take the rug from under them altogether and be a party that is green friendly and doing more practically and pragmatically than the Greens themselves are dreaming of.
Also McCully is definitely past his use by date!! John Key and Bill English together have come up with more decent strategy than McCully has ever done.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
regarding the smacking case H1 would have told H2 to instruct Howie that they get some “runs of the board” quickly to show how effective the new law is. So Howie would have instructed lower level Plod to make sure you prosecute anything that even looks like an offence.
Contrast punishment to case of Member of Parliament bashes another Member of Parliament Oh I forgot Different strokes (pun intended) for different folks.
What a sick lot of the puppies the Socialists and their supporters all are.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Anyone know or care to find out what is happening about King’s husband and the Hospital Board contract ????
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
VirtualMark – I think that is a good analysis, and would have the advantage of (a) taking votes from the left rather than the right, and (b) lessening the likelihood that the Maori party will be ‘kingmakers’ after the next election.
I’m not convinced whether they could do it though. Apart from the points you raise (which I think are sound), I think the greens have successfully moved beyond green issues. The EFB is one example of a policy the greens have a reasonably strong stance on, but isn’t an obvious ‘green’ issue. They have been doing a lot on workers rights, again not a ‘green’ issue. I suspect that a number of their voters are are there because of policies like that. Given that addressing climate change is now pretty much a policy platform across the parties, I doubt anyone will be making any voting decisions based solely on that. So the greens are unlikely to lose votes simply because the Nats go green.
Despite that, I think it’s tougher than you think for the Nats to go green and increase their net votes. For example, the greens (and many of their voters) would be opposed to the kinds of changes to the RMA proposed by Fed Farmers. This is an example of cases where it would be hard for the Nats to attract green voters without alienating some of their other voters.
Lastly, from what I’ve seen the greens have a bit of a buffer over 5%, so the Nats would actually need to take a reasonable bit of their vote. Given what I’ve suggested above, I think the kinds of policies required to achieve this would be tough for the Nats to go with.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
virtualmark said:
“Look at it this way … if you could attract 2% of the electorate from the Greens to National by being a lot more environmentally with it then … the Greens are gone.”
The Greens are not, fundamentally, a party about the environment. They are socialists and so are their voters.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
“Anyone know or care to find out what is happening about King’s husband and the Hospital Board contract ????”
Yeah right kkb, I think you’ll find the witches swept it under the carpet again , another rort another cover up , yawn , yawn , so typical liarbour , boring .No doubt they used the get over it Auntie Helen broom . H2 fuzzed and the gals went just great , nice job dear .
Cover ups and cop outs anybody ?? Hi there welcome to rortland , come met with the social engineering nanny freaks from gummint . Have a ball , while the kids say, why all the people on happy pills mum ? Don’t worry little Johnny its fun in the Auntie Helen club with all the gals and eunuchs . Must take you to the lovely doctor Cullen for a wee nip ? ooopps , sorry but I am getting attacked by some scum muslim dirt pig impostor at present . Bombs away you mongrel and stop posting as me at my mates place Whaleblog . I will see you on the field of honour one day impestor #### !!
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I would add, if National were more centrist than they are on Green issues they would be more likely to appeal more of the centrist voters who prefer Labour. This explains why they have moved somewhat – but they remain beholden to business and farmers (but where else do these people go anyhow – just a fellow right wing party like ACT). Largely the centre-left Greens operate better for Labour than ACT does for National – because National have tried to squeeze ACT out.
However it’s not that simple as that with the dilemma being if they had a right wing ACT partner, then this would be held against National. After all the Herald campaigned in 2005 for any government but one including the Greens.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Forget the greens , unless you offer free dope
Vote:Better to take Peters and Dunne out and reinforce ACT, then try to talk some sense to the apartied party.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Weihana
The Greens are of the left and are liberal, but socialist? Hardly.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
SPC
Vote:Go and listen to Sue Bradford some day and then come back and say that.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
The greens are nillers .
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
sue bradford is a selfish communist
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Excellent speech going on at the moment from Christopher Finlayson – he has ripped in to Lynne Pillay’s chairing of the Select Committee, and likewise the Greens – said their support would never have happened if Rod Donald was still around – amen to that!
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
the greens are only liarbour slime
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Be Shakey….You make some good points. I think the Greens are going to increase their share of the vote mainly through the indoctrination of the Young over so-called global warming. I am in many ways a right wing green on the food chain, the environment, the wild life. National needs to convince the young of the evils of Socialism and its lack of morality while preaching the virtues of conservation of Nature.
Vote:GD…….. As for the Masterton smacking case, I wonder if it was a Maori Mongrel Mob member who abused his child causing a slight bruise on the shoulder.Perhaps not ,the bruise wouldn’t show through brown skin. I guess they went for a soft target.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
That’s right I2
As much as Rod was a smug bastard at least he had principals.
Unfortunately the greens now represent the 5-10% of the population who have been educated that life is a free ride. Getting votes back off them will be like extracting hens teeth.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
What’s worse bwakile is that as our wonderful schools keep on turning out young people with no sense of consequences, no respect for authority, and a general “what’s in it for me/I don’t give a sh#t about you” attitude, the 5-10% you refer to will grow at an alarming rate.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I recommend to everybody I know to get their kids into integrated schools if possible, they are one of our best chances.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Maori child abuse is way out of control and what is the government doing about it ?
I do welcome any answer . Oh thats right , culturally sensitive ? Crap !! Fix it now !
What about the way muslims abuse the human rights, freedoms of expression and dignity of women Helen ? Ouch , you are so hypocritical with your cowardly silence eh ? Great to see the womens ministry support the EFB !!! What a croc of corrupt shyt .
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
“So Howie would have instructed lower level Plod to make sure you prosecute anything that even looks like an offence.”
Zero tolerance is an evil commitment.
It allows for nothing and strangles society.
Zero tolerance is not helping on the roads and shows what an appalling and fascist indictment it really is.
I can personally attest to the inferiority of my zero tolerance of Cacofinix.
He is still here. Zero tolerance does not work.
Therefore to prove my case against this police state communist govt I shall pursue my zero tolerance against this pitiful example of sub humanity and his existence he fancifully calls a life until the day zero tolerance is officially designated a lost cause.
Therefore people, you can understand there is a method to my suspected madness.
DOWN WITH COMMUNISM
Vote:DOWN WITH CACOFINIX
November 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Is socialism now defined as seeking a rise in the minimum wage or clarifying the law to prevent assaults on children? So actually delivering better wages to New Zealanders and reducing crime is socialism. And merely talking about increasing our wages and reducing crime is right wing …
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“DOWN WITH COMMUNISM”
We agree finally Mr hinamooo ?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
SPC
The greens punch way above their weight because of MMP.
Come back and support them when they win their first electorate seat.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I know of many people who vote green simply because they don’t know any better. They regard themselves as environmentalists, and they are dumb enough to think that the greens are an environmental party, which they are not.
Vote:If the public somehow became educated on the fact that the greens aren’t realy an environmental party, then I beleive that a whole lot of people wouldn’t vote for them.
November 22nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
shreddakj
Vote:I think that was the EB’s point last election but according to Labour we are too stupid to figure that out for ourselves.
November 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
bwakile
Coromandel was won by Fitzsimons some time back.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Newsflash – Clint Rickards resigns
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2007/11/clint-rickards-gone.html
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
D4J: I’ve been afraid of this government since they have twice voted not to treat mothers and fathers the same
I’m asking again because it sounds interesting, I’ve never seen that before. Can you link to the source, please? I’d like to read more about this.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
And then she lost it SPC.
Vote:G
November 22nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
BeShakey and others chatting about the Greens …
I’m not as close to polling data as someone like DPF is (or the National Party HQ is), but … just from casual conversations with friends it seems clear that the Greens support comes from 3 main camps:
(i) the died-in-the-wool compost-your-poos Greens (a la Jeanette Fitzsimons)
(ii) the ex-Socialists/Communists (a la Keith Locke & Sue Bradford)
(iii) well-meaning city dwellers who want to be environmental and think we should stop felling rimu trees on the West Coast.
There are a lot of people in (iii) who could be carved off by a serious alternative environmental pitch. I really wouldn’t be surprised if the Green’s vote is fairly evenly split between the 3 groups I’ve described, and losing a big chunk of (iii) would hurt them. Sure, you’re never going to get the Keith Locke loonies to vote for National. But my sister would if she thought they were serious about the environment.
Yes, National would need to sort out some of their farming & business people. But, as others have said, who else are those guys going to vote for? And, more charitably, I think an increasing number of those people are recognising the need for environmental change, and the commercial value of our “clean green” image.
So … National … get with the programme. Give more prominence to people like the Blue Greens and the business groups for sustainable advantage. Think outside the square.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
ABOUT BLOODY TIME!!!
Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards has announced his resignation from the police force.
The 46-year-old has been suspended on full pay since 2004.
Rickards was involved in a number of allegations of sexual misconduct dating from the 1980s, including having group sex with fellow officers and teenage girls.
Rickards was brought to trial in two rape cases, and was acquitted of both.
Rickards was set to face internal disciplinary charges, but says his resignation means all employment issues will be resolved.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
“If the public somehow became educated on the fact that the greens aren’t realy an environmental party, then I beleive that a whole lot of people wouldn’t vote for them.”
They won’t tho, with the media full of lame left wing liars.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I wonder how much they had to pay Clint Rickards to go???
Am I right in thinking that back in 1999, when Labour came to power, there was a lot of politicking about golden parachute payouts??? And I recall Helen Clark being very stern and disapproving and setting out that Labour would have none of that nonsense.
Am I right? Or am I having an early-onset senior moment?
If I am right then maybe National should be pulling out the old video and doing a YouTube mashup of it. If they know what YouTube is …
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Hansard records will reveal today that the Select Committee on EFB, was a nest of Corruption according to a National Party member at the Select Committee deliberations. “Manipulation”, “Contrivance” etc all the hall marks of as third world democracy. Talk about Human Rights being ground into the mud.
Great speech by Maori Party. Certainly not in favour of the EFB.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
virtualmark: You are correct. Just more “Hollow “words by one of the corrupt parties.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
You’re right on the button vm – and of course, the reality is that Labour has paid out way more in golden handshakes! Oh, the irony!
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
virtual
You make a lot more sense about the greens than me
I would love to see those (iii) people head to national’s well thought out environmental policy. ie one not based on shonky science.
I have still got a bottle of champers in the cellar for the day the greens poll 4.95%
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Hi Pascal , I remember posting this on the mens groups a couple year back . Yawn , yawn , to no avail , why bother as the liar nanny state socialist power freaks in government want to play big brother dad . Who dare says feminazi’s don’t exist in kiwiland? Yeah right , pull the other one cause it plays Helen does Dallas . Go gal go . Who were part of the delegation team at the UN , oops , sorry Sue B .
Attention Fathers ;
We must ask all MP’s to support the 2004 UN Doha Declaration on the Family. It is a very important UN declaration that states nations are to TREAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AS EQUAL PARENTS.
Article 13 [Nations are to] Take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by, among other things, encouraging the full and equal partnership of husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship.
The NZ government refuses to ratify the declaration, yet the vast majority of the UN nations (149 nations) did ratify it. The NZ Government prevented Larry Baldock (United Future) from raising the Doha Declaration in Parliament.
Only the radical feminist countries, NZ, Canada and the European Union refused to ratify, showing how far they are out of step with the rest of the world. The EU dissented from the Declaration, also preventing its own members, Italy and Poland (who backed the Declaration), from supporting it. The EU thus violated its own mandate not to interfere with the policies of its member nations.
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THE NZ GOVERNMENT HAS DELIBERATELY REFUSED TO BACK EQUAL PARENTING – (the first time was the Shared Parenting Bill 2001).
PLEASE TELL ALL POLITICIANS YOU COME INTO CONTACT WITH THAT THEY MUST SUPPORT THE UNITED NATIONS DOHA DECLARATION ON THE FAMILY.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I watched question time and the EFB snd reading debate on TV.
King during question time was hopeless at answering questions from English. She is completely out of her depth with this legislation.
As for the 2nd reading debate I thought Finlayson gave a superb speech, what a great asset he will be in the next National govt. King tended to hurry through her speech and she looked somewhat uneasy. Woolerton is a total waste of space, Dunne sat on the fence as usual though to his credit he clearly has misgivings about the EFB. English was quite good but tended to yell and bluster to get his point across. After watching Pillay I can see why the bill is so full of holes. Ryall was ok too
Heather Roy gave a quite excellent speech. Btw where is old Rodney?
Vote:Out swimming or dancing I guess??
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Is it any wonder child abuse is appalling . Well done Helen Clark !!
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Forget Rodney as his brain is dancing in the stars !
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
D4J: 2004 UN Doha Declaration on the Family
Thank you.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Shared parenting reminds me of the days when wives could be divorced for their affairs, yet their husbands could not. This meant men openly had mistresses and wives had to wear it.
Shared parenting was the implied threat of homemakers losing full time custody of their children – this meant they qwere discouraged from divorcing their partners when they took mistresses – just like in the good old days for men …
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Dunne gets nil credit from me… because it’s his vote that i’m interested in – not his pontification. An he’ll vote for the EFB legislative train wreck.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Dunne seems to be all trouser and no legs. He wants to be in the newspaper being all calm and reasonable … and then he’ll completely roll over and vote for the most outrageous things.
No balls. No convictions. Why oh why do the good people of Onslow keep voting for him??
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I wonder if Helen Klarks parents enjoyed shared parenting ?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
SPC: alternative view. Shared parenting means that after a divorce a father who is paying for a substantial proportion of his child’s upbringing would have a right to spend a reasonable amount of time with that child. At present the system creates some quite substantial road blocks to this happening, with the result that very many fathers lose their relationship with their children.
A number of studies have shown that active involvement from both parents, even if those parents are no longer living together, has an enormous influence on positive life outcomes for children. Our government is ignoring this research, and ignoring a UN declaration. It isn’t clear why, there doesn’t appear to be any downside other than the fact that the causes are quite entrenched in the system so that it is quite hard to correct.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
… because one party is male?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Perhaps kk. SPC’s concern about the threat of losing access to children now applies in reverse. There is a substantial threat that if a father agitates over gradual encroachment on visitation rights that the mother will simply allege abuse of some form. No downside for the mother, since all family court proceedings are closed. No proof needed, the way the law works the judge considers balance of probabilities, not evidence, so the simple fact of an allegation will result in loss of all visitations rights by the father. I realise I’m making this a bit simplistic, but the threat sure as hell works on many fathers.
Again, I see no reason for the government not to seek to correct this problem – I haven’t seen any suggestion of downside for the mother, and the studies are clear on the positive impact on the children.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
PaulL I believe the government’s feminist ideology overrides common sense, thus providing a negative force eradicating family bonds, because they have created a gravy train for parasitic lawyers and nutbar psychologists to actively destroy the family with the new age weapon , parental alienation syndrome ( PAS ) . The power control socialists invented the de family court !! They’re in the fractured family business, ask any kangaroo family court judgey wudgey . But that is a good job if you a judge in and live in the PM ‘s electorate , guess what if you vote liarbour you get awarded as govern general , whats his name , that Indian chap ?? Three smacks and you’re are out boyo ! Thanks bush pig !!
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Agree kk – Dunne has said he supports the revised Bill, but whaddya know, he won’t support it being passed under urgency. Just for the record, the combined votes of Labour, the Greens, Winston 1st and Jimmy A mean that any urgency motion will succeed, unless the Greens have a sudden visitation from Rod Donald and develop a conscience. So Dunne’s refusal to support urgency is grandstanding! Did you hear that, voters in Ohariu-Belmont – don’t vote for Peter the Pillock!
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Anybody see clever trevor the mallard mauler spitting sparks again on TV3 News – live from the loony bin in the beehive . I just wish the place could be fumigated so its vermin could be snuffed . Oh well , who cares , just be like a green rope head and suck the joint man .
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
“DOWN WITH COMMUNISM”
We agree finally Mr hinamooo ?
I never said we weren’t on the same side but you insult every man like they’re your dog.
No loyalty whatsoever.
Enemy fire and friendly fire is all alike to you. you’ll shoot anything that moves.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
PaulL: It isn’t clear why
Google results show that at the time that UN resolution was proposed the NZ government, along with the liberal social democracies of Europe, did not sign it because they felt defining a family as a man and a woman was wrong and did not allow enough scope for a same sex family.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 7:39 pm
“you’ll shoot anything that moves.”
Sorry coward hinamoo , I find that statement bloody offensive you snake , as many army personal would disagree with you . How long were you in the army ? Did you get to go on patrol ? Keyboard vipers are easy targets at 1600m . Pull -splat !
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Cacofinix,,
If you told me you were an American marine I would believe you.
Everyone steers well clear of Americans wif firearms.
If you’re such a big man why aren’t you on a community radio station espousing the rights of fathers and parents. Instead you just tick off everyone in here and don’t show when you’re challenged.
Then you have a cheek to call others cowards.
Cad @ scallywag.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
look hinamoo , I am sick of your shit , you have a real problem , look email me and met ? We sort this out man to man . Oh by the way , whats your real identity ?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
We sort this out man to man .
what a joke,, you never turn up.
you just threaten people and tell them you know where they live
and then get upset when people threaten you.
Which I don’t as you well know.
And why aren’t you on community radio eh??
Zero tolerance has no substance and neither do you.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
“Then you have a cheek to call others cowards.”
Sorry coward , didn’t quite catch your real name Miss Moo . No chance of a meeting then Miss Moo ??
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Meeting , time and place Miss Moo ?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
“No chance of a meeting”
Cathedral Sq beckoned many times Cacofinix.
You’re all rowdy until the Sq talk that many witnesses can testify to.
Unbelievable
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
You are clearly insane Miss Moo . Good bye . What a nutbar .
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I knew it.
I knew you were a squirrel
Nutbars and squirrels just can’t be separated.
Again you have foiled yourself.
Sigh,, all too easy.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
BTW,,
I’m speaking in the safety of general dabate in here.
I noticed I have 10 demerit points for speaking off topic.
I accept that in other threads, but surely I have members privilige
within the confines of the debating chamber.
If not, I ask the speaker of the house to recognise my motion to clearly outline the sanctity and safety of this debate thread especially when exposing the shameful and derogatory behaviour of lesser members.
In the spirit of the anti democracy bill we are engaging against I suggest an ‘aye’ and ‘noe’ chamber to vote on this and other topics when necessary.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
llew , great clip, i used to herd cows as a kid, they have great personalities
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Its bloody hard to get rid of dunne , but the boundries have been changed so this one man band might be on his way out(PLEASE )
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
aye
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Mike, I think the majority involved in the group are Christians. I am not. However, I am a parent and a grandparent. Both my children are good parents and I think it would be an outrage if they got hauled into court for using reasonable force like a smack on the but to discipline their children.
If some people like Dr Peter Davis and his mate Ron Paterson, Health and Disability Commissioner lobby for people not be declined to immigrate because they are HIV+ and I question their sexual preference I will get accused of being a homophobe – quite likely by you. Please explain why religious beliefs of the members of Unity for Liberty are relevant to this discussion.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
A chocolate fish for anyone who knows the number of times D4J has said ‘bye’ and then popped up again pretty much straight away.
Vote:If the correct answer is from a lefty thread jacker, no chocolate fish, but I do have a couple of uppercuts you’re welcome to.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm Vote:
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
PaulL
No one is ignoring research in opposing shared parenting.
They are just recognising a greater adverse impact on women than men from such an arbitrary approach – because women are usually the primary caregiver. The same thing would occur if the primary care-giver was a male and shared parenting occured when the parents relationship ended.
In most cases of one parent care-giving after a partnership ends, it has nothing to do with the man being barred from visitation, but people living in different areas afterwards and spending time with new partners in second families or the absent parent failing to pay maitenance.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
I dare you to watch this without misting over…
You want a cow, don’t you Llew. You do, don’tcha?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
SPC, kindly show us your research
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
FFS Chuck the number of fathers not paying maitenance is well known and the high rate of home movement by New Zealanders is the highest in the western world. Comparatively the number of fathers living in the area, paying maitenance and yet denied access is minor.
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
But still an incredible tragedy SPC. What exactly is the adverse impact on the mother or child if shared parenting was agreed to? I can easily agree that whatever wording was used shouldn’t exclude same sex families or other family groupings because they can break up too, and should have the same rights if they do so. Was that the only objection?
Vote:November 22nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
From the little communication I had with Laila Harre on this back in the first term when she was Woman’s Affairs Minister, I would say no.
The issue might be as much about the balance of power in the relationship while they remain a couple (remember there are many couples who never separate) – and shared parenting weakens the position of the primary care giver (still usually the woman).
If I was offering any advice to those in support of two parent families after a break up, it would be to have the family home vested in the name of the couples children when divorce occurs (until they reach the age of 18). Thus the primary care giver has a better base and the children a secure home and the father a centre to any continuing family life. This could be achieved by the state taking over a mortgage on the property (and or
Vote:resorting to a reverse mortgage) and the two parents working on their own independent housing future out of their own income.
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
On the matter of divorce rates and relationship breakups – full employment and WFF is about all government can do to minimise it.
Vote:November 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
SPC: Why do your solutions seem to involve increased state involvement rather than just giving people some rights and letting them sort it out? “The state taking over a mortgage” – sounds like a recipe for a complete mess.
Vote:November 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
At the moment the state takes over paying the accomodation supplement when the family home is sold for the divorce settlement.
Vote:November 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Via the mortgage the state gets a return for it’s help when the home is sold when the children are 18. Because the (capital gains tax free profit) higher value on the property goes to the government. It’s just good business for the government and an established family home for the children till 18.
Vote: