$10 million to be wasted by Helen

June 24th, 2008 at 9:18 pm by David Farrar

It is outrageous that Helen Clark is going to waste $10 million of taxpayer money by scheduling the referendum on the anti-smacking law after the election.

Asked why it could not be held at the same time as the election, which must be held by November 15, she replied: “Just in terms of sheer organisation, I do not think that is possible”.

That is simply nonsense. The election date is around five months away, and the Chief Electoral Office is a very capable operator who can handle the addition of a referendum question. They read the newspapers and would have contingency plans for if the petition succeeds and is held with the election.

Everyone knows that Helen is lying when she says it is not logistically possible. The truth is that politically Helen does not want it at the same time as the election, so she is prepared to waste $10 million in order to advantage herself.

Tags: , ,

238 Responses to “$10 million to be wasted by Helen”

  1. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    Hels middle name is “waste”.

    Labour is going to take another hit in the polls because of this decision. It’s all a question of how low can they go? A limbo party to match the limbo economy.

    The sooner we get shot of Labour and by default the Greens the better!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Monty (978 comments) says:

    Blind panic! She no longer has any respect for democracy. Power is all that motivates this desperate and now dangerous Labour Government. She is as corrupt as she is a liar. This issue needs to be kept alive as long as possible. Every journalist needs to ask her why there is not the time to arrange the referendum in time.. The media need to challenge her fool answers.

    The issue here is much bigger than pro or anti-smacking – the issue is now Clark’s motivation for delaying the referendum because it does not suit her purpose – what next delay the election till next year because of uncertain economic times. The woman (and her lickspittle poodles) have lost their moral compass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Assuming we will have a National led government (or an outright National government) after the election, couldn’t Our Hero Mr John Key come to the rescue and save us the $10million by repealing the anti-smacking law before the referendum is held, thereby rendering one unnecessary?

    Now, I know bold policy initiatives are not exactly Our Hero Mr John Key’s style, but if “everyone” in real life (as on Kiwiblog) is so opposed to the anti-smacking law then this would hardly be a courageous move for Key to make would it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Monty (978 comments) says:

    The question (in an OIA) needs to be put to the Cheif Electoral Officer “Did you have contingency plans in place to hold a referendum at the same time as the General Election?” and What preparations have you made prior to the 24 June 2008 to hold a referendum at the same time as the election n 2008?” and “what additional resources do you need to hold a referendum at the same time as the election?” and What is the cost of holding a referendum at the same time as the election” and “what is the expected cost of holding a seperate referendum during the election cycle” and finally

    “please advise if in sheer terms of organisation is it too difficult to hold a referendum at the same time as the election – if so why? and if not then why not?”

    That way we would know for sure whether or not Clark is yet again lying to the public of NZ (I bet my house Clark is lying again as the lust for power is all that motivates this desperate and sad woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Vinick (216 comments) says:

    I bet Key is privately dreading a referendum too. I mean, what can he do? He whipped all his MPs into voting to ban smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Clark’s outright dishonesty and arrogance is a typical behaviour belonging to someone struggling with the reality that she is immensely disliked by the majority of sane thinking New Zealanders. She lacks principles and is both weak and untrustworthy, as her false pride clearly portrays a ruler who is completely unbalanced and unprincipled. She is oblivious to her state of mind, because her tunnel vision has dulled her senses, and makes her a sad case study as she desperately clings onto absolute power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. first time caller (384 comments) says:

    No respect for democracy, dictating how we live…sounds very similar to Zimbabwe to me. I used to think Clark was turning into Muldoon, but we are now starting to see essence of Mugabe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Buried deep within that impressive little auto-rant of Dad’s, I perceive one actual fact:

    Clark (…) is (…) disliked (…) [as Prime Minister] (…)by [a] majority of (…) New Zealanders [according to recent polls].

    hey, I must be getting better at reading Dad4justice-ese!

    (PS and YES first time caller, Clark is getting JUST like Mugabe. Only this evening on my way home, I saw a load of Act supporters being dumped into a mass grave…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mark (496 comments) says:

    Lairbour wasting NZders hard earned dollars because they will lose the election.

    Typical of a corrupt and incomptent government.

    What’s that matter lefties, scared of a few christian extermists you were claiming on an earlier thread.

    Boo hoo. Harden up soft cocks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    It’s win win for National.

    If the referendum is included with the election it reminds voter of how Labour forces unpopular laws on the electorate. Nanny state at its worse.

    If the referendum is deferred then National can continually point to Labour being scared of the will of the electorate and that Labour wishes to deny the voice of the people. In effect they make the election a proxy for the denied referendum. A vote for a Labour is a vote supporting the Anti-smacking law and a vote for National a vote against the Anti-smacking law.

    The only outcome is a good smack to Labour and Hels. Turns out that Hels doesn’t know best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. first time caller (384 comments) says:

    RRM she’s shutting down free speech, it’s the tip of the iceberg!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    It says a lot about Clark’s administration doesn’t it? Mugabae organised an entire second general election in Zimbabwe in only four months. – (Helen really should have paid closer attention to her mentor)

    I hope Key lets it be known that public servant heads will later roll if they cannot organise this

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Mark Mark Mark…

    (1) It’s Liarbour. As in Liar. not Lair.
    (2) It’s incompetent. Kiwiblog does automatic spell checking of standard words, you should have got that one.
    (3) Extremist = Extreme – e + ist. Not Extermist. Again, the spell checker makes this easy.
    (4) At the end of a question, use a question mark.
    (5) We leftie soft cocks get demerit points when we use language like “Soft Cocks”, I will be interested to see how you fare :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    Anyone sense another embarrassing climb down for Hels? Has a feel of the failed “waterfront stadium” idea about it.

    As the Rolling Stones might say, “You can’t always get what you want”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    Surely a citizens initiated referendum should be administrated by a completely independant body, not by those in power. Including the best time to hold it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    NEWSFLASH:

    **Young Nats meeting broken up by Labour thugs with baseball bats & machetes – at least 12 confirmed dead.

    **Key calls upcoming election “a sham” and goes into hiding, fearing for personal safety. Warns National supporters not to risk their lives by going to the polls…

    Yup, just like Mugabe’s Zimbabwe…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. JiveKitty (778 comments) says:

    “YES first time caller, Clark is getting JUST like Mugabe. Only this evening on my way home, I saw a load of Act supporters being dumped into a mass grave…”

    Shit, RRM, you don’t say! I’m going to have to change who I was thinking about voting for then if I’m to avoid that mass grave. It’s a pity she’s resorted to tactics like that, to be honest. I always thought she’d be able to do it more subtly. (Mass graves after the election.) Mind you, I’m not really an ACT supporter, per se. It’s more that I was thinking of giving them my party vote for strategic reasons. Plus I really want to see Wodney back dancing in Parliament again… I’d still be done in by those thugs regardless of my reasons, right?

    Oh, back on issue. It would seem to me that election day would be a pretty good date to hold a referendum. There’d probably be a better turnout, and less publicisation required, and sure those who don’t care might tick any box, but it shouldn’t make a difference statistically with those who don’t care, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    A vote for a Labour is a vote supporting the Anti-smacking law and a vote for National a vote against the Anti-smacking law.

    Wrong. National has given no assurance that they will go along with the wishes of the vast majority of good parents. If one who believes that parents know the best way how to raise their children and not the State vote for the Kiwi Party and we will see a change to this anti family law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Letterman (184 comments) says:

    National, ACT, and now the Greens have reportedly said that they would support the referendum being held at the same time as the Election. Two of the aforementioned parties voted for the Bill, and one of the aforementioned parties sponsored the Bill. Either National and the Greens are supremely confident that ther Electorate is with them, or they are barking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. JiveKitty (778 comments) says:

    I’d say it’s got more to do with pragmatism kicking in. It’s a very bad move to go against the electorate, because it will probably come back to haunt you, even if it is at the beginning of the electoral cycle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    RMM – do you become tired from defending the indefensible? I mean, it’s one thing (and completely acceptable) to dislike National and/or despise the baying for blood that’s so common around here, which of course, I contribute to… but it’s something completely different (wrong? immoral? etc) to defend Helen Clarks desperate manipulation of this situation to satisfy her craven lust for power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “**Young Nats meeting broken up by Labour thugs with baseball bats & machetes – at least 12 confirmed dead”. – How can you swing a machete or baseball bat with a limp wrist? I guess Helen will be doing a dozen eulogies then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. JiveKitty (778 comments) says:

    “How can you swing a machete or baseball bat with a limp wrist?”

    Like a handbag. It’s not pretty or effective, kind of like this Labour government when you think about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Jivekitty – I would have thought Key would come out looking pretty good in the public estimation if he repealed the anti-smacking act, or at least eased the way for the referendum. Given the prevailing climate of “times are bad so we need a change” I think most people would accept Key taking a position of “We realize now how unpopular the (anti-smacking) bill is, so now we’re going to retract our earlier support of it.” All he needs to do is be upfront about this, and he will be everybody’s friend.

    getstaffed – I have no particular desire to “defend” Clark, nor do I see much point in it. I don’t think Clark has any more of a craven lust for power than any of the rest of them. She is trying to make the best of the situation, that is what politicians do.

    What I am ALL about is ridiculing the ludicrous suggestions that hysterical people keep putting up on here, that New Zealand under the Clark government is ANYTHING like Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. This is just Stupid and shows a basic lack of, well, good taste. Google ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ and you’ll get the idea…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    So far I have yet to see any of the usual leftie crowd advance a good reason why it makes sense to hold the referendum after the election, at a cost of $10m. Surely that money would be better spent on care for the elderly, sickness beneficiaries, education, environmental causes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. reid (16,509 comments) says:

    RRM: “the Clark government is ANYTHING like Mugabe’s Zimbabwe”

    The Clark government is LIKE Mugabe’s in its disregard for anything but its own viewpoint. It’s not as extreme as the Zim military (who BTW are the ones behind Mugabe), but is more extreme than NZ is used to or quite frankly should be expected to tolerate.

    Liarbore seems to tend toward extremes, then they run out of steam. Idealism has its price.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. JiveKitty (778 comments) says:

    It would depend how the public react to the move. They can either see it as a good thing, or they can see it as taking away their choice. It doesn’t really matter if they don’t support the Bill if those opposed to National get the media portrayal right. And by right, I mean if they manage to get National portrayed as unresponsive to, and afraid of, the will of the nation. It would’ve been good policy if National had announced it before Clark announced this, but Clark, I think, has the upper hand, inasmuch as she can have one, on this issue now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. reid (16,509 comments) says:

    “So far I have yet to see any of the usual leftie crowd advance a good reason why it makes sense to hold the referendum after the election, at a cost of $10m”

    Point of principle isn’t it get staffed, Liarbore are for principal are they not?

    Why doesn’t the PM have the guts to put one of her most well known third-term policies to the vote?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Reid – wouldn’t you want ANY political party you were going to vote for, to “disregard all other viewpoints” and work all out for their policies that you have mandated them (with your vote) to fight for?

    I doubt many Act voters would be impressed if Rodney Hide turned around after the elections and became a friend of the unions!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    RMM – the Helen/Mugabe/Hitler conversation is littered with hyperbole on both sides. Of course if you only permit a binary comparison then the discussion is completely absurd.

    But it’s not a binary comparison. The point being made is that an abuse of power to help hold or increase power becomes a cyclical thing. And while one action may only be trivially less democratic the one that preceded it, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out where that goes. As a very patriotic Kiwi I am very concerned about where NZ is headed under Helen Clark’s leadership.

    So feel free to mock comparisons between Helen and other leaders who you consider to be objectionable. Just realise that some of us think the gap is closing fast.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. francis (712 comments) says:

    I take it none of you saw John Key’s segments on this on the news tonight. He said very clearly that the referendum should go forward and that it should not be delayed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Letterman said: National, ACT, and now the Greens have reportedly said that they would support the referendum being held at the same time as the Election.

    Yep, as a Green Party member (possibly out of step with the Party line – haven’t checked, but don’t worry, sure I won’t be expelled) I would support it being held at the time of the election. But only because the law allows for this travesty of democracy called Citizens Initiated Referenda to be held at all. So let’s get it over and done with.

    Whatever the result is, it will be argued by the respective protagonists as either supporting opposing the current law. The “no goodparent has been convicted for smacking their child under this law” argument versus the “this law constrains my right to hit my child to correct his or her behaviour” argument.

    Larry Ballcock made such a numbskulled effort wording the referendum that, whatever the outcome, both sides will claim victory. And CIRs put a smple, often ambiguous, questin before the public, or alternatively, one that no-one can disagree with – recal lthe Firefighters one. It is just a joke.

    Law cannot be legitimately made by referenda – other than, as happened with the Electoral Act 1993, when the whole Act (after Select Committe deliberation) was made available to the public to vote on.

    But still, this should happen rarely, and on matters of constitutional importance. The general public, preoccupied with earning a living and their family relationship, should not be expected to analyse legislation on a day to day basis in order to vote in referenda.

    The CIR advocates rely on political apathy built on preoccupation with day to day living, because that is what will deliver the outcome that slick advertising funded by their corporate (and in the case of hitting kids, fundie Christian) backers, in the absence of a widely publicised alternative view, will deliver.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    John Key’s first task upon becoming the Government later this year is the scrapping of the EFA. He’s already stated this.

    The implementation of the smacking law has always pushed votes to National. John Key doesn’t need to unilaterally do anything regarding scrapping the smacking law. The referendum is required to happen by law if it passes the required numbers. The result will be an overwhelming rejection of the smacking law. The only way John Key can lose on this issue is if people associate the implementation of the smacking law with him. Lucky for John they don’t.

    Nanny State = Labour and Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    And yet she managed to get the EFA rushed through by Christmas……….

    This latest line from Helen is what she intended all along. I recall an interview on Radio Live where she referred to the ‘trick’ of having referenda at the same time as elections in the USA, and referred to this particular referendum as a tactic from ‘far-right groups’ to destabilise the 2008 election.

    So she decided even before the signatures were collected that she must delay the process as much as possible. This is why she put pressure on the original count and why it had a peculiar formula to verify the signatures – one which would require further ‘proof’ knowing that the closer to an election that the proof be provided, the more likely it would be she could put off the referendum.

    By the way, remember she sent into the last election with a strategic climbdown over the anti-smacking issue, then reneged?

    Well, if she gets in again, or has traction in opposition, she will surely renege on this as well. Because after all, what Helen wants, Helen gets…
    In the meantime, expect much more fo the kind of dogwhistling we have heard from Bradford of late on this issue.
    Her’s a taste –
    After all this whole issue is motivated by a small clique of far-right religious extremists who want to turn the clock back and change the law to make it legal to bash their kids, isn’t it?
    As for Key – he should embrace the idea of the referendum. it’s not as if the hard-out labour or greens are ever going to vote for him, so he isn’t risking alienating them by coming out in favour fo teh people having a voice, is he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    getstaffed – yes it is a more subtle matter than simple black and white. All the more reason why it does not help to resort to gross exaggerations a la “Clark is supressing freedom of speech – just like Mugabe”.

    It is also belittling in the extreme, to the suffering of people in other parts of the world who really are being murdered and tortured, to imply that their plight is little more than “a somewhat advanced case” of universal behaviours everywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Twocan (25 comments) says:

    This decision from Clark is pure electioneering so her and the Labour party can be distanced from legislation they significantly assisted in putting through parliament. This Government is yet again wasting more money in bureaucracy by having a separate referendum. It is clear a large proportion of the electorate is unhappy with the bill and our ‘Dear Leader’ is just trying to use $10 million of taxpayer money to do so.

    While not a representative survey or anything the most trusted NZ’er survey had Sue Bradford at 4th on the least trusted list, can’t think of many reasons other than the Anti-smacking bill for her to be there in the general publics perception.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    …by their corporate (and in the case of hitting kids, fundie Christian) backers …

    Is ok to label Christian-haters as homophobic? I’m a Christian (who has a few gay friends.. and I’m definitely a ‘fundie’ – gosh!) and it’s just assumed by folks like toad that I’m a, nasty ‘homophibic’ piece of work. I’ve got used to the slur – it’s just too common now to get worked up about these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. JiveKitty (778 comments) says:

    And again we’re back to the fundie Christians. Fundies don’t have much support, even within the Church, because they tend towards the crazy. Go and find out what a fundamentalist Christian is before you try and imply that they are the leaders of some great conspiracy. And cut the crap with stock lines showing a a paranoia of religion, and religious people.

    I’m not religious, and I don’t have a great love for the Church. In fact, I slide towards disliking the Church (not individuals within it) but seriously, enough of this leftist paranoia regarding the power of fundie Christians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Um, OECD rank 22 kiwi , the referendum wording doesn’t actually reference the wording of the legislation.

    Larry Baldock was very clever re that, but it may backfire. Because both sides of the argument will still be able to argue that the referendum outcome supports their position.

    If Baldock had the first clue about how this [stupid and antidemocratic piece of legislation] works, he should have put up the wording of the current section 59, and proposed an amendement to it, and asked which of them people supported.

    That would have given a genuine response. The current referendum is bullshit.

    Anyone here support a petition to repeal (or at least amend) the CIR Act? Because it is just an undemocratic joke, subject to the influence of political party – or in this case fundie church – money, and does not deserve a place in our statutes in its current form.

    There may be a case for CIR if the actual proposed wording of a Bill or amendment to a Bill were provided. Then everyone could vote on the basis of what was before them, rather than ambiguous and/or leading question in the referendum wording.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    RMM – let me refresh our collective memories. The first mention of Mugabe on this thread was from first time caller thus:
    First time caller:

    I used to think Clark was turning into Muldoon, but we are now starting to see essence of Mugabe

    Pretty soft really. An opinion that behavioural trends suggested she was become more like Mugabe. Notice the word essence. And how did you respond?

    RMM:

    PS and YES first time caller, Clark is getting JUST like Mugabe. Only this evening on my way home, I saw a load of Act supporters being dumped into a mass grave

    So who is inflaming the discussion with wild hyperbole?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. JiveKitty (778 comments) says:

    Getstaffed, I did enjoy the use of loaded language — “hitting kids”, “fundie Christian”. It was nice to know such tolerance still exists amongst the enlightened. Believe what you want, I guess, unless someone “enlightened” finds it offensive. While you shouldn’t be holding your nasty views, they should be allowed to hold and actively promote their own views regarding you, aye? No matter how nasty or wrong they are…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    40 responses so far at 11.07pm . Not a single one defending Clark’s untenable claim that there is not enough time to hold a referendum at the same time as the general election. Not a single justification as to why the taxpayers are forced to spend 10 Million Dollars. Note the hyperbole and sidestepping to knock down the strawmen of the rabid few.
    I issue a challenge. Can anyone reading this thread, yes anyone, reasonably and realistically defend Clarks’s position opposing the democratic voice of the people and endorse wasting 10 million dollars more.
    I go to sleep confidently knowing that no one will be able to rise to this challenge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    getstaffed said: … and I’m definitely a ‘fundie’…

    Well, I feel sorry for you then. Because being a fundamentalist locks you into a belief system that leaves no room to move. In my life I have been a Methodist Christian, a National Party supporter, then a Labour Party supporter, (briefly) a Mormon Christian, than an Athiest and, now, a Green Party supporter.

    Fundamentalism could never have given me the freedom and ability to make that progression – by its very nature it represses freedom of thought and expression, so is anti-democratic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    getstaffed: “So who is inflaming the discussion with wild hyperbole?”

    Don’t give me that. You’ve been around long enough to have made 1573 comments, you must have seen plenty examples of the hysteria I am talking about by now, to appreciate why I am criticising it, surely?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Well I have to say toad that prior post from yourself is the most concise and comprehensive set of self-righteous pomposity I have thus far witnessed on kiwiblog.

    On behalf of the general public, may I extend a heartfelt vote of devoted gratitude for your chivalrous effort to save us from ourselves. I know it is hard for us to make up our minds when bombarded by all those slick messages from ‘corporates and fundie christians’, thank goodness we have The Greens and Labour to do our thinking for us, and rescue us from NZ’s society’s lemming-like tendencies to oppose apartheid, endorse nuclear-free, embrace Waitangi and support the BoRA!

    Oh, and vote Green MPs into positions of power. What a f**n drag it must be for you to have to go ‘cap in hand’ every three years tothe electorate eh, when all they want really is to wallow in their apathetic lives?

    I realise that the 1993 Electoral Act must have been an aberration, but that’s just what I mean about all those other silly laws, as well! I suppose in your incredible sense of enlightened elevation, you might begrudgingly allow a referendum, (seeings as it is legal and everything). Besides you soon stamped out that little tendency by making sure no one got a look in on the EFA, didn’t you?
    How incredibly generous of you to allow a referendum on the s.59 thingy!

    Still, you can, well, let the peasantry have their few brief moments of glory, eh? Then allow us all to get back to our sad apathetic lives, and leave the real decision-making to the professionals. They can once more get on with rigging up legislation behind closed doors, and accusing anyone who might disagree with them of being simply ‘NQOC’.*

    I know, I know…. Isn’t democracy a drag?

    Once again. Thank you.

    *= Not Quite Our Class – used by the upper echelons of English society ie ‘We were a little worrried that Mildred might marry Sam, but luckily she changed her mind when she realised he was ‘NQOC'”
    It’s a form of petty bigotry.

    Still one can always amend laws retrospectively can’t one? And if the peasantry doesn’t like it well, Then the peasants can just piss up a rope, eh old thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    10 Million Dollars is small change to the great Labour waste machine. They thought nothing of sticking their hands in the till and stealing $800,000 to get themselves re-elected in 2005 so why be surprised they would blow 10 Million Dollars of other peoples money rorting the system yet again. Not content with their attack on freedom courtesy of the EFA they now wish do deny the voice of the people. Well the people aren’t content with Labour, that’s the fundamental issue that Labour won’t address.

    This regime is dieing. It can’t happen soon enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    RMM – If you’re going to accuse folks of going off the deep end then better to check where you just jumped from.

    toad – Thanks, but life’s pretty good with or without your pity. You obviously have you own view of what fundermentalism is… and it’s light years from my own. As for being ‘locked in a belief system that leaves no room to move’… you need to get out more, or perhaps look in the mirror.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Of course it should go to referendum, every election should carry a few ‘sticky questions’ along with it for the ride. Imagine how simple politics would be if the politicians were telling the truth when they told us they were acting on the vote of the majority, the will of the people. Clark has completely lost the plot, if she believed in her position she would welcome a referendum. Spineless self serving….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Having just looked through how the timing of this would work, there is sufficient time for the election and a referendum to be held on any election date after the last Saturday in September.

    If the Government wishes to go early – that’s mid-September or earlier, they could run out of time, otherwise any delay will be solely at their option, and not by force of circumstance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. dave (988 comments) says:

    The date of the smacking referendum has to be announced by September 23 at the latest. If Helen Clark cant get her A into G and rustle up the troops she is as lazy as the many of the troopy public servants who suck off the public tit.

    If Helen wont allow the referendum at the election, there will be a significant voter backlash, The Greens, National , Act, and Copeland should put their money where their mouth is and ask the House to pass a resolution setting the smacking referendum date itself. Sure it may not pass the required 75% support, but it will send a message a lot stronger than the anti smacking law did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. LabourDoesntWork (290 comments) says:

    Fundamentalism could never have given me the freedom and ability to make that progression – by its very nature it represses freedom of thought and expression, so is anti-democratic.

    It probably makes little sense to you that the most undemocratic countries tend to be atheistic by nature and the most democratic usually are historically Christian. Now, if you were talking about Islamic fundamentalism… Well, there’s fundamentalism and then there’s fundamentalism. Best not to conflate them as your claim using the definition of fundamentalism you seem to have is a meaningless tautology.
    The most dangerous fundamentalism today beside the cult of Islam is environmentalism which subsumes all human life and the economy to its own Higher Goal: that of saving the planet. Thus it provides limitless ways to limit freedom and control human lives – all conveniently much lesser things to suffer than the really big one, i.e. destroying the planet, should we not submit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. dave (988 comments) says:

    I personally would like to see the referendum included in the election, but only if it checks out first, unlike the last time it was submitted, therefore these things can’t be rushed

    Neither do they need to take the longest possible time. The Government has a habit of rushing things it wants [EFA] and delaying things it doesnt want.

    It can be done well before an early election without being rushed. If the Government wanted to, the checking and date announcement could be done by the end of next month – or the date announcement even delayed to coincide with the announcement of the election date.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Nomestradamus (3,344 comments) says:

    Quotable quote 1:

    Just in terms of sheer organisation, I do not think that is possible.

    This is a carefully qualified statement, couched in terms of what Clark thinks is possible. Clark has sought advice on a range of matters during her time in office, and presumably the Chief Electoral Office will freely give advice if invited to do so. If, as appears to be the case, Clark’s only concern is about logistics, a simple phone call to the Chief Electoral Office should clear that up.

    Quotable quote 2:

    Last weekend marked the first anniversary of the so-called anti-smacking law. Its architect, Green MP Sue Bradford, said it was working well and should be left alone. … “Over the past couple of years more and more New Zealanders are turning away from using violence in bringing up their children,” she said.

    Goodness, surely Bradford didn’t mean to suggest this law was unnecessary?

    On a more legalistic note, section 22AA of the CIR Act says:

    Date of indicative referendum not conducted by postal voting
    (1) The date appointed under section 22(2)(a) for holding the indicative referendum under this Act must be a date within 12 months after the date on which the indicative referendum petition is presented to the House of Representatives.

    I believe the NZPA article stops here. But there’s more:

    (2) However, subsection (1) does not apply in the circumstances described in subsection (3) or subsection (5).
    (3) [not presently relevant]

    (5) The circumstances referred to in subsection (2) are that—
    (a) a general election must be held on a date that is within 12 months after the date on which the indicative referendum petition is presented to the House of Representatives (because of section 17 of the Constitution Act 1986); and
    (b) the House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the indicative referendum to be held on the polling day for the general election.
    (6) In the circumstances described in subsection (5), the indicative referendum is held on polling day.

    A parliamentary resolution is obviously passed by a majority of all the members, and I believe 61 currently constitutes a majority. Others are more informed on this than me, but I presume any member can move a resolution. Now we have National (48), United Future (3) and Act (2) who are likely to support the resolution – that’s 53 already. With New Zealand First’s (7) support – which can’t be taken for granted – that becomes 60.

    The issue isn’t whether the law is defensible. The issue is when to hold the referendum (which must be within 12 months) – and, specifically, whether it should be held at the same time as the general election. I’d be surprised if a majority of MPs didn’t think this was a sensible approach.

    Question for “Toad”:

    Anyone here support a petition to repeal (or at least amend) the CIR Act? Because it is just an undemocratic joke, subject to the influence of political party – or in this case fundie church – money, and does not deserve a place in our statutes in its current form.

    Please expand on this. What specific examples do you have of the CIR Act being abused? Also, how do you reconcile this with the Greens’ “utopian” (to borrow a D4Jism) idea of direct democracy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ddub (1 comment) says:

    How very right you are “LabourDoesntWork” (Indeed, work sure doesn’t work! HA!), your post made very little sense.
    To the issue: General elections are far too important to be sullied by a very trivial referendum. Especially one on a matter where both major parties voted in favour of change. One where people would actually vote for (Or more hopefully not) angry child beating. It would be a disservice to our democracy to taint election day with side-shows. If the numbers on the petition are valid, surely even it’s authors would prefer the referendum to be treated properly, and not simply rushed through (As so many of you seem to be for or against depending on circumstance).
    Calm down old folks, take your meds and spend some time with your children. Child rearing doesn’t end with your rutting.
    I have difficulty sleeping, I read this blog and soon the tears of laughter put me to sleep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. dave (988 comments) says:

    This is along the lines of what I have been considering. And I`d be interested to know, Toad, whether you think the Greens would support such a resolution, irrespective of whether the date of the election is known at the time of resolution. Most MPs would think it was a sensible approach but expect some to be whipped again should such a resolution be drawn up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    The only logical choice for this referendum is to hold it with the General Election. Hels may be running scared right now but I’m sure after a bit more pressure is applied to her, she will grudgingly do the right thing and hold the referendum with the General Election.

    The only way she can morally avoid this is to have an early election, something which appears unlikely.

    This election year is turning out to be a classic with much mirth, glee and amusement. Hels is acting like a right Donkey on one issue after another. Never setting the agenda, only fighting defensive actions (Badly).

    Bye bye Hels, bye bye.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Nomestradamus – UnitedFuture is 2 members, but you can add Gordon Copeland and Taito Phillip Field to help get your 61.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Nomestradamus’s comment ignites the issue of political empowerment by the public.

    “This is a carefully qualified statement, couched in terms of what Clark thinks is possible. Clark has sought advice on a range of matters during her time in office, and presumably the Chief Electoral Office will freely give advice if invited to do so. If, as appears to be the case, Clark’s only concern is about logistics, a simple phone call to the Chief Electoral Office should clear that up”.

    Helen Clark isn’t the only person with the ability to ring the Chief Electoral Office. Direct democracy is the public not being apathetic. It the public wants a referendum in the elections: Get one. Don’t moan and bitch. If Helen has got plenty of time to get it onto the polling paper then so do you any. “Hypocrasy appears as the greatest form of vote”.

    There is a Hel of a lot more of us than there is a Helen. Be proactive and get the referendum into the booth.

    Kind regards,

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    I’m really quite chuffed that my party stuck with commonsense the entire time this bill was debated and we were the only party to stick to our guns the entire time. ACT deserve plenty of credit for this.

    How many violent deaths are we witnessing since this law was passed? I certainly didnt notice any parents stop beating their kids, although a few parents were subjected to embarrassing police visits.

    Nice one New Zealand. Keep voting these guys in and you deserve every single thing you get.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    political busker makes a sound point. On what grounds has Helen made the assertion there is not enough time other than some she has made up. Why do we simply ‘believe’ such BS?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Helen has had 24 hours for us to indulge this fairytale, now it’s time to turn up the heat and expose the lie for what it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    JeremyR – after that sparkling theological dissertation, perhaps you might enlighten us further and explain why Helen needs to spend $10m of your money unnecessarily.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Fletch (6,408 comments) says:

    Helen’s full of sh*t. This government has well and truly crossed over from doing what is best for the people to doing what is best for Labour. Any action they take – this year especially – can be taken to be political maneuvering rather than doing what is best for the electorate; that goes for the Treelords deal as well.

    This year Labour’s theme is ‘what can we do (or be seen to be doing) for the country? Lets look at the issues and throw some money at the things we should actually have fixed in the last nine years but which are actually too late to fix properly now’.
    Whoever the next government is, is going to have to be spending HUGE money in the next few years trying to combat youth crime and aggression thanks to the after effects of Bradford’s smacking law mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    for example – who can provide examples of snap elections, fast turnarounds and rapid enectments from history which scotch the ‘there”s not enough time’ line?
    We have already seen the law re this. Is Helen constitutionally allowed to choose this ‘date’ or if the house says is she obliged to go with it at election time?
    Who can provide examples of Helen using the resources of state to get laws and such passed in tight time-frames when she agreed with them?
    Is the Electoral Commission obliged to act on the results of the petition, in a particular time, if they are valid, regardless of what the HoS says?
    Is there a higher authority than Helen, or is her word law (even in this case her throw-away remarks)?
    Finally, who can provide examples of Helen saying something which is untrue, or doing a volte-face afterwards to indicate why we should not belive this particular ‘judgement’ from Helen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. JiveKitty (778 comments) says:

    Fundamentalist typically means that you believe in a literal interpretation of your religious text, or a literal interpretation of chosen “fundamental principles” from your religious text. Often, this interpretation blinds people to certain things. But the majority of Christians are not fundamentalists.

    You’re just as intolerant and blind as those you seem to dislike.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Before 12.00 pm please…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird:
    “Wrong. National has given no assurance that they will go along with the wishes of the vast majority of good parents. If one who believes that parents know the best way how to raise their children and not the State vote for the Kiwi Party and we will see a change to this anti family law.”

    Whoa, hold your horses there. There are three parties contesting this election that would all push for the repeal of the smacking law – Act, The Family Party and The Kiwi Party, in order of their likelihood of actually gaining seats. If you want to vote for a Christian party, The Family Party is the result of efforts to create a unified Christian party that will work for all families (Christian and non-Christian). The Kiwi Party is a couple of breakaways who chose to leave the process to create this united party. The Family Party is making good headway in at least one seat and has a reasonable chance of getting an electorate seat and removing the 5% threshold. The Kiwi Party has, as far as I can see at the moment, far less chance of getting any seats, so you are liable to waste your votes there.

    If you want change, vote Act or The Family Party (Act if you’re liberal or anti-Christian, The Family Party if you’re conservative or Christian) and we might actually see change (both parties have plenty of other good policies too). Wasting votes will result in less MPs after the election pushing for change, and will achieve the opposite of what you desire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    JiveKitty:
    “Fundamentalist typically means that you believe in a literal interpretation of your religious text, or a literal interpretation of chosen “fundamental principles” from your religious text.”

    Here you are somewhere near the truth, but taking it completely wrongly.

    “Fundamental Fun`da*men”tal, a. [Cf. F. fondamental.]
    Pertaining to the foundation or basis; serving for the
    foundation. Hence: Essential, as an element, principle, or
    law; important; original; elementary; as, a fundamental
    truth; a fundamental axiom.
    [1913 Webster]”

    A fundamentalist is someone who believes the fundamentals (essentials) of their faith. In other words, a fundamentalist Christian would believe the fundamental truths of Christianity – Jesus is the Son of God, died for our sins, rose again, we can go to heaven if we believe in Him. A fundamentalist Moslem would believe the essentials of Islam. There is nothing in this about radicalism or anything like that. Rather, any true Christian (or Moslem, Hindu etc) would be classed a fundamentalist, as to deny the fundamental truths of the faith would be to not believe it.

    The term fundamentalist is now used to refer to followers of whatever viewpoint within a religion the outside world happens to see as crazy at the moment. But this is completely wrong. The word is an English word with a real meaning – someone who believes the fundamentals. Nothing more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    John Armstrong has exposed the hypocricy of Clark’s pronouncement

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/06/armstrong-on-referenda.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    For Helen to say that there is not enough time to enact this referendum is an out and out lie. The media should call her on this. Clark knows that this policy was passed in the face of large public opionion against this, yet in order to keep the greens onside, labour proceeded.

    This should have been the first inkling that Labour had lost it’s way, or at least indicated that it was too reliant on it’s minority partners go govern effectively.

    This issue is now back on the front burner. If it is not on the referendum, there will be questions as to why, which will reflect badly on the Government. If it is on the referendum, then every voter, at the time of casting their ballot, will be reminded of the measures that the government has taken in the face of public opinion against, and that will reflect badly on the government.

    To summarise: Rock——-Helen——-Hard Place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Lee C – the House has the power the declare that the referendum should be held concurrently with the election. The Governor-General, by order-in-council, must set a date within one month of a successful petition being presented to Parliament (which, if the petition is successful, will almost certainly happen on August 26).

    The Governor-General/cabinet cannot declare that the referendum will take place on polling day without actually naming a date for the election. On this matter the word of the cabinet is effectively law. If they want a postal referendum some time next year (or a get out and vote referendum) they can insist on one. It will have been the Government’s choice, however. It won’t be be through force of circumstance, or insufficient time. If they are not concurrent it will be because the Government opted for them not to be.

    Also, the Electoral Commission has absolutely nothing to do with CIR. It will be conducted through the Chief Electoral Office, following the issue of a writ by the Governor-General.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Lets see if they have real names on the petition.

    I know for a fact there are a number of M Mouse and D Duck names on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Fairly instructive that the Labour ‘heavies’ who troll this blog (GWW3, Sonic, Tane etc) are notable by their absence from this thread. Clearly they have decided against trying to defend the indefensible. Stupid yes (goes with the territory) but dumb, no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. a3catlady (58 comments) says:

    The only reason Helen could possibly say that it is not possible to hold this referendum due to “sheer logistics” is if the election is going to be significantly earlier than Nov 15 and there are only a few, deluded, people who would know if Helen is actually thinking on this one or is just in sheer panic mode to retain power for powers sake.
    Not sure how she is going to pick the election date if the “extremist” polls continue to fail to record an increase in support for Liarbore however, as that is the traditional way in which she operates.
    Come on Helen – give us an election date, and lets get this charade over with. PLEASE

    OH and Lee C – there is a higher power than Helen – its called “the people” and we “the people” get to choose sometime in the next five months if we want Helen or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Lets see if they have real names on the petition

    Of course there will be false names. 99.9% of which will have been provided by people like you sonic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Oooooooops. Sonic beat me 2 minutes. Question … how would Sonic “know for a fact there are a number of M Mouse and D Duck names on it” if he/she wasn’t a Parliamentary (Labour) staffer?

    Pardon me your slip is showing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    And Sonic confirms once again that the left will do anything to deny the people true democracy.

    If any of you doubted that Labour and Labour people are corrupt then you only need to consider how far they will go to deny the will of the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    JeremyR:
    I understand The Family Party is making good headway on the ground there, but we will have to wait and see polls closer to the election. The main point I was making is that they have more chance of getting a seat than The Kiwi Party, so if a voter doesn’t want to waste their vote, but wants to vote for a Christian party, they are better off voting for The Family Party. They still may not get in, but they have a far better chance as far as I can see.

    And if a voter wants change round the smacking law, but doesn’t want to vote for a Christian party, their only other option is Act, as we can’t trust National to do anything about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Because Ross I was at Eden park where they were allowing 15 year olds to sign their petition.

    I certainly did not sign the child beaters charter, however I saw them signing up people who were far too young to be on the register who then walked away laughing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    Ross Miller:
    “Question … how would Sonic “know for a fact there are a number of M Mouse and D Duck names on it” if he/she wasn’t a Parliamentary (Labour) staffer?”

    Probably because Sonic signed a few petition forms that way in a blatant attempt to discredit the petition. Typical dirty tactics. If he/she used his/her real name like you or I he probably wouldn’t have made that admission, but hiding behind a pseudonym he feels quite happy to admit it.

    Now we see the true depth Labour has slumped to in order to get rid of the embarrassment of this referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. aardvark (417 comments) says:

    Surely there must be enough interested people to allow those in favour of a referendum on this issue to set up their own “informal” booths outside every polling station?

    A large banner inviting people to have their say in this informal referendum and emphasizing that it is separate to the CIR that will run later in the year would be *so* damaging to HC’s prospects and her decision to try and subvert the democratic process would then come back to bite her on the bum.

    So long as the Kiwi (or any other) party wasn’t involved, such an action would also not fall foul of election laws.

    We have to think outside the square to defeat those who have the power to make the rules ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Adam (562 comments) says:

    Sonic is typical of the left at the moment, in complete denial. Not listening not listening…see I have my hands over my ears so it doesn’t matter what you say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    Oh, not quite as bad, he just saw people signing the petition this way and didn’t point it out to the person getting signatures for them to be removed. He is just an accomplice, not the instigator. We are to think he is completely innocent then…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    In denial Adam, I saw what I saw at Eden park at the England game, lots of little kids being encouraged to sign a petition and making a joke of it.

    To be honest of the organisers of this petition cannot be bothered to treat it seriously I don’t see why I should.

    Edit

    Oh and Mr Dennis, I doubt they needeed me to point out that children are not entitled so sign their names or that Mad Max is not a real name./

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. cauld (47 comments) says:

    While I fundamentally support the anti-smacking legislation…

    it would not be a bad idea for someone to register the
    “Helen Clark was too scared to run a referendum on the Anti Smacking Law Party”

    Shouldn’t be too hard to find 500 members and get that on every ballot…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    12+ hours and 87 comments so far in this thread.

    Not one single defence of Helen Clark’s bare faced lie. Obfuscation and sidestepping but not one defence of the indefencible. The law says that there has to be a referendum . The only issue is when.
    I repeat the challenge from last night.

    Can anyone reading this thread, yes anyone, reasonably and realistically defend Clarks’s position opposing the democratic voice of the people and endorse wasting 10 million dollars more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    Sonic:
    “I saw what I saw at Eden park at the England game, lots of little kids being encouraged to sign a petition and making a joke of it.”

    It is very sad to hear that anyone would do such a thing with a serious piece of paperwork like a petition. It shows to me that people are so disillusioned with parliamentary process (probably due to the past 9 years) they take even an attempt to change it insincerely.

    Remember that these petition forms were available on the net for anyone to download. Any hooligan could do so, and get whatever person to sign it they liked, which is why signatures are checked in the first place. Just because someone did this does not mean the organisers condoned this, precisely the opposite, such actions discredit the petition and are very sad.

    The fact that you saw this happening however and did nothing to point out that it was wrong and stop it, understanding as you do that a petition is a serious piece of democratic process, is still a serious mark against you Sonic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “The fact that you saw this happening however and did nothing to point out that it was wrong”

    WTF are you talking about, it was not petition and was not my responsibilty, I was off to a game of rugby.

    I’m sure that if I did point it out I would have just have been accused of interfering anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    sonic

    If Labour had any idea about representing the will of the people they would have volunteered the Anti smacking question as a referendum question at election time rather than pushed it through (under urgency).

    I know, it’s silly to suggest that Labour consult the people when making big decisions about things like this – but I believe it’s been tried in other countries and has proven quite popular. Pitty Labour wanted to show us all how powerful they are rather than how well they lsiten.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    It is reprehensible that anyone want’s to spend any money at all to be allowed to hit their children, regardless if it’s during or after the election.

    Could these people please stand up in my kids school assembly and explain to the children why the politicians are spending any money at all to allow parents to hit kids, rather than spend the money on updating computers, gym and sports equipment, library books etc.

    Disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    PS DPF,

    is this an acknowledgement that Labour is going to win the election, or should that headline read “National wants to spend $10 million on a referendum to hit kids”

    ???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Paul – the decision on when the referendum will be held will be made by this Goverment, not the next. National has made its view – that we should not spend $10m on a referendum – quite clearly know. Given that the law requires a referendum to be held, I agree with you that we should not spend $10m on it. It can be conducted concurrently with the election for under $1m.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Well, Paul. the entitlement to an opinion is one of the hallmarks of a healthy democracy isn’t it? Or is it only a ‘healthy democracy if everyone agrees with your own narrow opinions?
    Besides, I thought the issue was that it would be more cost-effective to hold the referendum at the same time as the election?
    Recently I saw people defending the use of an American photo on Labour lealets on the grounds that it was a less costly option and therefore Labour should be applauded for the wisdom of their choice vis-a-viz the cost to the taxpayer.

    Now they are defending the additional expenditure that a sperate referendum would incur, because….?

    Oh yes, because the referendu,m would legalise the right of parents to ‘hit’ their children?

    I thought that the Law you endorsed and which Natianal pulled out of the poo does allow parents to ‘hit’ their children in certain circumstance. So your objection is based on a desire to control the actual circumstances under which the ‘hitting’ (I prefer ‘bashing’ it is so much more graphic) is allowed. Essentially you are proposing to tell loving parents how to raise their kids, regardless of the consequences, because some unloving parents abuse the law as it stood. Sooo logical.

    So what exactly is your point other than to dog-whistle the notion that poeple who oppose the recent amendment ar only doing it because they want to make physical abuse of children legal?

    What you are saying is that people like those who murdered Nia Glassie or the Kahui Twins are identical to those loving parents who wish to bring their children up under loving guidance.

    Personally I find this attitude insulting, reductionistic, lazy, false and dishonest.

    I mean, grow up!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Lee C – an excellent response to Paul’s nonsense. Well done!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Sonic … your point acknowledged. And I certainly agree the verification process needs to occur so as to ensur the trigger point has been legitimately reached. But spare me please. That process could easily be completed by the end of August in which case the only reason that HC has to delay the scheduling of a referendum in conjunction with the election poll is the fear that it might attract some electoral disadvantage to Labour.

    Guess thats ‘realpolitic’ but the damage for Labour is that it reinforces the perception of an arrogant government that is prepared to subvert the democratic process.

    As for Paul. (1) are you scared of the people having their say and (2) your mob and your mob alone will determine if the referendum is going to cost $10m. Guess the answer to (1) is yes and (2) is sad, sad, sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. aardvark (417 comments) says:

    In the news this week, a 17-year-old “woman” was convicted of an unprovoked attack on another woman who was simply unlucky enough to be passing by at the time a friend of the attacker “dared” her to do so.

    The victim’s nose was broken, requiring medical treatment and causing (no doubt) significant physical and mental trauma.

    How did the courts punish this “woman” who is old enough to have already had two or three children?

    She got 80 hours community service for this violent and unprovoked attack on a total stranger — as a dare.

    Now I wonder what the punishment will be for the first caring parent who gets convicted of giving their child a light slap for misbehaving?

    I’m picking that their punishment will consist of something far more significant than a few Saturdays spent picking up paper in public parks.

    It’s now a heinous crime to discipline a child with a light slap but it seems that it’s far less serious to smash someone in the face and break their nose.

    Don’t we have something very, very wrong here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Lets see what the outcome of the process is Ross.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    Paul, Sonic and co.

    I have it on good authority that after the next election the Nat’s are going to introduce a piece of legislation into the house that makes all left wing parties illegal.
    Of course there will be some (on present polling about 35%) who will be against this and when the time comes you can organise a petition asking for a referendum.

    All of us on the right will sign it in a similar fashion to the way you have attempted to sabotage the anti smacking petition, when it comes to the house we will lean on those who are tasked with the job of checking the signatures and announce that you gave fallen short.
    When you come back with the required numbers the Nat’s will simply say that there is not enough time to have the referendum in this govt’s term.

    I assume that you will have no problem with this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    big bruv

    No, it’s only OK when Labour do that sort of thing, it’s about power at any price – not representing the will of the people.

    The will of the people is somethingn that Labour instinctively know – as proven by Helen not wanting a referendum. God damm that woman is a muppet – if she believed in her position she would welcome it being proven by referendum. How sad is it when she claims she’s right but won’t let it be proven…. Disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. adc (595 comments) says:

    Hey Sonic

    y’know how they had to lodge another 90,000 signatures to get the numbers. That’s because the first list was checked against… wait for it… the electoral roll.

    So, unless those “15 year olds” managed to get on the electoral roll, or impersonated someone who is, then their signatures won’t count in any case.

    As for putting the referendum on the ballot papers… that would be political suicide for Labour. There’s no way they could ever allow that. Why do you think they pushed through the EFA – so they could suppress dissent on unpopular issues. The timely reminder of one such key issue at the same time as casting a vote would see the biggest swing away from any governing power in the history of voting, and Helen is well aware of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Bruv, as I said I never signed the Child Beaters charter under any name. So save your faux outrage for some other time eh?

    I know they wont count adc, thats what I’m waiting to see, If the Eden park petitioners are typical there is a good chance that the numbers are simply not there to have a vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Dr Robotnik (533 comments) says:

    Sonic seems quite happy to absolve him/herself of responsibility when it’s “not their petition” yet supports a political party that advocates we are all responsible for others welfare.

    Tell me Sonic, are you the type that would turn a blind eye to criminal behaviour because it’s not your responsibility and won’t affect you?

    Child beaters charter? What kind of retard are you? Do you really think this crap has had any effect on real child abuse?

    Fucking socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    sonic

    If Labour had decided that the issue was too explosive and sent it to binding referendum rather than stomping their way through the process trampling the will of the people on the way – then none of this would have happened.

    I guess consulting the people is a concept Labour don’t like, they would rather plumet in the polls for being so arogant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Lets wait and see if they have the numbers to get a referendum Burt. Otherwise this is all froth.

    Remind me again how many people have been taken to court over this law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    sonic

    Lets wait and see if they have the numbers to get a referendum Burt.

    So what you are saying is: I know Labour have been muppets about this, lets see how many people are prepared to stand up and be counted against the arrogance of the Labour party…..

    Can you read: If Labour had decided that the issue was too explosive and sent it to binding referendum rather than stomping their way through the process trampling the will of the people on the way – then none of this would have happened.

    Not… how many people are pissed off enough to sign the petition…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. wreck1080 (3,923 comments) says:

    For those who dislike comparing Helen with Mugabe. Do you think Mugabe started out with large scale repression? No, he started with little things. Accepting small amounts of repression, opens us further to larger scale repression.

    Helen is crapping on about not enough time to include anti smacking in the election. Given the massive growth in govt employees, it must be easy to find a few hundred analysts to work out the logistics.

    but, as farrar points out, we all know the real reason she’s delaying.

    Helens also fortunate that she has also ruined the justice system, now the Fields trial will also be after the election. I feel sorry for fields a bit, noone should have to wait so long for trial. It should have all been over last year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    It’s pretty obvious this is an attempt to avoid smacking legislation becoming an election issue. Clark and her comrades know they will lose wider support if it does, and face some very hard questions in the leaders’ debates as to why they rushed such a contentious issue under urgency.

    I’d also like to point out a slightly different angle on the situation which I think is also relevant: that of voter turnout. As we all know the general election tends to give the highest voter turnout of any election. Historically, referenda held apart from an election (especially those conducted via postal ballot – remember Winston’s compulsory superannuation) have a far lower turnout. Clark is probably hoping this will be the case for the smacking referenda were she to delay it till after the election, which would allow her to ignore the results on the grounds that much of the public did not participate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    sonic

    Imagine the kudos the Labour party would have got if they had used the referendum process to decide what to do. Imagine how sad their opposition would have looked if 80% of people supported Labour in the referendum…. Too simple for you to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    We need to be careful here people, given that Sonic is a paid employee of the Labour party I think it is safe to say that what Sonic is telling us is that Labour are going to ensure that despite the huge number of signatures gained on this petition somehow they will manage to find that the sample contains a huge number of incorrect or invalid signatures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Sonic claims

    In denial Adam, I saw what I saw at Eden park at the England game, lots of little kids being encouraged to sign a petition and making a joke of it.

    I was collecting signatures at Eden Park. There were four or five collection points there so I cannot say with 100% certainty that this did not happen. What I can say is that did not happen at the table I was at. It was not in our interest. We way out of our way to ask people if they signed the petition in the last year as there was some confusion. Some people though we had to start a new petition. When people said that they had signed before, we crossed out there name. I do know that everyone in charge of a table was instructed to try their best to get only valid signatures and that it was not in our interest to have invalid or duplicate signatures.

    When we last submitted out petition a 9% sample of 324k signatures was taken. The government statistician determined we were 18k short. We have taken care to get rid of invalid or duplicate signatures. With over 65k extra there is no chance we will not reach the required number. It will be costly and time consuming to take another complete random sample. It would be easier just to sample the extra signatures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. adc (595 comments) says:

    P.s. – to all those who insist on focusing on the rather narrow subset of activities governed by the modifications made to s.59 which involve “bashing”, “hitting” etc (insert other inflammatory hyperbolic term here) their kids, maybe a quick reference check to the actual bill / act.

    Firstly, it considers use of force. smacking is only one small subset of this.

    Secondly it specifically prohibits any use of force for the purpose of correction. Anyone with a child will quickly tell you that pretty much anything you do for your kids is for the purpose of training them for their life ahead, and this means correcting behaviour.

    Try teaching your 2 yr old to brush his teeth without contravening this law.

    And for anyone that takes the above statement to infer that I must be abusing my son when trying to teach him to brush his teeth, I’d suggest you get some counselling for some obviously deep-seated issues – oh, and read the law again. I’ve never raised a finger to my son, and I don’t intend to. However whatever I do for my son will be what is best for him, not what suits some politician’s agenda.

    And finally, consider what would happen if we took the power to use force for correction away from the police. We wouldn’t be able to enforce law any more. Think of all the money we’d save being able to close all the prisons. The reality is that force IS a solution to some problems (e.g. your country being invaded, people resisting arrest, self-defense and defense of another etc etc etc). We should just accept that, instead of trying to perpetrate the lie that it isn’t. Teaching that lesson to our kids is therefore just one of the lessons they need to learn in life before they become responsible for their own actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    No Burt I’m waiting to see if this is actually a real issue rather than more right-wing froth and distraction.

    Still awaiting you telling me how many people have appeared in court under this law change, want a clue? It lies between -1 and 1.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Socialist governments crave total domination. As a result, other competing authority structures are targeted for:-
    (a) assumption of control (eg Police [witness Helen's first 'act' as PM]), or;
    (b) marginalisation of influence (religion, family).
    The referendum has little to do with smacking, and a lot to do with families pushing back on this State-driven marginalisation of their parental responsibilities

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    sonic

    People will have been signing the petition as a protest against how the whole issue was handled, what part of this don’t you get. I wouldn’t be surprised if a referendum validated the Labour/Green position but I guess the ‘dictators’ don’t want to hear the voices of the people, especially when the people are reacting to being ignored and trampled over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Grant (444 comments) says:

    Hear hear ADC. The use of such terms as beating and bashing etc adds no weight to the users argument. Child beaters charter indeed… sonic once again mounts his bathyspere to plumb the car park puddle like depths of his intellect.

    To me this latest outburst from clark clearly demonstrates to me that she regards the population of this nation as a bunch of fools who will believe anything she says without question. Wrong dearie, only about 35%, probably even less in reality, of us take your word as gospel. The rest have stopped listening quite some time ago.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    Anyone remember this?

    “Helen Clark: A lot of people aren’t comfortable with beatings but they don’t want to see, you know, stressed and harassed parents, you know, pulled in by the police because they, they smacked a child.

    Bob McCroskie: So you do not want to see smacking banned?

    Helen Clark: Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature.”

    It would appear that Helen Clark doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Fuck this guys a pig ignorant wanker isn’t he.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “Bathyspere”?

    Must be a word that those of us with a “puddle like intellect” are not familiar with.

    Any chance you could explain what it means to us mere mortals Granty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. dm (32 comments) says:

    There is something wrong here. We have a controversial law passed with no referendum. The debate is now about when we should have one to potentially repeal the amendment.

    Is this a new precedent? Socialists change the law. The public has to rally around to get it repealed. I thought that a democracy was the opposite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Does anyone know the Chief Electoral Officer’s direct dial number? And is the biggest problem with time, simply verifying the signatures of the petition?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Still awaiting you telling me how many people have appeared in court under this law change

    Sonic is it illegal to drive 140km/h on NZ roads, or is it only illegal if one is prosecuted for that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Lots of people get prosecuted for speeding getstaffed, I’d ask what is your point? but I suspect you don’t have one really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    Sonic

    Can you please tell us why you agree with dear corrupt leader? and while you are there why not tell us why you think the public do not deserve to have their voice heard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    As far as the smacking law is concerned, consider this.

    A man slices me open with a knife, that is assault. Or shoves something up my anus, that is sexual assault. But if this man is a doctor, then no offence occurs. If I turn up in A&E, unconcious, I would expect that a doctor would treat me in ways that would constitute a serious assault if carried out by someone else.

    As a parent, in order to do my job, there is a requirement that a certain degree of force be used that I cannot use with someone who is not my child. I cannot grab a person and forcibly brush their teeth for them, nor can I restrain a person and send them to thier room because I am not satisfied with their behavior. I cannot grab another person and remove them from a shop against their will, nor force other people to eat thier dinner.

    But as a parent, I have to use force to keep my child on the right track. This should not be an excuse to bash, kick, punch or use any implement on my child. That is abhorent to me and I would not allow this to happen. However, a light, sharp smack with an open hand has been, in my experience, extremely effective in illustrating consequences and allows a parent to stop such destructive behavior, and explain to a receptive child that certain actions will not be tolerated.

    By the way, this is followed with a hug, a kiss, and within minutes, we have an issue resolved.

    In the same way a doctor has to treat his patients in ways that would be considered a crime if carried out by someone else, a parent should have the same consideration. That is what section 59 was all about. Repealing it was a mistake and it would have been better to define reasonable force. A light smack is not harmful. It wasn’t to me and many other people. I have great love and respect for my late parents and know the context of the physical punishment given me.

    I am not a violent person, I do not bash my wife or children. But I have smacked my son in the way described above, which was the same way I was smacked as a child. I should not be made to feel like a criminal because of this. This is why we want this referendum. We think the government is right in it’s intent to stop the bashing and killing of children, but it’s methodology is deeply flawed and it’s actions will not achieve it’s intended result.

    And as an aside, if a government cannot organise a referendum to co-incide with a general election in 4 months, what does that say about it’s ability to govern?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Grant (444 comments) says:

    Look it up yourself. I’m sure your employer wont mind you broadening your vocabulary on his time.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Grant

    … her time !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    We need to remember that the issue is not about what people want, it’s not about how the referendum process is idea for issues like this, it’s not about what is the best thing to do – It’s about what is best for Labour in election ’08.

    How bitterly disapointing that govt’s first priority is their own grip on the reigns of power and not the will of the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Again, why doesn’t Key seize upon the fact that there is a petition with the numbers, (a pretty clear indication of the popularity of the motion) and make the removal of the anti-smacking law his policy?

    That wouldn’t be because he’s also mainly interested in his own (potential) grip on power, and is too timid to make a bid like this JUST IN CASE it turns out to be NOT widely popular, would it?

    Key may be riding high in the polls – for now. Come the election, when it comes time to publicly debate policy and the direction the country should go in, Our Hero Mr John Key will appear a small, weak whipping boy for Clark…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    meanwhile the Greens must be loving this. Helen catches the bullet and they come out smelling of roses… seriously though – we need to face facts here, this is about trust isn’t it? The electorate do not trust Helen, and Helen does not trust the electorate. Otherwise there would be no referendum petition, and Helen would have no objections to the timing of the referendum.

    It’s the end of the affair……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    Sonic said:
    “Lots of people get prosecuted for speeding getstaffed, I’d ask what is your point? but I suspect you don’t have one really.”

    Obviously the point is that whether one is caught or not, one is breaking the law by speeding. A responsible citizen would not be content to break the law so long as they aren’t caught. They would not break the law at all.

    Your comment about people actually being prosecuted for speeding (technically not correct as prosecution involves going through a court while most people are simply fined on the spot) is more a function of them being required to speed in public where they are easily observed and caught, often by autonomous tools such as speed cameras; corrective discipline often occurs in private homes, where the installation of similar cameras is (currently) frowned upon. Perhaps another Bradford/Clark co-venture will correct this glaring oversight and bring society the security that only state surveillance of a child’s bedroom can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    RPM.

    Watch question-time today, especially question 1

    # JOHN KEY to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, in relation to the possibility of holding a referendum alongside the general election, that “Just in terms of sheer organisation I don’t think that is possible.”; if not, why not?

    And will Clark actually be in the house to answer this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    It says a lot about Clark’s administration doesn’t it? Mugabae organised an entire second general election in Zimbabwe in only four months. – (Helen really should have paid closer attention to her mentor)

    Bring on the negative karma, boys, but Patrick Starr @ 9:51 pm – you’re a numpty. Even if you’re taking the piss, with the ongoing horror show in Zimbabwe that kind of equation is crass and ignorant. Or is John Key currently in hiding at the Dutch Embassy, and I better haul arse before the Labour-sponsored thugs kick the door down and beat my partner to death? Do you really have NO CONFIDENCE that the general election will be free and fair, and without harassment of opposition candidates and supporters on the campaign trail? If you’ve answered ‘no’ to all of the above, get a grip and stop using an obscene tragedy aborad to score cheap points at home.

    But back on topic, yes the logistical argument is on a par with the equally dishonest justification Clark pulled out of her backside for calling a snap election in 2002. 1) Is anyone really surprised? And 2) Is anyone seriously arguing that she doesn’t have every legal right to take this course of action, even if the rationale is total poo?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    righty said..

    “..However, a light, sharp smack with an open hand has been, in my experience, extremely effective in illustrating consequences and allows a parent to stop such destructive behavior, and explain to a receptive child that certain actions will not be tolerated.

    By the way, this is followed with a hug, a kiss, and within minutes, we have an issue resolved..”

    so..pain..followed by pleasure..

    ‘the public school disease’..

    raising little s&mers..are you righty..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Lots of people get prosecuted for speeding getstaffed, I’d ask what is your point? but I suspect you don’t have one really

    Pathetic response. You well know the point, as paradigm has just set out above. Apparently your definition of a good law is one that turn 100’s of 1000’s of excellent parents into unconvicted criminals as evidenced by the zero (disputed?) conviction rate. Meanwhile real beatings and abuse (which have allways been illegal and subject to prosecution) go on daily around us.

    Wake up. You and your motly, socialist-glory-days crew have shown us that blind faith in an ideology is more important that addressing the real causes of issues that concern most NZers. And we want you gone. Out of out lives. Sooner rather than later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    philu/sonic

    You are playing the man and not the ball. Do you think there is a place for referendums in our political process? If so why is this not a good candidate ? If not – why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Well Craig, if you are having difficulty understanding the irony of a 3rd world administration able to pull finger in four months by comparison to Clark saying its too difficult to add to a already scheduled ballot in four months then you’re the numpty.
    (The mentor part was taking the piss)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Phil.

    That comment of yours, directed not only at me, but at my son, is vile. Your personal and purile level of debate is disgusting. I have descibed myself as a non violent person. Phil, you should thank my parents for instilling in me the values that they have.

    A lesser person would seek you out and smash your bloody face in for such a smear. Lucky for you my loving parents chose to administer a light smack so I would grow to be the sort of person who does not engage in insulting inmflamatory behavior or violent assault. That you choose to act in such a way is an gross insult.

    I hope to instill the same values in my children. I hope they don’t turn out to be the sort of petty, vile, insidious individual that you appear to be by your comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    get over yourself..!..righty..

    do you really think your facile excuses/self-justifications for hitting children are original..?

    i’ve raised two..without hitting/smacking either..

    blow it out your butt..!..righty..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    It is nearly game over for Helen. She has run out of scapegoats and colleagues willing to take the bullets for her. The more she is exposed in the MSM, as she has been by John Armstrong on this issue, the more ugly things will get for her personally. Her instinct is to go feral and this will continue to backfire on her as the election gets closer. I doubt that she has ever contemplated the scenario she is approaching where she has such a lack of control over events and outcomes – essentially she is a control freak and a bully. I will personally savour every second of her demise and I still believe she will find a way to avoid electoral judgement day – she doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to face up to rejection of this magnitude.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Phil.

    There are many things I easily get over. Slurs directed at me are one of them. But when you bring my kids into it, you cross the line.

    You could take the moral high road and apologise, but you choose to tell me to get over myself. Frankly I am starting to doubt if anyone in the labour government knows what a moral high road is? For example, the movement to get a referendum has met all the requirements, and yet Helen says it’s too hard. This is a self serving lie so that the issue can be dodged during the general election.

    If you can prove that this government can’t get this referendum in place to co-incide with the general election, then I might listen to you. Seeing as you probably can’t, then you’ll just have to resort to petty personal slurs.

    Says more about you than me pal!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “Look it up yourself”

    I have done Grant and nowhere does the word “Bathyspere” appear. Perhaps you should ask your employer for a dictionary, or at least spell check comments when you are calling other people stupid.

    Burt, I’m happy to have a referendum on the child bashers charter, but first I want to know if it has enough sigs, especially as I have personally seen fake names being added to it. Oh and Burt, your comment about ” playing the man and not the ball” given your track record, is easily the funniest thing I’ve heard all day!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Slightyrighty, I’ll be interested to see you react when one of your chums on here resorts to “petty personal slurs”, knowing them you should get a chance to find out in a couple of mins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    I’d be willing to bet that these “petty personal slurs” that you refer to sonic, will not be directed at the children of the target, in lieu of the target themselves?

    And by the way, stop refering to childbashers in your arguement as that is emotive language designed to cloud the issue. That behavior has always been illegal, and those who campaign against the repeal of section 59 understand that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    How many points are you missing Philu?

    Your certainly posting at wounding at depth those with who you disagree. Your comments appear to be short, sharp and nasty. I’ll trawl through a bit later on, but what are your views? You seem to have made many comments. Can you extend on your philosophical and political position on this thread please?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    15 hours and 150 posts now . Is no one up for the challenge? not one acceptance to construct an argument. Is the lie so patently transparent and indefensible. Not even the paid spin merchants can defend it.

    J-accuse

    Can anyone reading this thread, yes anyone, reasonably and realistically defend Clarks’s position opposing the democratic voice of the people and endorse wasting 10 million dollars more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “stop refering to childbashers”

    Babyslappers? Tot-Thumpers? Kiddy-Kickers?

    Which would you prefer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Well Craig, if you are having difficulty understanding the irony of a 3rd world administration able to pull finger in four months by comparison to Clark saying its too difficult to add to a already scheduled ballot in four months then you’re the numpty.

    Patrick Starr: I’ll give our electoral agencies (who actually administer elections in this country and do a damn fine job) a little more credit. As I said, nobody should be particularly surprised that Clark is dressing up electoral expedience in a rather threadbare fig leaf, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that she’s not entirely within her rights in doing so.

    And Patrick, you’re talking about an election nobody except Mugabe himself seriously believes is free, fair or credible — as well as (quite literally) having a body count attached, thanks to the sustained campaign of murderous intimidation of opposition supporters. However much I dislike Clark, I stand by my original comment that comparing her to a lethal sociopath like Mugabe is way out of line.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Watching questiontime, it is now not a question of logistics, but a decision based on advice from the ministry of justice!

    What is that I smell?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Sonic….

    How about “Parents who smack”. It covers the matter nicely and distances them from parents who Bash, Kick, Thump, Whip, and engage in all the behavior that was ALREADY ILLEGAL under section 59.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Its hard to be humble when you have seen thru Msssss Clark for some many years and watched the adoring fawning over here unable to see that she is a conn artist extraordinare.

    That she has managed to conn so many for so long is about the only positive one can say about her,

    That the majority have now seen thru the charade restores ones faith in human kind althou this has been sorely tested over many years.

    We will now witness the great collapse of the edifice that was Clark. Seemingly built of granite In reality built of straw

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    BYW IMHO NZ is Zim without the bullets However the tone of governance and the mentality of those governing both countries are very similar
    Both regards the citizens as pawns in their game

    Both regards the citizens as mere puppets whose strings ared to pulled.

    Both regard the law and the constitution as their personal play things

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Fisiani,

    my challenge is similar.

    I am asking, if it is a lie then who will challenge, rather than in this fashion of discussion but more in a proactive political realm. Another father of teh father’s coalition, this morning has put up a similar challenge on Bob McCroskrie. He has asked if his members should be given the contact details of those people who would contribute to holding back the referendum so that they can contact those people directly. Why not? Isn’t that what freedom is all about?

    In reply to you I am suggesting that there is some work to be done to achieve what you want. Until the facts are established the discussion that would be held here is who is the better arguer of a point. Is the Labour administration running away fromt he public’s stated interest or not? Let’s find out rather than engaging in a guinness book of records finger wrestling competition. And then once we know the facts, let’s post 150 more on the same topic in the next 15 hours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Watching questiontime, it is now not a question of logistics, but a decision based on advice from the ministry of justice!

    That is priceless. Helen again trying to hide behind ministry (MoJ) advice, which she scripted in the first place. Yes that should do it. The public will buy the story. The media will go back to publishing their press releases. The bloggers will let it go. Not.

    Ms Clark… you listening? You are toast. Your lies, deceit and manipulation have pushed NZers over the edge. We’re not satisfied with ‘clever’ politicians; we want leaders with a more integrity thanks. While that leaves few options in an absolute sense, relatively speaking we could elect some lesser despot and still relish the improvement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Sonic, why did you ignore my post at 11:16 am? What are the chances in your humble opinion that we will not have the required number of signatures from 390,000 – 1 in 1000?

    Your claim of collectors deliberately trying to collect invalid signatures defies logic. All the collectors know it was not in their interest to do so even if they were as dishonest as the left.

    Does anyone on this blog believe Sonic’s claim about collectors trying to get signatures from those not on the role?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. adc (595 comments) says:

    Ha!

    I don’t know who is worse, HC, or the unfathomably-corrupt Annette King. I don’t know why AK still bothers to hang around here, when she could be off swanning in the med with her Chiron Corp swiss bank account.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    Sonic

    How about answering the question, do you think it is corrupt for dear leader to waste $10 million simply to benefit herself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Helen again trying to hide behind ministry (MoJ) advice, which she scripted in the first place

    So not only is she PM, she writes MoJ advice too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    stephen, of course. if you still believe that Govt ministries provide independent, apolitical advice then you are one of a dimishing group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. sdr (2 comments) says:

    “How about answering the question, do you think it is corrupt for dear leader to waste $10 million simply to benefit herself?”

    I’d hate to spoil this party but a referendum costs $10 million regardless of when it’s held. Holding it during the election doesn’t save any money. Neither is the Prime Minister at fault for informing the public that it can’t be done in time for the election because it’s not her decision to make. She just doesn’t have that authority, even if she wanted to, you’re going to have to examine the facts here and acknowledge that the reason this referendum won’t happen until after the election is because of the way the system works. Read up on it:

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0101/latest/DLM318479.html

    [DPF: You are wrong. It is far far cheaper to have it as part of the general election]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. adc (595 comments) says:

    wow – I never knew Annette King’s middle name is Faye… how appropriate!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Saying ‘Helen made them do it’ is about as lame as Winston blaming the media for everything, esp without a shred of proof. I await what the reporters have to say on this particular question time…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “why did you ignore my post at 11:16 am”

    Didnt read it, did it have your name at the top, thats usually the reason i dont bother.

    Oh and look you now goan call me a liar, well no need to bother reading any more of your posts for a while.

    plunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    I know its off topic but you have to watch that fat useless tub of lard Horomia take a hammering in the house today if you get a chance.

    All the Labour big wigs have come running to his rescue but despite that Horomia still makes an absolute fool of himself.

    How on earth did this fat fool manage to become a high ranking public servant let alone a member of Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Please post any new Parekura-isms on this thread :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    NRT says “according to MoJ, a referendum would cost $10 million whether it was run concurrently with the election or not.” Not quite official though is it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. sdr (2 comments) says:

    big bruv: It’s not appropriate to make personal slander, such as disparging comments about someone’s weight, in a serious political discussion. Either say something constructive or stop wasting space.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    righty said..

    “..What is that I smell?..”

    maybe you have taken my advice tp ‘blow it out your butt!’

    btw..ever hear of ‘the law of unintended consequences’..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    then of course there is that famous early how-to book by the maquis de sade..

    “how to raise an s&mer’..

    (the mixing of spanking/’love’ is advocated by him..as i understand it..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    Phil

    I would suggest that you would win the title of “biggest spanker” should we ever put it to the vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Actually philu, I have heard of the law of unintended consequences. The EFA, and it’s subsequent fallout is a prime example.

    I could be uncharacterisically homophobic and worry about your sudden interest in my butt, but that isn’t my style.

    The smell reference was to the bullshit that Helen Clark continues to utter when defending the decision to not have the referendum with the general election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Richard Hurst (859 comments) says:

    Newsflash: Helen Clark has issued a press statement today saying that this years election will now no longer be held. When asked for comment she said:
    “Just in terms of sheer organisation, I do not think that is possible” :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. 3-coil (1,220 comments) says:

    Clarkie’s arrogant behaviour on this issue is just further proof (as if we needed it!) of the chilling accuracy of the material covered in Ian Wishart’s excellent book “Absolute Power”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    After watching HC in the House today I now concede that, even if the trigger point for the referendum is reached, the chance of it being held in conjunction with the election poll is about as much as that of Mulgabe allowing the people of Zimbabwe to vote in free and democratic elections.

    BTW. Thought English was devistating in his probing of King on the latest revelations regarding the EFA (Department of Internal Affairs guidelines on the writing of Ministerial Press Releases which she claimed not to have seen and which are being ignored by the Beehive). Her embarrassment was palpable. National was able to sit back and watch her emasculate her remaining credibility (if any) trying to defend totally flawed and now totally discredited legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    That was nice wasn’t it Ross! I rather enjoyed that myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. peanut (139 comments) says:

    3-coil,

    I agree with you description of Ian Wisharts book. Makes for very scary reading.

    I found the book very hard to get in the bookstores, and when I finally found it, it was on the bottom shelf in an obscure place-interesting for a new release and potentially best seller.

    Clark’s determination to change our society, due to her screwed up childhood and personality, should alarm all of us.

    “It used to be said the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.Now,people whose hands have never been near a cradle are deciding what’s best for children,and the country” Ch 15,Absolute Power, by Ian Wishart

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    Sonic

    I have thought a bit about your admission re the sabotage of the anti smacking petition and it has given me an idea that I think a few might follow.

    Because I know that any power cuts this winter will be very bad news for this corrupt govt I am going to ensure that I leave every possible switch and light on in the house, I will also turn on as many taps as I can in my house and leaving them running for as long as possible, where I used to have five minute showers I will now take at least 15 mins, I used to turn my PC off at night and now I will leave the thing on 24/7.

    Yeah it might cost me a bit more but if it helps get rid of your dear corrupt leader then it is a cheap price to pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Agreed on the questions Matty!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “I have thought a bit about your admission re the sabotage of the anti smacking petition ”

    You really are nuts Bruv, I saw kids signing the petition which makes me guilty of sabotage?

    Ah well, I didn’t ever take you very seriously, now I can afford to just dismiss you as another delusional nutcase. BTW enjoy paying those higher electricty bills while watching the rain cascading down into the hydro lakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    By the way, try to get a copy of Absolute Power from the wellington library.

    Currently every copy is on loan or reserved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. jafapete (757 comments) says:

    Big Bruv, Before you start wasting precious resources and running up big bills, take a careful look at this: http://www.electricitycommission.govt.nz/pdfs/opdev/secsupply/sos/actual-23Jun08.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    After watching HC in the House today I now concede that, even if the trigger point for the referendum is reached, the chance of it being held in conjunction with the election poll is about as much as that of Mulgabe allowing the people of Zimbabwe to vote in free and democratic elections.

    Ross all that is needed is 61 votes in the House

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    Sonic

    You did admit to sabotaging the petition, that is a statement of fact.

    Perhaps you might like to answer some of the questions put to you on this thread, now most of us understand that you are not much more than a troll but given that you demand answers from us (and get most upset and abusive when you are ignored) then it is only fair that you do the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Absolute Power has topped the NZ best seller list No doubt aided and abetted by all those Socialist supporters secretly wetting themselves to read about HC and CT HC and JT and PD and LAX.

    I bet they got themselves into a right lather with the creased pages falling open at those bits.

    Anyone taking odds on the next round of polls Nats 55 plus points Socialists under 30 points

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    Jafa

    Thanks for that, the taps will be on for even longer now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Sonic, I challenge you to give real evidence that petition organisers were encouraging under-age people to sign the petition. I have explained in simple terms it would not be in their interest to do so. It is of course possible that some young people could have signed when crowds were queuing up to sign.

    You will just have to accept the fact that we have enough signatures.

    Just because you cannot take part in a rational debate do not make things up that you cannot substantiate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. peanut (139 comments) says:

    How can Clark support this anti smacking bill,when she supports the murder of 18,000 unborn children per year, and allows children to have abortions without their parents knowledge or consent?

    Why?

    Because it is part of the agenda to take any parental control away from parents. Socialists like her believe that there is power and strength in the family unit.

    If you destroy this unit,you allow govt control and power over our children, and they are the next generation of voters

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    Matty Smith said:
    “Family First & the Kiwi Party’s questions have been incredibly leading, mind you. In a strictly legal sense they’d have been better phrased ‘Do you think there should be an exemption allowing assault against children where “reasonable”‘. Of course, none of this absolves Clark. It’s not okay to counter dishonesty with dishonesty.”

    This is just as leading as “assault”; while perhaps legally correct it is emotionally charged and understood differently by the general public as opposed to legal experts. A more appropriate question would avoid any such terms, perhaps: ‘should parents be allowed to use some level of physical force disciplining their child’. However this dodges the original issue which Sue Bradford claimed was the reason for the anti-smacking legislation: ambiguity as to the level of force allowed when disciplining children that led to severe beatings be passed off as discipline. The real resolution to this would have been to encourage national debate and then establish unambiguously what reasonable force is and isn’t. The fact that Bradford outright refused this far more sensible alternative shows her real agenda was just to ban smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Chuck … re your 4.35. Explain pse. Surely any attempt to force a vote would have to be by way of ‘leave’ and it takes only one member to object and stop the process dead. Do you really think Labour would allow this to happen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. JSF2008 (422 comments) says:

    my little say here, shes stupid to delay it .stupid stupid , it now appears that it was a HELEN CLARK ,act and doggy faced old sue bradford put it up for barren helen clark , a GOOD mother helen clark is, my kids probably played with her kids at playcenter.
    I use helen clarks child raising and discipline skills as a model for my departed overseas to far better parstures children, NOT

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Ross, I am no legal expert but I believe Stephen Franks is.

    http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/

    I hope this helps

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Ross, I am not a legal expert but I believe that Stephen Franks is

    http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/

    I hope this helps

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. IdiotSavant (88 comments) says:

    Alternatively, rather than railing against satanic government conspiracies to deny democracy, you could all read the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer on the issue [DOC].

    Short version: running a CIR concurrently with a general election is a bad idea, and they’re not funded for it anyway. Instead, they explicitly recommend a postal vote.

    But obviously, this is because the Chief Electoral Office – the people who run our elections – are just pawnz of Liabour, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    And while Helen considers lashing around another $10m of our money with the same consideration as her socialist chums size up another trendy chardonnay … Consumer confidence at 17-year low. Yup we’re all miserable, getting poorer and pissed off.

    But not to worry. Labour are here looking after us by getting teachers wearing cool badges and working hard to provide extra regulation for that most dangerous of professions – hairdressing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    For those who figure they might be strong enough to ask a simple question of the CEO, here are the details. It doesn’t hurt. They won’t bite just so long as you don’t bite them. Don’t be rude. Just inquire on how long it would take to get the signatures counted.

    Issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, Ministry of Justice, PO Box 3220, Wellington Tel (04) 495 0030, Fax (04) 495 0031, Email chief.electoral.office@justice.govt.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    People if you are pissed with the anti smacking laws don’t get mad get even. Make the supporters of this bill and the self serving pack of socialist suckholes that govern us pay. Last month I sent a letter to our local paper saying that any organisations supporting this bill would no longer get to enjoy a donation from myself and my family. There are many groups that rely on public support in the way of funds donated, a lot of these groups were strong backers of this bill. These groups delight in telling all and sundry how we should raise our children these same groups rely on the support from the very same people. My letter was witheld from publication for one month while a national charity continued with it’s fund raising efforts. If enough people were to withold their donations just watch the acid going on the corrupt bastards that try to pass as our so called leaders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    But obviously, this is because the Chief Electoral Office – the people who run our elections – are just pawnz of Liabour, right?

    I’m actually chortling that advice from the Chief Electoral Office is now holy writ on the Ninth Floor. I can remember one or two occasions over the last three years when that definitely wasn’t the case. Who know, we might just see Cullen taking on board the next ‘ideological burp’ from Treasury, about ten minutes before your head explodes. :)

    Personally, I/S, I think Satan has better things to do with him time, but neither am I so naive to think that Clark’s primary concern here is logistical. I get the politics of not wanting this CIR on people’s minds on E-Day. And if she thought there was any electoral advantage to be had, I would be surprised if her position was 180 degrees around from today’s version.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Thanks IdiotSavant,

    but nothing changes. What Ms Clark would now be talking about is having made an earlier decision that they would take up option 2. The initiative remains with the public. If we want a referendum it is up to us to get one. That will require a Bill: Gordon Copeland might put that through and a public challenge on the inability of Labour to recognise that the public interest is in direct democracy on critical issues.

    I support this activity impowering the CEO to accomodate a referendum at any election: including this one. On this occassion the problem is reduced than in 1999 where there were two issues. In my opinion the argument of capacity and resource allocation are far too weak to excuse the need to bring the public into a sense of order and confidence.

    “Holding CIR with the general election would impact upon every aspect of the administration of the general election from staff, training, processes, communications and supplies through to technology. The amount of work required to deliver this is considerable. Contingency planning in the Chief Electoral Office (“CEO”) is under way. However, implementation and commitments of expenditure will need to begin by mid-April for the CEO to be in a position to conduct CIR with the general election, assuming the election is in October or November (that is, the work has to begin before the need for CIR can be confirmed). Preparations for the possibility of CIR being held with the general election are diverting resources away from the CEO’s focus on delivering a quality general election. The CEO is not funded to conduct CIR and whichever option is adopted, a between budget bid would be required if either petition is successful”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. freethinker (691 comments) says:

    Clark does not want the referendum at the time of the general election because she fears it will re inforce the rejection of her policies and trustworthiness and turn wavering Labour voters into possible defectors. John Key could boldy state that if elected he would abide by any refernedum decision and retrospectively legislate that any additional cost of the referendum attributed to not calling it at the time of the general election would be surcharged on all those voting against his bill to have the referendum at the general election. This would improve his deocratic credentials and scare Helen and Labour shitless at the thought of losing their ill gotten wealth at the taxpayers expense and focus their thoughts on the real worth of supporting a lost cause.I doubt few would put the money were their mouth is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..I bet they got themselves into a right lather with the creased pages falling open at those bits..”

    are you talking about your copy..?..gd..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Last month I sent a letter to our local paper saying that any organisations supporting this bill would no longer get to enjoy a donation from myself and my family..”

    not going to pass on any of your blood-money anymore..?..blioody-hands-bob..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    Its a bit hard to pass on money to charity Phil when scum like you steal it from us every week.

    How do you feel about taking money out of the mouths of good charities?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Simeon (142 comments) says:

    Some food for thought,

    http://nzdebate.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-do-anti-smackers-get-violent.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    how many animals did you kill/hurt today..?

    bloody-hands-bob..?

    your money has the stench of pain/suffering/unbearable cruelties/death..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. JSF2008 (422 comments) says:

    philu , your post has the stench of animal cruellity about it,as a person owned by 3 agility American cocker Spaniels i hate trendy liarbour supporters thinking hurting animals will help liarbour get elected FUCKWITS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    side show bob (645) +6 Says:

    June 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
    People if you are pissed with the anti smacking laws don’t get mad get even. Make the supporters of this bill and the self serving pack of socialist suckholes that govern us pay. Last month I sent a letter to our local paper saying that any organisations supporting this bill would no longer get to enjoy a donation from myself and my family. There are many groups that rely on public support in the way of funds donated, a lot of these groups were strong backers of this bill. These groups delight in telling all and sundry how we should raise our children these same groups rely on the support from the very same people. My letter was witheld from publication for one month while a national charity continued with it’s fund raising efforts. If enough people were to withold their donations just watch the acid going on the corrupt bastards that try to pass as our so called leaders.

    SSB..whats the name of the rag?? If I advertise it, I’ll pull my ad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    as usual..jetc/whatever..

    you make absolutely no sense..

    shine on..etc..

    (are the meds ‘kicking in’..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Phil. You have not told me when you are going stop stealing my money. I am not on national super yet but I certainly will be when i am entitled. Most people who have not abused their brain by taking vast amounts of illegal drugs know the difference between a smack and abuse and the difference between someone over 65 collecting National Superannuation and a social Parisian

    PLEASE TELL US ALL HOW OLD YOUR SON IS AND WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO STOP USING HIM AS AN EXCUSE TO BLUDGE OFF THE REST OF US.

    I must admit I do not get up in the morning for work. That is because I have enough investments to live off of. However, unlike you I do not blame other people for the bad investment decisions that I have made. I have made a few.

    If it is not too personal a question how old are you and when do you think you will grow up enough to stop budging off us and accept responsibility for you own actions and stop blaming others?

    Quite bluntly, you set a very bad example for son and consequently are a piss poor father.

    I cannot speak for everyone on this blog but I think if you let us know when you get a job and stop bludging off us we will treat you more kindly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Chuck, lost cause mate. lost. his lifestyle is softened by easy welfare, his brain addled by easy dope. the example he sets for his son and anyone else he comes into contact with is truely alarming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    heh-heh..!

    sheesh chucky..i’d give the ‘ten years younger’ show a call..if i was you..

    i thought you’d been berthed there for some time..

    i was going to crack a ‘who is older than john mccain? joke..

    ..answer:..chucky..!

    lifelong carnivore/dairy-eater..?

    it shows..eh..?

    and..so you think that everyone should get/deserves the pension..?..

    ..no matter how wealthy/privileged/lucky..(free education..free home loans..etc..etc..)..eh..?

    you are one of those ‘greedy oldies’..eh chucky..?

    staring uncaringly at the generations who follow..getting far less/nothing..

    ..just clawing in that money..’till you die..eh..?

    you and your ilk are why we wil see means testing for the pension again..

    and the day can’t come soon enough..

    greedy bastards..

    the ‘greedy’ generation…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    IdiotSavant:
    Thank you for the link. I find it interesting that the estimated cost of either postal or at election ballot is relatively similar ($7.3m vs $8.1-6.5m) I would argue that the electoral officer is presents his case primarily from what would be the easiest for him, not what would be best for the country. If the electorate is sufficiently concerned with an issue to force an referenda on it, then the issue deserves as high a profile as possible. In particular, voters would undoubtedly be interested in each party’s position on the issue. This is particularly important as the referendum is nonbinding, and voters may have to select certain parties if they wish the law repealed. By holding the referenda at the time of an election, politicians are forced to disclose their position on this and discuss it in the leader’s debates. By deferring till after the election, one risks this being glossed over.

    And a slightly off topic piece:

    Can someone explain to me…
    …why philu writes in such an incoherent manner?

    Are pros beyond him? Or is it…
    …an attempt to get more money?

    Passing off inept scrawl as poetry… can he claim himself an artist?
    …and leech more from the state?

    paradigm (to busy in gainful employment to administer a website at the moment)

    Seriously I’d like to know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Steve Withers – if they’ve got the numbers (which seems likely) then there is going to be a referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Paradigm, Phil’s just a drug fucked deadbeat dad who thinks he’s setting a good example to his poor kids
    Have a look at his disgusting smear against slightlyrighty @ philu , 12:56 pm

    Appears to be an extremely bitter little individual who CYFs should seriously look at.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    Steve:
    Imagine if we had a party that actually listened to those referenda reintroduced hard labour, or zero tolerance.

    However, my personal preference is for LIMITED binding referenda to be allowed. Consider being able to force a referendum to repeal a particular piece of legislation passed in the last term of a government (and perhaps being able to repeal any piece of legislation IF you get a say a 2/3 majority). I’d suggest that parties would be far more concerned with the will of the electorate and far more concerned with drafting well written and functional legislation were there a danger of a disgruntled electorate throwing dysfunctional legislation out. It would probably be too dificult to extend to introducing new legislation, however for removing specific already introduced legislation, it should work well, and would definitely work well in this case: IE the question is simply “do you wish to repeal the (antismacking legislation act name here) introduced by Sue Bradford?” Or indeed “Do you wish to repeal the electoral finance act introduced by Labour?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    Lee

    “What you are saying is that people like those who murdered Nia Glassie or the Kahui Twins are identical to those loving parents who wish to bring their children up under loving guidance.”

    Sorry is hitting someone “loving guidance”?

    Brilliant, to take your and Family First’s arguments then, we shall hit the intellectually handicapped. After all the child’s brain is incapable of moral judgements, and seemingly short sharp physical stimuli is how one enforces learning behaviours. So for the IHC child or indeed for that matter, the elderly with dementia need to be ‘lovingly’ hit, as this will stimulate learning.

    I look forward to the day we start hitting the Elderly and IHC.

    John Key is being a disingenuous wanker over this issue, curtailing to the religious extreme right of his party and the electorate.

    I also look forward to starting an PIR to cancel any or all legislation that National introduces, as seemingly the right to vote at elections isn’t enough for some people. Will be interested to see how the economy and government speed along. I mean who won’t vote for a 4 day week, or a dozen more public holidays? You have the vote every 3 years, make it count, but don’t waste $10m or even $1 on allowing people to hit each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    paradigm,

    I agree with you in regards to the cost. The decision by the CEO is completely about cost. It is a statement that “we haven’t got the resources to be efficient” rather than “we cannot construct an effective system to run in New Zealand”.

    Steve Withers,

    Surely the issue of referenda is more consistent with a lack of trust than any other cause. If a public has no belief that their primary concerns can be aired; rationalised by parliament, then referenda in our kind of system is the only remaining choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. JSF2008 (422 comments) says:

    KEY is comming :) :) and will sweep a broom through the ranks of dak smoking dole bludgers,(liarbour supporters) a 5.30 am work for the dole,scheme start will sort them out, the smokers and druggies and 6ft5in sickness benificeries,(JOKE) will die early (no loss) and the ranks of dole bludging liarbour voters will reduce, HOPEFULLY. This from a WORKING EPMU supporting poster(work dont bludge)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    The typical left wing bullshit “muddy the waters” tactic is in evidence here, all the usual wankers insist on labeling those opposed to social engineering as religious fundies or insist that they want child “bashing” legalised.

    Keep it up guys, the electorate has had enough of your bullshit and have finally seen you for the corrupt bunch of pricks that you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    there you go nattys..!..you’ve got jetc. on-side..!

    that should cheer you up..!..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Thank you for your email regarding the petition in support of a referendum on the anti-smacking laws.

    National’s view is that a referendum should take place at the 2008 general election.

    National’s position is quite clear on section 59, but the issue for us in this case is about democracy – the right of the people of New Zealand to be heard whether or not politicians like what they are being told.

    Helen Clark has again demonstrated arrogance with her use of a technicality to not let New Zealanders’ have a say on this matter.

    It is a waste of taxpayers’ money to hold a referendum separately. As an example of the potential cost, the 1995 firefighter referendum cost about $10million, and the 1997 retirement savings referendum cost about $5.1million for a postal ballot.

    Thank you for your views.

    Thanks
    Emma Holmes
    Personal Assistant to John Key MP
    Leader of the Opposition

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Eh?

    Does that make sense? Didn’t Emma Holmes just say that the referendum cost 10M (the one that Labour doesn’t want) and the postal cost 5.1M (the one that Labour want)?

    “It is a waste of taxpayers’ money to hold a referendum separately. As an example of the potential cost, the 1995 firefighter referendum cost about $10million, and the 1997 retirement savings referendum cost about $5.1million for a postal ballot”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Mr Dennis, I meant to reply earlier but got distracted by the social parasitic troll.

    Firstly, what have you to support your believe that the Kiwi Party is a Christian Party?
    I am not a Christian but I am a member of the party. The reason that I and many other conservatives would note vote ACT is because the party got taken over by libertarians. In my opinion Catherine Judd promoted the Liberal brand on ACT led to a lot of members leaving the party as did demoting Muriel.

    I would hardly want to vote for a party that wanted to change the anti smacking law but promoted many liberal policies I strongly disagree with. The other thing to look at is how high on the list of issues would the anti smacking law rate in coalition talks.

    At this stage it looks like both the Kiwi Party and the Family will be struggling to get into Parliament. Surely it makes sense to go with the party whose policies you most agree with. I am prepared to reconsider my position close the election. If National agrees to listen to the people and reinstate Section 59 and the Kiwi Party rates low in the polls I would change my vote to National. However, if National continues to treat the people with contempt my vote will go with the Kiwi Party even it polls 0.1% and Larry polls poorly in Tauranga. At the same time I will be doing my best to promote the Kiwi Party as I know there would be a number of Christians who oppose the anti smacking law who would not vote for a party involving Brian Tamaki. That is not a criticism of Brian on my part but a reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden, sorry to take so long to reply, have being tagging heifers, something Philu would really enjoy, blood everywhere, mostly mine. My dislike of this current regime is no secret and especially so to the local press. At the moment the editor and myself are at a uneasy truce. I would not acuse the paper of having a leftwing bias but a few letters have not been published as I delight in pointing out the crap that passes as government policy. When I sent my letter in I had a strong suspicion that it would not be published as I realised the damage it could cause to ( Barnardos ) that was in the middle of a fund raising drive. Thank you for your support but if wouldn’t take the local rag long to put two and two together as I have being the only writer to the local rag to bring this issue up. At the moment I enjoy some letters being published I don’t want to loss that privilege.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    tell us ‘bloody-hands-bob’..

    what exactly does ‘tagging’ consist of..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    I think it’s <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_labour” work phil. Feel free to try it sometime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    “what exactly does ‘tagging’ consist of..?”

    Pink shirts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    I see both Graeme Edgeler and Russell Brown have posts on Public Address about “The anti-smacking referendum”…
    For the benefit of those here who would never stoop to reading Public Address, both seem to point out that the referendum question:

    Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    is stupid because it reeks of all the emotional rhetoric of the last few months, but it does not actually ask if you want “the anti-smacking law” to be repealed or not. As such the referendum itself is a waste of time, and contrary to what Mr DPF would say it is the petition organisers rather than Helen Clark that are responsible for any wasted $10 million…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird:
    Thanks for the reply. I know the Kiwi party is not officially a Christian party, but thought they were positioning themselves as one, being based on Christian morals etc and having Larry Baldock and Gordon Copeland. I am very interested to hear otherwise.

    You are also mistaken to believe Brian Tamaki is involved in The Family Party. I understand that he is not even a party member. The party has a management board where six different churches are represented (read the website http://www.thefamilyparty.org.nz ) only one of which is Destiny, others being the Catholic church (near-complete opposite to Destiny) and a selection in between. Yes, some members, including Richard Lewis, were formerly in the Destiny party, but others were in United Future, others were not involved in either. I too have misgivings about Destiny church, and had some strong concerns when I first heard of the Family party, but when I looked into it I found these concerns were unfounded. I think you misunderstand the party a lot, as I may misunderstand the Kiwi party as I said above.

    I think they have good policies and a better likelihood of getting in than the Kiwi party. It is a shame that both exist, a united party would have been far more likely to get more party votes, but the Kiwi party founders chose to go their own way, and I am sure they had their reasons. Whether these reasons are enough to divide the vote over is another matter, and I strongly feel that people interested in conservative values would be best to put their votes behind the party that is most likely to get in, which really seems to be The Family Party, the attempt to create a united conservative party. If we divide our vote we will get nowhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Hi Philu, if I knew you were interested I would have sent you an invite. Every winter we put numbered tags in the heifers ears as they are going to be new cows entering the herd in spring. These tags have large numbers so they can be seen at a distance and recorded once that animal has it’s calf, this is the animals number for the rest of it’s life. Putting tags in large animals ears can be hard and risky work sometimes, as you could imagine they are not to keen on the idea. We run about 10 animals at time up a narrow race where their movement is restricted, I crab an animal by it’s nostrils and place a nose holder in the nostrils this is conected to a rope which is wraped around a strong rail. I hold the animal by the nose rope ( they can be controlled this way) and my wife puts a tag through the animals ear. This is done with a tool that looks like a large pair of pilers, it has a needle at one end that forces the male tag through the ear and a clip on the other side that holds the female tag, these are forced together and the tag is put in ear. They usually stay in for life but some cows do lose them as they are sometimes riped out when they stick their heads through the fence and the tag gets caught. These animals are not fun to retag as they know whats going on and are fucking strong, you should try wrestling with 500+ kg cow, the hands lose a bit of skin, so it’s not all one sided.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ‘bloody-hands-bob’..eh..?

    celebrating how he earns his monies by inflicting cruelties/death on animals..

    “in his own words’..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Hi Bob, have you ever put rubber rings on lambs balls? Maybe if we get a good reactionary government you could volunteer to do the same for social parasites like your mate Phil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Mr Dennis, I will not split hairs about Brian Tamaki’s involvement in the Family Party. I believe he has a lot of say whether he is a member or not. I agree it is a shame the two parties could not unite. It does neither any good going over why this did not occur. However, I do not accept that this failure was all the fault of the Kiwi Party.

    For conservatives I think the best strategy is to support whichever of the two which has policies that you think are best. There will be plenty of polls running up to the election. Closer the election there will be time for members, voters and party leaders to reassess the situation. If the combined poll number of both parties gets up to around 3% it might make sense to try merging again.

    One thing is certain and that is that I will not vote National as long as they will not change their position on meddling in families. I thought Key was meant to be intelligent and in tune with public thinking.

    He seems to think criminal convictions for smacking are the only concern of the nearly 400,000 people who signed the petition. If that is the case he is not half a bright as he thinks he is. What a shame Brash is not in charge. He was intelligent but also very modest and unassuming. Key tries to act like that but so do the chardonnay socials.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Vote for The Family Party – ‘cos our creator-superstition is still the best set of moral values there are, and everyone should have them…

    Seriously has anyone read their website lately? Headlines like:
    “Govt creating renegade generation”
    “Family Party video creams the Greens”
    “Armed patrols sad but necessary reality”

    These people are more excitable than most Kiwiblog commentators!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    RRM,

    what’s the link?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    thefamilyparty.org.nz

    I watched Richard Lewis on Eye to Eye, on a Sunday morning a few weeks ago. He presented similarly to my contact with Destiny Church in around 2004 when I would busk on the streets of Wellington, living on the streets. I contacted them in regards to the information I held relevant to social policy and the extraordinry events of June 10 and June 11 2003. Mr Lewis struck me in that interview to be in the same mould. The folk at Destiny were happy enough to control my argument but only if they were in control of it. The focus for change is very much driven to the view of the Christian view as it is interpreted by Destiny and that no alternative to that view on humanity could in anyway justify righteousness. Naked Power sits under the bonnet like nothing else matters. At least that is how they come accross to me. I find no consistency in Mr Lewis’s view where he was asked if he would remove children from their natural parents and he answered without any hesitancy that it was a certainty. IN the interview the only member of the four panel group who showed any real responsibility to the child or parents in thier answer was Sue Bradford. She is seasoned enough now as a politician to say that she would look at the circumstances first and couldn’t be drawn to an answer. If the Family Party were in power and didn’t recognise the necessity to support small communities to get stronger so that drastic problems in that community can be disempowered efficiently and carefully before bigbrosis took over then they would be no remedy from the problems as they have already matured in society. The would simply be another body stuffing their values of power into the gut of others with the toxic additive of asking them for 10% of their income as well – (I’m not sure if they would tithe).

    The problem for Mr Lewis is that if he should come into power then he would find his principles would be directly inconsistent with the processes of parliament. He would have to become corrupt immediately on taking his oath, and, of course, he would take it. In my opinion it is impossible that parlaiment and the Church have any common ground and there is proof enough through history, culminated to the revolution of 1688, where the powers were separated. The Church have to be strong on their own and parliament needs to show the Church a far different form of respect. The roles are separate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird:
    A reasonably balanced reply which I won’t try to pull to bits. I must however ask where you get your information on Brian Tamaki’s involvement from, whether it is just your own opinion or if you actually have some facts. Then I would have to ask whether if he is involved (which you have yet to show) whether this is a bad thing. I don’t agree with parts of Destiny’s theology (or at least those parts I have seen on his TV show, their website didn’t actually talk on theology last time I looked so I can’t be certain what it all is to agree or disagree with). However I also disagree with Catholic theology. But I would welcome Catholics getting into politics (like Gordon Copeland for example), as I have more in common with their values than with the values of liberals, and I also welcome other Christians getting into politics and having an influence on this country. Whatever the denomination, they will probably represent my views better than a non-Christian would.

    Political Busker:
    Regarding the separation of Church and State, you will be pleased to note that the Family Party website states:
    “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
    Affirm the separation of church and state but consider Christian values and just governance to be inextricable. The Party affirms freedom of religious choice.”
    http://www.familyparty.org.nz/1_principles.php

    The roles of church and state are certainly separate, but does that mean Christians shouldn’t form a party and have representation in parliament? Of course not. We are a democracy, all people should be represented. I don’t believe politics should be based on race either, but does that mean I don’t think the Maori party should exist? Of course not. They too represent a particular sector of society. The concept of separation of Church and State is not to deny people forming parties to represent their views, that would contradict democracy itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote