Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Fiji’s military ruler says the Prime Minister he ousted in a coup three years ago, Laisenia Qarase, would be returned to power if democratic elections were held tomorrow.

Yet apologists for the coup insist the Commodre is massively popular. I’m no fan of the former PM, but you know refusing to hold elections until people will vote for someone else is not exactly the most principled reason.

I wonder what excuse will be found in 2014 to delay elections again.

The Paul Homes interview on Q&A was fascinating. Holmes was at his most hostile. He used every argument and language of those who support the anti-smacking law. He denigrated his guests as supporting violence, yet Cheryl Savil especially just sat there calmly and refused to allow Holmes to misrepresent her.

The video and transcript are here.  I recommend them as good watching:

Cheryl you are a Mum two kids, how old are the kids.

CHERYL Ten and twelve.

PAUL  And do you smack them?

So immediately tries to personalise it, but gets a calm response.

CHERYL SAVILL I have smacked them in the past, and I found it effective when they were younger?

PAUL How often would you have smacked them?

CHERYL  Actually it differed between the two children, they’re quite different little characters, and one of them is quite a strong willed character and it’s interesting to point out that discipline is on the things and correcting a child is when we’ve used smacking, so when it’s you know you’re not to touch something and they’ve gone to touch it, well I have one of them that would actually eyeball me and be quite defiant in her behaviour so smacking was effective, a little light smack on the hand.

Something hundreds and thousands of parents may have done.

PAUL So why are you so passionate about the right to use physical violence against children?

And then we get the loaded language.

CHERYL Well I don’t think it’s a right, the terminology there, the right to use physical violence.  Smacking is one of the things that parents can use as a technique to help discipline their children.

The calm response.

PAUL But why do we want to allow violence against children, I mean if an adult smacks, let’s use the word smack, if an adult smacks another adult it’s considered unacceptable, in fact it’s probably criminal, why should it be acceptable for a big person to assault or to smack a little child?

Here he repeast the pejorative term violence. Appears to concede and call it smacking. And then goes for anothe pejorative word – assault.

It is the equivalent of calling an unwanted kiss on the cheek, a sexual assault or violation.

CHERYL Well it’s quite a different relationship between a parent and their child than between adults.  So a parent’s responsibility is to raise their child to become a responsible loving productive member of society, and that’s what I think is the issue here, the parenting role is very different to the role that we have as adults in relationship to each other.

And another calm rational response.

PAUL What did you use, a wooden spoon or the hearth brush or what?

Another attempt to attack the mother personally. he could have asked if she smacked with a bare hand or with an implement

CHERYL  No I used a smack on the hand like that, or a smack on the bottom.  When you actually show the footage often you’ll see a parent grabbing the child by the arm and whack whack whack whack and I don’t agree with that I think that’s going too far.  So I need to really clarify that.

And another calm response, clearly saying what she finds acceptable and unacceptable.

BOB McCROSKIE 
 Well can I just clarify that, if you smack a child as they’re about to touch that’s preventing bad behaviour, but if they do it, if they do something naughty, and then you say you’re not to do that again I’m going to give you a smack don’t do that again, that is correction, that is illegal, and this is the minefield that parents are going through that you can smack to prevent that behaviour but not to correct.

McCroskie correctly points out the current law.

PAUL Nobody’s going through a minefield Bob.

The response being an unsupported assertion. And he is meant to be the neutral interviewer.

PAUL Parents are very calm, can I suggest to you everyone agrees, the Police, the government, both major parties, Bernardoes, Plunket, everyone agrees….

Paul think the lobby groups and the MPs represent everyone. Did he not wonder about why 300,000 people signed a petition, why it was cited as a factor in Labour’s loss, or why polls show 80%+ oppose the law. And he has the gumption to claim everyone agrees.

CHERYL I actually think it’s quite interesting that there has been this move away from smacking or from actual violence which we don’t agree with, you know anger in action.

PAUL Smacking, hitting, what’s the difference Cheryl?

Back to the language war.

CHERYL  Well a big difference, you know there is a seriously big difference, if a child gets bruised that’s too far.

And a calm response again

BOB  Same with time out Paul, there’s appropriate time out, but locking your kid in a dark room for three hours is child abuse.

I thought this was a very apt analogy. Any disciplinary method can become abusive. There is a difference between a light smack and a violent thrashing just as there is a difference between a time out and imprisonment.

PAUL What is your smacking history Mr McCroskie?

BOB  I was smacked, and it did me the world of good.  There was nothing wrong with it.

And again Holmes tries to personalise it, rather than debate the issues.

PAUL Well it was a simpler world perhaps, but go back to a situation that obtained before we amended section 59, kids in New Zealand were the only kids not protected from physical violence.  They did not have the same protections afforded to adults and animals.

BOB Yes they did, they were protected because the smack had to be reasonable and for the purpose of correction within the parent child relationship, so kids were protected from violence, if a parent went too far they were prosecuted.

PAUL And they got off Bob.

BOB One or two got off, there were a couple of exceptions.

PAUL A couple of very brutal incidents.

BOB And that’s what we wanted to do was to amend the law, we agreed with Chester Burrows amendment, we agree with John Boscawen’s member’s bill, which simply more clearly defined what was reasonable and what was not, it was a win win situation, that’s what parents want, they want certainty in the law.  At the moment we’ve got this mish mash, parents don’t know where they stand.

And this is a key point. As far as I know no-one is arguing to go back to the old law. The Borrows amendment would beyond any doubt take care of those cases where there was public disquiet about verdicts under the old law.

PAUL But isn’t it strange that in this day and age we’re having a debate about whether we should be able to assault children?

BOB  No it’s not about assault.

And for the fourth of fith time Holmes uses the language of the small minority who support the law. It is Holmes at his most biased. He has lost basically every argument, so he resorts back to slogans.

PAUL Come on!

CHERYL  It’s not assault.  Assaulting children – in fact actually the footage that you showed of whacking a child over and over and over again, I don’t agree with that, that’s not what I’m saying, and that’s what – I talk to hundreds of parents, I talk to parents in the school ground all the time, and they say to me this is crazy, what’s going on with the law.

And again a good response.

PAUL Is this driven by adherence to the old biblical saying that to spare the rod is to spoil the child?  Do you believe that?

BOB No I think we be disciplining kids, I think we should be bringing them up, we should be training them and they should have clear boundaries, they should be surrounded in a loving family and the question is should a parent who’s bringing up a loving family, is loving the kid, doing all the things right, and chooses to use a smack, should they be criminalised, I would say no, it’s as simple as that, 85% of New Zealanders are saying that.

This time Holmes tries to paint it as religious fundamentalism. But there are many people like me who support gay marriage, abortion on demand, ending blasphemy laws, minimal censorship, gay adoption, legal prostitution etc etc – yet think this law that criminalises so many parents is wrong and should be amended in line the Borrows/Boscawen bill.

I thought Therese Arseneu summied it up well on the panel discussion:

THERESE        I think what the debate comes down to is that one smack that’s she’s talking about, that she agrees that if it’s multiply smacks it is assault, and I guess what you hear from their side is that they don’t take great comfort in the fact that the Police – you know the compromise that came from National that the Police will have discretion when it comes down to that one smack, it’s highly unlikely that any parent is going to be criminalised for one smack, but the problem is that parents don’t like that that one smack is considered criminal.

No they don’t. They resent it like hell. And the Borrows/Boscawen bill would change it so that it isn’t.

Guyon Espiner interviews Nick Smith on Q&A this morning. I thought it was a good performance from Nick:

GUYON  What about here in New Zealand.  What sort of climate effects are we going to see here and by when if we don’t get this under control?

NICK Well if we take the sort of estimates that have been made by NIWA scientists, you know we’re looking sea level rises over the course of the century of about .6 of a metre, we’re looking at temperature rises of about two degrees. 

Great to have a politician not exagerrate the impacts. Nick correctly quoted the IPCC consensus of around 60 cm increase over 100 years. You get all sorts of hysterical nonsense about eight metre increases from some politicians.

NICK  Well the government’s commissioned this report from Infometrics and NZEIR to try and get a feel for what those numbers would be if we went for the target that Greenpeace is promoting of minus 40, that indicates a cost of about you know 15 billion dollars per year at 2020, you know that’s more than the entire expense of our health system,

This is what the Green Party is campaigning for. To spend more money on this, than we do on Vote Health. And that is $15 billion a year – not one off.

The report from NZIER is here – NZIER Infometrics Report 26 July 2009.

Their model basically says that the cost would be $3,000 per person per year for a 40% reduction. That is $60 a week.

NICK   Yeah I do, I think that argument is incontrovertible, you know how can we, emitting about 17 tonne a year, per New Zealander, say to the Bangladeshi who’s doing a tonne a year, hey guys you’ve gotta get your emissions down because we’ve got a global problem.  But the other part we have to understand is this, even if every one of the developed countries signs up to a zero target which is totally unrealistic, and you see the continued growth in emissions from China, India, Brazil, those countries, we are not going to beat this problem, you know the projections are that you’d get emissions up to sort of 650 parts per million, even with zero from the developed world, and so that really shows how important it is in Copenhagen that we get the developing countries to come on board. 

This is key. An agreement must include China, India and Brazil.

NICK   I want to reassure you, that in the government making its decision both on the ETS and the 2020 target, that needs to be at the front of our mind.  You know if we look at the new bill that’s in the United States Congress, they’ve specifically made provision there for tariffs against countries that don’t take climate change seriously, and so what the sort of balance that the government’s going to have to strike here, is one that has us not getting out too far of the pack.  What that economic report shows if you get too far out, the costs really escalate.

GUYON         So we could face a trade ban, so your 15 billion dollars pales into nothing if we are getting our goods boycotted by an international trading ban. 

NICK   Absolutely, and that’s why I say to farmers in the agricultural sector, look guys climate change has gotta be taken seriously, not only is it an environmental risk, it is a trade risk, and that’s where New Zealand needs to find this balance, recognise that we’ve got a tough job, but saying that look too far ahead, costs get too high, too far behind and the costs get ugly as well.

It is a balance. If we do nothing we will get hammered. If we try to be the most pure country in the world we will just get a lot poorer and possibly outsource our emissions to China.

The SST report:

The Government plans to drastically overhaul the way polytechnics operate by slashing the size of their governing councils.

The move has the potential to dump about 250 of the 400 existing councillors, including chairmen.

Education Minister Anne Tolley has met Dave Guerin, executive director of the national association for institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPNZ), and outlined her plans, which would cut all councils to just eight members. They generally have between 14 and 20.

I think this is a step in the right direction, for two reasons:

1. Almost all the known research has concluded that governance boards of greater than around nine tend to be relatively ineffective.
2. A number of polytechnics have had significant financial issues, and I doubt the Government is convinced the status quo works well for the $600 million a year invested.

The proposed new structure would comprise four ministerial appointees, the CEO, an academic board representative, a student representative and one member co-opted by the council.

Guerin also reveals Tolley would appoint the chairman, probably from one of the ministerial appointees.

This would not be suitable for universities, as their role with academic freedom means the Minister appointing the Chancellor and most Council members would be a problem.

But for polytechnics, this seems fairly reasonable – it means the Minister actually has control over how the institution is governed.

But the changes are set to erode the traditional composition of polytech councils, removing employer, Maori, union and other community group representatives.

A good polytechnic will have strong relationships with these key stakeholders. But that does not mean they need to be on the governing board. In fact it can often lead to conflicts of interest IMO.

It will be interesting to see what the Government finally proposes.

Harbour News did an interview with Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye. One extract:

She’s been contacted by more than 1500 locals in the last six months, asking for help with anything from funding for a particular drug or help with a government agency.

Trying to fit in as many people as possible means working six-and-a-half days a week and she says it’s frustrating not to be able to help everyone.

“I’m always trying to fit more people in and I find that hard.”

But it’s also the most rewarding part of the work for Miss Kaye.

“I have been moved by the people I’ve met in terms of their stories.”

And dealing with the community face-to-face makes a nice change from the bureaucracy of Parliament, she says.

Some people think being an MP is just about getting up in the House and slagging off the other side. For constituency MPs especially they spend a huge amount of time assisting constituents and dealing with local issues. Many good electorate MPs are dealing with similiar workloads.

It has been interesting observing MPs under MMP. The common assumption before MMP came in was that most MPs would prefer to be List MPs. They would be freed up from all the constituency work, and have more time to concentrate on Parliament, policy etc.

However the vast majority of MPs I know far far prefer being an electorate MP, even though it does mean they are much busier. I think it is the warm feeling they get from being able to help people on an individual level, as a contrast to passing laws and policies that you have relatively little say in anyway (unless the PM or senior Minister).

To some degree this is reflected back by what the public thinks of MPs as a group, as oppossed to their local MP.

Numerous polls have put MPs as a group as ranking around the level of used car salesmen – about as low as one can go.

Interestingly though, if you poll voters in an electorate about what they think of their local MP, most MPs will get a good rating – and some will get hugely positive ratings.

Paul Holmes read this poem out on NewstalkZB. Not sure if he wrote it, but it is quite moving:

Methamphetamine

I destroy homes, I tear families apart
I take your children, and that’s just a start
I’m more costly than diamonds, more precious than gold
The sorrow I bring is a sight to behold

If you need me, remember, I’m easily found
I live all around you, in schools and in town
I live with the rich, I live with the poor
I live down the street, I may be next door

I’m made in a lab, but not like you think
I can be made under the kitchen sink
In your child’s closet, and even in the woods
If this scares you to death, it certainly should

I have many names, but there’s one you know best
I’m sure you’ve heard of me, my name is Crystal Meth
My power is awesome, try me, you’ll see
But if you do, you’ll never be free

Just try me once, and I might let you go
But try me twice and I’ll own your soul
When I possess you, you’ll steal and you’ll lie
You’ll do what you have to, just to get high

The crimes you’ll commit, for my narcotic charms
Will be worth the pleasure you’ll feel in your arms
You’ll lie to your mother, you’ll steal from your dad
When you see their tears, you should feel sad

But you’ll forget your morals and how you were raised
I’ll be your conscience, I’ll teach you my ways
I take kids from parents, and parents from kids
I turn people from God and separate friends

I’ll take everything from you, your looks and your pride
I’ll be with you always, right by your side.
You’ll give up everything, your family, your home
Your friends, your money, then you’ll be alone

I’ll take and I’ll take till you have nothing more to give
When I’ve finished with you, you’ll be lucky to live
If you try me, be warned, this is no game
If given the chance, I’ll drive you insane

I’ll ravish your body, I’ll control your mind
I’ll own you completely, your soul will be mine
The nightmares I’ll give you while you’re lying in bed
The voices you’ll hear from inside your head

The sweats, the shakes, the visions you’ll see
I want you to know, these are your gifts from me
But then it’s too late, and you’ll know in your heart,
That you are mine, and we shall not part

You’ll regret that you tried me, they always do
But you came to me, not I to you
You knew this would happen, many times were you told
But you challenged my power, and I chose to be bold

You could have said no and just walked away
If you could live that day over, now what would you say?
I’ll be your master, you’ll be my slave
I’ll even go with you, when you go to your grave

Now that you’ve met me, what will you do?
Will you try me or not? It’s all up to you
I can bring you more misery, than words can tell
Come, take my hand, let me lead you to hell

The SST has a further story on the murder of An An Liu by Nai Yin Xue. Their reporting has unearthed that the murder was predicted and preventable:

Police told a family violence court they feared martial arts expert Nai Yin Xue would track down and kill his wife if he was released on bail, a year before he did just that.

And Judge Phil Recordon noted that An An Liu had told support people she was worried Xue would “find her and hurt her if given bail and… leave the country”.

And he did.

Judge Johnson has defended Recordon and the family violence courts, writing to the Star-Times “we have good reason to believe that an overuse of imprisonment will stop families seeking the help of the police and the authorities”.

And an under-use of imprisonment leads to preventable homicides.

Bill Ralston writes in the HoS that Goff must watch his back:

It is occurring in the blogosphere, and not on the traditional centre-right sites that love to lampoon Goff and Labour but on centre-left sites.

Ralston gves four examples:

The Left’s curmudgeonly commentator Chris Trotter fired the first shots on his site, Bowalley Road. Incensed at Goff’s statements regarding socialism as a 19th-century doctrine rejected by modern Labour, Trotter blew a fuse. “If this is your view, Phil, that the quest for democratic socialism should be dismissed as something belonging to ’19th-century history’, then I say ‘The hell with you’.” Trotter tells Labour Party members: “Find yourselves a new leader.”

 Russell Brown’s liberal-left Hard News offered Goff the pained advice, that if he “wants to float ideas, could he please ensure they don’t have any holes in them when he pushes them out from the jetty”.

The staunchly pro-Labour site called The Standard picked up on the Burgess fiasco saying: “Phil, get your shit together”. And left blog Against the Current complained “Goff just doesn’t get it”.

I don’t think any of those left blogs (except Trotter) are saying they want Goff to go. They are saying they want Goff to improve his performance. But there is a sub-text about what could happen if he doesn’t.

The blogosphere means we now hear what party supporters once said in private discussions over a beer. That the whingeing about Goff has started after a couple of small mistakes means there is a deep enmity to him on the left of the party and his opponents are beginning to gather steam.

Blogs have increased transparency.

Ralston concludes:

Goff was an intelligent and able Cabinet minister but now I hear Labour supporters wondering if that is enough to make him an Opposition leader capable of winning an election. Frankly, at this stage, there is no one better to lead the party.

Nevertheless, the knives are being sharpened and over the coming year the destabilisation of Goff is likely to intensify. This may not lead to his overthrow but it will ruin Labour’s chances of presenting itself as a stable alternative government.

The most interesting part will be seeing who on the left will first raise their head to make a push for the leadership. As a great New Zealand thinker once said: “It won’t happen overnight but it will happen.”

The danger periods are at the very end and very beginning of a year. But having said that, I do not believe Goff is (yet) at risk. Of the pre-2008 intake only Cunliffe, Street and Jones are seen as potential leaders and all are seen as risky to some degree.

The 2008 intake has some considerable talent, but there is no way any of them will take up a leadership role in their first term.

The HoS reports:

Child advocates have slammed a risque range of baby clothes that created a storm of controversy in Australia and are now on sale in New Zealand.

The T-shirts and suits are on sale in Australian chain Cotton On Kids’ 17 Kiwi stores and feature slogans including “I’m a tits man”, “The condom broke”, “I’m living proof my mum is easy” and “Mummy likes it on top”.

So long as they are on babies, not kids old enough to read and understand what they mean, I just see them as parents showing off a sense of humour.

A t-shirt saying “I’m living proof my mum is easy” is poking fun at the mum, not the kid. It would be interesting if the Dad purchased the t-shirt without the mum knowing

The controversy follows World’s foray into children’s clothing in 2007. A range of T-shirts emblazoned with “Future Porn Star” was criticised, but designer Francis Hooper defended them as “humorous and irreverent”.

In 2008, Jay Jays’ Little Losers range of T-shirts was accused of sexualising kids. Featuring slogans such as “Miss Bitch”, “Miss Floozy” and “Mr Well-Hung”, they were removed from displays after criticism.

I tend to agree those ones are inappropriate, as they can sexualise the kids themselves.

An imaginary chocolate fish for anyone who can identify what this is or was. The photo was taken in 1956.

Nick Venter from the Dominion Post got a rare interview with both John and Bronagh Key. As well as the story, they have some video clips with further material. In one of them John tells how concerned he is that Bronagh has started reading the left-wing blogs

Some parts I found interesting or amusing:

Mrs Key recalls: “I was standing on the doorstep at my friend’s house in my school uniform. I had just biked around on my orange Lowline bike, a pretty ugly bike. John opened the door.”

What was her first impression? Before she can answer, her husband interrupts: “Stunning. All of my (her) dreams come true.”

“Really?”, I ask.

“Actually I don’t know that I really took much notice of you at that point,” she tells her husband apologetically.

Looking at the photo above, you have to say you can’t blame her. Our Prime Minister did look a bit nerdy back then!

Stephie attends the exclusive Auckland girls school St Cuthbert’s College. She works part-time at a hair salon – and full-time keeping a close eye on her father’s pronouncements.

“Sometimes if I’m talking to Stephie about what she’s doing with her future life she quotes my speeches back to me in a rather annoying way,” her father says.

Very smart of her.

Mr Key has on occasion tinkered with the time of Monday afternoon’s post-Cabinet press conference when he needs to get home to make a family commitment.

He makes a particular effort to get to things that are important to his children – he attends about half of Max’s soccer and baseball games, often in a suit, so he can leap into a Crown limo to head for his next engagement – and he takes them along when he is doing things they are interested in.

Making half the games isn’t a bad effort, considering the job.

Mr Key: “They notice it first day back at school for the term and then after a couple of days it goes away. Max quite often says to me people come up to him every day and say to him `I saw your Dad on TV last night’. He goes ‘Wow’.”

Then with the candour that is one of his trademarks Mr Key gives the real version of what his son says. “Well, the exact line is ‘No shit Sherlock’.”

Heh that is one of my favourite sayings.

Boyhood ambitions: “A lot of children want to be prime minister. I get an endless stream of letters and a lot of those letters say to me they would like to have my job.

“I take some comfort from the fact that they are only 11.”

Heh.

His personal style: “The main thing is I try and be who I am. I have learnt things from Helen Clark and I have learnt things from other leaders I have looked at, but I don’t try and be Helen Clark because everyone has got a different personality and mine is a bit more casual. Sometimes it gets me in trouble but largely it works for me.”

There definitely is some of Clark’s leadership style in Key. But this is not surprising as she has been the only PM during his time in Parliament.

A reader writes:

The truly pavlovian response by the media to the statement yesterday about changes to overseas investment rules, makes me marvel that we have any decent public policies in NZ.

The English statement today sets out facts that competent journalists would have worked out for themselves, if they were professional and not dependent on recycling statements from politicians and others with little or no interest in the truth. Their coverage has been truly pathetic.

The statement the reader refers to is this:

Removing the strategic asset test from the overseas investment rules will reduce confusion and uncertainty for investors but will have little other practical effect, Finance Minister Bill English says.

“The strategic asset test has never been used to block a sale by any government in this country,” Mr English told the Shareholders Association Annual Conference in Wellington today.

So a never used ill defined test is going, and this got the headlines about everything for sale.

“Contrary to Labour’s spin, it did not use this test to block the sale of Auckland Airport. Instead it relied on nine existing criteria in the rules relating to the sale of sensitive land. They were applied as part of the normal screening process.

Yet many media reported that this test was used to block the sale.

Tracy Watkins writes:

As the reality of John Key’s prolonged honeymoon sinks in, two things are happening within the Labour caucus.

I do wish media would stop explaining high poll ratings by claiming Key is still enjoying his honeymoon. Not only does this ignore all the potential problems such as a Budget that cancelled tax cuts, a Ministerial sacking, the Rankin appointment and a massive by-election thrashing – it goes against all the numerous tome media and thers have already proclaimed the honeymoon is over.

Duncan Garner called the honeymoon dead on 9 June for example. The Herald on Sunday on 17 May. Even Labour called it over on 13 May.

A honeymoon period is when you have no real problems. It is not a term meant to apply whenever the Government remains high in the polls.

The first is that they have become gripped by a sense of grievance that Mr Key’s honeymoon is only down to the media giving him an easy ride.

Yes I recall how easy the media went on him over Richard Worth, the by-election and Christine Rankin. As in, not at all.

Even defeat was seen as nothing more than an interruption to normal transmission. Labour MPs who wore the mantle of martyrdom about as well as could be expected for those who have taken a massive cut in salary and been forced out of their ministerial homes concluded that the temporary mood of boredom and recklessness that gripped voters on election day would be overtaken eventually by the realisation they had squandered a capable and much-loved government.

The culture of entitlement, as they call it in Canada.

Mr Goff’s blunders this week were twofold; he tried to dress up a reheated election policy as a new one, but was left scrambling to fill in the gaps when pressed to flesh it out. It was intended to put the Government on the back foot by painting it as devoid of ideas in the face of a looming unemployment crisis.

But the consequence of the rush was a badly thought out policy that pledged welfare for the rich, when the intended recipients had always been the battling middle classes.

Money for millionaires!

To compound the problem, Mr Goff championed the cause of a “Kiwi battler” who claimed to be on the brink of losing his home of 20 years because he could not get an unemployment benefit after losing his job, even though his wife earned only $21,000 a year.

The man’s story, which featured in an Auckland newspaper, rang alarm bells among many who read it on the Wednesday morning. It did not ring true that with 20 years of mortgage payments under their belt and a lifetime of frugality, the couple were a step away from the poorhouse.

And it was exactly that scenario which was the emotional string-puller. The Goff painted fantasy that you can have owned your home for 20 years, paid all your taxes, yet lose your home within months of unemployment because of the nasty Key Government.

The argument that taxpayers should pick up the tab for a couple with property worth well over $1 million is one that most would find preposterous. Worse, it transpired that Mr Goff and his team knew about the man’s other properties. But where warning lights should have flashed up after the newspaper’s failure to dig up the pertinent facts, Mr Goff and his team saw a green light instead.

Hopefully the media learn a lesson from this also. Ask for all the relevant facts when presented with a sob story. Mind you a Herald staffer said on radio that they had asked Labour if this couple had any other sources of income and were not told about the properties.

The Herald reports:

But a Weekend Herald-DigiPoll survey, which put the same questions this month to 200 parents of 4-year-olds, has found that just 9 per cent of mothers and 8 per cent of fathers now smack their children that often [weekly].

About two-thirds of both mothers and fathers still smack at least occasionally, despite the 2007 law promoted by Green MP Sue Bradford that banned using force against children for the purpose of “correction”.

It is a small sample size, but in line with other polls.

Despite this, in line with other recent polls, a massive 85.4 per cent still plan to vote “No” on the referendum question, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

Only 10.8 per cent plan to vote “Yes”, with 3.8 per cent undecided.

Not only do those who still smack resent this law. Even those who choose not to, say the law should go. They think parents should decide how to raise their children – not the state. They do not accept that a light smack is abuse, violence, bashing etc.

However, the Herald poll has found that 78.5 per cent of the parents questioned plan to vote. Only 14 per cent say they will not vote, and 7 per cent are unsure.

The higher the turnout, the harder it is for the Government and Parliament to dismiss it.

The Herald reports:

Sir Roger Douglas wants ratepayers to be able to shop around for the best local council, saying that being able to defect to one nearby even if they do not live there will invoke the spirit of competition.

Great idea.

Sir Roger told a parliamentary select committee considering legislation setting up Auckland’s Super City that there should be a flexible community council structure with ratepayers able to decide its size and even set up their own councils.

Groups of ratepayers who lived next to another community council should also be able to opt out and join another council.

“The capacity to change council will create competition for ratepayers, which is likely to see value for money being delivered by local government,” Sir Roger said.

Those who place a premium on low rates can get a Council that does that, while those who like enhanced community facilities can also get what they want.

Former Auckland City Mayor Dick Hubbard told the committee he strongly supported the proposed powers for the Super Mayor after his experience of being hamstrung by the “power-hungry” Deputy Mayor Bruce Hucker.

Mr Hubbard said he was elected on a vision, but then obstructed in implementing it by Dr Hucker who had a voting bloc on the council. For this reason, the Super Mayor must be given the power to hire and fire the deputy.

I agree with Dick Hubbard. The Mayor needs a team he or she can work with. The Council still gets a veto over policy and spending decisions, but an effective leadership team is a good thing.

I previously blogged on how North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams black-listed Whale Oil from bidding in a charity auction, removing his bids. This meant the auction went for $150 (and to the Mayor’s daughter) instead of the $1,000 or so Whale was willing to bid.

They obviously realised what a bad and indefensible look this was, so today the Herald reports:

Mr Williams said council members and staff had boosted the top bid by $1030 and three teenage cancer patients would accompany him today in the jet plane simulator.

The poor Councillors and staff – having to do a whip around to save face for the Mayor.

A more sensible approach would have been to raise the money beforehand, and simply outbid Whale Oil.

Mr Slater said he would pay the $1000, which included money sent in by readers of his blog, “in the spirit of the auction”.

Great for the charity.

The Herald reports Simon Power has clarified:

Mr Power gave further details of his proposal yesterday, saying it was aimed at cases where the complainant’s relationship with the accused was raised. This would only happen if the judge gave prior permission.

I said yesterday I supported restrictions on questions about the complainant’s previous sexual relationships.

However I have to say I think it would be pretty dangerous to ban any evidence or questions about the actual history and relationship of the complainant and accused. This seems to me incredibly relevant – especially when a trial has consent as the only disputed fact.

Considering there are a significant number of false complaints made, this could lead to more innocent people going to jail. And I am reminded of the maxim better 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent person is jailed.

Went with Auckland Girl to a Film Festival movie last night. She chose it. It was Humpday.

As we dined before hand at Chow I asked her what it was about. She said she didn’t know exactly but assumed some sort of workplace comedy about surviving Wednesdays. Hump Day is a nickname for Wednesday.

It was not about Wednesdays. As Wikipedia explains the plot is:

Two heterosexual male friends decide to make a gay porno and submit it to the HUMP! film festival.

Auckland Girl is never getting to choose what movie we go to again. Ever.

Both the Press and the Dom Post cal the provocation partial defence to go. First The Press:

The Law Commission was quite correct when it said that the defence of provocation was “irretrievably flawed”. …

The most glaring reason for abolishing the defence is the trauma it causes to the family of the victim and indeed to the relatives of the accused.

The parents and other family members of murder victim Sophie Elliott had already suffered a grievous loss. They then had to endure hearing her personal life and her relationship with Weatherston being dissected in intimate detail as the defence team built its failed provocation argument.

Adding to the inequity was that the only person who could have refuted much of Weatherston’s evidence was the victim herself.

Indeed. It encourages killers to lie when there is no-one to contradict them.

The simplest and best solution to the provocation issue is that suggested by the commission. Abolish the defence and leave it to the judge, when sentencing, to take provocation into account as an aggravating or mitigating factor. The Government must move swiftly to achieve this, either by introducing legislation itself or by helping to facilitate the introduction and passage of a Labour bill.

The Dom Post says:

Section 69 of the Crimes Act says culpable homicide that might otherwise be murder may be reduced to manslaughter “if the person who caused the death did so under provocation”.

It is an archaic part of the law that unconscionably turns the victims of society’s most serious crime into victims for a second time as their reputations are sullied by the people who killed them. …

The Labour-led Clark Government had at least one opportunity to change this obsolete part of the law. The Law Commission delivered a report in 2007 recommending its abolition, but the justice minister was too busy at the time removing people’s election-year rights.

I think that is Mark Burton they are referring to. Ouch.

And finally we turn to this Stuff article for why it is certain to go:

Murderers will no longer be able to claim they were provoked into committing their crime under a law change the government is planning.

Cabinet will consider the proposal in the next two to three weeks but Prime Minister John Key has given his approval, making it almost certain to go ahead.

A key aspect is that as of around 2002, Judges can now give a non parole period of less than 10 years. So in a case where say a mother kills their daughter’s rapist as he is leaving the scene, they would not automatically go to jail for at least ten years.

I got sent this cartoon a couple of weeks ago, but decided to hold it off until the trial was over, to avoid any potential contempt issues.

It is somewhat timely to publish today, with the media reporting:

Newstalk ZB reported that prison inmates had taunted Weatherston from the moment he arrived at the prison, that a $55,000 bounty had been put on his head and that the price was expected to reach six figures. It is unclear who would offer the money.

I’m tempted to joke that the prisoners should hold off until the bidding reaches $100,000 but of course I do not condone violence, let alone murder. While few will have sympathy for whatever does happen to Weatherston, I do remember that he has parents and siblings who have also become victims.

I’m not sure how I would cope if someone close to me turned out so bad. And this does not appear to be a case of any sort of childhood trauma or abuse – just a very bad apple.

My wish is that one day Clayton experiences true remorse for what he did. It is that total lack of remorse that has so chilled the nation. And until the day a small army of psychiatrists can detect that remose, he should (in my humble opinion) never be released.

Stuff reports:

A top policeman wants people banned from entering bars after 1am, but his call has divided police bosses.

Christchurch area commander Inspector Derek Erasmus also wants bars closed by 3am as police struggle to grapple with “a heaving, throbbing mass of drunkenness” on weekends.

But Wellington’s police bosses and the hospitality industry say it would be a disaster and would not deal with the drinking culture.

Yay. Great to have the local Police being sensible.

Wellington area commander Inspector Pete Cowan said a single law change would not deal with weekend drinking problems or the drinking culture generally.

He said Wellington police had looked at a one-way-door policy a few years ago but realised it would not work unless all 247 licensed premises in the city centre signed up to it.

“I do not want all the businesses to close at the same time. Thousands of people put out on the street at once, that would be absolute chaos.”

Absolutely. And many people don’t even hit town until midnight. A 1 am one way policy would mean you have to stay at the same place all night.

The Netguide Awards were last night. I was surprised to get an e-mail saying I was a finalist on Monday as I didn’t mention, link or promote the Awards on the blog – unlike most sites.

The major winners are:

• Best Site – Trade Me
• Best Blog – Blogger Bites Back (NZ Herald celebrity gossip blog)
• Best Financial Site – Raboplus
• Best Homepage – Stuff
• Best ISP – Telstra Clear
• Best Media – Stuff
• Best Govt – IRD
• Best Social Networking – Facebook

Congrats to the winners. Fairfax will be pretty happy.