Armstrong’s View
August 29th, 2009 at 11:05 am by David FarrarJohn Armstrong touches on a number of issues:
No matter what spin the anti-smacking brigade puts on last week’s referendum, the result is still mind-boggling. …
The assumption of voter ignorance is the typical sort of patronising claptrap used by the liberal elites to conveniently explain away something that disturbs their comfort zones. …
Ditto with the smacking referendum. Voters understood exactly what they were doing. Politicians ignore the outcome at their peril.
There is a huge disconnect between the so called liberal elite and the rest of NZ on this issue. Armstrong is right – people knew exactly what they were voting for. This is an issue that has had two years plus of public debate.
Those in National’s senior ranks are most definitely taking note. The highest “no” votes were registered in provincial and rural seats held by that party.
Once it was clear that the turnout was going to be much higher than predicted, the Prime Minister ensured he had a response prepared. This amounted to more monitoring of the existing law to ensure it is working as intended.
That was obviously not going to satisfy the referendum’s organisers, who were seeking the repeal of the relevant section of the Crimes Act.
While Sue Bradford’s amended initiative remains the law, National has taken on board the message from the referendum that voters are drawing a line in the sand against any more measures which might be termed liberal, socially progressive or nanny state-ish.
I remain unconvinced that this will be enough. I think it will remain an issue until the law is amended.
And I don’t think one should include “socially progressive” in the same sentence as “nanny state”. Certainly some people are against both, but I see de-criminalising prostitution (or more correctly solicitation) as the exact opposite of nanny state.
In marked contrast, National’s reform agenda for the economy and social service delivery is meeting little resistance. For example, Bill English has now mentioned on several occasions three dreaded words that usually spell political death – “capital gains tax” – without his world caving in.
That is not to say the Finance Minister is about to bring in such a tax.
But the lack of opposition is emboldening the Government to move faster on the economic front than it might otherwise have done, another example being National’s willingness to allow mining of minerals on parts of the Department of Conservation estate.
I am pleased that National is showing signs that the status quo will not deliver the economy we need.
If nothing else, the politics surrounding the latter is proof there is a God – and that he or she has a wicked sense of humour.
How else to explain the private member’s bill promoted by Act’s John Boscawen, which allows parents to give their child a “light” smack for corrective purposes, making it onto Parliament’s order paper for debate.
The odds on the measure securing the sole spot available were a staggering 28-1 against. Beating those odds in the ballot of private member’s bills – plus the timing just days after the referendum result – suggested divine intervention.
I joked to a Christian lobbyist after the bill was drawn, that perhaps this does show that God is indeed on their side 
National is relaxed about Act getting a pay-off in the polls from Hide appearing principled by saying he would resign his Local Government portfolio rather than steer legislation through Parliament with which he could not agree.
Act has struggled to register above 1.5 per cent support since the election, while backing for National is up to 10 percentage points higher than the party got at the ballot box last year.
While Act appears to have decided to be less supine in its four-way relationship with National, the Maori Party and United Future, it has to ensure it does not overreach itself and become the docked tail wagging a very large National dog.
Most in National would like ACT to be close to 5% than 1%. And again to be fair to Rodney he did not publicise his stance on resigning over the Maori Seats. Whomever leaked the Tau Henare e-mail did that.
National ultimately holds the whip hand. Act’s survival as a parliamentary party rests on Hide holding his Epsom seat. National has no qualms about reminding him that it retains the right to select a quality candidate and make a proper fight of it in the electorate.
Hide’s threat to resign his portfolios is akin to the Black Knight’s sword fight with King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. As Arthur hacks off the Black Knight’s limbs one-by-one, the latter insists his wounds are nothing more than a scratch and suggests the pair call it a draw.
Again I think it is fair to stress Rodney did not want this made public. But having been made public, is is true that there is limited room to take such a firm stance again without a degree of backlash.
If there is a lesson to be drawn from the Byzantine nature of MMP politics, it is not to view an argument over something like the non-establishment of Maori seats in isolation. The Maori Party has been the loser in that instance, it should be the winner elsewhere, thereby reinforcing its current inclination to stick with National.
The review of the foreshore and seabed law will see it emerge the winner when it comes to concessions.
I have blogged previously that by 2011 the Maori Party will probably have a fairly impressive list of achievements or wins. And what will be more remarkable is all of them were gained voluntarily – National could have governed without them.
Related posts:
- Sensible positions on Maori seats
- Rodney on John
- A referendum on referendums!
- Rodney on Maori Seats in Auckland
August 29th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Good insight from Armstrong except the bit about “National’s willingness to allow mining of minerals on parts of the Department of Conservation estate.”
I have said before and will again, this is nothing but a smoke screen to deflect attention of the masses from the smacking referendum result.
As for the rest of his article, excellent.
My comments below are a copy and paste from something I posted 10 minutes ago in response to someone saying that it was no loss if voters moved towards ACT. I can’t be arsed typing it all again!!
No offence but I wouldn’t get too complacent. I have heard others say similar, that it will only strengthen the right but I believe there are probably more people who recognise this than you imagine. I certainly do and therefore IF I moved away from National because of this it will be to try and cause change, not maintain or strengthen the current power base. If that meant voting for Winston Peters then I would do it. Here is why:
I am sick of being lied to and ignored by politicians. Years of Clark and Cullen have left me disillusioned about the whole political process. I have no problem when someone has to make a tough call if it makes sense which is why I was disappointed but not angry when the tax cuts where canceled. It was understandable because of the circumstances. However I have yet to hear a valid reason why Key is taking the stance he is over this issue.
What does he have to gain? He certainly has nothing to lose. The “excuses” and “reasons” so far are pathetic and obviously bs. It will not derail parliament. Suggesting that the voters didn’t necessarily vote for a law change based on the wording of the question is disingenuous. The intentions where obvious. Saying the law is working is bollocks, it is making parents criminals, whether they are charged or not is irrelevant.
Is he coming under pressure from some outside influence? UN? IMF? Something is going on. Remember what he said in 2007:
“The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament, says National Party Leader John Key.’The Labour…-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue. Helen Clark has refused to let her MPs vote the way they really think on this bill. To ram it through under the cover of urgency shows just how out of touch her government has become….”
April 2007: “I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches.”
Talking about the Borrows amendment:
“the way you send a message is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. My colleague, Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, has put forward an amendment to Sue Bradford’s Bill that would do this. In my view, this is the correct response, and the one Parliament should adopt.”
That was who I voted for. What happened? I need to know a good reason why he changed otherwise I cannot trust him again.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
That was also another instance of minority groups with agendas hijacking the Govt, much the same way as the Greens did with smacking. If I recall correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong) we had representatives from the UN begging us not to legalize prostitution; it was a case of Helen Clark being selective: she followed the UN when it suited her and gave them the snub when it wasn’t to her advantage.
Prostitution was just another black mark against Labour in the many so-called ‘social reforms’ they carried out. How this initiative of the sexual use and abuse of women was spearheaded by their fellow women in the Govt is disgusting.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I agree – whether the PM likes it or not, this issue will now completely derail the National Government.
You cannot run a democracy in the same way you run a company.
The people trusted National and within the space of a week,
that trust was completely and utterly eroded!
Like an act of adultery no amount of “comforting words” will be now be enough
to regain the trust of the electorate.
The Prime Minister could do well to listen to the voices of
the women in his caucus on this issue, it is well known that…
“The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
DPF said: “And I don’t think one should include “socially progressive” in the same sentence as “nanny state”. Certainly some people are against both, but I see de-criminalising prostitution (or more correctly solicitation) as the exact opposite of nanny state.”
And I would see de-criminalising prostitution as the exact opposite of “socially progressive” as well. “Socially degenerative” fits better. Just ask a Mr Wichard Rorth.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
On the whole poor analysis from Armstrong – consider this clanger:
“Act’s survival as a parliamentary party rests on Hide holding his Epsom seat. National has no qualms about reminding him that it retains the right to select a quality candidate and make a proper fight of it in the electorate.”
I do not believe anyone in National has said any such unsubtle thing to Hide. It would be most unwise if they did. The Herald driven implication is that National poor choice of candidate previously or some positive decision by National at some point resulted in Hide winning Epsom.
In fact centre-right voters in Epsom understand MMP better than the Herald does (certainly the Herald as an Auckland paper entirely missed the Hide tide in Epsom in 2005). Epsom voters determined their vote in the manner they did not because of any express or implicit instruction from National and they certainly ignored the Herald who claimed to have a poll in 2005 that showed Hide would not win.
The real problem over the reserved seats for Maori on the Auckland Council was entirely of the Prime Minister’s personal making. Probably the confused (Roughan?) written editorials of the Herald didn’t help.
Even after Cabinet had decided there weren’t to be any such seats he kept the Maori Party dangling; kept hinting that that door was open. After all he himself cited National’s long philosophical view about the wisdom of race based franchise as the major factor in re-endorsing the original decision (already made). Nothing had changed in National’s basic philosophical approach over those two months. The smarter strategy would have been to be upfront and honest with the Maori Party right from the begining rather then string them along in false hope. Luckily John Key learns fast I suspect he won’t repeat this mistake again.
The Prime Minister’s open and warm persona is important to the appeal of this Government, but in the end he to is bound by the collective decision making of Cabinet – that is our system for better or for worse.
On the referendum issue the problem for National isn’t perceptions about a win or lose for National as compared to ACT but rather its own internal disagreements over corrective smacking. While the Prime Minister has some minor political capital invested in the current law, the bigger factor is the clear expression of strong dissent by some National MP’s about voting for a law change from the status quo.
On this issue National disappointing its own voters is about its senior MP’s believing they can influence the public attention span on the issue by saying it isn’t a priority for the public’s attention (not really credible), but is really about the unwillingness to test their own Caucus. I suspect that had National allowed a conscience vote on the issue Boscawen’s Bill would have been defeated at the hands of a few National MPs. Labour MP’s would have of course voted on bloc (in a free exercise of conscience of course) against the law change.
At that point National doubly disappoints many of its own supporters. Its basically between a rock and hard place.
National’s pain over this issue has little to do with any zero sum victory for ACT it’s actually all about National and its own MPs.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Armstrong said: Those in National’s senior ranks are most definitely taking note.
Well, it’s not working.
“Taking note” and asking for reviews from Police and CYFS and so on is not fixing the problem. The problem, as Kaya reminds us, is that Bradford’s bill is bad law.
Plus, it is not working anyway. How many babies and toddlers have to die for National to admit it is not working?
Why spend money on youth offending, when a law like this means our youngsters are not being corrected properly at home — simply because parents are too scared of being reported?
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
What amazes me is how Armstrong misses the big political story of the week. And it is something that the National cabinet and the government’s support parties will been keenly aware of.
This past week should have a big deal for an effect Opposition.
Seldom does a Government have as many issues on as many fronts to deal with. An effective Labour Opposition should have taken blood this week – instead they hardly landed a scratch.
Consider, smacking, reserve Maori seats, a Party President in martial strife, Maori Party ETS minority report.
Yet Labour failed to land a blow. Just consider these match ups:
Hide v Twyford – Twyford is a hopeless parliamentary performer – one gets the impression that he knows little about the portfolio.
Sharpes v Horomia – Parekura makes Pita look like our Parliament’s Churchill. It is so bad Labour MP’s must cringe.
Even if Labour could get some Parliamentary momentum, the week on week off Parliamentary timetabling stalls any Parlimentary attack that requires more than a week.
If one of the major informal purposes of Opposition in Parliament is to put the Government under psychological pressure, then Labour is failing badly. Its this fact that senior Nats will have noticed.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Fletch 12:03 pm,
And let’s not forget the Homosexual Law Reform of 1986 sponsored by then Wellington Central Labour MP Fran Wilde.
Essentially zero public mandate. An ~800,000 strong referendum against the law change. And once again a bill spearheaded by a female MP of the then [Labour] government.
I believe the Homosexual Law Reform was the foundation upon which all of these other ‘bad laws’ [which attack both society in general, and the family in particular] have been erected. 1986; the beginning of the end.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Some may joke about this, but if there is a God in heaven then I’m sure He is interested in both how, and indeed who raises the children of this nation.
[DPF: If God cared enough to rig the ballot, then how do we know he didn't also rig the referendum?]
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I would not like to think the stance on the DoC estate is just a smokescreen.
I have put many hours into advocating this policy and hope it is just a first step in a larger “whole of Government” reform of DoC and the DoC estate.
Good to see Tim and Gerry getting it right.
Vote:Time to get the deep greens under control.
August 29th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Am I the only one here who gets frustrated with the seemingly poor understanding of how the government works in this country?
First off, New Zealand is not a direct democracy, it is a representative democracy. This means that the only votes that count when it comes to making the law are the ones of the MPs we elect to represent us. The only time the votes of the rest of the population count is during a general election. The only recourse if we don’t like the decisions they are making is to change our representatives. While the citizens initiated referendum sends a message to our representatives, it carries absolutely zero legal weight and is only marginally more useful that a Colmar Brunton poll.
The referendum was a waste of time if the intent of the organisers was to actually get the law changed. The whole thing was a farce from the point in time at which the question was left open to interpretation. Even if the CIR carried legal weight, the question asked didn’t specify a particular outcome for the No vote. Should it be a criminal offence? No. Ok, does that mean the law has to be changed? Maybe – some say yes, some say no. We all know that there are many things that constitute technical assault (and hence make people criminals by the same logic), but somehow we live with this and the assault law works.
Larry’s interviews were he alternatively talks about a “light open-handed smack” on the bottom at one end of the scale and the use of implements such as a wooden spoon, strap or cane on any body part within reach at the other certainly hasn’t been helpful.
Intellectually this debate is about the degree to which we as a community wish to codify and enforce what is and isn’t acceptable for a parent/guardian to do when bringing up a child. Additionally is also about whether or not the law should reflect the ideals of society or reflect the practices. On both those scores I suspect most people agree that S59 needed to be reformed. The point of disagreement was to whether or not it should be reformed to the ideal or simply to tighten up the exemption. The parliament of the time choose to set it to near the ideal of all assaults are against society’s rules.
Emotionally though, I can understand fully why 87% of people voted the way they did. I mean who wants the thought that by smacking their child that they could possibly be considered criminals? Or even worse that their parents who they dearly love are by implication child abusers for the occasional smack? I turned out all right and I definitely got a few smacks in my time from Mum with a big ol’ wooden spoon or the strap from the principal at primary school.
I think we as a society though need to look past the emotion that comes from setting the ideal in the law. The key is, is that when it comes down to prosecutions that the defence of “reasonable force” is no longer available to someone who has really pushed the boundaries.
The law is in place now and this is what we need to deal with. The best way to do this is in influencing the way it is implemented and not by trying to convince our representatives to wind back the clock.
I think it very unlikely that any will agree to do it anyway, no matter the public acrimony on this issue. If they did and a child abuser got off due to the change, they and in particular the PM leading the government that passed the change would be made responsible. Can you imagine the headlines? “Child Dead Due to Key’s Law” – no politician wants to become responsible for this outcome.
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
chrisw76 2:21 pm,
Although I agree with a lot of your comment, I take issue with the following:
This is a bad law, no matter how much you dress it up. The only way to “deal with” it is to get rid of it.
It is our [87.4%] job to help our representatives see that they need to change/remove this law so that it lines up with the will of the people.
And can you imagine the headlines: “Hundreds of Parents Prosecuted and Jailed Due to PM Ignoring Referendum Result”.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I agree – whether the PM likes it or not, this issue will now completely derail the National Government.
Really? Of course it won’t. In fact I would like to wager on the next opinion poll showing little change.
People underestimate just how popular Key is – and 40-something% of voters do not care about this issue.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“and 40-something% of voters do not care about this issue.”
..and most of them would probably vote Labour. Are you saying that Klarks pursuit of this legislation had no bearing on the last election?
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
” and 40-something% of voters do not care about this issue.”
That means that 60% do.
“There is a huge disconnect between the so called liberal elite and the rest of NZ on this issue. Armstrong is right – people knew exactly what they were voting for. This is an issue that has had two years plus of public debate.”
Vote:To reinforce this point we need a second referendum, asking “do you think the anti-smacking is not working, and want to see the law changed?” If we get a massive YES vote to that question, imagine how tough it will be to argue the law is working and it should stay.
August 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Kris – I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever see a headline saying “Hundreds of Parents Prosecuted and Jailed Due to PM Ignoring Referendum Result”. I think it is very unlikely to see even one headline saying “Parent Jailed for Lightly Smacking”. We may see “Parent Prosecuted for Lightly Smacking”, but I don’t think a jury will convict anyone unless it is clearly across the line.
If even one parent is prosecuted for an obviously light smack then I think that the law would need review, but I seriously do not think that will happen.
I also think that if the government holds the line on this, and doesn’t break the promise of changing the law if there is an unreasonable application of it, then come the 2011 election, this issue will be minimal. The Kiwi Party might run on changing the law, but considering they only got 12,755 votes in the last election I don’t think they will be in a position to do much about it.
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
This issue is rapidly becoming much bigger than smacking it is now become the clearest indication of the health of our democracy and where it is heading.
Vote:If John key can’t see the danger in passing laws that are only going to be partially enforced then he is in effect endorsing the rot that set in during the lefts 10 year rein.
Countries that pass laws that they don’t keep only end in one destination, a banana republic.
Do we really want CYFS social workers and police deciding how to enforce Bradfords ideological experiment?
At the end of the day the S59 issue is one of many that these ideologues would like to force upon us.
It very clever really, create a whole bunch of ambiguous laws which will become the infrastructure of social change in the direction they choose. All they have to do is create a workplace environment in organisations such as CYFS that favours staff sympathetic to the ideological position, and before you know it we are heading in a direction that no body wants or endorsed.
There is already massive evidence of this in many organisations throughout the country, particularly anything to do with children or social services.
This does not end with the smacking debate, if we value our democracy and our heritage we can not afford to go back to sleep.
August 29th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Ruth
90% of National’s own voters voted NO in the referendum!
In excess of 90.4% of voters in the PM’s own electorate voted NO!
This issue is as Shunda points out now much bigger than smacking
It is about the integrity of our democracy
And who is ultimately in charge.
The Government or the people?
I believe because of this decision you will see both the PM’s own popularity
Vote:and the party vote take a massive hit in the next polls.
August 29th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“If they did and a child abuser got off due to the change, they and in particular the PM leading the government that passed the change would be made responsible. Can you imagine the headlines? “Child Dead Due to Key’s Law” – no politician wants to become responsible for this outcome.”
That is a stupid stupid proposition. Nice straw man arguement.
It is so funny how the left on this issue acuse the right of using scare tactics full of lies, when they are doing so themselves. In case you or others are really so stupid, I’ll outline some facts:
1) The comparison of smacking to assualt is like comparing a unwanted kiss on the cheek to rfull scale rape.
2) Under the old law, it had the word “reasonable. It did not allow parents to beat kids to death.You may point out the “horsewhip” case. It wasn’t a huge whip, but a short stick of bamboo. And the boy involved tried to hit the father with a baseball bat just before. See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0606/S00053.htm for details. Also note that no evidence was presented in defence.
Anyway the onus is not on me to prove you wrong here. It is on you to prove that the old law allowed parents to beat their children to death, with demonstrable cases.
3) The comparison is not the old law versus the new, but the new versus an amended section 59, containing a definition of the force which can be used, allowing for a smack, but not anything worse. This is the issue we are debating, not going back to the old law.
“I also think that if the government holds the line on this, and doesn’t break the promise of changing the law if there is an unreasonable application of it, then come the 2011 election, this issue will be minimal.”
Thats what we must fight to stop happening. We must make the backlash over this as big as the Orewa Speech anti-Labour backlash. The bigger we make the issue the tougher it will be for it to disapear.
“The Kiwi Party might run on changing the law” So might ACT. And if they get enough votes (a real possibility, given they got 9 MPs in past elections, and support for minor parties rises during an election campaign) , might be in a position to something about it. Lets hope that is the case.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
just how did the greens do this incredible feat? They were not in government, and guess what, National voted for the law as well. Now how did the greens hold National to ransom to vote for this law? National and Labour supported and voted for this law, it is as much theirs as it it is Sue Bradford’s.
And how is a repeal of the current law or the burrows amendment going to save these babies?
I couldn’t agree more with chrisw76 comments. The understanding of how our democracy works is very poor amongst some commentators. Also the understanding of why this law was passed.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Some really good comments from bloggers on this thread.
Like most I think it is bad law. I think smacking is the right and correct thing to do to raise our children properly. The Bible says so and our experience says so.
But the test case is our school system. We had corporal punishment in schools and in that time teachers were generally reasonably well respected. Now we have abolished corporal punishment and our schools are a mess. Abolishing corporal punishment was supposed to lead to less violence. In fact our schools have become more violent. Just go to the stuff website right now — right on the front page — “School Violence Way up”.
Why is that so if there is now no corporal punishment? Shouldn’t schools be peaceful? In fact they are not — school violence is way up.
The same thing will happen in families — rather than becoming more peaceful — by destroying parental authority they will become more violent. The people who oppose smacking are hopelessly misguided in my opinion.
John Key and the National party need to get a clue. Change the law.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Chris
I went to a very interesting lecture on representative democracy by a Dr Richard Ekins. He put up a very good case against CIR. The main reason he gave was the trouble with getting the wording right. There were some other very good reasons as well and I believe he had some very good points. However, it is good in a democracy that there are some checks and balances other than a vote every three years or so.
I suggested an alternative proposal that the referenda be limited to ratifying or vetting contentious moral legislation. He had not considered this but thought it preferable to CIR. The problem is to decide on which legislation this should apply. I would propose it be limited to private members bills or bills that were originally private members bills possibly with the added requirement of a much reduced number of signatures in a petition.
Suppose this had of been in place when Bradford’s bill was being debated. She would have known her bill would have been vetoed so would have compromised rather than have used a majority to force an unpopular bill through.
I hope a lesson has been learned from the way this unpopular law has been forced on the majority of good parents. If not maybe the next left wing liberal government will force through a law on euthanasia with little or no safegards against the will of the majority.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
DPF [My post 1:54 pm],
Ummm … I don’t think I said that God ‘rigged’ either the ballot or the referendum.
Vote:But thanks for putting words in my mouth.
What I did say is, ‘ … I’m sure He [God] is interested in both how, and indeed who raises the children of this nation.’
August 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
“Child Dead Due to Key’s Law”
What scaremongering. Are we seeing any headlines such as “Child Dead Due to Bradford’s Law Failure”? No. Despite numerous opportunities. That’s why your headline is such a red herring.
Besides, it would be Boscowen’s Law.
And to those remarking about our representative democracy I say, our system is deficient. We lack proper restraints on the power of the govt caucus. There is no Upper House. Hence the high hopes for the referendum to affect the course of the govt.
That is why it is especially dangerous for John Key to casually dismiss the referendum.
The danger is that he loses our trust.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Chuck Bird 5:00 pm,
Exactly right!
Thin end of the wedge and all that.
And to euthanasia we could add: Bestiality, Necrophilia, Paedophilia, Incest, etc.
I did a post on incest [earlier in the week] the other day based on the 60 Minutes TV3 clip where a father and daughter lived as an incestuous couple. Go here.
With no absolutes, anything goes.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
chrisw76 3:06 pm,
Well I guess we can all live in hope.
But I just don’t have enough fingers and toes I can cross.
Maybe not here yet, but in other countries, where they have decriminalised homosexuality, people have been jailed for ‘hate crimes’ against homosexuality for merely quoting the Bible which states it is a sin. A pastor in Canada for example.
Given time things will get worse, not better. Especially with no moral foundation.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
ah..!..look..!
kris k. is touting the ‘necrophilia party’..again..
(heh..!..eh..?..)
it’s a small step from stopping smacking children…to a fullblown necrophilia party…eh..?
(and to think..these fears have kris k. tossing and turning at night..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Key says he doesn’t want to change the smacking law since changing it will divert the governments attention from the economy.
What a croc of shit!
If they don’t change the law, this will continue diverting the governments attention for the next 2 1/2 years. At which time if National haven’t changed the law they may well be given the boot. I don’t think Key understands the depth of feeling of people who fear being made criminals by nosey neighbours.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Nicholas – it wasn’t a straw man argument. It was a simply stating of a political reality for any politician: If the law was changed again and there was a perception by the public that the law change allowed a defendant to mount a defence (whether or not it was successful), then the politician would be forever associated with it. The charge made would be utter rubbish I agree, but in politics perception is reality and the perception of being somehow responsible for the death of a child would be a worst nightmare for a politician. Ok, so just so I am clear: the risk to making the change is the perception not the reality.
Funnily enough, that is the problem the government has got at the moment: the perception is that this law will mean good parents are thrown in gaol for a light smack at gun point by zealous CYFS agents. The reality is, is that much like traffic laws, copyright laws, assault laws (in general), drug laws, etc, that the Police will enforce them reasonably and CYFS will continue to prioritise based on their limited resources. I mean, how many times have we seen commentary bemoaning the incompetence of CYFS for not acting in the past?
As I wrote, the law was change to reflect an ideal: that children should have the same rights as adults with respect to assault. Pragmatically we all know that especially with young children is that sometimes a light smack is needed to get them into line and the reality is, is that the way the law will work in practice is to this standard.
Kris – I respect your opinion, but can you please avoid the slippery slope arguments? Otherwise I could just as equally (and unfairly) paint your position being that the moral decline of society started when the assault laws were modified to remove the right of a husband to punish his wife.
MajorBloodnok – please see above – imaginary headline was not scare-mongering, but based on the politics of perception for who ever enacts a change now. I think that as long as John Key keeps his word he will maintain the trust of the majority of the electorate.
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
wreck1080 5:54 pm,
He can’t really be that thick, can he?
Vote:I reckon the UN’s got him by the balls.
You need to choose John, either the UN or us.
But don’t forget; we know where you live, and we pay the bills.
August 29th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
And while I am at it, this are a couple of my favourite quotes:
“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders…. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers.”
~ attributed to Socrates (470 B.C. – 399 B.C.)
“The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is
foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress.”
~ attributed to Peter the Hermit (~A.D. 1274)
Maybe we have been in moral decline for a couple of thousand years, or maybe the behaviour of children has always caused consternation in societies elders.
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
chrisw76 6:07 pm,
You may be interested in the following likely outcome for NZ:
For whole document go here.
WHEN PARENTS BECOME VICTIMS
THE SWEDISH LAW ON THE ABOLITION OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN – PARENT AND GUARDIANSHIP CODE OF 1979 Chapter 6, section 1
This paper was produced in anticipation of the Irish Government’s consultation paper on the discipline of children by their parents.
Summary of main points
• The Swedish law on the abolition of the physical punishment of children has resulted in hundreds of normal parents being harassed by the police and social authorities, prosecuted, sentenced and criminalised, because they have smacked their children for bad behaviour.
• The claim made by EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children) that only one Swedish parent has been prosecuted for smacking a child since 1979 is far from the truth. In reality, there have been hundreds of cases, but they are difficult to trace because they appear alongside cases of assault and battery.
• While having the appearance of being altruistic and humanitarian, the 1979 law has led to unwarranted interference in private and family life, and has caused serious damage to the relationship between parents and their children, to the detriment of the family.
• Before the Bill abolishing the physical punishment of children was presented to the Swedish Parliament, several leading lawyers expressed strong misgivings. Their fears that the law would lead to prosecutions of parents who employed mild physical sanctions, while doing nothing to reduce the number of cases of genuine child abuse, have materialised.
• Parents belonging to ethnic minorities and parents with strong religious convictions, in particular, have been victimised under the 1979 law.
• The social authorities and the courts enforce the law concerning the child’s right not to be subjected to physical punishment, irrespective of what the child has done. Many Swedish parents are therefore afraid of their children and dare not correct them for fear of being reported to the police, indicted and fined or sent to prison.
• The law against physical punishment does more damage to children than a smack from a mother or father. When the authorities intervene in the life of a well-functioning family, its life is destroyed. There is nothing that can mend the resulting hurt, pain and bitterness, and the children are the losers.
• When children are removed from their supposedly ‘abusive’ parents and taken into care, they suffer the torture of forced separation from parents, brothers and sisters, and other relatives and friends. They are also exposed to the risk of real abuse. Such children are frequently subjected to physical, mental, and even sexual abuse, but social workers seldom listen to the complaints of children in care.
• The 1979 law has caused incalculable damage to countless families where allegations have been made and investigations carried out, even where the charges have been dropped at an early stage.
• The law has given rise to cases where children have accused their own parents of ill-treatment, without appreciating the consequences of their actions. The public prosecutor then takes over the case and may pursue it even where the parents deny any abuse and where children withdraw their accusations. In this way, the legislation has been directly responsible, not only for the destroying relationships between parents and children, but also for the break-up of many marriages and families.
The damage caused by this legislation is so serious that it should not be followed by any civilised country. Rather, Sweden needs the help of other nations to have this destructive legislation repealed.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Thanks Kris – I’ll read through it. Though I would point out that Sweden is a very different country to NZ.
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
chrisw76 – you say:
“Funnily enough, that is the problem the government has got at the moment: the perception is that this law will mean good parents are thrown in gaol for a light smack at gun point by zealous CYFS agents.”
You really don’t get it do you? The true perception isn’t within a hundred fucking miles of the shit you write. Utter garbage.
The FACT is that if we lightly smack we are criminals by law, END OF STORY. What part of that don’t you understand? It is irrelevant if police prosecute or not!
Children have the same defence as adults, it is illegal to assault them, end of story. As for the old section 59, if a judge or jury are so stupid they can’t tell the difference between assault and a light smack then they are at fault, not the law.
Personally I don’t care which version it is, as long as it stops me being a criminal for being a good parent.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
With winston glass back on the scene he will make key very nervous if he can capture the moment on the smacking issue,to the foreshore and sea bed problems………….
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
According to the Ministry of Justice’s web page a criminal offence is “An action that someone does (or doesn’t do) that the law says can be punished; a crime.”
(4) of Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 (incorporating the 2007 amendment) says:
“To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”
So, for an inconsequential breach of (2), there will be no prosecution and no punishment. Therefore as long as your “light smack” for the purposes of correction is classified as an inconsequential breach then it is not a criminal offence. On top of this you now have the subsequent guidelines from the government to the agencies concerned to reinforce the intent of the law.
Vague yes. But then again so is “reasonable force”.
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Chris W said:
“Kris – I respect your opinion, but can you please avoid the slippery slope arguments? ”
How can we?
Vote:Bradfords whole ideology revolves around ‘smacking’ being a slippery slope to a more violent society. Interestingly the anti smackers will say “fewer people smack now than ever before” yet society has become more violent!!
Smacking plays an important role in kids developing empathy for other people and immediate consequences for bad behaviour, if the use of smacking really has declined then we are seeing the dramatic rise in violence as a result.
Only the blind and blinkered can adhere to this anti force ideology.
August 29th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Chris, you seemed to have ignored my comment (5:00 pm) about a petition with a lower threshold being able to veto bad legislation.
I know this is unlikely but how would you feel if a small militant fundamentalist religious group managed somehow to gain power in both major parties and pushed through very unpopular legislation?
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I will stand by what I have been told and that is Shonkey can’t change the law, this is the real issue. The right to discipline ones children is not acceptable to the hard left and the UN, those that do so must be hobbled, society must be broken down to those that need and to those that can be controlled. No I haven’t got my tin foil hat on!!
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Hi Chuck – sorry forgot to say that it is an interesting proposal to have the ability to have a referendum to veto non-government legislation (summarising). Though I am not sure what good it would do as these bills very rarely become law without the support of the government of the day. To avoid it being captured by a potential veto referendum, all the infiltrated government party would have to do is re-write the legislation.
I think we ought to explore a separation of the executive and legislative branches of our government first. Preferably with a written constitution. It might take a while though, so the idea of a CIR that seeks to veto legislation might be the best approach, but there are certainly a lot of hazards with this.
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
“To avoid it being captured by a potential veto referendum, all the infiltrated government party would have to do is re-write the legislation.”
Interesting prospect. Maybe the signatures could be colected in such a short space of time (say 80 000 in 1 month) the Government does not have the time to change the Bill.
“I think we ought to explore a separation of the executive and legislative branches of our government first.” I agree, but will the public?
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
In the mid 1980s the British Spectator magazine ran a story from a correspondent in Sweden (might have been Patrick Marnham). It was about a Swedish mother who had smacked her son at a shopping centre for persistently being disruptive and disobeying her instructions to stop hitting his sister. If memory serves me correctly, they were of school age. So she whacked him, and he stopped.
The story said that about mid evening the doorbell rang at their apartment. Her husband opened the door and a river of police, city and county welfare and other officials poured in.
Vote:They presented her with a document signed by a judge in a court telling them that she had been reported for smacking her son, and that the welfare officials had decided that the children were victims of violence, and that they were taking the kids there and then. Child welfare people were already in the kids’ bedrooms, waking them up, getting them out of bed, and were heading for the door with them, and the children were distressed. The police, after interviewing them, charged the mother with assault of her child.
I don’t know what happened after that.
The story has always stuck in my mind because I remember thinking, well, that’s Sweden, and such a thing could never happen here. I never thought that New Zealand could could get anywhere like that. The other thing that I remember was that the story, for some reason that I’m afraid I don’t remember, could not be reported in Sweden. Sweden often gets held up as progressive on social matters, so I would not be surprised if what happens there comes here.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
On Backbenchers (last one) MP David Bennett with a big proud grin told how he spoilt his ballot paper by putting a cross in each box.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 9:53 am
i wonder if labour will end up losing votes out of this.
national supportes may move to act and labour supporters may move to national.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
No doubt some Labour supporters are dumb enough to vote for Winston First.
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
What’s disgusting is politicians who would rather impress the United Nations as opposed to delivering “democratic process” to the New Zealand people.
Public consultation around the amendment was next to nothing and this referendum had to be the biggest opportunity for ALL New Zealander’s to voice their concerns – how this huge majority has been ignored is beyond me but this clearly shows the ignorance of our politicians who really believe that “they know whats best for all New Zealander’s.”
This law needs to be changed now!
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Chuck Bird – that’s a contradiction in terms, if you’re a labour supporter you would vote for Labour, National supporters vote National. etc etc.
Unless of course you are so pissed of at how you’ve been treated you vote whichever way you think will change the status quo and send a clear message to the person who pissed you off. that you are REALLY pissed off.
That may mean voting for Winnie the pooh, but only because some Nat supporters say that they expect you to vote ACT which suits them down to the ground as it moves the power base further to the right. Then you get all confused and start to think that this politics is a dirty business full of deceit and lies and maybe it doesn’t really matter who you vote for which is really sad because Mr Key had seemed like a breath of fresh air after the stench of 9 years of labour’s shit.
Now maybe that nice Mr Key just made a really bad mistake and somehow in the next few months or so he’ll find a way to fix this and then things will be fine and we can trust him again. If not then the tricky part is going to be finding a way to send him a message about how pissed off you are and getting this legislation changed that doesn’t involve voting for Winnie the poo because he is the biggest snake oil salesman in the land.
So for all those dumb people chuck, it appears that it’s really up to nice Mr Key to somehow show us how clever he is and fix it so even the dummies do the right thing. If John wasn’t being such a intransigent arse over this there would be no problem, he would be sitting another 5 points higher in the polls than he is currently.
Simple really.
Vote:August 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
This issue is now about our “Representative democracy” the word means to represent as an agent or delegate and whilst our MPs are not delegates with a specified mandate from those they represent & for John Key to imply that the vote of 88% of the 54% of the electors who did vote ie 47% of the electors has no mandate implies that his party also has no mandate as their poll% was lower. This must mean that John Key and any MPs who if given the chance of a conscience vote on the Cherster Borrows ammendment or John Boscowans bill are in fact representing their own opinion which in turn means we have an elected dictatorship not a democracy and the solution is not the suggestion of not voting at all but either putting up candidates or a new party with the policy of binding referenda or asking voters to write on the ballot paper a message like no candidate has my support until binding referenda is the law. Either would concentrate the minds of MPs and parties to the change in voters perception of what they expect of legislators, legislation and how it can be achieved, the internet will provide the forum and delivery system as we have already seen it become the wagons that surround the indians and the MPs & officials have already discovered how uncomfortable this can be.
Vote: