A Ministry for children?
June 20th, 2011 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarAnnette King proposed on 21 May that NZ should set up a Ministry of or for Children. However she is not the first MP to propose this. She got beaten to it by 23 years by Ross Meurant. In a high profile column in Truth, Ross Meurant said he did not want to be Prime Minister or Police Minister, but wanted to be Minister of Children’s Affairs.
Now just because Meurant first proposed it, doesn’t mean it is a bad idea. Mind you statistically there could well be a correlation!
But what happened to his idea back in 1988. Did anyone oppose a Ministry for Children? Yes a Government Minister did.
Which Minister – well Annette King by coincidence.
Hansard records Meurant responding to Annette King:
“A while ago, when I floated the concept of a children’s ministry, I recall that the member … castigated me,”
In his book Beat to the Beehive, Meurant also noted that Annette King had ridiculed him for his proposal.
So Labour’s big new policy idea, is one taken from Ross Meurant 23 years, which was ridiculed by their spokesperson at the time. Can’t wait for their next policy – I guess it will be something else they have ridiculed in the past like bringing in certain food exemptions for GST – oh wait ….
Related posts:
- A Ministry for Children
- Southland Times on Ministry for Children
- New Ministry announced
- Herald on Twyford’s Children Vote Proposal
June 20th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Hat tip to anyone on this one?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
You’re memory for Parliamentary debates is outstanding, DPF!
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Has it occurred to you that Annette King’s viewpoint could change in 23 years?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Wow, so 23 years ago Annette King automatically opposed an opposition MP’s idea. What a scoop!
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Ha ha – no-one could make this crap up. Monty Python’s scriptwriters must still be at large.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Of course she can’t remember what happened upstairs at her own house.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Maybe Trevor will give her a heads up and she can tell us what has changed in 23 years.
Vote:State radio, state TV and the dead tree press sure as hell wont bother to find out and tell us.
June 20th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Wow dragging up something someone said 23 years ago, is that a new record? Isn’t there a couple of current MP’s who weren’t even born back then?
And people say this web site has gone downhill lately, not with gold like this.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
We need parents for children not some goddam Minsitry.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
King can change, but the full moon never.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
sorry, obviously meant “your”. Stupid muscle memory.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
@KiwiGreg – exactly!
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Hey DPF, who have you got ghost-writing for you while overseas? Because they have overlooked something pretty elementary. King opposed a children’s MINISTRY 23 years ago, as proposed by Meurant. What she proposed this year is a MINISTER, but without a dedicated Ministry. Quite different. One is just a voice at the Cabinet table specifically charged with speaking up for Children’s issues. The other is a whole new Ministry. Big difference.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Good point DT, this is a stupid beat-up of a post.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
The need for a Min of Children co relates to the decline in marriage. But The stupid King bint is too dumb to join up the dots. The Socialists have spent 3 decades seeking to destroy the traditional family unit and replace it with the STATE at the centre of raising kids and this is yet one more step along their path.
There is no committment to marriage mo committment to raising kids in this country. Instead when you get tired of your current partner/kids you just walk away as the Chinese guy says on the telly ad for weed killer. Just walk away.
Because too many lack the guts and fortitude to stick it out. Selfish Selfish arseholes all of them. Spineless little morons.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Wow dragging up something someone said 23 years ago, is that a new record? Isn’t there a couple of current MP’s who weren’t even born back then?
Funny…..a silly gag preformed by one David Garrett 26 odd years ago was considered by the left as a hanging offence…and he was a lefty himself at the time.If MP’s are gonna say one thing d get outed as having said the opposite a while back then they are fair game…
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
James
Vote:DT has already pointed out the difference in the two statements. It’s not yet a crime to change one’s mind on a policy in any event and comparing that to a crime is just silly.
June 20th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Funny, lastmanstanding, I could have sworn that things like matrimonial property acts meant you couldn’t just walk away. Never let the facts get in the way of a good conservative rant.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
DED Those Acts only matter when you have PROPERTY. If you dont it doesnt matter and if you do and you are smart you tie your wealth up in Trusts where you arent a direct beneficary BEFORE entering the relationship.
So when it all goes to custard you dont have any property to share with the partner.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
@dog_eat_dog, you can’t replace a dad with dollars.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
DT says: “What she proposed this year is a MINISTER, but without a dedicated Ministry. Quite different. One is just a voice at the Cabinet table specifically charged with speaking up for Children’s issues. The other is a whole new Ministry. Big difference.”
Really?
According to Annette King’s presentation to the Labour conference on 21st May, (link below) she said “Ministry” but the Herald also quoted her as saying that she would dis-establish the Children’s Commissions and set up a Ministry in its place and: “She believed that $7.7 million was enough to set up and run the new ministry with some left over to be used by other departments on policies affecting children”.
Was King telling porkies then, or are you simply telling porkies now? Both statements can’t be right.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10727150
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
There’s no issue if she just comes out and says “I changed my mind.” Bet she doesn’t. And, like anything in politics, it’s all about point scoring. And you’d have to award a couple of points for this particular find.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
DT “Hey DPF, who have you got ghost-writing for you while overseas? Because they have overlooked something pretty elementary. King opposed a children’s MINISTRY 23 years ago, as proposed by Meurant. What she proposed this year is a MINISTER, but without a dedicated Ministry. Quite different. One is just a voice at the Cabinet table specifically charged with speaking up for Children’s issues. The other is a whole new Ministry. Big difference.”
Who have you got checking your facts DT? Because they have overlooked something pretty elementary… King has indeed proposed a dedicated ministry as well as a Minister. From the Herald at the time of the annoucement…
“She said Labour would pay for the new initiative from the current budget for the Families Commission of $7.7 million a year – more than the Ministry of Women’s Affairs’ $4.5 million.
She believed that $7.7 million was enough to set up and run the new ministry with some left over to be used by other departments on policies affecting children. ”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10727150
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Well spotted Elaycee
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
@Hagues – great minds eh?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
“Good point DT, this is a stupid beat-up of a post.”
FAIL!
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
KrazyKiwi, I wasn’t suggesting replacing a Dad with dollars, just that marriage (beyond a superstitious ceremony) is exactly the same as a civil union. Also, married fathers aren’t automatically better than all others.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
DED- “I could have sworn that things like matrimonial property acts meant you couldn’t just walk away.”
Looked a bit like the dollars for dads suggestion to me. No matter, whether you regard marriage as a superstitious ceremony, a nice cultural ritual or whatever is unimportant. What really matters is the intent to make a lifelong commitment, because that is the best environment to raise kids who can go on to become positive contributors to society. We should reward parents who stick together through good times and bad, but instead successive governments have made it easier to throw in the towel and walk away. And we wonder why our youth delinquency rate keeps climbing.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
If there’s anything to be learnt from this cock up it is that MPs should be stamped with a use by date when first elected.
That way there would be less chance of them disagreeing with themselves further down the track.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Fair enough Elaycee, King has proposed a Minister for Children and a small Ministry funded from savings made by abolishing the Families Commission.
Vote:The main objection to the post though, remains. 23 years after opposing Ross Meurant’s suggestion, Annette King should be excoriated for changing her mind? Seriously?
June 20th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
In his book Beat to the Beehive, Meurant
So DPF found a book in the second hand book stall. All about Meurant.
Vote:No mysterious long term recall.
June 20th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
I’m waiting for Garrett to be welcomed back to Parliament with open arms….after all if Darren Hughes can be considered suitable to return sometime after his antics then Garrett s a shoe in…and far better value to boot.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Annette King should be excoriated for changing her mind? Seriously?
Absolutely, it just shows that even after 23 million years bludging off the New Zealand tax payer, she can’t come up with an original thought
But then again she might have been a sleep and not heard a thing
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
“Fair enough Elaycee, King has proposed a Minister for Children and a small Ministry funded from savings made by abolishing the Families Commission.”
Wrong again. King never mentioned a SMALL Ministry at all. I’ve just checked the reports that you should have checked for yourself before you made this latest bullshit claim. No reference at all to ‘small’. None. Zero. Nada. Zip.
FAIL Again.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Elaycee
I have checked, actually. Here is the relevant portion of King’s speech:
“The time has come to disestablish the Families Commission and fold some of that work back into a small Ministry for Children. Their current budget is $ 7.7 million a year, compared with the Ministry for Women’s Affairs’ budget of $4.5 million. I believe we can establish a Ministry for Children with enough left over to hand some funding back to the Minister of Finance for other priorities in Children’s Policy!”
Seems clear enough, Elaycee. Maybe the media reports had it wrong, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Shall we go looking for some other 23-year-old statements to see if we can ping any other politicians for changing their minds?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Now come on folks, things clearly do change over time. Take the Hon Phil Goff of the ’80′s for instance:
- State asset sales good -> now state asset sales bad
- GST good and should be higher -> GST bad and should be lower
What has changed you might ask? Well in the first part of each example his Party was in power and in the second they are not. The principled reason for change is easy to spot if you try hard enough.
Goff and principles? Looks like to me that he thought those were the people running his schools when he was Minister of Education
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Why didn’t Annette think of this in the nine years she was in government?
Who invented the Families Commission by the way?Anybody please
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Paul
The Families Commission is Peter Dunne’s big idea.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Paul
As mm stated above it was Peter Dunne’s bright idea & the price Labour had to pay for his support after the 2002 election. Obviously Labour have taken to heart his recent endorsement for National in 2011.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Thank you
Goes to show that labour doesn’t care about famlies I guess!
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Annette King and Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard have simply been around for far too long. They have had more positions on public policy than the Kama Sutra has had on sex. You just know someone has run out of ideas when they propose a Government Department to deal with some problem. She hoping the civil servants will come up with some bright ideas on dealing with kids because she certainly has none. What with face lifts and modern clothes King could pass for someone in the early 50′s or late 40′s at a pinch. Time is up Annette. Go gently into the good night.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
milkmoron – yet again you remove any doubt from the suggestions by others on Kiwiblog that you’re an idiot.
The media reports [linked in previous posts] were clear – they mention King wanting a Ministry for Children that will be funded from the $7.5 Million being spent annually on the Children’s Commission. King compared that cost of running the Ministry of Women’s Affairs that operates off a budget of $4.5 Million. Media reports didn’t mention anything about ‘small’ but I accept that even the Labour loving MSM could have left out parts of her speech. But I’m not about to search for her speech on the Labour Party website – we all know that its not secure. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you say it is contained in her original speech. Or perhaps you heard it first hand!
The key to this exchange was your endorsement of DT’s bullshit statement (4.29pm) that King’s proposal was not for a Ministry and of course you now know that it is – and no amount of bullshitting or spin on your part can change the facts.
Now be a good lad and Foxtrot Oscar.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Sorry Elaycee, didn’t I make it clear I looked at the actual speech?
You can read it here if you think I’m lying:
http://www.labour.org.nz/news/annette-king-congress-speech-its-about-our-kids
Sorry you had to rely on the ‘mainstream media’.
I’ve already acknowledged your point at 6.26. The only remaining issue is whether you really think King shouldn’t be allowed to change her mind 23 years later. Don’t know about you, but I don’t know that I’d care to be held to all of my opinions from 1988.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
“Don’t know about you, but I don’t know that I’d care to be held to all of my opinions from 1988.”
If they are as daft as those you have espoused via KB in 2011, then I’d say “Some things don’t change. You’re still a moron.”
Over and out.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Elaycee
Vote:I’ll take that as agreement with my last comment.
June 20th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Since 1988 I’ve had had 11 different employers. King has had 1. How boring is that!
Vote: