Greens vote against Vulnerable Children Bill

June 20th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

A law change aimed at improving the protection of children at risk of abuse or neglect, including stronger vetting of adults who work with children, has passed into law with broad support in Parliament.

The Vulnerable Children Bill passed its final stage by 105 – 10 votes in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon after only the Green Party and Mana Party’s Hone Harawira voted against it.

They voted against???

The bill is the centrepiece of the Government’s ‘Children’s Action Plan’ – developed after Social Development Minister Paula Bennett’s White Paper on Vulnerable Children.

Its measures include changes to the law so that abusive or neglectful parents will have to prove they are safe if they wish to keep any further children they have. In the past, social agencies have had to to prove they were not fit parents to take a child from them.

It also introduces greater screening of those who work with children for government and community agencies, and ban those with serious convictions from working closely with children.

They voted against this? Against screening of those who work with children, against banning convicted offenders working with children?

Green Party MP Jan Logie said Ms Bennett had failed to deal to the main problem of child poverty.

Some on the left think that the solution to every single issue is to tax hard working New Zealanders more, to give to those on welfare. That is their solution to everything. So sad.

Tags: ,

43 Responses to “Greens vote against Vulnerable Children Bill”

  1. Scott (1,760 comments) says:

    I think there is a pattern here. The Greens also want to allow abortions for disabled unborn children after 20 weeks and up to the full term of the pregnancy.

    So it probably means DPF that the Greens just don’t like kids. More children means more damage to the environment and more competition for brown spotted owls and other animal species.

    We need to understand that the Greens are only interested in Kiwis (the flightless birds) and not particularly concerned about Kiwis (actual New Zealand people).

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. contheneo (27 comments) says:

    If the Greens and Hone both voted against it, why is there only 10 votes against? Shouldn’t there be 15 votes against? Or did the Greens not have enough MPs in the complex to cast their full allocation of votes?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. All_on_Red (1,546 comments) says:

    Well, their Carbon Tax will increase energy prices hugely and that really hurts the poor, kills job growth and threatens existing jobs.
    Scott is right. The Greens just don’t care about people.
    But hey, their politicians are ok, they’ve got nice cosy workplaces, big fat salaries, live in castles and wear designer clothes. Talk about a disconnect with NZ ers.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. JC (942 comments) says:

    The absentee Greens might be the ones who haven’t fully changed to lizards yet.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. EAD (921 comments) says:

    I commented on the same issue on the general debate thread but it seems more appropriate here so here. By focusing on this angle DPF is political point scoring and missing the real meaning of this draconian law that has now created a legal precedent whereby the State can remove your children if they deem your behaviour to be “neglectful”.

    The point of this well-intentioned and nice sounding law is not that it should punish people for causing actual harm to others – the traditional reason for having laws – but that our one party State can increasingly sit at the dining table of every household and draw its necklace of menace and threat several notches tighter around the necks of citizens in this creeping totalitarian nightmare that some still laughingly call a “free country”. George Orwell in described in 1984 a “telescreen” in every household watching what you do. Well Ladies and Gents, this law is the way they go about it.

    Here is my post from the general debate thread:

    “Yet again this National government has passed more social engineering legislation for which they have no mandate for but appeases certain pressure groups and will end up taking away more of our liberties as they yesterday they passed the Orwellian sounding “Vulnerable Children Bill”, that changes to the law so that “abusive or neglectful” parents will have to prove they are safe if they wish to keep their children they have. Of course we already have laws that protect against violence (which are not properly enforced – some might say deliberately?) and of course it will be the State that decides what “neglectful” is.

    If you asked the question “Should children be forcibly taken by state employees, backed by secret courts, from their parents and given for adoption by Homosexuals, Lesbians or Transgender people?” I would imagine 99% of the population would think this an extremely bad idea.

    But bit by bit, the one party NatLab Government are achieving a situation where this will be perfectly normal. First they normailse gay marriage, then they massivley publisice and celebrate “gay parents” when Prince George comes to visit, next we have Cabinet ministers telling us that “there is one remaining equality missing” and the campaign begins: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Make-Gay-Adoption-Legal-in-New-Zealand/128540560496055 then we yesterday passed a law so that the State can forcibly remove children if the State think the children is being “neglected”.

    All of a sudden the formally absurd will become the new normal and it’ll be normal to take children away for adoption to a state sanctioned “modern” couple…….

    It is just SO blatant now. I keep thinking there’s going to be a revolution to rout these Marxists but then I see National climbing to above 50% in the polls and you realise just how dumbed down and naive the general NZ public is.

    Watch this short video from MSNBC if you want to understand the Fabian mindset and what they think the role of the state is in the life of your children:

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. martinh (1,164 comments) says:

    Its more insane than sad which is why i hate them so much as a danger to the common mans life here

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. prosper (146 comments) says:

    There is a worrying trend in that the parents are presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Surely there is enough legislation existing to cope with vulnerable children. This smacks of an unthinking desperate need to do something, anything as long as it appears responsive. I do not support the watermelons and I am sure the above is not there reason for objecting but for heaven’s sake let’s get real about these issues. What about profiling and monitoring those that fit the profile. Whoops not PC.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Keeping Stock (10,254 comments) says:

    I will be blogging about this later today. At the moment I am still too angry to be coherent.

    The Greens and Mana claim to represent the poor and the vulnerable. Yesterday they showed that political grandstanding is more important than doing something tangible to protect vulnerable children. It disgusts me.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. prosper (146 comments) says:

    EAD I couldn’t agree more. Well put.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Odakyu-sen (556 comments) says:

    The Greens’ position seems to be:

    “Bad people can do no wrong because it’s not their fault.” (They are the victims and need to be compensated.)
    “People who have jobs and assets are ‘privileged'; therefore they ought to be levelled.” (Equal outcomes are mandatory.)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kowtow (8,114 comments) says:

    Prosper

    You’re quite right. In relation to the Glenn commission we were against changing the burden of proof against the accused party.

    But now it looks like that burden is OK in respect of “neglected” children.

    I wish the progressives could make their minds up.

    EAD as always ,nailed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. martinh (1,164 comments) says:

    prosper, kowtow
    No, its saying that past “proven” ie guilty parents

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    The Bill is an admirable one, but as it stands needs a great deal more work.

    Whilst it promotes the active screening, which is a good thing, the manner in which that is carried out needs more definition in order to protect the innocent. As is stands the legislation could allow a person to be rejected simply by innuendo. This is not good enough, especially when as has been pointed out on here many times, women (and sometimes men) make vexatious complaints against others, simply as a means of retribution for some ‘perceived’ wrong.

    Until the law is water tight, and protects the innocent adults, as well as the protecting the child, it should not be passed.

    All to often these ‘knee jerk’ reactions result in legislation that is fraught with problems that effect the wrong people.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. queenstfarmer (768 comments) says:

    I hope all would-be Green voters see this. It perfectly demonstrates that the Greens are the worst kind of ideologues. They are extremists. They vote AGAINST a perfectly worthwhile and broadly supported child protection law, for ideological reasons. They could have supported this law and also pushed for more “anti-proverty” measures, but no.

    They regard ‘ideological purity’ as more important than protecting children from child abusers.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. EAD (921 comments) says:

    It is ironic that the National Government that redefined marriage away from the building and nurture of a blood family, gives us this gross and evil state intrusion in our lives.

    The Government would do far better supporting traditional marriage, stay at home Mothers (if they wish), and the traditional family. Stop encouraging single parents, exhausted parents, and broken families with your big spending Welfare State.

    If you subsidise poverty and ignorance, you will unsurprisingly get more poverty and ignorance and violence and there would be no need for big government intrusions – the classic Hegellian Dialectic (problem-reaction-solution) so loved by our progressive politicians that encourages even more state power from failures of state power.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. deadrightkev (396 comments) says:

    But David, National has kept every policy that Labour introduced and spent even more so when it comes to delivering socialism National is right up there level pegging with Labour. Its futile to pretend otherwise because its the facts.

    Where is the voucher system? Where is the tough mentoring at ground level? Its just more legislation to give the impression something is being done.

    National is a progressive political party now and we desperately need some strong libertarian conservative leadership in parliament to swing this ship around.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. lofty (1,305 comments) says:

    This refusal to support this bill, just highlights the irrelevancy of the watermelons.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Harriet (4,741 comments) says:

    I have read before that it is immoral for a government to ‘return’ children to homes that will never provide a place where children ‘thrive’.
    Currently the government removes children from homes where the parents are ‘complex dysfunctionals’ – but is then forced to return the child when ‘some basic improvments have been made’ – they are then only removed again at a later date. The kids live here and there for all of their childhood and teenage years. The outome is predictable for these kids. Complex dysfuntionals ‘uneducated, drugged ect ect never make good parents because they can hardly look after themselves.

    I also read that the government could maybe be later sued by the child if they are returned to danger.

    Which leads me to believe that ‘a child removed for the wrong reasons’ could in turn sue the government. – which then eases my mind a little with regards to the government expanding it’s powers.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. gump (1,608 comments) says:

    @EAD

    “If you asked the question “Should children be forcibly taken by state employees, backed by secret courts, from their parents and given for adoption by Homosexuals, Lesbians or Transgender people?” I would imagine 99% of the population would think this an extremely bad idea.”

    ————————–

    I don’t have a problem with children being forcibly taken from abusive parents and given to good parents.

    If you have any evidence that homosexuals, lesbians, and transgender people are unfit to be parents then you should post it here. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. martinh (1,164 comments) says:

    EAD
    Sounds like you might be hiding something

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. greenjacket (449 comments) says:

    Queenstfarmer gets it right – The reason why the Greens were opposed to the Bill was not because the actual Bill in itself was flawed, but because of pure ideology. The Greens could have supported the Bill and proposed further legislation to be debated, but they didn’t – the Bill failed to meet their ideological purity test, so they opposed it. The Greens are fanatics.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    The Government would do far better supporting traditional marriage, stay at home Mothers (if they wish), and the traditional family. Stop encouraging single parents, exhausted parents, and broken families with your big spending Welfare State.

    If you subsidise poverty and ignorance, you will unsurprisingly get more poverty and ignorance and violence and there would be no need for big government intrusions – the classic Hegellian Dialectic (problem-reaction-solution) so loved by our progressive politicians that encourages even more state power from failures of state power.

    EAD has a point. If we just stopped feeding poor people, eventually the problem would solve itself. Faster if we stopped giving them water. And even faster again if we cut off their air supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. gravedodger (1,543 comments) says:

    The case against neglectful, incompetent abusive hopeless parents is well proven when the excrement hits the rotary.
    Proving change and a turn around is and must be mandatory.

    This is somewhat different to the undecided case in the family court when such charges are unproven and are likely to just be allegations around he said she said.

    To get a handle on this very serious shitheap you really need to go where police, ambulance and social workers confront it, just reading a crisp report on a screen doesn’t quite cut it for reality, I have never read things as bad as witnessed and I have had very limited exposure.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. martinh (1,164 comments) says:

    i wouldnt say they are encouraging them, they are just trying to make sure the kids arent hungry and cold, its not the kids fault.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    “Green Party MP Jan Logie said Ms Bennett had failed to deal to the main problem of child poverty.”

    On the contrary!

    Paula Bennett and this government are putting a LOT of effort into keeping young people off welfare.
    The fewer young people who are on welfare, the fewer children will be born into households unable to afford to support them.

    Logie and all of the lefties need to pull their heads out of the sand and get real.
    Logie would have you believe that Labour’s “baby bribe” would alleviate poverty – it would actually make things WORSE.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    EAD is an apologist for Putin but thinks NZ has a one party state and is concerned about totalitarian government.

    It’s this kind of stupidity that turned me off libertarianism.

    The law change is a good one, and is reasonable. It will not harm good parents, only those with a track record of abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Logie has a beef against decent society because of the looks she was gifted at birth. I suppose if you looked like her, it would be necessary to punish everyone, and everything, for being “born” a horror head.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    We can’t all be as handsome as igm.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. tom hunter (4,656 comments) says:

    … only those with a track record of abuse.

    Which I would be fine with but it also mentions “neglect”, and even that might not be a problem – depending on how it’s defined and who does the defining. Is there any such thing in the legislation itself or is it up to bureaucrats to craft the precise definitions that will be applied in practice?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Lance (2,614 comments) says:

    @igm
    That was nasty and venal. Pull your head in

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Scott (1,760 comments) says:

    EAD– Although I agree with the substance of your posts I don’t think that’s the Greens reason for voting against the legislation. The Greens attack the legislation from the left, it presumably doesn’t go far enough in their view to address “income inequality” and child poverty. I would imagine that the Greens are quite happy with massive state intervention in New Zealand families.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. greenjacket (449 comments) says:

    igm: “Logie has a beef against decent society because of the looks she was gifted at birth.”

    I bet igm has won a lot of converts with his brilliant “I’m right coz the other side look funny” argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. marcw (241 comments) says:

    This is one reason why the Greens are unfit to receive my vote – their totally uncompromising attitude when they have a different view. Imagine trying to be in a coalition with them to achieve benefits for the environment in NZ. They would stamp and pout at every turn, and in the end achieve nothing. Look at the example they gave in Parliament on Wednesday regarding the Maui’s dolphin; the IWC (a nice little earner for those in it BTW) has said the dolphin must be protected at all costs, so all fishing, mining, and drilling on the entire West coast must be stopped forthwith. No compromises, it just must. And never mind the evidence or facts.

    They are truly a socialist cult disguised as an environmental advocacy group.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Northland Wahine (660 comments) says:

    petty purility on the greens and manas behalf.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. seanmaitland (487 comments) says:

    @EAD – you plonker – if you spend all that time writing lengthy posts on a topic, at least come up with something better than a fucking strawman argument about homosexuals and transvestites . What a complete waste of time.

    ——————-

    ‘If you asked the question “Should children be forcibly taken by state employees, backed by secret courts, from their parents and given for adoption by Homosexuals, Lesbians or Transgender people?” I would imagine 99% of the population would think this an extremely bad idea.’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. lofty (1,305 comments) says:

    igm….does your mirror have no glass?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Grendel (987 comments) says:

    the libertarian in me worries about the extension of powers of the state, but if you have already been shown to be incapable of raising children, it should be a very high bar before you are allowed to keep one that is only with you because you spawned it after the last lot were taken away.

    having watched my mother foster 5 of the most damaged kids i have met (1 heroin addict, 3 foetal alcohol, 2 ADD and 3 ADHD between them, plus all of the kids were petrified of the dark and any male that went near them at night sent them catatonic), and the zeal with which the evil evil mother tried to get them back has shown me that some people are lower than the basest of animals.

    this feral scum had 6 kids, all removed from her, but becuase she spat out another one, they could not get that one off her becuase she had ‘changed’. the fact that she was up on charges for drugging an unrelated girl and pimping her out was apparently not enough.

    once you have crossed the threshold of being considered a dangerous parent (and it has to be a high bar), then the onus should be on you to show you deserve a cat, let alone a child.

    fuck the greens for point scoring on this. though i imagine that as it did not include a new tax they were confused what the point was.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. CharlieBrown (986 comments) says:

    If the law is exactly as stated in DPF’s piece then I’m ok with it, but I vaguely recall that the law in its initial stages proposed putting the burden of proof on suspicion of neglectful behaviour. The combination of such a law and the rediculous anti-smacking law that aunty Helen Key supported makes me worried. Given the fact that it is illegal to smack a child and having to prove to the state that thinks smacking is wrong that you won’t smack a child for bad behaviour; the government could take your kids of you.

    In summary, the law on its own is ok, but given how the government now defines abuse it is scary. Although the police won’t prosecute for light smacking at the moment, it will only take a future government to direct the police to enforce zero tolerance without even having to pass a law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. polemic (454 comments) says:

    They are truly a socialist cult disguised as an environmental advocacy group.

    But then why do they get such high vote numbers in the election???
    …….. because no one has the guts to show the public what their real agenda is.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Odakyu-sen (556 comments) says:

    “Children are the riches of the poor” is an old proverb, but some welfare recipients have put a whole new spin on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Komata (1,157 comments) says:

    polemic

    Re: ‘But then why do they get such high vote numbers in the election???’

    They do so because, to a certain extent they actually DO do things that the ‘General Public’ are in accord with. They Do try to ‘save a whale'; they Do try to protect ‘endangered fluffy-little animals’ and to that extent, the ‘General Public’ support them. The ‘General Public’ (especially their children BTW) absolutely Wuv fluffy little animals…

    HOWEVER, what the ‘General Public’ does not know, indeed is not ALLOWED to know, is that the Gweens have a very specific agenda; ‘Control, Control, Control’.

    This is of course not publicly displayed, and the MSM have no interest or intention in doing so. They (the MSM) would rather portray the Gweens as being harmless, sightly-daft individuals who fit the stereotypical ‘hippy’ mode and who, while somewhat ‘touched’ are essentially no threat to anyone.

    This is because it suits the MSM’s left-leaning, socialist ideology to do so; if you will it’s an example of the ‘ iron hand in a velvet glove’ that Napoleon was referring to. The gweens of course know this and are quite happy to play along. Their ‘public face’ is always one of ‘caring for those who can’t’ (except in the current instance).

    And if the ‘actual factual’ gween philosophy and intent DOES occaisionally emerge, not to worry, the ‘General public’ won’t notice and, ‘Hey, look, over there, there an endangered (insert critter of choice’), isn’t it sweet, oooooh’ will serve as a distraction. (as it usually does). To give them their due, after practising it for several decades, the Gweens are actually very good at doing just that; distracting public attention away from ‘unfortunate truths’.

    Interestingly, and FWIW, only one NZ Journalist (Ian Wishart)has ever undertaken an ‘in-depth’ analysis of the NZ gweens. This was done several years ago, and he subsequently wrote an article about his findings for ‘Investigate’ magazine; it’s an interesting read and well recommended (your local Public Library might have a copy). Wishart was not, of course, thanked for his trouble…

    Hope that this helps; it’s all to do with the manipulation of ‘public perception’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Keeping Stock (10,254 comments) says:

    We’ve finally got around to getting our thoughts in order, but it took two posts! We’re no less disgusted with the Greens and Harawira either, and wonder if the Greens’ five missing votes represent members who wanted to actually support the Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Aussie Aussie Aussie (22 comments) says:

    And the First thing the Centre Right did was bring back the Bash
    with no consideration for innocent vulnerable children

    because you could not call them right

    And so the corrupt cowards pretend they are pro NZ

    The Future of your Country before they make gay marriage compulsory is

    All Your Children

    The Children are a political foot ball that the left and right “kick”

    and then Tax through GST

    GST is the Child tax every child pays taxes albeit indirectly by consuming
    through GST

    GST is the anti child and anti family tax isn’t it

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.