Key's UN Agenda vs. Anti-Smacking Law

John Key meets UN Secretary, Sept 2009 (NZPA)

I've thought if for a while now, but Brendan Malone over at the Semper Vita blog sums up very nicely the Prime Ministers's ulterior motive in what seemed to many like political suicide and blatantly ignoring the voice of 87.6% of his constituents.

So what has the UN Security Council got to do with the NZ anti-smacking law?
Well, quite simply, the UN is politics on a global scale, and that means lots and lots of wheeling and dealing and unprincipled compromising in order to gain the perfect outcome that one desires.
In this case, Mr. Key has made no bones about the fact that he is definitely keen to secure a NZ seat on the UN Security Council, but to do that he’ll have to dance the dance of the UN faithful – and that doesn’t bode well for a change to New Zealand’s anti-smacking law.
Why?
Well, in 1993 New Zealand became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Then in 2003 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a report which criticized New Zealand regarding it’s failure to revoke the old Section 59 law.

Continue Reading. Brendan writes a Life Matters column every Friday, worth checking out.

Boscawen to Stall Section59 Ammendment Bill

In a clever move, ACT's John Boscawen has stated that he will be writing to the Clerk of Parliament, requesting that the first reading of his Bill to ammend the Anti-Smacking law be postponed indefinitely. He's pretty much written off any chances of getting a Christmas card from Dear Leader this year, as Mr. Key's intention in his announcement that National would kill the bill at its first reading was that the issue would go away and that he could get on with more important things. Heck, we all want the issue to go away - but the Prime Minister needs to understand that ignoring 87.4% of Kiwis is not the best way to achieve this.

Boscawen will be speaking tonight in Christchurch - all are welcome, details here.

The Herald has the story.

Forum on the Family

Flew up to Auckland early Friday morning for the Forum on the Family. If I had paid more attention to Whale's damning criticism of Jet Star airline, I wouldn't have bothered with them, but as it was they got us to Auckland two hours late, so got to the forum at 10am, without any coffee... Met up with irrepressible fellow blogger Dave Crampton who has done a few blog posts on the forum, Matt and Madeline who are thinking about doing a blog post (now published), and David Farrar who I think would probably print his blog out and eat it before he admitted he was present at the forum ;) Anyway, here's a few comments from speakers and thoughts from the forum...

Political Panel
Ross Robertson (Labour), Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga (National), Judy Turner (United Future - list MP, not in Parliament), Gordon Copeland (Kiwi Party - list MP, not in Parliament)

All the politicians wanted to keep prayer in Parliament saying it was a time of reflection, silence - it's part of history of NZ and so important to keep it... It doesn't bother me either way.

On abstaining from voting, none of them were very keen on it - Gordon in particular, however he was the only MP to miss the third readings of the Anti-Smacking Bill and the Electoral Finance Bill. Kind of ironic however by no means the unforgivable sin.

On the best way to get in touch with an MP, they all agreed that bulk/form emails are only useful for gauging numbers in terms of support or opposition to a proposition, however made it clear that it was often very annoying. One of them stated "the Government does listen to numbers" which elicited a wave of laughter from the crowd. Gordon had a spiel about the number of supportive postcards he had received on the subject of the Therapeutic Bill (2006), and beaming told us that he had held the balance of power at one of its readings, choosing to support the bill (61-60 votes for). For crying out loud, if you're a list MP you shouldn't get up there and skite that you held the balance of power - it's a part of the reason why people are so cynical and scared of our electoral system of MMP.

John Angus, Children's Commissioner
John stated accurately that child abuse isn't a child problem, they don't cause it and aren't responsible for it - it's an adult problem. Apparently there's 100,000 incidents refered to CYFS each year (over 300 per day), but of these a relatively small (but horrific) 13,000 are found to be actual cases of abuse. Child abuse costs the country an estimated $2b yearly. John erroneously stated that 8 children die as a result of child abuse each year, however the figure is more like 18,000 when the children dying from abortion are accounted for.

Bruce Pilbrow, Families Commissioner and Director of Parents Inc
"you can complain and moan... no, you should either do nothing or get stuck in and do something"

On the Families Commission he said, six months ago I would have said can it, kick it - but it's not going to go, so let's get involved - we've got a chance and this is it - if we can't do it then no-once can, and then we should kick it. Bruce reckons more money should be funneled into third-party organisations as "they know how to turn $1 into $2, and they have something called accountability" hah, good call.

---

Opposition leader Phil Goff and Prime Minister John Key both addressed the forum, speaking for 40 minutes each but saying very little... Got to give Key some credit for tackling the Smacking issue first off, but of course his comments on the subject were as usual, unprincipled and embarrassing for any National supporters listening. He said that he wanted to make sure that Nigel Latta is comfortable that parents won't be prosecuted for smacking their child. Nigel has been appointed onto the review board for the smacking law. "Nigel voted no!"... wow John, what a concession... who cares how comfortable Nigel is, what bearing does that have on the law? Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 currently classes a corrective smack using reasonable force as a criminal offence, and whether Nigel is comfortable or not, and whether the police prosecute or not it is still bad law, and 87.4% of Kiwis hate it. Anyway, I put the following question on one small aspect of the abortion issue to Phil Goff,

"Currently young girls can have their pre-born baby aborted without their parents' knowledge or consent - what will your party do about this?"

Phil simply dodged the question and discussed the need to prevent conception so that there is no need to abort - said he doesn't want to see a law which would criminalise abortion - because he says that would mean botched up abortions would be done in back alleys. Of course this is incorrect. Prior to the passing of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977, an average of only one woman died from complications in an illegal abortion each year.

Newly-elected president Voice for Life asked Phil if he agreed that more should be done to enable women to make a truly informed decision regarding their pregnancy. Phil concurred, but made the false and emotive claim that if an unwanted baby is allowed to be born, it will necessarily be destined to a life of misery.

---

Overall the forum was worthwhile, preeminently on account of the wonderful networking opportunities which I took advantage of. Heh, the food was a bit ponsy but Dave and I knocked back quite a few cups of good strong coffee.

Just Say No

...to National.

The National Party under John Key has determined to ignore the result of the referendum - 87.4% of Kiwis voted No to criminalising smacking, but John Key says "the law is working". John Boscawen's bill to amend the law to allow light hand-smacking was drawn from the ballot on Wednesday, but John Key says "the law is working", and subsequently has determined that National will vote against the bill at its first reading.

The Prime Minister states that if parents are criminalised for a light smack, then he will change the law. The law specifically bans smacking for the purpose of correction, which means that parents are criminalised if they give a corrective smack. "But they won't be prosecuted; the police have discretion," retorts Dear Leader.

The Prime Minister states that if parents are prosecuted for a light smack, then he will change the law. It follows that he believes that until parents are prosecuted for a light smack, the law is working well. However the law is not working well - it is simply a case of a bad law (which John Key has admitted to), which the Govt. has instructed the police to ignore or adhere to at their discretion.

I'd expect more sense from a three-year-old at the pre-school down the road. However it's 1am and I expect the pre-school down the road is closed. So my brother Nathan's debut in political blogging shall suffice. Forthwith, an excerpt...

So a few months back old Larry drove his kiwi party caravan up to the B-hive, and loaded off the box's...and box's...and box's of signatures. Yeah!!! Score....but hey what do you know...uh oh suddenly, whoops, Labour decides to have the referendum at another date...hmmm interesting...another $9,000,000 later, and it comes round. Most people vote except for those who found the multi choice YES or NO quite confusing...

heheh, quite clever.

John Key Concedes: Law Change Likely

John Key has begun conceding that the Anti-Smacking law needs ammending. Newstalk ZB reported yesterday,

The Prime Minister expects a resounding 'No' vote in the smacking referendum will lead to changes surrounding the law.

So far, nearly 1.4 million voting papers have been returned with the question 'Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?'

John Key is expecting more people to tick NO than yes. He says if the law does not work and good parents get criminalised for lightly smacking a child, the law should be changed.

But he says it is hard to put up a case to change the law when no one has yet been prosecuted. The smacking referendum closes in a week.

Whereas the Prime Minister has tended in the past to refer to the undesirability of seeing "good parents prosecuted for a light smack", he is now predominantly referring to "good parents being criminalised". It is clear that good parents are being criminalised in their hundreds of thousands, and John Key knows this. Sue Bradford's new law makes one thing crystal clear:

A smack for the purpose of correction is a criminal offence, making parents criminals if they use a smack for correction (no matter how light the smack is).

Herald Article Not Worth the Effort of Reading

The Herald joins the apparently nationwide attack on democracy by New Zealand mainstream media today, with their editorial entitled "Question not worth the effort of answering". Rather than excercising some journalistic credibility, these media are sucking up to the actions of the larger part of our Parliament. The Prime Minister John Key lambasted the question as "weird", and stated that he will not be partaking in the democratic process by voting in the referendum, while Opposition leader Phil Goff also states that he will refrain from voting.

"People who support the status quo might vote no, thinking that was what the question was reflecting, he indicated," seethed Mr. Key. But why does he think this the case? Who was it that initiated the compromise on Bradford's anti-smacking law which made it so darn hard to understand? The so-called "John Key" ammendment to the bill stated that the police would not prosecute parents for smacking if they believed it to be so inconsequential as to not be in the public interest to proceed.

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

The question is quite clear. It directly addresses the law, rather than the way that the law is currently being applied.  It would be impossible to come up with a question that would satisfy everyone, and while this question is not perfect, it's not nearly so bad as to warrant utter dismissal. For one moment, consider the intent of the 390,000 signatories on the petition. 99% of those signing did so in the belief that there was a difference between a smack and child abuse, and with the desire that families not be intruded upon by government agencies. But the mainstream media is conveniently ignoring this aspect of the petition question. Since the time the petition was launched over two years ago, we have heard only a few complaints about the question, and these mainly from Sue Bradford's direction. However now, just over a month out from the election there is a host of media decrying the petition question at every chance possible.

The Herald editorial concludes, "[It is] a question that is an insult to intelligence. It is not worth the expense or the effort of answering it. A low turnout would be most telling." Engaging in a simplistic form of social engineering, the Herald is sacrificing truth and democracy for the sake of their agenda which is leading to the realisation of one of Helen Clark's goals: family deconstruction in New Zealand.

Red is the New Blue

Many Kiwis are sick of our new National Government. John Key continues to wilfully ignore the will of the 83% of New Zealanders who are opposed to the anti-family law, labelled by the Green Party as the "anti-smacking law". When asked if he will honour the result of the upcoming referendum on smacking, Key has evaded the question by stating that unless he hears of good parents being prosecuted for a light smack, he is happy with the law. Key is not a fool. He knows just as well as you or I that that is not the point. The fact is that it is illegal to correct your child with a smack - whether or not the police prosecute is utterly beside the point. - more at the Section 59 blog.

Meanwhile, our Minister of Finance Bill English is failing to prepare New Zealand for the full onslaught of the recession. "Mr English said the budget would focus on reprioritising government spending, particularly spending for public services. There would be no room for significant fiscal stimulus in the budget and the rate of increased spending would be lower than in the past." - TV3 23/04/09. Hard as it is to believe, those are English's words "the rate of increased spending will be lower than in the past", i.e. spending will continue to increase.

National is setting our country up for a full-scale depression. What is desperately needed now is a strong dose of ACT policy - the same thing that pulled New Zealand out of the downward spiral set in motion by the 80's Muldoon Government. Below is an excerpt from ACT MP Hon. Sir Roger Douglas's latest press release with his recommendations for the National Government.

Mr English continues to either sit on his hands or move in the wrong direction. While the OECD tells us to sell poorly-managed State assets, National promised to retain State assets – and is now beginning to stack them with political appointments just as Labour did.

The OECD reports that health spending is out of control and can only be tamed by introducing greater public/private competition. National TALKS about allowing competition in health services – but we need action. We need to privatise ACC and utilise private health services before we will see any benefits.

Further, the burgeoning cost of superannuation caused by retiring baby boomers is unsustainable. If we act now, we can decrease the pain in the long term. In the short term, the age of entitlement will have to rise – as the OECD advises – or we will continue to slide behind other nations even faster. In the longer term, we must move away from the current superannuation system towards one that encourages people to save.

When you’re in a hole, you need to look at all possible ways to get out. We shouldn’t ignore advice simply because Mr English doesn’t want to hear it. In fact most of the advice, if followed, would create the kind of growth that occurred from 1984-96. While Mr English is not listening, Labour is moving in the opposite direction to that needed – continuing to have faith in politicians and bureaucrats to spend money more wisely than individuals.

Enough of National thinking they are New Zealand's saviour. They are arrogant and hypocritical just like their predecessors, Labour. We want a government which listens to the people, which refuses to endorse badly written law, and which will protect the country's economy by drastically cutting government spending.

Swing in the Polls

I got emailed this by an ACT supporter, who at this stage doesn't want to be named...