General Debate 17 June 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment36

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (36)

Login to comment or vote

billyborker

Why New Zealand should be a Republic.

1. About time we grew up and left mummy at home.

2. Do we want a Quack as King?

http://www.fih.org.uk/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 8:00am
billyborker

Is this the idiocy kiwis want from their next HoS?

http://www.fih.org.uk/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 8:02am
wreck1080

John Keys disgusting stance on the upcoming referendum is wrong on many levels.

First, what right does he have to ignore the people s will. If he does ignore the peoples will, I predict there will be be quite some civil unrest. Maybe some french style protests would be appropriate.

This is not even about smacking, it is about publicly stating that he will ignore the results of the 9 million dollar referendum before it even happens.

If so, why bother? Cancel the referendum and let the cops keep their cars.

Secondly, I wonder how his relation is with his children. How much input did he actually have into raising them. Or, has he had the luxuries of long work hours and nannies to insulate him from actually being involved in raising a family.

The reason I ask, it is all very easy to be high and mighty from a safe unaffected spot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 8:12am
billyborker

Which “peoples’ will”? The question is so poorly worded.

A better question wouldelicit a better response.

Furthermore, the question shows EXACTLY what is wrong with CIR – there is no guide to how the law should be worded and enforced.

Like it or not, we elect a representative government, and, if enough people don’t like them, we throw them out and elect another.

I smacked my children occasionally, and would do so again, and I have no fear of prosecution as the law stands. However, if I used, say, a cricket bat, then i shou,d be prosecuted.

The correct question to ask in the referendum is “Should children have the same legal protection from assault as adults?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 8:17am
Lindsay

Key is now behaving just like his predecessor, and, disturbingly, he can’t see it. In 2007 he said this;

“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. 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.”

The only MP (of any note) who has been consistent about this issue is Rodney Hide.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 8:19am
Rakaia George

Lindsay – Just to be fair to JK, did he say that before or after his compromise insertion of the specific powers for police to use discretion which brought the National votes on board?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 8:27am
toad

billyborker said: Which “peoples’ will”? The question is so poorly worded.

Indeed billy. The question is so poorly worded that even John Boscawen says he will vote Yes when he actually opposes the current law.

(candidate’s answer is in bold)
In the forthcoming Child Discipline referendum New Zealanders should:
Vote Yes OR Vote No or Abstain
Candidate comment: Because I beleive parents should be able to correct their children’s behaviour. I have a private members bill promoting a change.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 8:31am
Trevor Mallard

Over the next couple of days Parliament will deal with the Transport Law Reform Bill – mainly uncontentious but there are two issues that are live. First should drivers who are injured and have blood samples taken be prosecuted if they have Class A drugs (eg methamphetamine) in their system the way those who are found to be over the alcohol limits are. Secondly should a driver who fails an alcohol breath test (even narrowly) and is showing signs of gross impairment be subject to a drug impairment test and thereby liable to prosecution for both the alcohol and the drugs rather than just the alcohol. I’m generally pretty liberal I think there is a need for a hardline on people who put others at risk by driving while high on drugs. Comment here or on Red Alert : – http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/06/14/will-nats-support-drivers-on-p-or-try-and-reduce-the-incidence/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 8:42am
Murray

Key needs to make an effot to not simply be a clean shaven version of Helen Clark.

We will not be particuarly tolerant of replacing one autocrat with another and out deomocracy is not his personal plaything.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 8:47am
LC

390,000 people signed a petition. I’d call that a hint John.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 8:53am
davidp

lc>390,000 people signed a petition. I’d call that a hint John.

I remember the giant petition presented to parliament opposing the decriminalisation of homosexuality. The government ignored it, thank goodness.

In this smacking case, did none of those 390,000 stop to say “hey, the referendum question is badly worded”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:00am
bananapants

aside from the question being logically fallacious in the first place, the reality is that the law is working.

People who think that smacking works are obviously lacking parenting skills. Smacking doesn’t work. Anyone who knows about behaviourism knows that. So all these people who are up in arms about not having the right to assault children (and it is assault, in the same way that smacking an adult would be) are simply revealing that they lack skills in that area and haven’t worked out which methods of parenting are effective. There are some great parenting programmes out there which would teach these people how to effectively discipline their kids, without ever needing to resort to a smack. Those who are worried that they can’t control their kids without hitting need to enroll themselves in some education around what works for kids and what doesn’t.

I especially love the argument “but I was smacked, and I turned out fine”. Um, have you checked yourself out recently? I wouldn’t call that fine….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:05am
Ryan Sproull

390,000 people signed a petition. I’d call that a hint John.

Yeah – something needs to be done about education in this country so that the next generation can formulate referendum questions that actually mean something.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:08am
toad

LC said: 390,000 people signed a petition.

A good number of them before the Select Committee reported the recommended wording for the replacement section 59 that was enacted, and a good number more before the compromise wording on Police discretion that brought the National Party on board was reached. To suggest that this is a referendum on the current law is ridiculous. In fact the whole referendum is ridiculous. Speak roughly to your little boy, and beat him when he sneezes…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:15am
dime

wreck – you question JK as a parent because hes rich? what experience did our last leader have with kids? oh thats right, we arent supposed to mention her private life.

who was the idiot that wrote the question? what were they thinking?

also, if Helen had allowed this referendum to take place during the election, what would the cost be? would it still be 9 million?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:22am
wreck1080

everyone knows what the question means.

Should we dump the anti smacking changes or not?

Its blinding obvious, are you lot stupid?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:26am
aardvark

I think there is no truer saying than “Power Corrupts”.

JK came into government as a hero of the people, promising a change from the dictatorial regime delivered by his predecessor.

Now he says “I don’t give a stuff what the people want, in fact, I won’t even be listening” — in respect to the CIR.

As I said, “power corrupts”.

Now (as I blogged today) stop for a moment and ask yourself what chance we now have of getting Sect 92A buried?

Sure, when he was still new at this game his government responded to public opinion and suspended this nasty bit of legislation. But now his true colours have been exposed and it’s clear that he considers that his government is no longer obliged to carry out the will of the majority.

So what chance do a small bunch of pimple-faced geeks have against the might of the recording and movie industries — who are already applying pressure to have S92 reinstated?

Key is a dollars-man. When it comes to keeping treasury’s coffers full, I suspect the rich recording/movie industries will have far more clout with this man than the “nasty copyright infringers” will.

A sad time for NZ democracy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:30am
david

what wreck said. Talk about misleading, ambiguous, illiterate is blowing smoke. The subject has had so much air that even stupid people like me can understand the meaning and intention of the author(s).

However: I can accept that different people will see the question slightly differently and ask themselves “has the intrusion of the state in the upbringing of my children been taken a step too far with the abolition of S59?” and “Why was the law as it stood inadequate?” These questions are more subjective and will inevitably draw different responses depending on attitude, culture, education, life experience, political or religious belief etc etc etc
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:32am
Ryan Sproull

everyone knows what the question means.

Should we dump the anti smacking changes or not?

Its blinding obvious, are you lot stupid?

But that’s not what the question means. A smack as part of any kind of parenting has always been a criminal offence in New Zealand. Reinstating Section 59 will not change that. The fact that supporters of Section 59 think that this question refers to it simply demonstrates the widespread misunderstanding of S59.

[DPF: A smack has not always been a criminal offence. I know some people argue it is an offence, and S59 is just a defence in court to that offence but that is a daft argument. By that logic killing someone in self defence is an offence]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:39am
Inventory2

Complete change of subject – what a great story Doug Batty’s qualification for the US Open has become – he played a practice round with Tiger Woods today – talk about going from the outhouse to the penthouse!!

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/06/getting-ready-for-bethpage-black.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:43am
Murray

Why New Zealand should not become a republic: billy bonkers and his commie mates what us to.

Thats all I need to know.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 10:13am
Brian Smaller

Did anyone else laugh at the complaint to the broadcasting standards authority about the moro ad that featured “fornicating horses”. I didn’t think horses could fornicate. I thought the complainent must have stumbled across some subliminal horse porn imbedded in the advert. Aren’t some people just too precious – or to put it another way – too fucking insane for words?

Check this statement

Complainant T Prins said it “was offensive to watch an advert in which two horses were fornicating. I am the parent of an eight year old and a two year old and work hard at preserving their innocence”.

We used to breed cats. My kids got to see cats mating on the kitchen floor. God knows what that must have done to their innocence. I hope the complainent never lets her kids see bees landing on flowers and cross-polinating (all the flower sex) or immediately squashes flies when they do some aerial fornicating in the kitchen.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 10:57am
adc

quite frankly I think a light wooden spoon in many cases would be safer round the rump than some beefy clumsy meaty paw.

And it’s damn effective, I remember. Plus it’s got a safety mechanism. The spoon breaks before the child, whereas you hit something with your hand is a completely different story.

I’m just talking basic physics here, not trying to make judgement calls about physical punishment.

So to arbitrarily rule out ALL implements doesn’t make sense.

Call me whatever you like, this is the truth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 11:13am
adc

as for whether children should have the same rights as adults. Hell no.

Once a child reaches the age of majority, then sure. Until then, the parent is responsible for the child’s actions.

A dog will be put down if it bites someone, so a dog takes responsibilty for its actions.

A child on the other hand incurs significant cost to its parent if it causes enough grief. Since we can’t (nor want to) put down naughty kids, the parents must have the right to protect themselves from the consequences of the child’s actions, therefore the parent needs the ability to enforce.

This is why airline pilots have rights on a plane.

Why no-one seems to give a shit about the issue of responsibility is beyond me. It’s the whole point.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 11:16am
llew

wreck1080 (464) Vote: 4 4 Says:

June 17th, 2009 at 9:26 am
everyone knows what the question means.

Should we dump the anti smacking changes or not?

Its blinding obvious, are you lot stupid?

If that’s what the question means, that’s what the question should say. As it is worded, a result either way would necessitate no change to the current law.

BTW, what if we applied the referendum question to other areas:

Should a smack as part of good employee management be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 11:17am
village idiot

adc calls for including THE WOODEN SPOON in the list of ‘things you can hit children with’. Adc, you are a tremendous help to Sue Bradford’s camp, you beauty, you!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 12:43pm
Murray

What were you hit with?

Note to parents: Stay away from head shots.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 12:52pm
Christopher

Should a smack as part of good employee management be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

No, it definitely shouldn’t. If you disagree, clearly you’ve never had to deal with employees…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 1:11pm
bananapants

I can make my kids do stuff without hitting them. WTF is wrong with me?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 2:29pm
shady

Banapants – you can make your kids do stuff? They can’t have got to their teens yet!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 3:16pm
philu

has paula bennett just ‘blown’ it..?

://whoar.co.nz/2009/has-phil-goff-just-got-paula-bennet-for-lying-to-parliament/

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 4:11pm
getstaffed

Pita Sharples wants Maori to be able to attend University without any qualifications. FFS what’s next – mail merge Ph.D’s for all Maori? Give all Maori preference for job placement? Grrr… this makes me sick. When will Maori leadership stop holding their people back by telling them they’re not good enough? When will Maori leadership abandon seperatism, elieteism and racism?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 6:15pm
Hurf Durf

Here’s what I’d like to see in a referendum question:

“Should the Green and Labour Parties be banned, and their membership hanged?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 6:38pm
stephen

How about ‘should insane blog commenters use their real names?’
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 17, 2009 9:36pm
adc

village idiot…

did I, where? Where did I call for it to be added?

I was simply commenting that proposing that the hand is the only allowable thing in the Borrows amendment is not necessarily a good idea, and that perhaps there are safer (and more effective) things than a hand if one is to spank.

If ever I got smacked, it was indeed the wooden spoon I respected the most. It stings! And try breaking a piece of 2 x 2 with a wooden spoon. It’s physically impossible. But you can easily break it with your hand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 18, 2009 12:48am
racer1

“aardvark

I think there is no truer saying than “Power Corrupts”.
”

Does power corrupt or did you just fall for the election campaign?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 18, 2009 1:57am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Iran

I will be voting No »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Woman of the day
Hompaddock
The strange case of the I am Hope funding
The Standard
You Read It here First – I bet you’re sorry about that
No Minister
11.30am Live from Pennsylvania – Waatea Sunday Morning Political Podcast US Election Special
The Daily Blog
Battle of Beersheba – Canadian Frustration – Balfour Declaration I THE G…
Utopia
"The paradox of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is that the phrase is used only by the very people who are suffering from it."
Not PC
Some sporting reflections
Point of Order
The High Court says "Land Back"
No Right Turn
Why you should reject the term “Christian nationalism”
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
US military-industrial-sports complex.
Kiwipolitico
MILLION DOLLAR REWARD
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 7
Stats Chat
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d