122 Comments
02 May 2007
VIDEO: John Key video journal 5 - on the s59 amendment
#1 - Glenn Roberts 2007-05-02 16:44 - (Reply)
YOU JUST LOST THE ELECTION TODAY JOHN! The biggest trump card that you could beat the labour/greens coalition with was the fact that they are taking personal freedom from people, even though they give out the two pieces of silver. Now that you are complicent in this, youve just negated that arguement..very sad. the next election will be a repeat of 2005 now there is no significant political divergence.
#1.1 - Sandra Elliott 2007-05-02 21:10 - (Reply)
John, I had so much hope -you have committed political suicide. You should have waited until the next election THEN changed it. Why have you submitted us to 3 more years under Helen :( EVERY-ONE was going to vote for you, not now according to talkback. I've even changed my mind. Never voted ACT before, will now. ALWAYS voted National. I'm 30 YRS old...
#2 - Chris Barnett 2007-05-02 18:49 - (Reply)
I know you were in a no-win situation, but the outcome is appalling. Personally, I believe the National Party should have resisted the passing of this Bill with all it's might, even though defeat was virtually certain. At least the Party would have retained some respect and credibility. We've had enough of social engineering!
#3 - Jim 2007-05-02 19:08 - (Reply)
Very disapointed in the National backdown. This is NOT a win for New Zealand, and greatly weakens any future attempt to undo this mess. Whatever is does for kids, this change does NOT protect parrents.
#4 - David Dobbs 2007-05-02 19:27 - (Reply)
I agree with the comments here that you have blown this one John. Helen has won this hands down. You have really disappointed me with this. This was a perfect opportunity to have a large swing of voters to National and now you have tared yourself with the same brush. This doesn't make light smacking legal. It is still illegal and the police will have to decide if they will prosecute or not. This is an outrage and National should have used this one all the way to the election. I'm not even sure I'll vote national now, which was a certainty before this.
#4.1 - Paul Swift 2007-05-02 20:50 - (Reply)
Any change to the law that reduces the risk of undue force against children is better than no change. It is disappointing to see so many parents - particularly religious extremists - advocating smacking as being necessary for discipline. That is rubbish. Any thoughtful parent is quite capable of raising good children without needing to use smacking - provided that they have learnt how to do so. If any political party wants to make a difference, they should be providing training to young people and to parents on effective parenting using thoughtful and caring methods. It took me ages to learn how to do this. I am glad to see that my children have learnt from their mother how to achieve this and are bringing up our grandchildren to be wonderful caring children. It appals me that people somehow confuse the notion that NZ should have moral standards - such as avoiding violence against children - with PC notions like "social engineering". Is there any successful respectable society in history that has not worked towards improving its treatment of children?
#5 - Kevin MILNE 2007-05-02 19:34 - (Reply)
I think it is VERY important you contact Greg O’connor of the Police association regarding Police use of discretion. New Zealand Police Family violence policy clearly defines the meaning of a domestic relationship. Parents and their children are quite rightly within that definition. The Policy also very clearly states that Police have no discretion regarding family violence incidents. When Police attend an incident and there is evidence of an offence (assault) then they WILL arrest and prosecute the offender. Police are also to prosecute even where the complainant is not willing to make a complaint. If there is evidence of an offence, even in the absence of a complainant, then they MUST ARREST and prosecute. If a child is smacked, even lightly, then that falls within the definition of assault as per the definition in the Crimes Act 1961. If the child is smacked by a parent then that falls within the definition of family violence. I am sure our politicians have not thought this through. With this in mind, Police will not be able to use discretion.
#6 - Enkidu 2007-05-02 19:37 - (Reply)
It's sad to hear that the "Kiddy Whackers" have won. This amendment is a disgrace and allows any parent to use violence against their kids and to justify it as "light smacking". You had a chance to support the bill, John, and to win the thanks of thousands of kids in future years. But instead you decided to go for a quick win and a few votes. No parent who smacks their child can be considered a good parent - violence is not necessary.
#6.1 - CJ Morgan 2007-05-02 21:12 - (Reply)
Kiddy wackers! How dare you! People like you don't belong in the debate! Go away. You are just as bad as the idiots looking to do harm to Bradford. No different!
#7 - Janet and Murray Fookes 2007-05-02 19:55 - (Reply)
We are very disappointed. To see Helen so pleased with you, John, alone must send warning bells ringing. We have no change in that Police must try to make discretionary judgement which is absolutely not their job. They need a clear law like "any bruising and it's an offence." I firmly agree that violence should not be used against children but families will become afraid to touch or push each other. By the way, John, your example on TV of being pushed in the street. I could insist that anyone who pushes me in the street be charged and Police have no choice but to do so...assault is assault. Now we have a real can of worms about to be opened.
#8 - A H O'Brien 2007-05-02 19:59 - (Reply)
A very sensible move Mr Key you not only show your skills as a future PM but you also have the ablility to sensibly discuss matters like this with people of other political persuassions and come to a conclusion that will suit all Newzealanders. top work. No other politician in Newzealands history has had the sense to do this before. It has clarified a very hazy matter and should help to clear the way for the way forward in stopping terrible assaults against children
#9 - Allan Maclean 2007-05-02 20:11 - (Reply)
Disappointing to see the backdown. I would have preferred to see a party vote - even though you MAY have lost it, you would have "won" the hearts and minds out here, but I guess you do still have the high moral ground here for the majority of us. Now let's sort out the economy... The deficit is unbelievable and the refusal of Dr Cullen to take thing seriously, well... Then there's our new Paintergate, Part 2. No excitement about this raised in your place yet?
#10 - heather rogers 2007-05-02 20:14 - (Reply)
The National Party website needs improving! Thank goodness that common sense has prevailed and that thanks to you Sue Bradford's idiotic Bill was not passed in its original form. Nevertheless it really should not have been passed in any form. Sad that compromise is the only way to get rid of it. What is really annoying is that Helen Clarke did not allow her own MP's to vote on it as a concience vote. As an Anglican I'm really annoyed with them for coming out in favour of the smacking bill without asking the laity what they think - I certainly was'nt asked my opinion. You are doing well, have a good team and should have a lot of fun in the run up to your win at the next election.
#11 - Tim Bibby 2007-05-02 20:17 - (Reply)
John, This amendment is a major mistake and is assisting with the passing of Bad Law. The Bill is still a part of the continuing "dumbing down" of the Law in New Zealand. Laws should be clear and straight forward. To say that the Police do not have to prosecute under certain circumstances even though by admission, the law has been broken in terms of how it is written is farcical. The Bill should not be passed into law. This is bad law and is part of the continual undermining of what law should be about. It won't achieve what Sue Bradford says that she is trying to achieve and is a waste of time and meddling by politicians in familiy matters that they should not be involving themselves in. You and your team should be voting against the Bill and even if it passes, at least we would know who to blame. It may be embarrasing but you need to vote against the amendment. The only reason Helen backed this is because she knew that the people of New Zealand didn't want the Bill and her members were likely to revolt and vote against it. Get on and debate and solve the "real issues" affecting New Zealand. I have no confidence in not only the Government but Parliment as a whole.
#12 - C Nikal 2007-05-02 20:31 - (Reply)
Oh no!! What a political blunder - as well as assist flawed legislation pass. Most parents will still be breaking the law but don't worry the Police wont prosecute - Gee John, Helen must be pinching herself right now.
#13 - Andrew Mc Neil 2007-05-02 20:34 - (Reply)
Got to agree with the other national voter comments , it would seem that this idea came through at the last minute and has rashly been put forward thinking that the NZ public would buy into it. We have not agreed with this bill and this amendment dose little if anything to stop the social engineering policies of this current govt.This govt is creating an over dependence on the state culture and its controlling socialist nature is seen here quite clearly in this Bill. John Key and the national party know only to well that this will do nothing to stop the child beatings and deaths in this country. We need to give people self esteem , get them working and contributing to NZ, reduce drug and alcohol abuse , work at problem gambling. Get rid of the welfare culture that is self perpetuating to protect its own existence.There are many other things we need to deal with that will raise the bar . this Bill is simply fire fighting the problems our country has and dose nothig at all to help. I really wish National had put more thought into this decision. National would have cleaned up at the next election , but now as a previous staunch supporter I feel let down.
#14 - Tony Wakelin 2007-05-02 20:38 - (Reply)
YOU JUST LOST THE ELECTION TODAY JOHN! Where's this person comming from...excellent result! And no point scoring is the perfect way to handle it, Labour are possibly too thick to see Nat's plan. Just wish the odds were the same with Centrebet this time round, I might have recouped some lost funds!!!
#15 - B Thomas 2007-05-02 20:43 - (Reply)
I would like a copy of exactly how the ammendment actually reads to be able to make an informed comment without all the media hipe.
#16 - John M 2007-05-02 20:53 - (Reply)
This gave Labour an "almost" get out of jail free card. It might have been better to force them to pass this bullying social engineering law on their own and so clearly alienate them from the majority of voters. Hopefully we will deal to them at the election, if the public can resist the inevitable lolly scamble that Clark & Cullen will scatter. Why didn't Chester B put the amendment!
#17 - Peter Brennan 2007-05-02 20:56 - (Reply)
It's irrational for you to justify passing fundamentally bad legislation into law on the basis it's a good compromise - it's a mockery of our democratic process when the majority are opposed to it - plus it will have zero effect on child abusers and is an intolerable 'State' invasion of the family as you have no mandate to impose this level of your child rearing beliefs on parents. You've lost my vote, and from what I can gather those of my immediate voting family of 5. We are appalled ... and dismayed you have contrived not only to do the wrong thing, but to hand a massive bouquet to Helen Clark in the process.
#18 - donald ion 2007-05-02 21:06 - (Reply)
antismacking bill---you had the chance to represent 80% of the population that wanted the status quo--as such you have badly let us all down and proved that you are against many of your own party--i suggest that you allow conscience voting for all national members at the vote---the only thing you have really 'disembowelled' is the maori party who are liars ---come on john it is not too late to back track and vote against the proposed amendment--be a man and not a b mouse
#19 - CJ Morgan 2007-05-02 21:08 - (Reply)
Politics is a very complex and strategic game. One can only hope that somewhere amongst this, you have been able to plant a seed that will offer significant rewards in the future. In this subject you had a significant competitive advantage to take with you toward 2008. You aren't stupid John so I can only hope that you know something we don't because on the face of it, this was a very surprising (odd) decision. Like an increasing number of NZ'ders I am really excited about the prospect of a National led government with you as PM but mate, I feel like I did when the AB's played Aust that year in Sydney when we were up by about 20 odd points only to have them come back within a whisker until Jonah scored in the last minute. If you remember that game, just remember what it felt like just before he scored.....another loss was looming!
#20 - Aaron B 2007-05-02 21:08 - (Reply)
Well done John, i think you got as much as you could without allowing Labour to put in their policy wholesale.
#21 - a mother 2007-05-02 21:09 - (Reply)
Great work John. I am glad to see common sense prevailed at last. I don't think you could have done better in the circumstances.
#22 - John Sheppard 2007-05-02 21:11 - (Reply)
A backdown by National. National should have seen their policy through, even if if meant losing this time. My support for National is now gone.
#23 - Gordon Harrop 2007-05-02 21:30 - (Reply)
I have been a National supporter all my life and I do not want to change, however when something like this Bill is put forward by a bunch of no hopers and 80%+ of New Zealand clearly do not want it, then the National Party leader whom I have a lot of admiration for, decides to come up with an amendment that allies the National Party to the Bill I start to wonder about my loyalty to the National Party. I believe you would have been better to sit back and let Labour and Helen Clarke tighten the noose even further. If this bill had been passed in its form prior to yor amendment, I am confident that not even the ardent Labour supporters would have voted for them. John Key would have lead the next National Party into government with the largest number of votes ever recorded by any political party. I would even say it may have been the long awaited demise of the Labour Party, as we know it. Your only action now is to have all National members vote against the bill and New Zealanders will view this as a very shrewd policitical move to eradicate the most destructive political party to ever be the government in this great country. Do National have the strenghth to stand together and vote against this Bill and put the blame squarely at the feet of the people responsible for allowing this Bill to get this far, in in spite of the known opposition to the bill amongst good New Zealand families and parents. Let this be your Key Move.
#24 - Laurie Doolan 2007-05-02 21:32 - (Reply)
I agree, John. The outcome is far from perfect - especially the amendment's use of the word "offence" (twice) as confirmation of the "criminalisation" of smacking for correctional purposes. A criminal offence is said to be committed, even where the police use their discretion not to prosecute. Nevertheless, I congratulate you on your achievement in ameliorating the Bill that would otherwise have passed into law in a much worse form. Your concession will not be popular, but is a pragmatic and logical result of the pressure that you and others have applied for an amendment.
#25 - Andy Moore said:
2007-05-02 21:45 - (Reply)
Very dissapointed with the National Party. If the ammendment really was a victory, then it is obvious that Sue Bradford would not be happy. She is happy. That means that CYFS will still have the extra power to remove children when it is reported that they have "been smacked too hard" for instance. "inconsequential or not in the public interest" are arbitary terms, and CYFS will be able to use Bradford's bill to it's full extent, as if it had not been ammended. Again, extremely let down by National, and Mr. Key.
#26 - Graham Jones 2007-05-02 22:00 - (Reply)
The amendment may seem like some sort of success but it is still bad law and will result in children turning against their parents under its protection. It will be very questionable relying on "Police discretion" when they have shown they are not good at that. The law will not do anything to stop child abuse, which is already illegal. National should have resisted the bill at every turn and would have gained more support by doing so than by contributing to bad law. Leave parents to do the parenting and stop interfering with that right.
#27 - Rose Gravatt 2007-05-02 22:01 - (Reply)
Appreciated your attempt to change the bill but feel you missed the point with this one. The issue was about state control over family- not smacking. NZ families should have the freedom to raise their families without this interference. Our police do a wonderful job but they will have to uphold the law - they decided to prosecute the mother who fell asleep at the wheel. National has lost a great opportunity and many votes.
#28 - Malcolm 2007-05-02 22:32 - (Reply)
Dear John and National MPs, while the effort to reach a compromise was admirable - and appropriate for such a social engineering issue, throwing Helen's dictatorship on such matters into stark contrast - the position arrived at is unacceptable to me and many parents like me. Although in future a policeman may choose not to prosecute a parent for an 'inconsequential' offence, the fact is that a light smack by a parent will still get labelled an OFFENCE. This is WRONG. There are times when a light smack is a highly appropriate and effective way to handle some 2 to 4 year-olds' behaviour. The combination of love, fun and discipline that 2 to 4 year-olds get from their parents sows the seeds for a very balanced, respectful, self-respecting and self-disciplined person in later life. I hope National has the guts to hold firm on other principles and not compromise to an unacceptable extent in an effort to guess where the 'political centre' lies. I'd like to see National pushing for all social engineering to be handled via Referendum.
#29 - David Jones said:
2007-05-02 22:45 - (Reply)
Yup, sorry John, but I have to agree with most of the others here that you have been sucked in. I understand that your move will lessen the likelyhood of good parents being prosecuted, but the fact still remains that the anti-smacking bill will now pass and still make smacking illegal. And because you feel you have done your part, it will not be persued in the future and cannot now be used to show up the destructive intent of the Labour party come election time. So parents will still be criminals under the law and you have only perpetuated the aim to engrain the poitically correct, but misbeilef that smacking (discipline) is harmful to children. You have taken the carrot and lost your house in the process, betraying those who thought there was hope in unseating the Labour party... cos there doesn't appear to be any left now that even the opposition hasn't the gumption to stand up for the what the people say. Sad day for NZ, day of laughter and celbration for Helen.
#30 - Richard J Goodwin 2007-05-02 22:51 - (Reply)
jOHN, I can’t tell you how bitterly disappointed I am at your compromise re this bill. The amendment is a victory for neither good parents nor children, but for political expediency. Rather than stand on principal, your actions paint you, rightly or wrongly, as a political animal, all too willing to sacrifice the interests of parents and children in the quest for political power. Before Police can use their discretion, they must know the facts surrounding a complaint. How do they know the facts? Only by investigating them. If Police ignore a complaint, assuming without investigation that it is trivial, they risk ignoring genuine abuse. If on the other hand they investigate all complaints, it will result in unnecessary heartache and stress for many good parents. However what is even more galling is that you have totally misread the central reason for the overwhelming opposition to this bill. The possibility of Police investigation and subsequent prosecution is a genuine concern. However of immeasurably greater concern is the fact that under the amended bill parents will be breaking the law for doing what they have always done, and will continue to do, in responsibly and lovingly correcting their children. The vast majority of good parents use the occasional smack because they genuinely believe it to be in the best long term interests of the child. We do not believe that we are (to use Sue Bradford’s emotive language), “beating”, “hitting” or using “violence” against them, any more than the Doctor who inflicts pain by stabbing a child with a hypodermic syringe, or a dentist who drills out decay. We know and accept that abuse is a major problem in our society, but a loving smack is not abuse. If parents (as I’m sure happens) use physical discipline in an ill considered way, what those parents need is education as to how to use it responsibly. This bill will prevent such education, because the very act of using force for correction will be illegal. In other words, it will now be illegal to educate parents as to how they can use a smack in a restrained, prudent and considered way. The fear of many of us will likely be confirmed, that this bill will lead to more abuse not less, and the blame will be laid squarely at the feet of any politician who votes for this legislation. Until today I was all but convinced that National would have my vote at the next election, as with the exception of Gordon Copeland, United Future were looking to be a spent force in terms of protecting the rights of families and parents. I’m sorry John, but today you lost my vote and I suspect the vote of thousands of other concerned parents.
#31 - M Enderby 2007-05-02 22:57 - (Reply)
John, you made a huge mistake today by supporting a badly written bill. National should have promised to repeal this bill as soon as they are elected. A law that is written so that most parents will break it and risk being reported to the police is not a good law. Although the police will have the discretion to not prosecute, people will still be reported to CYFS. The law should be simple, precise and understandable. By not even attempting to define inconsequential, this is now down to the interpretation of the police and lawyers. Is this really what was intended? If 'reasonable' force caused such problems that this law was required, will replacing it with 'inconsequential' make any real difference? This does nothing to protect children at all.
#32 - Caroline 2007-05-02 23:02 - (Reply)
John, thanks for working to make sure that Sue Bradford's Bill did not go through in its original form. I personally don't think the amendment goes nearly far enough, but I believe it was the best you could get right now, and something is better than nothing. I would hope there might be more opportunity for further amendment to it after the next election, because at present it is still bad law. But it was very clear that Labour was determined to ram it through no matter what, and your compromise at least gives parents some small amount of reassurance. I was disappointed at first, but I realised it was probably a difficult call. You could have stayed in complete opposition and possibly got more backing from people angry over the Bill. But the Bill was going to be passed no matter what, and you chose to compromise and get us something rather than nothing, even though a lot of people would see it as copping out. Thank you for your efforts.
#33 - Alan Wilson 2007-05-02 23:08 - (Reply)
Very Pleased with outcome I think NOT just as the DOG microchip stopped dog ATTACK'S
#34 - Dominic Baron 2007-05-02 23:29 - (Reply)
In whatever form this remains a contempt of the people and of democracy. Indeed, none of you who lurk in that sick thing that calls itself "parliament" have the slightest understanding of democracy. You simply do not understand that *laws* can only be legitimate when approved by the people. For that reason I dismiss your *law* as wholly illegitimate and will urge my fellow citizens to reject it. Likewise I shall do my utmost to foster total contempt for the thing that calls itself "paliament" because it has usurped the sovereignty of the people of New Zealand. It is time for us to bring you under the control of our first democratic constitution.
#35 - Ross Nixon 2007-05-02 23:30 - (Reply)
I am disappointed in John Key. The fact that Sue Bradford is happy with the outcome is PROOF that this is bad law. Reading the new amendment confirms this.
#36 - Vicki Kenny 2007-05-02 23:50 - (Reply)
I think it was a very sensible thing to do and it certainly made the National Party look far more sensible. The bill would have gone through anyway it seems Because the Labour Party are arrogant) What no one seems to see in The Greens or Labour is that this amendment (in what ever form) will not stop child abusers abusing their children. Thieves don't stop stealing because it's a crime.!
#37 - Matthew Webster 2007-05-03 00:01 - (Reply)
John, this regrettably is a backdown. I am fully expecting that if you become the PM after the next election that you will repeal this entire shoddy mess that Sue Bradford has come up with. I am utterly opposed to Helen Clark and the demeaning way she treats my intelligence. You need to remember that she is a dangerous person who should never again be let near the Treasury benches after the 2008 election, following all the damage her party has wrought on the electorate with their higher taxes and socialist approach to New Zealanders. The first instance a child is removed by CYFS for smacking, which will become illegal once this bill is passed, I want to see you back on TV and in the newspapers totally blaming Helen Clark and Sue Bradford for a compromise that didn't help. Remember you are the Opposition Leader!
#38 - F J FAIREY GLENFIELD 2007-05-03 01:23 - (Reply)
By surporting the anti smacking bill, John Key has twisted the knife which Helen Clark has used to stab Democracy in the back. F J Fairey Glenfield
#39 - peter jackson 2007-05-03 06:00 - (Reply)
I appreciate the sense of the amendment but I believe you have lost a hugely valuable plank in next year's election, although I note your undertaking to pursue a change under a government led by you if the repealing of s59 proves to be unsatisfactory. I am uneasy about any law that relies on the discretion of the police (they are the police, not the judge and jury) and see this Bill as an unacceptable intrusion into our lives that will actually benefit no one, and wopuld have preferred to see it enacted unchanged, given that mayhem would surely have followed. National's best response, I believe, would have been to promise a referendum, however I am gratified by the leadership you have displayed. You give me hope that there can be a better tomorrow. I have no doubt that the amendment represents a huge defeat for Labour, but wonder how many people will recognise it as such.
#40 - Ron Melville 2007-05-03 07:01 - (Reply)
Very disappointed in your descision today !! You have ignored about 80% of the populations wishes. I thought the National Party had given it's members a concience vote, you've flip-flopped this into a party vote and saved Helens bacon. The ammendment gives something to the Police they always had, discretion, they will exercise it in favor of prosecution as you saw the Police do in the Rifle case in Manawatu. In any case they will investigate and prosecte until authorative case law becomes available. Very disappointed that politicans think their opinion is more important than their constituents.
#41 - Peter Milne 2007-05-03 07:45 - (Reply)
There is still a deficiency despite this amendment. It would not prevent a private prosecution or a prosecution by Government agencies other than the Police. A way of dealing with this would be to amend the Sentencing Act in a similar tenor so that judges may discharge the accused without conviction in such cases. This would have a 'chilling effect' on those considering bringing a private prosecution. At present judges can discharge without conviction, but use this power very sparingly. Hopefully, judges should be able to see their way clear to discharging without conviction such prosecutions where the Police would not prosecute in similar circumstances.
#42 - Gendi 2007-05-03 07:52 - (Reply)
John, when you become PM at next election; please tidy up this piece of law, so it is more clear for us parents and the police. I think you are right; the law is not perfect but now better than it would have been.
#44 - bruce mason 2007-05-03 08:29 - (Reply)
Congratulations John - I think this confirms your capability in being able to negotiate a compromise that brings multiple parties. An achievement that stands you in good stead as a leader of government in New Zealand. The question that I am left with is how much of New Zealand's traditional family values are you willing to horse trade with?
#45 - Scott 2007-05-03 08:32 - (Reply)
Dear Mr Key, Although I can understand you putting together a compromise position to at least minimise the effects of a bad law, I still think the law is a bad law. I believe that section 59 was a good law and repealing it will have no effect on child abuse. Unfortunately it will have the unintended consequence of lessening parental authority and allowing our children to run wild. I believe if National gets elected at the next election and you are the Prime Minister, then you should repeal Bradford's Bill.
#46 - Grace Donaldson 2007-05-03 08:39 - (Reply)
John, you have just blown your chances of becoming PM. The look on Helen's face said it all!! You should have opposed the bill all the way and let the first prosecution be made. That would have shown the people just what the bill can do. You should have said that you would repeal the bill when you became PM
#47 - Gerald Voigt 2007-05-03 08:53 - (Reply)
Its pathetic how 80% of the population can be against something and yet it gets passed -(in any form) So much for democracy - its true what they say 'democracy only occurs on the day of voting and then it's autocracy'. It seems no matter which way a parent turns he will be guilty. - If the parent does not discipline and the kid ends up in prison later - then its the parents to blame?? Time out and other methods can just as easily be abused - (how many bad parents have been caught abusing their kids by locking them up in small rooms under stairs etc) Good on you for at least trying John - as someone else said - hopefully when National gets back in this whole thing will be dumped and voters will have a say.
#48 - Andrew Atkin 2007-05-03 09:25 - (Reply)
I feel confident with this bill John, I think only a "freak" would fail to see an inconsequential smack for what it is (resulting in a waste of police time), and no one else will bother to report a smack unless they were very confident the smack was not correctional. I think cases where the courts fail to get the perspective right will be extremely rare, and parents will generally be given the benefit of the doubt. Parents that are genuinely abusive will be punished - as they should be. No parent has the right to treat their child like a possession than they can do what they want with. I think the new law is going to work well.
#49 - Esther Stuart 2007-05-03 09:27 - (Reply)
So you have given your support to a bill that removes the power of a jury of 12 to assess what is reasonable force in the circumstances, and given that power to a single police officer who can only guess at the circumstances, and has been instructed by you and all the other MP's who support this shocking Bill, to veiw any parent who uses force for the purpose of correction as guilty of criminal assult. *And you call that a compromise?!!!* Mr Key, My husband and I had planned to assist you in your campaign next election to get Labour thrown out, but instead we are forced by your foolishness to leave the country with our 7 children and become refugees. Of our personal friends at least 3 other families will be doing the same. Act will get our (absentee) votes next election because Heather Roy and Rodney Hide were the only MP's who spoke the truth in the debate last night. You have deeply disappointed us.
#50 - Alfonso Watson 2007-05-03 09:32 - (Reply)
Mr Key, Your polical skill is excellent. You definitely had them in check with you castle blocking her/its queen. How long do we have to wait for it to become check - mate.
#51 - Marie Harding 2007-05-03 09:35 - (Reply)
I agree with those commentators who said National should not have supported Helen Clark in the amendment. Hopefully when National take the Treasury benches at next election, National will have decided to repeal this amendment.
#52 - Ray King 2007-05-03 09:40 - (Reply)
You are looking from the wrong end! Define violence! Then there is no discretion needed. I pity the poor constable needing to make a decision in the face of a good arguer. He/she used a 'weapon'or unappropriate beating so 'book 'em'!!
#53 - Duncan Macrae 2007-05-03 09:50 - (Reply)
I have to agree with many of the previous comments that whilst in the short term the compromise you have achieved may be better than the bill being past unchanged, in the long term you have supported what is clearly yet another "Bad Law". If politicians can't define what is considered to be right and wrong, given plenty of time and consideration, why should they expect the police to do this on the spot, or even in a matter of days. Your compromise demonstrates pragmatic politics, necessary perhaps when in power, but not what the majority of your supporters feel is required at this time. I believe New Zealand is looking for clear leadership.
#54 - Esta 2007-05-03 09:55 - (Reply)
This makes no difference to the Sue Bradford bill, up to police discretion??? Oh great! This policy should give clear guidelines, not fuzzy logic with the option it's up to the police depending on what type of day they've had? Define violence and then the law is black and white. And beware the wolf in sheeps clothing, Helen hasn't done this for the parents of New Zealand, when has she ever listened to the people of NZ, this is all about her and her party and making her look good.
#55 - Steve Carter 2007-05-03 10:02 - (Reply)
Well done John I think that you made the best of a bad situation and common sense And compromise was the only sensible path to take in this case the alternative would Have been to allow this ridiculous bill to go through in it original form.
#56 - Ann Nolan 2007-05-03 10:08 - (Reply)
My friends and family and I are highly disappointed that you have chosen to go along with this fiasco John. We now live in a Police state, you only had to sit back and watch the Labour Party hang themselves. You have not helped young parents at all. Have a look at last years dog laws and tell us again that this is a good law. You have just committed political suicide and if you think I am wrong then just wait and see, this dust will not settle as 87% of the public are not wrong. You owe your supporters a better performance than this.... smarten up your act you were not put there to make Helen Clark look good and that is what is happening......
#56.1 - Alasdair 2007-05-03 13:16 - (Reply)
To state that police have a discretion NOT to prosecute in the event of complaints against a parent/person in place of a parent in relation to the "use of force" against a child if the offence is considered to be inconsequential to public interest, naturally implies the following: 1. that such complaints could validly be made, whether or not the complainant believed that there was any public interest in making such a complaint; 2. that mischievous or malicious complaints could be validly entertained by the police; 3. that the personal interests of either the child, the parent or the best outcome for the education and raising of the child IS OF NO CONSIDERATION, but is subsumed under an UNDEFINED 'public interest'; 4. that ANY 'use of force' against a child, including a 'smack,' is illegal, criminal and liable to prosecution, while it is still considered by many New Zealanders to be a valid tool for the exercise of parental responsibility; 5. that the police RETAIN the discretion to prosecute if they so choose, even if the alleged offence is considered to be inconsequential to the public interest, and that a person alleged to have committed such an offence is only waived prosecution because the police or the courts are too busy with other things to bother with the matter. All of these corollaries would seem to be both mistaken and mischievous in both principle and intent. The Bill itself seems to be in essence an attempt by a small number of persons seeking to impose their own particular ethical views upon others, who may hold different and perhaps equally valid views. It is difficult to see how harmonious relations between the various groups within our plural society could be enhanced by such a project.
#57 - Susan Aucutt 2007-05-03 10:09 - (Reply)
I am devastated at your capitulation to Helen Clark. I am now very afraid that this may well be the costliest mistake of your life. Do you have any advisers (of any worth), do you listen to them and last but not least, did you listen to us, the people of New Zealand?
#58 - Les Milner 2007-05-03 10:18 - (Reply)
Hi John, We are disappointed that you chose to vote with the Labour/Green Parties over the Smacking Bill. National this year was making popular progress towards winning the next Election by being a good opposition by offering another option, but now we can see little difference between you and Labour. God help us ! Regards, Les Milner.
#59 - Sam 2007-05-03 10:21 - (Reply)
I agree with most comments here... this was a *BAD* compromise! If I smack my kids, I will be a criminal in the eyes of the law - even if I dont get prosecuted. I dont want to be called a criminal for being a responsible parent. *PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THE BILL!*
#60 - Andy Moore said:
2007-05-03 10:22 - (Reply)
John, surely the National Party would call itself democratic? If so, you must promise the Nation that (presuming National gets into power in 08) the Goverment will be bound to Larry Baldock's Citizens Initiated Referendum. If you cannot do that, then this is truly not democracy.
#61 - Wayne Warin 2007-05-03 10:27 - (Reply)
This is still a very serious erosion of parental authority in NZ. Parents need to know that they can use any reasonable force necessary to discipline and protect their children. What good is a "light smack" going to do to a rebellious 8 to 13 yr old? Absolutely nothing! Why hasn't National come out with a strong statement to the effect that you will make it a first priority to repeal this legislation if elected into power? 80% of the population would support you on this, and it could be the doorway to your success in the next election.
#62 - David Montgomerie 2007-05-03 10:56 - (Reply)
for the fisrt time of your leadership I am disapointed. This new ammendment doesn't address the problems with Sue Bradford's bill. It still leaves good parents as law breaking criminals. It doesn't address CYFS responce to any complaints ( potentially a bigger problem than the police.) It still leaves uncertainty as to what will or will not be prosecuted. It is likely to encourage even more good families to leaving New Zealand for countries that are family friendly.
#63 - Helen Lodge 2007-05-03 11:29 - (Reply)
The amendment does not change the fact that a big majority of New Zealanders are still against this bill. Parliament won't listen to the people so I hope this big majority remember this next year when it comes time to vote and we can get rid of the 117 parliamentarians that have voted for the amendment.
#64 - Sarah-Jane McCosh 2007-05-03 11:43 - (Reply)
Brilliant - well done. As a parent living in an area where one can see the effects of so-called 'discipline' going too far I think you've done very well and come up with an excellent compromise that allows ordinary parents to carry on whilst drawing a line in the sand against the extremes. I think a huge number of people have misunderstood the intent of all this but that at ground level almost everyone agrees on what sort of violence we DON'T want in this country. Incidentally it's very interesting to see that a large number of the negative comments here are from men - traditionally NOT the ones who are doing the bulk of the parenting...
#65 - Callum Masters 2007-05-03 11:45 - (Reply)
John, you have made a terriable mistake, and allowed Hellen Clarke to out-maneuver you. Thank-goodness you are not leading Team NZ! As you can see from the feed back and listen to talk-back, you have gone against 80% of NZ! Please read Micheal Bassetts coments on this subject. Wasting time and valuable resources on 'feel-good' legislation, while Rome burns. Go near Helen Clarke again, and she's trumpted you for another term. You have lost a lot of support Very dissapointed. Callum
#66 - Jeff 2007-05-03 11:55 - (Reply)
I can understand why the amendment, but as it really makes no difference to the bill, I am quite upset about the prospect of no further opposition to this bill. It will still be an offence to discipline children with a smack. This is an unnacaeptable intrusion into my family life, and the fight to stop it must continue. The National Party is our only hope for opposition to this kind of nonsence. You must continue to oppose this bill.
#67 - Stephen 2007-05-03 11:55 - (Reply)
*Well done John*, it would have been easy to hand Labour a shovel for them to dig themselves a bigger hole trying to pass unwanted legislation, but your ammendment has made legislation which I think most New Zealanders will be more comfortable with and will help the police in their difficult job instead of making it ten times harder. Also in doing this, you have shown that National can work with other parties and make MMP work, although I think Hell might be a colder place now (referring to the view of many that when Labour and National would work together it would be a cold day in Hell :-) ) *Keep up the good work*
#68 - Dana 2007-05-03 12:03 - (Reply)
So now we have two labour parties and no one left to fight for ordinary New Zealanders. National is folding at a time when not only do we need it the most but it looked like we could win the next election. Now the future looks red.
#69 - Darryl Ward 2007-05-03 12:10 - (Reply)
I am very disappointed and I consider that yesterday's lip-flop may well cost National the next election. Good parents will now still be criminalised under the bill as it stands. I would have supported the bill with the earlier amendments proposed by National, but this amendment is not a compromise, it is a sell out, and the people will see right through it.
#70 - Andy Moore said:
2007-05-03 12:15 - (Reply)
Why is it that a Radio talkback host can make more sense than the politicians? On both Closeup and Campbell Live, Simon Barnett held his ground and stuck to sensible, fair principles. It is sickening to see these three politicians, Key, Bradford, Clark, all desperately trying to persuade New Zealand that none of them really have compromised. National has let us down.
#71 - Andrew Atkin 2007-05-03 12:43 - (Reply)
I think people on this blog should remember that the police and the courts, ultimately, have to prove that the smack was not inconsequential. This is the "ticket" that should give us confidence that we will not see too many stupid investigations and convictions. We can give this a chance - if doesn't work out, reform it later.
#72 - Dave Crampton said:
2007-05-03 13:09 - (Reply)
John, well done for agreeing to the amendment and making a bad bill slightly better - a bill that was already going to be passed. Although I support the amendment, you have not guided CYFS the same as you have done with the police. Smacking is still against the law under this bill. As you have said before, if Parliament has not intended light smacking to be legal, make it legal in law. You didnt do that. So the best thing National supporters want is for you to now not support the bill, while supporting the amendment. Why cant you do that?
#73 - Andy Moore said:
2007-05-03 13:18 - (Reply)
No Andrew Atkin, this "ticket" is exactly what scares us. Now it's up to CYFS and "the public" to decide whether or not the smack was too hard. It is ridiculous to pass a bad piece of legislation and then say "we'll review it in two years" (Clark), or "if good parents are criminalised, we'll change the bill" (Key), or "we'll reform it later".
#74 - John Johnston 2007-05-03 13:22 - (Reply)
Are there others like myself who thought before yesterday that you might be able to help us get our freedom back from those have stolen it from us by degrees? John, amended bad law is still bad law. Helen has finessed you into giving away a certain guarantee of victory in the next election.
#75 - Max Percy 2007-05-03 14:16 - (Reply)
Hi John, Your ability to find away forward and your negotiating skills I trust will not be lost on the voters in the next election. I think given the circumstances you have achieved a remarkable result. This debate has carried on long enough and as you so rightly point out you now have that much more time to focus on other major issues that need addressing . Well done. Max Percy
#76 - Kerry Ansell 2007-05-03 14:28 - (Reply)
John, the critical thing here is that regardless of the amendment this is still a poor peice of legislation. It will not stop the "beaters" of children as stated by Sue Bradford and 'Auntie Helen'. As those that beat their children, particularly some of the durg induced events that have made headlines over the last few years, are not likely to take notice of "inconsequential" legislation. I think you need to keep in mind that New Zealanders are becoming increassingly sick of nanny state intruding into their private lives. I think it might have been better for national to stick to it's guns and oppose the legislation
#77 - Paul Berkahn 2007-05-03 14:34 - (Reply)
A minority Party (Greens)with low public support has hijacked months of precious political time with the antismacking bill. WHAT A HUGE WASTE OF TIME! The GREATER ISSUES are Interest rate being too high and forcing families into debt, exports to drop, and now price increases adding to mix due to Labours inability to manage and now asking for help from National!. Increased interest rates do not lower inflation!.. Can't see how that would ever work. The one biggest financial outgoing in a family house hold is the mortgage payment... increased interest rates are adding pressure to families The HELEN C dishes out more tax payers money and middle to upper income NZ workers are financing this through too higher taxes. Meawhile productivity goes down because people on lower/middle incomes work less to stay with maximum benefit take vs income to keep Helens hand out. No Govt legislation against overseas people to buy property(houses) and sell at a profit, no tax paid, then take their funds + profit offshore, this is driving up property prices... tax free income. Driving demand for houses and prices to follow HELEN C now wishes to step in and stuff up the meat industry by only having one company sell off shore after stuffing up telecom, Railways sale to Toll and Power Co's, We are paying some of the highest prices in the world for our utillities. The housing shortage/low cost housing is due to interest increases and no legislation for off shore property investment, Landlord are selling of their rentals due to interest increases and high returns, rentals are in high demand and short supply, prices are rising rapidly and this is another wedge in the first home buyers inability to save due to high rents. It is not looking good at present and something need to be done very soon about our economic emergency. nowonder people are leaving for Austraila.
#78 - Phillip Rex Robinson 2007-05-03 16:25 - (Reply)
Congratulations John, on snatching a limited victory from the jaws of total defeat. This bill has had everyone involved on a hiding to nothing. The new bill is essentially identical to the law is it now stands, and has achieved zilch. The only difference is that before the courts decided what was reasonable force, but now the police decide what is in the public's interests to prosecute. Will there be public transparency in the police decision making process? The police are not as open as the courts. In an ideal democracy justice is always seen, in order to be done, but this will no longer be possible. Democracy is not perfect, but well done on diffusing this piffling issue anyway.
#79 - Sam 2007-05-03 17:24 - (Reply)
Make the whole population criminals (anti-smacking bill). Make the whole population welfare dependant (working for families). -- Gee, that reminds me of a book by *George Orwell - 1984*. But don't worry, we've left the *Thought Police* with discretion. You can still vote against the bill, John.
#80 - Blair Treadwell 2007-05-03 17:31 - (Reply)
I disagree with most of the above. It's a sensible compromise which removes the stupidity of passing legislation and saying that the police won't act on it. I think you have gained credibility by being pragmatic, constructive and not always opposing. Unfortunately, it will have no effect on the drug-addled lowlife that kill their kids. or someone else's.
#81 - john bradley 2007-05-03 18:41 - (Reply)
John, First - don't wear yourself out we need you for a good few years. Secondly- take no notice of those who say it was a backdown - all very well for people to say smacking is 'violence' - they should perhaps look at their own attitudes - you trod a very politically courageous and honest course - that is what we need - we cannot change people overnight in terms of how they were bought up and what their culture may dictate - what you did was draw a line in the sand and say this is acceptable to our society in certain circumstances - this is not acceptable at all - thanks and keep going for us - the right (not politically, but fairly and reasonably) thinking New Zealander who is proud of being that.
#82 - Bob 2007-05-03 19:17 - (Reply)
You just lost my vote John, how dare you act like you represent the people when 85% of us have already made our opinion quite clear. The amendment will not save a single child. How much money has already been wasted on this whole debate? Probably enough to buy every child in South Auckland breakfast for *several* years. You have just proven you are as out of touch with the people as both Clark & Bradford.
#83 - walter pellikan 2007-05-03 19:28 - (Reply)
The Bill when becomming law will not prevent the abuse or killing of children as experienced in the past few years.What ity will do is making parents hesitent in correcting bad behaviour and give those childrenthe power to blackmail their parents.
#83.1 - Nathan McCluskey 2007-05-04 10:35 - (Reply)
I agree to some extent with Walter, but I believe he has omitted the most crucial concern with the amendment. What it will really do is give the police the power to decide where to draw the line between domestic violence and parental discipline. I'm not convinced that the police necessarily want this responsibility nor that the NZ public wish for them to have it. The legislation should make this distinction.
#84 - Jimmy 2007-05-03 20:25 - (Reply)
Dear John oh how I hate to write, but I must how can you sell 80% of the New Zealand electorate a massive dummy pass and lead us to believe that good parents will have nothing to worry about. You are the law makers, not the Police. This amendment does nothing but meddle the situation further. Boy has the Prime Minister played you!
#85 - Alan Kemp 2007-05-03 20:50 - (Reply)
You have just sold decent parents down the river. Those who discipline their children in the time-honoured manner will now be committing an illegal act and whether they are prosceuted will be left to the discretion of a police officer - i.e will depend on the personal beliefs, prejudices, mood and digestion of a member of an organisation which has on several occasions been criticised from the bench for bringing frivolous prosecutions. If you whip your party into supporting this bill, you will be doing exactly what you criticised Labour for doing. You also run the risk of losing (or not obrtaining) the votes of 80% of the population at the next election.
#86 - henry Gray 2007-05-03 21:16 - (Reply)
John you have lost the plot for the majority of NZders!!! You are the Lawmakers. The Sue Bradford Bill which became the Helen Clarke Bill which has now become the John Keys amendment still makes smacking or using force for correction illegal. 50 kmh is the legal limit 54kmh is the tolerance 55kmh you are likely to be prosecuted but you could be prosecuted at 50kmh. No smacking is the law, a light smack maybe tolerated, other smacks will be prosecuted BUT your light smack is still illegal and you could be prosecuted!! You have changed nothing except brought discredit on a lot of politicians!! Tell New Zealand you will repeal the Bill if elected and you will win a lot of voters. You have lost my vote. I am seriously having to consider ACT for my vote. NZ First and United Future have mixed understanding on this issue. Leave the parenting to us and start doing your job of opposing poor law making not going to bed with them!!
#87 - Tim 2007-05-03 21:37 - (Reply)
If Sue Bradford or any other politician thinks the Once Were Warrior situations will be prevented I urge them to please think again. Given I have come from that environment, Am MORE THAN Qualified to speak about it. Thanks for the PC culture we now have it has seen NZ with its YOUNGST ever killer! A politician proposing a bill, whom her self was trespassed from Parliament and required a law change to allow her in. Was she smacked? If she was like me, she would no right from wrong. Kids will be smacked, bruise, parents afraid of the law, and STOP THEM GOING to school and WASTING time with POLICE. Given the public outcry over this, there is no option other than to vote against it! Joining forces of the two major parties is great (politically) and to get it through where we are required to for international conventions. You will loose votes, and make for a weaker country! Thanks, home is now a country I do not want to be in.
#88 - Peter Burns 2007-05-03 22:28 - (Reply)
If you think this smacking saga crap will stop child abuse, then I suggest we are living on different planets . Parents will be criminalized, as CYFS cannot help themselves , the truth will be self -evident in the future .
#89 - Sandra Elliott 2007-05-03 23:06 - (Reply)
Lost my vote...thanks alot John. I know your argument, but you are wrong!
#90 - Charlene Thomas 2007-05-04 01:04 - (Reply)
How dare the government insist on telling parents how to raise their children, when a good majority of their policies especially those relating to CYFS create barriers and induce broken homes. I am a proud Maori who was raised with respect, love and discipline not by my mother but by my grandparents. When I played up I got a smack (one well deserved). My grandparents got the cain in school for being Maori and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them in fact it is my mother's generation and every generation thereafter that struggle with reality and society because of a lack of discipline. We have kids out there with serious social problems because of their entire environment not just their home life, we have kids from good homes hooked up on drugs, kids from broken homes hooked up on drugs and kids from poor homes hooked up on drugs unfortunately it does not matter how good or bad a parent you are our children once they hit independancy make their own decisions. Smacking is natural a huge part of human nature in fact nearly every animal on earth uses some form of 'violence' as a form of discipline. Smacking 'hardens' up our kids for the big bad world. We talk about reducing violence when the whole foundation of our country and the world was built on wars, we talk about child abuse yet we encourage our kids to take up football, boxing, self defence classes, we talk about alcoholic and drug addicted parents beating their kids up yet we allow these peoples environments to get that bad that they resort to drugs and alcohol. The government and society are to blame for the social problems we see in todays society. The socio-economic standard within mainstream society is ridiculous living is hard, harder then my grandparents era because we can longer live off the land.
#91 - Ann 2007-05-04 13:05 - (Reply)
How tight the walk you must talk, not an easy call, but how hard is it to see Labour let off the hook, and Helen appearing as if she is back in control of the game of stealth. and for the record Bill English comes across as a very negative liability. Whats his problem.?????
#92 - Peter Rutledge 2007-05-04 14:25 - (Reply)
This amendment achieves little other that to provide a facility for lawyeut ot rs to argue over a petty point. This whole exercise over this Bill has been another waste of time and money. The problem that requires attention is child abuse not trying to prosecute a parent for instilling some self discipline and responsibility into a child. A light smack is not abuse but beating up a child is and it is the culture that allows this that requires attention. Politicians that believe this bill even as amended are living in cloud cuckoo land.
#93 - Dr Chris Pemberton 2007-05-04 14:33 - (Reply)
Mr Key You have made an appalling situation only slightly better: but it is still appalling. You may have tried to make a bad bill more workable or palitible, but in doing so, you have naively allowed CYFS to have their way still. For ANYONE can report ANYTHING to CYFS with regards to potential abuse of children, and this is especially true in schools. The sociological research doesn't support the contentions of Bradford and co. in any way shape or form. The Catholic Bishops of New Zealand, whom have the ear of your deputy, have made it clear in a recent statement they did not support his Bill in any way, shape or form. Now, instead of trying to promote unity or compromise, you have disappointed a number of people, from many diverse backgrounds. You have the goods to be the next PM, but the population of New Zealand don't want compromisers, they want a LEADER. You have the next 16 months or so to come good on your TV promise to repeal this amendment at election time, for this bill WILL result in unjust attempts to prosecute parents. Please don't have New Zealanders convinced by October next year that you have become let National become Labour-lite, without the surplus.
#94 - Cameron Morris 2007-05-04 15:23 - (Reply)
Mr. Key and National, What a disappointing outcome. I'm not sure which advisors you have been listening to in reaching the decision to support this, but I sure hope the discretion you guys used, and the discretion that the NZ Police have shown to NOT use in prosecuting their own over their horrendous sexual misconduct, is NOT the same discretion that they now have to rely on for this very confusing bill soon to be law. This is a labour/Greens victory, and if you are to take any of the democratic system seriously, as you suggest the current administration has not, then this bill will continue to be unsupported, and will be repealed by you.
#95 - Paul Marshall 2007-05-04 15:49 - (Reply)
John, You speak as if smacking were an understandable mistake that stressed parents sometimes make. No - I choose to smack my kids because I want them to learn and grow into responsible adults. It is not acceptable that I will now be "a criminal but not worth arresting". Don't wait for a prosecution - assure us that you will change this law at first opportunity.
#96 - Edwin 2007-05-05 07:52 - (Reply)
John, this is terrible. I cannot understand how you could do this. I not on some of the blogs there is already the disturbing inquiries by teachers to students of "how do parents punish you when you're naughty?" Frankly, I'm a bit scared at the moment for our freedom. I thought this sort of report on your parents culture was the domain of Nazis and communists, and worse, you let Helen off the hook. YOU SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT THIS ALL THE WAY TO THE ELECTION!
#97 - dave 2007-05-06 09:55 - (Reply)
In last month's speech to the Salvation Army, John Key said If the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child, then don't make it illegal. Don't make it a crime. In a matter of days National agrees to an amendment it says makes it even more likely that parents won't be prosecuted and announces its intention to vote for a bill making smacking a crime. Incredible. National now supports the right of parents to break the law in the belief that they are not going to be caught. Parliament is going to redefine parliamentary intent by including breaking the law it is making as part of that intent, because of one word that is to be deleted from Section 59 of the Crimes Act. That word is justification. There will no longer be legal justification for correcting kids. Consequently, good parents may be subject to a CYFS complaint for breaking the law and that is fine with Helen Clark because she is so chuffed that she is able to get the bill off the agenda before the budget.
#98 - Terrie 2007-05-06 17:27 - (Reply)
I've changed my mind so many times on your actions over the s59 Amendment that I'm going dizzy. Firstly I thought that you had done the right thing, then I changed my mind and thought that you'd lost your trump card for the next election. The talk back lines were running hot - and most were against your action, but different interviews by you made sense. Talk about confusing! Then I heard a political analyst say that in the long run, Helen Clark will be the loser and that your action showed you to be a promising statesman. So, what do I know??? I will be following your fortunes closely as I haven't voted National for years, but the alternatives are freaking me out now!
#99 - Adolf Fiinkensein 2007-05-06 19:02 - (Reply)
Well done, Mr Key. This week you won the next election. The shouters just seem unable to see past their noses.
#100 - Richard and Maureen Knight 2007-05-07 04:38 - (Reply)
Mr Key; as parents, educators, and committed National voters, we are very dismayed by your support of the anti - smacking bill amendment and could not believe that you let Helen off the hook with her 'far to the left, socialist, feminist ideology.' You had the opportunity to make a real statement by having nothing to do with this 'anti parent,' nonsense, and we firmly believe that the National Party has been 'rolled.' My wife and I have raised three wonderful daughters into adulthood, using smacking very rarely, and only when we thought it necessary. All of our daughters are extremely grateful for their upbringing, and our youngest has told us that she will want our advice when she has her own children. We will tell her that Auntie Helen and Auntie Sue know best. We do not think that any government has the right to tell good parents how to bring up their own children. At least 80% of the population did not want this bill. Where is 'representational democracy now?' New Zealand is in dire need of straight talking, commonsense, right wing politicians in the Ronald Reagan / Margaret Thatcher / John Howard mould. For better, or for worse, people knew where they stood with this calibre of politician. If New Zealand politicians - elected, and unelected, keep taking us down this road of political expediency, and bowing to interest groups who have no political mandate, we would be better off joining in political union with Australia. My wife and I will have to seriously consider moving across the Tasman if National cannot stop and reverse Labour / Greens / United, etc, idiocy.
#101 - Maria Clarkson 2007-05-07 05:23 - (Reply)
When you have both Sue Bradford and Helen Clark agreeing with you, you've clearly done something very wrong. Shame on you Mr Key for selling out on the 80% of kiwis against this bill, and all for a lousy photo-op. Although it may not mean very much to you, neither you nor your party will get my vote at the next election.
#102 - Lucyna said:
2007-05-07 10:14 - (Reply)
John Key, I will not be voting for you after this. I'll probably not vote at all in protest. Last week, as soon as you made that deal, the next day my six year old's entire class at school was asked by the teacher what happened to them at home when they were naughty. I followed it up the next day with principal of the school and found out that any teacher can report a child to CYFS if they think that a child is being abused. And there are people out there who believe whole-heartedly believe that smacking is abuse. Shame on you. You have just helped create a climate of fear, where we parents will be wondering if a teacher will interrogate our children and then report us. And will have no defence as smacking will be illegal. Doesn't matter that the police won't prosecute - it's those who would take our children that we fear. I would have thought that with your mother's background that you would have never allowed yourself to be a part of this. I know I've learned alot my mother's communist upbringing and my Dad's family's experiences in the Soviet Gulags. But no, all you've learned is what growing up in a state house is like - nothing of what your mother escaped from.
#103 - Richard 2007-05-07 11:18 - (Reply)
John, Is it sinking in yet? Of 95 comments to date on this blog, by my count there are 71.5% clearly against your action, only 18% for, and 10.5% not really happy. So over 80% still not wanting this bill or its meaningless amendment. I felt sick to the stomach and hugely let down. As a parent I am not at all reassured by the slight hope that I would not be prosecuted if I smacked by children. The thought of any good parent having the police an CYFS turn up at their home and having to go through an ordeal of defending themselves is what parents are still left having to fear - not the faint hope that they will probably not be prosecuted. Image if that happened to you John! You should have taken a stand and continued to represent the wishes of the electorate. The evening you were meeting with Helen, I was phoned by a poll. I told them I'd vote National for party and National for Electorate (same as last time). Now I have seriously lost confidence in you and your party. In all my years voting there has never been an issue so critical and important to me personally and the nation, as this one. This was a 'defining moment' for you John. There are times for compromises but this was not one of them. but it should have been one where you stood up for what was right, and if they passed it, you change it later. I sincerely hope you can be swayed to review what you've done and see if you can undo this mess.
#104 - Maria 2007-05-07 15:25 - (Reply)
You have lost my confidence too. So many people have been saying that this issue will get rid of Labour and good riddance, and then you go and make a stupid move like this that shows you're exactly the same. We real parents love our kids and the fear of having someone falsely accusing us of abusing our kids and being investigated by CYFS is very real too. Even with the amendment, any smack is still a crime so what can any parent do if accused? Please see sense and redeem the National party by encouraging all of your MPs to vote against the bill which hasn't changed at all with the amendment. Stand up for what is right and stop supporting Helen Clark.
#105 - jack 2007-05-07 21:48 - (Reply)
It might look like a good aproach, but I would be too skeptical to vote for it if I were an mp. Giving the discretion to police isn't always the answer. Good parents still can be prosecuted. National should not vote for the bill. And by the way, why aren't Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and National making society safer by legislating tougher criminal laws. Why are they so obsessed with tellimg me, a taxpayer, how I should raise my children when hardened criminals are out breaking parole and killing innocent people? pathetic!
#106 - Lloyd McGarvey 2007-05-07 22:05 - (Reply)
John, it appears that you are a pragmatist rather than a man of principle. I'm greatly disappointed at the deal your party has made with Labour and the Greens. It is not too late to admit you made a mistake and to stand by the less-than-silent, overwhelming majority of NZers who are opposed to any change to section 59.
#107 - Anne Moir 2007-05-08 06:41 - (Reply)
The National Party just doesn't get it, we want a choice, not a party that says one thing and does another, you have lost my vote. This smacking bill is just another example of how our Politicians are out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders, We didnt want Homosexuality legalised, Whitangi Tribunal payouts, special rights for Maori, Prostitution legalised or 18 yr olds allowed to buy alcohol but you all think you know better and every on of these laws have been a disaster. I will change my vote back to Act as I have no faith in National as they dont know who or what they stand for. This will not work as the Police cannot be trusted to use good judgement on charging people, note the man who was charged for shooting an intruder in his gunshop and many other. But no proscecution against Helen Clark for fraud.
#108 - Andrew Atkin 2007-05-08 12:57 - (Reply)
People on this blog don't seem to get it - National isn't in power yet! Labour has the final say. For National to affect the bill at all is an achievement. There's no point thinking about this now. The new anti-smacking bill will get its trial in any circumstance - if it works out ok, keep it (no point in reforming if it works, regardless of its form in principle).Iif it doesn't work out then National can review it when they have the chance, if they win in 2008. Again - forget it!
#109 - Mike 2007-05-08 18:29 - (Reply)
As a member of your constituency and parent, I am appalled that you and the National Party have so little consideration of New Zealand parents that you have supported the Criminalizing of Parents Bill and expect that we would be mollified by the fig leaf of an amendment that Helen has proposed. In what way does the amendment change the fact that any form of disciplining of a child by a parent will be a criminal act? Leaving the prosecution up to the Police discretion is of no comfort at all. One of Key Performance Indicators of the Police is their conviction rate. It is much easier to get a conviction of decent parents than to catch and convict a burglar, so the police will focus on that sort of "crime", much like they do on speeding and motor accidents (like the recent case of the mother who fell asleep at the wheel) as it is so easy to improve their rate of solving of "crimes". We can therefore assume that this will be an easy way for the police to improve their clearance rate for "assaults" against children - which is surely in the "public interest". Much more concerning is that it also gives CYPS the power to remove children on the smallest pretext as happened to about 14,700 children in 1995 in Sweden. That is in a population of 8 million. The only very small crumb of comfort I have in this sorry affair is that one party did vote against the bill. Guess who will be getting my vote in 2008.
#110 - Steve 2007-05-08 21:26 - (Reply)
John, I see the Police are prosecuting a woman for “stealing” a $2 drink. Is this the sort of police discretion that we can expect if the anti smacking bill is passed. How inconsequential is inconsequential?
#111 - Walter Sobchak 2007-05-09 23:13 - (Reply)
Mr. Key, Everything has been said in this thread. You have lost my vote.
#112 - David said:
2007-05-10 09:45 - (Reply)
The left wing agenda is to subtly dismantle the family unit by progressively introducing new laws in favour of state control of children - You have aided and abetted this grand goal. Sad sad state of a right wing party!
#113 - Andy Moore said:
2007-05-10 10:21 - (Reply)
John, mate, you can still come back and oppose the bill. Admit you were wrong - you're human like all of us, and honestly, the public will love you for it. We don't want Labour in 08, but you're handing Parliament to them on a nice golden platter. The Herald shows 59% as opposing the bill as it is now ammended, previous statistics suggest closer to 83% of the population does not want this stupid harmful bill. Good parents will in fact be criminalised. Come on John.
#114 - Michael 2007-05-10 14:11 - (Reply)
I agree with what people are saying; it's not too late to turn around and admit you were wrong in supporting this bill. People will respect you more for being able to admit you were wrong, and by going in favour of the majority of New Zealanders. You'll look like more of a leader than the arrogant Helen Clark who can never admit when she's wrong. We want a leader who has the guts to stand up for what he believes in, and that of the rest of the country. Not someone who caves in to political pressure to support a bad law that is barely better than the original bill. Show some leadership John, admit you were wrong to support this bill, and fight it all the way. Most of New Zealand will be behind you on it.
#115 - Richard Wright 2007-05-10 23:48 - (Reply)
I agree, you can still stop this, JK.. And why do you whip your party to vote for this, it is hypocritical, after accusing Labour to whip their MPs. But what I want to make totally clear, is that I will not, under any circumstances, ever vote National again (or ACT for that matter - as it might be your plan that a vote for ACT will be a vote for National) I will vote for LABOUR, as it doesn't seem to matter whether LABOUR or LABOUR LITE is in office. Of course you won't change your vote now. You had the chance to end the red rule, and you blew it. Toward an Orwellian society! Vote Key!
#116 - Paul 2007-06-02 12:08 - (Reply)
The pro-smacking people on this blogsite are a worry. There is not much being said about how we can help young people become better parents, how we can help stop violence in the home, or anything else about finding solutions. Personally I am not too concerned about whether the bill goes through or not. Because the big issue is how we can make kids safe, loved and thoughtful. Not a lot of thoughfulness in the people who dont like what you have done, Mr Key. I'd say anything which aims to reach an accord across society about making NZ a safe, great place to bring up kids is worth doing. Congratulations for overcoming a party politicial stance. What about some of the blog energy going into creative ideas to help people understand what really can work with young kids. I dont think the odd light smack is the real issue. Sarcasm and deprivation are just as bad if not worse. The real issue is what we can do to help parents be loving, caring parents. Justifying smacking as the best solution wont do that any more than making it illegal. Get a life guys. Start doing something positive and support anyone who is prepared do something non-political for our country's kids.
