Newsletter

25 Comments
20 April 2007
NEWSLETTER: Key Notes No.8

Show us the money

State funding of election campaigns is a careless way to spend taxpayer money, and thanks to pressure from National and the minor parties, it's now off Labour's agenda.

I agree that campaign rules need cleaning up. Elections should be fair for everyone, but Labour's attempt to ram through changes without consulting all political parties was arrogant and corrupt.

Making sure that our elections are fair is not just about changing the rules. Labour must also follow the rules, and this is where their behaviour is dodgy.

Labour is yet to pay back the $800,000 of taxpayer money the Auditor-General said they illegally spent at the last election. And now that they can't get taxpayers to fund their next campaign, I'm wondering if they'll ever pay up.

Labour can change the rules as much as they want, but until they play by the rules and pay back the money they owe, they don't deserve to stay in government.

Good parents are not crims

The repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act will criminalise every parent who occasionally corrects their child by smacking them lightly. Supporters of the bill say this doesn't matter because no one will be prosecuted for correcting children with a light smack. But if they are right, and if no one is going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child, then it shouldn't be illegal.

This is bad law. The backers of this bill are saying "trust the police and the courts not to enforce it". We need to do better than that.

Almost every MP from every party claims that they want the same things. We want to stop bad parents using the Section 59 defence of reasonable force to get away with violently beating their children. We want to lower the threshold on what is acceptable physical discipline of children. And we don't want to criminalise good parents who occasionally give their children a light smack.

So let's step back, acknowledge our common ground, and pass a law on smacking that is clear and precise and which the police and the courts will enforce. That's what good law-making should be all about.

Let me know your thoughts on the anti-smacking bill at www.johnkey.co.nz

The flying kiwi

This week the kiwi dollar is the highest it's been since 1984. At this level, our exporters are really hurting and the Government's "Export Year" is looking like a cruel joke.

Michael Cullen says he can't do anything to stop the rising dollar, and washes his hands of responsibility. But he has contributed to its rise by massively increasing government spending and showing little care about how that money is spent.

The Reserve Bank has said that the Government's ‘expansionary' fiscal policy will keep interest rates higher for longer. Those high interest rates are a big part of why the kiwi continues to climb.

Dr Cullen is about to pile even more fuel on the interest rate fire in this year's budget. Labour wants to dole out money in the run-up to the next election to bribe Kiwis into voting them back into power, when they should be getting government spending under control and making sure that every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely.



John Key


Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - S Ayers 2007-04-20 20:35 - (Reply)

Re aniti smacking legislation. No amount of quelling of the average every day parent's right to discipline their child, will stop those who 'beat' their child. To bring in this legislation is going completely down the wrong track. The answer has to lie somewhere within a means to identify children at risk in a far more effectual way than that which CYPS is presently identifying.

#2 - Roshni D. 2007-04-20 21:20 - (Reply)

I defiinitely agree to your opinion on the anti-smacking bill. I have seen that the law in our country is the cause for the violence, insecurity and crime that the public faces today. If no smacking is allowed to teach your children, just imagine the upcoming generation-what they will be like. For a tree to grow and be fruitful, you need to make its roots strong. If the government wants to really stop child abuse - then start giving tougher sentences (*without parole and luxury prisons*) or *capital punishment*, thats the only way the crime rate & violence is going to lessen in our country. Why should the tax-payers money be spent on the comforts of a criminal.

#3 - Kevin Clarke 2007-04-21 00:46 - (Reply)

I tried to respond previously, but your system cut me out. Not a good result. However, what I tried to say and hope to be able to here, is that John's message was very straightforeward, and represents exactly what Helen and Sue don't (and can't) namely - An understanding of real life in NZ , in a real family context, with real family responsibilities. SO I support what you are supporting, which I hope I have understood correctly as : The criminalisation of violent parents that don't deserve to be parents, and The support of decent parents who know that they are the right people to teach their children to become good and reasonable people and citizens - Rather than subrogating their parental responsibilities to a "riule of law" created by people whose only known attributes are those of looking after themselves by perpetually feeding from the trough provided by the ever-suffering and perpetually-paying public - most usually on profigate, self serving, overseas junkets with their distinctively un-family "partners" Kevin Clarke

#4 - David Stott 2007-04-21 07:31 - (Reply)

John's comments exactly match my view. It's simply bad lad to say "we'll enact this but don't worry we won't use it in many cases". That's just stupid and wrong. If you know in advance that there is a mjor hole in a law, then change the law before enacting it. The police are required to enforce the law, so if this act passes, we'll soon have an increasing number of cases brought by snotty-nosed kids against their parents in the heat of the moment which the police will be powerless to ignore or stop once started, even if the child then changes their mind.

#5 - Michael Miskin said:
2007-04-21 08:41 - (Reply)

Hi John I am an ex-director of Queenstown Taxis who now operates his own business from Cromwell. As the NZ dollar has continued to climb to absurd levels against overseas currencies during the past three years I have noted the effect markedly. Apart from the overseas clients I established earlier, all my new business is now coming from within NZ. Without my ex-colleagues' support in giving me work driving taxis in Queenstown my business would have gone under. Brits, Americans and Australians are simply not coming here to do the usual tourist activities which keep such businesses as mine going. Three years ago it was quite common, with ten taxis on the road during the day, for Queenstown Taxis to do four sightseeing trips and maybe three wine tours each week, especially over the summer, and at least one long distance transfer per day. This past month Queenstown Taxis has averaged one sightseeing trip every two weeks, no wine tours and one long distance transfer a week. The situation is the same in my own business. From my simple perspective, knowing tourism has been our number one earner for some years now I cannot understand Michael Cullen's logic in letting our dollar continue to rise. He does crow somewhat about his so-called mathematical background but I am an ex-maths teacher myself and to me the problem and its solution are staring us in the face: de-value the dollar. I once attempted discussion with MC but found him arrogant and self-centred. He told me that, upon retirement (may that happen soon) that he intends to develop maths formulae to explain/predict behaviour among politicians. We should all sigh a huge sigh of relief that he appears not to have read Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" saga, else we should be really worried. Regards Michael Miskin

#6 - Elaine Dewhirst 2007-04-21 10:20 - (Reply)

I oppose the Anti Smacking Bill. The Bigger Issue:RECOGNISING CHILD ABUSE 1)School age children should wear singlets and briefs for at least one weekly excercise class. This would deter parents from bruising their children. 2)First contact with the family-more marternity time, support, and education in hospitals, or hospital extensions, for parents. 3)Plunket visits for any child who is at home and not in registered care. 4)Weekly checks by community nurse, for pre schoolers, at kindergartens and registered childcare centres. 5) All unregistered preschoolers regularly visited in their homes by a qualified health worker where the pre schooler is not covered by GP's report. There will always be parents who are incapable of giving their children a decent upbringing. The goal would be to recognise child abuse. The next question would be how to deal with it? As a punishment non abusive smacking is effective and deters bad behaviour. Sue Bradford needs one for some of her past outrageous behaviour. Bad behaviour and crime are out of control. We have to start somewhere. NATIONAL CAN DO IT.

#7 - Nola. 2007-04-21 14:09 - (Reply)

I totally agree with your item 'Good parents are not crims'.

#8 - Byron Ross 2007-04-21 15:31 - (Reply)

Helen seems to change the rules, even change the laws to make it fit in with her agenda, try to impose a penanty on late payment of outstanding monies, 10% would be more than fair, party funds not public funds. I have to agree with your oppinion on this anti-smacking bill, is this what the country needs to stop child abuse? As for Dr. Cullen and the high interest rates causing the flying Kiwi, at the rate he is going the Kiwi will be flying to Australia, as a nation of immigrants who came for a better life find it is becoming harder to achieve that life style, because of fiscal policies that do not work, they will go to where they belive the grass is greener and the life style they work to attain is possible. Dr Cullen will be left with lots of foriegn currency investors, cheap houses (no buyers) and all export commodities cheaper else where in the world market place. will the last one to leave please turn out the light?

#9 - Terry 2007-04-21 15:42 - (Reply)

We already have a higher law concerning the discipline of children. It comes from the 23rd Chapter of Proverbs: Verse 13: Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Verse 14:Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. By definition: A proverb is a simple and concrete saying popularly known and repeated, which expresses a truth, *based on common sense* or the practical experience of mankind. BASED ON COMMON SENSE! Not governed. I do not advocate abuse, however a good spanking (light smack for you Liberals) does far more to instill right and wrong in a child than a "naughty corner" or a "time out".

#10 - John 2007-04-21 16:48 - (Reply)

Dear John, I see you have fallen for a trap laid by the proponents of this anti-family bill, namely, that it is intended to stop bad parents using s.59 as a defence for beating their children. However, according to a study by lawyer John Hancock, s.59 has been used as a defence in only 18 cases in 13 years and in more than half of those cases its use as a defence was denied (Source: Family Integrity). This is a red herring and it must simply be faced down. S.59 is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. We have adequate laws covering assault, an entirely different matter than physical corrective discipline. As further evidence of this, Michele Wilkninson-Smith, "a crminal laywer who has both prosecuted and defended people charged with assaulting a child" had an article in the Herald on 27/3/07. It is very good and should be read (send me an email address and I'll scan it to you) but she concludes, "I challenge anyone to find a case where section 59 has excused a real bashing that left a chiild injured." But there is another very important point. If this bill would pass, where, at all, in this country is there any real authority between the state and every New Zealander as an individual (and remember, any authority without a sanction is no authority at all)? There is none. Even local bodies have to do what the government tells them. At a meeting recently sponsored by DoC and MAF on Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change, one chap said, “I am tired of living in a Stalinist state in which every decision is made for me by some government committee.” That is what people in this country are getting thoroughly sick of – the escalating interference of the state in people’s lives as if Parliamentarians and bureaucrats always know best. You should have heard the constant comments I heard in the audience. That is an insult. And it is outright totalitarianism. Just oppose this head on - it is mere subterfuge based on perpetuated lies - the usual tactic of totalitarians.

#10.1 - Steven Mowat 2007-04-21 23:16 - (Reply)

Dear John, great keynote but too political. You are addressing more than just parliamentarians and the party faithful here, and so real issues (not party politics) should be your agenda, to win new support. You are right however, to slam Labour et al for their arrogance in pushing a bill no one (not even their own supporters) wants, but to turn around and do the same thing (push another bill on smacking) is a little like the pot calling the kettlle black. I have never heard of anyone using section 59 to escape a charge of assaulting a dependant child, so there just seems no case for wasting public funds to change things. As for the effect of government borrowing on inflation, it has far less effect on inflation than business borrowing does, but I don't see you slamming business for their borrowing. Don't forget that they repay their debt from the profit they make selling goods to consumers, so we end up financing their borrowing as well as the government's borrowing. It is borrowing in general that must be controlled, and there are ways of doing this - controlling money supply and lowering the amount of credit that financial institutions may lend, for example. Looking forward to another great sensible, apolitical (to recapture the middle grround) keynote. Regards, Steven Mowat

#10.2 - B Dixon 2007-04-22 13:21 - (Reply)

Mr Key, I agree with your views on the repeal of Section 59. If this bill is passed, I hope that the National party will have the courage to make it an election issue and promise to bring a better bill before parliament and make the vote a conscience vote.

#10.3 - Pete Patterson 2007-04-23 09:00 - (Reply)

The anti-smacking bill is yet another control put over the people by the socialists. The Crimes Act provides for an act of assault against a child, so why add more legislation? The anti-smacking laws will do absolutely nothing to stop the violent parents from beating and mentally torturing their kids, and those kids will continue the cycle once they have kids of their own. Labour clearly indicates they don't give a hoot for the country, they're just in power to get more money for themselves as individuals and for their party. Regular media reminders should alert voters in the main centres (the ones that voted Labour back in) that Labour can find money to finance their own election, but Labour has done nothing to fund Herceptin, fund more healthcare, etc. Lets get them out!!

#11 - Stuart Read 2007-04-21 17:24 - (Reply)

I too am concerned about the high rates of physical abuse in this country and how as a society we can reduce/eliminate it. As a loving parent I believe a light smack used as loving correction is a legitimate and acceptable manner of disciplining a child. It's not the only way. Most of the time other methods are utilised. But, sometimes it is the best option. I am so discouraged that the current Government is totally oblivious to 80% of good New Zealanders opposition to what is a badly thought out law change. The Labour party and the Green party demonstrate unbelievable arrogance and distain for the views of the people they are meant to represent. Mr Key, thank you for listening to us. Your proposal makes a lot of sense.

#12 - Dominic Baron 2007-04-21 21:06 - (Reply)

Mr Key, In common with all of you who sit in the thing that likes to call itself "parliament" you want to impose upon the rest of us what *you* think should be the rules by which we live. This is totally illegitimate. Only the people can determine what are the rules by which they want to live. The Section 59 kerfuffle merely highlights once again the illegitimacy of this provisional system. You can start to remedy our un-democracy by giving your full support to a binding referendum on this issue. Regards, Dominic Baron.

#13 - Roley Rackley 2007-04-22 12:23 - (Reply)

My Letter to NZ Herald that was published on 14 April 2007 "Bradford Bill I see in Friday's paper that a parent was found guilty of slapping her child Can the Government advise where the present law is inadequate Parliamentshould now stop wasting taxpayers money on this Bill Perhaps they might find some legislation to consider that will advance New Zealand, after all that is what they were elected for Rollend Rackley Remuera "

#14 - David White said:
2007-04-22 22:09 - (Reply)

I thought this was supposed to be a Conversation? A conversation involves people listening and talking with each other. I can't see any indication that you are listening and responding to people's comments, John? Hello, John? Is this thing working? Still waiting for you to say that you'd through out Bradford's Bill when/if you win the next election...

#15 - Stuart Gower 2007-04-23 00:15 - (Reply)

We dairyfarmers would be able (along with most other exporters) to handle the high Kiwi if national and local government- imposed taxation and compliance costs weren't so excessive. We would be further assisted if the revenue from such taxation and compliance costs was directed at the productive infrastructure of the economy (energy and transport in particular) so that exports can grow and increase the long-term standard of living for all of us.

#16 - Peter Wyllie 2007-04-23 09:19 - (Reply)

I am totally opposed to the anti-smacking legislation. The problem is not whether or not I smack my children, but the fact that the Government is deciding how I am to raise my children, by entering into my home and telling me what I can and cannot do. The Government is supposed to manage the country - not my home. Further - when 85% of the population are against the proposed legislation, and the politicians ignore the wishes of the People - we are in serious trouble. That shows we have made the transition from an elected, representative House, to an elected dictatorship. Lastly - if you oppose the change - you are labelled as a fundamentalist Christian - funny - I didn't realise there were so many Christians in NZ?!!

#17 - Andrew Atkin 2007-04-23 09:32 - (Reply)

Hope it's ok to change the subject - flying Kiwi: Our over-inflated dollar is depressing. The longer it stays up there, the more our economies evolution will be based on it; and this may make a potential hard-landing very painful considering that we are eroding the very thing (export industry) that we need to ultimately correct our account balance. I think any proposition that might help to stabilise our dollar would be great for that function if nothing else! Winston Peters reckons we should be export-led. I don't quite get that - aren't all industries ultimately export industries in that they directly and indirectly supply exporters? And surely developing internal infrastructure to reduce the need to import (and therefore export) is just as important for our ultimate economic wellbeing? To me it makes more sense to just get the dollar right and let the macro-wheels find their natural optimum from there; otherwise, by my reasoning, it may lead to a degree of unnecessary misinvestment. I think economic enhancement should be done with general policies that affect all industries accross the board.

#18 - David Linton 2007-04-23 12:01 - (Reply)

I agree with certain statements made by Mr Key, especially around the legal issues associated with the repeal of s59. Allowing the courts to determine the length and breadth of the Act is inconsistent with statements made by certain political parties.' that the overriding criminality created by repealing s59 will not be tested in the case of the reasonable discipline of a child'. The Court will have to test the reasonableness at some stage, and it is there that we risk creating criminals out of law abiding parents. There will always be an assumption that a person will have to prove reasonableness for any real defence to be accepted when, and if the effects of the repeal are tested.

#18.1 - Stephen Bensberg 2007-04-24 14:58 - (Reply)

My objections to the Act are at two levels, both the practical day to day (to smack or not to smack) and the philosophical. Firstly I would like to state that I am opposed to any brutality towards anyone especially children. On the day to day level we very seldom have had to use smacking to correct poor behaviour. But some times it is just necessary, most particularly when a child is being deliberating rebellious and is just plain defiant. Children are not adults and need to learn that their are consequences to decisions and breaking societal rules. When they reach adulthood these consequences are serious, be it imprisonment or the physical consequences of driving too hard and crashing. There are always consequences .... sometimes they are painful and a smack sometimes is the appropriate tool to teach that poor behaviour and bad choices can hurt. On the philosophical level I do not believe that this bill will reduce child abuse one bit. We currently have laws against assault and murder but we still have assaults and murders. Someone, anyone in a fit of rage who is attacking a third party does not stop think that 'murder is a crime', so I'll stop. Nor will a child abuser or out of control parent stop and think that 'smacking' is now against the law so I'll stop. Its already too late for this person. We need to be putting recourses into, reducing poverty, reducing stress on families, providing training to teens and young adults on how to resolve conflict and put others first, reducing drug use. Most research shows that drug use and family breakdown are the main environmental factors associated with violence towards child. The Police and CYFS will have to act on complaints. This will result in wasted time that could be better spent on real issues. Also CYFS has a tendency to act first and ask questions later while keeping a child away from its family. I am very concerned that this over reaction will happen! A lawyer from Sweden was reported in NZ as raising this situation as a real consequence of similar legislation in Sweden.

#19 - Eric Booth 2007-04-23 14:32 - (Reply)

There is something about the level of rhetoric that has marked the anti-smacking debate that says something about the proponents of each point of view. Perhaps it is time to get rid of the emotive magnification of terms and stick to the point of the debate - should smacking in correction be permitted or not, and who should be the one who makes the distinction as to the level that is acceptable. Any prosecution & defence often rests on the persuasive powers of good lawyers to a jury. Maybe all such cases should be heard by a judge alone who is much less likely to be swayed by good rhetoric. Changing a law that doesn't really need changing seems a huge waste of parliamentarians' time and the taxpayers' money unless it results in law that will be able to be enforced by an impartial police who have adequate resources to do the job parliament is asking of them. Let's not criminalise good parents and nobble the abusers!!

#20 - Stanley Kivell 2007-04-25 09:23 - (Reply)

Re Anti Smacking Bill. Section 59 should remain. It has rarely succeded when used as a defence in cases of violent beating. When considering such defences, judges will take into account Common Law ( unwritten law based on Natural Justice, Fairness over the past 500 years ). If the bill goes through, then welcome to a world of spoilt children .

#21 - Scott Loeffler 2007-04-29 22:47 - (Reply)

Good on Katherine Rich for letting her conscience guide her in how she votes. My stomach turns when MP's are put under undue pressure to toe the "party line" on such ethical issues. People are elected as representatives and although it may be under a banner of a party, some issue still require them to vote as they see fit. I'm pleasantly suprised that although she disagrees with her colleagues, many respect and support her decision. That is how it should be.


Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.