NEWSLETTER: KeyNotes No 9 - Rt Hon John Key

23 Comments
02 May 2007
NEWSLETTER: KeyNotes No 9

Some sense on smacking - at last!

I'm very pleased that Labour has seen the value of amending the Bradford Bill on the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

The combined weight of the Labour, Green and Maori parties would have ensured that the Bradford Bill would pass into law as it stood. With this in mind, I was keen to find a solution that would reduce the prospect of good parents being prosecuted.

I made an offer to discuss with the Prime Minister and other political parties an amendment that would meet this objective. The fact that the Government has agreed to adopt an amendment similar to the one I proposed is a good outcome and proof that political parties can work together to find sensible solutions.

The amendment will give parents confidence that they will not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children. It makes it clear that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence is considered to be 'so inconsequential' that there is no public interest in the prosecution going ahead.

The final bill will send a strong signal that the level of violence against children in our society is unacceptable, while giving parents confidence that they will not be prosecuted for carrying out their normal parenting duties.

Read the amendment and let me know your thoughts about it at www.johnkey.co.nz

Setting the agenda

Labour is increasingly out of touch with Kiwis and their families. Over recent months it has become bogged down in scandals and is having enormous trouble getting even simple legislation through Parliament.

Meanwhile, National is setting the agenda. Since I spoke at the Burnside Rugby Club in January, where I highlighted the problem of New Zealand's growing underclass, we have been addressing issues that will make a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders.

We've announced a new policy that will encourage donations to community groups. We've proposed national standards in primary education to identify the one in five kids who are not succeeding at school. And, earlier today, I revealed how we will focus economic development programmes on what works and what is most effective, rather than what sounds good in a press release.

But we have so much further to go.

Charting a course for the future

We are at a critical juncture in history. The explosion of the Internet is bringing billions of potential customers within our reach. Our booming Asian neighbours are calling out for new services and products. People everywhere are seeking safe and green havens in an increasingly unstable and dirty world.

New Zealand is uniquely placed to respond to these forces, and we need to harness them to ensure that every Kiwi can build a better life. It isn't enough to chant incantations about "economic transformation" as Labour does at every opportunity. They are running dial-up policies in a broadband world.

New Zealand needs a practical vision of what we want and how we can get it. We have to be more ambitious, more outward-looking, and more responsive than ever before. We need to maximise the contribution of every single New Zealander.

Last week, in a speech to the National Party's Southern Regional Conference in Invercargill, I outlined three themes that I will use to chart our course for the future:

We need an economy that keeps up with the best in the world, and which provides Kiwis with competitive incomes and meaningful work. Without this we simply won't have the quality of life, and education and health services that Kiwis have a right to expect.

We need an education system that lifts our people up by giving them the skills and knowledge to foot it with the best in the world. A poorly skilled workforce will condemn our country - and the people in it - to a humiliating race to the bottom.

We need to realise that our environment is central to our way of life and how New Zealand sells itself to the world. We must take sensible steps to clean up our waterways, enhance our biosecurity, stop deforestation, and tackle climate change, and not believe that these problems will be solved by mouthing platitudes about sustainability and carbon neutrality.

These three 'Es' will be vital to New Zealand's success in our rapidly changing world. I will come back to them time and again as I chart our course for the future between now and the election.

For the full text of my speech, please click here.

Joining the conversation

I'm enjoying reading your thoughts and comments on my website.

I'm sorry that I can't reply to every post, but your contributions are hugely useful to me in getting a grasp of what you are concerned about and how we can do our best for New Zealand. Staying in touch is one of the most important things a leader can do, and I hope that, as we get closer to next year's election, joining the conversation will be something you make a habit of.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

John Key

Join the conversation at www.johnkey.co.nz
www.national.org.nz

Posted by admin in Newsletter Trackbacks: (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Piet Beukman 2007-05-02 19:22 - (Reply)

Well done John. I now sincerely hope the smacking red herring is behind us all and we can get on with the REAL issues: 1. Economy - NZ is fast becoming just another Pacific Island. We have all the potential to shine, but we are bogged down by social engineering and economic ineptitude. 2. Education - while we are still using state funds to support waka rowing and meditation, our university sector have become third rate. I look forward to your strong leadership, vision and a future for NZ

#1.1 - Jake 2007-05-02 19:51 - (Reply)

How can you say well done ? An issue that New Zealanders felt very strongly about, a Bill that roughly between 65-75% of people opposed! Of course the economy and education are important, as is healthcare, as is Police, as are a great many other things, INCLUDING how we may or may not live in our own homes and raise our own kids! Economy is not everything!

#2 - Jake 2007-05-02 19:28 - (Reply)

Shocking really!! First of all don't Police have discretion when to prosecute and when not to anyway ?? This ammendment is merely the inclusion of standing Police guidelines into the Bill. Police would have used their discretion one way or another. So this "compromise" changes nothing! Its not a compromise at all in fact, it's a resounding victory for Labour and Sue Bradford and a complete capitulation of National values. The fact remains that smacking of any nature will be illegal, therefore parents using light smacking WILL be breaking the law. Police will have discretion to decide which smacking is "acceptable" and which "unacceptable" but ALL smacking will actually be illegal!! Also National's failure to get defined what constitutes "acceptable" and "unacceptable" means that there will likely be large inconsistencies in the way Police apply their discretion. This means that parents will have no certainty at all as to whether the smacking they apply is acceptable or not and whether they could face prosecution or not. Remember that one person's light smack may be another person's abuse! Finally, National getting on board and actually helping Labour to make de facto criminals out of decent parents (even where they are not prosecuted they still break the law) is like a slap in the face to many of us National supporters who believed that National stood for certain moral principles!

#2.1 - Kevin mILNE 2007-05-02 20:02 - (Reply)

Sorry to have to tell you the bad news but there are some instances where Police are not permitted to use discretion. Family violence is one of those instances. So we are back to square one where parents who smack are breaking the law and Police, because of the family violence policy, must prosecute. Therefore looks like there are going to be a lot of good parents in court.

#2.1.1 - Jake 2007-05-02 20:29 - (Reply)

In this particular case would the ammendment inserted into this law change not override the principle that Police can't use discretion in cases of domestic violence ? I imagine that it might. although it certainly creates a grey area for Police in how they are expected to approach such issues! We are back to square one anyway! Light smacks have not been defined so even if Police are allowed to use discretion it will hardly be applied consistently...Police are not robots, they'd all have a different opinion of what was reasonable and what wasn't! Your Community Constable out in the whops, who knows everyone in his region, may well let quite a lot go with nothing more than a few words, whereas a city cop, after a tough night scraping boy racers off the road, may well have a very low tolerance level of what he's going to accept as reasonable. Its all a bit of a mess really...which is why we were hoping National would stand its ground, oppose a badly written and morally unjust law and at least be the voice of the 70% of NZers who don't agree with this. Given the number of people who opposed this law change you would imagine any "compromise" would be to the detriment of Labour's ideas rather than the ideals of the 70% who oppose them on this issue!! Looks like National did all the giving...and what's worse National's leaders actually seem not to realise that they've just handed Labour a HUGE victory, free of charge, on a silver platter!

#3 - Doug Withers 2007-05-02 20:57 - (Reply)

This proposed amendment is a step in the right direction but falls a long way short of giving good parents any confidence that they will not be prosecuted by the Police or harassed by CYF's for reasonable and appropriate correction of their children. CYF's policies and practices are out of step with the law as it stands now when they harass parents who use any kind of smacking to correct their children - how much worse will they be with this law passed even with the amendment? CYFç need to focus on the real abusers and not those who don't share their politically correct views.

#4 - June Bennett said:
2007-05-02 21:07 - (Reply)

To John Key. I can understand what you are trying to do here, but I really don't think it is going to work! There are some people out there who really enjoy getting others in to trouble and I can see this happening where a parent smacks a child in front of a member of the public for something that the other person is not aware of but takes offence and reports the incident to the police! The police are going to have to investigate and precious time and resources they have will be given to this instead of their work preventing crime and for public safety issues. What is to stop them handing this over to CYPs who will then have the power to remove the child as has happened overseas with parents interregated for months as well as their child taken? What kind of assurance can you give me to give to my children who are really worried about this for my under 3 and 1 year old grandchildren in this country? June

#5 - Barry Anderson 2007-05-02 21:58 - (Reply)

A simple and explicit definition of REASONABLE and the legislation as it was worded required no amendment whatever.

#6 - Tracy Henderson 2007-05-02 22:01 - (Reply)

Amend what you like - but the 'Bill' is still unacceptable to fair minded parents.

#7 - Dean Comerford 2007-05-02 22:56 - (Reply)

John While I think it is great that you have achieved some clarification in the law (and acknowledge that the alternative was going to be no movement whatsoever), I am still concerned. The law as it stands today allows a parent who is prosecuted to mount a defence for their actions. Surely if s59 is removed, and the Police do choose to prosecute (for example in a case where they suspect it was abuse, but it may have been marginal), then all that will be required is that the Police or CYP's prove that the action _happened_ and the parent will be found guilty. At least currently they have the right for a jury of their peers to decide if their actions were or were not reasonable as a form of correction - now all they have is the discretion of the Police or CYP's. Because of this, I'd still like to see National commit to altering the bill after the next election (which I am sure you will win) with a clause similar to Chester Borrows one that spells out clearly what a parent can and cannot do and gives them a reasonable defense if they are caught on the wrong side of an over-zealous official.

#8 - Donald Stevenson 2007-05-03 08:48 - (Reply)

Thank you John for the information. While there may be protection given by the ammendment, it still leaves parents as committing criminal offences - this is bad law. I would trust that when National becomes Government that you grasp this issue and change the law to what the vast majority of New Zealanaders want, and indeed what is actually best for the children of New Zealand - loving caring discipline that raises responsible loving caring children.

#9 - Simeon Brown 2007-05-03 08:55 - (Reply)

This is not common sense at last; it does not take long for parents to see through your amendment. 1, the police will still come into your house and they will still do what the police do. Parents do not want this. They want to be left alone. 2, it says in the amendment, "so inconsequential ". You say a light smack will not be illegal. Well a smack is supposed to have consequences, it is supposed to change the child’s behaviour. 3, this amendment does not override the other sections of the bill so it does not actually do anything. The other sections say you cannot use a smack for correction. What you have done is a big mistake. Now the police can choose and target who they will prosecute. If we have a corrupt police force then they will use this for their agenda. While I am writing my 3 year old sister has just graffittied on the wall, my parents do not know what to do about this. They can not smack as it might have consequences. It might work, she might change her behaviour. What can they do??? If they don't smack her she might grow up graffitting in a criminal manner. Once again what can they do???

#10 - Ting Xu 2007-05-03 09:40 - (Reply)

good job John but good parents are still the sacrifice under a joint political plot led by labour trying to secure a win in next election. This country needs many changes to get better, hope you can be the man to do it.

#11 - Carmel Sheehan 2007-05-03 10:25 - (Reply)

It is good to see the National Party being conciliatory and defusing the constant chatter about this bill but most of us agree this is a red herring; NZers are tired of being told what to do. Labour has intruded into our lives to the extent that we are no longer a free thinking society and look to the Government and the media to define ourselves. Don't be soft with this Government, John, keep your eye on the ball and the main goal which is to win the next election.

#12 - Stephen Maire 2007-05-03 10:27 - (Reply)

And so Mr. Key you feel you have shown leadership and a strongly pro-active decision making process. While you and your minions fiddle, Tonga burns! Where is the National Party now when strong credible leadership is required in the Pacific. Instead of getting blinded by the all too attractive opportunity to put the sword to the far christian right, further upsetting those of our Republican supporters in far off lands, you choose to do and say nothing! Where was New Zealand's $100,million to save Tonga from its fate. I want a strong right leaning coalition between Nz First and National. This is not the way to protect democracy. To quote Salman Rushdie, Democracy requires visibility Mr. Key, and I am afraid that that you and your party are rapidly paling from veiw! curtain is dropping Mr. Key

#13 - James Munroe 2007-05-03 11:19 - (Reply)

C'mon John, if you're going to propose an amendment, you should at least get the grammar right. "... offence in considered..." ??? In any case this amendment serves only to draw yet more attention to a well-flogged bill that would be better ignored. If you want to win the next election, it's no good trying to campaign on some middle ground. Do that, and you appear as just another Socialist and you won't beat the real Lefties at their own game. You have to focus on issues that set National apart from the Socialists, controversial issues that will get the conservatives right behind you. They are just waiting for a sign. Go with nuclear power, bring back capital punishment, CMT, School Milk, tougher pre-requisites for citizenship, lower taxation and you can afford to start dismantling the Welfare State. I'm not asking you to forget your own State Housing upbringing, but you have to help push people up that ladder that you took. Right now, the Welfare State is keeping the masses fed, but poor, that's how the Socialists maintain their voter base. You've got to be cruel to be kind, reducing their welfare benefits will nugde them back into gear and then you help by improving their education and employment prospects, lower their taxes, give them some incentive and above all, some pride in themselves...

#14 - Craig Smith 2007-05-03 11:32 - (Reply)

Hi John. I have been following your leadership in the National party with interest, and attended the breakfast you had with Christine Rankin. Unfortunately, with your successful push to have an ammendment made to the anti smacking bill adopted, you have handed Helen Clarke a "Get out of Jail Free card". You had her on the ropes with reports of 80% of Kiwis against the anti smacking bill, and now you have helped her pass it. THE PRIMARY JOB OF AN OPPOSITION IS TO PROVIDE OPPOSITION. You have capitulated! She out-foxed you fair and square and was a complete winner on the day. (This is from a National Party supporter). This is very disapointing, as the resultant hodge podge of a bill is still a massive intrusion by the State into good parent's lives and completely unecessesary. On a secondary note; when are we going to see a National Party Policy list?? What exactly do you stand for?? Old Don made a few mistakes, but he was very clear as to what he stood for. I'm looking forward to seeing these Policies! Cheers, Craig, Browns Bay.

#15 - Richard Peate 2007-05-03 14:48 - (Reply)

When I was a youngster my parents demanded and earnt my respect through their love, vision, comfort, encouragement and discipline - which included smacking. Thanks for your efforts to ensure we will not be criminalised for everyday and minor discipline. It seems to me that respect is a core value that much of our society has lost. There is insufficient leadership in our society, and many have lost respect for the police, the judicial system, teachers, and even life in some cases. We need a program to promote our NZ "hero's" as examples of great humility, dedication, loyalty, commitment, leadership and success. These are values that create good parents, good kids and good New Zealanders.

#16 - ron said:
2007-05-03 16:33 - (Reply)

mizz Clark won on this one. the fact that you said you would remove the stupid "anti smaking bill" keeps my vote for national.

#17 - tonyreid@clear.net.nz 2007-05-04 01:01 - (Reply)

The future is grim ..... hope is fading ..... eight years after the disasterous results of the "Boagered" campaign, the near-miss of the Brash approach, National continues to shoot itself in the foot .... the exodus is not slowed .... we are a shadow of our former selves :-( If it weren't so serious our national stupidity would be slapstick.

#18 - Rich Baxter 2007-05-04 16:37 - (Reply)

It is stupid to pass a law that we then say will not be enforced. My father smacked me and each of my siblings - never in an excessively violent way - but it was a quick and effective method that worked because we knew he loved us, but would not tolerate us behaving as selfish brats if we continued at it after being told to stop. He also volunteered in WW2; although he only was involved in the very last stages, his brother and many of his friends went through the thick of it for our freedom. If this law were passed it would designate them as lawbreakers, and make the ANZAC day remembrance a farce.

#19 - Steven Mowat 2007-05-04 19:39 - (Reply)

Dear John, Dear departed John. You seem to have forgotten the fate of the French and Russian aristocracies, whose main crime was not listening to their peasants. Dump the smacking bill or be dumped. We used to have excellent education system, completely affordable housing, communal resources and the fifth highest living standard in the world until someone sold them off. A couple of other crimes of those aristocracies (leaders) were undermining the integrity of their peasents by selling their collective assets, denying them education, hosing, and a meaningful livelihood. In short they forgot their duty as leaders. P.S. What happened to keymnotes eight?

#20 - Steve 2007-05-05 09:04 - (Reply)

The amendment does not make this bad law better, good parents still become criminals. The whole "send a strong signal …." argument is rubbish. Murder is illegal and yet our children die at an alarming rate, this bill does nothing to address that. Sorry but you have lost my support and vote. I look forward to a time when politicians actually represent the public will

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
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. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.