VIDEO: John Key on the 'anti-smacking' legislation

7 Comments
27 March 2007
VIDEO: John Key on the 'anti-smacking' legislation

27 March 2007. John thanks website visitors for having joined in the conversation by leaving so many comments in the few days since the website launched and uses this videocast to respond to those who have expressed such passionate concern about the so-called 'anti-smacking' legislation proposed by Green MP Sue Bradford and backed by the Labour caucus. For more on this, and the proposed amendment by National MP Chester Borrows, click here and scroll to the bottom of the page. You can also watch videocasts by Chester Borrows on his amendment on NTV and National's YouTube channel [3.40]

Posted by John Key in Video Trackbacks: (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Neil 2007-03-28 12:06 - (Reply)

Nice to see a response from you John, however I have listened twice and have not heard what you plan to do when you become Prime Minister if this legislation does go through, at least you are a parent, unlike those who are pushing hardest for this. Do you plan on continuing with this forum when National becomes the government next year?

#2 - Peter McK 2007-03-28 12:44 - (Reply)

Thank you for this latest JKVJ on the repeal of section 59. I wholly support the stance National has taken on this - and Believe that labour have seriously got it wrong (probably because they will be buying support of the Greens for the Election spending that is to come before parliament) however you have not said in this journal whether or not National will introduce the Chester burrows amendment when they become government in 2008. I have spoken with several people and they all support such an amendment - thanks

#3 - Nicholas O'Kane 2007-03-28 14:15 - (Reply)

John Key, tell us if the bill goes through and National is elected in 2008, will national repeal the new law?

#3.1 - Donald Boese 2007-03-28 22:19 - (Reply)

Labour have got it wrong on this one..but the crux of the matter is this..it is a great diversionary tactic..often used by labour..Like a smoke screen..to take the general publics mind off the real issues..The cause of many child abuse cases is happening to solo mums and their bad relationships..without a doubt..New Zealand has a shameful record on child abuse..with CYFs in the mess that it is ..the spotlight on the sexual assults by some Police..the bad reports from the Corrections dept..the lists go on and on..no wonder Clark lets this one run.. As for asking John Keys what he would do with Chester Burrows ammendment if he makes PM. All of national MPs are voting for it now..Why would that change?

#4 - Adrien de Croy 2007-03-29 11:53 - (Reply)

It still amazes me the lies that come out of the mouths of Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and Sue Bradford every day on this issue. Even in today's Herald, Helen Clark is still insisting this bill will not make smacking illegal, or that it already is (she doesn't seem clear). However, it very clearly *will* make it illegal, and it equally clearly currently is not. It's totally clear-cut. Remove the statutory defense against an assault charge for use of reasonable force in discipline, and we are left with exposure to an assault charge. If this bill passes, we will have created a new crime where there was none before, and along with the new crime comes all the new associated paraphernalia of crimes. New suspicions, new investigations, new judgements and new punishments. But in this crime, the punishment starts with the suspicion not the conviction, and not only the alleged "perpetrator" but also the "victim" are punished from this point. Putting a child in state care carries an unacceptable risk to the child according to CYFS statistics I've seen - only marginally less likely to cause death than russian roulette. Teachers will tell children their parents aren't allowed to smack them, and then children will pass judgement on parents who do. This alone will cause major problems in the home. This bill will breed resentment in parents and children, disfunction in the house, increased stress in parents (leading to stronger outbursts when the parent snaps), yet will have no effect on those who already abuse children. I hope to be able to raise my children without requiring any physical discipline. But I do not close my eyes to the possibility that it may be necessary at some time, in fact I consider it will be inevitable at some time. To place all parents in the position of having to do the best for their kids, but with the risk of losing their children and their freedom is completely unacceptable. Perhaps we can forgive Helen (not having any kids) for being ignorant about the strength of feeling the average parent has towards their children. We may feel pity for her unresolved resentment concerning her own childhood discipline, although I'd suggest she should seek counselling rather than take it out on the country - she is a minority case. But we cannot forgive the lies, the arrogance and the treasonable perversion of democracy. P.S. National also needs to take a good look at the proposed Proceeds of Crime bill. That is a complete undermining of the basic foundation of law here (innocent until proven guilty). Just because Australia reaps more money than we do (by stealing it from unconvicted people) is not a good reason to pass a bill allowing the confiscation of assets from people who have not been convicted of any crime. Fix the source of the problem. This bandaid is open to serious abuse. P.P.S. On any party support for Michael Laws proposal to ban gang regalia. In my humble opinion that's a political albatross best avoided.

#4.1 - victor 2007-04-14 11:55 - (Reply)

Labour goes way to far. Specially with section 59. Sometimes you need to get the message through to your kids about whats wrong and whats right. Section 59 is a waste of tax payers and police time. Visit http://www.freewebs.com/vobbi8/index.html

#5 - Peter Ballantyne said:
2007-04-13 14:20 - (Reply)

Hello John, The NZ govt in recent years has largely ignored petitions that have not agreed with its own agenda. I suspect one cause of the increasing frustration people are feeling is the apparent powerlessness to have their voice heard. A good example is the government's requirement that their MPs support Sue Bradford's bill, even though a number have expressed reservations about it. That would seem to hobble an MPs ability to properly represent his or her electorate. Regardless of the pros and cons of the bill I believe that is an abuse of the parliamentary system in NZ. Helen Clark herself stated recently that contentious legislation has a shelf life. In other words, if they don't get it into law this time, they shelve it for a while and trot it out again in the future. Eventually the electorate gets sick of the whole debate and it just sort of gets slid into law. This would seen tantamount to telling us that we are going to have it sooner or later, whether we want it or not. This tactic is, I feel, manipulative and deceitful, particularly when significant expert advice and overseas experience indicates this is not a good law. And, with all respect to Sue Bradford, her appeals to the Swedish experience and others, is both misleading and heavily slanted to make it appear to support her agenda. In fact such is emphatically not the case, as anyone with a little time to research the issue can discover for themselves. As a church minister I pray for our government, and the individual MPs, that God's grace will over take them. However, I remain strongly opposed to the proposed legislation currently being debated regarding the freedom of parents to chose, within the boundaries of grace and fairness, the means by which they will discipline their children. Really, the issue is far bigger than the simple "to smack or not to smack" question. The main issue is the fitness of the present government to hold power when they appear determined to do what they want, forgetting that they are, after all, our employees. There is much they have done that is beneficial, or at least helpful to NZ, but all past good deeds must take second place to what appears to be a fundamental challenge to the very bedrock of our democracy - that is that the people decide without a government scrambling to ram manifestly unpopular legislation through before we have the opportunity to object at the ballot box.

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.