] AUDIO: Radio interview by Jamie MacKay on the Bradford Bill - Rt Hon John Key

7 Comments
30 March 2007
AUDIO: Radio interview by Jamie MacKay on the Bradford Bill



30 March. John Key's weekly interview on the Farming Show with Jamie MacKay. John talks through the National Party's position on the explosively controversial Bradford 'anti-smacking' Bill.
Posted by admin Trackbacks: (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Peter 2007-04-01 17:27 - (Reply)

Good interview, John - very clear explanation of the National position. Ironic that Labour has to whip its people on an anti-smacking bill.

#1.1 - Jimmy 2007-04-02 20:26 - (Reply)

John the interview was outstanding. It is great to see some substance instead of smooth style. Keep taking strong positions and eliminate the wishy washy comments. At least NZ knows where you stand. It gives NZ a firm difference to Labour

#2 - Matthew 2007-04-01 22:46 - (Reply)

John, thanks for the clarification on the anti-smacking bill. If the Government make it a Government Bill, would National vote as a block against it (whether or not UF and NZ1 voted as blocks against it)? Would the National Party pledge to put on their Election Manifesto to reintroduce the Burrows amendment and pass it should it become the next government?

#3 - peter 2007-04-02 02:23 - (Reply)

I'm reading through these comment threads (yes, I'm in a different time zone) and I'm baffled by how little people actually seem to listen to what you're saying. You said the party had allowed a split vote so members could vote their conscience - and that the real wrong was the whipping of members into a single line by other parties. Why would anyone, having heard that, then think you'll whip your mob into a single position? Zealots, no matter what their stripe, are never reasonable. This seems to be a case in point.

#4 - Michael Mckee said:
2007-04-04 11:31 - (Reply)

There is an out. Declare clearly that National when it comes to power will rescind the ammendment and replace SEC 59 with appropriate wording to suit society's and the benches needs. It will be the right thing to do and a vote winner too.

#5 - Colleen Williams 2007-04-20 21:07 - (Reply)

Sue Bradford is quite correct in her desire to stop parents smacking. You have not been listening to ordinary people. I am a grandmother and I know that smacking is a very poor way too bring up kids...there are many ways to redirect kids when they get stroppy. Mostly smacks only relieve a parents irritation and create resentful kids. My kids now 50s were not smacked and neither are my grandchildren who are in their teens and are polite loving kids who are really achieving in sport and academically. You shouild lead the way to make us a less violent society.

#6 - Michael Mckee said:
2007-04-21 22:14 - (Reply)

I find the last comment difficult to qualify as personal history is just that. I was abused as I stated to the sub committee and my wife wasn't but we both agree with smacking, both tertiary educated and married 23 yrs. Lets get real here, a smack on the bottom is just that. A smack, not "beating" as M/s Bradford and her ilk keep saying ad nauseum. As for Mr Key not listening to ordinary people. Just who are the 85% of New zealanders who are against this effort to put the state above individual families. I have objected to the emotional painting language and half lies and evasive explanations ever since I went to listen to M/s Bradford and her cohort put down Steven Franks at a lunchtime meeting in a pub in Lambton Quay 2yrs ago. The underlying issue is no one wants beatings, everyone wants to deal to the abusers but this campaign has never addressed that. I said in my submission that I suspected that it was more about giving the state more power over individuals and children than actually stoping abuse. The present laws can be used but who in parliament will deal to the families who are known to the police, cpys, education and winz? It's seen as too risky and racist. If you remember this whole issue was given up on by Mr Maharey (when he ran social welfare) in the last parliamentary term as the backlash was too much. So he alloctaed $10m of our monies for reeducation as all good communist/socialists do. So this is idealogcaly driven to my mind right from the beehive but now as a third party program. Mike


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.
 

Latest Updates

Prime Minister to welcome US Marines to NZ
Post-Cabinet Press Conference
PM encourages applications to Canterbury Fund
Key Notes: Working on the Budget
09 May - Video Journal No.5

Donate to the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal

You say:

05.2012
Key Notes: Working on the Budget
Rt Hon J.K.'s budget so far has very worthwhile support for our developing youngsters....And it was great for so m [...]

BETH WEBSTER

05.2012
Key Notes: Working on the Budget
The welfare reforms are great but uninformed media bashing from Gary amongst others displays the superficiality of [...]

Anthony

05.2012
Key Notes: Working on the Budget
In some respects National has done well, more has been spent on Hospitals and health services. Howvever this has t [...]

Paul

05.2012
Speech: Opening of Seafood Industry Conference 2009
Touche. Sound arguments. Keep up the amazing work.

Tropical Holidays

05.2012
Key Notes: Working on the Budget
As part of the Budget we'd all like to see less austerity and more spending on small business and the charitable s [...]

Jo

Google the Site

Subscribe using RSS