Goff and Key talked to Family First – but didn’t say much

I attended a forum by the Family First lobby in Auckland yesterday, predominately to hear how John Key and Phil Goff would respond to questions from Family First’s Bob McCoskrie.

I came away wondering why their answers were so non-committal given that both leaders’ offices were sent a full list of questions beforehand, of which I have a copy. So rather than getting sprung, they had plenty of time to prepare answers to uncomfortable questions on the usual Family First topics; same sex adoption, euthanasia, child prostitution and parental notification for teen abortions. As both got the same questions they could have even shared notes.

Both were asked about marriage and family. Key said that marriage was a partnership between two people, and commitment was the key to a successful marriage.

Goff also said it was between two people- with legal safeguards built into that.

When pressed about the gender of these “two people”, Key was asked whether he’d vote for a gay marriage bill.

“That’s something I’d have to think through,” he said.

Pretty non-committal, really.

Goff’s response to a similar question on #Goffchat on Twitter wasn’t much better. ”Labour supported civil unions, when National opposed them. Not intending to make further changes”.
So that’s an “I don’t want to tell you”, from Key, and an “I don’t want to progress this”, from Goff.

Key was then as asked whether he thought the safest place for a child to be was in a marriage relationship. His one word answer: “Yes”. Goff said the gender of parents was irrelevant to good parenting. He said that a stable supportive and healthy environment ( to bring up kids) was his bottom line.

“It’s not the gender of parents, but the ability for parents to provide a stable loving environment – what would be different about parenting if it was biological?”

So that’s a “yes” from Key, and a “not necessarily” from Goff.

When asked if life starts at conception or later on, Goff said, “ 12 weeks, 20 weeks, who is to say?

Key said, “Well, you certainly hope it is before the first Plunket visit” - another throw-away line. He wasn’t asked when he thought the first Plunket visit should be, but instead he was asked whether parents should be notified should their teen be considering an abortion.

“In my view for the most part yes, unless there is a very very good reason, I think parents should be told”.

Goff said while it was desirable for counsellors to encourage a girl to talk to her parents, “would a girl confide in a counsellor if she thought that the counsellor would go directly to her parents – my guess is that she wouldn’t”.

So that’s an “I don’t know and don’t particularly care” from both Goff and Key on when life starts. It’s a "no" from Goff on parental notification - and a "sort of yes" from Key.

They were also asked whether they believed in God and faith. Instead, both gave answers on what they didn’t believe in.

Key on God: “I wouldn’t describe myself as atheistic or agnostic, I live my life by Christian principles, I live my life to help others. I can’t tell you what happens the moment you die”.

But he then said “I do think you have a spirit that moves to the next…..” but he then stopped abruptly, perhaps realising he had just said he didn’t know what happened in the afterlife, which in a way makes him a bit agnostic.

That response was similar to what he said in 2007, that is he said what he doesn’t believe, rather than what he does. He said then “I’m not deeply religious, and I don’t believe in life after death.” He said his stock answer in 2006,also.

Goff’s response was similar: “I`m not an atheist. I don’t believe in the afterlife. I`m a person of faith – born and bred a Roman Catholic, and my life has been shaped by the Christian values I was brought up with.”

Later, Key also said he ”might support” laws on same sex adoption, and told conference delegates that the government may adopt National MP Sam Lotu-Ii’ga’s
Moneylenders (Licensing and Regulation) Bill [PDF] to address loan sharking.

Among the final comments from both:

Goff: “It’s too easy to be a plastic politician”.

Key, on personal attacks in the House: “Frankly, I think Pete Hodgson is a loser”.

So the two leaders did their best to say… well not much, hoping that they`ll get some votes out of it.

Instead both got standing ovations.

More about → Goff and Key talked to Family First – but didn’t say much

Tapu Misa on our agnostic Prime Minister

NZ Herald columnist Tapu Misa has some Christian friends. And they`re Not Voting John Key Anymore.

Why?

Well apparently, it's because they've just found out that he is as godless and agnostic as Helen Clark. Misa told them after church last Sunday. They were horrified.Spoiled their Sunday completely.

But we all knew that Key was agnostic. He told Salient in 2007 just after becoming National Party leader:

If you define God as some supreme being that when you die you go through the pearly gates, then I don’t believe in it. But I`ll argue that it depends on how you define religion. I’m not deeply religious, and I don’t believe in life after death.

But Key was seen as the “embodiment of family values”. And, apparently, if Misa is to be believed, conservative Christians have only just found out that he isn’t, and he is actually agnostic – and that makes his support by conservative Christians at risk.

Furthermore, just after appearing at the Christian Parachute Festival, Key appeared at the Big Gay out, and Misa said it felt “ like a betrayal by some”.

Oh yeah? Betrayal by whom? Gays, Christians, gay Christians or some of Tapu Misa’s homophobic Christian friends? I thought it was fantastic he appeared at both.

Misa wants to give the impression that support for Key has changed among Christians and inserts an old 2007 media quotes from a National card-carrying Catholic as an example of the initial support. Support may well have adjusted, but Misa's column is a Big Fail because it says nothing new except that she has been talking to a few of her Christian friends but won’t say what they told her.

Misa needs to get out more. Perhaps she could also have quoted some of the “Christians I know who voted for National in the last election because they liked the look of John Key (but) have changed their minds”.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them still vote National. Perhaps that’s why they weren’t quoted.

More about →

Key wonders if people will blame MMP for ACTs problems

John Key speaks on ACT’s problems.

I'm wondering whether the public might say 'look, very small parties are consuming quite a lot of time' and maybe they will take the view that MMP fundamentally isn't working so well.

Of course Key didn’t mention MMP when List MP Richard Worth blew up in his face, so one can only assume he is trying to deflate blame and cover for Rodney Hide. If there was ever a reason to vote MMP in the referendum next year this is it, because MMP will then be reviewed. Perhaps they`ll decide not to let MPs in off the list who failed to win their seats – MPs like Richard Worth. Perhaps they`ll look at the one MP rule so that multiple MPs – or fewer of them – can’t get into parliament on the back of an MP. Perhaps they`ll look at changing the five percent threshold, or ensure list MPs resign from parliament after resigning from their party they got elected to, even if they want to form a new party as did former Alliance MP Alamein Kopu .

Justice Minister Simon Power has said that voters will be well informed about the options of how MMP can be modified, before a referendum is held on the electoral system at next year’s election.

The alternative to MMP is white males in suits running the country like Muldoon did.

It’s weird that Key implies that MMP isn’t working well – but the anti-smacking legislation is working perfectly well, because it was designed not to work at all. MMP works well – if Garrett leaves Parliament, we won’t need an expensive election. But if fewer MPs were let in off the back of an elected representative, or if list MPs were made to resign from parliament after quitting their party, he wouldn’t have had the option of leaving.

More about →

PM says it is ok to smack your kids

I was at the Family First forum in Auckland today. John Key was one of the speakers. He said it was "ok to smack your kids", and the law is administered "the way I want it to be". Therefore in some situations it is fine to break the law provided it is the intent of parliament that the law be disregarded, particularly as Key himself has said that the law is a "dogs breakfast" and that " no-one knows what 'correction' or 'good care and parenting' is".

I do.

Key, commenting on administration of the anti-smacking legislation by Child, Youth and Family, said that "CYFS would not say 'do not smack a child'". Meaning that CYFS workers, although now told not to investigate cases of light smacking, would never tell parents that they could not smack.

Unfortunately for Key there was a woman in the audience - who so happened to be sitting behind me - who is on a CYFS care and protection panel. She told Key that social workers were in fact telling parents that they should not be smacking their kids. Key said he had a problem with that, and it needs to change.

He should talk to CYFS bosses about this, rather than telling family organisations that things need to change and doing absolutely nothing about ensuring that change occurs.

More about →

Dictator dicatates to the dictated

Well, by now you`ll all know that Herr Key has decreed that National will not support Acts smacking bill, which was drawn out of the ballot today. John Boscawen should postpone the debate on the bill's first reading until just before the election (because National would have been written off by then and is likely to vote for it), then Labour can get back in for one term with an increase in support for NZ First, reject the legislation and get booted out at the following election for rejecting the bill.

Meanwhile, the Treaty of Waitangi and democracy should be taught in all schools and a petition should be creatively drawn up relating to the Boscawen bill - and have it presented just before the bill is due for a vote in the house.

National ignores referenda,ignores select committee deliberations, now it opposes a bill its supporters want to be able to submit to a select committee on. Can we have our democracy back? Hope you are looking forward to the next few polls as well as I am.

Finally, if you voted for National at the election, you should ask yourself why. And watch NZ First rise in the polls soon if it gets its act together.

More about →

Visit John Keys Facebook page

John Key has a public Facebook site here. In the past day or so nearly 80 people have left messages urging him to reconsider his position on smacking. Not one supports his stance.

More about →

I worked hard, but I may lose my home

*** what do Labour's researchers do? ***
updated
Bruce Burgess lost his $750 per week job in the recession and was turned away from WINZ because his partner worked part time. She earns $21,000 a year. WINZ turned them away,and so they wrote to their MP who so happens to be the Prime Minister.

When he got the letter he reportedly flicked it off to Paula Bennett's office who did nothing.Then the Labour Party found out about it. Instead of checking the Burgess' entitlements and assisting them, Labour told the NZ Herald who wrote this story. On the surface, it needs to be fixed up because it is appalling.I spoke with the reporter early this afternoon and told him that the family is entitled to a partial benefit.

If they are earning just $21,000, WINZ was wrong to turn them away. They are entitled to register as job seekers through WINZ and are entitled to $91.20 a week in an unemployment benefit as well as possibly an accommodation supplement to assist them with their mortgage. Couldn't the Herald find that out? Depending on their mortgage they may be entitled to further assistance. I've relayed that info on to Keys office.

Given that Labour leaked this story, I'm wondering if its pixie researchers do any research. It's latest media release says that Burgess' wife's income disqualifies the couple from any temporary access to the unemployment benefit.

That's false. And Labour now know it.

update Burgess claims to own several properties, but is not receiving income from them. And I see that John Key has relayed the above in Parliament, and while I was doing this post the Herald updated its story. I spoke with the journalist and requested he do so because the facts of the story were incorrect given entitlement of a benefit on $21k.

update2 And Labour knew all along that the Burgesses owned multiple properties but apparently never told the Herald.

more here.

More about →

Mallard gets kicked out of the House, blogs, then deletes comments on his post

Yesterday Trevor Mallard got kicked out the house and was almost named. He was so annoyed he blogged about it here.

I told [John Key] his nose was growing. He lied to the House and quoted me as calling him a liar. Speaker Smith required me to withdraw and apologise for saying something I did not say. To do so would have been to admit saying it. Smith did not allow me to say that I had not made the comments and tossed me out in probably the most blatantly biased decision of the year.

Well, being accused of lying is worse than telling lies.Mallard told Key his nose was growing. It wasn't. So that was a lie. Key said that Mallard accused him of being a liar. Mallard said he didn't. The speaker told him to withdraw and apologise. He didn't. He attacked and defied the speaker instead. That was why he was tossed out. Simple. Then he said 'for gods sake.... that is the worst decision you have ever made".

Mallard is wasting his time calling John Key a liar on his blog post and deleting comments because he doesn't like them. And has effectively repeated his comments outside the house by making it clear that he thinks Key is a liar.Mallard's not just got an anger problem, he has got a bigger nose than Key,too.
Update you can watch the video of Mallard's outburst here.

More about →

Boring, silly, nanny state speech - from National

I don`t know what advice John Key is getting lately but its not very good if this nanny state speech is anything to go by.

He wants kids to play sport, so they can be healthier, fitter - and less obese and less likely to to be mixed up up in criminal offending. At least he wants to put some money into it to assist schools with equipment, but will that money go on sport? He`ll have to fund schools properly and let us know if the money he puts into school for sport - like sports equipment and gyms - is more than the amount that parents are paying in school donations - the “donation” donations, not the “fee” donations - because if it is less, then parents are practically funding Nationals policy twice out of their own pockets should it be implemented.

What is wrong with a public education campaign to encourage parents to walk at least part of the way to school with their kids, and get older kids to walk or bike to school, to take swimming lessons or other forms of physical activity. At least you`re less likely to get injured and be a drain on the ACC system ( which National wants to privatise). What's wrong with encouraging kids to cut the lawns, have a paper run or utilise the local playgrounds.

Organised sport is not the be all and end all - and it costs more money than walking or cycling to school every day. Better to get councils to cut down the fees for recreation centres, gyms and and swimming pools and subsidise gym membership so the poor, lazy and fat can afford to walk through their doors.

John Key needs to come up with better ideas than this. He is sounding so Labour he'll probably be krumping within a month.

More about →

Nobbling National has nothing to do with policy

Matt McCarten considers that Labour's only possible chance of winning the general election is to hope it can nobble National's John Key by exposing him as a lightweight.

But to do that properly, Key has to be a lightweight to start with. If he is no lightweight, McCarten thinks Labour has lost the election even if it has better policies than National.

That's also Labour's strategy, but despite claiming National has no policies, the country doesn't want Labour's policies, at this stage they`d rather have the policies that National is yet to announce. Unfortunately National is becoming more like Labour. Helen Clark doesn't answer questions she doesn't want to, she walks away despite having an answer to one particular question for six months. When John Key gets asked questions he doesn't want to answer, he refuses to answer the question.

At least he doesn't walk away. That would just be too much like the outgoing Prime Minister.

More about →

National leader's speech

John Key's speech aiming to get all young people into work, training or education and off crime is noble.

I do have some reservations about the Fresh Start policy ( perhaps in another post) and could comment extensively about the speech but for this post I want to focus on youth training. The training announcement by Key is grounded in Labour policy like Gateway- but also extends to kids out of school, and funds the private sector to a greater extent with tougher sanctions. I suggest you read the speech.

Under the Youth Guarantee, National will provide a universal, no-cost education entitlement for all 16- and 17-year-olds so they can access school-level educational study at approved institutions. Most will remain at school, but some won't.

Labour has a similar training policy with sanctions - but its policy, in terms of targeting 16-17 year olds into training or work, is restricted to the 3125 regtistered with WINZ - and sanctions aren't applied enough and therefore there is no consequence for non compliance. And they don`t include Polytechs or Wananga.

Independant Youth Beneficiaries do not live with their parents, nor do they receive financial support from anyone. If they are in a training course that course must be less than 12 weeks or they don't qualify. Many criminals of that age live with their parents or are financially supported in other ways - so they are ineligible for the IYB and therefore not exposed to courses available from Work and Income even though they are entitled to be. These people should be registered as job seekers through WINZ and referred to such courses without going on the benefit. Legislation and allows for this such people are turned away by WINZ.

Why? Because Labour is neither enforcing or publicising current policies. National is broadening Labours policy with indications that it will be better implemented and enforced - and hopefully better publicised. Key's policy includes the 8,400 16 and 17 year olds who are not in work, education or training.

That means that most of those who are not in work, education or training are not receiving a benefit, primarily because they live with their parents - or are not sick, invalid or have kids themselves. These kids can enrol as job seekers with WINZ and access training schemes - but they don't - because WINZ doesn`t tell them to.

Some of these kids are so illiterate they cant fill in forms for the WINZ courses - so they need literacy and numeracy skills. There are no real sanctions for WINZ teens who don't turn up to these courses once referred.That's the real issue. It will be interesting to see how National will stop this pattern - and how teens who are currently not at work, training, education or recieving a benefit will be captured.

However, it's a better policy than Labour's - way better. If I had a 16 year old, who didn`t want to go to school, I`d rather he or she went to a Government funded polytech course than a TOPS course or rather than having to pay school fees, uniforms, and donations.

More about →