The question " Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand"

Is now officially irrelevant.

The Government is unlikely to change the child-discipline law regardless of the result of a $9million referendum, Prime Minister John Key says.

What Key wants to do is not shut down debate, but send hints for a low response rate. Key would prefer that nobody returned their referendum papers. He would prefer that because then he`d be able to say he is listening to the people and the people didn't want a referendum.

This also gives a message to parents: The Government's position is that it is OK for you to smack your kids even though it is against the law. Just don't pressure it to change the law - or its sanctions - so you can abide by it. Democracy and representation don't have a bearing. What you think about this issue is irrelevant to the Government.

In opposition Key said this:

The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament. The Labour-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power.

Now, not content with riding over the top of the wishes of some of her MPs, she wants to ride over the top of the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders...
The Prime Minister also knows that she has been caught out saying one thing about the smacking ban before the election, and giving a different answer afterwards.
This is arrogant and cynical government at its very worst.

Representation means acting for the interests of the represented in a manner responsive to their wishes. Key wants to be responsive to the wishes of voters only if it is not politically inconvenient. In this case, although it does not reflect public wishes, the government thinks it is in the public interest for people to disobey the law if they want to lightly smack their kids in this country. So does the opposition.

More about →

Chris Knox II

For those who want to keep up with progress on musician Chris Knox, who suffered a stroke last week, there a blog set up here.

More about →

NO Right Turn is truly an idiot today, and way off the mark

The anonymous blogger at NO Right Turn does not appear to have had a decent coffee after getting up this afternoon. He has a few clues on most things, and is one of the better bloggers around, but on the subject of the upcoming referendum on physical discipline he is just plain pig-ignorant, and lets himself down.

Why? He claims that people like Jimmy Mason, who punched his kid in the face, and a person who beat her young son with a soup ladle – and not only beat her, but bruised him all over his body would have been able to successfully claim a reasonable force defence had the law on parental discipline not been changed.

This is just a stupid claim to make. Never mind that, like most irrational people, he does not see the difference between a beating when a kid is cowering on the floor and a light smack for correction. But you think he’d criticise CYFS for supporting bail for the parent. But no, he doesn’t.

Furthermore, he says that anybody who supports a defence of reasonable force for correction are people who wish to abuse children themselves. It is irrelevant to him that any defence – if used - would fail in cases like this every time and that no lawyer would even suggest such a defence.

I don’t particularly like the referendum question, and was very tempted to cross out both options or not vote at all, but this kind of misinformation has made me determined to vote NO.

So, after reading this post I have today decided that I am going to vote NO at the referendum next month. I encourage you to read the post at NO Right Turn too and vote NO also.

The forms should be out this week. I’m voting NO not because I think a smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offence in New Zealand, not because parents should have a choice in whether to lightly smack naughty kids, but because I am making a stand against misinformation from people who should know better.

More about →

Media provides clues to the identity of Richard Worth's Korean woman

Not too long ago, the NZ Herald may well have inadvertently provided a clue as to the identity of the Korean woman who spent the night with Richard Worth and, I was told, apparently had a karaoke session with him at A Taste of Korea.

This report notes that the Korean woman was part-owner of several companies. One of these companies was put into liquidation this year, at the request of creditors who were owed $245,000 A private investigation firm had wanted to serve court documents on the woman relating to mortgage non-payment to the Bank of New Zealand for four homes, each valued at around $600,000. That's well over $2 million.

The woman was also a subject of an investigation after a run in with another man, a Korean business leader. This news was reported in a Korean newspaper at the time. The Korean newspaper also published this article on the Worth hotel liaison the same weekend as the NZ Herald article and mentioned her surname and the fact that her friend went the the police station with her to lodge a complaint, and according to this report, also went to National list MP Tau Henare so he could inform John Key. Worth subsequently resigned as a minister and then from parliament.

A check of the Companies Office records under the woman's surname as listed in the Korean article provides a record of a certain businesswoman who is part-owner in a number of companies, one of which was put into liquidation in February of this year with arrears to a number of suppliers. I was advised that this woman's business partner is apparently fairly well-known in the Indian community. His last known address is a pretty comfy place; but two, not one, of his companies were placed in liquidation - one last year as he was unable to pay a $1 million loan and an $800,000 liability. He was the sole director of the trust that held the shares in both companies.Both him and his female Korean business partner are currently running companies.

To date nobody has publicly named the woman. Neither will I. Its not in the public interest. But Richard Worth seems to get involved with some dodgy people.....

update .... like Labour activist Neelam Choudhary, who with her husband also owned companies - one of which the latter signed off as director after he got convicted, but David Farrar has covered this.

More about →