Can anyone back this up? If you saw Agenda tonight, please comment.
Just watching Agenda, with Key, Barnett, Clark & Bradford on.Related Link: Peter S on David Farrar's blog
Key has just trumped Bradford & Clark.
He stated unequivocally that, if parents are criminalized by the amendment for light smacking, then, if elected PM, he will change the legislation to prevent that.
What it means is that National's support for the amendment is conditional on the amendment functioning in the way that the likes of Bradford & Clark are saying it is supposed to work, and, if that turns out to not be the case, then it will be amended so that it does function that way.
Didn't see this lucyna but I commented on very similar terms on SH a short while ago as thus:
ReplyDeleteNational to repeal "anti-smacking" legislation in 2008 - Key
National leader John Key said yesterday that if National wins the 2008 election it will change the "anti-smacking" legislation within its first month of office.
"We certainly believe this interference of the State in the lives of Kiwi parents is both unnecessary and unwarranted. The law is poorly thought out and ill-devised and National will immediately seek to reassure parents by amending Sue Bradford's bill immediately we take office".
Pressed on whether the reassurance would take the form of the reintroduction of Chester Burrows amendment, Key was tight lipped.
"It could take that form or it could take the form of a repeal of the whole daft law. I prefer the latter and will spend the next twelve months convincing my colleagues that this is the preferred option. Quite clearly there is no mandate for such a bad piece of legislation and I want my leadership of New Zealand to be defined by courage, not by socal engineering".
The latest TVNZ poll had National governing the country at the next election along with Act which has consistently opposed the Bill.
Well the last poll at my place told a very different story.
ReplyDeleteIf this legislation is so crap why the hell is Key buying into it at all?
Cheap political stunt that didn't win him one single vote but cost him a few.
He started off weak, went soft and is now rounding it off by selling out. Thats strike three.
His only claim to the PM's slot is that he ISN'T Helen Clark.
ps, you can see the interview from last night's Close Up with the PM, John Key, Simon Barnett, and Sue Bradford at TVNZ's archive here -
ReplyDeletehttp://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1094113
The video link is the 15.23 one.
It also says on the page that Close Up received 600 emails after the story last night, and over 90% were against Bradford's bill.
Murray, as Key said in the interview on Close Up, no, it's not the best, but that if he hadn't done anything at all then the bill would have passed as it was.
ReplyDeleteHe said that as it is now it is at least better than it would have been if it had passed in the form that Bradford had originally intended.
And Lucyna, Key did say that once they got into Government that they could change it if it wasn't working.
It was interesting what Barnett said at the end of the interview; he challenged Bradford - would she resign if even *one* parent got unjustly prosecuted because of the bill?
[camera flips to Bradford, who doesn't know what to say]
Helen jumps in to save Bradford with some waffle then the time ran out on the interview and Bradford was 'saved by the bell'.
Yes, Lucyna, he said it.
ReplyDeleteOne has been wondering if Key is trying to push Clark around the political chessboard so he can surround her totally in 12-15 months time.
Given the relationship his deputy has with the Catholic Bishops, one suspects (and hopes) this result may be better than first imagined.
We shall see.
My position is summed up on two posts I did today. I support the Key/Clark/Dunne/Palmer amendment but don't support the bill. Key sees this amendment as removing the intrusion you talked about.
ReplyDeleteAnd if there is no inconsequential cases appearing before the courts, there will be no need to reintroduce the Borrows amendment. If there are, I'm sure it will be introduced after the election.
You either oppose the bill or you don't.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't.
I'd transcribed some of Key's comments from Close Up last night for a post on Kiwiblog (still not showing up on the front page):
ReplyDelete"There's a couple of things here – firstly, this bill was going to pass – with 63 votes. It would have passed. The alternative was that it would have passed with no change. We reached out 10 days ago, we found a conclusion that I think broadly encapsulated the amendment that we've now got. So the bill is better than it was, from our perspective – we don't believe that good parents will be criminalised.
But let me say this Mark: if, once the bill is passed if good ... parents get criminalised for lightly smacking their children, and I become Prime Minister of New Zealand, we will change the law."
and a little later:
"Mark, it's clearly a compromise, and no compromise is perfect, but let's consider what the alternative was. The alternative was that the bill pass with a situation where the police would have no discretion – where they themselves were aghast at the way they would have to investigate everything. So – yes it's not perfect, but I think it will play out reasonably well. I trust the men and women of the New Zealand Police to exercise their judgement and the law gives them the confidence to exercise that properly."
"..I trust the men and women of the New Zealand Police to exercise their judgement.."
ReplyDeleteIs that the same judgement that found there was no reason to prosecute Helen for signing a painting she didn't do? Or the same judgement that allowed her to get away with being party to a speeding convoy?
Or perhaps the same judgement that's seen police officers charged with rape, assaults and dishonesty offences?
I don't trust their judgement and any law which relies on it is seriously flawed.
It is true that the police have to some degree been politicised in the current illegal regime (I call it illegal because they broke electoral law at the time of the 2005 General Election).
ReplyDeleteI think John Key should support the amendment, BUT still vote against the Bill at the third reading because it in't enough of an amendment to change the nature of the bill.. Also CYFS haven't been dealt with. The Bill wil still pass but at least John Kery can say his party opposed it at all stages (although it supported some amenements, that is a far cry from actually voting for the Reading of the Bill.
I will be lobbying him to do this as such.
No, it's ridiculous. Key's just backed down. The bill hasn't really been changed by the ammendment.
ReplyDeleteIf the ammendment did mean anything, then Bradford would not have that smug smile on her face.