Dear Cabinet Ministers, & Peter Dunne

"Dear Cabinet Ministers, and Peter Dunne (my MP, and also a Minister).

No matter which way you look at it the results of the recent "Smacking Referendum" are resounding and compelling. Yes, the question was poorly worded - but it seems clear to me (and many many others) that the more than 87% of NZers who voted "No" are clearly saying that this law is not a valid expression of what criminal behaviour is.

Press reports tell me that the Prime Minister is taking unspecified proposals to Cabinet to address these concerns. But it would seem the PM's proposals do not go as far as replacing this obnoxious law which it is now abundantly clear does not carry the support of more than 87% of NZers. If so, such proposals cannot be an adequate response to the clearly expressed will of the NZ voting public.

You can do better than this.

I commend to you the "Borrows amendment". It is a much clearer expression than the current (amended) s59. And, ironically - given the debate, actually provides children with more protection because it defines reasonable force for the forms of smacking (and other ‘reasonable force’) which the current (amended) s59 allows but does not define.

I ask that, whatever you decide in response to the PM’s proposals, you also introduce a bill to parliament along the lines of the "Borrows amendment", allow it to go to Select Committee, and then pass it if it carries public support.

Yours sincerely, Gavin Knight, Wellington.

PS, this letter has also been posted to my blog. I reserve the right to also post your response, particularly if it is not a substantive response."

Update: I suggest you also read Madeleine's similar letter.

Chris Trotter on the Smacking Referendum

Christ Trotter, a left wing journalist with whom I rarely agree, has written an insightful article interpeting what last week's referendum result tells us, and placing it in it's historical and political and social context:

... The count [in the the so-called "Anti-Anti-Smacking" Citizens Initiated Referendum] showed that nearly nine-tenths of the voting population responded to the question: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"; by voting "No".

What does that result tell us about those New Zealanders?

Does it tell us that 87.6 percent of us are inveterate child-beaters: cruel and unusual punishers, who see their children as some sort of personal possession; mere extensions of their own, all-too-fragile, egos – rather than as vulnerable little human-beings, with the same right to be protected from common assault as any adult?

Has it, if only for the brief moment it took to draw the heavy curtains of silence and denial more closely together, afforded us a glimpse of the ugly dysfunctionality at the heart of the New Zealand family?

Has it alerted the 11.8 percent of us who voted "Yes" that all around us children are living in a state of deep emotional confusion: never knowing from one moment to the next whether the adults they love and trust most in the world are going to suddenly lash out and whack them?

To hear the defenders of the "Anti-Smacking" legislation tell the story, that’s exactly what the result of the referendum has told us.

Are they right?

The answer, of course, is "No."

The truth of the matter is that most of the young New Zealanders currently raising children long ago stopped using the "smack" as part of "good parental correction". If they hit their kids at all, it’s only in the extenuating circumstances already contained in the current legislation – which basically sanctions the use of parental force to prevent a child from either inflicting or experiencing greater harm.

These parents are part of the great virtuous circle of childrearing which traces its origins back to the dramatic cultural shifts of the 1950s, 60s and 70s. With each passing generation, this circle will widen until, in a relatively short space of historical time, the use of corrective violence will almost entirely disappear from New Zealand society.

Sue Bradford’s "Anti-Smacking" law reinforces this trend – but it did not create it. And, regardless of whether the law survives this referendum result, the trend will continue. ...

I encourage you to read the full article.

Why I Voted No

I have been pondering my vote in the smacking referendum for some time, and finally filled in my voting paper tonight. I will post it tomorrow, just in time!

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

My intent has wavered because I am not happy with the behaviour of too many on either side of the debate, and quite frankly, don't want to be associated with many of them.

Here's why I considered voting Yes:

• although Sue Bradford's original bill would have removed the 'reasonable force' defense from parents in all circumstances, the law as actually passed only did so for 'correction' - the new s59 clearly allows 'smacking' in other circumstances (safety, offensive behaviour, normal course of parenting, etc)
• the wording of the referendum question is appallingly poor, and I have to wonder whether this was done cynically by those proposing it - even Sue Bradford (hardly a supporter of this referendum) identified a much simpler and clearer wording of what we all think the referendum question is, and should be "Should the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction be available to New Zealand parents?" (interestingly this would invert the Yes/No way to vote)
• I am very unhappy that the christian aligned organisations supporting the referendum have lost the debate over the language of the debate, and that smacking is now synonomous with violence - while the referendum will probably be 80-90% "No" the language of the debate has been about violence - he who loses control of the language of a debate has lost the debate
• a close friend is a retired policeman who spent considerable time working in the family violence area in the third world in 1990s - he tells me he only made progress with teaching people that hitting your spouse was never OK when the threshold was zero - there was no level of 'smacking' your spouse that was appropriate - maybe, just maybe, by making the same point about parental smacking of children we might be able to start making progress with those segments of our society for whom the tolerance for acceptable 'smacking' of children is much more brutal than we want to be the case - unfortunately, we're never going to stop child abuse, but maybe, just maybe, we might be able to reduce it

Here's why I considered voting No:

• I have no doubt that in most cases 'smacking' is done as part of 'good' parenting
• I am also certain that in most cases where 'smacking' is not 'good' parenting, it is still far short of what most New Zealanders consider criminal behaviour - and even the old s59 would have dealt appropriately with the more extreme cases which are/were clearly criminal (even if there were a few exceptions of juries allowing the defense when most think they shouldn't have)
• I am not sure what 'correction' means in the context of the new s59 - I think it is synonomous with 'punishment' - ie it specifically disallows 'smacking' as a punishment

In the end I decided to vote No, because I consider that in most cases 'smacking' falls somewhere in the good/bad parenting range, not in the bad/criminal parenting range.

replacing S92A in NZ's Copyright Act

I have been thinking through what to recommend as a replacement for S92A in NZ's Copyright Act, but I can't think of any better contribution than that provided by Stephen Franks just after the #blackout campaign. Some key quotes:

"... The new law upholds copyright holders’ property rights. It is fair enough, as far as it goes. ... [an] industry code is not the cure. It looks useful, but no lawyer with respect for the rule of law would suggest that a private code of procedure is the cure for a law that is incomplete and licenses abuse. As drafted it may be suitable for the ISP professionals, but it is too cumbersome for customers to master. ... Completion of the regime requires only an equivalent and balancing protection for the ISP and the customer’s property rights. That is straightforward - compensate the customer whose ISP is obliged to interfere without adequate reason, and compensate the ISP for any reasonable costs of investigating copyright claims that prove to be unjustified. The compensation rules can be clear enough and tough enough to discourage most if not all abuses of the new copyrightholders’ rights. ... Because the normal court system has become hopeless at enforcing remedies (other than in huge commercial disputes) the system may need a copyright claimant to post a bond for a pre-estimated cost of compensation, and perhaps a quick and dirty simplified adjudication system. ... The copyright claimant should have parallel rights to recover its full costs where a customer or ISP have unreasonably resisted a justified claim. ...These are not novel or radical ideas. They were the basic principles of British freedom for centuries. Leave people free to do what they wish, but if they wrongly harm others they’ll have to pay. ... Freedom plus liability is specially valuable for evolving circumstances where the lawmaker can’t predict how a prescription might warp future conduct. ... Too often reforming lawyers and politicians would much rather draft detailed prohibitions than balance the incentives, then leave discretions with the people involved, weighing the costs and benefits of their actions. ..."

a prayer that is all too true to be funny?

hat tip Mike Zook and Mike Brantley

source Naked Pastor

Cross-posted to Just Comment

Should Cullen be Charged?

In my opinion Michael Cullen - who released the Pre-election Fiscal Update as Labour's Finance Minister before the election last November - should be charged with breaching the Public Finance Act.

Consideration should also be given to also charging other previous Labour ministers who knew, and possibly the relevant senior government officials.

"The previous Labour-led government should have revealed a $1.5 billion ACC funding gap in the run-up to last year's election, a ministerial inquiry concludes. The report found the shortfall in the Non-Earner’s Account was known to ACC, the Department of Labour, Treasury, ACC Minister Maryan Street and Finance Minister Michael Cullen in time for it to be disclosed as a fiscal risk in the Pre-election Fiscal Update."

The above quote is from a press release issued earlier today by National's Finance Minister Bill English. Labour, of course, contends that the "report shows [their] former ministers [have been] exonerated".

This has been a matter of much speculation since the election and considerable debate in the blogosphere and on forums like Twitter - including today, which is not to be unexpected.

The Public Finance Act is one of our most important pieces of legislation - it is almost constitutional in stature. It governs how public money is managed. One of it's most critical elements is a requirement for an "opening of the books" prior to each election - known as thePre-election Fiscal Update ("PREFU"). This requirement is supposed to ensure that parties contesting the election, and voters assessing the policies of those parties, do so with full knowledge of the country's financial position.

It is ludicrous that Labour Ministers did not include the ACC shortfall in the 2008 PREFU. A court of law is the place to determine if they are liable under the Public Finance Act.If they are not liable then that is a serious gap in the Act which will need to be closed.

Labour thinks it has nothing to hide - let them prove that in a court of law, before an impartial jury or judge (I am not sure which would apply).

I find it somewhat ironic that Labour - who pushed through the now largely repealed Electoral Finance Act in order to supposedly increase transparency in elections - now try to hide behind a technical interpretation of the Public Finance Act which enabled them to (maybe) get away with not declaring a significant liability they had incurred on behalf of the voters of New Zealand.

As a final thought - this is not just a political debate. If it were, then in my opinion the election closed the debate even though almost all of the facts did not become public until after the election. It would not be helpful for the stability of our democracy for a new government to be able to take it's predecessors to court for political matters which are better settled by the voters. However, this situation is so egregious I believe it should be settled in an independent forum. Given that we are talking about what might have been a breach of one of our most significant laws that independent forum can only be a courtoom.

Update History:
Tue-4-Mar-09: added image courtesy ODT

#blackout protest has had some success!

yay for democracy!

the #blackout protest has had some success

I'm putting back my avatar on Twitter and Facebook now

Dave: "Great news. Section 92A of the Copyright Act has been delayed until 27 March so a voluntary code of practice can be nutted out. If there is no agreement on it, S92A will be suspended. Even if an agreement is reached, the Act will be be reviewed and monitored by the Government in the first six months. That's what happens when a group of people get a viral protest going, it gets support and gets into the mainstream media before midday and into the Aussie papers and into the Cabinet agenda."

Internet NZ: "New Zealanders can breathe a sigh of relief that their Internet access is no longer under threat due to unproven allegations of copyright infringement. Section 92A still needs to be fully repealed. It is disproportionate and unfit for purpose. But this deferral is a good start."

#blackout

EFA = gone = yes! yes! yes!

David Farrar reports that the repeal of Labour's repugnant Electoral Finance Act was passed by Parliament this evening.

This law was a disgrace to our democracy, and the satisfaction I feel in it's departure is only improved by watching Labour's grovelling mea culpa joining in voting for it's repeal.

My thanks to David and Whaleoil for leading the online charge against the bill when it was going through parliament. Your passion contributed to my motivation in writing about it here at GavinKnight.com, and in making my first ever submission to parliament.

My New Blogging Strategy

I took a month long break from blogging from early January, and have struggled to get back to anywhere near my previous target of writing an article per day. Partly this is because a lot of my writing last year was prompted by the election, but I'm also finding my online habits are changing - and I've decided that my blogging strategy needs to change accordingly.

I will continue to write here at GavinKnight.com, but less frequently. I am currently targetting at least one substantive article per month for each of my four major themes - Politics, Christianity, Technology and Effectiveness.

It will be interesting to see what this does to my Tumeke NZ Blogosphere and M&M NZ Christian Bloggers rankings seeing as their methodologies have a bias toward high frequency posters - although my rankings couldn't go much lower given my reduced writing frequency over recent months!

So, my new blogging strategy revolves more around the following ...

I have been on Twitter since March 2007, and I'm now posting there more frequently - typically multiple times per day. I'm finding I can often say something just as effectively in a succinct 140 characters as I can by taking the time to write a full article here at GavinKnight.com! So, I encourage you to sign up on Twitter (if you're not already) and 'follow' me there. If you're one of my personal friends on Facebook most of my Twitter posts also appear there as status updates.

A lot of my articles here at GavinKnight.com used to be simply to share interesting items but as most of my online reading comes to me via RSS I'm going to move my sharing of them to sharing from Google Reader. Sometimes I will simply share an article, but I'll try and add a brief comment to some too. To see these, and everything I'm doing online go to FriendFeed (no account required, but it makes for a richer experience).

Are you experiencing a similar change in online habits?

Don't Underestimate the Spirit of Work

Simon Collins has written a profile of new National cabinet minister Paula Bennett in today's NZ Herald. The profile moves between discussing her new role as Social Development Minister, and her journey to that position from teenage solo mother.

It is an illustrative account of the best intentions behind National's 'welfare to work' theme.

There is incredible dignity in work.

"Don't underestimate the spirit of work," she says. "It was the people I met while working that changed my life. I didn't always feel that I was better off financially, but I was a lot better off emotionally."

Tumeke! ranking decreases to 95

My NZ political and news blog ranking has reduced further from #91 to #95 during October.

This is unsurprising given that I didn't write much in September and October while settling into self-employment, but the rest of the NZ blogosphere was going crazy with the then pending election.

Thanks to Tim Selwyn of Tumeke! for all the hard work he puts in collating and analysing the data behind these rankings.

Madeleine at MandM has further analysed this month's rankings and produced her ranking of NZ Christian bloggers, where I have slipped from 6th to 7th. Thanks for your work too Madeleine.

Phil Goff, "the Prince Charles of the Labour Party"

from Colin Espiner's Stuff blog column this morning "All change: New Zealand politics on speed"

"Listening to Goff on the radio this afternoon, he sounded like he’d been the leader of Labour for years. Which, in a sense, he has. He’s the Prince Charles of the Labour Party - the heir apparent who’s been made to wait most of his political life for the prize. No wonder, then, that he sounds polished. He’s been practising at home in the mirror since 1993."

Ouch!

image courtesy NZ Herald 1983 archives

the hope implicit in the election of Barack Obama

the hope implicit in the election of Barack Obama

source unknown (received by email)

cross-posted to Just Comment

Electoral Finance Act

I have deleted the side bar and Policies page references to Labour's repugnant Electoral Finance Act now that the election is over, so it no longer applies to blogs like this one because I understand the regulated period has completed, and is soon to be repealed anyway (hopefully!).

the heart of the wise inclines to the right

interestingly Ecclesiastes 10:2 says

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.

(for humourous purposes only, not a theological stance!)

Constitutional Transition Process

Dean Knight (no relation), law lecturer at Wellington's renowned Victoria University law school, has posted another helpful - albeit nerdy! - post on the constitutional transition process NZ will now go through as we transfer power from Helen Clark to John Key over the next week or two.

surely this is the end of 'Christian' parties?

Looking at the preliminary results for yesterday's New Zealand election it is my sincere hope that we have seen the end of what I have previously called "the ridiculous idea of 'the' christian vote" (that link is to my post last week which generated a vigorous debate from some who support the idea of 'the' christian vote).

Of the three 'christian' parties only the Kiwi Party gathered more than 10,000 votes which only equates to approximately 0.5% - very far from the 5% required under MMP to actually get into parliament.

Collectively the three 'christian' parties only gathered 1.22%.

Both the Legalise Cannabis and the Bill & Ben parties gathered more votes than the other two 'christian' parties.

Legalising cannabis is hardly mainstream thought in New Zealand, yet they gathered more votes than parties who tried to monopolise the 'christian' label. Quite obviously against the wishes of the 10%-50% of New Zealanders who identify as christian (10% = rule of thumb figure for Sunday church attendance each Sunday, and more than 50% of kiwis continue to self-identify as christian in our five yearly census despite the secularisation of NZ).

I welcome discussion on this post, but ask that the discussion focus on the reality of how christians actually do vote and engage in politics in New Zealand - not some theoretical, and in my opinion marginal, construct of how christians should vote, or of the conscience vote issues which seem to motivate those who form and support 'christian' parties. Also, please first read last week's post and its comments before commenting on this post so that we can advance the debate rather than simply repeat it.

Reflections on the NZ Election

Yesterday John Key was elected Prime Minister of New Zealand, and today starts the process of formalising his coalition and support arrangements so as to govern our country for the next three years.

My congratulations to John and the National team, and also to ACT and UnitedFuture with whom he will govern.

It is my sincere hope he can include the Maori Party in some form of support arrangement. The future of Maori is too closely aligned to the success of our nation for their main political voice - the Maori Party - to be sidelined.

Likewise, I hope he can form sort of agreement on environment policy with the Green Party. Human impact on the environment is too high, and is producing unsustainable outcomes. National has a well formed view of how this can be addressed but it would be refreshing to bring the Green Party into making this happen. It would also demonstrate that the left wing do not have a monopoly on the environment.

Winston Peters was remarkably gracious in conceding defeat last night. His career promised so much, but he couldn't handle the discipline of playing in a team and had to go off and create his own petty dynasty, known as NZ First. It is NZ's loss that he never rose to the heights he could have, but rather leaves politics with the stench of corruption and hypocrisy swirling around him. We saw sniffs of his potential in his performance as Foreign Minister these past three years, which only served to illustrate what could have been.

Helen Clark has strode like a colossus across our political landscape for a long time now. I never doubted her ability, and always respected her leadership in bringing together and holding together the fractious left for so long. But like Peters she too is standing aside without having fulfilled her destiny. If she had stayed true to her social democrat ideals I would have respected her much more even though I disagreed with many of her policies. But her legacy is that of stealing the 2005 election with our money, legislating to make that theft legal, to legitimise it for this election, and to shut down her opposition. It is to her eternal shame she formed a partnership with Winston Peters, and then stuck by him when it was clear he was at least a hypocrite, and quite probably NZ's first truly corrupt politician.

Of National's first 100 days plan the thing I look forward to most is the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act which was Labour's blight on our democracy. To see it go will be a great day for New Zealand - the ideals of democracy as embedded in our constitution are too important to have been the play thing of the governing party. Yesterday stands testament to the power of democracy in that the people of New Zealand were able to side step its 'chilling effect' on our democracy and throw out its authors anyway.

My prayer is that National keeps its eyes on the vulnerable when dealing with the chaos that Labour has left behind, that has only been made worse by the international economic crisis. While I agree with most of the policy changes made by the 1984-1990 Labour government, and with the continuation of that policy direction under National in the early 1990s, it was all done with too much haste, and with too little regard for the vulnerable who ended up paying too much of the price paid to enjoy the fruit since enjoyed.

I will now focus the political stream of this blog to holding John Key true to his promise last night to 'represent all New Zealanders' as our Prime Minister.

my election day, as recorded on Twitter

my election day, as recorded on Twitter:

• good speech john key, we will hold you to it about 13 hours ago
• goodbye helen, you too offered so much, delivered some of it, but you too sacrificed your principles for power and have paid the price about 14 hours ago
  
• 10:56pm another 17 polling booths reported (6216/6304) = still nat 59 + act 5 + uf 1 = 65 out 122 = still a clear majority about 15 hours ago
  
• the Greens are a big disappointment, they should be polling much higher about 15 hours ago
  
• 10:35pm still nat 59 + act 5 + uf 1 = 65 out 122 = still a clear majority about 15 hours ago
  
• winston peters walking out on a career that promised so much but ended up smelling of corruption and hypocrisy about 15 hours ago
  
• spot the lemon suckers in tauranga about 15 hours ago
  
• wow an almost gracious concession to simon bridges from winston peters about 15 hours ago
  
• impressed with tv3 coverage on main tv, with tv1 on little tv in corner muted about 16 hours ago
  
• @che_tibby stuff ok for me about 16 hours ago
  
• www.electionresults.govt.nz back about 16 hours ago
  
• grrr looks like www electionresults govt nz is down! www.electionresults.govt.nz about 16 hours ago
  
• 76% of polling booths have returned results but that only representats approx 50% of the vote as larger booths are yet to come in = = still early days
  
• simplest summary of results can be found at http://tinyurl.com/5qmf7o about 16 hours ago
  
• 940pm nat 59 + act 5 + uf 1 = 65 out 122 = clear majority ... the next couple hours will be very very interesting about 16 hours ago
  
• @slowblink yr always were a dreamer about 16 hours ago
  
• how do you lead worship at church the morning after an election, particularly a landmark one! about 16 hours ago
  
• at least nz first is under 5% and dropping about 17 hours ago
  
• this time last election i thought national had it, but labour ended up winning ... however surely nat/act/uf's lead is too great this time about 17 hours ago
  
• @che_tibby agree about 18 hours ago
  
• settling in to watch election coverage about 19 hours ago
  
• sometimes the simplest acts are the most meaningful, like voting about 23 hours ago from mobile web