Archive

Posts Tagged ‘section 59’

Letter to the Editor: Colin Craig – law-breaker!

.

old-paper-with-quill-pen-vector_34-14879

.

FROM:    "f.macskasy" 
SUBJECT: Letter to the ed
DATE:    Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:56:35 +1300
TO:     "Dominion Post" <letters@dompost.co.nz> 

.

The Editor
DOMINION POST
.

Wannabe politician, Colin Craig, recently admitted to
hitting his daughter. When asked on Radiolive, on 13
January, he replied,

"I occasionally do it now." 

With the repeal of that part of Section 59, which permitted
adults to use the excuse of "correction"  when faced with
allegations of physical abuse, that kind of behaviour by
parents and guardians became illegal. 

Which begs these questions;

1. How can we have a politician in Parliament, who is sworn
to uphold the laws of the land, admit that he flouts laws
that don't suit his particular beliefs?

2. Why should a person, who also happens to be an aspiring
politician and millionaire, be above the law when the rest
of us  are held to account for infringements both small or
large?

3. How will National reconcile it's "tough on crime" stance
when at the same time they  actively seeks Craig's party as
a potential coalition partner, even though Craig admits to
flouting the law?

It will be intriguing to see John Key's response to this
issue - once he gets back from his latest overseas junket.

-Frank Macskasy
(address & phone number supplied)

.

Addendum

Section 59 of the Crimes Act says: –

* Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:

– preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person

– preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence

– preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour

– performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

* Nothing in (the above section) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

* To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

Source: NZ Herald – Colin Craig: I smack my child

.

.

= fs =

Advertisements

The Power of National’s “Daddy Statism”

23 November 2011 7 comments

.

.

A constant theme of National’s criticism of the previous Labour government was that Helen Clark’s government was engaging in “Nanny State” politics. The constant refrain was that Labour was controlling more and more of our lives and the repeal of Section 59 (commonly referred to as the “anti smacking law”) was held up as the prime example of state interference in our lives.

Yet, National voted in favour of that same Bill, passing it through the House with near unanimity.

National’s own penchant for state interference in our lives – referred to as “Daddy State”  by some – is actually more pronounced than Labour’s ever was.

The latest example of state interference in the lives of ordinary New Zealanders is this extraordinary story, which appeared in today’s NZ Herald,

.

Full Story

.

Anne Tolley has stated explicity,

The biggest influence on learning is the teaching, and we want to make sure we have world-class teachers across the board. Making changes to initial teacher training and setting ‘disposition to teach’ criteria is to make sure we get the right people going into teaching.” Source

‘Disposition to teach’ criteria?!

The government intends to determine who is/isn’t suited to teach?

Three points;

  1. If National wants to alienate our teachers and inspire them sufficiently to move to Australia – they are doing a fabulous job at it.  We will have lost our teachers in the next few years, if  National is returned to power.
  2. What will be the next profession where government sets “disposition criteria”? Doctors? Architects? Airline pilots? Ambulance drivers? Firefighters? All Blacks?
  3. Will National set “disposition criteria” for aspiring political candidates “to make sure we get the right people going into politics”?

National’s plan to test individuals for “disposition criteria” is one of the more chilling policies I’ve heard in a long time.

God knows what sort of society National politicians are envisaging – but I want no part of  it. This is downright quasi-fascism. With a huge dose of bizarro-creepiness thrown in for good measure.

If anyone votes for National after this, they need a “disposition criteria”-check carried out on them.

.

.

Nanny State, Daddy State, poor state?

20 October 2011 1 comment

.

Full Story

.

National intends to sign up all workers?

Isn’t that… compulsion?

Isn’t that… “Nanny Statism“?

Isn’t that what National complained so bitterly about in 2008, promising to undo the dreaded tentacles of Nanny State?!

Well, let’s see…

.

Source

.

Source

.

Source

.

Perhaps I’m being unfair on National.  Calling them hypocrites on “Nanny Statism” may be unwarranted.  After all, National voted against the Repeal of Section 59 (“anti-smacking legislation), right? They voted against the Green Party initiative, right?

The legislation also carries an amendment agreed earlier by Prime Minister Helen Clark and National leader John Key that says the police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence is considered to be inconsequential.”  Source

Oh, no! National did vote for the Repeal of Section 59!!

It seems apparent that the term “Nanny State” was nothing more than a very clever election “bogey”, designed to paint Labour as some kind of authoritarian Party that loves to do nothing but micro-manage our lives.  It was a clever ploy, and it certainly played it’s part in helping to defeat Labour in 2008.

But as with the banning of using cellphones whilst driving or launching a “Food in Schools” programme, National is not averse to legislation to enforce “social-engineering” policy.

Their change-of-heart in regards to Kiwisaver may be viewed as  a further step into so-called “Nanny State” heartland. But, like other changes to the way in which we organise our society and manage our economy, it is a necessity which we cannot do without.

Some folk may jump up and down and whinge till the cows come home, that compulsory enrollment is a violation of their right to exercise choice; that it is not necessary; etc, etc.

Well, newsflash, my dear fellow Kiwis – it is necessary, and it is long overdue. The spend-up we’ve been having has been financed through massive borrowings from overseas – and the credit agencies have taken notice of our borrow & spend habits.

.

Source

.

Much of our debt is private debt – fuelling our housing bubble – and based on other peoples’  savings. Very little of it goes into the productive sector. In effect, the property speculation is based on borrowed money.

And the party, people, is rapidly coming to an end.

Kiwisaver will do for New Zealand what Australia’s compulsory super-scheme did for that country:  save.

Australia has amassed savings of over $1 trillion dollars,

After more than a decade of compulsory contributions, Australian workers have over $1.28 trillion in superannuation assets. Australians now have more money invested in managed funds per capita than any other economy.” Source

It is little wonder that Australia is a wealthier society than New Zealand. Their superannuation savings scheme – compulsory since 1992 – has meant that Australians do not rely on foreign capital to the same extent that we do, here in NZ.

By contrast, New Zealanders voted away a compulsory savings scheme in 1975, when we voted for Robert Muldoon and his National Government. His (in)famous “Dancing Cossacks” election ad was sufficient to “spook”  us – as was a certain measure of self-interest. We simply didn’t want to save for our future if we could get away with it. And Muldoon was only too happy to be elected into power and oblige us.

The current National Government – a different creature from the one in the 1970s – understands the sheer necessity to wean us off foreign borrowings. That is why they  belatedly support Kiwisaver after initially condemning it when they were in Opposition.

However,  it seems that Key and English haven’t quite got the stomach and cojones to make Kiwisaver compulsory, as in Australia. They will be offering an “opt out” clause to voters.

I guess they don’t want to be devoured by that mythical beast they created, the dreaded Nanny State.

Daddy State will have to do.

.

Additional information

Dancing Cossacks anti Labour party political TV ad

Superannuation in Australia

.

.