Will MPs have to take the test?

Written By: - Date published: 10:17 am, August 18th, 2013 - 47 comments
Categories: accountability - Tags:

Paula Bennett wants to introduce a new regime that screens all government employees to stop child abuse.

MPs have a lot of interaction with children.

So will they be regularly tested? And if not, Why not?

Hattip: DV

47 comments on “Will MPs have to take the test? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Anne 1
    18 August 2013 at 10:36 am

    Off the top of my head, who would most likely be at the top of the list of suspects? Oh yes, Paula Bennett herself. I mean, didn’t she harbour a hardened criminal? Lets face it, she said she was doing it to help him because he was the father of her daughter’s child. Sounds reasonable, but how do we know it was really true. She needs to undergo the test pronto don’t you think? ( sarcasm )

    • Anne 1.1
      18 August 2013 at 11:08 am

      … and what about Gerry Brownlee? Didn’t he push someone down some stairs a few years back? I don’t like the sound of it. How do we know he isn’t pushing children down the stairs? This is serious stuff.
      … and then there’s Tau Henare. He looks a thug so that’s enough. He must be tested asap!
      … and Judith Collins? She wanted to crush cars a few years ago. How do we know she hasn’t got a secret desire to crush children too?
      … best of all there’s John Key. He threatened to slit Phil Goff’s throat once.

      This is a shocker. All NAct MPs must be tested at once.

      Yeah well, contemptuous proposed legislation leads to an equally contemptuous response.

      • Sable 1.1.1
        18 August 2013 at 11:15 am

        Yep these creeps are holding each and every one of us to a higher standard than they hold themselves and yet people still blithely vote for them. Personally I don’t get it…..

      • Chooky 1.1.2
        18 August 2013 at 4:22 pm

        +1 Anne and Sable

      • BrucetheMoose 1.1.3
        18 August 2013 at 4:54 pm

        He certainly did – http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0203/S00109.htm
        He should be held also be held responsible in a court of law on humanitarian grounds for the on going neglect and suffering of the people of Christchurch due to his continual ignoring of their plight. In stead of listening to them and dealing with their quite valid concerns, he pulls stunts like this -http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/7656654/Brownlee-fed-up-with-moaning-residents
        No wonder he never shows himself in general public there anymore, unless it is in a highly controlled environment. Key the same.

      • finbar 1.1.4
        19 August 2013 at 6:37 pm

        Tau,once gave Banks, a bit of a slapping in the corridors of the House,when he was with Winston!s Party.

  2. Raymond a Francis 2
    18 August 2013 at 11:00 am

    Good point but be careful for what you wish for

    • Rhinocrates 2.1
      18 August 2013 at 3:39 pm

      “Oh whyyyyy doesn’t anyone think of the children?” is the perfect case of this… except in this case, it’s deliberately being used as a diversion. Yes, we all oppose paedophilia (well, most of us), but I’m disgusted – though not surprised – that National will be so cynical as to bring this up as a distraction to enable repressive legislation that bypasses fundamental employment rights.

      Marx said that history repeats first as tragedy and then as farce, but he was wrong – it happens first as tragedy – and then as another tragedy.

  3. Sable 3
    18 August 2013 at 11:12 am

    Even if they do does anyone really think MPs backgrounds will be looked at all that hard?

  4. northshoredoc 4
    18 August 2013 at 11:23 am

    MPs have a lot of interaction with children ?

    No not really, it’s probably best to see what the legislation actually says before any of us comment, but if the intent is to vet those who are employed to have sole and unsupervised contact with children it might just serve to prevent some of the more horrendous abuse that’s come to light.

    • Sable 4.1
      18 August 2013 at 11:34 am

      Based on what we have seen so far do you seriously expect anything worthwhile from the likes of Bennett or Keys? How many lies do they have to tell before people see what they are really up to…..

      • North 4.1.1
        18 August 2013 at 12:31 pm

        “Suspicion” as a determinative threshold runs wickedly counter to the Rule of Law.

        NB supporters of the looming fascist state, I said “determinative”.

    • Pascal's bookie 4.2
      19 August 2013 at 9:43 am

      You mean like doctors who spend years on the internet constantly changing their usernames and going on and on about felching? Those sort of characters?

  5. burt 5
    18 August 2013 at 12:38 pm

    MP’s – accountable under the laws they pass for others… what alternate universe do you live in Eddie ?

    Lets get the stock apologist defences out on the table; If others are doing it too, if it’s the way they have always done it or if the rules are confusing (IE: You would rather not abide by them) then – it’s not fair to single out just a few of them.

    I can hear the lovers of corruption and bloated government defending their team for these reasons – just like they did another time a senior government official alleged they broke the law.

    • ak 5.1
      18 August 2013 at 1:02 pm

      (You’d better spell it out burt – some innocent readers might not remember back eight years or have seen your 491 stock repetitions of that time when “Labour did it too”)

      • burt 5.1.1
        18 August 2013 at 1:29 pm

        I know, the shame of having used a childish defense like “others did it too” is something lovers of corruption would rather forget. But my real point is:

        What precedent is there to suggest that MPs will be accountable under the laws they pass for others ?

        Followed closely by;

        When you defend the indefensible because it was your team doing it – then expect to forever be cast as a self serving partisan hack…

        Of course, you could admit that you defended the indefensible because it was your team doing it and admit that you were a partisan hack and then having admitted you were defending corruption and that was wrong – then you will now be able to shout against the behaviour you find unacceptable (for reasons other than because it’s not serving the best interests of the corrupt politicians you want to see win at any cost)

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1.1.1
          18 August 2013 at 2:13 pm

          There’s a third alternative: reject your false framing and baseless smears until you can back them up with more than froth.

        • hellonearthis 5.1.1.2
          18 August 2013 at 3:20 pm

          “others did it too” sounds like ‘just following orders’

    • Sable 5.2
      18 August 2013 at 4:35 pm

      Where’s Ernie?

  6. BrucetheMoose 6
    18 August 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Just more reactionary behaviour to the main issue of the moment in order to look good and gain public favour. As usual, giving the illusion of dealing with the big issues – but not really. Toilet rolls as Christmas crackers again.

  7. fender 7
    18 August 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Hope they take into account poor taste jokes/statements made by prime ministers, like the pm that told a group of young girls (for whatever creepy reason) that David Beckham was as thick as bat-shit and not as good looking as himself.

  8. tracey 8
    18 August 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Its appalling that such an announcement can be made WITHOUT also announcing the criteria. Unless they havent decided it yet which should be equally appalling.

  9. tracey 9
    18 August 2013 at 1:51 pm

    the more horrendous abuse that’s come to light.”

    Is there any evidence that public servants are disproportionately represented amongst the child abuse numbers…

    or is public servant a euphemism for teachers?

    • RJL 9.1
      18 August 2013 at 2:22 pm

      Is there any evidence that public servants are disproportionately represented amongst the child abuse numbers…

      To the extent that child poverty is a kind of child abuse and the policy advice of treasury officials is mostly to blame for child poverty in NZ?

    • Rhinocrates 9.2
      18 August 2013 at 3:43 pm

      euphemism

      Alas, they’re trying to use all of those titles as dysphemisms – i.e.., smears and dog-whistles.

      Hang on to that term, or at least the meaning of “public servant” and “teacher”. Those are honorable titles. Key is trying to turn them into slurs.

  10. IrishBill 10
    18 August 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Lolz. Another pointless policy that will never actually see the light of day but provides a distraction. By my estimation the 2014 election campaign started about a month ago. I know the Nats have had the campaign consultants in for a few months now.

    • felix 10.1
      18 August 2013 at 5:59 pm

      “By my estimation the 2014 election campaign started about a month ago.”

      Someone should tell Labour I reckon.

  11. tc 11
    18 August 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Paula benefit is very busy diverting atttention from GCSB, back to the real show not this laughable idea.

  12. Martin 12
    18 August 2013 at 10:41 pm

    Senator McCarthy is alive and well.

  13. xtasy 13
    19 August 2013 at 1:16 am

    Naturally this will not apply to National Party MPs, as they are “blue flagged”. It will only apply to “red flagged” MPs, perhaps “green flagged” and “pink flagged” ones also.

    Also will National Party membership holders be considered “blue flagged” and therefore be exempt, as this smart and “logical” pre-screening does already work for the government, when it comes to all kinds of areas, like media, GCSB surveillance, rulings by “The Speaker”, police investigations and so forth! It is “evidence based”, same as the convincing new policy in welfare, that “work is good for your health”, yes even “therapeutic”, especially for sick and disabled.

    On the “balance of probabilities” John Key will handle this accordingly, as just described, as he is always “right”, isn’t he just? Yeah right, I’d say, he must be “right”!

  14. Winston Smith 14
    19 August 2013 at 11:36 am

    I wouldn’t think so, the rates of child abuse by ministers (though not unknown) pales into insignificance in comparison to those committed by teachers (for example)

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 14.1
      19 August 2013 at 12:10 pm

      How would you know? I mean, I’m sure the figures (on offender categories) are available somewhere but I’m equally sure you don’t have the first clue what they are, and that begs the question: what use are you?

      • fender 14.1.1
        19 August 2013 at 12:40 pm

        “What use are you?”

        The John Key Party values the effort WS puts into spreading the message. Although it’s usually a simple regurgitation of a tory pavement pizza, Shonkey is relaxed about it. Hekia Parata too values any teacher-basher comments wherever they come from.

  15. captain hook 15
    19 August 2013 at 11:50 am

    this country is getting creepier and creepier.
    filled with sneaks pushing barrows supposedly in the public interest but more in line with their wish to snoop and pry.
    Slater is about to get his bill passed where everybody’s record is available on line.
    Oh well after they get the info from the insurance coy then we can see how much he ripped them off for.
    If New Zealand is as bad as these people think then it is time to do something about the cause and not the effect.

  16. Populuxe1 16
    19 August 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Well if you insist on playing that game

    David Benson-Pope and his tennis balls
    Darren Hughes has a certain reputation
    Chris Carter took up with his partner Peter Kaiser before th elatter was legal tegal
    Dover Samuels and an underage girl

    As examples they are as pointless and inaccurate as your National ones – and I still hate National – but if you insist on stupid petty games like that, it can go both ways

    • wtl 16.1
      19 August 2013 at 3:29 pm

      I think you have completely misunderstood the point of the post.

      • Populuxe1 16.1.1
        19 August 2013 at 7:43 pm

        No, I think I understood it alright. Let’s have a wee snigger about the Natzis hohoho – leaving the left wide open for retaliation. So tiresome.

  17. Populuxe1 17
    19 August 2013 at 1:43 pm

    Well if you insist on playing that game

    David Benson-Pope and his tennis balls
    Darren Hughes has a certain reputation
    Chris Carter took up with his partner Peter Kaiser before the latter was legal tegal
    Dover Samuels and an underage girl

    As examples they are as pointless and inaccurate as your National ones – and I still hate National – but if you insist on stupid petty games like that, it can go both ways

    • Anne 17.1
      19 August 2013 at 3:44 pm

      David Bensen Pope and the tennis balls was a huge beat-up over nothing. Typical Tory underhand propaganda… the story came from some Southland (good Tory territory) kid in his 20s who was living in Aussie. How did he come to know about it eh? Tory daddy got him to front up to the NZ media? Watched his face as he was telling his story. He sounded like he had practised it over and over again. Not convincing to the astute eye.

      Darren Hughes is gay. So…?

      Chris Carter is gay. So…?

      There are National Party members who are gay too.

      Dover Samuels produced convincing evidence at the time which indicated the story was crap – scuttlebutt if you like.

      Pop1 has inadvertently demonstrated why this is contemptible legislation as it currently stands. It encourages maliciously motivated claims being turned into a witch-hunt against innocent individuals. It’s happened before and it will happen again.

      Read the last sentence in my 1.1 comment Pop1. Do you understand the point I was making now?

      • burt 17.1.1
        19 August 2013 at 5:41 pm

        Dover Samuels produced convincing evidence at the time which indicated the story was crap – scuttlebutt if you like.

        Really… So two or three days checking to make sure it was the day after her 16th birthday not the day before – convincing if you are partisan and didn’t want to see him accountable for the sake of not having any ripples for the government.

        Note also he described her in several ways during that time; In his care, his nanny and a family friend.

        If she was in his care or his nanny then the age of consent would legally be 18….

        Convincing – you sure ?

      • Populuxe1 17.1.2
        19 August 2013 at 7:45 pm

        Nothing to do with being gay, Anne, and everything to do with appropriate age. So am I for that matter and I have never voted for National in my life, you silly cow.

  18. aerobubble 18
    19 August 2013 at 3:58 pm

    Will a love of Michael Jackson songs mean barring from political office? Does Putin stance on gays and lesbians suggest a fear of Russia failing to grow its population, doesn’t he know access to fertility treatment etc and more liberal laws… …oh the potential for comedic relief.