Coleman’s disgracefully cowardly display

Written By: - Date published: 8:38 am, November 15th, 2013 - 151 comments
Categories: referendum, same old national - Tags:

National’s, weird, favourite line at the moment is to say ‘we’re going to ignore the asset sales referendum and the opposition are hypocrites because they ignored the smacking referendum’. Russel Norman finally had had enough yesterday, and asked Jonathan Coleman just who had been PM when the referendum happened. Coleman’s answer was textbook cowardliness.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Minister tell us who the Prime Minister was in 2009 when the so-called smacking referendum happened, and who was the Prime Minister, the leader of the Government, who made a decision to take no action as a result of that referendum?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We all know the answer to that question. But the other thing we do know is that the economic suicide bombers of the Green Party would, if they got the chance, be bursting into the Cabinet room—

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not attempt to answer the question. Then, he started a diatribe about the Green Party. It has nothing to do with the Green Party.

….

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We all know the answer to that question, but we also know that if the Green Party got hold of the Treasury benches, the Green Party members would be going out and printing billions of dollars to try to buy these assets back. I challenge them to deny it.

…. (8 minutes of points of order as Coleman desperately tries to get out of saying it was Key)

Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the citizens initiated referendum in respect of the smacking issue, and who was the Prime Minister and who was in Government when that referendum was ignored?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not have that information with me, but if you would like to submit the question in writing, the Minister will get back to you.

The answer, of course, is that John Key was the Prime Minister who ignored that referendum, even after his MPs collected the signatures, and he was the one who brokered the deal so that National voted for the law in the first place. Now that they’re cuddling up with Colin Craig’s Crazies, National’s desperate to forget that… but they kind of brought it back up themselves, eh?

Bit of a backfire there from National – trying to blame the opposition for National’s own actions in government. And the inept, cowardly, Jonathan Coleman just made it worse for them.

151 comments on “Coleman’s disgracefully cowardly display ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. fender 1
    15 November 2013 at 8:47 am

    It was appalling to watch and that pathetic speaker Carter just made it even more farcical.

    • Tom Gould 1.1
      15 November 2013 at 10:15 am

      Coleman lied, plain and simple. But lying comes so easy to Tories, maybe we should cut him some slack? Arch-Tory Carter, in the Chair, probably didn’t pick it up as lying either, for the same reason. It’s just how fascist regimes roll, folks.

      • Naturesong 1.1.1
        15 November 2013 at 11:37 am

        Lets not get ahead of ourselves.
        Fascism is not here yet.

        As far as I can tell, there are two pieces missing; overwhelming and unthinking nationalism or the intertwining of religion and government are signs of facist regimes. Though religion is not necessary, there does need to be a force that unifies and binds the people into a single entity to the extent that any “other” becomes a natural enemy of not only the state, but the dominant communities within it..

        1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism — Not here yet
        2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights — Check
        – “There have been twelve pieces of legislation in recent years that have been identified as inconsistent with the rights and freedoms protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights, and on a number of occasions urgency has been used in Parliament to limit or bypass select committee scrutiny,” – Mr Moore, Law Society New Zealand
        3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause — Check
        – Unions, Unemployed, Maori, Green Party members
        4. Supremacy of the Military — Check
        – GCSB, Governer General, Increased Police Powers
        5. Rampant Sexism — Check
        – Rape Culture, Overwhelming predominance of men in cabinet
        6. Controlled or Compliant Mass Media — Check
        – Fairfax, APN, Mediaworks
        7. Obsession with National Security — Check
        – GCSB, TICS
        8. Religion and Government are Intertwined — Potential
        – Colin Craig? Charter schools?
        9. Corporate Power is Protected — Check
        – Chorus, Sky City, TCCP
        10. Labour Power is Suppressed — Check
        – Employment Relations Amendment Bill
        11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts — Check
        12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment — Check
        13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption — Check
        – Hobbit, Sky City, Tiwai
        14. Fraudulent Elections or Supression of Democratic Process — Check
        – ECAN, Disempowerment of Local bodies

        We’re almost there folks.
        Thankfully we’re an Island nation. A war against a neighbouring country, perhaps one with which we had historical grievances, would be just the ticket.

        • Wayne 1.1.1.1
          15 November 2013 at 2:04 pm

          I know the Left would love to characterize the Nats as Fascists. All I can say is try and seriously campaign on that theme and see how far you get.

          As I have said before, I am waiting for the flood of international condemnation that must surely come that NZ is being run by a fascist government.

          • karol 1.1.1.1.1
            15 November 2013 at 2:08 pm

            Yet, Wayne, you have no condemnation for right wing MPs calling the Greens “Taleban” and “suicide bombers” etc?

            • Tracey 1.1.1.1.1.1
              15 November 2013 at 2:14 pm

              +1

              Wayne like others choose to skip over this point to make supposedly droll commentary about facism… anything but public condemnation their “team”. Better to laugh at anonymous commentators than condemn elected representatives.

              • gobsmacked …
                15 November 2013 at 2:21 pm

                Exactly, Tracey.

                A huge difference between ordinary people ranting on the internet (we all do that), and the language that is deliberately used by Ministers of the Crown.

                I’m quite certain, given his own record in public life, that Wayne views the government’s terms of abuse with considerable distaste.

                I’m less certain that he is prepared to say so.

          • gobsmacked 1.1.1.1.2
            15 November 2013 at 2:09 pm

            But the Greens are “Taliban” and “suicide bombers”, yes?

          • fender 1.1.1.1.3
            15 November 2013 at 2:10 pm

            In cahoots with other fascist regimes….that condemnation may be some way off..

          • Tracey 1.1.1.1.4
            15 November 2013 at 2:12 pm

            Selective reading Wayne?

            I dont think the Nats are facists anymore than I think that Dunne and Coleman’s characterisation of Green MPs as terrorists is right. I condemn both. You however ignored that obvious point, presumably deliberately? Facism only came up because of the lack of condemnation of Coleman and Dunne.

            Will you write here that you condemn Coleman for using epithets like “economic suicide bombers” and Dunne for comparing some green MPs to the Taliban?

          • Naturesong 1.1.1.1.5
            15 November 2013 at 2:34 pm

            Wayne, I’ll concede that a couple of the points are tenuous, and one is a continuation of policies pushed by both parties (Urewera Raids, Tough on Crime stuff that just locks more people up instead of addressing the causes etc ).

            We’re obviously not there yet, however, I think even you will have to admit that we are moving very clearly in that direction.

          • framu 1.1.1.1.6
            15 November 2013 at 4:14 pm

            way to miss that point wayne

            do you hear that sound like a plane overhead?

          • geoff 1.1.1.1.7
            15 November 2013 at 5:39 pm

            You’re not fascists, you’re just greedy, stupid and selfish.

          • BrucetheMoose 1.1.1.1.8
            16 November 2013 at 2:37 pm

            Not Fascist yet? Just have a closer look at how they are conducting themselves in Canterbury/Christchurch. It is a microcosm of how they would like it all to be.
            Ignoring normal democratic procedures and the gradual systematic undermining of businesses and property rights, ultimately leading to confiscations, all done under the guise of a crisis – check

      • Murray Olsen 1.1.2
        16 November 2013 at 3:25 am

        Carter does sort of seem stupid enough to not know the answer, to be fair.

    • David H 1.2
      15 November 2013 at 11:10 am

      When you think he can’t get any worse..

  2. Lanthanide 2
    15 November 2013 at 8:58 am

    Coleman can’t say “we all know the answer” and then say “he doesn’t have the information [on] him”.

    Speaker should have held him up for contempt of parliament right there and demanded he speak the name or leave the house.

    • Tracey 2.1
      15 November 2013 at 9:22 am

      He couldnt with Lockwood in the chair but he can with the “farmer” in the seat.

      However it may be because he is too busy to do his Mp and Speaker job because “David currently farms sheep and beef properties on Banks Peninsula and at Cheviot in North Canterbury.”

      being an MP and Speaker must just be his hobby.

  3. Tracey 3
    15 November 2013 at 9:15 am

    So Dunne likens the Greens to the Taliban and now this ” economic suicide bombers of the Green Party” from Coleman.

    This is ok is it? Is it ok to call the PM a nazi now?

    No editorials slamming the scaremongering of the rght by comparing the Green MPs to terrorists?

    Someone needs to ask Coleman if he considers the Greens former proposal of quantitative easing to be like a suicide bomber… if he says yes, does he consider David Cameron and Barrack Obama to also be like suicide bombers for their quantitative easing policies.

    • fender 3.1
      15 November 2013 at 9:23 am

      “Is it ok to call the PM a nazi now?”

      That’s what these idiots want, it would be a better idea for the opposition to show that they are the more mature MP’s.

      • Tracey 3.1.1
        15 November 2013 at 9:34 am

        I agree fender, was more highlighting the hypocrisy and the lack of chris, BM, Hooten, Wayne, infused railing about the right resorting to shameless comparisons because they must be desperate. And always while Brand Key is out of the country

    • Enough is Enough 3.2
      15 November 2013 at 11:03 am

      I am not sure whether you should be holding out the UK as an example of where quantative easing has been a raging success.

      Cameron, since he came to power has taken the UK backwards to the point where the Kingdom is on its knees.

      The US as well. For its quantative easing, all we have is a Wall Street flush with cash and soaring stock prices, and a growing impoverished underclass.

      Lets not ask that question aye.

      • Tracey 3.2.1
        15 November 2013 at 12:53 pm

        I am not suggesting it has been a raging success I am pointing out the hypocrisy of calling the greens terrorists for espousing it while the PM sticks his tongue down the back of Cameron and Obama’s trousers even though they too are “economic suicide bombers”

        The public would not go much beyond the shallow end IF the media would actually print

        “Today Johnathan Coleman called Russel Norman a suicide bomber for advancing the same economic solution as implemented by David Cameron and Obama.”

  4. karol 4
    15 November 2013 at 9:35 am

    greens are terrorist?!!! Who is the nasty party again? And when are the MSM going to call the Key government on it’s shameless spin, distortions and diversions?

  5. Naturesong 5
    15 November 2013 at 9:52 am

    The speakers performance is particularly shameful:

    http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/22021

    Dr Norman’s supplementary starts at 4.41.

    • North 5.1
      15 November 2013 at 4:49 pm

      Farcical ! Someone should have pushed it to the point of being ordered out by that joke of a speaker thus more widely publicising the farce of it. Like a dimwitted banana republic caraciture wearing the meanest cloak of parliamentary ethics.

  6. ghostwhowalksnz 6
    15 November 2013 at 10:27 am

    Expect this to be the ‘face palm’ of the week when the usual Beltway pundits write up their comments ?

    Probably not, as that is only reserved for Labour or Greens faux pas

  7. Macro 7
    15 November 2013 at 10:53 am

    Greens are called “Economic Terrorists” By National! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.. The clowns on the treasury benches at the moment wouldn’t know an economy if they fell over it. And they are trashing ours as fast as they can with their mismanagement.

  8. Appleboy 8
    15 November 2013 at 11:13 am

    My god. I’ve seen everything now. These guys are beyond contempt. What utter tossers. It’s like they no longer care what people see – there’s just no attempt to hide their true nature any more.

    • Red Rosa 8.1
      15 November 2013 at 11:40 am

      +1

      Until recently, many of us had not been exposed to Parliament TV and the appalling mix of arrogance and ignorance displayed by National Party MP’s.

      Russel Norman’s calm and measured questions contrast with the puerile and evasive responses of Ministers, time and time again.

      The Labour Party campaign slogan, ‘Fairness and Decency’ is right on the money.

  9. gobsmacked 9
    15 November 2013 at 12:00 pm

    Agree with all the above. I listened to the whole performance live, and it brought Parliament into contempt. The Speaker was not even pretending to do his job.

    Ultimately, though, this disgraceful episode (and it was worse than usual but hardly new, it happens every week now) will disappear without trace. The general public won’t even know about it. That is the core issue for the opposition.

    Bullies and cowards do whatever they can get away with. Yesterday opposition MPs made a good attempt at stopping them, but – and it’s a crucial “but” – they played by the rules. The rules of “points of order” leading to “speaker’s ruling”. They got nowhere, Coleman got off.

    Frankly, the opposition have got to get into their heads that the old rules don’t apply. Lockwood Smith made a fair fist of it, but David Carter never will. Just spluttering “outrage!” is the epitome of bubble-talk, the insiders complaining about life inside the bubble. It achieves nothing.

    So what can they do? Change the game. You can PREDICT what National Ministers will do from Key to Coleman to Bridges to the rest. So be prepared.

    Countless possibilities, if you want to be bold (but do they?). e.g. Ask the same question over and over again, forget other supplementaries, just keep going until it becomes a NEWS story (seriously, study Media 101 … repetition = news.). Quote Hansard (list all the insults ministers use, get the Speaker to rule that they’re OK – because he’s a lapdog, he will – then immediately use all of them in a question. And so on, and so on.

    Ask questions that work …

    e.g. NOT

    Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the citizens initiated referendum in respect of the smacking issue, and who was the Prime Minister and who was in Government when that referendum was ignored?

    BUT

    “Who … (deliberate pause) …was … (pause) … Prime Minister … (pause) … in 2009?”

    Then STOP. 5 years we’ve been begging them to ask short sharp, questions. Still begging!

    Let’s be clear: Carter, Coleman, Key – we all know totally bloody obnoxious. But the vast majority of voters don’t know, because they don’t hear them. So to make them hear, get these bastards on the news. To get them on the news, make a scene.

    Sorry to rant on, but I despise bullies, and it’s frustrating to see them thrive. They must be stoped. New tactics, new energy please.

    • Naturesong 9.1
      15 November 2013 at 12:14 pm

      Hon Dr Russel Norman: “Who … (deliberate pause) …was … (pause) … Prime Minister … (pause) … in 2009?”
      Speaker: “Point of Order Hon Gerry Brownlee”
      Hon Gerry Brownlee “The question does not speak to the principle question “Can he rule out the partial sale of Air New Zealand proceeding prior to 30 November 2013″, nor does the Minister of Finance have ministerial responsibility for the selection of the Prime Minister”
      Speaker: “Hon Dr Norman, please direct your supplementary to the subject at hand”

      Coleman broached the subject of the previous referendum, which is why the speaker correctly allowed it. The speaker should have forced the Coleman to answer, and when he didn’t, should have named him for contempt.

      I agree on the shorter questions, also not inserting schoolboy insults into questions which some of the Labour MP’s are prone to do.
      Dr Norman is normally pretty good with his questions, but when the speaker is just there to egg on his mates, it’s an uphill battle

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        15 November 2013 at 12:21 pm

        Yes. But as gobsmacked pointed out – its not going to happen with this Speaker.

        Frankly, the opposition have got to get into their heads that the old rules don’t apply. Lockwood Smith made a fair fist of it, but David Carter never will. Just spluttering “outrage!” is the epitome of bubble-talk, the insiders complaining about life inside the bubble. It achieves nothing.

        +1

      • gobsmacked 9.1.2
        15 November 2013 at 12:22 pm

        Naturesong, none of that matters.

        You see, the idea is to get the question into the media. Not to be approved by the Speaker.

        If question is ruled out of order, repeat it. And again. And again. Worst that can happen? The questioner gets thrown out, and then he makes the news. For (in the public’s eyes, which is ALL that matters) asking a simple question while a Minister played the dick.

        Naturesong, you have explained the insider’s rules. The rules the opposition are losing by. Forget them.

        • Naturesong 9.1.2.1
          15 November 2013 at 12:24 pm

          Fair point – don’t worry about the speakers rulings, get the public to rule on it instead.

          For that to happen Labour would have to be extremely disciplined and excruciatingly civil.
          I don’t have that much faith to be honest, all it takes is Clayton Cosgrove or Trevor Mallard to open their mouth and its all over

          • gobsmacked 9.1.2.1.1
            15 November 2013 at 12:33 pm

            Yes, it needs to be done smart, and I agree 100% that Mallard could snatch defeat from victory.

            There are “Mallards” on the gov’t benches, like Simon Bridges. Target him with the questions, his mouth will deliver for the opposition.

        • gobsmacked 9.1.2.2
          15 November 2013 at 12:25 pm

          (just seen your edit)

          OK, fair comment on Labour MPs. They have far more supps than Norman, and don’t use them well. Very frustrating.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 9.1.2.3
          15 November 2013 at 12:31 pm

          It should be a new question itself:

          Does Dr Coleman stand by his previous statements regarding the Prime Minister disregarding the results of the ‘anti smacking’ referendum.

          Add another foot to the rope !

        • Hanswurst 9.1.2.4
          16 November 2013 at 12:39 am

          The problem would be the media spinning it as Labour MPs asking vexatious questions to which the answers are already known and thus bringing parliament into disrepute. It would be bullshit spin, but it would probably work. A bunch of opinion pieces by Watkins and Armstrong later, in which they basically say “National ministers avoid questions, Labour MPs run around playing silly games; both should grow up and address the serious issues,” and it would all be forgotten, chalked up to another round of parliamentary circus. That would represent a win for National, assuming the rest of the overage continues as it has for the last seven years.

    • kenny 9.2
      15 November 2013 at 12:26 pm

      Agreed.

      It’s time the opposition got serious about this. Cause a scene, get thrown out of the house.

      The only upside to this governments behaviour is that they are acting like a 3rd term one. Keep saying this and people will start to think it.

      Third term behaviour!

      • Crunchtime 9.2.1
        15 November 2013 at 4:31 pm

        Yep agree this is a great tactic: behave well, but continue to ask questions until they are either answered or the speaker reveals his own contempt for the house by throwing the questioner out.

    • Anne 9.3
      15 November 2013 at 2:43 pm

      +1 gobsmacked. Some of us have been begging short, sharp questions and equally brief campaign messages and leaflets for the past 40 years? They have lost the art if listening.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.4
      15 November 2013 at 5:08 pm

      Ultimately, though, this disgraceful episode (and it was worse than usual but hardly new, it happens every week now) will disappear without trace. The general public won’t even know about it.

      And that is the core of the corruption in NZ.

      • TheContrarian 9.4.1
        15 November 2013 at 7:24 pm

        Parliament TV is live every day and is on YouTube always. It won’t disappear and the public has full access.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.4.1.1
          15 November 2013 at 9:56 pm

          How many people even know that Question Time exists, that’s it’s on TV and available on the net?

          My own feeling on the matter is that the majority of people don’t know. These people will watch the news on TV1 or 3 and never hear anything about it.

          • TheContrarian 9.4.1.1.1
            15 November 2013 at 10:37 pm

            Quite often the news will have clips from parliament but that isn’t really the point. Parliament TV is available to everyone, is on YouTube, archived for all and parliament is open for anyone to attend in person. What’s the problem? Hardly ‘corruption’.

            • Macro 9.4.1.1.1.1
              15 November 2013 at 10:54 pm

              That is not the point that Draco was making – He contends (and I agree) that the ‘corruption’ exists because these sorts of abuses of power go unreported to the general public by the mainstream media – which is the sole source from which the majority of the population take their “news”.
              The fact that video clips are available to all is neither here nor there because for the majority they are unaware of their existence.

              • TheContrarian …
                15 November 2013 at 11:22 pm

                How was this an abuse of power?

                Seems to me it is a ham-fisted attempt to avoid answering a question – a frequent occurrence that both sides of the house are guilty of.

                • Hanswurst …
                  16 November 2013 at 12:41 am

                  It is an abuse of power because Coleman knows that the speaker (who wields the power in this case) will continue to insist that what Mr. Coleman is waving around is not, in fact, a leg of ham, but a bona fide fist.

                • McFlock …
                  16 November 2013 at 12:45 am

                  So basically Colman pled incompetence (not knowing who the pm was four years ago) in order to incompetently (“ham-fisted”) try to avoid admitting that the government’s latest lie (that Labour ignored the s59 referendum) was also incompetent (patently and demonstrably untrue on the very face of it).

                  Nah, I reckon you’d have difficulty finding an example of that from labgrnmana.

                  Whether they are truly that incompetent, or just obviously feigning it to avoid accountability (and that would be an intentional abuse of power no matter who does it, because it’s subverting procedures that were specifically designed to ensure an accountable government), I don’t care. This nact government needs to go.

                  • photonz …
                    16 November 2013 at 1:30 am

                    So you’ve gone all anal and pedantic on a minor point, drawing attention to the much bigger issue that Labour pushed through the anti smacking law when poll after poll showed 80-90% of the population were against it.

                    Keep digging. Dig dig dig.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 November 2013 at 1:17 pm

                      Was “anal” your word for the day?

                      John Key was the Prime Minister who ignored that referendum, even after his MPs collected the signatures, and he was the one who brokered the deal so that National voted for the law in the first place.

                      John Key […]brokered the deal so that National voted for the law
                      Pretending that Labour “pushed it through” is just more photoshopping of history by an habitual liar.

    • Kath 9.5
      15 November 2013 at 9:16 pm

      Agree +

  10. captain hook 10
    15 November 2013 at 12:20 pm

    coleman is a thicko.
    no amount of academic credentials can disguise it.
    and a bully to boot.
    that is why he is in the National Party!

  11. captain hook 11
    15 November 2013 at 12:20 pm

    coleman is a thicko.
    no amount of academic credentials can disguise it.
    and a bully to boot.
    that is why he is in the National Party!

  12. Seti 12
    15 November 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Yeah, National have been using the wrong referendum to highlight the hypocrisy. It was the MP Reduction Referendum that the Clark government ignored.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 12.1
      15 November 2013 at 12:33 pm

      And before that National ignored the result of the referendum on Fire Service reorganization.

      But of course they paid a price, as national will over asset sales, which must be one of the fastest in getting to the voters

    • Naturesong 12.2
      15 November 2013 at 12:42 pm

      Yup, however, the MP reduction referendum was eventually drawn in 2006 as a private members bill (New Zealand First MP Barbara Stewart) and Labour did allow to to pass to select comittee.
      edit – scratch that – no labour “aye” votes in first reading

      The select comittees recomended that the bill not be passed and was particularly brutal on the substance of the change.

      The bill failed at the second reading 112 to 9.
      National voted against it lock step.
      They are quite a disciplined lot when it comes to voting.

  13. photonz 13
    15 November 2013 at 12:47 pm

    The anti smacking bill was introduced in 2007 by Labour Greens against overwhelming public opposition, and now they’re trying to blame National for it.

    That’s truely wacky, not to mention dishonest. The scary thing is people with such warped thinking want to run the country,

    In recent polls only 11% of people think it’s made any difference at all.

    The vast majority of people think it has no effect and ignore it.

    • gobsmacked 13.1
      15 November 2013 at 12:52 pm

      @photonz

      You’re very confused. Labour/Greens aren’t “trying to blame National for it”. Read again. Think.

      Key-word: Referendum.

      • Tracey 13.1.1
        15 November 2013 at 1:03 pm

        He’s not confused, he is being deliberately deceitful. He has been pushing government policy for a
        few days on this site. This topic is one he could have addressed the facts, he chose not to.

        I wish srylands would post, he and this guy could have a love-in.

        • fender 13.1.1.1
          15 November 2013 at 1:11 pm

          There was someone with a different name going on about the dirty infected people to be found on public transport recently, so I suspect srylands is still lurking about…

    • Naturesong 13.2
      15 November 2013 at 12:59 pm

      The purpose of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill was to close a loophole which allowed some parents to beat the tar out of their kids and get away with it.

      Arguments in Comittee
      Sue Bradford (Green): I would like to take a brief call to make a direct response to Mr Copeland. Of course, as far as I know, there has never been a conviction or a prosecution of someone once lightly smacking a child. That is simply because we have the defence of reasonable force under section 59 of the Crimes Act, which is for the purpose of correction. It is this section this bill seeks to repeal. The problem is that at the moment we have cases where people who severely beat their children escape conviction in court under section 59 of the Crimes Act. The whole point is that this bill is not an anti-smacking bill; it is an anti-beating bill. Under section 194 of the Crimes Act an assault on children under 14 is against the law. The situation in this country is that we have this defence of reasonable force, which allows people to get away with quite seriously assaulting their children. Thank you.

      The bill passed the first reading and went to select comittee, where it was debated at length.
      Amendments were made at the request of the National party
      Remember when the Governement of the day did actually seek consensus because they took their duty of governing for ALL New Zealanders seriously?

      You will notice that in the 3rd reading every single national MP voted for the bill

      • Tracey 13.2.1
        15 November 2013 at 1:06 pm

        The debate was flawed. Once it got called anti-smacking the facts became secondary.

        Prior to this law a parent charged with beating their child with a metal pipe could, and did, claim that they believed they were using reasonable force for the purpose of discipline. The focus was not on what a reasonable parent would think about the beating, but what the beater thought about the beating they were administering. Juries, applying this law would find that if a parent thought it was reasonable for discipline then that belief was all that mattered. That was patently stupid.

        It seems the right arent just drven by the need to own stuff, they need to own their children too.

        • Naturesong 13.2.1.1
          15 November 2013 at 1:26 pm

          At the time I opposed this bill.

          My view was they the problem was that the judiciary was not applying the test of “reasonableness” correctly.

          After select comittee, the “reasonable” was still contained within the bill.

          I feared that after having this wierd public argument, that didn’t seem to have anything really to do with the actual legislation, we would still have a law with the same loophole, just moved sideways.

          Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007

          Parental control
          (1) 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—
          (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
          (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
          (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
          (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

          Thankfully, subsequent to the amendment passing, the judiciary seems to have pulled its head in, and finding that beating your child with a jug cord is not reasonable, even if you believe that you are “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting”

    • Tracey 13.3
      15 November 2013 at 1:01 pm

      and yet thousands of parents havent been snatched from their homes in sweeps by police because they paddled their kids bums as we were promised by those who wanted the right to defend the beating of their children with the subjective notion of “if *I* believed it was reasonable discipline” it is ok.

      I note you have no comment or quote or statistic to address the PM’s lie and Coleman’s idiocy.

      here are the facts: PM claimed that the Labour Government ignored the referendum on s59a. A lie, it was HIS government that ignored it. Could have stopped the legislation, could have repealled even if it had been passed by the Labour government.

      Fact: A Bill is not a Law and has no standing for enforcement.

      Only 11% think it made any difference. Cool, and how many said it had destroyed their ability to parent? None?
      .

      .

      • framu 13.3.1
        15 November 2013 at 4:26 pm

        also the idea that good parents should never have the police question them and treat them with suspicion was pretty laughable

        so the cops want to get your side of the story because someone accused you of breaking the law – boo fucking hoo. Some people dont even get that option

    • lprent 13.4
      15 November 2013 at 1:04 pm

      Didn’t National vote against the private members bill after the referendum in 2009? Ummm…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_citizens-initiated_referendum,_2009#John_Boscawen.27s_private_member.27s_bill

      John Boscawen’s private member’s bill[edit]
      By coincidence, Government coalition and ACT MP John Boscawen had a private member’s bill legalising smacking drawn from the ballot less than a week after the referendum. Prime Minister John Key said his National Party would vote it down, with the Labour Party and Green Party also opposed making it likely to be lost after the first reading of the bill.[21] In September 2010 the Bill was in fact defeated 115–5 on its first reading in Parliament.

      The main reason was that the “smacking” referendum and Boscawen’s bill were both written by cretins who couldn’t frame a statement that expressed their intent without looking like angry reactionary fuckwits, and so wrote statements that were essentially meaningless and unable to be made into legislation.

      From vague memory most National MPs also voted for the Bradfords anti-smacking legislation because it was pretty good legislation, especially after it made it out of select committee

      But keep rewriting history, and I’ll keep pointing out exactly how silly you are..

      New category of fool – “Cretinous like Craig…”

      • Tracey 13.4.1
        15 November 2013 at 1:08 pm

        STOP posting facts.

        • lprent 13.4.1.1
          15 November 2013 at 2:39 pm

          I can’t help it.

          I don’t have the time that some people have to develop these kinds of ideas. I just use google, check against my memory, and do a quick cross through reasonably trusted sources. Doesn’t take nearly as much time as some of the fools seem to spend on writing complete mythological crap.

          Facts seem to be easier to find than developing a whole conspiracy theory from scratch and a few myths. Of course it could just be my science, production/operations management, and programming background getting in the way of a good fairy tale. But I’d have to ask why adults spend so much time on childs tales..

        • Rodel 13.4.1.2
          15 November 2013 at 2:53 pm

          s59 is ‘anti-hitting’ not ‘anti-smacking.’

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 13.5
      15 November 2013 at 1:07 pm

      Good to see Photonz is keeping up the usual standard of comprehension fail.

    • framu 13.6
      15 November 2013 at 4:21 pm

      how could they introduce the bill against overwhelming opposition?

      the bill has to first be made public before the public can react

      fucks sake – you make some shockers in the logic fail dept

      so…
      back to the actual point of who ignored the ref RESULT

      Who … (deliberate pause) …was … (pause) … Prime Minister … (pause) … in 2009?”

    • miravox 13.7
      15 November 2013 at 10:52 pm

      The bill wasn’t introduced by Labour and/or the Greens. It was a private members bill.

      It required wording negotiated by John Key to get it over the line…

      Anyway, one of the few decent things Key has done, and he got a lot of praise for it at the time. Strange to try and disown it now.

  14. Rhinocrates 14
    15 November 2013 at 1:01 pm

    This was a win for Russel Norman – he got both Coleman and Carter to publicly make fools of themselves.

    There’s a line attributed to Lyndon Johnson by Hunter S Thompson (HST hinting that he made it up himself): “I don’t care if he fucks pigs – I want to see him deny it!”

  15. Appleboy 15
    15 November 2013 at 1:05 pm

    I swear if ‘the public’ ever saw a compilation of clips in the house of Key at his worst they’d see that ‘nice mr Key’ in a light enough to change their perception for good. He , and his ilk, are a completely different beast in the house – ugly, arrogant, lying, deceptive, boorish…just plain..National!

    How about a 3 min collage with the bi line “Ever have the feeling you’ve been had?”

    • Naturesong 15.1
      15 November 2013 at 1:13 pm

      Here’s the thing though.

      People actively want to vote for bullies, if they believe that person is working in their best interests.
      And there is also a small section that doesn’t even worry about whether the person is acting in their best interests, they vote for that guy, “’cause he gets things done!”

      And there’s folks who vote with whoever their peer group votes for because thinking is too hard, conforming to the group norm is safe, and is rewarding emotionally. I call these ones “nodding dogs” – Seen loads of these types in middle management in corporates I’ve worked for.

    • Rumour Willis 15.2
      15 November 2013 at 6:52 pm

      I want to see a montage of John Key slurping like a trout sucking shit off a riverbed every time he finishes a sentence. It would go on for a couple of hours. I’m not even exaggerating. He does it so often. My skin crawls every time he does it.

      I’d love to see David Cunliffe just do a deliberate, pointed, 5-second slurp after every question in the house. When asked to stop, he can just point out that it seems to be working well for the Prime Minister. Just troll Key until he either looks stupid or stops slurping. Either way, we win.

  16. Richard Down South 16
    15 November 2013 at 1:33 pm

    The Greens are economic terrorists?

    Ill just put this here http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand

  17. photonz 17
    15 November 2013 at 1:36 pm

    This is funny. We’ve got lefties getting all anally retentive with minor and largely irrelevant points, making themselves look to the public like they’re trying to blame the anti-smacking bill on National.

    When all they are doing is –

    1/ Reminding the public that the Greens Labour bill went ahead despite overwhelming democratic opposition.

    2/ Reminding 90% of the public of how pissed off they were with the Greens/Labour anti smacking law.

    3/ Making the left look dishonest as they look like they’re trying to shift the blame.

    4/ Reminding the public that opposition the the asset sales is significantly less than opposition to the anti-smacking bill.

    Keep it up.

    And when you’re finished, you could always shoot yourself in the other foot to have a matching pair.

    • Tracey 17.1
      15 November 2013 at 1:41 pm

      Ah I see, you are from the “repeat a mistruth over and over until people believe it’s the truth” school.

      Would it really hurt you so much to admit Key deliberately misled parliament ( the public you claim to champion) or lied by suggesting labour ignored the referendum results in 2009 when the Nats had the government benches?

      You are the one making yourself look stupid.

      I dont “blame” labour for the repeal of s59a of the Crimes Act, I applaud it It’s Key lying to mislead the public that he was somehow anti the change is deceitful…

      • photonz 17.1.1
        15 November 2013 at 1:49 pm

        You just proved my point.

        You’re getting anal about who said what in Parliament, but all that’s happening is everyone is getting reminded that Labour and Greens passed a highly unpopular law against the wishes of the vast majority of the population – it didn’t take a referendum to know that.

        • gobsmacked 17.1.1.1
          15 November 2013 at 1:52 pm

          Why did National vote for the law, first in opposition, and then in government?

          • photonz 17.1.1.1.1
            15 November 2013 at 2:59 pm

            The Bill was going to be passed anyway.

            So National took a pragmatic approach and did a political deal, and got the bill watered down in return for support.

            The Greens and Labour were driving the bill, and that’s what people remember.

            Trying to shift the blame to the National who were in opposition at the time simply looks dishonest.

            • gobsmacked 17.1.1.1.1.1
              15 November 2013 at 3:02 pm

              And since 2008?

              “Government coalition and ACT MP John Boscawen had a private member’s bill legalising smacking drawn from the ballot less than a week after the referendum. Prime Minister John Key said his National Party would vote it down.”

            • Naturesong 17.1.1.1.1.2
              15 November 2013 at 3:10 pm

              No. What is dishonest is National trying to blame the previous governement for something they voted for.

            • Tracey 17.1.1.1.1.3
              15 November 2013 at 4:24 pm

              what blame? Key is the one pretending he wasnt the PM who passed the Law? If he isnt happy with how he voted why hasnt he brought in a Bill to repeal it? He’s had 4 years?

              And yea yea, you would vote labour again and have before and would again but…. not unless they are like National now or the Labour govt of 1984.

            • framu 17.1.1.1.1.4
              15 November 2013 at 4:33 pm

              “Trying to shift the blame to the National who were in opposition at the time simply looks dishonest.”

              they werent in opposition – they were the govt at the time – why the fuck do you keep avoiding that rather undebateable fact?

              you keep saying shit that just isnt true

              you better be getting paid – otherwise your firmly marking yourself as a sub level moron

              • photonz …
                15 November 2013 at 4:47 pm

                “they werent in opposition – they were the govt at the time – why the fuck do you keep avoiding that rather undebateable fact?”:

                The bill was passed against overwhelming public opposition in 2007.

                DUH!!!

                • Crunchtime …
                  15 November 2013 at 4:52 pm

                  The bill? Irrelevant. This is about REFERENDUMS. DUH!!!

                  The smacking referendum was in 2009.

                  You’re just as cowardly and disgraceful as Coleman.

                • ghostwhowalksnz …
                  15 November 2013 at 5:54 pm

                  The entire National caucus voted for it !
                  remember

        • Naturesong 17.1.1.2
          15 November 2013 at 1:57 pm

          Not really.

          What is getting repeated is the recognition that John Key and his ministers continue to lie, in parliament and to the public.

          For a group that keeps banging on about individual responsibility, their members don’t seem to have any.

          National Party Lies and Hypocrisy

          National Party Lies and Hypocrisy

          National Party Lies and Hypocrisy

          etc …

        • Tracey 17.1.1.3
          15 November 2013 at 4:22 pm

          “everyone”? You really do need to get over yourself.

        • framu 17.1.1.4
          15 November 2013 at 4:30 pm

          how could labour and greens pass a law when they werent even the fucking govt!

          fucks sake – the greens have never been in govt!

          fuck off shill

          • photonz 17.1.1.4.1
            15 November 2013 at 4:52 pm

            framu says “how could labour and greens pass a law when they werent even the fucking govt! fucks sake – the greens have never been in govt!

            fuck off shill”

            Hilarious – abuse from someone because they think Labour wasn’t in power in 2007.

            • Te Reo Putake 17.1.1.4.1.1
              15 November 2013 at 5:02 pm

              Nope, the abuse is because you’re too thick or too arrogant to admit that the repeal was passed with the support of National as well. It wasn’t a Greens bill or a Labour bill or even a National bill, it was a private members bill. But it enjoyed overwhelming support in Parliament with only a dozen or so MP’s voting to continue child beating.

              • ropata …
                15 November 2013 at 6:08 pm

                photonz = Colin Craig??

                National is trying to cosy up to the Conservative (party of one), so photonz can’t admit that Key is full of shit

        • Crunchtime 17.1.1.5
          15 November 2013 at 4:36 pm

          It’s not who said what, it’s not about what Labour/Green did, it’s about what National (under Key) did: National were in govt in 2009 and had a majority (via coalition) – they could have upheld the result of the referendum, but instead they ignored it.

        • Puddleglum 17.1.1.6
          15 November 2013 at 11:40 pm

          Getting ‘anal’ about that small matter of the truth and of the Prime Minister seemingly lying?

          Do you have no regard for the truth?

          Is winning all that matters to you?

          John Key – the architect of the wording of the act – was the one who tried to ‘remind’ New Zealanders about the s59 repeal – not ‘the left’. John Key was the one who tried to ‘remind’ New Zealanders that Labour ignored the referendum; despite National being government at the time.

          All the commenters here are doing is correcting John Key’s ‘memory’.

          Or do you think it more sensible to let Key’s ‘reminiscences’ become the official version of history?

          Perhaps the commenters here are actually ‘reminding’ people of the truth.

          Not such a foolish thing, I would have thought.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.2
      15 November 2013 at 1:44 pm

      Gosh, that view from Planet Photonz totes showed us, eh.

      I guess that means you won’t be voting Labour then, Photonz.

      Which means they must be doing something right.

      • photonz 17.2.1
        15 November 2013 at 2:26 pm

        I could vote for Labour again if they got their act together. I’ve voted for them more than I’ve ever voted right, so I’m probably in the middle.

        The problem with Labour is they come up with poorly thought out reactionary ideas at the last minute like the power plan – then looked totally dumbfounded when it was pointed out that their power plan crushed not only dividends and capital growth – but also their main arguments for keeping the assets.

        • gobsmacked 17.2.1.1
          15 November 2013 at 2:30 pm

          Several questions to you upthread, please respond.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.2.1.2
          15 November 2013 at 3:39 pm

          How to demonstrate in one short comment that you’re a fool, a liar, and a turncoat.

          • Colonial Viper 17.2.1.2.1
            15 November 2013 at 4:10 pm

            The last time photonz voted for Labour, Roger Douglas and David Caygill were the in-crowd.

            • photonz 17.2.1.2.1.1
              15 November 2013 at 4:57 pm

              Helen Clark.

              Knuckelhead says “you’re a fool, a liar, and a turncoat.”

              Better a “turncoats” making an intelligent decision than mindlessly switching off your brain and cultishly following the same crowd whether they deserve your support or not.

              That’s mindless. You may as well just lodge your election votes in now, for the rest of your life.

              • Crunchtime …
                15 November 2013 at 5:15 pm

                Better a “turncoats” making an intelligent decision than mindlessly switching off your brain and cultishly following the same crowd whether they deserve your support or not.”

                Very astute comment. If only you followed your own advice.

                • photonz …
                  15 November 2013 at 5:38 pm

                  I’ll happily vote Labour if they can get their act together.

                  Right now they’re pushing a referendum that says

                  “Do you think NZ should retain our assets so we can destroy both their value and income with the Labour Greens power plan?”

                  • ropata …
                    15 November 2013 at 6:14 pm

                    oh, you want Labour to get together with ACT… you really *are* an astroturfer

                  • Crunchtime …
                    16 November 2013 at 1:53 am

                    Are you talking about the power companies now?

                    I’d happily see their “value and income destroyed” in order to give the NZ public reasonable power prices.

                    After all, that’s what they are for: supplying power to the New Zealanders who own them.

                    Not for providing value and dividends to shareholders.

                    Ever since the electricity industry was broken up and “reformed” into a corporate model we have faced power prices rising faster than inflation. The exact opposite of what was promised.

                    It was a stupid idea in the first place, and it’s nice to see Labour taking us back in the direction of real efficiency – not just profitability.

        • Paul 17.2.1.3
          15 November 2013 at 3:48 pm

          Haha.
          Given your views it’s impossible you voted for a party left of Genghis Khan.

          • McFlock 17.2.1.3.1
            15 November 2013 at 5:35 pm

            Photoshop reckons they once voted for Helen Clark.
            Either they’re touching up history again, or they couldn’t get the hang of MMP the first time around.

        • Tracey 17.2.1.4
          15 November 2013 at 4:32 pm

          Labour has …”reactionary ideas”

          adjective
          adjective: reactionary

          1.
          opposing political or social progress or reform.
          “reactionary attitudes toward women’s rights”
          synonyms: right-wing, conservative, rightist, ultra-conservative; More
          blimpish, diehard;
          traditionalist, conventional, traditional, old-fashioned, unprogressive;
          Birchite
          “government policy became increasingly reactionary”
          antonyms: radical, progressive

          noun
          noun: reactionary; plural noun: reactionaries

          1.
          a reactionary person.
          “he was later to become an extreme reactionary”
          synonyms: right-winger, conservative, rightist, diehard, Colonel Blimp;

          He was posting for about a week before he trotted out that chestnut.

    • Paul 17.3
      15 November 2013 at 3:44 pm

      Yes a you tube compilation of Key at his worst would be great.

    • framu 17.4
      15 November 2013 at 4:29 pm

      back to the actual point of who ignored the ref RESULT

      Who … (deliberate pause) …was … (pause) … Prime Minister … (pause) … in 2009?”

      • Paul 17.4.1
        15 November 2013 at 4:58 pm

        You’ll need to speak slower than that if folk like Bridges and Coleman are to understand you.

      • photonz 17.4.2
        15 November 2013 at 5:03 pm

        Which has virtually no relevance to the public compared to who was driving the bill.

        Only to anal pedantic people on the extreme left.

        • karol 17.4.2.1
          15 November 2013 at 5:07 pm

          photonz –
          the ….. topic …. is …..referendums.

          How slowly does it have to be said before you understand?

          It is related to the asset sales referendum.

          Or do you just keep wanting to change the subject?

        • rhinocrates 17.4.2.2
          16 November 2013 at 6:51 pm

          What is it with photoshop’s obsession with anal sex? Ringers are supposed to suppress any sign of personality, but their obsessions are leaking out.

  18. photonz 18
    15 November 2013 at 5:35 pm

    karol – if you pull your blinkers in tightly enough, you’ll be able to keep the subject about an irrelevant point.

    Then you won’t have to look at the big picture at all.

    Like Labour and Greens pushed through the anti smacking bill against overwhelming democratic opinion.

    Keep shooting those feet.

    • McFlock 18.1
      15 November 2013 at 5:45 pm

      From the post (you know, the actual topic at hand):

      The answer, of course, is that John Key was the Prime Minister who ignored that referendum, even after his MPs collected the signatures, and he was the one who brokered the deal so that National voted for the law in the first place

      On so many levels, in so many comments, on so many threads, you’re a fucking liar, photoshop.

      Are you trying to impersonate a paid shill for the sake of irony, or are you really just a moral vacuum, desperately clinging to the tory delusion in a futile attempt to preserve the last (albeit atavistic) shred of humanity that exists in the cold, dark, lonely, and boundless abyss that pretends to be your soul?

      • photonz 18.1.1
        16 November 2013 at 1:17 am

        Ooohh! Some mindless abuse from a mindless abuser – so hurtful.

        Wake me up from your tedious abuse if/when you’ve ever got something intelligent to say.

        The reason you want to keep to the topic at hand is because it’s irrelevant minutiae, and you don’t want to look at the big picture (the anti smacking law) which gave the Labour Party a bloody nose and makes them look like hypocrites when they talk about going against the democratic wishes of the people.

        • Crunchtime 18.1.1.1
          16 November 2013 at 1:55 am

          Empty meaningless comment devoid of content and sense. Begone, Nat shill.

        • McFlock 18.1.1.2
          16 November 2013 at 1:23 pm

          The reason you keep wanting to change the topic at hand is because you support a government that claims incompetence when it’s corrupt and is genuinely incompetent when it’s not intentionally corrupt.

          cluebat: if you need to constantly lie to support a government, it probably shouldn’t be the government.

    • Draco T Bastard 18.2
      15 November 2013 at 9:53 pm

      Colin Craig and repealing Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act.

      With this in mind, remember when Bob McCoskrie and Family First gathered signatures for a referendum that posed the totally disingenuous question…

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

      This is not what this law did and nor does it read as such, which really did make me wonder if Bob even read the new law…

      There wasn’t an anti-smacking bill. There was a law change that ensured that people who abused their children would be charged and found guilty rather than getting away with it as was happening before the repeal of s59. I think you’ll find that most people are actually in favour of that.

      • photonz 18.2.1
        16 November 2013 at 1:20 am

        Draco says “There wasn’t an anti-smacking bill.”

        Yes – and the earth is flat.

        Keep it up – you look more and more delusional.

        • Draco T Bastard 18.2.1.1
          16 November 2013 at 11:41 am

          No, I just accept what actually happened and the reasons for it while you look more and more desperate to defend John Key’s and National’s lies.

  19. Dumrse 19
    15 November 2013 at 5:42 pm

    ……yawn…… Fuck I’m right outa popcorn now.

    • Pascal's bookie 19.1
      15 November 2013 at 7:10 pm

      That’s a shame, just when Colin Craig steps into the lamelight, already endorsed by the muppet in chief.

  20. rhinocrates 20
    15 November 2013 at 8:19 pm

    Well this is amusing. National is sending out mating calls to Colon Craig’s Conservatives and has “Photonz” astroturfufing for them because they know that ACT and United Figleaf are dead while Dunne in a fright wig is desperately claiming that he’s still relevant.

    Remember everyone, popcorn is unhealthy. Eat salad while you watch this spectacle.

  21. Phil 21
    15 November 2013 at 10:29 pm

    A timely post, as I’ve been pulled over by the police twice in the last week. On one occasion for absolutely no reason. Just checking my seat belt and warrant, he said. In talking to other folks I was surprised at the disdain and general dissatisfaction with the police. It seems people are losing trust in them for many reasons. We are heading towards a police state folks, be very careful, and wary.

  22. Matthew Hooton 22
    16 November 2013 at 2:56 pm

    I don’t get the debating point the Greens are trying to make here. They draw attention to the fact that John Key ignored the pro-smacking referendum, and presumably they agree he should have ignored it. Doesn’t that just legitimise the concept of prime ministers ignoring CIRs? Which plays into Key’s hands on the MOM issue?

    • felix 22.1
      16 November 2013 at 4:42 pm

      The point is that John Key is lying. Again.

      • gobsmacked 22.1.1
        16 November 2013 at 5:42 pm

        Exactly, Felix.

        The Greens didn’t introduce the “debating point”, Matthew. They – and anybody else with a grasp of reality – are responding to the bizarre utterances of a Prime Minister who no longer even pretends to tell the truth. He started this fabrication on Wednesday in the House (as you well know).

        When the leader of our country says that a government which didn’t exist responded to something which didn’t happen, he is either a liar or hallucinating. Either way, we should all be worried.

    • rhinocrates 22.2
      16 November 2013 at 7:03 pm

      Oh look, the hollow man’s back again, and even paid to bring up the section 59 amendment in an attempt to rewrite history.

      Go back to your carefully-preplanned attacks on rape apologists Hoots – that’ll play far better and be much more topical, as you must know.

      You do know that even your own paymasters snicker at you behind your back?

  23. repateet 23
    16 November 2013 at 9:49 pm

    Remember to clap politely when David Carter is bestowed with his knighthhood folks!

  24. peterlepaysan 24
    18 November 2013 at 10:11 pm

    Key is a ventriloquists dummy and Coleman and the Nats all know it We have been bought by wall street and Washington. Gordon Gecko Rules!

    Key will very soon retire to his homeland of Hawaii, Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington having reduced NZ to a pack mule controlled by which ever deputy sheriff is looking after Australia.