Paula is abusing Child Abuse Prevention Orders

Written By: - Date published: 1:45 pm, August 14th, 2013 - 54 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Wanted Poster Paula Bennett large

Blame my liberal world view or my legal training or the time I have spent acting for poor people who get on the wrong side of the legal system.  But I think the latest Government proposal to place severe restrictions on people acquitted of offences involving children and to up the bar on people keeping their kids is vindictive in the extreme.

It is all part of a carefully choreographed script that this Government has engaged in again and again and again.

First they pick a subject that plucks at the heart strings, like for instance child abuse.

Then they chose an enemy, the mythological innately evil child abuser will do fine.

Then they choose a position that will upset civil libertarians.  They do this because they know with the legal profession they have already lost the support of the progressive lawyers.  Their support has been well and truly decimated by the trashing of the criminal and family legal aid systems that has occurred.  Lawyers tend to hold strong political positions so there is nothing to gain or lose by adopting these positions.

When civil libertarians express dismay they then say “what about the kids?” as if there is a choice between retaining precious civil liberties and doing something about child abuse.

With the really good proposals and as a sign of utter contempt they can release the news twice and get read meat radio feasting on it on multiple occasions.

And on a really good day the opposition will have a wishy washy position on the proposal which gives it credence that it does not deserve.

So how does Paula’s latest proposal measure up?  Unsurprisingly it seems to tick all the boxes.

It is recycled news.  The proposal for orders was originally contained in the White Paper for Vulnerable Children except back then it was called a child abuse prevention order.  Now it is called a child harm prevention order.  The subtlety of the change obviously occupied the thinking time of many high paid PR consultants.

When the White Paper for Vulnerable Children was announced in October 2012 Paula Bennett was reported as saying:

We are introducing a series of changes to deal with those who abuse children.

New Zealanders overwhelmingly want us to get tougher on child abusers to better protect our kids.

Child abuse prevention orders will allow judges to stop child abusers from gaining access to children, meaning high-risk adults are flagged and prevented from working with or living with children.

It does appear that the announcement from last October is essentially the same as the recent announcement although the scope has been widened.

Interestingly in the United States they have a thing called a child abuse restraining order although the order is something that applies to a specific child or children rather than children as a whole.  It seems that the right’s best ideas on beneficiary bashing are imported from the United States.

Who will these orders apply to and what is the test?  Well according to Paula they will already have had to have a conviction for a specified offence.  The select committee will work out which offences qualify but obviously because they already have a conviction they are evil bastards and deserve everything coming to them.  A debate about where to exactly draw the line neatly avoids the debate about whether it is right to draw the line at all.

The test as it is currently proposed is that it is to apply to adults at high risk of abusing children in the future.  But the test is the civil onus of proof, that is on the balance of probabilities.  So if a Judge is only just satisfied that allegation about a person are true then an order can be made.  Good luck with the mental gymnastics involved in working that out because the treshold is high but the onus of proof is low.

The consequence may be that a person acquitted of a charge could be told that they cannot go out in public because of the fear of being with children for an extended period of time.  This would essentially put them under house arrest for an allegation they have been acquitted of.  The order will be in force for up to ten years but if there is an ongoing risk the order can be potentially in force for ever.  Good luck reconciling the Bill of Rights with this proposal.  The basic response in a civilised society should be that you cannot and should not subject someone to house detention for something they have been acquitted of.

The FAQ also talks about upping the onus on parents keeping children in their care.  If they have already had a child taken off them then the onus will be on them to justify the retention of other children they may have.  I am afraid that this already happens and I have seen too many applications where unborn children are ordered to be taken from their parents at birth because of previous difficulties with other children.  The first ground mentioned is the experience with a previous child or previous children.  The proposal tweaks the onus and puts it on the parent to justify keeping their children.  If their personal circumstances are that dire that they have already lost the care of a child they face this risk anyway.

In a succinct yet accurate description of the proposals the Law Society has said that the Government is trying to look tough on child abuse while failing to fund frontline services properly.  It is interesting that the Law Society has become one of this Government’s most trenchant critics.

Overall the numbers involved will be small but the debate will be intense.  No doubt this is what is desired.  National will want to be painted as being tough on low lives and protective of children.

If only they were as committed to doing something about child poverty.  Then they would really achieve something positive for New Zealand kids.

54 comments on “Paula is abusing Child Abuse Prevention Orders ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. just saying 1
    14 August 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Very well said Mickey.

    And we all know which sections of the community will have members unjustly oppressed by this outrageous legislation, should it go ahead.

    Luckily, (sarc) the elite and the white middle class, including all the child abusers in their ranks, can rest assured that they won’t be affected, which is all that really matters….

  2. RedLogix 2
    14 August 2013 at 2:27 pm

    It is interesting that the Law Society has become one of this Government’s most trenchant critics.

    Possibly all that time in Courts rubs off ….

  3. lurgee 3
    14 August 2013 at 2:30 pm

    There is an odd opportunity for Labour to campaign as the pro-civil liberties and anti-authoritarianism party. Usually, it’s the right that get to do that. Will Labour actually do it?

    * Twiddles thumbs *

    • idlegus 3.1
      14 August 2013 at 4:34 pm

      annette king said on telly last night she broadly supports paula bennett…

      • Rhinocrates 3.1.1
        14 August 2013 at 10:49 pm

        Well that’s the current ABC Labour front bench for you. No ideas, just a meek “me too”. Still coasting along on their sense of entitlement and wondering why they aren’t a 100% in the polls as they think they naturally deserve and as their increasingly desperate apologists think they will be if you just give them another six months, three months, days, seconds, microseconds…

        Yes, I know, the Nats are fucking awful and anything that doesn’t look like unequivocal condemnation of them is treason, but really, please, please, Labour – look competent and committed! Look like a government ready to step in! Look like a government in waiting with a real leader and a cabinet ready to do their jobs!

      • Rhinocrates 3.1.2
        14 August 2013 at 11:01 pm

        annette king said on telly last night she broadly supports paula bennett…

        I remember the 80s too well.

        She was and always has been one of the Blessed Brides of Our Holy Lord Roger – what else would you expect of her?

        Never trust her. Vote her out and all the other Rogernome scum.

      • xtasy 3.1.3
        14 August 2013 at 11:47 pm

        I read into the behaviour of Annette King AND that Jacinda (wannabe Helen Clark duplicate) Ardern, that they do not give a shit, and they generally are mostly in agreement with what National have been doing in welfare. They had planned something similar years back anyway!!!

        The “criticism” on last welfare reforms was just “talk” and never solid at all, it was for the cameras and microphones of the media only to quieten the marginal beneficiary vote they also still like to “gather” for the final “vote” on election day!

        That is the blunt truth about Labour, so no surprises on this, and where was their comment, it took bloody long, did it not? It took damned long on other topics re welfare.

        Arderns is a career polly, she has NO place in Parliament, and is a character not worthy to be a Labour Party member, that is MY view!

        I and a few others wrote to her, sent her info on Dr Bratt and more, but she does not want to talk and write about it, and that is, because she follows a “political career” and tows the main line within Labour at present.

        Dr David Bratt, Principal Health Advisor for MSD and WiNZ was appointed under the last Labour led government, and that was NO coincidence!!!

        If you are on welfare, do NOT vote Labour, they have NOT got your interest at heart, but they love your vote, to get into power to deal out the next round of abuse on you afterwards. Fuck them!!!

        • Jackal 3.1.3.1
          15 August 2013 at 10:18 am

          Choosing a post about Paula Bennett’s faulty Child Action Plan to have a rant about how bad Labour was doesn’t seem appropriate. That’s especially the case when you consider the fact that child abuse was declining under the last Labour government. Unfortunately that trend quickly changed when National gained power, with a 39% increase in the amount of child abuse in the first two years of their administration. If you think Labour is in agreement with National’s beneficiary bashing, you’re not very well read at all xtasy.

          • Mary 3.1.3.1.1
            15 August 2013 at 11:33 pm

            “If you think Labour is in agreement with National’s beneficiary bashing, you’re not very well read at all xtasy.”

            Do you think Labour will reverse the changes National is currently introducing via gradual decimation of the Social Security Act? Labour has not only failed to reverse any of National’s attacks on beneficiaries starting with the benefit cuts in 1991, but spent 1999 to 2008 adding their own. There is no evidence anything will change if Labour became the government.

    • Rhinocrates 3.2
      14 August 2013 at 11:03 pm

      pro-civil liberties and anti-authoritarianism party

      You expect that from the authoritarian scumbag Goff and the spineless, useless Shearer? Good luck.

  4. tracey 4
    14 August 2013 at 2:40 pm

    Well said mickey and joe. A tiny ambulance at tge bottom of a massive cliff

    • Murray Olsen 4.1
      15 August 2013 at 1:20 am

      It’s not even an ambulance, tracey. It’s a police car, ready to cart anyone criminally irresponsible enough to fall over the cliff off to one of Serco’s profit centres.

      • Tracey 4.1.1
        15 August 2013 at 10:21 am

        agree.

        Even Bennett says we are only talking about a law to affect about 80 people each year… most of whom will have already damage one or more children.

        This is still a law to pander to the idea that imprisoning etc is the best way to prevent crime.

        I would cry except it’s all so expected…

        …and the children will continue to die, to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    14 August 2013 at 4:41 pm

    It seems that the right’s best ideas on beneficiary bashing are imported from the United States.

    Actually, all the political-right’s ideas come from the USA. It’s part of their authoritarian profile which requires them to bow down to power.

    If only they were as committed to doing something about child poverty.

    They are doing something about poverty – they’re increasing it.

  6. ghostwhowalksnz 6
    14 August 2013 at 4:42 pm

    She has to pull a rabbitt out of the hat quickly, so its a white rabbit instead of the previous black rabbitt.

    The oldest policy trick in the book- new label for old wine

    The second oldest policy trick- announce something you had previously cut-

    But that was earlier in the week !!

  7. Treetop 7
    14 August 2013 at 4:53 pm

    Proactive or reactive when it comes to the care and safety of children?

    Being an outcast for 10 years does not allow a person to redeem themself and it does not guarantee the safety of a child.

    I would use a comprehensive quality of life inventory on a child which would focus on the day to day care they receive and this would include keeping the child safe from any adult who is deemed to be a risk to the child, (usually it is a person who is not well known).

    Child abuse is endemic in NZ and tough measures are required to protect children, even from birth.

    I do not think that it is typical for a child abuser to consult a lawyer. I also feel that when a person is genuine about not repeating inappropriate behaviour or clearing their self of a false accusation they focus on doing something about it, and the cost both financially and emotionally is high.

    No one likes to see the injustice of false accusation, neither do they want to hear that another child has been killed due to the carer inviting a monster into their home and trusting them with the care of their child.

  8. red rattler 8
    14 August 2013 at 5:22 pm

    For people in Auckland there will be a protest at Paula Benefit’s public meeting on ‘Getting Waitakere Going” tomorrow (Thurs) at 5-45 pm.

    Waitemata Unite is organising it and put out this press release:

    Interest is building in a protest against the welfare reforms, at Paula Bennett’s Office, 429 Great North Rd, Henderson, at 5.45 pm, Thursday 15 August called by Unite Waitemata.

    Paula Bennett will be addressing a public meeting at 6pm about “Moving Waitakere Forward.”

    “We think the best way for Waitakere to move forward is to remove Paula Bennett from office” said Janet Robin, President of Unite Waitemata, which is a branch of the Unite Union.

    “Unite is a union for low paid workers and beneficiaries,” said Ms Robin.
    “The real purpose of the benefit reforms is to make everybody compete on the labour market for scarce jobs, which will bring down wages. This helps employers increase their falling profits.” said Ms Robin.
    “That’s why workers and beneficiaries need to unite against benefit cuts and wage cuts.”
    “The Government is more interested in corporate welfare than social welfare “, said Ms Robin.
    “WINZ punitive sanctions for such small things as being five minutes late for an appointment, mean that many people are just giving up trying to get a benefit at all, which is what WINZ wants.” she said.
    “The less people on the benefit; the more the government saves money.”

    “The government is focussing on getting the sick and disabled, and single parents, off benefits, because that is where the biggest welfare budget is”, she said.
    “They plan to save more than a billion dollars by taking benefits off single parents and the sick, who are the people who need them the most” she said.

    “With no jobs out there, it is hypocritical and ridiculous to pretend that WINZ really wants to help people get jobs.”

    “If that is really their intention, why doesn’t the government create jobs?” she asked.

    “Paula Bennett’s supposed caring for children suffering from violence is hypocritical when she is prepared to take half a benefit off a beneficiary family for something as trivial as not attending a doctor’s appointment.”

    “This contravenes the United Nations Rights of the child, for the necessities of life; as obviously a child cannot be supported on half a benefit.”

    “The biggest hypocrisy of all is the fact the Paula Bennett was on the DPB, was helped to get a deposit for her first home, and received a Training Incentive Allowance which helped her to study full time at tertiary level and eventually to get the career she now has. Yet she has destroyed all these possibilities for other beneficiaries now.”

    For more information call

    Dave 0272800080
    Keith 09 8369104

    or email
    unitewaitemata@gmail.com

    http://waitemataunite.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/lets-get-waitakere-moving-without-paula.html

    • aerobubble 8.1
      15 August 2013 at 1:23 pm

      Bennett may have hated being a bennnie, having a hand out and a hand up, so much so now she gets to strike the whip…

  9. lenore 9
    14 August 2013 at 6:00 pm

    It is worse then people think. do people know that the Police can “red stamp” you if they think you are dodgy and it shows up in a police check. You may not even know until you decide to be a coach for your kids rugby and have a police check done, or volunteer at your local school. While this is important if someone has been convicted but got name suppression – eg a family member convicted of abusing a relative”but the cops have taken it way further then that . It is hard to get any information from the cops and the police complaints authority is a joke made up of ex police.

    also remember that the cops are not looking at weighing up the facts – if they believe you are guilty, even if you are found innocent and they have to pay compensation to you, they still can think you are dodgy and red stamp them and there is an up hill battle to clear your name. Add this new bill to the mix and there are going to be even more people potentially hurt by this.

  10. Linz 10
    14 August 2013 at 8:09 pm

    Am I reading this right? “High Court and District Court judges will be able to impose the new civil orders on people who are tried for serious offences against children even if they are not convicted of the offence, even if they are aquitted.” I looked up “aquitted”, just to make sure: “declared not guilty of a specific offense or crime; legally blameless”. This is taking our legal system back to the 1830’s.

    • lenore 10.1
      14 August 2013 at 8:55 pm

      actually it is worse – if a person has had a case dismissed – ie pronounced innocent but the cops still dont like it cos it showed them up then they can red stamp someone and then that could be brought up in a police check and take it futher as well. Not the intention of the bill but a consequence. Cops do not like people getting off even if all the evidence points to them being innocent, particularly if they then are shown up for lousy investigation – pay back time for them. It may only be a few people but it is very difficult to fight the police. Has anyone sued them for defamation?

      • xtasy 10.1.1
        14 August 2013 at 11:30 pm

        lenore – while most think that the Justice Department or Ministry printout of previous convictions or lack thereof is all that is kept, they better wake up. Yes, the police keep separate records, and they NEVER wipe any of them! NO matter, whether any person may qualify under the Criminal Records Clean Slate Act 2004, this does NOT apply to police records. They keep it all, although it is never published, and they will at any time bring the records up, if asked by other government departments.

        “Clean slate” in NZ is NOT true “clean slate”, as it actually is being practiced in many European and other countries. In NZ you are NEVER forgiven under the existing legal system, hence some criminals never improving and conforming, as they know, the system and society will ALWAYS hate them. You are better off dead as a recorded serious offender in NZ, than ever try to rehabilitate.

        That is the truth. But I did not want to distract from the seriousness of child abuse with this, this is just another matter!

        NZ is a total bullshit country, when it comes to forgiveness, and rehabilitation of criminals, and they want you to feel ashamed and low forever, if you ever committed any crime, that this the truth. Fuck that talk about “Christian values” here, it is hypocrisy, this is one of the most dishonest and unforgiving societies in the western world.

        I spoke to and met a fair number affected, not for myself, by the way!

      • Murray Olsen 10.1.2
        15 August 2013 at 1:26 am

        I made a complaint once after I was handcuffed to a chair and smacked around with a baton. What a waste of time.

        • xtasy 10.1.2.1
          16 August 2013 at 3:40 am

          Murray Olsen –

          Really? You too, how interesting.

          Many, many years ago, in my younger years, having been a bit “disorderly” or “offensive”, then being arrested, the cops tried to force me to confess and say I was guilty. So they physically dealt to me and twisted my arm up my back, resulting in nerve damage to the shoulder and a limp arm for 2 to 3 months.

          The hospital doctor complained to the senior officer, as the damage could have been permanent. Luckily it healed.

          Those are my “fondest” memories of the NZ police force, and that was before a Police Conduct Authority ever existed.

          I count my blessings to never have had any serious cases to answer for.

          Things have improved a bit, but there are some officers I would never trust!

          • lprent 10.1.2.1.1
            16 August 2013 at 4:39 am

            Side-issue: Did that forwarded email get to to you today?

            • xtasy 10.1.2.1.1.1
              17 August 2013 at 12:00 am

              lprent – YEP, I got it yesterday and replied last night!

              Sounds VERY interesting what was asked, and I provided some support and more, so I trust it may be of use to the person who made the enquiry.

              Things are happening, and that is great!

              Thanks for the assistance Lynn!

  11. fambo 11
    14 August 2013 at 8:38 pm

    Paula Bennet and Co could never come up with a plan that could
    help children or anyone else in the community because their heart is not in the right place.

  12. xtasy 12
    14 August 2013 at 8:41 pm

    “Paula Bin-It” (anything coming from her brain deserves to go straight into the waste bin!) was this morning on Nine To Nooooon, answering questions on the new proposed child protection laws:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2565599/the-government%27s-shake-up-of-child-protection-laws

    She went on as expected, for 24 minutes and 38 seconds. She was actually very “defensive”, and she exposed yet again, she does have a “dim” view of the law, which is not just statute law (the government can draw up and pass as it likes, with a majority, in one chamber parliament run New Zealand), but certainly also NATURAL JUSTICE!

    Her explanations about the policy and law proposals was, that for instance only the “Chief Executive” of MSD (or CYFS), and one other C.E. of another department, would be given powers to apply for and get a protection order for having a parent, caregiver or any other person, SUSPECTED of child abuse, to be banned from being near children.

    Any person who knows the Social Security Act 1964 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1964/0136/latest/DLM359107.html), and who has any basic legal understanding, knows full well, that the “Chief Executive” is LEGALLY standing for ANY staff member of WINZ, CYFS or any department of MSD. It is a technical term, and authority is given to all staff, who are employed by MSD, to act on behalf of the CE!

    So while Kathryn Ryan did not dig into “Bin It” to clarify, this is the truth, what is proposed to be given in powers, will apparently not be limited to powers of the C.E. personally, but be given to ALL, or at least a wider number of to be appointed staff members of MSD and departments.

    And the threshold and criteria she went on about, which would be applied, before seeking, getting and enforcing any order against a convicted or SUSPECTED abuser, is still not worked out, she admitted. That is the same cop out comment she made repeatedly, when avoiding answers on how sick, disabled and incapacitated beneficiaries would now be assessed on medical and OTHER grounds for capability to work. We still have NO information on that!

    Paula Bennett was towards the end of that conversation – for the FIRST time ever, challenged by the question, what doctors now will be expected to do or ask to beneficiaries, who are sick, disabled and incapacitated. This is covered in the last 2 or so minutes in this interview on RNZ National. Of course she said, that doctors would only be expected now, to ask sick and disabled beneficiaries “some questions” about what may hinder their ability to return to work.

    Wow, what a mild and misleading answer that was. Sadly Kathryn Ryan did not dig into her, but it seems at least, the mainstream media are slowly waking up, on what MSD and WINZ are now expecting doctors to do, which is a hidden agenda, to get sick and incapacitated pressured, to accept some forms of work, rather than simply continue claiming a benefit. What about Mansel Aylward and his perverted interpretations of the “biopsychosocial model” then? That is what medical professionals have been preached and presented with (also by nasty Dr David Bratt).

    We know all about that by now, so we will watch this space, and while the laws are being changed, to force “suspected” abusers of children to prove their innocence, to force also sick and incapacitated on benefits to prove (even beyond of what a doctor certifies already) that they are not capable to work, the agenda is slowly being uncovered.

    Paula “Bin It”, her staff, her seniors at MSD, who developed these policies, you are going to be exposed bit by bit over time, as you are pushing agendas, that are more than questionable, they are DANGEROUS and mean spirited.

    This is how far the agenda is being driven, even harassing the sick and disabled turning up at the Auckland City Mission Medical Centre:

    http://www.aucklandcitymission.org.nz/uploads/file/Calder%20Centre/Sickness%20Benefit%20explanation.pdf

    This exposes the true agenda of MSD and WINZ on sick and disabled with incapacity:
    http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15188-medical-and-work-capability-assessments-based-on-the-bps-model-aimed-at-disentiteling-affected-from-welfare-benefits-and-acc-compo/

    • lenore 12.1
      14 August 2013 at 9:21 pm

      don’t even get me started on doctors having career conversations with their patients as if it is something anyone has the skill to do. No offence to you doctors who are aware of the world of work but the ones I know live in a comfortable little world and quite frankly do not have great “purposeful conversations” to draw out medical/health information let alone other stuff. It has been bad enough with ACC and their weekend trained medical specialists who decide that ACC people are ok to work and over ride any other evidence.

      • xtasy 12.1.1
        14 August 2013 at 11:01 pm

        lenore – this must be fought, that is my point, fought with all vigours and force, as they base it on flawed “science” and biased “experts”. Some may be able to work, but many, if not most, will not be, unless putting up with harm, causing more damage to their health and well being.

      • David H 12.1.2
        15 August 2013 at 6:59 am

        Well if my doctor wants to waste half, of what little time that I have, to start to lecture me about non existent jobs, then I hope he enjoys only half the bill being paid!

  13. Tanz 13
    14 August 2013 at 8:43 pm

    something needed to be done. You can’t just blame poverty on child abuse, how about those who do the abuse? NZ’s stats are shameful, is it right for more kids to die. More power to Paula, glad to stand up for National on this one.

    • lprent 13.1
      14 August 2013 at 9:08 pm

      tanz – some skeptical questions for your consideration…

      • Wasn’t Paula busy touting this exact same policy a year or more ago? How many times do you think she going to launch it?
      • She is announcing it without anything like the required detail. Right now it looks like a legal dogs breakfast – and she is expecting judges to make judgements on something without any criteria for judgement. How many cases to the supreme court do you think that it will take to sort that out?
      • Basically Paula has proven herself to be one of those people with a big mouth and no follow through on anything that doesn’t involve Bill English saving money. There is no money in this one – how well do you think she will be able to follow through with it?
      • And back to “Wasn’t Paula busy touting this exact same policy a year or more ago? How many times do you think she going to launch it?”
      • Heard Paula touting the CEO aspect of it on 9 to noon. I’m unsurprised that she has never heard of contracts with CEO’s that define their responsibilities. What is she talking about spending several years in legislation, when it can be written into contracts by simply doing it at the next review/renewal?

      Personally I’d suggest that you should reserve your enthusiasm for beyond the slogans and until after the first couple of judgements are actually made under this system. My guess is that at the earliest that will be some time in the 2020’s. Looks like such a perfect legal quagmire in so many ways that will make it stall all the way through the legislative and legal systems. Just thinking about how many ways this conflicts with BORA, common law, and the ability to run a civil case against the government makes my head hurt. Personally I suspect that all decent judges won’t have a bar of it.

      • Tanz 13.1.1
        14 August 2013 at 9:51 pm

        there aren’t any decent judges, just ones who don’t care much about the victims. Good points made, and the children are being put first.

        • mickysavage 13.1.1.1
          14 August 2013 at 10:04 pm

          Um Tanz if you asked me in the 1980s about Judges I would agree with you mostly. Nowadays they represent perhaps the strongest protection we have to protect our rights.

          I agree that our child abuse statistics are shameful but what is really shameful is that these proposals will not do a thing. Kids will still be abused. If Paula was willing to do something about child abuse she would address the causes, not try and score political points by attacking some within our community.

          • Tanz 13.1.1.1.1
            15 August 2013 at 8:07 am

            MS, I think Paula is trying to protect the kids. It has been shown that a lot of the abusers are the new partners/boyfriends of the mothers, that they have no biological links to the children, though some stepdads are great.

            That is just a small window of course. As for judges of today, you must be joking. Many of them seem to be very lenient, and keep making excuses for those with many convictions. The causes of child abuse are many, not just lack of money or resources. My grandparents were very poor, five kids, didn’t own a home, but were fantastic. I don’t think Paula is trying to score political points, she is trying to protect vulnerable children from those that would harm them./have harmed kids before. What is wrong with that.

      • xtasy 13.1.2
        15 August 2013 at 12:08 am

        lprent – as I already mentioned in another comment, that line on “only the Chief Executive will…” is total garbage, as that is showing the total ignorance of an under-performing, legally illiterate Minister, who makes comments she has even no clue or justification for!

        In the Act, the “Chief Executive” ALWAYS also stands for ALL staff employed under that executive, but I am not sure whether she was just misleading, being mischievous, or was totally ignorant of that fact. In any case, this “minister” for social development is a total liability, she is in the wrong job, the wrong place, and she herself is up for “abuse”, for what she is doing to people like me and many others! I HATE HER!!!

    • Tracey 13.2
      15 August 2013 at 10:23 am

      Sorry, how has she stopped child abuse?

  14. lurgee 14
    14 August 2013 at 8:55 pm

    Is anyone saying it is right for more kids to die? But this is stupid policy. Dog whistling. Why not try addressing the causes of violence against children (and no-one has said it was ‘just poverty’) rather that foisting foolishness disguised as policy on a nation that already has far too much of it?

  15. Mary 15
    14 August 2013 at 11:46 pm

    “It is interesting that the Law Society has become one of this Government’s most trenchant critics.”

    The Law Society is traditionally very slow to criticise government policy. When it does speak out it’s almost always when the rule of law or fundamental constitutional principles are being abused or are at risk. The Law Society increasingly voicing its concerns is a clear indication of this government’s contempt for democracy.

    • xtasy 15.1
      14 August 2013 at 11:54 pm

      Mary – you are so right. The law profession is very hesitant to make any recommendations, or to submit submissions on bills, they will step up only in serious matters. But that tells us something, about this law despising government.

      That last “law expert” they have, just forgot his name, ah, yes Finlayson, he will probably migrate and vanish once this lot is voted out, as he will dread being held accountable for all the perversions of law that occurred under this lot.

  16. gobsmacked 16
    15 August 2013 at 12:08 am

    It’s not even subtle enough to be a dog-whistle.

    If you don’t support the government, then you support child abuse …

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbpol/960544833-pm-cautions-other-parties—back-my-bill

    It’s a disgusting statement by Key, and it’s not the first time. In the previous term, he said in Parliament “We care about child abuse, you don’t”.

    But he’s a real nice guy, eh?

    • xtasy 16.1
      15 August 2013 at 12:14 am

      1ZB is to me a “hate lefties” station, full stop, they are part of Radio Works, I believe, a private corporate, one of the leading media misinformers in NZ Aotearoa, and that Hosking arsehole that does the morning shift, he also has a special deal with Sky City Casino.

      So that is the shit we get, most sadly are fed that crap and learn little else, we must work overtime, to spread the messages about the truth, link, comment, spread 24/7 on all blogs and at all media sites, as that will get us somewhere. At least we must try, or Key and all their lies will continue to be taken for granted. So do not shy away to also comment on APN Herald and whereever!

      Thanks for your good comment gobsmacked, I always value your points!

      • Poem 16.1.1
        15 August 2013 at 6:54 am

        Steven Joyce was a director of RadioWorks now known as Mediaworks that own TVNZ and RadiLive. national bailed out Mediaworks at a tune of $43 million dollars and now its in receivership. Y

      • Poem 16.1.2
        15 August 2013 at 6:59 am

        Steven Joyce was a director of RadioWorks now known as Mediaworks that owns TVNZ and RadioLive. National bailed out Mediaworks at a tune of $43 million dollars and now its in receivership. Your assessment of absolute national bias within the media is correct xtasy, and that’s why New Zealand is spoon-fed lies and bullshite on a daily basis.

        • karol 16.1.2.1
          15 August 2013 at 7:33 am

          Mediaworks owns TV3&4, not TVNZ. And I don’t see 1ZB being part of it.

          • Poem 16.1.2.1.1
            15 August 2013 at 1:17 pm

            Apologies Karol, your right, m

            • Poem 16.1.2.1.1.1
              15 August 2013 at 1:26 pm

              Double apologies accidentally submitted reply before completion. You are right Karol, Mediaworks does own TV3 and 4 and as i said previously RadioWorks, and quite frankly TV one is no better in its biased towards national. The point was, national’s grip on the media, and the lies NZ is being fed on a daily basis.

  17. tracey 17
    15 August 2013 at 6:15 am

    if you question the conservative nature of the law society consider one of its recent past presidents, judith collins.

  18. aerobubble 18
    15 August 2013 at 1:14 pm

    Its surely a moral/ethical question, religious people like to impose their ethics on the majority, and National are keenly aware of the Christian vote, so it only follows that they will pander to it. National are not about to clarify their moral position, where innocent until proven can be ignored.

    Where else do we see this sort of religion stomping on liberal democracy. Well in the middle east where the only working democracies have to embrace Islam and so gravitate to the Iran model.
    Where its easier for the elite to pander to piousness than actively run a liberal secular state, usually held up by oil money and oil interests. Turkey’s PM is well on the Iran path.

  19. tricledrown 19
    15 August 2013 at 4:37 pm

    I have workef on the frontline for many years this is just another very small bandaid policy that you come to expect from National.
    Headline grabbing is all its designed to do.
    What’s really needed is social workers that work in the community that take over the running of the family until they get their parenting budgeting relatioship skills up to scratch alcohol the main problem followed by other drugs and gambling!
    Reseatch from Canterbury University has proven to be the best solution.
    The cost per family $72,000 per family that seems a lot but when you look at the long term costs it a really good investment .
    The cost of doing nothing is much bigger several families I know would benefited hugely from direct intervention.
    But alas under the present system this family which is huge nearly 100 over 4 generations only 2 have full time jobs one of those jobs is mininmum wage 3 in training all because of an alcoholic great grandfather cyfs have been dealing with this family since the 1970’s.
    Cyfs has achieved absolutely nothing.
    Paulo bennitto’s new window dressing will not change a thing!

  20. Lloyd 20
    15 August 2013 at 10:54 pm

    Children have been forced into poverty by this government.

    Children are badly affected and even die of poverty due to poor nutrition and lack of medical care.

    The present cabinet members are collectively guilty of child abuse.

    Being in cabinet means you have direct effect on children.

    Does this mean that the proposed legislation will require that all the members of the cabinet must be replaced once this child protection legislation is introduced?

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.