Podcasts about prime minister john key

In 2016 then Prime Minister John Key stood on stage and announced, "by 2050 every single part of New Zealand will be completely free of rats, stoats and possums" To many this was a remarkable statement of intent, but to conservationist Greg Billingham it was just another empty promise from an unaccountable politician. In the years since his view hasn't changed... But he does have an alternative idea - something that's already happening on a small scale.

A couple of weeks ago our Kiwi Trust (Save the Kiwi) visited Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari (Waikato) – not just for a board meeting, but to see how a modern-day “muster” and translocation looks these days. It reminded me of a restoration exercise in a huge garden! Imagine having a sizeable territory of pretty cool forest, surrounded by a predator-proof fence. We're talking about 3400 Hectares of safe habitat for all sorts of New Zealand Native/endemic species from a couple of Kakapo to Takahe, stitchbird and saddleback as well as noisy kaka. And oh yes, there are more than 2000 North Island (Western) Brown Kiwi thriving in there as well. Thriving is the operative word. It certainly didn't always go that well in the past: the decline of North Island Brown Kiwi was about 2% per year, which triggered the then Prime Minister John Key suggest we should have a go at turning -2% into +2%. John MacLennan (Scientist and Trustee of Save the Kiwi) came up with the concept of Kohanga Kiwi. Imagine allowing a heap of kiwi to “do their thing” in such a forest and use that “Kohanga Kiwi” as a Nursery from which we can “harvest” plenty of birds to translocate to predator-controlled areas elsewhere – Capital Kiwi (Wellington), Tongariro Forest, Taranaki Mounga. Last year 222 birds were shifted to new and safe habitats in the North Island. This year it looks like there will be even more travellers in the Kohanga Kaupapa! Birds are caught during the day and at night with highly trained, muzzled kiwi dogs. The birds are tagged by bands or transponders, weighed and health-checked, before kept in a smaller forest enclosure. A day or so later, the birds are transported to their final destination: a forest that is protected from predators. The cool thing is that this Maungatautari Muster is taking place in the forest and in the local Pukeatua Primary school (Handy to have a spare classroom to assist in the kaupapa!). The kids follow what's happening with the Scientists and volunteers who catch the birds. They record the sizes, the weights, the age, and whether the birds are male or female. They also observe the health checks and note everything down on their own observation sheets. My goodness! I wish I was at such a primary school when I grew up, learning about the operations Manual of the Planet and how to restore our Ecological systems. HQ of Maungatautari Muster 2025 Kiwi out of forest and back to school Kiwi health check. Photo / Kim McGuire and the Maungatautari team This photo is a really good example of female vs male.  Gaia (left) is holding a sub adult female and Steven (right) a sub adult male. Both weigh just a little over 1.8kg, and yet you can see they carry that weight differently. The female has a longer body, flatter head, larger feet and curved bill. The male is a smaller bird, has a rounded head and much shorter body and smaller feet. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Revelations a foreign agency ran a spy operation out of Wellington for years, while the New Zealand government was in the dark about the whole thing. A report out today shows significant failings by New Zealand's spy agency, the Government Communication Security Bureau. A report by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has found a partner of New Zealand's, was allowed to operate a signals intelligence system in Aotearoa from 2012 to 2020. But the Minister at the time, who was Prime Minister John Key, was never told. Former Prime Minister Helen Clark speaks to Lisa Owen.

An agency driving work to rid Aotearoa of pests, is warning the country's 2050 predator free goal could be an endangered species itself, with areas that are already pest free at risk of being reinvaded. Predator Free 2050 Limited, was set up by the government to organise much of the work towards the 2050 goal, which former Prime Minister John Key announced in 2016. But the charitable company has been plagued by funding and governance issues, including infighting with the Department of Conservation. It's so worried, it's warned the new Conservation Minister Tama Potaka in a briefing that progress towards the goal is actually at risk of going backwards. Freelance journalist and podcaster Eugene Bingham speaks to Lisa Owen

After the 2014 election, Peter Dunne got a phone call from Prime Minister John Key to say National wouldn't need the support of United Future to form a Government. The same call was made to the Act and Māori parties, which had also signed confidence and supply agreements after the 2011 election. Key invited all three parties to stay in the tent, if they wanted, but said there wouldn't be any policy concessions or negotiations. They took the deal. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” Dunne said, in an interview for interest.co.nz's Of Interest podcast.“About 10 days later, the specials came in and National had lost a couple of seats, and its outright majority, and suddenly realised they had a problem”. Key and his team came back to the three parties and asked to renegotiate the newly-signed confidence and supply agreements into a more substantial and specific arrangement.Dunne, and the others, refused: “I said, no, we've got a signed piece of paper here”. “National, ended up in the worst of all worlds. It had supply partners they hadn't conceded anything to. All it was getting from us was confidence and supply. Everything else had to be negotiated case by case”.“If they'd been a little less impatient, and waited till the specials they could have got better deals”.This memory might be a factor in why National and New Zealand First have been holding out for the final vote count. The numbers might shift around in unpredictable ways. Once the special votes are reported, Dunne thinks a Government could form quite quickly. He said it was partly Christopher Luxon's leadership style. But also because Parliament has to sit by mid-December, and the National won't want that to happen under a caretaker government. The National leader's message, that he would not provide blow-by-blow commentary on the negotiations, was more directed at Winston Peters than at the media. “I thought he was also sending a pretty clear warning to Act and New Zealand First: don't you either.” “Because, if you look at New Zealand First's track record, they like to control negotiations, they like to be the ones that sort of indicate where things are at”.It was an “unedifying spectacle” in 1996 and 2017 when Jim Bolger and Jacinda Ardern found out they would be Prime Minister, only when Peters announced it on live television. “The bronze medal winner shouldn't tell the gold and silver medals who they are. I think Luxon is trying to guard against all that sort of thing happening again”. Listen to the rest of the interview for more insight into negotiating a coalition.*You can find all episodes of the Of Interest podcast here.

I've sold my home. It's happening. I'm leaving my 16th floor apartment for a place that will require much more maintenance. No more locking-and-leaving. No more stunning sunrises. No more Keith Jarrett on the stereo, sitting in an armchair and watching the World revolve below me. No more Maungawhau. No more Hauturu. No more monitoring the motorway traffic in real time. No more whipping downstairs to the K Road cafes for a pastry and a flat white. I'm embarrassed to say it'll be the first time in my life when I'm responsible for mowing a lawn. I feel a mix of emotions. My apartment is the first and only home I've ever owned. At every stage when my housing has changed, I've felt a rush of sentimentalism. Each shift has marked a different peg in my life, far more meaningful than supposedly significant birthdays. Leaving home for my first shared flat. Leaving shared New Zealand flats for my first New York studio. Leaving New York, coming home, and buying for the first time. Leaving my apartment for something bigger, something without huge windows and a 16th floor balcony. Something child-friendly. I remember when I bought my place, the then Prime Minister John Key was asked for his advice to young people struggling to buy property. Get an apartment, he said! Low maintenance. Cheaper. Close to lots of amenities. He didn't need to convince me. I've always felt at least part of our housing crisis has been caused by a cultural reluctance to embrace high-density living. We associated all apartments with slummy 35-square-metre, tiny-windowed boxes. For many years, it was hard to find warm, bright, higher-end apartments with amenities. My place has a great gym, a big pool, storage lockers, and a billiards room. The walk from the lobby to K Road's rich variety of cafes and restaurants takes approximately 35 seconds. Apartments might have suited first-home buyers. I can confirm they don't necessarily make great investments. I almost certainly overpaid when I first bought my place – I didn't know the market well enough. You live and you learn, right? But I sold my home at a fair price. CV. After agent fees and everything else, I'll basically end up with what I paid for it. You could drive yourself mad by playing the what-if-I'd-bought-a-decaying-bungalow-instead game, and knowing my luck, the apartment market will probably double in the next six months. It's the land value that has wildly appreciated over the last few years. But honestly, I didn't buy my place intending to make money. I bought it as a home. And in serving that purpose, it's been perfect. I'm a big believer that high-density suits people at different stages of life. As well as young professionals, a lot of the people in my building are older. They've downsized. They've had kids and houses with backyards and gutters to clear. They've done that. But now they've reached a stage of life where they value lower maintenance living. They enjoy the communal aspect of living in an apartment building. They love the light and the views and being able to walk everywhere. I feel sad to be leaving the 16th floor. It's been a wonderful home. I'll start packing my moving boxes over the next few weeks. And as I look and leave for the final time, it'll make me happy to know that in 25 or 30 years… there's a good chance I'll be back.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former National party minister, Christopher Finlayson, served as one of the most senior members of the last National government, under Prime Minister John Key. He held the portfolios of Attorney General, Minister responsible for the two main intelligence agencies, Minister for Treaty Negotiations as well as Arts, Culture and Heritage. Since leaving politics, Chris Finlayson has returned to practising law, and has written a book about his time in parliament - in which he assesses his party's chances and challenges ahead of next year's election. He makes some blunt observations around how candidates ought to be selected, and what sort of experience would-be MPs need before entering parliament. He talks with Kathryn Ryan about Yes, Minister, published by Allen and Unwin.

Christopher Luxon has long been hailed as a potential future leader, including by the likes of National's former Prime Minister John Key.  Previously known for leading Air New Zealand as its Chief Executive for six years, he rose quickly through the National Party ranks to become the party's new leader this week.  The new National Leader was Simon Barnett and James Daniels' guest for this week's Six and a Song. LISTEN ABOVE

Judith Collins says New Zealanders will ultimately have to get over their fears of loosening border restrictions.A New Zealand Herald Kantar Vote 2020 poll shows 68 per cent of people think our border policy should be kept as is.That's despite former Prime Minister John Key calling for border restrictions to be loosened, to allow universities and companies to bring in foreign students and skilled workers.National leader Judith Collins told Kate Hawkesby Kiwis should be more open to the idea of opening the border.‘It isn't good New Zealanders have been so whipped up into a fear about bringing people into the country, safely.”The National Party leader says  the Government is stoking a sense of fear, when the country needs to be finding a way to let more people safely into the country.“The country is missing out high-end tourism, highly skilled migrants, and international students worth millions of dollars a year.For the full results see NZ Herald Premium.

So let’s talk about the rise and rise of the gotcha in political reportage."Gotcha journalism" is a term in the media that describes interviewing methods that are designed to entrap interviewees into saying something or doing something that could be seen as damaging to their cause, their character, their integrity, or their reputation.But the problem with gotcha journalism is if you haven’t got it right then it can gotcha you right back. Then the gotcha moment turns into a moment of fake news and propaganda.The latest gotcha was on Sunday when the Herald on Sunday reported that Jacinda Ardern and her team hired an advertising agency in New York to take pictures of her on her itinerary and used taxpayers money to do so.The heavy implication was that this was another waste of taxpayer funds by the party being painted as a tax and spend one. In the Herald on Sunday piece the second paragraph said this. “In the past, New Zealand Prime Ministers have had a staffer from their offices take photos, but Ardern had a crew of three from agency Augusto's New York office.”And that was repeated in media commentary. Just get a staffer to take some snaps with their iPhone.However, in the same story but much lower in the piece Paul Bennett is quoted as saying this. “When John Key was PM he would occasionally have a photographer on international trips, but only if they travelled on the Airforce 757 where there weren't additional flying costs.”And when John Key had that photographer he paid for it out of the same Leaders budget that Jacinda Ardern used. So John Key used to hire photographers and now Jacinda Ardern does. So where does that leave this story? Grasping for relevancy I’d say.Now the ad agency the Ardern team used is actually a New Zealand ad agency that has an office in New York, so she supported a New Zealand business and avoided paying any flying costs and got some great pictures that were used by a number of New Zealand media. Where is the problem?And here is something even more ironic. Back in 2013 Stuff reported Prime Minister John Key's office was advertising for a new taxpayer-funded photographer and videographer to shoot pictures and videos of National MPs. In the story John Key said it would paid for out of the leaders budget which is fine as long as it’s used for parliamentary purposes. This is exactly what Ardern said this morningThe story goes on to argue that American presidents have had official photographers for decades and Commonwealth countries were starting to catch up so why don’t we. And I think that’s a very good idea because these things need to be witnessed and documented for good and bad and for history.Ardern's New York trip did have history in it and it deserved to be fully recorded and I’m glad that it wasn’t left to some amateur staffer taking random pics with their iPhone.

On September 4, 2010, when just 15 years old, Jake Millar’s life changed forever. His father and four close friends died is a skydiving plane crash. Prime Minister John Key visited the scene and Jake wrote to thank him. A hand-written note reply came from the Prime Minister who wanted to meet Jake. Away from the media. And as someone who had also lost a father young, and gone on to great success, Jake credits this meeting and example as part of what’s led him to go on and do what he’s done. And what a lot of that there is, already.Always entrepreneurial, Jake became driven. He set goals and got them. Head boy of school and house, check. He landed a 40,000 scholarship and then rather than take it, he took advice from a book by Sir Richard Branson that said “Screw it, Let’s Do it” and he gave it a miss and started a company that months later he was in the works of selling to the NZ Government.His second venture, Unfiltered, sees him traveling the world, spending most of his time in North America, talking to business leaders about how they succeed, and selling it to people and great companies all over the place. It’s going great guns and backed with serious investment. He’s even interviewed Sir Richard Branson. At 22 he’s just getting started but already giving back, in New Zealand doing fundraising for Lifeline, raising 55 thousand with a charity dinner. In conversation with Simon he talked career, what it takes to succeed and giving back right from the get-go. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Prime Minister John Key joins us on the showSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Week in the House dominated by the aftermath of the 7.8 magnitude earthquake which jolted the country on Monday morning; Prime Minister John Key delivers a ministerial statement on the quake on Tuesday, and is followed by a round of speeches from representatives of all parties in the House; Aftershocks of the quake were felt […]

Listen to Tertiary Update's inaugural podcast. This week the Prime Minister John Key confirmed that his government is budgeting for $1 billion of new spending for the coming year.  We talked to some TEU members about whether that would be enough. Thanks to Br3nda @ Flickr for the photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/taniwha/9538325/ and Nicolo for the song Ceteski […]

Listen to Tertiary Update’s inaugural podcast. This week the Prime Minister John Key confirmed that his government is budgeting for $1 billion of new spending for the coming year.  We talked to some TEU members about whether that would be enough. Thanks to Br3nda @ Flickr for the photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/taniwha/9538325/ and Nicolo for the song Ceteski […]

Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand, WAR, The Goldbergs, Google's Top Searches, Gravity, and Outward Displays of Religion

After skipping an entire month we are back with a new episode! Benedict Cumberbatch talks about his role in The Hobbit... when he can get a word in edgewise. Prime Minister John Key interviews Sir Peter Jackson. Warner Brothers grants the Master Toy License for Hobbit movie toys to The Bridge Direct, Inc. Micah and his siblings are already pooling their monies!This episode we discuss the race of Hobbits. Investigating the who, what, where, and when of these delightful holbytlan.Make sure to read the first few pages of the 1st chapter of The Hobbit in preparation for the next show. And join us on the Elendilmir server in Lord of the Rings Online as we follow as much of Bilbo's unexpected journey as possible. Contact us if you'd like to join our Kinship.Music this episode: "An Unexpected Journey" by Lonely Mountain Band. Join MEM on My Middle-earth.Follow us on Twitter @middleearthmins.Find us on Facebook at the Middle-earth Minutes Podcast page. DOWNLOAD | SUBSCRIBE | SUBSCRIBE IN ITUNES

Episode 42 Anti Smacking Bill FalloutHello and welcome to episode 42 of Jay Wont dart's podcast, where I talk about being one of the Invercargill 1915. I'll explain that later. My intro was a youtube video called Flight of the Hummingbird, I just ordered the book, about doing whatever you can, no matter how small, to make the world a better place.Its been over for a while now, I'd decided to hold off covering the results of the Anti Smacking Bill Referendum, in hope that an answer would come at the end of it. So far, nothing has changed, the referendum has been for nothing.To go over the Anti Smacking Bill again quickly, Sue Bradford, an MP of the minor Green Party proposed a bill, that the defense of "reasonable force for the purpose of correction"could be used by parents charged with assaulting their children. This was very upsetting to many parents who believed in physical discipline of their children, they were for smacking, and saw the law as taking away their right as parents to smack their children. The bill went into law 2007, a petition was to be held in 2009 once enough signatures were reached.Ok, so that was simplified, but it gets us to this year at least. The question being asked was "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"People have been very confused about what this actually means, and people against physical discipline have said that the question is very loaded, its designed to make you vote NO, that a smack is part of good parental correction, not something that parents should be recieve a lethal injection over. I totally agree, I think the question is over the top, its literally saying that something good parents do could now be turned into a "criminal offense", making good parents equal to murderers. I think a question like "do you think physical discipline of children is acceptable" would have been much better, although I guess people for smacking could say that "physical discipline" sounds scary, and that they would prefer smacking. I dont like the word smacking, because I see it as another loaded thing, in NZ, smacking generally means a light slap on the hand or the bottom of a child, people who believe in smacking dont agree that its violent, they see it as a correction thing and quite acceptable. The word smacking is a way of hiding the violent aspect of hitting another person, I think, so I'd prefer not to use the word "smacking". "Prime Minister John Key said of the question [The question] "could have been written by Dr Seuss - this isn't Green Eggs and Ham, this is yes means no and no means yes, but we're all meant to understand what the referendum means. I think it's ridiculous myself." The referendum went ahead, and most of the country seemed very angry their right to smack their children was being taken away, most polls had about 80 percent support for smacking. I'll mention that people FOR the law change say that you could still smack your children, but others focus on moving away from physical discipline, so even I am confused as to whether smacking is banned or not banned! Sue Bradford, who came up with the bill, has been quoted mentioning "this doesnt make smacking illegal" but also "this makes smacking illegal" type comments, so who really knows what the bill means. For this episode, Im focusing on the "anti smacking bill" as meaning its against smacking full stop, as its physical discipline, and thats what the bill is focused on.Most of this episode will be clips.The first things I'll play will be people asking you to vote for their side in the referendum. I'll play two, this is Sue Bradford who wrote the law change, and Deborah Morris-Travers of Barnardos, a New Zealand child welfare group.Here I have a radio debate I quite liked, remember, the Yes side is essentially against smacking, the No side is for smacking.People generally were for smacking still, most polls were somewhere over 80 percent FOR smacking children, so thats a No vote. It became clear that the referendum would go the No voters side, allowing parents to physically discipline their children. This was mentioned in this news piece while the votes were being checked.Things were not looking good for my side, against smacking, a Yes voter. Overwhelmingly , the final results of the nine million dollar referendum, that took place two years after the law was changed to supposedly ban smacking, were 87.6 percent voting No, for smacking, just amazing, absolutely overwhelmingly for smacking. Thats basically 9 out of 10 New Zealanders, who voted in this referendum. Voter turnout was 54%. Just over 1.6 million votes were cast, about 1.3 million were for smacking. The places most against smacking, were Auckland and Wellington, the two largest cities in New Zealand, both had about 30 percent of people against smacking, only about 70 percent for smacking, which is VERY high compared to the rest of the country, where 80-90 percent were for smacking.The places with the highest proportion of no voters, for smacking, were rural areas, including the Clutha Southland area, which is rural Southland, the province I live in. Invercargill city, where I actually live was different, but by less than a percentage point. My city, Invercargill, had 57.4% voter turnout, with 92.17% for smacking, and just a tiny 7.48% against. Amazing. 23,596 people for smacking, and just 1,915 against smacking here in Invercargill. So thats how I am one of the Invercargill 1915. I think I'll have to make "1 of the Invercargill 1915"t shirts, so we can recognise each other in public.I knew this referendum would go this way, but its still shocking to see how outnumbered my position was. Im sure the question itself has much to do with this, but even then, people feel smacking is a parents right, and that not being allowed to smack children is giving the child yet another right, and taking away from the parents power. Thats a common feeling in New Zealand, that the bad people are running amok, and hard working people are being held back by a PC nanny state. However, the big thing about this referendum, it was non binding, even if 100% of the voters wanted the law changed back, to supposedly allow smacking again, then the government of New Zealand didnt have to change anything! And, so far, John Key has said he wont change the law! People are VERY annoyed! Apparently, the no vote leaders are very upset, but looking out my window, 92% of my city hasnt formed a mob with pitch forks to get me, yet.So, John Key, the new prime minister of New Zealand will no doubt have lost an enormous amount of support thanks to not changing the law. He says he feels the law is working, the man on the street says he is being arrogant and not listening to roughly 90% of the voting public. However, even if the law were to be changed, would another referendum need to be held? How much would that cost? AND, the side for smacking, the leaders have different idea about what smacking should be, At least one right wing MP believes in using a tool, what I'd call a weapon, like a wooden spoon or ruler, as he believes it gives the attacker, or in his words, parent, better control of what they are doing, in my words, better striking abilities over the child they are hitting. I'll play this news piece about a new possible law change.This bill was thrown out, it came to nothing, just like the 9 million dollar referendum.So, most people in New Zealand are for smacking, apparently, and yet the government wont change back the law that supposedly bans smacking your children. Nothing seems like it will change, except perhaps the people who voted right wing MP John Key into power, will not vote for him again, thats certainly what they are threatening to do. But, who will they vote for? Theres really only the minor ACT party against the law change, its hard to believe ACT getting in by itself. Who knows, its sure going to be interesting to see the government try and win peoples support again.My outro will be special clip from Deborah Morris Travers.Thank you for listening.You can find the script for this episode, as well as downloads for every episode of Jay Wont darts podcast at jaywontdart.blogspot.comIf you want to contact me, even just to say you listened, send an email to jaywontdart@gmail.com, j a y w o n t d a r t @ gmail.com, I'd appreciate it.Have a super happy day, bye.Sources=======http://www.3news.co.nz/Parents-not-being-criminalised-no-need-to-change-law---Key/tabid/419/articleID/117843/Default.aspx

Episode 36 Anti Smacking BillHello and welcome to another episode of Jay Wont dart's podcast, where I mention my opinion on the Trademe Message Board and made fun of for being vegan.This episode, I'll talk briefly about the Anti Smacking bill thats caused grief in New Zealand.My intro was from No Agenda 104.Before I forget, hi to anyone from the TradeMe Message Board who's listening, I wish I could have gotten some recordings from you to play, no matter what side you are on. Hi to wayne472, merrigj, mikey853nz, and anyone else who is listening from New Zealand. I could be wrong about details I mention in this episode, so feel free to correct me, I'll give out my email address at the end of this episode.A little background about New Zealand politics for international listeners. In New Zealand we have MMP, which is a system in which several small-ish parties can band together and become a government, its not "X vs Y", if party X doesnt have enough votes to govern alone, it can get support from party gamma, so it has enough votes to be the government. In New Zealand, we do have two major parties, one centre left, one centre right, Labour on the left, and National on the right. Labour had been in power forever, but had increasingly been under siege from National gaining more votes each election, Labour would rely on smaller left wing parties to hand it extra votes to cross the line into power again. Generally both major parties get 80 odd percent of the votes, roughly 40 percent each for Labour and National. Labour, the major left wing party normally campaigns on more healthcare and more education, with more liberal ways to get ahead in life, more benefits, welfare and affirmative action for minority races. National, the major right wing party normally campaigns on law and order, lowering taxes and keeping a more old fashioned, work hard to get ahead in life and dont complain attitude. The Green party is a fairly large small party, probably the third largest party overall. The Greens focus on climate change, pollution, helping people break the cycle of poverty and affirmative action. They are quite left wing overall. The Green party is quite interesting, I think, always having two leaders, one male, one female! The Green's often have crazy and well known MP's, dope smoking rastafarians who ride skateboards, people who get tears in their eyes at the thought of Genetic Modification, or radical feminists who spend most of their adult life on welfare, get arrested in protests, and tell others how to live their lives. I'm being bit mean with my descriptions of the Greens, but they are normally the most crazy MPs in parliament.Theres also the Maori party, which normally focuses on getting more state assets given to Maori tribes and helping the Maori race, affirmative action. The Maori party is very modern, it was formed in 2004. The Maori party can be either left or right wing, but I often think of it as more Left wing aligning with Labour over National. Those are the parties I think are the most important ,we have a handful of other large-ish small parties, but they dont matter as much to me personally and dont get a large percentage of the votes at election times.The labour government, with help from smaller parties, had been in power for three terms , up until the 2008 election when National got in, with help from two minor parties. Under the Labour government, green party member Sue Bradford had her private members bill about child discipline put into law. It changed Section 59 of the crimes act 1961 to now remove the defence of "reasonable force" for parents charged with assault on their children. This has been known as the "anti smacking bill" as it basically bans smacking your children, it is now a violent act that is not allowed. 113 Mps voted the bill in, only 7 voted against it, so all the politicians were basically fine with smacking being banned. I have seen people stating that this law DOES NOT make smacking illegal, but in fact only prevents bad parents from beating their children. For this episode Im going along with the mainstream belief that this is a "Anti smacking bill" that wants all physical discipline from parents to be banned, that includes smacking.National was initially against this bill, but with an addition of part 4, that police investigating claims of smacking could decide if what was done to the child was "inconsequentially" or not. If the police officer thought the child was no worse off from being smacked, they could choose not to prosecute the parents. This was sort of allowing smacking, althought it would be up to a police officer to judge whether the child had been hurt or not which could be risky for parents who wanted to smack their children.The full section 59 now readsAll that makes my head hurt, I could never be a politician with all those confusing words. The parts I would think would let a parent hit a child are ruled over by other additions at the end. Parents ARE allowed to physically grab a child if they are about to walk into a busy street, they can hold them back from doing something dangerous, but they cannot hit a child afterwards, "bad child, im going to smack you". I've seen people who support the bill saying that smacking is actually fully allowed by this bill, and that what the bill known as the "anti smacking bill" is actually about is stopping parents giving an old fashioned "good hiding" to their children after some time, instead of smacking the child on the hand to stop them hitting another child, it actually means "wait till daddy comes home to hit you with his belt". Like I said before, Im going to focus on smacking, I'll assume this bill is to be against smacking children outright.Theres been massive public outrage, with around 80 percent of the public apparently for smacking children, and only 20 or so percent against smacking children.Labour had to have fears people would turn against it because of the anti smacking bill, it had been labelled too "politically correct" and also as a "nanny state", that wanted to control everything people could and couldnt do. Labour had ideas about banning normal incandescent light bulbs, and only having compact florescent bulbs that use quarter the electricity, the sort I use, as well as ideas about making showers have to be run at a lower pressure, they wouldnt have a lovely strong pressure, instead using less water to save on the amount of water used nationwide. People were very angry about both of these ideas, and the anti smacking bill certainly annoyed them even more. National ended up gaining power from Labour, National was against Labours ideas about banning bright light bulbs and strong showers.National however, is keeping the anti smacking bill, which effectively prevents parents from smacking their children. A referendum was initiated by upset voters, which is happening at the moment, I got my voting paper yesterday. This referendum is going to cost the taxpayer over 8.9 million New Zealand dollars, I have no idea where the money is going, its just bits of paper that get a yes or no tick.The question thats being asked is "Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" which I think is confusing as hell. I've asked people who are for smacking, and who are against smacking, and people on both sides think its a bad question. It says "good parental correction" as if a smack can be that, something good parents do, but its also "a criminal offense". I think its a loaded question designed to make people vote No, that they are for smacking children, because the question makes it seem like you are making "good parents" commit a "criminal offense". I would think most people also feel a right they have is being taken away by The Man.You've been very good putting up with my voice for so long, so I'll use a clip of someone else talking for a change, this is a Guide to the anti smacking bill I found on a anti smacking website I'll mention later on, I got this from youtube, its from before the referendum had been issued.I liked that part "like it or not the bill is here to stay so adopting these techniques is the best way to stay out of jail", well actually a referendum is being held which could overturn the "anti smacking bill" and let parents smack their children again.I'll play a 3 news story about the anti smacking bill and then the full debate that was on Campbell Live, afterwards I'll tell you my personal feelings about smacking, if I'm voting that parents should be able to smack their children, or not.Ok, as promised, I'll tell you how I myself am voting on the anti smacking bill referendum. I personally am voting Yes, I am against smacking children as I believe it to be an act of violence, calling it "smacking" does not change that it is essentially just hitting another person to make them do what you want. I know many people who are for smacking will be angry that I consider smacking to be hitting, but if its not hitting, if its not physical discipline, then what is it? Its like the people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish! They consider fish not to be meat! They see a fish has eyes, a mouth, they eat and go to the toilet, they breed and have more baby fish, they feel pain, they see, hear, they can sense in ways we cannot, such as feeling disturbances in the water around them, but, "oh no, a fish is not an animal, a fish is a vegetable or something, its not meat!"No, I say that smacking is the same as hitting, a light smack is the same as a light hit, if child X smacked child Y, even very lightly, we wouldnt let them do that would we? I wonder, if a child smacked another child, would a No Voting parent then smack child X? I think so.If we dont tolerate children using violence, then why do we use it against them? If a mentally disabled person is "mentally 5 years old", would we smack them in the way we might smack a 5 year old? I dont think so. I've heard arguments that "oh, its a different relationship" as mentioned in the campbell live debate, but no, I dont agree with that, its no different, just as light smacking and light hitting are the same to me.Now, to be clear, I dont think all parents who smack their children are blood thirsty murderers who come home at night and beat their partners and then kill their children with a coathanger. Im not being silly like that. To smack someone is to hit someone, and thats violence. I dont see adults smacking other adults, why is that? There comes an age where parents generally dont smack their children, why do you think that is? I would assume its because the child is big enough to smack back, to hurt the parent. Its not fun hitting another person when you could be hit back.I've already ticked Yes, that a smack should be a criminal offence, you can see a photo of my vote slip on my flickr account.I know its hard for some parents who grew up being smacked, and who smack their own children, to see that other people have a problem with their behaviour. I was smacked as a child , and I'd be threatened with a smack too. "stop doing that, do you want me to smack you?" or that the parent would be going to get The Wooden Spoon, my mother would hit me with one large wooden spoon. It would be a threat for me, "im going to get the spoon", if I were doing something she didnt like, and sometimes if I did something accidentally that I knew she would hit me for, I'd plead "no mum, not the wooden spoon", although it probably just made me look more pathetic to her as she hit me.I have a few clips from people supporting my idea that smacking children is violence. I asked No Voters, people who wanted to smack their children to appear, but they either didnt want to be recorded, or were unable to record themselves and send me an mp3. I honestly wish they were on here, talking to me personally, but I've played neutral clips, for smacking clips, as well as my own point of view against smacking clips. So I think this episode has been quite fair to all sides.Here are two clips I got, both from fellow Vegans incidentally.Thank you to both Bruce and Sam for appearing on my podcast.Every Vegan I know is against smacking children. I think my vegan friends are against it, as they see it as a violent act, that a large adult is doing to a small and helpless child. I would think that practically all vegans, who are generally for peace and against all violence, would most likely be against smacking children.My father went to school at a time when they boys got hit with a cane, the teacher actually physically hit children! Unbelievable! I know my older listeners might be laughing at me now, but I cant imagine teachers being able to hit children. Did they get hit if they didnt do their homework? I know that it certainly didnt stop the bad kids being bad, I've been told by a no voter, for smacking, that her husband would upset the teacher to make him hit them in class, and that they would hide under desks, and run about. They thought it was a great time, it didnt control them. Also, girls didnt get hit with a cane, because they were thought of as "weaker" than the boys I guess? Not sure. My father is left handed, and he wasnt allowed to write with his left hand, I think he would be hit with a ruler for doing that. Imagine schools today hitting little boys for writing with their left hand, which is natural for them, its no different than hitting them because of their race, or because they are gay! Unbelievable, I wonder if the average parent who believes in smacking also believes in hurting left handed children so they have to write like a right handed person. Imagine being the only left handed child in a class room of right handed people, imagine being told by the large male teacher, whos holding a ruler to hit you with, "you're gonna do what I tell you boy, you dont use that hand except for wiping your butt boy, do you want a smack? you want me to hit you? huh? think you're a fancy left hander now do you? hey?". Awful.I found a website written by a young child"If kids even once stepped out of line they were strapped or canned. If they got caught not working or doing the wrong thing they would stand you up at the front of the class and make you wear the dunces cap or make you hold out your hand to be strapped. If you were left-handed you were forced to use your right and if you did otherwise your left hand would be strapped until it was too sore to use. If you were late for school you would be strapped the number of minutes late. The teacher always carried a ruler around to give any body who was not doing what they were told a hard rap across the knuckles. Children had no choice in the work they did or how they did it. Whatever teacher said to do was to be done. For being really bad you could be canned six times and that's where the saying six of the best come from.Some teachers made you bend over and put your head under the black board so when they canned your back side if you raised your head you would hit it on the chalk ledge"if I can see this is wrong, then I dont see why other people cant.Theres evidence from polls that fewer people smack their children now than in the 1960's, its gone down dramatically. The use of physical discipline by parents has been reduced, you can hear that from the Campbell Live debate. The people in the debate were asked if they smack their children now less than they were smacked as a child, they all agreed. I doubt children have suddenly gotten nicer, more polite, dont old people say the opposite? And yet, I would assume that even parents for smacking children, smack them less than they were smacked growing up, and that often parents feel bad about smacking their children. We dont hit children for being left handed, or Maori anymore, so why hit them because they hit another child? An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind, as Ghandi said.Here are some clips that are both for and against smacking, from well known people.Tony Blair, former prime minister of the UK,I dont think all people who smack their kids go on to beat them to a pulp, but a smack is still hitting, and thats violence against children.Dame Kiri , a new zealand musician,I dont think you should have to earn respect, you should be able to get it, it should be expected that you are a good person, you shouldnt be punished until you can prove yourself good, you should be treated with dignity so you respect your seniors, that you see everyone as equal.Helen Clark, former Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand,I dont agree with Helen Clark, and Labour was for this bill being passed while she were Prime Minister.John Key, current National Prime Minister of New Zealand,John Key is for smacking he says, he did it himself, and yet admits there are more effective tactics such as taking away a cellphone. Id hate to have my iPhone take away by mum and dad, but its better than being hit.I'll also remind you that National passed this bill, with their addition that the police could judge if the child had been assaulted or not on a case by case basis.last is Sue Bradford, the Green Party MP who came up with this bill, its her creation. She changes her mind all the time publicly if this "anti smacking bill" stops smacking or not, if its an illegal act or not, if she wants it banned or not. Im not a fan of hers, but I can agree with anyone who is against smacking children ,if Hitler thought smacking children was wrong, then I can be on Hitlers side of this single issue.I'd like to mention two websites that helped me out with my views on smacking.http://yesvote.org.nz/ vote yes for banning smacking and http://www.voteno.org.nz/ vote no, which is for smacking children.Theres also a stupid parody of the yesvote site, by people who are for smacking, they personally attack the positions of the yes vote people. This is linked to on every page of the novote site, they at least think its funny if they havnt actually made it themselves. you can find the silly parody athttp://yesvote.blogspot.com/I personally agree with yesvote.org.nz, and disagree with voteno.org.nz , but I feel I should mention both sites for the help they gave me as useful resources, as well as for listeners to this episode, thats you, these two sites will help you make up your own mind.I like the slogans that yesvote.org.nz uses, against smacking children, "hitting kids teaches kids its ok to hit", "if its wrong to hit an adult, how can it be right to hit a child", "is it right to have a law saying its ok to hit a child?" and my favourite question, "what happens when a 'little smack' doesnt work anymore?". I like that last one the best as its something I hadnt thought of before, if you smack your child for doing fairly minor things like spilling milk, or swearing, what do you do if they hit a family member? Do you smack them harder? What if smacking them doesnt work, if they laugh it off, or try and smack you back?I played a clip of Prime Minister John Key saying he is for smacking children, and yet he also says that if the "anti smacking bill" is shown to be not working, he will change it. Many MPs voted the section 59 change, well basically every MP in the country, but now they say they are for smacking, yet its known as the anti smacking bill! Who knows how this will turn out, even if the forecast 80 percent of New Zealand want to be able to smack children, the government doesnt have to change anything! They could, if they are worried about not getting in next term, but that is years away.I dont think that only terrible people smack their children, almost everyone I know is actually for smacking! I personally feel its wrong to use violence against anyone, but especially when you are much bigger than the person you are using it against, and they have no way to defend themselves. What can a child do? Say "please dont hit me?" thats not going to stop a parent smacking them. They are most likely too small to smack the parent back, they wont be allowed a tazer to defend them from violence like the police have, and they cant use pepper spray on mum and dad. So what happens? They just have to learn that mum or dad is always right because if you argue with them, they can hurt you physically, and theres nothing you can do about it. You are nothing, they could tear you apart if they wanted to, just like that. I think thats awful. I think children should have the right not to be hit by anyone, and that includes their parents.Thank you for listening to this episode.You can find the script for this episode, as well as downloads for every episode of Jay Wont darts podcast at jaywontdart.blogspot.comIf you want to contact me, even just to say you listened, send an email to jaywontdart@gmail.com, j a y w o n t d a r t @ gmail.com, I'd appreciate it.Have a super happy day, bye.Sources=======http://yesvote.org.nz/ vote yes for banning smackinghttp://www.voteno.org.nz/index.htm vote no for smacking childrenguide to the anti smacking billhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDFl83TNagM&feature=player_embeddedleft handed children beatenhttp://schools.reap.org.nz/ruapehu/kaitieke/99t3/disc.htm