There is a trend out there called “laddism” which is actually old school sexism mutating as it does in many glorious forms. The Prime Minister is leading the way with his cosy chats with Tony Veitch. I am a great believer in second chances but Tony and his “hot chicks” list needs no encouragement, let alone from John Key. The counter attack on Sue Kedgely has been an illustration of ignorance and disrespect for women in general and for a particular woman whose leadership has changed this country for the better on many issues.

Another bizarre manifestation of“laddism” is the new police recruitment poster which targets young people hoping they will apply to join the force. It’s an advertising campaign that says things like “We’ve Got A lot in Common with Cougars We Like Em Young” . They have really multitasked with this effort by insulting older women and sounding predatory towards young flesh in one breath. A recent study stated that the police culture in this country has a way to go in terms of restoring women’s confidence after the Rickards affair. This new messaging is a huge step backwards!

The Facebook campaign against the “Radio Rock” wife raffle includes men and women and is having an impact on sponsors, but it’s going to take a more sustained effort to curb the new age of sexism. The mainstream media commentators are generally spinning any challenge as “ugly old women who are jealous”. This line is as old as the “men will be boys” justification. However, someone benefits from this behaviour. Ask yourself who?

People from community groups, people currently on benefits, people from churches,  and people from social service agencies were all participants in brainstorming some key principles for alternatives. Under the leadership of Sue Bradford, Associate Professor Mike O’Brien, Bishop Muru Walters, and the Anglican Social Justice Commissioner Anthony Dancer, we discussed the need for a broad culture change which would stop the stigmatisation of people who at times need state financial support.

Longer term strategies such as a Universal Basic Income or at least some universal provision for children were well supported in order to simplify the system and remove the judgmental attitudes often attached to all benefits other than New Zealand Superannuation.

There was a realistic understanding about the costs of change at both the ideological and the practical levels. The visions of a compassionate and respectful agency which supported people to towards meaningful work were supported, alongside a call for immediate changes.

These included extending Working for Families to all families and restoring benefit rates to pre-1991 levels; restoring the discretionary Special Benefit for people who cannot meet their essential financial commitments; and creating some real jobs appropriate for the diversity of people who need them.

Consistency in the application of welfare law across the country and accessible and affordable child care were seen as essentials. Work and Income need to foster a culture of respect towards the diversity of all who need help, and they need the resources to do it well.

Some people had experienced the disempowerment of unemployment in a society which defined work as paid work only. An often stated view was that the Government’s official Welfare Working Group is not engaged in a real dialogue with all parties on the meaning of welfare and well-being, let alone the definition of ‘work’ or of ‘dependency’. Many contributors felt Government is targeting the most vulnerable, and threatening sanctions at a time when jobs are not available for many people who are parents, live with disability, or lack of literacy.

The Welfare Justice Alternative Welfare Working Group were given a clear message that their work is essential to balance the cost cutting agenda and misleading statistics with which the Government is manufacturing a sense of crisis around welfare costs.

The Green Party looks forward to seeing all the findings of the national fora, and to work with both the long term vision and practical suggestions of people who actually understand the welfare system and how to transform it for the good of all.

UPDATE: The Alternative Welfare Working Group are seeking submissions on the principles that you think are important for social welfare, examples of where these principles are or are not being applied, ideas or recommendations for change, and any general comments about welfare change.  You can make your submission here.  The closing date is 30 September.

I guess, given that Sue is no longer an MP, the forum organisers couldn’t find an excuse to keep her out. Sue has sent me a few reflections on the forum to share:

I attended the WWG Forum last week with some trepidation, especially when I found out that three Green Party people had been turned away at the last minute.

I did not want to be seen as mandating a process which unilaterally excluded people on political grounds, or in which participation implied support for the Government’s agenda.

However, I did go, and mercifully discovered many friends and allies in the room. If ever there was a time when we need to work together to expose and oppose what the Government has in store for us, the time is now.

I am not going to attempt a full summary of the content of the conference, as there have been a number of media reports.  Some of the presentations are also available on the forum website.  I would like, however, to share a little of the flavour to the forum.

The facilitator was TV presenter Carol Hirschfeld, who started proceedings with “The working welfare group (sic) will reflect some of the opinions represented here…” and continued her rather apposite misnaming of the sponsor throughout the next two days.

WWG Chair Paula Rebstock was first up, saying “the current welfare system is not responding to current realities,” bemoaning the low rate of employment among NZ’s sole parents, and the $7½ billion currently spent on benefits.

I sensed a new manufactured crisis coming on.

Minister Paula Bennett came next.  “This debate could get uncomfortable…it could get emotional…we may even see an ugly side of New Zealand…but we will also see compassion and understanding.” I wonder to whom she refers.

She asked, “Who should get welfare, and for how long?  How do we pay for it? …a great deal of thought has gone into assembling this group of people….this is about changing the society we live in.”

At which point I began to get really worried.  The Minister’s comments were very brief – she made it clear that this wasn’t a time for her to give her ideas about welfare reform, but rather a time for her to listen.  Moments later, she left, never to return.

Later on, the Hon David Caygill gave us a blast about the virtues of fully funding welfare liability in the same way as ACC is supposed to do.

However, I found the most frightening speaker of all to be Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi from the Kohanga Reo National Trust Board.  Among other things, she said, “The benefit system is unjustified in many instances,” and that what is needed is an “internal fixit strategy…gaining access to whanau homes is the key.”

The vision that this represents is one that I imagine sends shudders up the spines of many Maori who know they and their whanau are not actually to blame for unemployment and poverty, but rather the economic system in which they live is, and who don’t want even greater interference in their personal lives from either the State or its iwi or pantribal representatives.

Through the course of the conference we had a number of presentations from international and academic experts, the most useful comment perhaps coming from Monika Queisser from the OECD who commented on our very high child poverty rates, and said that ‘lessons could also be learned from the universality, simplicity and effectiveness of NZ Super.”  She talked about a universal child benefit, but also made it clear that she felt it was important that sole parents work.

Despite excellent contributions from Kay Brereton (PDF) and Darren Kemp from the Wellington Peoples’ Centre, and Professor Innes Asher (PDF) from the Child Poverty Action Group, the majority of inputs to the conference, at least that I heard, were from people pushing the following themes:

• Our welfare system is in crisis and unaffordable, particularly with the high number of people on the DPB, Invalids and Sickness benefits.
• We should be looking at what countries like Australia and the UK are doing in treating most beneficiaries the same as people on the unemployment benefit.
• An ACC-type, social or employment insurance model for welfare should be seriously considered.

The one good thing the WWG process has done is to open up the debate on welfare, and create an opportunity to start to educate and organise in ways we may not have done for some time.  The Government would like to get away with the biggest changes to our social security system since the 1930s – whether they succeed or not may depend on all of us who have a different and far more compassionate vision for the future of welfare in this country.

Thanks for that, Sue.  Looks like it is Game On!

It was advertised as open to the first 250 people who enrolled, and billed as bringing together “a diversity of opinions and experience”.

Metiria and I immediately registered, along with one of our researchers, because we have a deep interest in these issues, and received emails accepting our registrations and sending us the forum timetable. It was never suggested that the forum was closed to MPs.

However, about five days before the forum we all received an email telling us that they were sorry but we couldn’t attend because “priority has been given to community and voluntary sector organisations”. Not even our Parliamentary advisor on work and income has been allowed to go along.

This was pretty rude given the way the Forum was advertised as open to all (especially because it looks to me in this video like there are were plenty of spare seats today!)

Fortunately, we have our contacts from the community and they are keeping us briefed.

At the end of Day One they tell us it is feels like a closed conversation promoting the Government’s agenda. They tell us that it was opened by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett who said she was there to listen and then promptly left. The keynote speakers have been advocates for a range of depressingly draconian welfare ideas from time-limited benefits to turning welfare into ACC.

My contacts tell me this discussion is ridiculously 1990s and is an attack on the fundamental principles of welfare which include supporting the vulnerable and the poor.

No matter how many times they say “empowerment” the reality on the ground is that the Government’s “Future Focus” Bill is planning to sanction the sick and sole parents by cutting benefits – all at the same time as cuts to Early Childhood Education.

So the forum won’t hear the Green challenges about welfare and they probably won’t listen to heroes of the unemployment movement like Sue Bradford and Kay Brereton who do have a brief platform at the event. We look forward to the Working Group’s conclusions which will no doubt help the Government to rationalise this latest attack on the poor.

When times get tough the tough attack the easy targets, but lets not pretend it has anything to do with fairness or positive change for beneficiaries and their children.

It was my huge pleasure this year to be able to represent the Green Party in Blackball. Even though it’s physically close to where I live, it feels like a national stage. Others present included the Ambassador of Cuba, Labour MPs Claire Curran and Damien O’Connor, and my old friend and former Green Party MP Sue Bradford, as well as many other progressive people from both the West Coast and from around the country.

A highlight this year was the opening of a memorial to the 1908 crib time strike, developed by the team of local people who have been working towards the vision of a museum of working class history. A theme for the political discussions was how progressives can organise on the issues and principles that we hold in common, and both Claire Curran and I spoke after dinner on “A Progressive Agenda for the Next Decade”.

My speech was fairly wide ranging – covering the relationship between economy, environment, growth, climate change, peak oil, our Green New Deal and more!

The review included Dr Nigel Latta – someone who had voted against the law in the recent referendum. However, to his credit Dr Latta – a clinical psychologist – has pointed out that fears whipped up by ex-politicians committed to frenzy not facts are actually unfounded. Funny that.

It was difficult listening to Bob McCroskrie this morning on morning report, complaining about 8 separate reviews all of which have shown the law to work as it was intended. Many of those 8 reviews were established to precisely to answer the questions that Bob and his organisation keep asking. Problem is they don’t like the answers and keep on demanding more and more, wasting time and money that is better spent on supporting families.

What our law has done is to help to keep kids safe and the Police and child protection agencies have been using the law as intended. It is what Sue Bradford has said over and over.

The media need to look at the mountain of evidence from a variety of reports out now on the Section 59 amendment and be extremely cautious when dealing with financially powerful reactionary forces that think it’s OK to hit Kids.

It ain’t.

Here’s Rosenberg’s take on it:

ACC’s reserves are now above forecast by $739 million (5.4 percent), a further improvement over last month,” said CTU Economist and Policy Director Bill Rosenberg. “The strong performance of ACC’s investment portfolio shows that the Government’s claims of blowouts and financial mismanagement are completely inaccurate.

Yep, just what Kevin Hague and before him Sue Bradford have been saying all along as the Green ACC spokespeople.  The poor investment results last year were consequent on the global financial  crisis.  The financial markets are recovering, and so, therefore, is the value of ACC’s investments.

Rosenberg again:

ACC’s claim liabilities, above forecast largely because of changes in the assumed interest rate used to estimate it, are now just 0.6 percent ($166m), more than forecast, again an improvement over last month. These numbers are driven largely by constantly changing market valuations and by actuarial assumptions.

The main problem is the full funding of future claim payments which means ACC accounts will always be susceptible to large apparent variations which in reality may have little practical consequences for the ACC scheme.  A pay as you go scheme with a prudent level of reserves could be much more stable.

Hey, exactly what the Green Party has been saying too.  While it is tempting in a time of financial instability to move ACC completely to pay as you go and pull the entire $11 billion of ACC reserves to stimulate an economy in recession, to do so would not be a good look for the security of the ACC scheme.

But move away from the policy of fully pre-funding future entitlements on past claims, while maintaining some reserves to smooth the possibility of future levy increases to meet the cost of those entitlements, then levies can fall while entitlements to rehabilitation and compensation for injured people can be maintained.

In February this year the Green Party heard a rumour that the review of ACC was being conducted solely by Treasury and Business New Zealand, so on 5 March we decided to put this to Nick Smith in the House.

Sue Bradford: Is it true that Business New Zealand and Treasury are currently the sole drafters of the terms of reference for a full Government review of accident compensation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, that is completely false. I have not had any discussions with either of those organisations about the changes that the Government will need to make in accident compensation, nor have officials. I wish to reassure the member that this Government is absolutely determined to ensure that New Zealand has a 24/7 accident insurance scheme that is both affordable and sustainable in the long term.

Now, this seemed a little odd – no officials had talked to Treasury about a review of a scheme that was allegedly in financial trouble.

So OIAs were put in, and the information that eventually came back showed that Nick Smith had received a briefing on 23 December 2008 about the Stocktake of ACC [PDF] that clearly stated that  … “ the department and the Treasury are still considering the scope of the review.”

On 20 February 2009, Nick Smith received a briefing on the ACC review from the Department of Labour [PDF] which was developed in consultation with the Treasury, and on which he wrote a note about the role of Treasury in the review.

In Parliament today, Green Party’s new ACC spokesperson Kevin Hague, asked Nick Smith about this. The Minister both confirmed that he stands by his answers in the house and the Treasury has been involved in the review of ACC…..

This raises the issue of whether this is the only time Nick Smith has been caught out – according to this Labour press release it isn’t.

So can Nick Smith be trusted? Over to you.

Kia kaha Sue!

Amongst all the various changes that will be made to ACC entitlements, Green Party MP Sue Bradford is right to highlight the change to entitlements or seasonal or casual workers – who will now receive support based on their annual earnings, and not on their income during the immediate period before they were injured.

The logic being used by government ignores the vulnerability of the workers and families involved. More and more of the workforce is being employed in casual and part time work, usually at the bottom end of the income ladder. To reduce the compensation for such people is to penalise those most in need of state support, through a period of injury and rehabilitation – especially since they are the least likely to have reserves of savings to make up the shortfall.

This cut potentially affects almost a quarter of the workforce if they have the misfortune to have to take time off work because of injury.

Why should casual and seasonal workers have their weekly compensation assessed as if they were in permanent full-time employment?

It’s just not fair.

One of the proposed changes is to vocational independence assessments.  These assessments are used by ACC to decide if an ACC claimant receiving weekly compensation for loss of earnings is fit to return to suitable work.  If a claimant is found to be fit to return to suitable work, his or her weekly compensation stops three months later if the claimant has not already gone back to his or her pre-injury job or found another one.

The assessment consists of two parts.  Currently, these are:

• A vocational assessment to determine what types of work are suitable for the claimant on the basis of the claimant’s skills, experience and earnings before his or her incapacity.

• A medical assessment to determine whether the claimant is fit to work at least 35 hours in any of those types of work.

ACC Minister Nick Smith is proposing to remove the requirement that the vocational assessment of suitable work takes into account a claimant’s earnings before his or her incapacity, and to reduce to 30 the minimum number of hours a claimant must assessed under the medical assessment as being able to work to be considered vocationally independent.

So, under Smith’s proposal, a claimant who was earning, say, $1500 a week before his or her injury will be booted off weekly compensation if he or she is found to be able to do some  job for 30 hours a week that pays only the minimum wage.  That’s just $375 a week.

As Sue Bradford pointed out a couple of days ago, an injured aircraft engineer will lose his or her weekly compensation if found to be able to work as a carpark attendant.

I can’t see how that fits under the purpose clause in the legislation that governs ACC, which requires that “…during their rehabilitation, claimants receive fair compensation for loss from injury…”

It’s just not fair!

The hui was designed to build activism to end child poverty in Aotearoa. Activism is clearly what is needed to bring about change, was the consensus of speakers and participants.

One of the overriding themes of the Na Ta Tatou Rouro: With our baskets the children will prosper conference was that the recession is far from over, the situation for poor people is worsening and that New Zealand has a shameful and enduring record on child poverty.

Many speakers mentioned The Spirit Level – Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Richardson Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, a book that focuses on the consequences of economic inequality

Poor children are discriminated against by Government policies, such as the In Work Family Support tax credit that is not available to beneficiaries.

Everything seems stacked against poor children. Low incomes are bad for the health and for life prospects. Many die early from preventable diseases.

The haters and wreckers syndrome was illustrated by Finlayson Park School principal Shirley Maihi, who outlined the positive work happening at her school, including providing food to hungry pupils, and teaching parents as well as children. But Shirley said that after every newspaper article or TV clip, people ring up to blame the parents and tell her she shouldn’t be feeding the children. Godzone huh?

The disparity between the haves and the have nots is growing, with greater income inequality in New Zealand. The outlook seems increasingly bleak for our most vulnerable children.

But the spirit of those working on the coalface of poverty was more buoyant than bleak.

Conference speaker Sue Bradford – who gave a well-received presentation on New Roads for Activists and was commended for her dedication on helping protect children from violence – was rapt at the energy and the commitment of those present.

“I thought it was really great to see so many people still committed to the kaupapa of working to end child poverty,” said Sue.

“These issues have been big since the early 1980s. So lots of people have been working on it for a long time and have to keep their energy up.

“It was great to see that energy more than ever from people in the health, social services and schools. There were lots of people on the frontline in Maori and Pasifika communities as well as Pakeha communities. And there were academics and university staff as well as frontline workers.

“I think CPAG has done an amazing job over the years. They have really good heart and a commitment to do so.

“I really appreciate their focus on activism, building networks and alliances between people working on poverty issues.”

* The Green Party’s Children’s policy is available at:  http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/children

Anyone remember Jumping Sundays in Albert Park?

Forty years ago, several thousand young people – including Truth contributors Tim Shadbolt and myself – liberated the Park, creating what we felt to be a free space for the citizens of Auckland.

Up until September 1969 Albert Park was reserved for Council-approved activity, such as quiet family picnics or the odd performance by a brass band. Political activities were banned.

Those of us heavily involved in frequent demonstrations against the Vietnam War grew increasingly frustrated by the fact that this beautiful open space was just sitting there while council bylaws prohibited us from using it.

So one Sunday we organised a different kind of demonstration, especially designed to ‘take’ the park.

We marched down from Myers Park, and without any particular fuss or bother established a beach head at the band rotunda.

We were surprised how easy it was – a lot easier than trying to stop New Zealand from supporting the US efforts in Vietnam.

From that day on we made Albert Park our own every Sunday afternoon, with music and dancing, political speeches and rallies.

In a highly ironic twist, the Auckland City Council is this year supporting the 40th anniversary of the liberation of Albert Park as part of its Heritage Festival.

At 1.00pm Saturday 19 September there will be a launch of a display at the Auckland Central Library, including archival material and old film footage.

From 1.00 – 4.00pm on Sunday 20 September there will be a ‘Jumping Sunday 09’ free concert in the park.

Entertainers will include the Frank E.Evans band, who used to play for us way back then; Graham Brazier from ‘Hello Sailor’; Starfish Magic; Tigi Ness from ‘Unity Pacific’, and special street theatre. Tim Shadbolt and I will both be speaking.

I hope any of you who were part of our scene back then will be able to join us, along with others who might be interested in taking part in a celebration of this slice of Auckland’s social and political history.

While on the surface of it liberating a park in central Auckland may not seem particularly earth shattering, at the time it was highly symbolic of some of the seismic shifts that were taking place in New Zealand society.

We were a new generation who didn’t want to be dictated to by old fogies in either City Councils or Parliament.

We wanted to change the world and have fun while we were doing it. We didn’t accept that a city council could stop us dancing and singing in the park, or holding political rallies there.

So we took over, and the weekly Jumping Sundays which went on for years afterwards became a focal point for political movements as well as a space where the ‘sex, drugs and rock’n’roll’ of our generation could be freely enjoyed, albeit with a wary eye out for police, in and out of uniform.

See you there?

Last week the result of the child discipline referendum came out.

There is no question that the number of those voting ‘no’ was stunningly high.

However, I would have a lot more respect for the outcome of the refendum if the question originally asked had been a lot clearer.

In the last few days of the referendum period I increasingly came across people who said they totally supported the law change we achieved two years ago, but who also voted ‘no’.

I genuinely believe that the ambiguous and confused question put to voters has resulted in an ambiguous and confused answer.

It is also a fact that when the number of people who didn’t vote at all (46%) is added to the number of those who voted ‘yes’ or who spoilt their ballot papers, a slight majority of New Zealanders did not support a law change, whatever the interpretation of ‘no’.

And of course children and young people don’t get to vote, even though they are the people most affected. When you take this factor into account, 33% of New Zealanders voted ‘no.’

I am therefore pleased that earlier this week the Prime Minister John Key reaffirmed his Government’s position of sticking with the law as it is

He confirmed that until or unless there is evidence of New Zealand parents being criminalized for trivial or inconsequential assaults on their children, he plans to leave things as they are.

Mr Key also announced three measures he hope will allay the fears some parents have that they will be criminalized for trivial assaults on their children.

He is asking the Police and CYFS to take a look at processes around how they deal with those who abuse children; bringing forward an MSD review of how the child discipline law change is working in practice; and asking Police to continue 6 monthly reports on the operation of the law.

All of these steps are quite sensible in an environment where people continue to be so anxious about the ramifications of the new law.

I hope that despite the pressure now bearing down on them that John Key and the National Government will continue to stick to their principles.

After all, in 2007 they voted for a law change which finally gave children the right to the same legal protection from violence as we parents have.

I hope no New Zealand Government ever buckles to demands coming from some of the supporters of the ‘No’ vote campaign to reinstate a law allowing for parents to legally beat their children, including with implements.

This debate around child discipline has been raging for four years now.

It would be good to have some breathing space for a while to allow the law to bed in, and for rational reviews and research to take place so we can all understand what is really going on.

I also hope the Government will put more resources into some of the things that can really make a difference – for example, by increased access to parenting education, and lifting funding to groups which help support families and children.

Without any consultation with the professional bodies representing psychotherapists or counsellors, ACC announced changes last week that would have required sex abuse survivors to relate their trauma to up to three different health professionals before they would receive any treatment.  It also proposed to limit therapy to 16 sessions, with claimants having to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” to receive ongoing therapy.

Sue Bradford raised the issue in the House yesterday.  ACC Minister Nick Smith was absent – perhaps finding new ways to obfuscate on climate change targets – so it was left to Associate Minister Pansy Wong to defend the proposal.

Sue Bradford: Why is the Government requiring victims of sexual abuse to see at least three different health professionals, and does the Minister think it is easy for victims to go over their traumatic experiences, over and over again, with strangers?

Hon PANSY WONG: Indeed, the clinical research conducted by Massey University is not asking victims to relive their traumatic ordeals. This is tailor-made clinical treatment that takes into account each survivor’s personal circumstances.

Just hours after the Associate Minister’s denial, ACC made her look even more foolish by backing down on a substantial part of the proposal and admitted that it would, despite her denial, have required disclosures to additional health professionals:

Dr Kevin Morris, said last night that the proposal would be modified in response to feedback before it comes into force on September 14.

“The provider/assessor split – we won’t be taking that because I don’t think that’s going to work,” he said.

“Individuals having to disclose to a number of different people – that has always been a problem in this area. We have no intention of trying to make it any worse than it is.

We are quite keen to improve that.”

He said the agency also had no intention of removing a client’s right to choose their own therapist.

However, it appears that the requirement for claimants to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” to receive counselling sessions in excess of an arbitrary limit looks set to remain, even though professional advice indicates additional rehabilitation would be beneficial. 

The whole proposal has been poorly thought through.  ACC should put it on hold and start again by undertaking proper consultation with the appropriate professional bodies.

As I am sure everyone is excruciatingly well aware, we are right now in the middle of the postal referendum on the physical discipline of children.

Voting started on 31 July and finishes on 21 August.

At a cost of $9 million to the taxpayer, the referendum asks:

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

I reckon this question is both misleading and ambiguous.

A lot of people tell me they have no intention of voting, or are going to spoil their ballot paper, because they are angry about money being wasted on such a confused proposition.

Other people are keen to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ because they have strong views on the issue and want to vote regardless.

This includes me of course. I will be voting ‘Yes’ and encouraging others to do the same, as I see that voting ‘Yes’ is a vote for keeping the law as it is.

Parents are not being prosecuted in their droves for giving their children a ‘smack’.

There is actually no offence called ‘smacking’ in New Zealand law.

There is, however, an offence of ‘assault’ which has always been there.

What the law change in 2007 achieved was simply the removal of the defence of ‘reasonable force for the purpose of correction’ which in the past allowed some parents to get away with quite badly beating their children.

The ‘reasonable force’ defence also meant parents felt they had a state-sanctioned right to use physical force as a way of disciplining their children.

New Zealand made a huge step forward two years ago when Parliament voted by a huge majority to take away this defence and give our children the same legal protection from violence as we adults enjoy.

I hope that despite the anger people justifiably feel at the way in which money is being wasted on this confused referendum question, some of you at least will consider voting ‘yes’ as an expression of support for the law change.

People often ask me, ‘If you think this question is so ambiguous, what should the question have been?”

Of course it could have been any number of things, but I believe a much fairer question would have been something like ‘Should the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction be available to New Zealand parents?’

At least people would then have been a lot clearer on what they were voting for or against.

I have put a member’s bill forward seeking to ensure that in future when someone comes up with a proposal for a citizens’ initiated referendum, the Clerk of the House – who approves these questions – has more legal guidance on what should go forward.

I am suggesting that questions that are ambiguous complex, leading or misleading should not be accepted, and that the proposer keeps working on the question with the Clerk until it is clear and simple.

I am in discussions with the Minister of Justice about this at the moment, and hope the Government may change the law in this area as a result.

Meanwhile, the debate on whether our kids deserve a childhood free from violence continues, and will for a while yet, whatever the result on 21 August.

Last month the SIS released a heavily edited version of the file they kept on me from 1968 onwards.

The file is evidently in two volumes, and 330 classified reports on me have been withheld. The few lessons I take from what I have been allowed to see so far are that:

• The SIS was very active during the Cold War period in relation to anyone they judged to be subversive, even when just a teenager at school – as I was when the spooks first started keeping an eye on me.
• They had an agent right inside one organisation to which I belonged, and quite possibly within others as well. The spies weren’t quite as incompetent as some commentators made out in the Playboy and meat pie days.
• However, the information they collected on me was quite random, with rather a lot missing and some strange fabrications and suppositions.
• The way my file comes to an abrupt end in early 1999 is a little odd as I was still very involved in organising protests against the APEC meeting later that year. This sudden conclusion may have something to do with the fact that after Keith Locke’s records were released in early 2009 the SIS came under heavy pressure not to keep files on sitting MPs – even though I didn’t enter Parliament until December 1999.

I welcome the recent increase in media and public scrutiny of the SIS.

I believe we all need to know more about the agency paid for by the taxpayer and tasked with identifying, watching and analysing people who are a threat to New Zealand’s security.

While there will always be a need for a high degree of secrecy in its operations because of their very nature, I reckon more should be done to review and cull personal files that are kept on people like myself and goodness knows how many others.

Even the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Paul Neazor, said in March that he was concerned about the SIS’s ‘vacuum cleaner approach’ to collecting information on suspect individuals, and that security needs should be weighed up against peoples’ right to privacy.

Parliament has a special committee on security and intelligence which is supposed to have oversight of the SIS.

Its current members are John Key, Rodney Hide, Tariana Turia, Phil Goff and Russel Norman.

I certainly hope the committee is doing more these days than just accepting whatever the SIS Director tells them.

I trust this new generation of political party leaders are girding their loins to truly watch the watchers, a function needed in any democratic society.

While I accept that there will probably always be a need for some form of security intelligence service in our country, there must also be effective checks and balances on just what that service is up to.

And I hope that whoever the SIS is keeping an eye on these days, there is a genuine reason for doing so, and that any records being kept are both fair and accurate.

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

I initially wondered if it was asking whether I should get the bash if I don’t look after the tadpoles properly.

I see John Key and Phil Goff have both said they think the wording is ambiguous and confusing.

And the Act Party’s intellectual heavyweight John Boscawen seems very confused too.  In a questionnaire response published by The Hand Mirror, Boscawen replied:

Multi-choice questions (candidate’s answer is in bold):

In the forthcoming Child Discipline referendum New Zealanders should:
Vote Yes OR Vote No or Abstain
Candidate comment: Because I beleive (sic) parents should be able to correct their children’s behaviour. I have a private members bill promoting a change.

And we’re spending almost $9 million on this nonsense that is so badly worded that even the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition can’t understand it.

Well done Sue Bradford for putting forward a Member’s Bill to ensure questions in citizens initiated referenda are not ambiguous, complex, leading, or misleading. The child discipline one would fail on three of those four counts.

Let’s hope Sue’s bill is drawn in today’s ballot, or if not, the Government is prepared to take it up, as John Key indicated yesterday he is considering.

A couple of weeks ago the Green Party signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the National-led Government.

Some of our supporters have been worried that perhaps we are selling our souls to the Nats in return for a few favours.

However, I would like to reassure people that we in the Green Party are as committed as ever to standing up for our own political programme and policies, and that this latest arrangement is not some trick to keep us quiet.

What the agreement does do is commit National and Greens to work together in a few areas where we have a particular common interest, with three on the table at the moment:

• A nationwide programme to help people who own or rent in the private sector to insulate their homes, very similar to the Green Homes project we were working on with Labour before last year’s election.
• An update of our country’s energy efficiency strategy, an area in which our Co leader Jeanette Fitzsimons has been working for many years
• Developing ways of ensuring that natural health products are part of a New Zealand based safety system instead of being regulated mainly by Australians as previously proposed.

More areas may arise in future, but this is it for the moment.

This new agreement does not in any way commit the Green Party to being part of or voting for the Government, and we remain as free as ever to critique the parties of Government and to put up our own alternative policies and solutions.

This Government is already showing tendencies of being very like the last National Government in the way it treats workers and in its overall approach to the economy and the environment.

In this context, the Greens will be continuing to fight tooth and nail to defend ordinary Kiwis’ rights to a decent standard of living and to preserve our planet for future generations.

Turning to another topic completely, the situation in Fiji is a mess and New Zealand has played its part in allowing it to become so.

While Frank Bainimarama is right out of line in the way he is treating the press and his political opponents, the previous Fijian Government served the interests of political, economic, tribal and religious elites.

Bainimarama says he seized power in order to clean the country up.

Although our Labour Government was right to condemn the use of military force to overthrow a democratically elected Government, it had some choices about what it did next.

Labour could have tried to work constructively with Bainimarama to put in place a system of Government that was democratic and accountable.

Instead it chose to impose overly stringent sanctions and preach about a narrow form of democracy that had nothing to do with protecting the rights of ordinary Fijians from cronyism and corruption.

In doing so it exacerbated the situation rather than providing the friendship and support that might have seen a quick restoration of democracy.

We have failed our Fijian friends in their time of need and the best thing we can do now is work quietly behind the scenes to help build towards that very goal.

Does he see any opportunity to simultaneously deal with the job losses in the housing construction sector and assist the nearly 10 thousand people on the Housing New Zealand waiting list?

The Minister manages to insult the former Minister, requiring an apology and withdrawal, then goes on to insult Sue Bradford, again being silenced by the Speaker. It was a pretty poor showing. The government’s paltry promise of another 69 state houses over the existing plan doesn’t contribute one iota to the need for new state housing or the protection of  the failing building industry.