Prominent QC criticises Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s work

An article in the Press yesterday [PDF] by QC Grant Illingworth said that the law that banned smacking is inappropriate. In the article titled Good motive, but bad law, Illingworth, who specializes in public law, says that the anti-smacking law is bad law and is not an adequate response to child abuse.

This is despite Sue Bradford saying that her law was not supposed to minimise child abuse, after saying that it was. Bradford also said smacking was not a crime, then said it was. Parliament said it shouldn't be, but made it so.

One of the aspects to the law Illingworth appears to be criticising is the police discretion clause. This clause, written by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, is basically a suggestion and an abdication of parliamentary responsibilities in favor of the police taking power over innocuous behaviour that should not be criminal.

Illingworth says the amendment is an extremely poor piece of legal drafting in that it is calculated to create confusion rather than clarity, it criminalizes behaviour which should not be classified as a criminal offence, and it fails to provide adequate protection for those whom it was designed to help.

You look worried...things not going according to plan

You have to watch this video from Young Labour. Its a rip off of this ad. Check out Pete Hodgson's cameo. He'll get you the good stuff. Then the bells of socio-economic freedom will chime for all.

Thanks Young Labour. What a laugh.

It's clear: Labour want to be followers, rather than leaders. Perhaps that's why it is in opposition. Join the opposition. It started with a lone protest. Then more and more followed (about 10 apparently). And all you can do is watch. Helpless. Twitching.

Face it Labour, the tide has turned. And it ain't going your way. All you can do is ask people to join the "opposition". Labour wants to be the the natural party of opposition. However I do really think that Labour's "I'm joining the opposition" capaign is at least nine months too late.

Does Clayton Weatherston deserve a lower sentence than a robber or a sex offender?

Clayton Weatherston took a knife to his girlfriend’s place and stabbed her 216 times in the face, eyes, neck and heart. He has been charged with murder but is pleading a defence of provocation. This has led to repeated calls for the repeal of at least section 169 of the Crimes Act, which allows a provocation defence for murder. Labour's Charles Chauvel has a bill [PDF]to do just that – although he is probably more concerned about the gay panic defence, rather than consistent sentencing.

Provocation operates as a partial defence. If Weatherston is successful he'd have a considerably reduced sentence. How much? Less than he’d get for sexual offences or kidnapping, at least. That’s because the sentence is purely up to the sentencing judge, not the legislation and sentences for manslaughter have been minimal because judges no longer apply the law to provide for tougher sentencing for the worst crimes.

The maximum sentence for rape is 20 years, and for manslaughter it is life. Life is the minimum for murder unless the judge gives written reasons for an alternate sentence.But many sex offenders (like Graham Capill) get higher sentences than those found guilty of killing a cop with a stolen car. Judges use previous cases to determine sentencing for manslaughter, none of which have been more than 16 years, most are far less. Here's some comparisons.

This guy got six years for aggravated robbery, but this woman would have got just five years for manslaughter had the crown not appealed the sentence.This rapist got 10 years, but last month this killer got sentenced to just over four years, but could be out of prison next month. He spent time in custody before sentencing. This sentence is just over half the seven year maximum sentence for wounding with intent to injure. This guy got nine years for kidnapping – but Rachael Namana got six years for killing Lillybing. A guy I used to know got six and a half years for unlawful sexual connection, but had he slaughtered one of the kids with a baseball bat he may have got a shorter sentence. Had the kidnapper or Capill been convicted for manslaughter they’d have probably got shorter sentences too.

So in effect what Weatherston is trying to do is get a shorter sentence than many sex offenders get – but he killed a woman by stabbing her 216 times. If he is successful, and gets, say, the three years that this killer got after successfully using the provocation defence , that’s just five days for every stab. That is assuming he completes the full sentence.

The provocation defence may be the topic of the moment, but there is also something wrong with our sentencing system if politicians and judges think that those who kill people deserve lower sentences than do robbers and sexual offenders.

clarification Despite the title, this post is not to be seen as taking any normative position on Clayton Weatherston's case, nor does it do so.

Idiot

Hat tip No Right Turn

Labour's woes are self-inflicted - but linked to the Maori Party's success

Labour Party activist Tony Milne has written an interesting piece eight months on from the election.

No one wants to hear from Labour. The public had 9 years to hear from Labour and Labour is well aware of that. But that doesn't mean that Labour isn't rebuilding. Labour is quietly rebuilding membership and organisation. Labour MPs are quietly reconnecting with the community, listening, debating, engaging. The online presence is a good example.Over 800 activists have joined the new Grassroots Labour site - a site for Labour members to chat, debate, and organise in an open forum. Red Alert (the Labour MP blog) has quickly become one of the most popular political blogs But such rebuilding takes time to filter through into public support and political polls.

I don't expect to see much movement in Labour's polling for at least another 12 months. The question is, can Labour do enough in the next 28 months to increase its support by the 6% or so needed to form a coalition Government with other partners? And will there be any partners?

That last sentence is the money one and the answer is no. Way back in April 2005 I predicted that the Maori Party would be a real force and that Labour may end up shunning the Maori Party. That was months before the 2005 election and the Maori Party was on the up.

Indeed, Labour shunned the Maori Party, describing it as last cab off the rank. Now they are a indeed a real force - or in Hone Hariwira's words a "limousine" - as it holds most of the Maori seats. It is co-owner of the rank. The reason this is a problem for Labour is because it lost the election and the support of Maori. Nationals arrangement with the Maori Party is proving positive for Maori, and is increasing support for the Maori Party. The Maori Party could be come National's Ratana. If Labour does get the 6% increase suggested by Milne, there will be no one to form a coalition government with if the Maori Party are not onside and Jim Anderton goes.

This is Labour's biggest problem. And it is of its own making. Blogging and grassrooting wont solve that as all this is doing is preaching to the converted activists like Milne, and communicating with the blog readers and grassrooters. Neither will needling the Maori Party for going with National. Duncan Garner wrote a good blog post last week which pretty much sums up what some blogs, including this one, have been saying for a long time.

The most powerful coalition partner at the moment is the Maori Party. The holders of the Maori seats have been in government for decades. There is no reason why Labour will gain the support of the holders of most of the Maori seats in 2011. Therefore Goff will be Labour's most unsuccessful leader in modern times.

Human Rights Commission says you are allowed to smack your kids

Hurrah for the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission says parents are allowed to smack their kids after all.They can even use correction provided that such correction is not "for the purposes" of correction, as long as the purpose is for specified purposes as defined in Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Such correction could be for non-corrective purposes, like prevention, or for the purposes of being a normal day-to day parent, provided correction itself is not your main purpose of correction.

But if you prevent a child from doing something and correct them using reasonable fore for the purposes of stopping them, that's allowed in the same way as reasonable force was allowed in the old law. If you prevent a child from doing something - like stopping their tantrum - and you prevent them from undertaking in such disruption with a smack for the purposes for correction, that's against the law and not allowed.

This whole hoo-har is a little bit like a teenager inhaling, not for the purposes of utilising his cigarette, but because he wants to look cool with his peers. Should inhalation as part of a good smoke be a criminal offence because others abuse their lungs? After all if this teen smokes twice a month he may go overboard and get lung cancer in six weeks and be investigated by people who investigate suspected cases of lung cancer. He may get his lungs taken away from him for a while so he can't inhale - or give him a plug for his mouth and let him breathe through his nose and put him on a drip. But he must not inhale. Therefore,we should announce a bill banning inhalation, then amend it to a ban on smoking, while saying you can only smoke cigarettes if you don't inhale. We could call it the stupid Clinton law and have a referendum on it.

Busy while someone is on trial

I’m pretty busy at the moment but not too busy to find the Clayton Weatherston trial disturbing, particularly his clam of provocation.

As Anita says, s169 of the Crimes Act says that blaming a victim is a defence, it says that if the victim provoked the offender and he killed her it is not murder. The Law Commission has recommended the section be repealed from the Crimes Act, and used as a sentencing issue only.

Was Weatherston jealous that she was packing her bags for a good Treasury job, while he missed out on getting a full time lecturers position at Otago? If so, will he get one now that he killed his former girlfriend and student?

I note that blogging academics are keeping a wide berth on commenting on this trial.

Why it happened: The Foreshore and Seabed Act and subsequent ministerial review

Well I’ve still to finish reading the ministerial review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. But what is lost on many is how the Act and the subsequent review occurred and its relevance to Labour getting turfed out of office in 2008.

Firstly, the Foreshore and Seabed Act is not just about the Treaty of Waitangi, although Treaty principles and Articles were breached. It is more about the doctrine of Aboriginal Title.In a nutshell, this is simply is that indigenous peoples have some form of property rights, which are not affected by a transfer or acquisition of sovereignty. Such property rights are recognised by Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi. So when people say that the Foreshore and Seabed Act breached Article II of the Treaty (it breached Article III as well), that is reflected in the doctrine of Aboriginal Title.

Coastal marine areas were subject to this Aboriginal or customary title unless it could clearly be shown that it had been extinguished. Prior to the Ngāti Apa case that eventually led to the Foreshore and Seabed Act, Government policy was that Māori customary title had indeed been extinguished, whereas Māori asserted their ownership from first contact

The whole litigation started back in the mid 1990’s. The Marlborough District Council refused to give Ngāti Apa a mussel-farming licence to farm in their traditional area. The iwi eventually appealed through the courts, which ruled against a contention that statutes affecting the foreshore and seabed extinguished Māori customary title.

The Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 gave the Māori Land Court jurisdiction to determine whether the foreshore and seabed was Māori customary land. The Court of Appeal in Ngati Apa said it could determine title, which led the Government to claim that Maori could take over the beaches to the exclusion of everyone else. It decided that allowing public access to the beaches would be better even if the Treaty is breached in the process. In reality, the worst case scenario is that a small number of iwi may have successfully tested their claim to customary title in court. However, rather than let that process run its course [and it is most unlikely that the Maori Land Court would have declared large areas of the foreshore be turned into freehold land, anyway] the government kneejerked, deciding to legislate to nationalise property rights to public areas of the foreshore and seabed just four days after the court decision.It intended to deny Maori the right to explore their common-law property rights in court – supposedly indissoluable rights - while allowing other New Zealanders to secure private ownership.

The Waitangi Tribunal found the Crown, in choosing to legislate, seriously breached the principles of the Treaty by failing to respect tino rangatiratanga, partnership, active protection.

Instead of amending the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act and the Resource Management Act, the Government incorporated other changes to those Acts into the Foreshore and Seabed legislation - despite select committee disagreement. The Act ignored the doctrine of Aboriginal Title as it failed to properly balance customary and public interests. It denied Māori options to pursue due legal process. It was discriminatory against Maori. Note: Don Brash was not the National Party leader when Labour decided to legislate.

The Maori Party was formed in the backlash of this Act. The ministerial review was part of the agreement between the Maori Party and National. The issue in the review was essentially whether the government unjustly expropriated Māori customary interests in the foreshore and seabed by vesting it public areas in the Crown, and by imposing restrictions on recognition of customary interest. It found that the government did just that and recommended the Act be repealed.

We have the Maori seats to thank for this review as without them, the Maori Party would never have been formed and the ministerial review would most likely not have occurred. We can also thank the Marlborough District Council for a National Government, as without its decision, subsequent events leading to the formation and rise of the Maori Party would also not have occurred,and we'd probably have a Labour-led Government with Labour holding most of the Maori seats.

National dreaming over cannabis

I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that a bill allowing cannabis to be used for medicinal purposes did not even get to select committee. In effect, the bill, seeking to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act, was treated the same way as a New Zealand First bill from Peter Brown on euthanasia a few years back – bumped on a conscience vote. Every National MP voted against it. Every Act MP in the House voted for it. Is that a first?

Apparently there were problems with the bill. That’s why it goes to select committee to iron out such problems. National’s Johnathan Coleman opposed the bill because he thought it would bring cannabis into mainstream society. Note to Coleman: cannabis is in mainstream society.

Meanwhile Coleman and his friends will partake liberally of other drugs like tobacco and alcohol. Both have caused enormous damage in mainstream society. You’d think those at National would at least send the bill to select committee for debate.I even had a suggestion to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act. This would retain the current classification, but selected users would not fear prosecution for possession of reasonable amounts, and light use, for medicinal purposes.

9(5): To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute in relation to an offence involving the prescription, administration, cultivation, supply or possession of cannabis or the genus Cannabis plant for medicinal purposes, where the amount of cannabis is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

Foreshore and seabed law should be scrapped

No surprise. The ministerial review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act found the legislation to be deficient in that it was biased against Maori and failed to recognise property rights. The report is 160-odd pages and I`ll comment on it after I have read it. The Government will take a couple of months to formally respond, no doubt, but Minister Findlayson has said that public access to the beaches is not going to be an issue. Never should have been. Even if Maori customary title was to convert into freehold title, parts of the Foreshore and Seabed would not have to come under Maori control, and public access to beaches would never be restricted. As Tariana Turia has said:

Public access could have been protected previous to this legislation though using the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the RMA. We didn’t need to have a piece of legislation that took away the customary rights of hapu to enable people to have those access rights – they are there in law and New Zealanders have right of navigation and access to all areas of the beach.

The press conference with leaders of the Maori Party is here.

Academics and wasting money

I have a lot of respect for academics like Brian Roper and Andrew Geddes but find it interesting that on one hand they state that the smacking citizens initiated referendum - which has no legal impact whatsoever - is an "absolutely appalling waste of money" and the money should be given to CYFS, but on the other hand the question should be better worded.

If the question was better worded, wouldn't the referendum still be a $9 million waste of money if direct democracy has no legal impact?

For that matter, is the Families Commission a waste of money - its budget is $9 million - if it has no legal impact? Have I just identified some reallocation that could go to CYFS so that more real families can be investigated for smacking their kids?

Update Family First's Bob McCoskrie has the answer. The money can come from the MSD in the first place. It's all budged for. Now all we need to do is fire the nosy CYFS managers who tell their social workers to investigate alleged smacking.

When divorce is the wiser option

updated
No Right Turn has blogged on a report of a study conducted by Professor Kelly Musick and Dr Ann Meier of Cornell University on warring families whose parents have not yet split up because they still have kids at home - so divorce is the wiser option. Well, The Independent pretty much said that, so he uncritically accepted it. The news report actually said that the research was conducted among parents who stay together for the sake of the kids. "Stop Jimmy's mum and dad splitting, and Jimmy will be more likely to stay in school, on the right side of the law, and off drugs".

The research report - a revised 2008 report initially written in 2006 (which is perhaps why The Independent didn't link it, it's old news), noted that parental conflict does not appear to be associated with college attendance or early cohabitation. The report, Are Both Parents Always Better Than One? Parental Conflict and Young Adult Well-Being never implied that divorce is the wiser option, nor does it state that the parents interviewed were together purely for the sake of the kids.

It was actually a report on parental conflict, and in some instances compared two parent families with sole parent families. It was not research on whether parents plan to divorce because of that conflict. The report did, however say that children in two-parent families in the higher end of the conflict spectrum are often no better off than children in sole parent families. Unlike No Right Turn, the report did not say that these kids were considerably worse off, nor did it suggest that conflicting parents would be better to divorce.

Note to Idiot Savant at No Right Turn: Don't believe everything you read in The Independent, especially when it is opinion. Then you'll be less likely to report it as fact.

Barnardos asks kids about smacking, and lies about the research

Barnardos have been interviewing children by phone to see what they think about getting smacked. The question they asked

Do you think that adults who are taken to court for hitting a child should be let off if they say they were disciplining the child?

Well, of course they shouldn't unless they were their caregivers. The kids had to push 1 if they should be let off 2 if they think they should not be let off, 3 if they don't know and 4 to hear the question again. Just over half said they should not be let off. Many probably didn't understand what " let off" meant- left off convicting is the assumption.Nor is it clear whether "adults" included strangers.

They interviewed stressed kids who called the Whats Up hotline, a hotline for kids to talk about anything they wish, including abuse. While the kid was waiting to speak to a real person, they were given an automated message with the above question. That's a little like asking turkeys on the 15 December whether they are looking forward to Christmas. There was only a 10% valid response rate.

Barnardos' media release says it asked kids about whether adults should be able to claim a legal defence for assault.

They lied. They asked if adults should be let off.But if these adults are not parents or caregivers of the smacked kid they never had a legal defence, ever. Let off means a case is dropped or they're discharged without conviction - not merely being found not guilty. The release also says:

Importantly, many of the callers suggested that parents should be let off with a warning or community service if they perpetrated low levels of violence against children.

How many? well,just one actually. The report provides all comments provided by the kids - quoting just 10 children, although it does provide some statements that counsellors said the kids had made. But only one said parents should be let off with a warning, and none said parents should be charged, let alone prosecuted or have community service.

Barnardos should really stop lying to the media. Imagine if they had asked this question.

If a child was having a tantrum in the supermarket, knocking down tins in the process, and a parent gave them a smack to cut it out, should that parent be let off if they are taken to court?

My response - which no doubt wouldn't have been one of the options:why should they even be charged and prosecuted let alone taken to court if they haven't broken the law sufficient enough to warrant sanctions?

More here

Michael Jackson dies of heart attack

Michael Jackson has died. He was 50.He was rushed to a Los Angeles hospital after suffering a fatal heart attack. More info over here.

Legal defence for criminal activity

Bob has a child. He is misbehaving. Bob has visitors and the child is yelling and just acting up. Bob can't hear his visitors talk. The boy is told to be quiet and an attempt is made to continue the conversation. But the boy keeps yelling to the point where conversation is getting pointless. As Bob wants to communicate with his visitors, he wants the boy to stop being so disruptive. Telling him to be quiet hasn't worked so he smacks him. The boy stops.

But one of Bob's visitors works for Barnardos, and although she is happy that she can now converse, she later reports the smack to the police who prosecute Bob for assault.

Bob rings you as you are his lawyer. What would you do once you hear Bob's story?

Here's the legislation.

Not exactly a luxurious life

I wouldn’t get too concerned that the government is planning to stick 7000 unemployed people into McDonalds. The scheme is over a five years period, equating to 26 per week on average. That is if the 7000 figure is reached. What if they only get 4000 into McDonalds – that’s about 15 per week.

And that is about how many people are being employed at McDonalds every week anyway, due to the high staff turnover. But this deal is not driven by a desire to get people work. It is driven by a desire not to pay so much money on benefits, as John Key explains:

When we spend a lot on benefits it means there are a lot of New Zealanders not really earning a lot. Life on a benefit is not exactly a luxurious life.

When lots of people work at McDonalds, it means there are a lot of New Zealanders not really earning a lot. Working at McDonalds is not exactly a luxurious life.

What if they were to offer a McDonalds fulltime position - 30 hours a week in WINZ language - to a main unemployed breadwinner with children? If they were to get $15.00 an hour, they`d get $450 a week ($23,400 a year), compared with a benefit payment of $18,850 a year before tax. That's an extra $87.50 a week.

Beneficiaries can earn $80.00 each week and retain the benefit. Effectively squared up. But the person in this example will be spending money on transport to get to work so he is worse off by working at McDonalds.

Would you do it?

Simple, really

Was Jetstar plane full - and why did it take 30 minutes to fill?

I've been corresponding with Sonny Shaw, an an All Black fan who travels regularly and got on the Jetstar plane that Mike Earley missed on last Saturday. Shaw's details were given to me. He was in seat 12F and noticed no empty seats on the plane. Perhaps the plane was full. If so, who took Mike Earley's seat - and the other seven who missed out?

Shaw said that the passengers started boarding 10 minutes before the time on the boarding pass and the plane left 20 minutes late - after 4pm. He says

I could not understand how we started to board 10 minutes before the time printed on boarding pass and still left 20 minutes late. Five minutes before takeoff the purser made an announcement "this plane is VERY full can you put any small personal items under the front seat so there would be room in the overhead lockers". The hostesses where up and down the aisle I got the impression they were checking how many empty seats were left then they would go to the front and more passengers would arrive.

The purser's announcement was made 15 minutes after scheduled departure time. I asked Shaw why he thought the plane left 20 minutes late. He said that Jetstar kept allowing passengers to board "My feeling was just to make sure the plane was full."

If so, that's concerning, given that some missed out on checking in. Jestar's rules that there is no check ins 30 minutes prior to the scheduled flight time. Furthermore everyone must be ready to board 25 minutes before the scheduled flight time. Is that so they can board early - which is apparently what happened. Assuming those checked in were ready to board, they would have to be in the departure lounge. So why were more passengers getting on the plane 20 minutes after scheduled departure time when they were in the departure lounge for up to 45 minutes?

Meanwhile Jetstar spokeswoman Simone Pregellio acknowledged having issued incorrect information initially about how late some passengers arrived, but insisted they were all too late.

She said they arrived 22 minutes late, and eight minutes before departure time. Now she is saying that they arrived eight minutes late, and 22 minutes before departure. Tomorrow she may say that 22 people arrived eight minutes before the check in deadline.

But if the plane departed 20 minutes late, she is still wrong. Maybe she meant eight people missed out and it left 22 minutes late.

It doesn't take 30 minutes to fill a plane - unless you are Jetstar.

Mallard gets kicked out of the House, blogs, then deletes comments on his post

Yesterday Trevor Mallard got kicked out the house and was almost named. He was so annoyed he blogged about it here.

I told [John Key] his nose was growing. He lied to the House and quoted me as calling him a liar. Speaker Smith required me to withdraw and apologise for saying something I did not say. To do so would have been to admit saying it. Smith did not allow me to say that I had not made the comments and tossed me out in probably the most blatantly biased decision of the year.

Well, being accused of lying is worse than telling lies.Mallard told Key his nose was growing. It wasn't. So that was a lie. Key said that Mallard accused him of being a liar. Mallard said he didn't. The speaker told him to withdraw and apologise. He didn't. He attacked and defied the speaker instead. That was why he was tossed out. Simple. Then he said 'for gods sake.... that is the worst decision you have ever made".

Mallard is wasting his time calling John Key a liar on his blog post and deleting comments because he doesn't like them. And has effectively repeated his comments outside the house by making it clear that he thinks Key is a liar.Mallard's not just got an anger problem, he has got a bigger nose than Key,too.
Update you can watch the video of Mallard's outburst here.

Christine Rankin and child abuse

Have been away for a couple of days but was listening to Morning Report this morning. They mentioned that Christine Rankin has spoken up in an Investigate Magazine article against the anti-smacking legislation. How dare she! John Key has said that Rankin was appointed to the Families Commission because she was a good advocate and could speak up on child abuse. John Armstrong says Key's dictum is that Rankin confine her public comments as a Families Commissioner to her expertise on child abuse "and nothing else".

But I'm sure I heard that Jan Pryor, chief families commissioner saying that it is unlikely that Rankin will have a role on the Families Commission that has to do with child abuse. Which begs the question. Rankin was appointed because of her advocacy on child abuse, why is the commission saying that her role will not involve speaking out on child abuse?

update yep. Interview here

Jetstar rules

This post has been updated
No, Jetstar does not rule. But it does have rules.

Many people have been complaining that they have booked flights with Jetstar and the airline is not letting anyone check in 30 minutes before boarding time. But these are the rules, and the rules are on every ticket,including mine.

The problem is that the ticket discusses arrival time.

If you are not checked in at least 30 minutes before the scheduled departure, you will not be able to check in for your flight. Arrival after this time may result in you forfeiting the entire fare paid.

Arrival where? To the airport, check in, queue to the check in? What if you "arrive" at the queue 35 minutes before the scheduled departure time and there is a six minute queue at the checkin?

You don't fly. Nor do you get a refund.Legally, I believe you should get a refund, if you have "arrived" after "this time." i.e. stood in a queue 30 minutes before scheduled departure. I also happen to believe that if you arrive before that time you should also be checked in.

Jetstar needs to get its administration into gear to effectively administer these rules in such a way that everyone gets on the plane. Given their recommendations that everyone aims to check in 1 hour prior to scheduled departure, this means checking everyone in during a 30 minute period.

If they can't do that, the rules are worthless, and their recommendations meaningless. I suspect that people are turning up 10 minutes before the check in deadline - which they can do. Jetstar should up its administration and/or staff levels quick smart so it can meet its own rules and check everyone in 30 minutes before departure if that's what it wants to do.Or else not be so stringent and maintain that everybody must be at the boarding gate 25 minutes prior to departure merely to sit around and wait. This means that if you are last at the checkin you must be able to get to the boarding gate within five minutes. Hope you don't want to go to the toilet. But Jetstar has had problems in Aussie, too as A QC writes in Crikey: "Jetstar: They lied and stole my money".

Anyway, was in contact with Mike Earley, the subject of the highest rating story in today's Herald. He was the one who kicked up a fuss and got on Twitter. He has told me that a middle aged man who was behind his group in the queue was served - perhaps it was deadline time and it was easier to get an older man on before the deadline than checking in a group of young people - or else the airline had overbooked people. Earley has already complained to the Commerce Commission.

Jetstar: All day, every day, waiting in transit - after changing your flight times before you get to the airport

I'm supposed to be flying to Auckland with Jetstar in the not too distant future after it offered really cheap flights - perfect for students. I've already had two e-mails instructing that my flight times have been changed.

Of course, the idea of cheaper flights is that you get to your destination as well. I am wondering if I`ll be able to check in let alone board on time after reading this.

I decided against Flying Pacific Blue after I got to my destination at 2:30am because the flight was delayed by several hours, but Jetstar passengers have been turned away from their flights. Mike Earley was one. He threatened to go to the media, so Jetstar dared him to, so he did and you can read the report here. But Earley was also twittering about it . When Jetstar realised he was taking pics they called the cops and wanted to ban this one from becoming public.

But I find that more than half of Jetstar - should be Jesters - flights have departed late. But although my flight is a couple of months away, Jetstar sent me an email changing my flight time and asking me to confirm that time on their website and then instructing me not to contact them. Then the same thing happened again. Another email advising the flight time was changed. I checked and it was changed to the same time it was initially changed to. But I had to confirm it again on Jetstars website and not ring them. I might just have to. I might also have to join this Facebook page after being invited last week.

I guess the publicity means that fewer people will be flying Jetstar. Must check to see if my flight is full- and whether it will actually leave. Or change airlines.

Update They did this last weekend too. They cut off boarding half an hour before the flight, including stopping serving people who had been in the queue. The plane just flies off half-full but with everyone's money.

Did Goff lie or was he deceitful?

Last week I wrote a post detailing a conversation a talkback caller had with Phil Goff on Radio Live last week in which he denied all knowledge of wannabe Labour MP Neelam Choudary's immigation scam, for which her husband was subsequently convicted. You can listen to the interview here or over here. The following is the transcript:

Caller: Look Phil, the NZ Herald reports that, um, Labour Party member and, and, your friend Neelam Choudhary contacted you prior to her first meeting with Dr Richard Worth…
Goff: That’s correct.
Caller: ...at Sylvia Park on the 26th of November of last year. You advised her to take someone along to that meeting, she did so and took her husband along who sat out in the carpark, while she had the meeting. Why did you gave her this advice? Did you know that her husband was facing serious immigration scam charges in the court and in fact he was convicted the next week…
Goff The answer to that is no I didn’t know at that point that that was the case, why did I give her that advice, because, if, ah , you know, I suppose, uh, along with most other New Zealanders, ah, if the minister wants to have a private meeting and is offering a job to someone that he knows is in the oppositions camp, ah, I though, ah , fairly early on that there might be an ulterior motive, didn’t have any evidence for that, but I suggested that – actually I would have suggested that she took someone else into the meeting with her unfortunately she didn’t do that, ah, I think it was for her own protection that I made that recommendation

We have about as much evidence as the deleted texts that Worth offered Choudary two jobs.Although Choudary said that Worth offered her a job at the cafe meeting, Goff said he offered advice as Worth was to offer her a job. But how did Goff know that, given the offer had not been made? Did he know he was going to offer her two jobs, as Choudary has claimed?[ Incidentally how well does he know Richard Worth's "korean friend"]

Surely Goff knew of Choudary's husband's immigration case. He certainly knew 12 days after the Worth meeting when he read this in the paper. And on 5 June - when most National insiders knew the nameless immigrant was Choudary - Goff he said he had kept in contact with the woman and her husband last year - when the texts started happening.

Five days later Goff said that he had met Choudary's husband just once, implying the one contact.That was the day this blog was one of two that outed the identity of Choudhary, and Goff may have know that she'd be on the TV news that evening.

The weird thing about this whole saga is that Neelam Choudhary claimed that Richard Worth offered her jobs that she didn't take up, while the following week her husband was convicted for sending out letters offering jobs that didn't exist. But it was also Neelam Choudary that reportedly received money for the scam. I wondered why she was always dressed so nicely.

But it wasn't until 6 May months after Goff was aware of the texts - that he phoned John Key and told him he "had a problem, a woman had come with a complaint that she had been offered particular positions under the portfolio of Dr Worth... that the offer of those positions was as the basis to developing a sexual relationship".

Like, five months later he's just been told a Minister has been texting a woman "dozens and dozens" of times to develop a sexual relationship and it's such a problem he has to suddenly ring the PM at 9:30pm and tell him right away, purely because the poor Indian migrant had only been in New Zealand long enough to get approval of her application to be a member of the Labour Party.

Sue Bradford's smacking dilemma solved

Green MP Sue Bradford says some parents who are about to be asked a question in a referendum, "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" are facing a dilemma. What if they don't think a smack is part of good parental correction and also should not be a criminal offence? Do they answer Yes or NO?

That's simple. If they don't think a smack is part of good parental correction, they will concentrate on whether it should be a criminal offence, because the question is asking an opinion of legislators who have the power to decide on such matters. Otherwise they`ll effectively be answering, "Should a smack be part of good parental correction?", and their answer to that is NO.

If they don't think a smack is part of good parental correction, they`ll answer NO.

If they don't think smacking should be a criminal offence, they`ll also answer NO.

Sue Bradford has just given people two reasons to vote NO. And after this interview.

Neelam Choudary is in hiding

Phil Goff's strikingly beautiful confident migrant is too scared to show her face, thanks to Phil Goff, after he advised her, used her, and churned her out.

After Goff's pimping, not only is Choudary's Facebook page down, she has taken all her photos off the Grassroots Labour site and taken down her profile photo. Only her personal email address and cellphone numbers are public. I`ll have more on Choudary and Goff this weekend.

Wonder who that guy in the photo is...

Smoking and smacking

Person A: Advocates the decriminalistion of light drugs such as cannabis (although not heroin), so that people who possess a light amount of drugs are not prosecuted.

Person B: Advocates for criminilisation of light smacking such as a tap on the bum (although not child abuse), so that under law parents who lightly smack are criminals and can be prosecuted.

What if Person A was also Person B?

Now, take a minute to look at the Green Party policies.

Man helps woman to see in dark kitchen

The wife wondered why the light wasn't working in the kitchen. She asked me if the the light bulb could be blown? Could I change it?

I changed it the previous day so it surely can't be the bulb. Could the light socket be stuffed? I suggested that a good idea may be to turn on the light switch relevant to the said bulb.

Problem was that the kitchen has three light switches and she was unsure which one to turn on. I switched on the one that was relevant to the said lightbulb. Guess what. It worked! Problem solved. Lucky I was home.

Thank God for males.

Today's questions

If you break the law, are you committing a criminal offence?
If you are in possession of cannabis, are you breaking the law?
If you commit a criminal offence, are you a criminal?

Update: Replace "in possession of cannabis" with "smacking your kids", ask the questions again, but don't ask Sue Bradford for a straight answer.

Why? As she told Sean Plunket this morning if you give your kid light tap on the bum you are a criminal, meaning you have broken the law.

Initially she said smacking is not a [criminal] offence (so it can't be against the law - so why are you a criminal if you smack?).

But she also said smacking is outlawed (so it IS a criminal offence).

Then she implied that a very light smack is not illegal (so it's not a criminal offence, but you are a criminal if you do it because it is outlawed, although not illegal ).

She also said a person who gives their kid a light tap on the bum was a criminal (now I'm REALLY confused, given that she just said it wasn't an offence, because it wasn't illegal, although outlawed ).

But she then implied the law is "very clear".

All in a couple of minutes.

If Sue Bradford can't explain the implications of her own law, how does she expect anyone else to?

[More on the referendum over here.]

Greens draw up their own anti silly questions bill

The Greens are designing a bill that will stop citizens having silly questions approved in referendums,in line with Green MP Sue Bradford's demands.

Ms Bradford says her bill will amend the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, legislation that condones the use of silly questions for referenda.

"We want to end the situation where there is a legal right to have silly questions approved for referenda."

Ms Bradford said she was deeply concerned that people would be answering referenda questions against her wishes. New Zealand has not changed the law which allows people to have silly questions approved for referenda..

Ms Bradford said today citizens have used the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act to get away with not only writing silly questions, but misleading and ambiguous questions as well.

"I can't understand why the Government does not want to do anything about the Citizen's Initiated Referenda Act at all. The integrity of our democracy is too important to put on hold."

Ms Bradford, Green Citizens Initiated Referenda Spokesperson, said it was the inalienable right of referenda to be free from any form of silly questions.

"Citizens are supposed write good questions, not silly questions and, and should feel totally safe in signing petitions based on good questions. the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 adds to the whole culture of abuse of referenda that is still so rampant in New Zealand society."

[With reference to this]

The bill is available here. Spot the glaring error. If the Green Party is going to draft bills, it should at least get its facts and wording correct.There are at least three errors in the explanatory note alone.

The question " Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand"

Is now officially irrelevant.

The Government is unlikely to change the child-discipline law regardless of the result of a $9million referendum, Prime Minister John Key says.

What Key wants to do is not shut down debate, but send hints for a low response rate. Key would prefer that nobody returned their referendum papers. He would prefer that because then he`d be able to say he is listening to the people and the people didn't want a referendum.

This also gives a message to parents: The Government's position is that it is OK for you to smack your kids even though it is against the law. Just don't pressure it to change the law - or its sanctions - so you can abide by it. Democracy and representation don't have a bearing. What you think about this issue is irrelevant to the Government.

In opposition Key said this:

The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament. The Labour-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power.

Now, not content with riding over the top of the wishes of some of her MPs, she wants to ride over the top of the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders...
The Prime Minister also knows that she has been caught out saying one thing about the smacking ban before the election, and giving a different answer afterwards.
This is arrogant and cynical government at its very worst.

Representation means acting for the interests of the represented in a manner responsive to their wishes. Key wants to be responsive to the wishes of voters only if it is not politically inconvenient. In this case, although it does not reflect public wishes, the government thinks it is in the public interest for people to disobey the law if they want to lightly smack their kids in this country. So does the opposition.