Sue’s legacy

Sue Bradford reminds me a little of Tim Barnett. Both politicians were very effective, listened to people, pissed off the Christian Right, and were easy to get hold of – even though both knew that some of the core values held and promoted I did not agree with. But they would always listen. Both championed members bills and got the Government to adopt them.

The difference between the two of them was that Bradford never had any constituents as she was elected of the back of the list. Her problem was that, unlike the Maori Party and the current Green leadership, she had a distaste for the Right of politics, picked a certain battle at the wrong time and lied about it. Her legacy is the anti-smacking legislation. That legacy and her lefty persuasions was one of the main reasons she was never going to co-lead the Green Party, and, like Barnett, was never going to be a Minister in a Labour-led government. Some have said that Barnett was the most effective MP that never got to be minister. Bradford would come pretty close had she been a little more honest.

Although she worked really hard, the anti-smacking legislation did nothing significant apart from pissing people off and creating more work for parliamentarians,the Electoral Commission, CYFS, the police and people on both sides of the debate such as Family First, Larry Baldock and and Barnardos. Kids are still getting killed. Kids are still getting smacked. Police are doing nothing more than administering parliamentary intent and writing more reports as a result of the anti smacking legislation. Welfare still needs reform.

But now Sue Bradford can put that MA in Chinese she has to good use. Or she can do a PhD.

Oh, and for those of you who are interested, you may remember Bradford got threatened via Twitter a few weeks ago. Henk Van Helmond, whom I outed as the Twitter threatener, has just put up a post with the "real reason Sue Bradford quit", erroneously claiming that his death threat – which the police were investigating – was one of the reasons.

Sue Bradford to resign from Parliament

Not long ago, Sue Bradford wrote this message on her Twitter account, breaking her own embargo.

Media conference 10am to announce I'm standing down from Parliament at end October - but am not resigning from Greens or political activism

Dave Clendon is the next on the list. He stood against John Key in Helensville but lives in Mt Albert- formerly held by Helen Clark.

Looks like the loss of the leadership to Metiria Turei really hurt. But, despite Bradford being one of the most effective backbenchers, in terms of getting legislation passed, this is the best thing that has happened to the Greens this year. Watch for a rise in the polls for the Greens.

Is Twitter account owner lying to media over Bradford death threats?

update: apparently so - Henk van Helmond responds in comments
The man who owns the Twitter account that had this threat addressed to Sue Bradfords twitter account said he had no knowledge of the threat until TV3 appeared on his doorstep. He claimed his Twitter account had been hacked. He said that after TV3 turned up he looked at his Twitter account and saw the tweet.

Now TV3 could not have known that Henk van Helmond owned the Twitter site that made the threat before I blogged this yesterday. Neither did Sue Bradford.

But van Helmond knew about the threat on his Twitter site. He knew before TV3 turned up. Because he wrote this on the CYFSWatch site at 12:04pm yesterday, commenting on the Sunday News report of the tweet. And as far as I am aware, Sue Bradford knew about that post on the CYFSWatch site before the media was told of the name of the owner of the Twitter account the threat came from.

Van Helmond’s story does not stack up. Either that or his CYFSWatch site was hacked, or someone is writing very similar words to him. Here's what he wrote on CYFSwatch when it was on Blogger in 2007 ( now deleted)

If ever someone needed a beating, it is this sociopathic witch.She is projecting her own allergy to correction or any form of discipline onto the families of New Zealand, so that our kids can end up as sick as she is.Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ's first political assassination - I only wish I had the resources to do it.

And from his Twitter account in 2009

@suebr is STILL a good candidate for NZ's first political assassination. (watch sue run to the Police because of a death threat, stupid cow).

Go figure.

Sue Bradford a candidate for assassination

On Twitter, someone recently wrote this

@suebr is STILL a good candidate for NZ's first political assassination. (watch sue run to the Police because of a death threat, stupid cow).

The person who wrote this goes under the name Kiwi1960.

I thought that sounded familiar. A person underthe name of Kiwi1960 has said stuff like this before. He has a You Tube site. In the intro he says that he is Kiwi1960, has MS. He says that "CYFS created me, and payback is gunna be a bitch". I blogged about Kiwi 1960 and his mates some time ago after Helen Clark got a brick chucked through her electorate office window.

Kiwi1960 is Henk van Helmond, and on this site he called Sue Bradford a communist.But here he even comments on the Twitter post in light of an article written by the Sunday News today.

Sue Bradford, you have my Email address, please provide me proof of these death threats, because even if you said the world was round, I’d still think it was a lie because of the mouth it came out of.

Nasty piece of work, isn't he?

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.

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.]

Sue Bradford is shocked

Find out why[thanks Twitter]. And find out what Annette King finds unbelievable, and why Family First thinks it's just great.

Update Bradford has finally smacked out a media release, concentrating on Rankin's views on Section 59 of the Crime's Act.

I accept Ms Rankin's right to hold her misguided beliefs in opposing reform and her support for a misleading petition, but I don't think it's right that someone who has played such a high-profile part in supporting the right of parents to hit children should be entrusted with this vital role.

Update Ha,it gets better. Even Peter Dunne is annoyed. He has called for her to reject the position, saying National has made a mistake. Anybody would think all the Families Commission does is comment on corrective discipline. And the Chief Commissioner has also weighed in. Guess what she discusses.

Fire at will bill will not lead to 13 week benefit stand downs

There has been a fair bit of scaremongering by the Greens that the Fire at Will Bill will lead to people losing their jobs and not being eligible for a benefit for 13 weeks. In fact it is the opposite - people who are fired at will for misconduct under the 90 day legislation will be much less likely to get a long stand down.

Firstly, if you are fired within the 90 days and your partner works you are not eligible for a benefit anyway. Secondly, the 13 weeks only applies to a work tested benefit and is a discretionary stand down, not a mandatory one as the MSD can choose not to apply it. If they go on a sickness, invalids or DPB, the stand down won't apply.

Section 60H of the Social Security Act provides for the stand down if an employee leaves their place of employment without a good and sufficient reason.Unemployed means resigning from or otherwise leaving employment, other than by dismissal. Any firing is dismissal. However the section also applies if an employee has lost his job because of misconduct. Misconduct cannot be proven under the 90 day legislation as an employee can't challenge it in a personal grievance - the only method of establishing whether the employer acted with good and sufficient reason, whether that reason was misconduct or simply a bad case of BO. .So a stand down can't be legally imposed as there is no test of that good and sufficient reason.

Sue Bradford wrongly says that if an employee who is dismissed, say, on suspicion of theft, will be stood down from the dole for 13 weeks, and will have no means of challenging the stand-down. Mere suspicion is not a good and sufficient reason and a decision to stand down on something that may not have happened can certainly be challenged. But, for those who don't know beneficiary rights - including Sue Bradford and most WINZ Case Managers - they wouldn't know that a person can get out of a 13 week stand down purly by attending a mandatory interview in preparation for employment, and an approved activity. This could be as simple as getting a free CV and doing the interview applying for a benefit and receiving a Job Seekers Agreement.

the F word at WINZ

I'm not so fussed that Sue Bradford used the F word in Parliament to draw attention to conflict at Work and Income as much as I am that the word was actually whispered by a case manager to a beneficiary who was refused a food grant.

But at Work and Income the F word is common as it is among MPs usage of it outside the House.In some cases people resort to violence. I understand that happens amongst MPs too. Just ask Trevor Mallard.

When I worked at a WINZ office my manager occasionally swore at me - as opposed to swearing to me, which he did often - using the F word, and he even assaulted another staff member outside the offices, for which he was reprimanded for.

Beneficiaries swore at me - I was even accused of swearing at a staff member when I didn't. I even called the cops at once stage when a beneficiary threatened me and would not leave when he was instructed to. He used the F word several times in every sentence every time he entered a WINZ office, and I just simply got used to it.

When he did eventually leave it is a wonder he didn't smash the door on the way out given the force that he used on it.

I think he eventually got trespassed. This is what Case Managers have to put up with quite regularly. Why do you think the Government has put security guards at each WINZ office throughout the country?.

Bradford incorrectly says latest smacking case shows anti-smacking legislation is working

Most people who read this blog ( and so far today thats 800 of you) are aware that I have been opposed to the anti-smacking legislation. However I am also opposed to child abuse, and from what I know about the latest assault conviction - which is as much as Sue Bradford, it appears, and Russell Brown , this person would have been convicted of assault had he been charged before the anti-smacking bill was passed - which is pretty much what Social Development minister Ruth Dyson said today.

The difference is that now there is no defence of reasonable force. Yet the force used to bruise this child, it appears, was not reasonable, so any reasonable force defence would not have been upheld for the brusing - but may well have been for the smacking. So there still would have likely been a conviction.

Unfortunately Brown and Bradford are so blinkered that they don`t realise this - especially Bradford. Bradford said it seemed to be an example of the law being implemented just as MPs who supported the bill intended. Note the word "seemed" In other words she doesnt know, so she is speaking from ignorance.

This case does not show that the anti-smacking legislation is working. Based on the media reports, it indicates that it is irrelevant in this particular case - despitre certain comments from the judge alluding to smacking - as the man concerned got prosecuted for bruising his son, not for smacking him. No bruise, no prosecution. Others have been convicted before the smacking legislation for parental smacking that caused brusiing - this case appears worse as the bruising was an assault before the smacking occurred, and had the bruising occurred but not the smacking, the outcome in court should have been the same even if a reasonable force defence was used.