Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 78531	2007-04-19 03:03:00	Trouble with understanding New Zealand legal system	Renmoo (66)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
542326	2007-05-02 23:55:00	James - you might have noticed yesterday that Labour and National were able to agree on the anti-smacking legislation. This is a good example of parliamentary cooperation even if it did take a lot of noise to achieve. What particularly interested me was that John Key pointed out that National supports Labour on 2/3 of the bills in the House already. So cooperation and collegiality does occur between MPs of different parties, many of whom share similar views but are on opposite sides. The media never report this. To be fair to journalists, conflict is much easier to write about and more dramatic. Nevertheless it is a shame that we don't see more reports and explanations of legislation being passed by agreement.	Winston001 (3612)
542327	2007-05-03 01:00:00	James - you might have noticed yesterday that Labour and National were able to agree on the anti-smacking legislation. This is a good example of parliamentary cooperation even if it did take a lot of noise to achieve. Noise? Noise = Money, Our money. I don't doubt for a second that this exorcise in bull**** (excuse my french) cost us multiple millions of dollars. There is no cause for admiration in this series of events.	Metla (12)
542328	2007-05-03 01:43:00	The media never report this. To be fair to journalists, conflict is much easier to write about and more dramatic. Nevertheless it is a shame that we don't see more reports and explanations of legislation being passed by agreement. True Winston (and I agree with your other points), but what else can we expect when the level of political journalism hovers around imbecilic (sp?) as well as the decision of media to sell their leavings based on heat rather than light? We have to put up with the rudimentary analytic skills of plonkers like Colin Espiner (and presumably the other diddlebrain Espiner is his brother). In ChCh we get one of them on TV and one in The Press which seems doubly unkind! The one in The Press once referred to Winnie Laban as one of the Maori MPs in Parliament, but usually the problem isn't with accuracy but with the shallow gene pool that makes up our Parliamentary Press Gallery. I often wonder what their tutors (like Jim Tulley) think when they watch the box or read papers, and recognise that these journalists are the fruit of their loom? Can they sleep at night? We had have had a couple of trips to Britain and a few to Oz in the last few years, and I have read a lot of papers from those countries. I hang my head in shame and wonder why we are so poorly served compared with the better papers in other countries. The sports journalism in Ireland was streets ahead of the best of NZ journalism in any area... And have you noticed (whilst I am on a rant) that the male TV journos and presenters seem to have bought a job lot of deckchair material and had it made up as matching suits? I wonder if they have watched themselves on widescreen telly??!!! Strewth, even Hillary Barry was wearing one the other night. Rant over.	John H (8)
542329	2007-05-03 02:49:00	True Winston (and I agree with your other points), but what else can we expect when the level of political journalism hovers around imbecilic (sp?) as well as the decision of media to sell their leavings based on heat rather than light? We have to put up with the rudimentary analytic skills of plonkers like Colin Espiner (and presumably the other diddlebrain Espiner is his brother) . In ChCh we get one of them on TV and one in The Press which seems doubly unkind! The one in The Press once referred to Winnie Laban as one of the Maori MPs in Parliament, but usually the problem isn't with accuracy but with the shallow gene pool that makes up our Parliamentary Press Gallery . I often wonder what their tutors (like Jim Tulley) think when they watch the box or read papers, and recognise that these journalists are the fruit of their loom? Can they sleep at night? We had have had a couple of trips to Britain and a few to Oz in the last few years, and I have read a lot of papers from those countries . I hang my head in shame and wonder why we are so poorly served compared with the better papers in other countries . The sports journalism in Ireland was streets ahead of the best of NZ journalism in any area . . . And have you noticed (whilst I am on a rant) that the male TV journos and presenters seem to have bought a job lot of deckchair material and had it made up as matching suits? I wonder if they have watched themselves on widescreen telly??!!! Strewth, even Hillary Barry was wearing one the other night . Rant over . Great rant John, bring it on . :thumbs: One problem is that in a nation of only 4 million the pool of talented journalists is small . Newsrooms are shrinking so there are fewer reporters . The clever ones get seduced into public relations work and disappear . In fact journalism as a career, a vocation, a higher calling, is fading out . Editors are under the yoke of needing to produce a profitable publication rather than allow reporters to spend weeks investigating stories . And lets face it - the public soak it up . Facile shallow news sells . Look at the success of tabloids, never mind Hello, OK, Womans Weekly, etc . In the UK, USA, Australia etc there is still room for serious journalism . In NZ I'd suggest that only North and South, The Listener, and sometimes the Herald succeed . We need Laura's input here .	Winston001 (3612)
542330	2007-05-05 00:00:00	Woah, I think I have begun to lost track of this thread! (no pun intended!) I am studying BPharmacy at University of Auckland, Tux, but for our Pharmacy paper, we have to know about New Zealand legal system (questions about it comes out every single year without fail). Yeah, I did notice that National decided to swing all its MPs votes to support the anti-smacking bill. What I don't understand is why did Labour decide to amend the bill to allow parents to use reasonable force to "smack" their child, despite their weeks of firm support for Bradford's initial "absolute no hitting" proposal? Cheers :)	Renmoo (66)
542331	2007-05-05 00:35:00	Woah, I think I have begun to lost track of this thread! (no pun intended!) I am studying BPharmacy at University of Auckland, Tux, but for our Pharmacy paper, we have to know about New Zealand legal system (questions about it comes out every single year without fail). Yeah, I did notice that National decided to swing all its MPs votes to support the anti-smacking bill. What I don't understand is why did Labour decide to amend the bill to allow parents to use reasonable force to "smack" their child, despite their weeks of firm support for Bradford's initial "absolute no hitting" proposal? Cheers :)The answer to this is relatively straight-forward James. They're politicians. They go with the flow. Expediency is their middle name. They have no principles (except for "Me first"), irrespective of party affiliation. They may have entered politics with altruistic views, but soon realise that the 'system' is too entrenched to change. /rant	johcar (6283)
542332	2007-05-05 03:15:00	The answer to this is relatively straight-forward James. They're politicians. They go with the flow. Expediency is their middle name. They have no principles (except for "Me first"), irrespective of party affiliation. They may have entered politics with altruistic views, but soon realise that the 'system' is too entrenched to change. /rant BUT... why on earth did Labour support this nonsensical bill in the first place, when they darn well know that they are likely to lose in next electron if it becomes a legislation? Cheers :)	Renmoo (66)
542333	2007-05-05 04:01:00	Labour supported it because they had previously said they would in return for the Greens supporting them in other areas . The whole bill became a hot potato (unsurprisingly!) and was dragged through the media for weeks, embarrasing Herr Clark and cronies . John Key rescued them (doing himself a good turn in the process by making him out to be an intelligent politician - an oxymoron BTW!) by proposing a watered-down version (not too dissimilar to the bill it is intended to replace) which gave Labour an opportunity to back down without looking like they were backing down . So they still satisfied their Green allies, did a deal with National (makes Labour look good), and got the damn bill out of the headlines . Teflon Helen . Since the election is still months away, the general populace, which has the attention-span of a gnat, will have long-forgotten the hoohaa over this by the time the election comes around again . Plenty of time for the spin-doctors to cook up something else to get the attention of the media & population of non-thinkers!! :groan:	johcar (6283)
542334	2007-05-05 04:03:00	PS. For some reason people think I'm a cynic!! :lol: :lol: And I wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get me!! ;)	johcar (6283)
542335	2007-05-05 09:48:00	BUT... why on earth did Labour support this nonsensical bill in the first place, when they darn well know that they are likely to lose in next election if it becomes a legislation? Cheers :) Might I just say the bill wasn't nonsensical James: at the moment you can strike your own child with your fist and have a pretty good defence - exercising discipline. However if your neighbour struck the same child - no defence. And if you struck your wife with your fist - no defence. The law under Section 59 wasn't exactly logical. As for losing the next election? Politically the odds are heavily against Labour winning a 4th term although MMP changes things. But the only way the repeal of Section 59 would affect an election in 18 months time is if some parent who has given a light smack to their child is presecuted - and convicted. That was never going to happen anyway, but with the amended bill, it is certain not to happen. This debate has been so frustrating to watch. Every parent who puts a child in a room, exercising time out is essentially committing kidnapping. Same with schools who place students in detention rooms. Its a clear breach of the Bill of Rights. And do we see the police rushing off to Court all the time on those cases?	Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8