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.

Read more »

Posted in: Foreshore and Seabed

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.

Read more »

Posted in: referendum

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.

Read more »

Posted in: divorce,No Right Turn,The Independent

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

Read more »

Posted in: Barnardos,referendum,section 59

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.

Read more »

Posted in: MIchael Jackson

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.

Read more »

Posted in: referendum,s59

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?

Read more »

Posted in: benefits,unemployment,WINZ

Simple, really

Read more »

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.

Read more »

Posted in: 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.

Read more »

Posted in: John Key,Trevor Mallard

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

Read more »

Posted in: Christine Rankin,Families Comission

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.

Read more »

Posted in: Jetstar

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.

Read more »

Posted in: Jetstar

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.

Read more »

Posted in: Neelam Choudary,Phil Goff

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.

Read more »

Posted in: referendum,s59,Sue Bradford

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...

Read more »

Posted in: Neelam Choudary

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.

Read more »

Posted in: Green Party,referendum,s59

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.

Read more »

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.]

Read more »

Posted in: s59,Sue Bradford

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.

Read more »

Posted in: Greens,referendum,s59

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.

Read more »

Posted in: referendum,s59

Chris Knox II

For those who want to keep up with progress on musician Chris Knox, who suffered a stroke last week, there a blog set up here.

Read more »

Posted in: chris knox

NO Right Turn is truly an idiot today, and way off the mark

The anonymous blogger at NO Right Turn does not appear to have had a decent coffee after getting up this afternoon. He has a few clues on most things, and is one of the better bloggers around, but on the subject of the upcoming referendum on physical discipline he is just plain pig-ignorant, and lets himself down.

Why? He claims that people like Jimmy Mason, who punched his kid in the face, and a person who beat her young son with a soup ladle – and not only beat her, but bruised him all over his body would have been able to successfully claim a reasonable force defence had the law on parental discipline not been changed.

This is just a stupid claim to make. Never mind that, like most irrational people, he does not see the difference between a beating when a kid is cowering on the floor and a light smack for correction. But you think he’d criticise CYFS for supporting bail for the parent. But no, he doesn’t.

Furthermore, he says that anybody who supports a defence of reasonable force for correction are people who wish to abuse children themselves. It is irrelevant to him that any defence – if used - would fail in cases like this every time and that no lawyer would even suggest such a defence.

I don’t particularly like the referendum question, and was very tempted to cross out both options or not vote at all, but this kind of misinformation has made me determined to vote NO.

So, after reading this post I have today decided that I am going to vote NO at the referendum next month. I encourage you to read the post at NO Right Turn too and vote NO also.

The forms should be out this week. I’m voting NO not because I think a smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offence in New Zealand, not because parents should have a choice in whether to lightly smack naughty kids, but because I am making a stand against misinformation from people who should know better.

Read more »

Posted in: referendum,s59

Media provides clues to the identity of Richard Worth's Korean woman

Not too long ago, the NZ Herald may well have inadvertently provided a clue as to the identity of the Korean woman who spent the night with Richard Worth and, I was told, apparently had a karaoke session with him at A Taste of Korea.

This report notes that the Korean woman was part-owner of several companies. One of these companies was put into liquidation this year, at the request of creditors who were owed $245,000 A private investigation firm had wanted to serve court documents on the woman relating to mortgage non-payment to the Bank of New Zealand for four homes, each valued at around $600,000. That's well over $2 million.

The woman was also a subject of an investigation after a run in with another man, a Korean business leader. This news was reported in a Korean newspaper at the time. The Korean newspaper also published this article on the Worth hotel liaison the same weekend as the NZ Herald article and mentioned her surname and the fact that her friend went the the police station with her to lodge a complaint, and according to this report, also went to National list MP Tau Henare so he could inform John Key. Worth subsequently resigned as a minister and then from parliament.

A check of the Companies Office records under the woman's surname as listed in the Korean article provides a record of a certain businesswoman who is part-owner in a number of companies, one of which was put into liquidation in February of this year with arrears to a number of suppliers. I was advised that this woman's business partner is apparently fairly well-known in the Indian community. His last known address is a pretty comfy place; but two, not one, of his companies were placed in liquidation - one last year as he was unable to pay a $1 million loan and an $800,000 liability. He was the sole director of the trust that held the shares in both companies.Both him and his female Korean business partner are currently running companies.

To date nobody has publicly named the woman. Neither will I. Its not in the public interest. But Richard Worth seems to get involved with some dodgy people.....

update .... like Labour activist Neelam Choudhary, who with her husband also owned companies - one of which the latter signed off as director after he got convicted, but David Farrar has covered this.

Read more »

Posted in: Richard Worth