NiuZila: Land of full fat milk and welfare money

The recession is over!  Yeah right…

One of the responsibilities of a Niu Sila/New Zealand Government being voted in by the public, is for that Government to look at the bigger picture - to make policies, plan for the future, implement changes - things the average Sione and Sina have little power to do themselves.  Yet this Government, with a Palemia/Prime Minister who was a former market speculator, has had a hands off approach to the economy.  That right wing mantra: the market will correct itself.

Little comfort for the nearly 3000 people who lined up last week, to apply for only 150 jobs at a new supermarket opening in Manukau, Aukilani Saute/South Auckland.  It’s an amazing illustration of how people are desperate, and not just a few, but heaps of people!  The majority were Maori and Pacific Islanders.  But there were also Indians, Asians, Palagi/Pakeha/European, people from across Aukilani/Auckland.

What’s the Government’s response?  Do nothing.  Well that’s not totally true.  They appointed a Tax Working Group made up of rich Palagi males to recommend how to make the tax system more efficient.  Their recommendations?  Tax cuts for the rich, increase the goods and services tax (GST) which will affect the poor the most. 

Again I’m being unfair on my representations on the Government.  The Tax Working Group also suggested a capital gains tax which would be like most western nations, where land and property owners would be taxed for the appreciation in value of their land/property.  Of course that would be too bold a step for the Government to make in Niu Sila/New Zealand, a country obsessed with owning houses as their nest egg.  There’s no incentive to put savings into industries that create innovation, further capital, and more jobs.

So when the public see the Government reject the extreme recommendations of the Tax Working Group (such as the capital gains tax), it would make a GST rise and tax cuts for the rich look more palatable for the public to digest.

Meanwhile, 3000 people await to hear the outcome of their job interviews/applications.  For these people it’s about putting bread on the table, paying the bills to keep a roof over their heads, and getting from week to week.  While those entrusted to look at the bigger picture seem to also be looking out for the rich only.

UPDATE:  The Government announced it will raise the minimum wage by… wait for it… it’s a whopper… it will be raised by “25 CENTS!”  That’s right folks.  Meanwhile the struggling Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, will be spending $26 million on propaganda to charm the education sector of her unpopular National Standards policy! Hmmm….

It’s been an interesting political year for Labour. After losing the elections, former leader Helen Clark appeared to have saved the party from internal squabbling by immediately stepping down, allowing for the new leadership to step in. However, this new leadership: Phil Goff and Annette King, have struggled to make traction with the voting public.

This is in contrast to the ruling Government. There’s no denying that the current National Government is popular, if the regular polls are anything to go by. While there have been hiccups along the way, National has stayed ahead. More specifically, Palemia/Prime Minister John Key is very popular. With this backdrop, it must be very fustrating for the Labour leadership seeing that no matter what they do, or how hard they try, nothings happening for them.

Because of this, the Labour leadership has apparently been asking itself some hard questions, as they should. However, the answers the leadership have come up with, I’m not so sure on. A lot of commentators, including some in the Labour ranks, have decided the electoral defeat for Labour was a rejection by the Niu Sila public, of the progressive/social liberal movement. Apparently, the Niu Sila public had become more conservative, and if Labour were to gain support, it would need to contest for that conservative support from National.

Goff has always been from the “right” of the Labour party, and there are quite a few traditional Marxists, such as commentator Chris Trotter. Along with strategist Pagani, there has been a slow movement from the Labour leadership towards laying down the platform in which Labour will preach from in 2010 going into election year. Earlier rants this year by Trevor Mallard were early warning signs of things to come. And recently Goff made a speech entitled “Nationhood”, further building on that platform.

While the speech had some very good points, regarding the role of the Maori Party in coalition with the National Government, some of the wording was clearly catering for the conservative/red neck voters, such as “grievance industry” and “birthright to the beaches” populist slogans. Now Goff and his leadership/strategists are not stupid, and know they are engaging important substantial political and philosophical issues (ie identity politics vs class politics), they are also taking the opportunity to grab the superficial political points from the conservative/red neck vote at the same time.

Unfortunately, I think they will lose using either or both strategies. Political point scoring from the conservative/red neck vote can only get you so far on the left. While Trotter believes there are more social conservatives than social liberals on the left, I think that’s all too simplistic a view. I think I am sociall conservative in many ways. I am a Christian, but I am also Samoan. I have a tertiary education and currently hold a professional occupation, but my background is from a working class family. I have some socially conservative values, but I have some strong convictions against neo-liberal economic theories. And thus, this is the reality of post-modernism. There are many more layers to an onion, than just class or identity.

And so this is the basis of social liberalism/progressivism. Whether we are male/female, hetero/homosexual, indigenous/immigrant, religious/atheist, the social liberal/progressivism strives for a society that is inclusive of all peoples, where there is an equality amongst all irrespective of background.

For Trotter, he believes there must be a point where the left must decide that one of those identities must take precedence over other identities. For Trotter, and the Labour leadership, that is the proleteriat. The class warfare is the paramount battle to be fought. Identity politics, including Maori/indigenous politics is a distraction to that paramount battle. I believe he is wrong.

It is because of the broad Church of social liberalism/progressivism, that the left finds it’s strength. Unity through diversity. Unfortunately for Trotter and Co, they are banging the drums of divisiveness on the left. It seems as though the beat they are banging too includes: you’re either with us or against us. That might win some votes from the conservatives, but it will alienate so many more on the left. Furthermore, many of the social conservatives on the left, are in fact Maori or Pacific Island. Those on the left that disliked the “anti-smacking” law and civil union legislation were Polynesian. The working class proletariats are again, people of Polynesian back ground. Therefore it kinda only leaves the true red neck Pakeha voters to which Goff will appeal to the most.

But there is an important question that needs to be asked of identity politics. As a Samoan, I can associate myself with the struggle of our fellow Polynesian cousins, the Maori. With a similar worldview, but also our shared experience with colonialism, the struggle to have an indigenous outlook may not grate with Euro-centric theories such as Marxism, but also against aspects of liberalism. Some indigenous academics have often called human rights (a product of liberalism) as another form of colonisation. Not because there is an outright opposition to human rights, but because the authors of mainstream human rights come from a Euro-centric point of view, such as centering around the rights of the ‘individual’. From a communal culture such as Polynesian societies, this form of human rights does not fit well. And so these issues will need to be resolved, but that in no way means one must choose one identity over another.

Identity politics (along with Marxism/class struggle and environmentalism etc) are here to stay. The Maori Party is likely to be around for a while, and therefore so is identity politics.

Ok, that’s my political spiel for a while hehehe. So many more exciting things to post up about soon…

There are three recent Government policies and proposals that have been released in the last couple of days that illustrates what this new Government is all about.

1. Kiwisport programme. 

“Kiwisport delivers on the Government’s promise to put money directly into the frontline to help more New Zealand children participate in organised sport,” Palemia / Prime Minister John Key said.

But Niu Sila / New Zealand’s poorest high schools will lose thousands of dollars each year because of this Government policy billed as helping more children to play sport.  Principal Peter Gall said Papatoetoe High School’s funding for sports staff would fall from $41,000 to $33,000 because the new money was not linked to a school’s decile rating.  “It seems that we’re robbing the poor to pay the rich,” said Mr Gall, who is also president of the Secondary Principals Association.

It’s amazing that not only are the poorest in our society (including many Pacific peoples) are losing out, but this drive to get kids active seems a bit contradictory of the Government scrapping earlier this year the new law which stopped schools selling junk food!  On top of this the Government announced earlier this year they were pumping $60 million odd into private schools while gutting out funding for poorer schools, special needs facilities, adult education and night schools.  This doesn’t look like getting kids active, but more about moving more money towards the rich schools.

2. ACC changes

ACC (Government accident compensation scheme) changes by the Government mean from November 16 visiting the physio will cost patients at least $10-20 each time, now that the ACC has decided to cut costs.  Dr Smith said since the service became free, the number of clients in higher socio-economic areas using the service had “occurred disproportionately”.

But Jonathan Warren, president of the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists, says the move is “short sighted” and will end up costing the Government more money.  “These changes mean that some people who need treatment will not be able to afford it. If a patient doesn’t get early treatment for an injury, recovery can take much longer and their health may suffer in the long run,” Mr Warren said. “In some cases a simple problem, untreated, can lead to permanent disability … Untreated injuries will end up costing the Government much more in health and social dollars.”  A provision for those with lower incomes was argued by the society, Mr Warren said, but was unsuccessful.

Once again the changes in ACC will affect the poorest people in society.  Usually those that need the free service the most are those that can’t afford it, and are proned to injury due to their occupation (manual labour, construction).  While $10-$20 a visit may sound cheap, if you need to visit every week over 6 months, that’s a lot of money especially when you’re already trying to make ends meet.  As said above, more pacific people who can’t afford the visits will not go at all, leaving injuries untreated and causing more cost in the long run to our health system.

3. GST increases

Currently here in Niu Sila we pay 12.5% of goods and services in GST (goods and Services Tax).  A working group panel reviewing the tax system said lifting GST to 15 per cent would raise an extra $2.1 billion a year. That would rise to $6.2 billion if the tax was set at 20 per cent.  Raising the rate of GST could increase the economy’s efficiency if it was used to shift the mix of taxes away from income tax the group says.  “Increasing the rate could impact on lower-income or vulnerable households, especially in the short run,” the panel said.

Progressive tax systems mean those that earn more, pay more taxes.  This is based on one of the notions that a regressive system such as a flat tax rate would harm those on lower income than those on higher incomes.  Increasing GST is the same in that although everyone will be paying 15% on goods and services, those on a lower income have less discretionary funds to absorb that increase.

Once again, this proposed change will affect the poor and benefit the rich.  Robbing the poor to pay the rich.

Let me say this before I launch into my post: I think Taito Philip Field is guilty.  As a Member of Parliament (MP) at the time, he should’ve known the strict rules around bribery and corruption.

For those not familiar with the case, Taito Philip Field, former Labour Party MP for Magele / Mangere, in Aukilani Saute / South Auckland was found guilty at a jury trial yesterday of 11 of the 12 bribery and corruption charges and 15 of 23 of the obstruction of justice charges.  This followed a revelation in Setema / September 2005 when TVNZ reported that Taito hired Sunan Siriwan, a Thai man who was facing deportation, to work on his house in Samoa.  Taito asked then Associate Immigration Minister Damien O’Connor to review the situation, and Niu Sila work permits were granted to the man and his wife.  Taito at the time said there was no connection between the two events.

But this triggered a Queens Counsel inquiry announced by the then Palemia / Prime Minister, Helen Clark, to be conducted by Noel Ingram QC.  In July 2006 the inquiry report could not find evidence of corruption but severely criticised Taito.  This then led to the Police launching an investigation against Taito.  In May 2007 the Police charged Taito with 14 counts of bribery, at which the guilty verdict was found yesterday, after the trial begun in April this year.

As I said above, I think he is guilty.  But I also believe there is a certain amount of disagreement between cultures over what is considered a bribe or corruption.  Raymond Huo (Labour list MP) explains:

“With regard to business, Westerners are generally transaction-orientated. They walk in the door, figure out the deal, sign the contract and get out. Chinese, on the other hand, are relationship orientated. The Chinese concept of friendship, or guanxi, is vital. In a highly centralised state, the use of guanxi is sometimes the only way to get things done.”

“The core of guanxi is doing business through value-laden relationships. To some extent, guanxi is the counter-part of a commercial legal system. Don’t get me wrong – Asian people do respect contracts. They are ethical. The only difference is that they do business differently. Mostly, obligations come from relationships, not only pieces of paper.”

I have a Swedish friend who thought corruption was rife in Niu Sila, in that people tended to close ranks and not criticise each other irrespective of whether as an individual they see things to be criticised.  He said by not criticising others we make absolve ourselves from criticisms from others, thereby protecting them and in turn they protect you ie, don’t rock the boat.

And so I think if I were in Taito’s position I too may have offered overstayers sanctuary in my home in Samoa while the immigration issue is pending.  Heck, it’s in our Samoan blood to give, to show our hospitality.  As Raymond Huo says above, it’s not about the transaction, but the relationship that is formed around the transaction.

And I could easily see how those people might offer to keep my home tidy in appreciation for my help.  Of course I’d politely refuse, but it’s not hard how such facts might be viewed or skewed as corruption by others.  Generosity can easily be seen as cronyism or favouritism.

But of course the rules change if I were an MP in Niu Sila, as Taito was.  The blurring of the cultural differences is not an excuse when you are in a public office, especially a political office.  As all politicians will attest to, the public (via the media) are blood thirsty for anything that vaguely resembles the possibility of the likelihood of a chance that there could be a risk of corruption.  And I think that’s a good thing, if not by law then by morals, we should be keeping our politicians at a higher standards than others.

I think Taito knew full well that such actions whether intentional or not, could be and would be viewed as corruption.

Minister of Social Development, Paula Bennett recently announced the cutting of a Government financial assistance allowance to help beneficiaries into tertiary study (amongst other things also cut).  Two solo mothers on the benefit protested in the media about how without the allowance, they will no longer be able to afford to take on their studies.  In response, Paula Bennett release details from the Ministry of Social Development of each woman’s entitlements they were currently receiving.

There are three issues that I want to explore a bit, arising from the fiasco.

Firstly, privacy.  I find it extremely uncomfortable when a Minister of the Crown believes she can infer consent from a critic of the Government, from being just that, a critic of the Government.  The information the Government holds should not be used for political points, and should definitely not be disclosed to the public by an inference of consent.  People should expressly consent to have their personal details splashed across the media. 

Secondly, Paula Bennett believed she was giving balance to the debate by releasing the details of the two women, but it is an unequal debate when she has the resources of the State behind her, and she is privy to the private information of the citizens of New Zealand.  Whereas the women?  Facebook.  The internet can be a powerful tool, but a Minister shouldn’t be playing tit for tat just because people want to criticise the Government.

Thirdly, and the most disturbing issue, is the disgusting abuse that New Zealanders have shown towards beneficiaries.  Read the mainstream opinion pieces, and people on the benefit are castgated as unworthy citizens of New Zealand.  They are look down upon and seen as worthless bludgers on the State.  Perhaps it’s a sign of these struggling economic times, but where is the empathy in this country?  At times like these, it saddens me to see my fellow countrymen and women express such vile and cruel words to those who are struggling the most.

Sure, we all know of those who are milking the system, who have babies to stay on the benefit, who would rather be a bum on the dole than work an honest days work.  But for the vast majority of people who have unfortunately found themselves on a State benefit, it is because they are a victim of their circumstances.  Most beneficiary recepients are honest law abiding New Zealand citizen who are struggling day by day, and are immensly grateful for Government assistance.

As a Samoan Christian, I often think about when Jesus said “what you do to the least of you, you do to me”.

Palemia / Prime Minister (PM) for Niu Sila / New Zealand,  John Key is leading a contingent of Niu Sila politicians, public figures and diplomats on a visit to the Pacific.  Yesterday in Samoa it was announced there would be a further advance of the unique “Treaty of Friendship” relationship between Samoa and Niu Sila.

PM John Key met Head of State, His Highness Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese Efi before meeting with Palemia of Samoa, Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi.  “During my discussions with Prime Minster Tuilaepa I outlined New Zealand’s intention to enhance our aid programme to Samoa,” John Key said.  “Development assistance to Samoa will increase from N$10.5 million (T$17.85m) to NZ$14 million (T$23.8m) this year.”

One of the people in the Government’s contingent is legendary All Black Michael Jones of Samoan descent.  One of the things he is famous for, other than his crunching tackles and superb athletic skills, was the fact that he was staunchly against playing on the Sabbath day, because of his Christian beliefs.  Yes, a son of Samoa.

Yesterday in nusipepa / newspapers here in Niu Sila there were questions posed by the media on whether Michael Jones would stand for National in the next general elections.  This isn’t something new as those rumours had been swirling around in last year’s elections.  While Jones did not stand for National last year, he publicly supported John Key during the campaign.  I’m sure National won over many Samoan votes since Jones’ public alignment.

As you may have gathered from reading my previous posts, I am of the centre-left in the political spectrum, as are the majority of Samoans here in Niu Sila.  The Labour political party, which occupies the centre-left, has had a traditionally large faithful Samoan following.  The majority of Members of Parliament (MPs) of Samoan or Pacific descent are from the Labour ranks.  The trade union movements which represented many Samoan / Pacific peoples are closely aligned with Labour.  Many Labour (and other centre left parties) MPs in the past were great advocates for Pacific peoples during the 1970s and 1980s.  The centre left always appeared to champion the less well off, the disadvantaged and the politically marginalised.

Therefore it’s no surprise that many if not the majority of Samoans are Labour or other centre-left supporters.  But the potential for Michael Jones to put his hand up for National may test the political allegiances with ethnic/cultural affiliations.

This isn’t the first Pacific person to be a candidate for the conservative centre right party.  In fact, there is currently a Samoan MP who won the Aukilani / Auckland seat off Labour in Maungakiekie, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.  But before him there was Anae Arthur Anae who was a list MP for National a while back.  And there were countless other Samoan and Pacific candidates, such as Enosa Auvaa who stood for National in Manurewa (Aukilani Saute / South Auckland), Asenati Lole Taylor who stood against Peseta in Maungakiekie for the New Zealand First Party etc.

However the difference between the successful Peseta and the potential of Michael Jones as a candidate is Jones can win in Aukilani Saute.  Peseta was born in Samoa and raised in Mangere, but his background and public profile differs to Michael Jones.  Peseta was educated at Auckland Grammar School (one of the top boys public schools) and went on to the Iunivesite o Aukilani / University of Auckland to attain B.Com./LL.B. and M.Com.(Hons) degrees.  He also holds an MBA from the University of Cambridge (Queens College).

He is also currently an Auckland City Councillor (Tamaki-Maungakiekie ward) where he was Chairman of the City Development Committee.  He has also worked as a solicitor for Russell McVeagh, a financial analyst for Bankers Trust (London) and as an executive consultant for Macquarie Bank (Sydney). 

That’s not to say that Michael Jones does not have a similar success story, in fact he also graduated from the Iunivesite o Aukilani with B.A., M.A. and a BPlan.  But what the public knows of Jones is that he was born in Aukilani and grew up in Te Atatu South, a suburb in Aukilani Sisifo / West Auckland, that he was a Samoan All Black, and a proud Christian.  Not only did he play for Niu Sila in Rugby, he also played for the Manu Samoa, and was coach until recently.

Both stories are of great successes.  But Jones has the public profile that Peseta didn’t have.  Every Samoan father knew that if their son aspired to be an All Black then Michael Jones was the perfect role-model of how to be a Samoan All Black.  Every Samoan mother wanted their son to be respectful and humble as Jones, and koaga e loloku (regularly go to church).

To tell you the truth, if Jones was a candidate in my electorate next election, I’d vote for him too.  On the political spectrum he isn’t too far off from where many Samoans are.  He has strong Christian conservative convictions but a heart for social justice.  He just believes that National is the vehicle that will best deliver those aspirations, while for a long time many Samoans believed Labour was the best vehicle.

Getting Jones on board would be a smart move for National.

I think Samoans in any political party have to battle the mainstream thinkings within their own organisations, and for Jones it will be no different.  If he gets his teeth into policy and truly makes a change for the better of our people within the National party heirarchy, then he will need to battle the ‘far’ right in the party.  And the same for Labour Samoan MPs.  Towing the party line can cause many a headache for Samoan MPs.  That’s why the Maori MP, Tariana Turia broke away from Labour and created the Maori party who is now in Government with National.

And that illustrates the position Samoans are in.  While we naturally gravitate towards the centre-left / Labour, there are times when we just don’t agree with the centre-left / Labour and would comfortably side with a centre-right approach to matters, or at least form a political stance that is in opposition to the centre-left / Labour.

Former Labour MP Samoan Taito Philip Field opposed the Civil Union law (allowing for same-sex relationships to be recognised under law as having similar rights to a married hetro-secual couple) and the legalising of prostitution.  I’m sure if Jones was an MP at that time, he too would have rallied against those laws.

And there in lies the danger for Labour.  Just as they have miscalculated the Maori vote, they may too have taken for granted the Pacific vote.  The more liberal elements in the centre-left should take heed, that Samoans are very conservative peoples.  A Jones candidate could cement a relationship between Samoans and the centre-right.  The success of the Maori party may push Pacific candidates and voters to argue Labour and the centre-left may not always be the way.

Well that’s all for now.  Those are my musings over the potential of a Michael Jones candidate for National, which may be at odds with the traditional allying of Samoan voters with Labour, but shows we are just as capable to support our own on the centre right.  This could also be just the wake up call for Labour to take us seriously, and not taken for granted.

It has been reported extensively that the previous Labour Government failed to mobilise it’s support base in it’s traditional stomping grounds such as Aukilani Sisifo / West Auckland and Aukilani Saute / South Auckland in the last elections.  Many people just didn’t turn up on voting day, as they had done in the last election, thereby reducing Labour’s chance of staying in power.

There are a whole heap of reasons why Labour supporters either changed votes or didn’t vote at all.  But one of the main reason Pacific Island / Samoan Labour voters were turned off in the last election was what became known as the “Anti-smacking bill”.

This was a law put forward by Greens MP Sue Bradford, and which the Labour Government supported, repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961.  Previously, many adults who had seriously assaulted children and young people and were appropriately charged by the Police, had used the section 59 relating to ‘reasonable force’ as a defence when they went to trial and were acquitted in court for crimes that, if perpetrated against an adult or an animal, would have resulted in a conviction.

When the bill was first proposed the battle lines were quickly drawn.  The religious right were up in arms about the Christian value of a parent being able to discipline their children, and shouldn’t involve the State.  Where as the liberals countered saying children need to be protected by the law from abuse as an adult would, and that too many child abusers were using the defence to get off the charge.

As devout Christians, many Samoans agreed with the religious right.  No law was going to stop a parent from disciplining their child.  As comedian Russell Peters puts it, “my father would say: If I get rid of one, I’ll just make another one… and I’ll tell the new one what an idiot the last one was!”

We all remember getting a good ol fashioned beating.  And many of us would agree that at the time it hurt like hell, and there were times where we wanted to and probably tried to run away from the inevitable.  But I’m sure we would also all agree that it was necessary, it was part of growing up and learning lessons.  We probably feel we are better people because of those hidings.  And in many ways, we would exact some sort of version of those same disciplinary actions on our own kids.

I often wonder what the effectiveness of “time out corners” are.  They always seem like empty threats.  The real threats were the ones where you knew your parents were capable of carrying it out.  As a kid half the time I was scared not of the actual hit, but the threat of the hit.  “Ia e faatalitali se’i o’o i le fale, ona vaaiai loa oe…” (You wait until we get home, then you better watch out).  That usually ended with “le fusi pa’u” (belt) or “le salu” (hand broom) or “se’evae” (jandal).

I’ve been in situations where my non-Samoan friends have full on shouting matches with their parents.  Not only was it rude to do it infront of me, but it showed these kids knew they could get away with it.  Words weren’t going to stop them.  As for my house, words AND actions definitely stopped us kids from doing bad things.

But the other side do have a point.  Our community is plagued with issues of child abuse.  Of course, our definition of child abuse probably differs from the definition of mainstream palagis, but even we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

My uncle is a well known Kamuta / Carpenter in Samoa.  About a decade ago the family flew him over to renovate our great uncle’s house.  Using the young men in the family he created his little team of tradesmen and did a great job at it.  He always had time to teach us younger guys little tips and skills in building.  I was always fond of those times, going over to help, muck around trying to build something with spare wood, climbing on the roof and then back down.

But there was one incident which has stuck in my mind.  My uncle’s daughter had a bit of a cheek, and one day when it got out of hand, my uncle gave her a hiding for being tautalaitiiti / a smart arse to an older cousin.  There weren’t any adults around, from what I could remember, but us younger ones either stood there staring in shock, or quietly tried to continue on as if nothing had happened.  This wasn’t a light smack, or even a hard smack.  It wasn’t the usual fusipa’u beating that me and my siblings were used to, it was a two-by-four plank of wood!  I don’t know if something was up with my uncle that day, or if he is normally that way, but he beat her bad: bleeding and till she was black and blue.

I don’t know if our parents sometimes come home stressed from work, daily pressures etc, and unfortunately take it out on the family.  But that crosses the line from discipline into anger management issues.

In any event, the law was passed making it an offence to physically abuse a child, unless the contact is inconsequential (or some fancy legal term like that).  However, Niu Sila / New Zealand will be voting on a non-binding referendum on whether people support the change in law or not.  Without going into the debates over direct democracy, the wording of referenda and the non-binding nature of it all, this appears to be a waste of time (albeit a valued democratic process).

Since the passing of the law, there has only been one person convicted, and not the hoards of honest law-abiding parents the religious right said would be caught.  Furthermore, the issue has died down.  People have moved on.  A certain balance has been found, where child abusers will be punished, and parents can continue disciplining their kids ‘inconsequentially’.

It must be said that Sue Bradford isn’t only about liberalising laws, but she advocated for public education on the issues.  Parent’s need to be helped into recognising when discipline turns into child abuse.  To the previous Government’s credit, it ran a successful anti-family violence campaign: “It’s not ok”.

My parent’s gave us the beats, but also loved us and cared for us.  Discipline was not done in anger but with a purpose to make us into better people.  I’d like to think I discipline my kids now and then, but that is balanced with love and affection, knowing when I am angry, or actually giving out proper punishment. 

Most Pacific / Samoan families are like this.  But like Sue Bradford and Co have said, there are those that aren’t.  Those people should no longer hide behind the law.  At the same time we need to change out attitudes and culture towards child rearing.

Therefore, it’s no good just changing laws and hope people will change, but there needs to be support services, educational material, advertising campaigns: all things needed to change society’s culture.

I’m all for disciplining our kids.  But there’s got to be a point where “It’s not ok”.  There’s got to be a line in the sand.  Sometimes we have to lay down the smack, and not lay the smack down.