An Open Letter to John Key

Dear Mr Key,

I have continually been amazed at the way in which you have ignored voters since coming into power. Huge numbers of us got you into office and yet again and again you have failed to listen to what the voters say.

Your offhand attitude to the referendum relating to the anti-smacking bill was the first shock for those who trusted you to do what you'd said before you went into office.

An unnecessary increase in GST easily wiped out any gains people got from tax cuts. The total foolishness of the Emissions Trading Scheme is nothing but an additional tax which makes absolutely NO difference to climate matters.

The Marine and Coastal Area Bill is just the latest of your faux pas. In spite of being told by those who know what is going on that this piece of legislation will be a disaster for the average Kiwi and their current ability to use coastal areas freely you insist on forging ahead. Who is forcing you to pursue the progress of this Bill?

You have broken several of your pre-election promises. Thankfully there are people around who are wise enough to keep track of what you say and hold you accountable for it.

How about starting off 2011 by listening to them?

For those who want more detailed information on the Mr Key's track record since becoming Prime Minister, read this article.

Ambiguous

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?

Without even knowing the context, would you see this question as ambiguous? Unlikely.

Yet according to the NZ Herald, both John Key, the Prime Minister, and Phil Goff, the Opposition Leader, find this straightforward piece of English to be ambiguous. I think rather that it's their behaviour that's ambiguous. Only last year the National Party was supporting the collection of signatures to get the referendum off the ground. And prior to that, "47 of the 48 National MPs opposed to the bill."

And if we want to talk about ambiguous, back in June Sean Plunket interviewed Sue Bradford, the MP who was so keen to see the Bill go through in the first place. After some very confusing answers to questions from Sean Plunket on National Radio on Thursday, Sue Bradford finally admitted that it was true that any smack for the purpose of correction - no matter how light and inconsequential - was in fact a criminal offence. This came as a surprise to Mr Plunket, who, like many other journalists, had been assured since the beginning that no one was being made a criminal if they smacked their child lightly on the bum.

Methinks it's the MPs who are 'ambiguous' - they've shifted ground considerably over this matter. Perhaps it's because they don't want New Zealand to lose face: going back on its 'word', not doing something that that most enlightened of countries, Sweden, does do, or getting themselves in schtuck with the United Nations and its proclamations as to how everyone should run their family.

Cam Calder said he was voting "no" on the literal wording of the referendum, rather than because he thought the current law was not working. Ambiguous?

Nikki Kay: "My worry is that many people I talk to see a 'yes' vote as a vote to reduce family violence and a 'no' vote as a vote to stop the Government interfering and telling them how to bring up their kids. I believe in reducing family violence and Government interference in people's lives." Ambiguous?

Labour's Rajen Prasad - who headed the Families Commission when the law change went through in 2007 - said he could not vote either way with comfort, so he planned to spoil his ballot paper. Ambiguous?

Crikey, what's wrong with these people? No wonder they don't know what they're up to.

Folic Acid

It was with some relief that I heard on the news tonight that Prime Minister John Key has decided against the inclusion of folic acid in all our bread. Apparently we were supposed to follow Australia - if this is an example of being more closely-allied to our neighbours, then perhaps we should rethink our connections.

Folic acid, sometimes called folate, is a B vitamin (B9) found mostly in leafy green vegetables like kale and spinach, orange juice, and enriched grains. Surely that's what we should be encouraging young mothers to eat, rather than taking yet another chemicalized version of real food.

Well, Mr Key said No, and good on him. Folic acid is widely regarded as being of benefit to babies in the womb, which is why pregnant mothers are encouraged to take it in doses. It has some preventive aspect in regard to serious neural tube defects (such as the incomplete development of the brain and spinal cord).

But there are three things that puzzle me: if it's so effective, how come billions of babies have survived without additional doses of it for millennia? And if it's geared towards babies via their mothers, why on earth do the rest of us, particularly males, need to have it in our bread? And if pregnant mothers were going to eat it via bread, how much extra bread would they need to consume in order to get the 'large' doses required?

TV One (I think that was what we were watching) claimed the medical and scientific community was up in arms against Mr Key's change of mind. Or his determination of mind, rather. Well, the scientific and medical community was represented by a single geneticist, who seemed to have a bee in her bonnet about the whole thing. She didn't answer any of the questions I've raised above.

The use of folic acid in this way was perhaps considered as a kind of cheap insurance for the wellbeing of feotuses. But in fact it was an extremely expensive kind of measure - and once again, Joe Public and his wife would have wound up paying for it every time they purchased bread, which is already expensive enough.

The geneticist, by the way, recommended buying bread from Australia in order to get the folic acid. Dear me.