The Green party have just posted a press release entitled "Orangutan And Grim Reaper Protest Outside ANZ"
Does that make them a "deadly bunch of chimps?"
Seriously - good on people for taking a stand on what they believe. Unfortunately, this kind of protest by a political party makes it less credible to working in parliament (can you imagine a Green member as minister of Finance when they are trying to publicly humiliate banks?).
It is right and proper for groups to "have their say." Political parties, though, should have their say in parliament and be engaging in dialog with the public.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, August 20, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
How should Christians vote? 4. Ten Commandments
1. Thou shalt not vote out of greed
2. Thou shalt not vote out of fear
3. Thou shalt not vote out of laziness and indifference and merely copy thy friends
4. Thou shalt not vote out of spite so as to negate someone else's vote
5. Thou shalt not vote trivially according to thy favourite colour or the looks of a politician
6. Thou shalt not vote merely to be on the "winning" side
7. Thou shalt not dishonour God by seeking a miracle to show you which way to vote at the last minute. Thou shalt use the mind God created thou with.
8. Thou shalt vote for men and women of integrity who are prepared to take the road of a servant
9. Thou shalt prepare to vote by reading policies, speaking to politicians, and understanding the system and the possible outcomes of an election
10. Thou shalt vote for justice
2. Thou shalt not vote out of fear
3. Thou shalt not vote out of laziness and indifference and merely copy thy friends
4. Thou shalt not vote out of spite so as to negate someone else's vote
5. Thou shalt not vote trivially according to thy favourite colour or the looks of a politician
6. Thou shalt not vote merely to be on the "winning" side
7. Thou shalt not dishonour God by seeking a miracle to show you which way to vote at the last minute. Thou shalt use the mind God created thou with.
8. Thou shalt vote for men and women of integrity who are prepared to take the road of a servant
9. Thou shalt prepare to vote by reading policies, speaking to politicians, and understanding the system and the possible outcomes of an election
10. Thou shalt vote for justice
Monday, June 18, 2007
How should Christians vote? 3. Not morally
There appears to me to be a hard core of Christians who vote in the hope of "Trickle down morality" from Politicians. Sorry, but not matter how you vote at the polls it will not usher in the Kingdom of heaven.
Yes, we should demand of our politicians, along with all leaders, a high moral standard. We should also try and be aware of their likely stand on certain issues.
However, it is abhorrent to me that Christians think that politicians should do the role of the church and be a defender of Christian values. Morals must "bubble up" from the lives of individual Christians attuned to the mind that sets the standard for all morals to be measured against.
Instead of focusing on one or two moral issues these Christians should look at the larger picture and consider if politicians and their parties are pursuing justice in all issues.
Yes, we should demand of our politicians, along with all leaders, a high moral standard. We should also try and be aware of their likely stand on certain issues.
However, it is abhorrent to me that Christians think that politicians should do the role of the church and be a defender of Christian values. Morals must "bubble up" from the lives of individual Christians attuned to the mind that sets the standard for all morals to be measured against.
Instead of focusing on one or two moral issues these Christians should look at the larger picture and consider if politicians and their parties are pursuing justice in all issues.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
How should Christians vote? 2. Understand
There is no excuse not to understand the voting system. If you don't understand the system, you may well find that your vote is wasted or used for something you didn't intend.
Local body elections have their own voting system and this may differ from city to city - Find out what yours is.
The national MMP system has been in place 11 years. Simply:
1. You get two votes.
2. One vote, the electorate vote, is for the person to represent you and your "electorate" (immediate area) in parliament. There are about 63 electorates in New Zealand, meaning that 63 of the Members of Parliament are there because they won the electorate. The individual who wins the electorate is the person who gets the most electorate votes (ie they don't have to get 50% - just more than any other candidate standing in that electorate). Their part affiliation (if any) has absolutely no bearing on the outcome. NOTE: If we wanted we could vote in 63 independent MPs with no party affiliation to represent the interests of our area. For the vast majority of electorates it does not make sense to vote for someone just because they belong to a particular party (although - this may say something about them). Christians should be trying to discern what kind of individuals are standing in their electorate, what their integrity is, what their capabilities are and vote accordingly.
3. The second vote, the party vote, is for a political party that you wish to have representation in parliament. The party vote determines the overall make up of parliament - ie the number of MPs from a particular party is proportional to the total party vote that they get. There are normally 120 MPs in parliament total being made up of the 63 electorate MPs and the 57 who come into parliament via the list. The actual MPs who get in parliament from a particular party will be made up of those who win an electorate seat and, if the party vote is large enough, others who are next on the "list" that every party must publish prior to the election.
4. NOTE: The party vote is NOT a vote for a prime minister. We do not have that kind of system like in the US where they have a vote for a president. There is, in fact, no guarantee that the prime minister will be the leader of the biggest party in parliament. It is almost certain that no one party will get more than 50% of the vote and, therefore, be able to govern alone (the last time a party got more than 50% of the vote in New Zealand was in 1951 following the Waterfront Strikes). This means that there are likely to be some kind of arrangement between parties. Depending on how the numbers fall will determine what kind of arrangements are possible. For example, if, in the next election, National won 59 seats, Labour 50, and the Greens 11 and no one else was in Parliament, then National could not form a government all by itself. However, National + Greens (unlikely) could or Labour + Greens (more likely) could form a government.
5. There are only two ways that a Party can gain representation in parliament - they must either, win an electorate seat OR get more than 5% of the party vote. In the current parliament four parties - Progressive (1MP), United Future (3MPs), Maori (4MPs), and ACT (2MPs) gained their position in parliament because at least one of the MPs won an electorate seat. In the case of Progressive their party vote was not sufficient to gain another MP. In the case of UF and ACT their party vote was sufficient that they gained two and one more MP respectively. The Maori won 4 electorates and have 4 MPs even though their party vote only was the equivalent of 3MPs (that is why this parliament has 121MPs and not 120 - called an overhang).
Greens and NZ First did not gain an electorate seat, but both passed the 5% barrier. Labour and National both passed the 5% barrier and gained electorate seats.
6. NOTE: If you vote for a Party that does not either win an electorate seat or reach the 5% barrier then your vote is not lost - it is redistributed to the parties that do get into parliament. This has the effect of giving some other parties extra seats in parliament (in particular the larger parties). Eg. From memory 0.62% of voters voted for Destiny in the last election (about 12000 votes I think). Of those 12000 votes about 4800 were given to Labour, 4800 to National and the rest to Greens, NZ First, United Future, ACT, and Progressives in that order. The outcome is that Destiny voters most likely contributed to more seats for Labour and National. So, before you cast your party vote, you should make sure that the party you are wanting to vote for is most likely to be in parliament (because it will win an electorate seat OR is polling at least above 3 or 4%) OR you are happy for your vote to be redistributed to other parties (another way of looking at it is that you may be passionately opposed to National, say, and think that Mcgillicuddy serious party is a better alternative. But the McGs won't get into parliament so about 0.4 (40%) of your vote will be given to National whom you oppose if they get 40% of votes cast on the night of the election!!!)
Local body elections have their own voting system and this may differ from city to city - Find out what yours is.
The national MMP system has been in place 11 years. Simply:
1. You get two votes.
2. One vote, the electorate vote, is for the person to represent you and your "electorate" (immediate area) in parliament. There are about 63 electorates in New Zealand, meaning that 63 of the Members of Parliament are there because they won the electorate. The individual who wins the electorate is the person who gets the most electorate votes (ie they don't have to get 50% - just more than any other candidate standing in that electorate). Their part affiliation (if any) has absolutely no bearing on the outcome. NOTE: If we wanted we could vote in 63 independent MPs with no party affiliation to represent the interests of our area. For the vast majority of electorates it does not make sense to vote for someone just because they belong to a particular party (although - this may say something about them). Christians should be trying to discern what kind of individuals are standing in their electorate, what their integrity is, what their capabilities are and vote accordingly.
3. The second vote, the party vote, is for a political party that you wish to have representation in parliament. The party vote determines the overall make up of parliament - ie the number of MPs from a particular party is proportional to the total party vote that they get. There are normally 120 MPs in parliament total being made up of the 63 electorate MPs and the 57 who come into parliament via the list. The actual MPs who get in parliament from a particular party will be made up of those who win an electorate seat and, if the party vote is large enough, others who are next on the "list" that every party must publish prior to the election.
4. NOTE: The party vote is NOT a vote for a prime minister. We do not have that kind of system like in the US where they have a vote for a president. There is, in fact, no guarantee that the prime minister will be the leader of the biggest party in parliament. It is almost certain that no one party will get more than 50% of the vote and, therefore, be able to govern alone (the last time a party got more than 50% of the vote in New Zealand was in 1951 following the Waterfront Strikes). This means that there are likely to be some kind of arrangement between parties. Depending on how the numbers fall will determine what kind of arrangements are possible. For example, if, in the next election, National won 59 seats, Labour 50, and the Greens 11 and no one else was in Parliament, then National could not form a government all by itself. However, National + Greens (unlikely) could or Labour + Greens (more likely) could form a government.
5. There are only two ways that a Party can gain representation in parliament - they must either, win an electorate seat OR get more than 5% of the party vote. In the current parliament four parties - Progressive (1MP), United Future (3MPs), Maori (4MPs), and ACT (2MPs) gained their position in parliament because at least one of the MPs won an electorate seat. In the case of Progressive their party vote was not sufficient to gain another MP. In the case of UF and ACT their party vote was sufficient that they gained two and one more MP respectively. The Maori won 4 electorates and have 4 MPs even though their party vote only was the equivalent of 3MPs (that is why this parliament has 121MPs and not 120 - called an overhang).
Greens and NZ First did not gain an electorate seat, but both passed the 5% barrier. Labour and National both passed the 5% barrier and gained electorate seats.
6. NOTE: If you vote for a Party that does not either win an electorate seat or reach the 5% barrier then your vote is not lost - it is redistributed to the parties that do get into parliament. This has the effect of giving some other parties extra seats in parliament (in particular the larger parties). Eg. From memory 0.62% of voters voted for Destiny in the last election (about 12000 votes I think). Of those 12000 votes about 4800 were given to Labour, 4800 to National and the rest to Greens, NZ First, United Future, ACT, and Progressives in that order. The outcome is that Destiny voters most likely contributed to more seats for Labour and National. So, before you cast your party vote, you should make sure that the party you are wanting to vote for is most likely to be in parliament (because it will win an electorate seat OR is polling at least above 3 or 4%) OR you are happy for your vote to be redistributed to other parties (another way of looking at it is that you may be passionately opposed to National, say, and think that Mcgillicuddy serious party is a better alternative. But the McGs won't get into parliament so about 0.4 (40%) of your vote will be given to National whom you oppose if they get 40% of votes cast on the night of the election!!!)
Monday, June 11, 2007
How should Christians vote? 1. Vote
So - I'm politically minded - please forgive me. I happen to think it important for Christians to be that way. As this is not election year in NZ, I thought I'd blog a little about "How Christian's should vote" (note - not who they should vote for). I'll try to be party politically neutral!
The first decisions Christians should make is that they should vote. In NZ, this means they should vote in both local body and national elections.
What's my reason for saying this? Of course, Jesus didn't vote - there was no democracy for him to vote in. In fact, the Bible gives no direct command to vote. What it does indicate is that political authorities derive their authority from God (Jesus said as much to Pilate). It is clear that we must pray for those in authority. It is also clear that we are to be the salt of the earth - preserving that which is good. I can't see how we can pray, but not participate, or be the salt of the earth - but not even cast a vote. This is like trying to swim without getting wet.
During the last election campaign I had people tell me, proudly, that they wouldn't vote. It was as if they believed they held some higher moral position by doing so. To me, this would be like Jesus saying - I won't talk to Zacchaeus because I'm better than him. By failing to engage with our broader community - and that includes the political one - we fail to be the people God created us to be.
Furthermore, I believe voting is a necessary requirement of citizenship. Anyone who has an opinion about how the government should behave, yet does not exercise their opportunity to shape that government, has, to me, given up their rights to protection by that government beyond the rights that a foreigner has.
So - get out and vote.
The first decisions Christians should make is that they should vote. In NZ, this means they should vote in both local body and national elections.
What's my reason for saying this? Of course, Jesus didn't vote - there was no democracy for him to vote in. In fact, the Bible gives no direct command to vote. What it does indicate is that political authorities derive their authority from God (Jesus said as much to Pilate). It is clear that we must pray for those in authority. It is also clear that we are to be the salt of the earth - preserving that which is good. I can't see how we can pray, but not participate, or be the salt of the earth - but not even cast a vote. This is like trying to swim without getting wet.
During the last election campaign I had people tell me, proudly, that they wouldn't vote. It was as if they believed they held some higher moral position by doing so. To me, this would be like Jesus saying - I won't talk to Zacchaeus because I'm better than him. By failing to engage with our broader community - and that includes the political one - we fail to be the people God created us to be.
Furthermore, I believe voting is a necessary requirement of citizenship. Anyone who has an opinion about how the government should behave, yet does not exercise their opportunity to shape that government, has, to me, given up their rights to protection by that government beyond the rights that a foreigner has.
So - get out and vote.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Prayer in Parliament in 1854
The very first debate in the very first meeting of the House of Representatives in 1854 was about prayer in Parliament. Some members were concerned that this would suggest an established state church. The compromise was that the speaker of the house, not a clergyman, stated the prayer. The House’s first resolution was to “… assert the privilege of a perfect political equality of all religious denominations.” (quotation from the original records – I got it from Davidson and Lineham, 1995, “Transplanted Christianity” published by Massey University)
As if to drive home the point the parliament immediately turned down a request to pay the salary of the Anglican Bishop of New Zealand.
NOTE: Some have tried to re-write NZ history to suggest this, and the Education Act of 1877 with a clause allowing "secular" schools means that these old blokes thought NZ "religiously neutral" or "secular." Far from it, they just didn't want to see the secatrian divides of Europe brought into the NZ political system.
As if to drive home the point the parliament immediately turned down a request to pay the salary of the Anglican Bishop of New Zealand.
NOTE: Some have tried to re-write NZ history to suggest this, and the Education Act of 1877 with a clause allowing "secular" schools means that these old blokes thought NZ "religiously neutral" or "secular." Far from it, they just didn't want to see the secatrian divides of Europe brought into the NZ political system.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
s59 and all that
Confusion reigns over the s59 amendment bill – I have been hearing things on the media that are plainly wrong (eg Rhema saying that the bill had passed). I also have realised that if anyone is to enter public debate about this and other issues there is a need for them to understand the process into how an idea ends up law. Please feel free to pass this on if you think it of help to others …
I’ll try not to muddy the waters more, rather I thought I’d give some context (I’d like to claim to be totally unbiased … but that’s not possible) … so here goes ….
The history
How the bill may become law
Sue Bradford put into the ballot a “members bill” to remove the defence of “reasonable force” which parents (and no one else) were able to use if charged with assault of a child. A Jury of our peers is expected to decide if the force used were reasonable or not.
That is she seeks to remove s59 from the Crimes Act which reads
s59 Domestic discipline
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.
The bill was drawn from the ballot and so it went into the parliamentary system. As a member sponsored bill, rather than a government sponsored bill, there are comparatively few days set aside for debate on it. These days are spread over many weeks. It has to go through the same process.
The process involves a first vote (the first reading). In this case, parliament voted in favour of it and it was sent to a “select committee.” There are many select committees in parliament. Each committee consists of a group MPs (but not Ministers) and their job is to get in experts, listen to them, and propose amendments to the law.
Sue Bradford’s Bill is called “Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill” [this is the new name – it had a name change part way through], It was given it’s first reading on 27 May 2005 and passed on to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee. The election intervened and the committee only heard and read submissions from about March 2006 onwards until they reported back in November 2006.
The results of the vote on the first reading:
Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 2 (Brown, Donnelly); Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.
Noes 54 New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 11 (Catchpole, Gudgeon, Jones, McNair, Mark, Paraone, Perry, Peters J, Peters W, Stewart, Woolerton); ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 7.
NOTE: In the first reading debate it is clear that some voted for it just to have the bill debated publicly and looked at in select committee, not because they supported every part of it.
When all the committee agrees to a change it is entered into the bill. The bill is then voted for a second time. If it passes, it goes to the next stage in which all the MPs sit together in parliament in one big committee (horrors!). At this point any amendments offered by individuals are debated on and voted on one by one. This process can take weeks.
The second reading was on 21 Feb 2007.
At this point some parties [National, United Future, NZ First] had decided that this bill was to be a “conscience” vote (it individual members were free to choose which way they wanted to vote) and others [Labour, Maori, Act, Greens] decided that it was to be a party vote (ie individual members must vote according to what the party leadership decide). Note also, that there had been an election between the first and second readings, so there had been changes in the shape of parliament. Some parties now had more influence, some less.
Ayes 70 New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 6 (Bennett P, Blue, Borrows, Hutchison, Power, Rich); New Zealand First 3 (Donnelly, Woolerton, Stewart); Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1
Noes 51 New Zealand National 42 (Ardern, Auchinvole, Bennett D, Blumsky, Brownlee, Carter D, Carter J, Clarkson, Coleman, Collins, Connell, Dean, English, Finlayson, Foss, Goodhew, Goudie, Groser, Guy, Hayes, Heatley, Henare, Key, King, McCully, Mapp, Peachey, Roy, Ryall, Shanks; Simich, Smith L, Smith N, te Heuheu, Tisch, Tolley, Tremain, Wagner, Wilkinson, Williamson, Wong, Worth) New Zealand First 4 (Peters, Mark, Paraone, Brown); United Future 2 (Turner, Copeland); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field
The bill then went to the Committee of the whole house. IT IS STILL THERE with the third and final reading due in a couple of weeks (ie it is NOT law yet).
Finally, the bill is given a third overall vote (the third reading), if it is passed it becomes law as of the date in the bill that states when it becomes law.
Some of the amendments
An amendment by Taito Philip Field (Independent) for the law’s introduction to be delayed a month if it passes its final reading was agreed upon (He had amendments ranging from1 month to 50 months and by agreeing on the first, the rest were not debated – this was a delaying tactic).
An amendment by Judy Turner (United Future) for the issue to go to public referendum if it was not passed by more than 60% of MPs was defeated.
An amendment by Clayton Cosgrove (Labour) for the effect of changes to s59 to be reviewed in 2 years time was adopted
An amendment by Chester Burrows (National) defining reasonable force as ‘transitory and trifling discomfort’ has been proposed but not adopted as it has been superseded by the amendment proposed by Peter Dunne (UF) (but in effect hammered out by Clark and Key) that directs police to ignore any cases it deems “inconsequential and not in the public interest”. This amendment was adopted on Tuesday this week.
The final vote, if passed, will put the adopted amendments into law.
The debate and the emotion
Some of this is personal opinion – warning J
I am absolutely certain that no members of parliament want to see children abused. I am certain that they all want to see measures in place that reduce the number of horrendous cases where children have been killed or badly injured. Part of the debate is about whether this bill will have any effect whatsoever on reducing cases of serious abuse.
Part of the debate has also been about the criminalisation of parents (or not) if they smack a child. Gordon Copeland (United Future) asked a Queen’s Council lawyer to give an opinion on the current law. The QC concluded that a parent is always not guilty of an offence (unless they are hauled before a court and convicted of using “unreasonable force”). Others (including Sue Bradford and Helen Clark) have stated that parents are technically guilty of assault now under current law and so the proposed amendment does not change anything.
The clear public opinion is that parents do not want to be considered guilty of a crime (whether or not they ever end up in court) if they lightly smack their child or use force to put them in time out.
There has been a lot of rhetoric that has divided. Sue Bradford and supporters have continued to use words like “hit” and “beat” and not “pick up and put in time out” or “smack.” These are very emotional words and, understandably, they have resulted in a lot of strong “anti-Sue” reaction by those parents who don’t like to be called child beaters.
Also, the labelling of people with emotionally laden words has not been helpful – “liberal” “fundamentalist” “Religious right” etc.
The role of churches
This is personal opinion – warning J
In my opinion churches should get involved in (i) supporting parliamentarians who are trying to reduce the incidence of child abuse, (ii) supporting parents (obviously) (iii) praying for parliamentarians of ALL parties (not enough of this happens!!!!!) (iv) supporting the education of their parishioners about how parliament works (in my opinion too many Christians and indeed Christian leaders are very ignorant of what can and can’t be achieved in parliament and how it is achieved. This means their voice is less effective).
What I disagree with is
(i) if a church expresses theocratic tendencies. Ie – we know best how to run the country because God is on our side (sorry – but this is how Destiny behaves).
(ii) Church hierarchy trying to speak on behalf of members without having consulted with them first. I recognise that it is difficult because 100% agreement will never be reached. Generally I think it better for church leaders to speak about principals rather than specifics of a bill. I believe the Anglican Bishops were wrong to speak out as they did. I also think that whilst John’s comments in the Press this morning were all very interesting, I think it was unnecessary that these dissenting views be expressed in the public and secular media.
(iii) Church’s being deliberately confrontational (especially with one another). I think both the Ecumenical Church group led by Anglicans in Wellington and Destiny should front up and apologise to each other, and all churches in New Zealand for the awful division they demonstrated the other day. Jesus prayed for unity and we should work at it. We shouldn’t be naïve and think this means we agree with each other all the time. Unity, though, is to be worked on – especially and how we present ourselves as Christians to the rest of the country.
Where to from here?
The final reading will most likely adopt the bill with all MPs voting for it with the exclusion of both Act, 2 United Future, Taito Philip Field and 6 NZ First MPs whom I expect will continue to oppose it. It appears (but not certain) that if there are dissenting voices in Labour and National (which there are in both) then these voices will not be heard in the final vote because Labour definitely, and the indications are that National as well, are voting as a party. Whilst it is technically possible for an MP to vote against their own party they normally need permission to do so. Those who have asked for that in Labour have not been given it. It remains to be seen if the same thing will happen with the National MPs. An MP may still vote against their party without permission, however, they are likely to face severe consequences from the party (eg – losing their ministerial post, being excluded from the caucus meetings where decisions are made, being dropped as a candidate in their seat or from the list, in the next election).
It will become law a month later.
At some stage, in court with some parent accused of assaulting their child, it must be debated if the incident at hand was “inconsequential and not in the public interest.”
Possibly a referendum at the next election …
Referendum: Currently there is a citizens initiated petition going around sponsored by United Future board member and former MP Larry Baldock. The petition currently has 170,000 signatures. If it reaches 300,000 then the question is proposes must be put to the country next election day. As with all such questions they must be put in both the positive and negative so that people can decide if they support the repeal of the law or not. (ie it is a petition seeking to have a question asked at the next election, not a petition voicing opposition – so both people in favour of and opposed to the law change may sign it in the hope that they will have their say come next election).
Further reading:
Scoop: The Press Releases by parties and lobby groups: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00511.htm
How a Bill becomes law: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/HowPWorks/Laws/7/5/6/75639197bdff4a15b57eaaade358509e.htm
Details of what was said in debates in parliament (Hansard reports) and the select committee report can be found at: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/2/4/b24fba96f2224b1985bc254efac71c63.htm
Some of you know of my role in United Future as it’s Chair for Canterbury and Westland. Please note: The views expressed here are mine, not United Future’s.
Dr John Pickering
john@ie-nz.com
354 1424
I’ll try not to muddy the waters more, rather I thought I’d give some context (I’d like to claim to be totally unbiased … but that’s not possible) … so here goes ….
The history
How the bill may become law
Sue Bradford put into the ballot a “members bill” to remove the defence of “reasonable force” which parents (and no one else) were able to use if charged with assault of a child. A Jury of our peers is expected to decide if the force used were reasonable or not.
That is she seeks to remove s59 from the Crimes Act which reads
s59 Domestic discipline
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.
The bill was drawn from the ballot and so it went into the parliamentary system. As a member sponsored bill, rather than a government sponsored bill, there are comparatively few days set aside for debate on it. These days are spread over many weeks. It has to go through the same process.
The process involves a first vote (the first reading). In this case, parliament voted in favour of it and it was sent to a “select committee.” There are many select committees in parliament. Each committee consists of a group MPs (but not Ministers) and their job is to get in experts, listen to them, and propose amendments to the law.
Sue Bradford’s Bill is called “Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill” [this is the new name – it had a name change part way through], It was given it’s first reading on 27 May 2005 and passed on to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee. The election intervened and the committee only heard and read submissions from about March 2006 onwards until they reported back in November 2006.
The results of the vote on the first reading:
Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 2 (Brown, Donnelly); Green Party 9; Māori Party 1.
Noes 54 New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 11 (Catchpole, Gudgeon, Jones, McNair, Mark, Paraone, Perry, Peters J, Peters W, Stewart, Woolerton); ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 7.
NOTE: In the first reading debate it is clear that some voted for it just to have the bill debated publicly and looked at in select committee, not because they supported every part of it.
When all the committee agrees to a change it is entered into the bill. The bill is then voted for a second time. If it passes, it goes to the next stage in which all the MPs sit together in parliament in one big committee (horrors!). At this point any amendments offered by individuals are debated on and voted on one by one. This process can take weeks.
The second reading was on 21 Feb 2007.
At this point some parties [National, United Future, NZ First] had decided that this bill was to be a “conscience” vote (it individual members were free to choose which way they wanted to vote) and others [Labour, Maori, Act, Greens] decided that it was to be a party vote (ie individual members must vote according to what the party leadership decide). Note also, that there had been an election between the first and second readings, so there had been changes in the shape of parliament. Some parties now had more influence, some less.
Ayes 70 New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 6 (Bennett P, Blue, Borrows, Hutchison, Power, Rich); New Zealand First 3 (Donnelly, Woolerton, Stewart); Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1
Noes 51 New Zealand National 42 (Ardern, Auchinvole, Bennett D, Blumsky, Brownlee, Carter D, Carter J, Clarkson, Coleman, Collins, Connell, Dean, English, Finlayson, Foss, Goodhew, Goudie, Groser, Guy, Hayes, Heatley, Henare, Key, King, McCully, Mapp, Peachey, Roy, Ryall, Shanks; Simich, Smith L, Smith N, te Heuheu, Tisch, Tolley, Tremain, Wagner, Wilkinson, Williamson, Wong, Worth) New Zealand First 4 (Peters, Mark, Paraone, Brown); United Future 2 (Turner, Copeland); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field
The bill then went to the Committee of the whole house. IT IS STILL THERE with the third and final reading due in a couple of weeks (ie it is NOT law yet).
Finally, the bill is given a third overall vote (the third reading), if it is passed it becomes law as of the date in the bill that states when it becomes law.
Some of the amendments
An amendment by Taito Philip Field (Independent) for the law’s introduction to be delayed a month if it passes its final reading was agreed upon (He had amendments ranging from1 month to 50 months and by agreeing on the first, the rest were not debated – this was a delaying tactic).
An amendment by Judy Turner (United Future) for the issue to go to public referendum if it was not passed by more than 60% of MPs was defeated.
An amendment by Clayton Cosgrove (Labour) for the effect of changes to s59 to be reviewed in 2 years time was adopted
An amendment by Chester Burrows (National) defining reasonable force as ‘transitory and trifling discomfort’ has been proposed but not adopted as it has been superseded by the amendment proposed by Peter Dunne (UF) (but in effect hammered out by Clark and Key) that directs police to ignore any cases it deems “inconsequential and not in the public interest”. This amendment was adopted on Tuesday this week.
The final vote, if passed, will put the adopted amendments into law.
The debate and the emotion
Some of this is personal opinion – warning J
I am absolutely certain that no members of parliament want to see children abused. I am certain that they all want to see measures in place that reduce the number of horrendous cases where children have been killed or badly injured. Part of the debate is about whether this bill will have any effect whatsoever on reducing cases of serious abuse.
Part of the debate has also been about the criminalisation of parents (or not) if they smack a child. Gordon Copeland (United Future) asked a Queen’s Council lawyer to give an opinion on the current law. The QC concluded that a parent is always not guilty of an offence (unless they are hauled before a court and convicted of using “unreasonable force”). Others (including Sue Bradford and Helen Clark) have stated that parents are technically guilty of assault now under current law and so the proposed amendment does not change anything.
The clear public opinion is that parents do not want to be considered guilty of a crime (whether or not they ever end up in court) if they lightly smack their child or use force to put them in time out.
There has been a lot of rhetoric that has divided. Sue Bradford and supporters have continued to use words like “hit” and “beat” and not “pick up and put in time out” or “smack.” These are very emotional words and, understandably, they have resulted in a lot of strong “anti-Sue” reaction by those parents who don’t like to be called child beaters.
Also, the labelling of people with emotionally laden words has not been helpful – “liberal” “fundamentalist” “Religious right” etc.
The role of churches
This is personal opinion – warning J
In my opinion churches should get involved in (i) supporting parliamentarians who are trying to reduce the incidence of child abuse, (ii) supporting parents (obviously) (iii) praying for parliamentarians of ALL parties (not enough of this happens!!!!!) (iv) supporting the education of their parishioners about how parliament works (in my opinion too many Christians and indeed Christian leaders are very ignorant of what can and can’t be achieved in parliament and how it is achieved. This means their voice is less effective).
What I disagree with is
(i) if a church expresses theocratic tendencies. Ie – we know best how to run the country because God is on our side (sorry – but this is how Destiny behaves).
(ii) Church hierarchy trying to speak on behalf of members without having consulted with them first. I recognise that it is difficult because 100% agreement will never be reached. Generally I think it better for church leaders to speak about principals rather than specifics of a bill. I believe the Anglican Bishops were wrong to speak out as they did. I also think that whilst John’s comments in the Press this morning were all very interesting, I think it was unnecessary that these dissenting views be expressed in the public and secular media.
(iii) Church’s being deliberately confrontational (especially with one another). I think both the Ecumenical Church group led by Anglicans in Wellington and Destiny should front up and apologise to each other, and all churches in New Zealand for the awful division they demonstrated the other day. Jesus prayed for unity and we should work at it. We shouldn’t be naïve and think this means we agree with each other all the time. Unity, though, is to be worked on – especially and how we present ourselves as Christians to the rest of the country.
Where to from here?
The final reading will most likely adopt the bill with all MPs voting for it with the exclusion of both Act, 2 United Future, Taito Philip Field and 6 NZ First MPs whom I expect will continue to oppose it. It appears (but not certain) that if there are dissenting voices in Labour and National (which there are in both) then these voices will not be heard in the final vote because Labour definitely, and the indications are that National as well, are voting as a party. Whilst it is technically possible for an MP to vote against their own party they normally need permission to do so. Those who have asked for that in Labour have not been given it. It remains to be seen if the same thing will happen with the National MPs. An MP may still vote against their party without permission, however, they are likely to face severe consequences from the party (eg – losing their ministerial post, being excluded from the caucus meetings where decisions are made, being dropped as a candidate in their seat or from the list, in the next election).
It will become law a month later.
At some stage, in court with some parent accused of assaulting their child, it must be debated if the incident at hand was “inconsequential and not in the public interest.”
Possibly a referendum at the next election …
Referendum: Currently there is a citizens initiated petition going around sponsored by United Future board member and former MP Larry Baldock. The petition currently has 170,000 signatures. If it reaches 300,000 then the question is proposes must be put to the country next election day. As with all such questions they must be put in both the positive and negative so that people can decide if they support the repeal of the law or not. (ie it is a petition seeking to have a question asked at the next election, not a petition voicing opposition – so both people in favour of and opposed to the law change may sign it in the hope that they will have their say come next election).
Further reading:
Scoop: The Press Releases by parties and lobby groups: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00511.htm
How a Bill becomes law: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/HowPWorks/Laws/7/5/6/75639197bdff4a15b57eaaade358509e.htm
Details of what was said in debates in parliament (Hansard reports) and the select committee report can be found at: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/2/4/b24fba96f2224b1985bc254efac71c63.htm
Some of you know of my role in United Future as it’s Chair for Canterbury and Westland. Please note: The views expressed here are mine, not United Future’s.
Dr John Pickering
john@ie-nz.com
354 1424
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
