Chris Auchinvole’s speech on gay marriage was widely hailed as one of the best given by a politician in the debate this week on the legislation.
MPs from across the House say it was the best speech of his parliamentary career.
But for thousands of people on social media, the question was: “Who is this Chris Auchinvole?”
He is a 68-year old West Coast-based list MP for National who, until this week, did not know what “trending” was – until he was told that his speech was a hit on Twitter.
His executive assistance printed off 40 pages of comments from Twitter on the speech and that was only 1 per cent of the feedback, he said. There wasn’t a single negative remark.
“Could you be my grandfather?” “Where have they been hiding him?” and “Chris Auchinvole for Emperor” were some of them.
You can see some of the comments here. It was a great speech, and I’m glad so many people got to see his sense of humour, and also his compassion.
Mr Auchinvole insists he had no position on gay marriage until he sat on the select committee considering Louisa Wall’s bill legalising it.
“Hand on heart. It would be quite wrong to say I have any particular sympathy for any particular group. I don’t think that would be honest.
“I know it’s a funny, old-fashioned way of approaching things but I think you have to go with an open mind and be persuaded by argument. That appeals to my Scottish nature. Even if I felt it were wrong, if it made good sense you have to go with it.”
He said there was a big generational difference in the submissions the select committee received, with generally the older submitters saying definitively, “You cannot do this”, and the younger submitters saying, “Why on Earth can’t you do this?”
Sums it up pretty well. But good to have an MP who listens to the submissions. It is very true that Chris went from luke-warm to ardently in favour on the basis of what he heard. It is a good message to submitters that they can make a difference.
Mr Auchinvole said he was sympathetic to the older submitters because they, like him, were taught that homosexuality was immoral, illegal, and criminal.
“People’s reputations could be lost on the basis that people thought they were homosexual, and I always thought that was an injustice.”
He said that at the boarding school he attended over five years, “we lost boys at school”.
Five of 120 boys committed suicide, invariably in the holidays, because, he believes, they were gay.
“They were good guys, and it was awful. We liked them all.”
The manufacturing sector is expanding at its best rate for a year, as it gets get a boost from the Canterbury rebuild and wider construction work, according to a survey.
The latest BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index was up 1.1 points to 56.3 points in February.
A figure above 50 indicates that the sector is generally expanding and under 50 that it is going backwards.
The latest figure was the highest reading since February 2012.
BNZ senior economist Craig Ebert said the result reinforced the bank’s view that manufacturing was not “in crisis”.
“The figures speak for themselves. The way some people are talking, we should be witnessing a very weak, to plunging, PMI. In fact, it’s improved to a more positive level,” he said.
Evelyn Moody went back to work within seven weeks of each of her three children being born.
She had no choice, she said – having children was an expensive business, and she was the primary earner.
“I went back to work when each of my children were between 6 and 7 weeks old, after collecting every kind of leave I could scrape together,” she told MPs hearing submissions on a bill to extend paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 26.
The present provisions were not enough to keep mothers at home, and an extension would go a long way towards easing the financial burden, she told Parliament’s government administration select committee.
Umm, if she went back to work at seven weeks, then extending paid parental leave from 14 to 26 weeks will not have changed her situation in any way.
She should be arguing for paid parental leave to be at a higher level, rather than for it to be longer.
Once fully implemented, an extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks would cost $145 million a year. That’s money we simply don’t have.
Small businesses that cannot afford to pay their staff a living wage should probably not be in business at all, a union leader says.
First Union general secretary Robert Reid said while the movement supporting a living wage of at least $18.40 an hour was generally targeted at large corporations and city councils, some undercapitalised small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) needed to think about their business practices as well.
“Why should a worker suffer for being employed by a business that maybe shouldn’t exist?
What an appalling statement. It shows the hatred for business that some union leaders have. Small business owners often spend months or years struggling to set up a business when they can’t even pay themselves a salary. And they create jobs for others, but Robert Reid thinks they are making their workers suffer if they pay them less than $18.40 an hour.
Campbell Barbour has lost count of the millions of dollars he has lost in interest payments, legal costs and lost opportunities as he tried to get consent for his company’s “Westgate” town centre in northwest Auckland.
The general manager of New Zealand Retail Property Group is also at the centre of a high-rise apartment project in Milford, on Auckland’s North Shore, to which locals have objected.
While the fate of the Milford apartments rests with Auckland’s debate about intensified housing, Westgate has gained all its approvals and work has begun. But it took seven years, and Barbour is bewildered by that.
It was not a project anyone objected to and, like a lot of developers, he was forced to refinance when the global financial crisis hit. A speedier consent process would have made a “huge” difference.
Seven years to get consented – and with no objections! The case for change is made.
An angler wrote on the Stuff news website that the move was a “power grab coupled with a water grab”, but a self-described greenie with an entrepreneurial streak said it had taken 18 months of jumping through local-body hoops for a consent to build an eco-residential project.
“I’d say National have hit the nail on the head on this one.”
Views on this issue will vary depending on if someone has actually ever tried to get a consent.
On Q+A this Sunday, NZ’s in the midst of a drought so how will it affect you and me and our pockets? We speak to the Finance Minister Bill English, and a climate scientist who says we have to no option but to adapt.
Also on the programme, is New Zealand set to become a world leader in energy? We speak to visiting economic geologist Dr Scott Tinker.
And the Catholic Church has a new Pope, we hear the view of a Kiwi Catholic.
On the panel this week is political scientist Dr Raymond Miller, former Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, and Tower Investments’ CEO Sam Stubbs.
Join host Susan Wood and political editor Corin Dann on Q+A at 9am this Sunday on TV One.
Obesity experts in New Zealand are dismayed at the legal clamp slapped on New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s law to ban super-sized sugary soft drinks in restaurants.
They should have a large soda to drown their sorrows.
His law would have limited cups of sugary soft drinks sold at restaurants, cinemas and other food service establishments to 453ml.
That is approaching close to two standard measuring cups (500ml) and is well short of the large and super-sized sugar drinks sold in New Zealand fast-food shops.
McDonald’s “large” soft drinks contain 651ml and the biggest offering at Wendy’s is around 1200ml, although Wendy’s says it doesn’t sell many of these mega-drinks.
How evil. They must be banned, along with large easter eggs.
Fight the Obesity Epidemic spokeswoman Dr Robyn Toomath said it was a great shame the mayor’s bid to help halt the growth of New Yorkers’ waistlines had been thwarted.
Yes it is a great shame that human beings have been allowed to choose for themselves what size drink they want. We must protect them from themselves.
Taking over as Parliament’s Speaker after Lockwood Smith’s departure for the High Commissioner’s job in London was never going to be easy, no matter whom the Prime Minister hand-picked for the role. …
David Carter, Smith’s replacement, knows his initial months in the job will be judged by how close his management of the House follows the Smith doctrine.
Carter, however, has made it clear that when it comes to improving ministerial accountability, it will be done his way – not Smith’s.
The latter’s tougher stance on ministers’ answers benefited the Opposition. Labour then proceeded to push the boundaries, complaining that just about any reply did not properly answer the question.
Carter has his own solution – to embarrass the minister answering the question by immediately telling the Opposition MP to put the same question again. And again if need be.
This may not seem much of a sanction, but it makes the answering of a question to the Speaker’s satisfaction something of a test of competence. …
The other noticeable change under Carter’s regime is to allow more latitude for interjections and barracking from all sides of the House – an acknowledgment that the chamber is the principal venue for the display of political passion.
Carter also deserves credit for keeping one of Smith’s time-saving innovations – blocking MPs from trying to table documents to make a political point when those papers are freely available elsewhere.
It is still far too early to say how Carter’s tenure will end up rating the in the long list of Speakerships. As far as the Opposition is concerned, the jury is still out.
What is clear is that Carter will apply the same approach he has employed throughout his political career – to quietly and slowly build respect among both political friend and foe for handling things in a commonsense, unfussy, and unspectacular manner.
I haven’t watched question time much in the last month. How do people think Carter is going as Speaker?
After an immensely long labour, Australian Communication Minister Stephen Conroy has produced a media policy mouse with a modest roar. …
It has a number of aspects but let’s deal particularly with some core controversial ones. A “public interest test” would be invoked when mergers or acquisitions threatened to reduce diversity. A Public Interest Media Advocate would make decisions on the basis of the test.
This advocate would also ensure that bodies dealing with media standards, most notably the Australian Press Council, met certain benchmarks for credible and effective self-regulation of print and online media.
Sounds a powerful role this Public Interest Media Advocate.
Whatever one thinks of the content of the policy, its preparation and presentation has been a shambles.
It was due months ago but held up by internal argument. Now minister Conroy has presented a take-it-or-leave-it package that he says must be through Parliament by the end of next week or the Government will drop it. The actual legislation will only be presented today.
That is outrageous, especially on an issue such as this.
The public will put the Government out of its misery in six months time.
Prime Minister John Key this morning released documents detailing Solid Energy’s ambitious expansion plans which would have required capital investment of $2-3 billion a year until 2021 or a total of up to $27 billion.
Key released the papers in response to Labour’s claims he misled the public about Solid Energy approaching his Government about a $1 billion investment to become the “Petrobras” of New Zealand, a request he says his Government turned down.
However, in his appearance before a parliamentary committee yesterday, John Palmer who was Solid Energy’s chair at the time, said while the company made the approach, there was never any expectation the Crown would bear the cost of the required investment and a figure of $1 billion was never mentioned.
I admire the ambition of the Solid Energy directors and staff, but this just shows again how unsuited it is to be owned by the Government.
When you are 100% Government owned, there are only two sources of funds for capital – the Government’s or borrowing. The Government’s contributions can be either direct capital investment or reduced (or no) dividends.
It is simply not possible that the desired expansion could be done purely through borrowing. A Government contribution was absolutely necessary and implicit.
Of course if private shareholdings were allowed, then Solid Energy may have been able to access capital without it coming from the Government. This entire episodes reinforces dramatically for me the undesirability of having these commercial companies state owned.
David Shearer was on The Farming Show and asked about whether he will go along with Winston’s policy to confiscate the shares of people who purchase Mighty River Power shares.
As before, he won’t rule it in or out. How can you fudge a policy of this magnitude?
But the best is yet to come. David Shearer explain why they are unlikely to buy the shares back because the proceeds from asset sales will be spent on schools and hospitals and they couldn’t afford to buy them back.
That’s a stunning implicit admission that the schools and hospitals would not be affordable without the asset sales. He also agrees that spending money from asset sales on irrigation would be money well spent but warns that most of the proceeds will go on schools and hospitals, not irrigation!
You have to listen to it yourself to believe it.
Later on is also a clip with Larry Williams on the car park tax. Now it is obvious to almost everyone that the Government is going to back down on this tax. So you’d think it would be a simple thing to do and say you will abolish it, if it is implemented.
Larry Williams asks him if he would wind it back – the equivalent of an easy pitch. And the answer is “We’ll certainly look at it”.
The audio is embedded above. If that doesn’t work you can listen to them here. It’s great to have the Labour Party Leader talking about how the asset sales will be used to fund schools and hospitals!
It was only last year that NZEI argued schools should ignore the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) requests regarding National Standards. They publicly advocated for an OIA exemption for National Standards data. I am pleased the Education Unions suddenly have a profound new respect for the OIA.
Mr Haig of the PPTA claims the support of Hon Richard Prebble in his assertion that jurisdiction of the Ombudsman should be extended to Partnership Schools | Kura Hourua (PSKH) under the OIA and the Ombudsmen Act 1975 (OA).
Richard Prebble may be retired but fortunately he’s still very much around, so I thought I would ask him. Here is his response to Mr Haig.
“I introduced the first Freedom of Information Bill into Parliament so we could see what the Government was up to. I have never supported the right of the state to spy on private organisations or citizens.”
“While I am at it, I strongly support Partnership Schools. I’m not surprised Maori are welcoming the initiative since the state school system has failed them. The PPTA must also take some of the responsibility. Instead of opposing Partnership Schools, the PPTA should acknowledge that they are most unlikely to be worse than state schools have been for Maori and they are likely to be much better.”
Tom Haig was unwise to cite Richard Prebble to support his case, but the rest of Mr Haig’s arguments are no better.
The decision not to extend the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to PSKH is right both in principle and in practice.
The purpose of the OIA and the OA is to restrain the executive branch of government and other crown entities by providing access to “official” information and providing for an investigatory role over government administrative decisions. Both the OA and OIA were introduced because of the significant power the state can wield over the lives of citizens.
Partnership Schools | Kura Hourua are not subject to the OIA and OA because they are not part of government – they are non-governmental organisations.
Sponsors can be either non-profit or for profit organisations, incorporated or non-incorporated, and might be community or iwi organisations or charitable trusts. They may or may not get all their funding from government, but even if they do, that is not a principled reason for PSKH to be covered by the OIA and OA.
Over 5000 educational organisations receive full or partial funding from government but are not subject to the OIA and OA. Thousands of other organisations providing services to the government are fully or partially publically funded and are not subject to the OIA or OA. The reason is that they are non-governmental organisations.
Somewhat inconsistently, the Ombudsman made it clear to the Select Committee that they were not advocating extending their jurisdiction to the other 5000 educational organisations, only to PSKH.
In an unfortunate analogy, the Ombudsmen said PSKH were like private prisons. In a similar vein Mr Haig conflates compulsory education with compulsory attendance. Both are wrong.
PSKH are not similar to a private management contract of a prison. Prisons, be they public or under a private management contract, are uniquely coercive. Prisoners don’t get a choice of prison and cannot leave at will. Prisoners are there because of the coercive power of the state. That is why the OIA and OA apply and rightly so. But no one will be forced to attend a PSKH, nor teach at one, and all will be free to leave.
The Ombudsmen offered an example of a three year parental dispute with a state school as another argument for the OIA and OA to apply. On the face of it, three years seems a long time to come to a resolution when the education of a child is at stake. Mr Haig’s post outlines a state school dispute invoking the Human Rights Act 1993 (which applies to PSKH). The Ombudsman expressed a further concern over the potential improper use of the statutory power to expel, suspend and stand down a student.
The PSKH model offers significant powers to parents to protect them and their children.
Not only can parents receive meaningful information about their child, the contract provides for an independent review mechanism that every parent can access. This will apply to all disputes including disputes over the use of the power to expel, suspend or stand down a child.
The sponsor will be able to tailor the dispute resolution process to provide for a speedy, efficient and independent way of resolving the dispute that focuses on the particular educational needs of the child. This should provide for a better, more timely mechanism for dispute resolution than the general jurisdiction of the Ombudsmen.
The PSKH model has been designed to be transparent and more accountable.
Detailed reporting against specific, measurable academic , student engagement and other performance goals will be required as part of a PSKH’s contract with the Crown. They will have to publish annual audited accounts. Furthermore, any information held by the Ministry of Education, the Minister and the Authorisation Board will be subject to the OIA and OA, as these entities are part of government. In addition, the Secretary of Education can ask for any additional information over and above that required under the sponsorship contract. PSKH will be scrutinised by both the Education Review Office and the Authorisation Board who will apply a specific evaluation framework. And unlike state schools they can be closed quickly for non-performance.
PSKH have a significantly more rigorous and effective accountability model than state schools. That is why, on balance, the PSKH Working Group considered that subjecting PSKH to compliance obligations and costs under the OIA and OA over and above all their other obligations is unnecessary, would not advance the interests of children, parents or taxpayers and may detract from the vital educational mission of Partnership Schools | Kura Hourua.
NZ Post says its balance sheet will have to wear the $100 million in capital Kiwibank needs to meet its regulatory requirements and replace an ageing banking system.
Testifying before Parliament’s commerce committee today, chairman Sir Michael Cullen said the postal service operator had requested funding from the Government to meet the capital needs of its bank subsidiary, but hadn’t received a definitive answer yet.
The board was operating on the assumption that no further funds would be forthcoming, which is “not surprising in the current situation”, Cullen said.
That meant the state-owned enterprise would have to provide the additional Kiwibank capital, with the lender not yet profitable enough to fund its own capital requirements.
If NZ Post and/or Kiwibank had some private shareholders then they would be able to raise capital without needing taxpayers to borrow money from overseas to fund a competitive risky enterprise.
We should learn the lessons of Solid Energy. Reduce or eliminate the risk to taxpayers.
S42 of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act states:
Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 who, either alone or in combination with others knowingly spends, on advertisements published or broadcast in relation to an indicative referendum petition, more than $50,000
It is clear that Labour, Greens and the unions have spent well over $50,000 in promoting the petition. They have trampled over the intent of the CIR Act which is to stop people or groups from purchasing a referendum. Even worse, they have done it with our money. We see the hypocrisy where they are the ones who demand spending limits on all electoral issues, yet often flout them – remember the $400,000 overspend in 2005.
Whether they have broken the actual CIR Act will depend on what gets classified as an advertisement.
So I’d estimate conservatively they have spent $390,000 of which $225,000 is from the taxpayer.
Now what we don’t know is how much of this could be counted as an advertisement? If the staff collecting signatures were wearing t-shirts promoting the referendum than they could be walking billboards. And I’ve seen a lot of people wearing those t-shirts.
What difference is there between paying for an ad in a newspaper for people to sign the petition and paying someone to wear a t-shirt and harass passerbys to sign a petition?
I suspect a number of lawyers will be taking a very keen interest in the return that the petitioners file, and there could well be complaints to the Police about their possible over-spending.
Sadly though the maximum fine for over-spending is $20,000 so maybe they have just decided to ignore the spending limit and risk a $20,000 fine. time will tell.
What we do know is never before has there been such a massive use of paid (mainly taxpayer funded) staff to purchase a referendum. The four other CIRs have all been genuine grass-roots efforts, with the exception of the Firefighters Union one.
The latest BNZ and Real Estate Institute residential market survey found 9 per cent of house sales were to people offshore.
Of those offshore buyers, 18 per cent were from Britain, 15 per cent from China and 14 per cent from Australia.
Will we hear the parties of the left going on about banning Brits from buying property in New Zealand?
BNZ’s chief economist Tony Alexander said real estate agents reported that at least 69 per cent of British buyers planned to move to New Zealand, while 37 per cent of Chinese buyers and 51 per cent of Australian buyers intended to.
“Taken all up that means at most 5.6 per cent (but perhaps as low as 4 per cent) of all dwelling sales are to people offshore not planning to shift to New Zealand.”
So between 94% and 96% of sales are to people residing in NZ or intending to reside here. How disgraceful that some politicians have tried to blame house prices on the 4%.
“The sprawling anecdotes regarding Auckland properties being snapped up by Chinese buyers are not supported by the evidence,” Alexander said.
While most overseas buyers in Auckland came from China (19 per cent – compared with 18 per cent from Britain), sales of property in our biggest city to Chinese buyers comprised just 2.1 per cent of total sales there.
And just 1.2 per cent of house sales in Auckland were to Chinese buyers not intending to move here.
1.2%. Remember that number the next time the xenophobes try to blame them.
This is the alternative. They honestly seem to believe that you can enrich a country by just printing more money. I thought this lunacy died out with Social Credit.
The only Western countries doing QE are those which have the official cash rate near zero and have run out of other options. No sensible country is advocating printing money in the circumstances NZ is in.
There is a difference between a last resort and a preferred option. As an analogy if someone is dying from blood loss through a severed limb then a tourniquet is your last resort to stop them dying. But if they have just cut their leg open a bit, you don’t apply a tourniquet as your first response because the impact of doing so is very nasty.
In monetary terms, the nasty impact is prices go up and up.
The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has reported back the Local Electoral Amendment Bill. The Bill basically updates the local body election laws to much the same level as the national electoral laws, so that there is greater transparency around donations. Both John Banks and Len Brown didn’t disclose numerous donations last election through (legal) use of anonymous donations (Banks) and laundering them through trusts (Brown).
Beyond the changes in the original bill, they have recommended some further changes:
require that candidate profile statements include whether or not the candidate’s principal place of residence is in the local government area in question
allow electoral officers to publish all election returns
allow prosecutions for up to three years after an offence was committed
Evening light near Mesopotamia station, Rangitata Valley Canterbury. Photography by Todd Sisson
Did you see how I did that? Adjusting this week’s post title to ‘Weekly’ in order to deftly wallpaper over my Wednesday tardiness, all the while retaining my beloved ‘W’ alliteration….
This image was made many moons ago and I have had a bit of fun playing in Adobe Lightroom to enhance the drama in the scene.
Thanks to Davidinnz for pointing out that I was directing you to our website development site over the past few weeks – I have moved a pile of wallpapers to the correct gallery now – sorry about that!
Free Wallpaper Download
You may download the large version of today’s image from this link: Please note the new, shorter, Password = wwp
See you next week – and thanks for all the great comments last week!
Catherine Isaac provides some facts in the NZ Herald:
At the heart of this model of school is a binding, legally enforceable contract with the Crown that will require any organisation seeking to establish a school to meet specific, measurable performance goals including student academic achievement, student engagement indicators and financial, legal, health and safety and organisational performance.
A school unable to demonstrate very clearly how it will attract and retain disadvantaged learners and help them succeed, and how it will engage with their families, will not get through the rigorous authorisation process.
Think if we had that level of transparency and accountability for all schools?
They are a school of choice. No teacher will be forced to teach at one of these schools and no student will be forced to enrol in one. They will receive no more funding than the per-child amount received at a regular state school.
Some people think choice is bad. I think it is very good. And predict there will be a lot of demand in some of our most disadvantaged areas.
International evidence, notably the Credo research cited so often by opponents of Partnership Schools, has produced some conclusive findings. While results vary by state and by school, US charter schools have improved results for all students from low-income backgrounds, minority groups and those with English as a second language. Those with the best legislated models of charter school get consistently good results across the board.
In Sweden, after 21 years’ experience and data from 400 free (charter) schools and millions of students, the results are strong and clear: all students are doing better, achieving better grades and higher rates of participation in tertiary education.
Despite this evidence, some here don’t even want to give them a chance.
Partnership Schools are an opportunity for the teaching profession. The Swedish teacher unions did not oppose the introduction of free schools there, seeing them as providing good professional development opportunities for their members. Subsequent surveys have proven them right.
I wouldn’t hold your breath on expecting a similar view from the local unions here!
The marriage bill has hogged the headlines but worth noting that David Clark’s Mondayisation bill passed its second reading despite being opposed by the Government.
Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori, Mana, United and Brendan Horan were 61 votes in favour and National and ACT 60 votes against.
I’m pleased to see it progress. it is illogical that we Mondayise some holidays but not all of them.
I don’t accept the argument that by placing the public holiday on a Monday, it shifts the focus from the actual day.
Put it like this. If Christmas Day is on a Saturday, the public holiday is on Monday the 27th. Does anyone celebrate Christmas on the 27th or regard that as Christmas Day? Of course not.
There is a legitimate debate you can have about whether 11 paid public holidays a year is too many or too few. But if we have a public holiday, it should occur every year in opinion – not just five out of seven years.
It is also a good thing to occasionally have Parliament able to legislate over the will of Government. This is the benefits of no party having a majority (there are drawbacks also). You don’t want the Government losing votes too often, but it is good for a Government that they have to defeat bills in the House on the basis of the strength of their argument, not on the basis of a vote in caucus.
In the end the arguments against David Clark’s bill are not persuasive and it should also pass into law in April.
In the next decade, the years when it will have an impact are:
2013 – none
2014 – none
2015 – ANZAC Day on a Saturday
2016 – Waitangi Day on a Saturday
2017 – none
2018 – none
2019 – none
2020 -ANZAC Day on a Saturday
2021 – Waitangi Day on a Saturday, ANZAC Day on a Sunday
There is a Hands Off the WOF Facebook group set up by the MTA. They of course want to force people to keep getting six monthly WOFs, despite all the evidence being the costs massively outweigh the benefits. I’m surprised they don;t go the whole hog and advocate weekly WOF checks.
Anyway they posted this week about a worn brake rotor, and said this was proof you needed six monthly WOFs. They said:
This brake rotor has completely worn through one side and separated from the central hub, meaning the owner of this van had been driving around with brakes on one side only stopping his vehicle (the one shown intact in this image).
The van owner only brought it in for a check up because he heard ‘a noise coming from the front’. Aside from the fact that this is a significant component failure, it still had 8 months left on its WoF.
First of all, it actually shows that drivers will get cars checked out when there are problems. But the more important point is made by a commenter:
Anyone with any commonsense is going to look at this wonder how it was allowed to get anywhere near this condition.
It is pretty obvious that the car shouldn’t have got anywhere near getting a clean WOF checks four months earlier. There is no way it goes from okay to the state displayed in four months. I think it actually shows that the current system is no guarantee of safety – it is just a guarantee of revenue.
Tired and delighted that the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill passed its second reading by 77 votes to 44. That means 64% of MPs voted for it and 36% against. Four MPs swapped from yes to no (Brownlee, McCully, Coleman, McKelvie) and Huo went from abstain/absent to a yes (he explains why here).
I expect that the third reading will be by much the same number. Second reading is the stage where normally some people may shift their vote based on what has happened during the select committee process.
So let’s cover the evening from the beginning. I have to say I really love Parliament when it is debating a conscience issue – you get MPs speaking with passion about what they really believe and think, a massive difference from most bill debates which are relatively pro-forma. It really is Parliament at its best.
Due to the unexpected need to debate the Budget Policy Statement, it was far from clear at the beginning of the day if the marriage bill would conclude its second reading. To do so Parliament had to get through question time, the Budget Policy Statement, a third reading, a committee stage, half a second reading and then the marriage bill second reading.
Few people wanted to have the debate cut in half where it starts yesterday and concludes in two weeks, so with some astute MPs taking shorter calls than they could on earlier debates, the marriage bill debate started just after 8 pm.
The gallery was packed. And I mean packed – there was a queue to get in forming around 7 pm, and they ran out of seats so allowed many to just stand at the back of the public galleries. I wasn’t sure how many were supporters and how many were opponents, but noticed that the vast majority were young Kiwis. This is very rare in the gallery, and great to see.
I may have joked that probably all the women there were lesbians or fundamentalist Christians, which reduced my chances of scoring. A lesbian friend consoled me with the thought that there may be some bisexuals there 🙂
There were 12 speakers on the bill. They were in order:
Louisa Wall (Lab) – in favour
Tim Macindoe (Nat) against
Ruth Dyson (Lab) – in favour
Chris Auchinvole (Nat) – in favour
Trevor Mallard (Lab) – in favour
Winston Peters (NZF) – against, sought to send to referendum
Kevin Hague (Green) – in favour
Kanwaljit Bakshi (Nat) – against
Lianne Dalziel (Lab) – in favour
Tau Henare (Nat) – in favour
Jan Logie (Green) – in favour
Chester Borrows (Nat) against
There were two common themes in the speeches. The first was that MPs were generally very respectful of the passionate views on this issue. Those in favour spoke of their desire to respect religious views and the safeguards that had been placed in the bill to help with that. Those against spoke of how touching some of the testimony had been, but what their concerns were with the change. There was, for the main part, no name calling or insinuations about motives. It was a good debate.
The second theme was about how the communications from some of those oppossed to the bill had not helped their cause – and that came from MPs who were against the bill. There was a strong message there.
The draft Hansard is here. I could quote and critique every speech, but will just touch on a couple. Tim Macindoe said:
A common theme of many emails from the bill’s supporters, given that my Christian faith was and remains the main reason for my position, was that ours is a secular society and my faith should be left out of the debate. I understand that view but in matters of conscience one must fall back on firm foundations. To ignore what I perceive to be God’s will in this debate would therefore be unthinkable, even though I acknowledge that not all Christians think as one in this matter and I agree with Glyn Carpenter in the New Zealand Christian Network that Christians must approach this matter graciously and with respect.
It’s good that Tim was explicit that he voted against because he thinks it goes against God’s will. The question for me is whether what some people interpret to be God’s will should be a reason to impose that view through legislation. That is a slippery slope that leads to (for example) sharia law in some countries, based on what their MPs think is God’s will. Until such a time as God speaks for himself on such issues, I can’t agree with laws based on God’s will.
Last year I indicated that a principal reason for my opposition was my concern that Parliament is moving ahead of the churches on this issue.
If Parliament didn’t move ahead of churches on various issues, we’d be in the dark ages. The churches wanted homosexuality to effectively remain a criminal offence. The 1986 law change was well ahead of the churches – yet almost no one today says that law change was wrong.
The best speech of the night was National MP Chris Auchinvole. I’ve embedded the speech below and recommend it highly for a great listen. Just as Paul Hutchison was the stand out of the first reading, Auchie was the stand out of the second reading. Interestingly while generally support for allowing same sex marriage is greater amongst younegr New Zealanders and less so amongst over 60s, it is worth noting Hutch is 65 and Auchie 67.
A couple of quotes:
Although I cannot imagine, if the bill passes, that a particularly large percentage of the population will suddenly take the opportunity to engage in same-gender marriages, I also cannot imagine that any number would make one iota of difference to the 41 years of marriage that my wife and I have enjoyed, or to anybody else’s heterosexual marriage. I cannot see it. I have thought deeply about this and cannot believe that the social impact of the bill would herald the demise and collapse of the wider societal values in New Zealand. I respect the right of those who wish to hold to that view, but I cannot give it currency in coming to a defined position on this bill.
Having a few more married couples in New Zealand will be good for society in my view!
Another grouping held a perception that this is counter to religious views and practices and represents State interference in religious practice, beliefs, and dogma. The select committee listened very carefully and sincerely to the concerns expressed. As someone who had 5 years as a lay minister for the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa / New Zealand and was a member of the council of assembly for the Presbyterian Church, I had a particular interest in this aspect of the discussion. It became clear through listening that the overriding concern is that the clergy and those authorised by religious bodies to conduct marriages would be obliged—indeed, forced—to conduct ceremonies for same-gender couples should the bill be passed.
And the amendments make clear this can not happen.
The third consideration—we have heard it spoken by my colleague and friend Tim Macindoe this evening—is that marriage is an institution: time honoured, never changing, and having the essential components of one man and one woman common to all countries and civilisations throughout the millennia until death do them part.
It ain’t necessarily so. I am privileged to have my wife in the gallery tonight. My wife and I married on 11 March, 41 years ago last Monday, and lived happily ever after. But the question that exercises the upper echelons of ecclesiastic minds in those days was whether or not the bride should take a vow of obedience to her husband. If you are marrying a red-headed West Coast girl from a West Coast aristocratic family, some hope. During that same time, to have children born out of wedlock was a hamper to church marriage, as was a divorce, or indeed wanting to marry someone of a different religion. Banns of marriage were called from pulpits, advising that people were intending marriage, and others were invited to give reasons why that marriage should not proceed or to forever hold their peace. Marriage is not an unchanging institution, and although most of its institutional aspects have been laudable for men, they have often been less than favourable for women.
And other speakers touched on how just a few decades ago some states in the US banned inter-racial marriage.
The last two aspects I wish to touch on are the matter of conscience and the question of family coming first. In terms of conscience, I have given much, much thought to this. I am acquainted with guilt. Being a Presbyterian, one goes through life thinking that one has not worked hard enough, has not done enough, and has not reached the requirement that life’s opportunities offer, and you will always get other members who will tell you that, as one did this evening. To assuage my conscience on this issue, I delved back in my life to the age of understanding, which I think those of Catholic persuasion tell me the Jesuits determine it is at 7 years old, when I was a boy. I looked at catechismic values—learning the catechism by rote in Glasgow: “Who made you? God made me. Why did God make you? God made me to know him and love him.” The third question: “What image did God make you in?” The answer: “God made me in his own image.” Every 7-year-old boy and girl said the same, and believed it was true. They did not have to add: “as long as I conform to being heterosexual, and not to loving anyone of the same gender as myself.” My conscience is very clear on this issue. Every person has the same spiritual claim as one another, to being made in the image of God, and it will take a braver person than I am to deny that.
Wonderfully said.
So, in dealing with the legacy of discriminatory prejudice, and I would not want that to be a deciding feature, I prayerfully ask to be able to internalise and resolve this complicated situation in my head, in my heart, and in my soul.
Heh.
What I learnt from listening to the submissions, colleagues, was that in fact each homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender person appearing before us was not to be seen just as an individual, not to be identified just by gender preference, but in fact seen as a mother’s son or a daughter, and a father’s daughter or son, as siblings to their brothers and sisters, grandchildren to their grandparents, nephews and nieces to their uncles and aunts, and uncles and aunts to their nephews and nieces, and cousins to their cousins. They are all family, along with their heterosexual friends and relations, and all are an integral part of the New Zealand family, and all are part—in my mind, in my heart, and in my conscience—of God’s family. I now realise that this bill seeks to put first something that critics have accused it of undermining, and that isempt to b the family. We as parliamentarians should not simply look past the interests of the applicants for this bill. We should not simply look at their interests. We should, and we must, look after their interests. We should pass this bill.
I’m so glad I was in the House (galleries) for this speech. Television doesn’t do justice to the atmosphere. The sympathetic nods from around the House, the claps and smiles, the laughter, the intense interest. It was again my favourite speech of the night.
One saw this also with the next speech by Winston Peters. As he was calling for a referendum, he railed against “politicians who think they know best” and said “There is nothing more odious, more loathsome, than politicians who think they know best”. What wouldn’t have been captured by cameras is that there was spontaneous laughter from almost the entire public galleries as Winston was railing against politicians who think they know best, as it was self-evident to everyone that Winston is of course the classic politician who always thinks he knows best. The laughter wasn’t deliberate or an attempt to be disrespectful – it was just a spontaneous outbreak as his speech almost became self-parody unwittingly.
Anyway we got to the votes at around 9.45 pm. There were actually three votes. They were:
To accept the select committee report and proposed amendments.
Winston’s amendment to the second reading motion proposing a referendum at the next general election in place of reading the bill a second time.
The motion that the bill be read a second time and proceed
The first vote passed 66 to 21. I think the whips may have been unaware that there are always two distinct votes at second readings and they only had proxy votes to cover the second reading vote but not to cover the accept the select committee report vote.
The amendment by Peters for a referendum went down 33 to 83. It was an interesting quirk of standing orders that while you can not amend a bill at second reading, you can amend the motion for it to pass its second reading.
The final vote was the key one, and the Assistant Speaker announced it passed 77-44. There was a round of applause but fairly muted as the galleries had been warned not to participate in the business of the House. However once the House was adjourned the entire public galleries rose spontaneously to give a sustained standing ovation to the House and MPs. It was quite electric, and I suddenly realised as I looked around the galleries that I think every single person there was in fact a supporter of the bill as they were all standing and applauding.
Afterwards had a great time celebrating, which David Cunliffe had fun facebooking photos of 🙂
Got to sleep around 2.30 am. Will finish this post with a quote from Chester Borrows who in fact voted against the bill. But he made a good point:
As a Christian—a conservative Christian—I find it abhorrent the way that Christians have entered into this debate, and the threatening nature with which they have emailed colleagues. I know of colleagues who have set out thinking they will vote against this bill and who have changed their mind because of the way they have been treated by Christians, supposedly worshipping in their daily lives and witness a loving God. If they profess to worship that God, then it is a different God whom I worship and whom I believe in, because they have shown nothing of that love—that all-encompassing love—in the way that they have conducted themselves in this debate. It is unfortunate that in every debate where fundamentalist Christians get involved in lobbying one side or another, they always bring out the worst, and seek to have those people who do not hold to our faith shove us into a pigeon-hole that would brand us all in the same way. I think that is a despicable way for people of faith to behave.
I know a number of MPs whose support for the bill was lukewarm, but they became more staunch in support of the bill due to some of the appalling e-mails they got from some opponents.
