Parliamentary Report
reading debate on 26 August that “fundamentally, [the Bill] is about renewing the New Zealand Police mandate to protect life and property, to maintain law and order, to pre- vent and detect crime, to min- imize crashes, and to prose- cute offenders”. On the day before the third
reading,Ms King made a minis- terial statement regarding the Police Commissioner’s “deci- sion in principle to deploy the tasers as part of New
the availability of their books in New Zealand libraries. In the Bill’s third reading Mr Darien Fenton (Labour) spoke of “the real importance of the literary scene in New Zealand…and how generous authors are in sharing that through libraries”. Hon. Judith Tizard, Asso- ciate Minister for Arts, Cul- ture, explained that in 1973 “New Zealand was the first English-speaking country in the world to introduce a scheme to compensate authors for the use of their works in libraries”.
The Bill disestablishes the Hon. Judith Tizard
Zealand’s police tactical options framework.” In the third reading debate Members from the Green Party and the Maori Party spoke out against that decision, Mr Keith Locke (Green) stating that “tasers have been declared by the United Nations Commit- tee Against Torture to be instruments of torture”. Although National disagreed with the inclusion in the Bill of a clause preventing police offi- cers from becoming local body councillors, the Bill’s third read- ing was supported by all parties except the Maori Party, and Maori Party Member Ms Hone Harawira, who cited “the hurt and the pain inflicted by the forces of the state upon Maori”.
PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT FOR NEW ZEALAND AUTHORS BILL The Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill, supported by all parties, estab- lishes a new scheme to pro- vide New Zealand authors with monetary recognition of
New Zealand Authors’ Fund, creates clearer policy objec- tives and definitions, and trans- forms the payment for authors from an expectation to a right. Much of the detail will be determined by regulations, made in consultation with an advisory committee that includes representatives of organisations of authors and librarians.
HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION On 2 September, in moving the third readings of the Dis- ability (United Nations Con- vention on the Rights of Per- sons with Disabilities) Bill and the Human Rights Amendment Bill (No. 2), Hon. Ruth Dyson, Minister for Disability Issues, noted that legislation would “enable New Zealand to ratify the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”, and explained that “…the role of disabled people in actually developing the convention was not only a reflection of the principles of the Disability Strategy but also a role model, and it changed the way the United Nations operated”. Ms Bar- bara Stewart
(New
Zealand First) highlighted international recognition of New Zealand’s role, in its receiving the Franklin Delano Roosevelt International Dis- ability Award. Dr Paul
Hutchison (National)
observed that until the con- vention was introduced, there was no explicit recog- nition of the rights of people with disabilities in interna- tional treaties.
Ms Dyson said that the Bill sought to replace the auto- matic disqualification of peo- ple with a mental illness from certain public and fiduciary offices, or their being subject to a compulsory treatment order: “Instead the Bill pro- poses amendments that will ensure that a person’s capacity to perform a role or a func- tion is able to be individually assessed.” It also clarifies the provision of reasonable accommodation under the Human Rights Act in areas where it is uncertain.
VALEDICTORIES A number of retiring MPs gave their valedictory speeches on the last two days of the 48th Parliament on 24 and 25 Sep- tember. Hon. Katherine Rich (National) described being an MP as “not a job;it is a life.Polit- ical service is all-consuming,and the New Zealand public deserves nothing less. I have taken a Ralph Waldo Emerson approach to politics and always thought that if even one life is breathed easier as a result of the work we have done, then that is success”. Hon. Steve Maharey (Labour) listed some chal- lenges for governments in the future:“We do not need a ref- erendum on MMP, but the political process should be constantly reformed to ensure the meaningful involvement of the New Zealand people in decision
making.New commu- nications technology offers the best opportunity yet to include as many people as pos- sible, and it should be taken”. Mr Maharey referred also to “the nation-building challenge. New Zealand in the 21st cen- tury is the home of many dif- ferent communities.We need to consciously lay the founda-
tions for a diverse autonomous Pacific nation that is unified by a sense of what we have in common.We need a written constitution and a timetable for when we will become a republic”. For Hon. Marian Hobbs,
Labour, “positive memories” were “tempered by my con- cerns about the role of the media in democracy”. She added that “the trivialization of decision-making in society…modern news media do not evaluate our decisions in the light of which policy is best. Instead, they build a web around personalities and behaviours. By focusing on the shallow world of perception, we can afford not to analyse the different policies or choic- es. In fact,we can do away with policies altogether”. Mr Tim Barnett (Labour)
said: “When I was elected in 1996 I was the only openly gay Member of Parliament, and I was labelled by the Evening Post as ‘Parliament’s gay Pom’, as though every institution needed one. Now I am one of a good half-dozen rainbow MPs
here.Thankfully, being gay or lesbian will never be irrele- vant; the journeys of self-dis- covery and public advance- ment that we travel give us special insights and strengths.” Hon. Margaret Wilson (Labour), the outgoing Speak- er, said:“I am frequently asked this question: how can the Speaker be independent and a Member of a party? The ques- tion is normally raised in the context of question time. I long ago realized that the Speaker is seen as fair and impartial if he or she agrees with the Member who has raised the point of order— which is usually, of course, not a point of order. Like any ref- eree, I agree that one cannot win but must do the best one can. I should be grateful, how- ever, as we all should be, that we are the beneficiaries of such an accountable, demo- cratic Parliament.”
The Parliamentarian 2008/Issue Four 367
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92