In August next year there will be a referendum on smacking. But I wonder if the whole issue won’t simply fade away.

It is to be a non-binding referendum – which means there is no obligation on politicians to heed it – and the legislative amendments that provoked it were passed in Parliament by a whopping 113 to 7 votes.

Even though a government has changed there is little to indicate an appetite for turning back this particular clock.

After all, we were told at the time it was new Prime Minister John Key’s statesman-like, compromise-brokering intervention that saw the Bill passed into law; although during the campaign we had, as at least one wit pointed out, the spectacle of both Helen Clark and Mr Key claiming credit for one of the most “unpopular” pieces of legislation in years.

How can there be such cavernous disconnect between the supposed will of the people and the elected representatives? How can a law which is trumpeted by its adversaries to be opposed by a good 80% or so of the people be supported and passed into the statute book by 95% of our elected representatives? It’s quite simple: first, what the law is intended to do and what the law has been vociferously promoted as doing are entirely different; second, the referendum question is framed to favour the latter; third, writing sensible law is a complex business ill-suited to referendums – a reality that MPs who sit on select committees know only too well. [Italics mine - Ana]

As much as many of our louder public lobbyists would like us to believe otherwise, the business of government and creating legislation is not quite as simple as answering a question “yes” or “no”.

We are, of course, talking about the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007; that is, the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, which had previously permitted parental prerogative as a defence in the assault of children.

The amendment took away that defence, but it also made clear that no parent would be victimised for insignificant or minor infringements.

This has largely proved the case.

But that is not how the debate was framed by well-organised opponents and, in some cases, a compliant media which bought into the language of the lobbyists and thus, to a certain extent, their argument.

It became popularly known as the “anti-smacking Bill” and was framed as an invasion of individual rights and an unwarranted attack on the freedom to raise a family as one might choose.

It was the State entering the living-room, or the bedroom or the bathroom, or whichever other room where “smacking” is duly administered.

So, that’s what the 300,000 or so people against the anti-smacking law have signed up to.

The actual question on the referendum sheet reads: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” But the politicians won’t buy that.

They know only too well that it could equally have been framed, and would have been had the real intent of the law been reflected, as something like: “Should it be legal in New Zealand for parents to assault children?” Which is just a tiny bit different.

The section 59 amendment represented a rallying point for a group of well-organised and well-funded social conservatives cohering round such organisations as Family First, For the Sake of our Children, and the Sensible Sentencing Trust, and their parliamentary proxy, Act New Zealand.

Offended by other progressive legislation including attempts to clean up prostitution law, and the introduction of civil unions, the “anti-smacking” law became a beach-head in an all-out attempt to unseat the Labour-led Government.

Now that it has gone, at least some of the wind will have been taken from the sails of these determined blowhards.

It is early days for the new Administration, but its economic policies will most likely swing back to a more business-oriented, neoliberalist line, while its social policies, with the probable exceptions of crime and punishment, will remain relatively easygoing.

National and its strategists are looking to be in government for the long haul and if there is one lesson they will take from Labour’s demise, it is the danger of fighting unnecessary battles.

They have enough on their plates, and in the face of international trends, and New Zealand’s unenviable record on domestic violence and child abuse, my guess is that the National-led Government will politely ignore whatever result the referendum throws up.

Mr Key will not want to be stigmatised as the Prime Minister who made it legal to beat defenceless children.

• Simon Cunliffe is assistant editor at the Otago Daily Times.

Employment Relations Amendment Bill
Hone Harawira: Spokesman on Employment
Maori Party Member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau
Thursday 11 December 2008; 2pm

“Eight years ago, Professor Jane Kelsey wrote a book called Reclaiming the Future in which she talked about what happened to Maori during the last recession of the late 80’s; a book which should be required reading for all Members of Parliament, as Aotearoa stares down the barrel of another recession.

And in that book, Jane Kelsey reminds us that until 1987, per head of population, there were actually more Maori working than non-Maori. And that’s just 21 years ago.

And yet the way the media paints it Maori have been basically unemployed, lazy, dole bludgers ever since Pakeha came to these shores.

Strange how much we are influenced by the media isn’t it?

But the fact remains, that just 21 years ago, there were more Maori working than Pakeha, our families were stable, our kids were healthy and crime was down.

And then of course, the crash hit, the world came crashing in on us, and in just six years, Maori unemployment went from 1% to 15%, nearly half of all 16-19 Maori ended up on the dole, and our whole world fell apart.

And now Mr Speaker, it seems we’re heading right down that same track, but that this time we’re starting from a place far worse than 21 years ago because Maori unemployment is already more than twice that of non-Maori, there are four times more Maori beneficiaries than non-Maori, and Maori society has still not fully overcome the devastating effects of the crash of 1987.

And even after nine years of great prosperity, the gaps between the rich and the poor were never closed because Labour chose to close the programme rather than close the gap.”

Marking 60 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, New Zealand’s Catholic Bishops have called on the government to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007.

One hundred and forty-three nations voted in favour of the indigenous rights Declaration, but New Zealand remains one of only three nations continuing to oppose it, alongside the United States and Canada. Australia voted against the original resolution, but has since indicated its support.

In a statement for Human Rights Day on December 10, the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference says New Zealand must better recognise and respect the human rights of the 370 million members of the human family who are indigenous peoples. These first inhabitants of nations have been subject to centuries of dispossession and violence…. Our own nation of Aotearoa New Zealand of course shares that history and we must be part of the work of reconciliation and restoration.

The Bishops say the indigenous rights Declaration applies universally recognised human rights to the particular situations of indigenous peoples. By opposing it, New Zealand representatives “allowed domestic politics to override our country’s usually principled stand on human rights issues.

While some New Zealanders may see the Declaration as primarily or only a Maori issue, the Bishops draw on the universal experience of the Church, saying it is important to recognise the rights of indigenous peoples throughout our region and the world.

We call on the government to enhance our country’s proud record of leadership in human rights by supporting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they say.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
A Statement from the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference 10 December 2008

“The Church will support the cause of all indigenous peoples who seek a just and equitable recognition of their identity and their rights.” (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in Oceania, 2001)

Today we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, a day Pope John Paul II called a “true milestone on the path of humanity’s moral progress”. The recognition of human rights in the Declaration followed the horrors of World War II.

Catholic respect for human rights is based on the understanding that all rights and responsibilities are founded in the dignity that belongs to every human being because we are created by God. We acknowledge that human rights can only be recognised, they cannot be conferred or taken away. They are inherent in our nature as God’s creation.

Much progress has been made in the past 60 years towards respecting human rights, but there are still many areas of work that need to be undertaken.

One remains the need to better recognise and respect the human rights of the 370 million members of the human family who are indigenous peoples – the first inhabitants of nations. Internationally, this group has been subject to centuries of dispossession and violence, still reflected in their disadvantaged position in many societies of the world. Our own nation of Aotearoa New Zealand of course shares that history and we must be part of the work of reconciliation and restoration.

The Church may have initially been slow to recognise the injustices caused to indigenous peoples as part of colonisation, but Catholic social teaching on the rights of indigenous people is now clear and unequivocal. Ecclesia in Oceania, specifically written for our region, asked for forgiveness for times the Church had been a party to injustices done to indigenous peoples in Oceania, and expressed the support of the regional Bishops for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In statements on the Treaty of Waitangi (1990 and 1995) and Indigenous Peoples (1993), we have affirmed the Church’s commitment to work to resolve historic injustices and to reconcile peoples.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September last year. This is a particular application of universally recognised human rights to the situations of indigenous peoples.

New Zealand is one of four settler nations who voted against the adoption of the Declaration. Alongside the United States, Canada and Australia – countries with very similar colonial histories to our own – our representatives allowed domestic politics to override our country?s usually principled stand on human rights issues.

There may be a temptation for members of the Church in New Zealand to see this primarily or only as a Maori issue. However, the experience of the Church is universal, and through the work of New Zealand Church agencies – from the international development work of Caritas, to the volunteer service of Mahitahi, to the experience of those in Mission outreach – we have personal experience of the importance of recognising the rights of indigenous peoples throughout our region and the world.

On this day of celebrating the 60th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, we call on the government to enhance our country’s proud record of leadership in human rights by supporting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

• Denis Browne, Bishop of Hamilton, President, NZCBC
• John Dew, Archbishop of Wellington, Secretary, NZCBC
• Colin Campbell, Bishop of Dunedin
• Peter Cullinane, Bishop of Palmerston North
• Patrick Dunn, Bishop of Auckland
• Barry Jones, Bishop of Christchurch
• Robin Leamy, Bishop Assistant in Auckland

Take a look at this video, taken in Welly last month. There are heaps of reasons people go diving – protest at the amount of good food wasted in a world where many still starve, protest against our culture of aesthetic perfection, to save money on food, and heaps of other motivations. These guys are awesome, because they calculate the money they save by diving each week, and what they save is donated to a development project in Burma.

If anyone’s inspired to dive, a few things to keep in mind:

- Leave the area tidier than you found it – if you get caught, insist on tidying up really well before you leave

- If you get asked to leave, be polite and do so

- If you have to climb a fence to get to the skip, it’s against the law to go in

- If diving gets publicity, supermarket owners tend to start locking skips, so keep it on the low (although making people aware of the wastefulness of our current system is important – guess it’s a question of finding a balance…)

Finally, to do your bit to stop stuff being thrown away, when you’re shopping pick the dented can, the imperfect apple and the bag of pasta with a wee hole in it!

It’d also be cool to hear below of other people’s experiences /  reactions to dumpster diving…???

In Wellington there’s a Climate Action festival to mark the day, with live music, games, food, stalls and more.

An event that sounds great fun is Frocks on Bikes, so Wellington ladies (and guys), get your frocks on and meet at Waitangi Park at 3.30pm to do a mass bike ride round the waterfront and city. The same event is happening in Auckland as well, check out details at www.frocksonbikes.org Should be a good time!

Wellington seems to be the main hub of activities, but if anyone out there knows of other events happening around Aotearoa, please post below in comments = )

Car travel has become cheaper and cheaper in the UK over the past few decades, so no wonder road transport is keeps rising. I wonder what comparable stats for NZ are. Similar, I would imagine. Any transport gurus out there have stats on this?

• Father Peter Murnane, Dominican Friar, ‘A time to keep laws and a time to disobey them: civil disobedience and civil resistance in the age of private and government terrorism’
• Dr Chris Marshall, Religious Studies Department, Victoria University, ‘Biblical perspectives on anger and violence’
• Dr Nicola Hoggard-Creegan, Laidlaw College, ‘A theological critique of the Seville, and UNESCO-adopted, Statement on Violence’.

All Saints’ Lounge, 284 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby, Auckland
Registration is $20, includes lunch, morning and afternoon tea

Registration: Please register by Monday, 17 November, with Chris Barfoot, email barfoots@xtra.co.nz or tel (09) 575 6142.

Arranged by the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship. A printable poster for this event is available http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/apf/apf221108.pdf

More information about the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship is at http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/apf

Maori Party press release:
Hon Tariana Turia and Dr Pita Sharples, Co-leaders

Preliminary electorate results indicating a 55% voter turnout in the Maori seats should concern every New Zealander says the Maori Party.

“Voter turnout rates indicate the confidence citizens have with the political process and political institutions,” said Dr Sharples, Co-leader of the Maori Party.  “There are clearly challenges ahead for Parliament, to increase the confidence of Maori that participation in the democratic process is worthwhile.”

“While we realise there may be some changes to the overall numbers once the special votes are in on 22 November, the low turnout in the Maori electorates on Saturday should worry us all,” said Dr Sharples.

“In 2005, the turnout across the seven Maori electorates varied from 62.05% (Tamaki Makaurau) to 69.79% (Tai Tokerau)” said Dr Sharples. “This year, there was a significant drop right across the range, with the lowest turnout being in Tamaki Makaurau (50.27%) and even the highest in Waiariki (56.14%) was still well below the national average turnout of 78%.”

“The fact that only half of Maori voters exercise the right to vote is an indication that something is terribly wrong with our democracy,” said Mrs Turia. “As a nation, we must address the huge issues around Maori electoral participation.”

“Our party, worked solidly to spread the word about enrolling and voting, to ‘rock the vote’ through door-knocking, phone-calling, viral texting, flag-flying, pamphlet-drops, bebo, you-tube and website advertising,” said Mrs Turia.

“We tried our best to encourage voting to become a whanau habit, to build interest in politics, and to arrest the downwards trend,” said Mrs Turia.

“And yet, when we came face to face with some of the poverty-stricken communities across our electorate, we saw how seriously alienated and disenfranchised many whanau have become. It is an enormous task to bring hope to communities, that casting a vote will make a difference in their lives.”

“We are also aware that we are only five out of 122 Members of Parliament. We will certainly be encouraging our 117 colleagues to consider what they can do to bring confidence to tangata whenua that politics is of value to them”.

“We are keen to encourage this debate across all parties, and have already raised our concerns with the Prime Minister Elect,” said Mrs Turia.  “We believe the new inclusive approach that Mr Key is speaking of, must address the low turnout of Maori voters, as a matter of national concern”.

The King of Bhutan – The prince who brought satellite TV to Shangri-La

It reminded me of a book I read a while back called “Remotely Controlled” by Dr Aric Sigman which explores the social, psychological, health and cultural impacts of TV – a must-read to understanding our crazy western society and its export throughout the world through the medium of television. I can’t find any review that does the brilliance of this book justice, but the closest I could find was this one.

The king of Bhutan dreamed of hauling his remote realm into the 21st century, so now it has crime and corruption and 46 channels, and a steeply declining Gross National Happiness

Bhutan had no schools, hospitals, roads, currency, electricity, police, courts, nor, until the 1960s, diplomatic relations with any other country. Yak-rearing was the main occupation, an ancient form of archery the main sport. Thus, serenely unbothered by the world beyond the kingdom’s borders, the population basked in what Professor Robert Thurman, of New York’s Columbia University, one of the few western authorities on the country, calls “a state of enduring spiritual contentment”.

With the new king’s eagerness to modernise Bhutan, things are rapidly changing, and in recent years Bhutan has embarked on a fast and furious programme of modernisation. And this is where the current problems began.

The first event to shake the kingdom out of its millennial slumber was the arrival of television. Most Bhutanis seemed perfectly content to be living in the last country on earth where the box was banned (along with Coca-Cola and high-heeled shoes), but then a round-the-clock satellite service of 46 channels – most provided by Rupert Murdoch’s racy, Asian-based Star network – was launched.

The extent of TV’s responsibility for the damaging social changes that followed is still hotly debated. Crime, vandalism and anti-social behaviour – the blight of many advanced societies, but barely known in Bhutan – started to become commonplace. Local communes, once models of rectitude and scruple, reported a sudden wave of corruption cases, while parents and teachers noticed that children were becoming alienated, contemptuous of discipline and obsessed with western pop culture. An editorial in the country’s national newspaper, Kuensel, despaired of what was happening: “We are seeing, for the first time, broken families, school dropouts, and other negative youth crimes. We are beginning to see crime associated with drug users all over the world – shoplifting, burglary and violence.”

With Bhutan’s loss of innocence came – largely at Jigme’s urging – the abandonment of the absolute monarchy, to be replaced by an elected assembly, and the embrace of the modern world. “We no longer live in a small hidden kingdom,” he declared three years ago. “We are very much a part of this new globalised world. At the end of the day, what it will always come down to is – how can Bhutan stand on her own feet? How can we make a good living? What can Bhutan sell that the world wants to buy? How can Bhutan compete with other nations as equals? We are not competing with each other, we must compete with the rest of the world. It is no longer enough to say, ‘I am the best in Bhutan’ – you have to be the best wherever you go in the world.”

Awesome, and thank goodness McCain / Palin didn’t get in!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/uselections20084