Getting effective pragmatic results
There is often talk from some of the other parties in Parliament about how they are effective, stable or pragmatic compared to the Greens.  So, let’s do a quick analysis of what legislative change each party has achieved in the last term. Getting a bill through parliament is hard work when you are not in government - it takes the support of at least two other parties to make it happen so it requires the ability to build a democratic coalition, negotiate and put forward sensible pragmatic solutions to problems. Only three private members bills have passed this term. 30 have not made it past a third reading:
Act
- Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill (Hide) - defeated
- Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill (Hide) - defeated
- New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Enhancement of Competition) Amendment Bill (Roy) - defeated
- Sex Offenders Registry Bill (Hide) - discharged.
- Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill (Hide) - defeated            Â
Greens
- Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill (Kedgley) - defeated
- Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill (Fitzsimons) - defeated
- Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill (Bradford) - passed
- Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill (Kedgley) - passed
- Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill (Bradford) - passed
Also, it is likely that two more Green bills will pass before the end of the parliamentary term (making five in total):
- Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill (Bradford)
- Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill (Tanczos)
Labour
- Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill (Yates) - discharged.
- Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill (Beyer) - discharged
- Legal Services (Territorial Customary Rights) Amendment
- Bill (Jones) - discharged
- Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill (Street) - discharged.
- Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill (Gallagher) - defeated
- Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill (Chadwick) -Â Â defeated
Maori
- No Members’ Bills defeated, discharged or passed yet.
National
- Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill (Smith) - defeated
- Dog Control (Epilepsy Assist Dogs) Amendment Bill (Goudie) - discharged
- Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill (Dean) - defeated
- Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill (Brownlee) - defeated
- Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill (Mapp) - defeated
- Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill (Blue) - defeated
- Kerikeri National Trust Bill (Carter) - defeated
- Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill (Power) - discharged
- Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill (Ryall) - defeated
- Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill (Blue) - defeated
- Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill (Smith) - defeated
- Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill (Wilkinson) - defeated
New Zealand First
- Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill (Stewart) - defeated
- Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill (Woolerton) - defeated
Progressive
- No Member’s Bills defeated, discharged or passed yet.
United Future (and Gordon Copeland)
- Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill (Copeland) - defeated
- New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill (Copeland) - defeated
- New Zealand Day Bill (Turner) - defeated
November 28th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Consumer’s Right to Know NOT GREEN, only slightly useful bill to ever be introduced by SK
Dog Control NOT GREEN
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill (Bradford) NOT GREEN
Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill (Kedgley) NOT GREEN, counterproductive
Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill (Bradford) NOT GREEN
Also, it is likely that two more Green bills will pass before the end of the parliamentary term (making five in total):
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill (Bradford) NOT GREEN stick it to the victims of crime bill
Marching with people who scare hunters out of the native bush with guns and bombs - NOT GREEN!!!!
Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill (Tanczos) GREEN, great, fantastic, finally someone tackling a real NZ issue - brilliant. Nandor is certainly coming up in my estimations. Why don’t the greens turf the others, get Nandor to give up on dope, support hard working business people as well as hard working wage earners and then really talk turkey with middle NZ? Can we still make submissions?
Priceless
November 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Where is the bill banning caged animal farming?
November 28th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Shows the real green agenda doesnt it; clamp down on employers and families.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
or is that supporting workers rights..?
and the rights of children not to be bashed..?
(agenda-perspectives..eh..?..nick c..?..)
and whereas you’d see national as ’supporting freedoms..and ‘the small business-person etc..
others see them as (corrupt)/buyable/lying ‘hollow-people’..
it’s all a matter of perspective..eh nick c..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Kevin - I suspect the charter excuse may be trotted out soon. i.e. it is “green” if it complies with the charter, as opposed to “green” meaning environmental. I also suspect this blurring is deliberate, if somewhat disingenuous.
From my reading, the charter could mean anything. It is very loosely worded.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Poor old Kevin.
He defines what ‘green’ is and then accuses the Green Party of not living up to Kevin’s definition! The Green Party is very clear that human society is a very important part of the ecosystem, and it is not possible to preserve the latter without justice in the former!
BluePeter s correct in that it comes back to the charter.
BluePeter is wrong to suggest “the charter could mean anything”.
Quite obviously.
W
November 28th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Kevin: “NOT GREEN”
It is entirely right and proper that the Green Party should have a position on all aspects of human society, not just a narrow focus on environmental issues.
If we did have a narrow focus on environmental issues only then you would be slagging us off for being a single issue party.
P.S. Maybe you are all just jealous because the private members bill’s submitted by your parties have all failed. Nyah Nyah Nyah!
November 28th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Stuey
Have you seen the latest poll?, Kevin is right.
The Greens could have a real impact as a GREEN party, the hard left socialist rubbish is what turns the voters off.
You must realize that there are thousands of people like me who are looking for a reason to vote Green (I admit that in my case it is a single issue cause) but this insistence on accepting the “whole package” is what turns us off.
Dump the socialist stuff, forget trying to legalize dope and concentrate on Green issues, if you did that you would have at least 15-20 MP’s.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
bliss
The Charter is loosely worded. It can mean anything and nothing.
>>human beings are part of the natural world
Is there anyone arguing otherwise?
>>unlimited material growth is impossible
Is there anyone arguing otherwise?
>>decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected
Uh-huh. Those affected by the smacking bill didn’t get much of a say in the decision.
>>just distribution of social and natural resources
Define “just”.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
BB - the bill banning caged farming has yet to be drawn from the ballot. Incidentally that particular bill, which seems to be the only Green Party bill we both agree on, could be argued not to be “green” either. Although factory pig farming has a shocking effect on the environment, the bill is based more on prevention of cruelty to animals than environmental concerns.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
BluePeter
I am a student of economics (formally studying finance) so your comments make me laugh and cry.
>>unlimited material growth is impossible
Is there anyone arguing otherwise?
In economics departments, oh yes they do! There is a “theory” that technology trumps material limits. When we study history coal took us past wood, oil past coal, and the theory goes, nuclear takes us past coal. Of course this completely ignores carrying capacity…. But the idea that there are hard material limits to economic growth is a minority opinion in economics departments to this day. That is one of the things that drove me off to finance.
You cannot make it mean that unlimited economic growth is possible and desirable. Hence you cannot make the charter mean anything. Proved.
And another thing…..
>>decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected
Uh-huh. Those affected by the smacking bill didn’t get much of a say in the decision.
Those effected being… Children!
>>just distribution of social and natural resources
Define “just�.
You cannot make that mean monopolistic capitalists getting full access to resources and the working poor made to live on the bones of their arses short and pain fulled lives.
So your contention that the charter can mean anything is plainly false.
peace
W
November 28th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
It depends how we define “unlimited”. I take the phrase to mean “infinite”.
I can see the point the theorists are making i.e. material limits are constantly being redefined by emerging technology. So, if we invent a matter transporter, the limit imposed by moving physical forms from one place to another no longer applies?
>>Those effected being… Children!
That is only one way to look at it - which is my point. The children did not make the decision. The parents did not make the decision. A few people in Wellington made the decision, and whipped others to do likewise.
The referendum on this issue may be closer to the spirit of the charter.
>>made to live on the bones of their arses short and pain fulled lives
An extreme definition. Perhaps the capitalist is most capable at exploiting resources, and can provide more because of this ability. The Gates Foundation springs to mind. A lesser skilled person may squander that resource. See virtually every communist state.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Thanks for the list.
It is quite an education for those of us who harbour the belief (hope?) that Parliament (and MMP) can find a reasonable balance. I find it quite scary that the Greens’ bills alone were the successful ones.
I think maybe this indicates that the two main parties are able to effectively cancel each other out, leaving the Greens to fight successfully for irrelevancies.
Perhaps Parliament can never truly find a pragmatic balance until party politics is outlawed and each MP votes independently according to the views of their respective electorates.
This list does effectively demonstrate that the Greens have mastered the parliamentary system. Congratulations to them for that. However I wish that mastery had been accompanied by a focus on the things that I personally consider important.
Let me hazard a prediction … as a result of the success of these sideshow policies it is likely that a significant number of voters will become rather frustrated that our politicians are fiddling while Rome burns, and turn their backs on the Labour/Greens alliance.
Sadly that will give the balance of power to the old National Party tiger, and the wonderful opportunities the Greens have had over the last term will have been squandered.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
“Uh-huh. Those affected by the smacking bill didn’t get much of a say in the decision.
Those effected being… Children! ”
Children grow up, can look back and decide for themselves whether the actions their parents took were appropriate or not. They have and 80% didn’t agree with you (and still don’t).
“>>just distribution of social and natural resources”
That’s a goal but the Greens need to show a lot more than just “we know how and we know what”
The Green Party tries to present itself as one thing but behaves like something else
November 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Here’s some reading from Keith Locke’s “Just Peace”. It is relevant as it demonstrates the contentious nature of:
“>>just distribution of social and natural resources”
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/klein
November 28th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
You forgot the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, which was passed, but only after being adopted as a government bill.
Also, its worth noting that several of the National party’s bills, while defeated, have produced the desired outcomes - notably the Dog Control (Epilepsy Assist Dogs) Amendment Bill (which was basically incorporated into an existing government bill) and Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill (which saw an Order In Council to add DHBsNZ to the schedule of the Ombudsmen’s Act, and hence the OIA).
That said, the Greens have worked hard, chosen their issues carefully, built coalitions, and taken full advantage of MMP politics. And they should be congratulated for it.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Bliss, I don’t think “unlimited material growth is impossible” is the same thing as “unlimited economic growth is impossible”. Unlimited economic growth is possible even within the current definition of economic activity. It would become even more so by redefining economic activity to include the value of all those things we don’t actually pay for, such as sunlight and summer breezes. Spending money “unproductively” on re-establishing a wetland or a podocarp forest is economic activity. Insulating your house or installing solar hot water is economic activity. None of these things will reduce your income thus they will not reduce your ability to keep money circulating through the economy.
The only way to really have an adverse impact on the economy is to keep your money in your matress instead of in the bank (the bank will keep your money circulating and charge you for this “community service”). Even trading down to a less stressfull and more rewarding job wont hurt the economy because there will always somebody to take up your old job.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:29 am
I/S - trust you to add clarity and detail to my rather over-simplified point. Yes, you are right and you could also legitimately argue that National’s defeated Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill was a success. Worth adding to that the Greens got their achievements while not supporting the government on C&S.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Effective and pragmatic - we never doubted it.
Obviously the Nats and their supporters are GREEN with jealousy that their attempts in the House are ineffective and a waste of taxpayers money.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“Their attempts in the House are ineffective and a waste of taxpayers money.”
The Nats may not pass many bills, but they are able to effectivly hold the government to account.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
yes I would argue that the opposition parties do restrain the govt, but only because the govt are a bunch of focus-group and opinion poll driven cowards with no courage of their convictions.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I guess I see this differently. I see the Greens as starting something they can’t finish and, if they’re lucky, one of the mainstream parties finishes it for them.
# Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill (Bradford)
- National invented the bodge where the defence goes away and gets replaced by the police discretion
- won’t it be fun when some lawyer asks for a judicial review
# Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill (Kedgley)
- don’t know about this one
# Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill (Bradford)
- ?Labour? invented the 200 hours thing, so it only mostly removes the discrimination
- I’m guessing small employers will decide measuring the 200 hours is a prohibitive compliance cost