The Fund’s stake in Hong Kong-based property development company Sun Hung Kai is the tenth biggest investment the Fund’s made in an international company, according to their December performance report.

Is China the next big property bubble on the brink of collapse?

The Chinese Government has spent much of its massive export revenues on building brand new cities. Trouble is, not many Chinese people can afford the prices of new apartments and some of the cities have become ghost cities — their emptiness visible on Google Earth.

If you find the satellite images interesting, this SBS Dateline report (Australian TV) takes you there on the ground and leaves you wondering how all this building activity could possibly end well.

Russel

A transcript is here for those who cannot access the video.

I think the most interesting part that Paul Matthews hits on is that by signing the TPPA, New Zealand law could be overridden.

New Zealand recently completed a review of the outdated Patents Act and, among other things, the new bill, supported by both sides of the House, contains the following exclusions in Clause 15:

(2) An invention of a method of treatment of human beings by surgery or therapy is not a patentable invention.

(3) An invention of a method of diagnosis practised on human beings is not a patentable invention.

(3A) A computer program is not a patentable invention.

All three of these exclusions would be specifically disallowed in this draft of the TPPA, regardless of the fact that New Zealand’s commerce committee, made up of all parties in Parliament, unanimously supported them.

You read that right: the proposed Article 15 of the TPPA would specifically prevent New Zealand enacting law that was unanimously agreed to by all parties in Parliament.

This position — that is to say the position of the United States — is driven by commercial interests and corporate lobbyists. It’s not good policy development; it could hardly be called negotiation.

As we’ve seen earlier in the year with the release of Wikileaks cables, the US is all too keen to let our Government give away our rights, a little bit of our soverignity, and an awesome opportunity to shift our economy in the right direction.

If National were dedicated to building a clean, green, smart economy that works for everyone, they would be trying to create an environment where NZ IT companies can thrive. Not one where they can be held ransom by big multinational corporations. As Matthews points out:

“Companies in software, information technology (IT) services and high-tech manufacturing are now generating as much export revenue as meat (also around $5 billion) and not as far as you think behind the dairy industry traditionally thought of as our mainstay (around $11 billion).”

The number employed in the tech sector and high tech manufacturing has grown from 24,000 in 2010 to 30,000 this year.

The Government needs to be open and transparent about the TPPA and it needs to think about where they want to take our economy. Do they want one that continues to be based on primary production or do we want to make the switch to a smart green economy with IT at its core.

The good news: the Greens achieved a record result, including our bonus 14th MP Mojo Mathers.

The bad news: official voter turnout was only 74.21%, the lowest in over 100 years.

This record low voter turnout strengthens my call for the Justice and Electoral Select Committee to focus its regular post-election inquiry into addressing declining voter turnout.

I think that one option to help increase citizen participation and voter turnout is to introduce online enrolling and voting. We need to modernise our enrolment processes and exploring online options to help encourage New Zealanders, particularly young New Zealanders, to participate in the civic process.

Last week, as a way to start exploring these ideas, we set up an informal online survey that asked people six simple questions about enrolment, voting, and civics education.

The response was overwhelming, with over 1,000 people taking part. The results gave us some interesting indications of the factors influencing voter turnout and showed strong support for exploring online options for enrolment and voting.

74% of respondents said they would have been more likely to enrol to vote if they could have done so online. Significantly, just looking at those who had not enrolled to vote, two thirds indicated they would have been more likely to enrol if there was an online option.

Figure 1 – Online Enrolment

Of those who hadn’t voted, 58% said they would have been more likely to if secure online voting was available.

As well as this support for online options, nearly 80% of respondents believed that civics education at secondary school would make it more likely for young New Zealanders to vote.

Figure 2 – Civics Education

I think that these results indicate that there are options to turn around this trend of declining voter turnout in New Zealand and that they need to be explored for the health of our democracy.

What do you think?

• The big winners are Steven Joyce and Hekia Parata, moving up 10 and 13 places respectively in the Cabinet ranking. Parata replaces Anne Tolley as Minister of Education.

• Paula Bennett’s reward for losing the Waitakere electorate is a promotion of 7 places. She keeps her role as Minister of Beneficiary Bashing.

• Tolley drops 5 places in the ranking and is given Police and Corrections as a reward for her sterling efforts in Education.

• We have a new Colossus of Roads, with Gerry Brownlee taking over from Joyce as Minister of Transport.

• Phil Heatley takes over from Brownlee as Minister for Drilling and Digging.

• Environment Minister Nick Smith drops 4 places and Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson languishes at a lowly No. 17 in the rankings. I guess that reflects the importance with which National views those portfolios.

• Judith Collins gets the job of handing ACC claimants over to be crushed by private insurers.

Update: Jan Logie has just pointed out that another feature is Women’s Affairs being allocated to a Minister outside Cabinet. Again a reflection of the importance with which National views that portfolio. Disability Issues is outside Cabinet too.

Mojo’s election will cause a shake-up in the way things work around Parliament.  Shamefully, the proceedings of Parliament have been pretty much inaccessible to the Deaf Community until transcripts appear on the Parliamentary website , sometimes days after the event. Mojo being profoundly deaf means that will have to change to ensure her ability to participate.  That will have big positive spin-offs for the Deaf Community’s participation in the Parliamentary process.

The Greens in Parliament will now have the advantage of being able to cover every Select Committee, and our MPs will each be able to focus more strongly on a smaller number of spokesperson roles.

From an organisational perspective, the election result gives the Greens a great base to build on to further increase our party vote and become a significant player in a progressive Government in 2014.  We have lots of people who have for the first time ever not just voted Green but been involved in campaigning for the Greens.

A few statistical highlights are:

• Almost a quarter of a million voters (247,370) cast their party vote for the Greens

• In two electorates, Wellington Central and Te Tai Tonga, the Greens came second in the party vote

• In Waiariki the Green party vote increased by 221%

And perhaps the best news of all is that MMP is here to stay:

• In the referendum, 58% of valid votes supported sticking with MMP, with only 42% wanting to change to any other electoral system

• The strongest vote for any other electoral system was actually “informal” votes – i.e. more voters (33%) either declined to pick another electoral system preference or spoiled their ballot paper for that part of the referendum than voted for any of the alternatives to MMP that the referendum provided

With MMP secure, we can now consider ways to improve it and make it even more democratic and representative.

The appalling and heart-wrenching situation for the woman in Invercargill whose rapist moved in next door highlights several areas for legislative review and policy & funding change.

This woman has an indefinite protection order in place but this does nothing to prevent her abuser moving in next door. The police have been for a ‘chat’ and suggested he move but cannot do anything else unless he breaches the order and crosses that line. His friends have been threatening and harassing her but this does not constitute a breach.

NZ has high incidences of sexual abuse, as well as low reporting and conviction rates. Making a complaint and taking a case through court is something the majority of people are too intimidated to do. I believe that bravery deserves acknowledgment and I believe we owe it to victims to make sure they are looked after. This means, in part, finding a legal process that will not finish at conviction or acquittal as if that’s all there is to it.

Work by NZ  legal academics Tinsley and McDonald recently highlighted some of the limitations of our justice system in relation to sexual offending and suggested we need to reinvestigate protection orders and how they work. Sexual offending is a notoriously difficult area of law. Despite reforms over many decades, the evidence continues to show stubbornly unchanged prosecution rates for sexual offences and victim dissatisfaction with the system.

This election the national party pledged to double the penalties for breaches of protection orders. This was window dressing for domestic violence designed to appeal to the get tough on crime lobby. It doesn’t address any of the concerns raised by the research, this woman or others in similar situations.

Further I know a significant number of women are struggling to get police to enforce breaches of protection orders when the victim and abuser share responsibility for children. Doubling the penalties will make some police even more reluctant to enforce the orders and then if they do the fines may just mean the abuser cannot pay maintenance and so the children will end up paying or the woman will not call the police in the first place.

And protection orders are just one piece of the puzzle. Kim McGregor from the Rape Prevention Network has noted that there have been numerous instances of abusers moving in close to their victims. She also noted it is likely these offenders have not completed a treatment programme. Attending a treatment programme for 1-2 years reduces the risk of re-offending to 5%. Yet there is a waiting list to get into the programmes within prisons and perpetrators need to fund themselves to do programmes after release or if they haven’t been to court. We must invest in support for victims and one of the ways to do this is to invest in treatment for perpetrators.

Ultimately we need to get serious about making the cultural, legislative and funding changes required to make a real difference and stop hiding behind populist proposals that end up just perpetuating the problems.

What’s more, in Te Tai Tonga, the Greens came second in the party vote, out-polling each of the Māori Party, Mana and National. Overall, the Greens’ share of the vote in the Māori electorates is 10.29%, only marginally less than the 10.62% we received nationwide.

The 2005 election was the only one since the Greens have been in Parliament that saw a loss of Green MPs. Part of the reason for that was a dramatic loss of votes in the Māori electorates to the then newly formed Māori Party. Now, despite the emergence of Mana as another Māori-led party, the Greens are back stronger than ever in the Māori electorates.

Immense credit must go to Metiria Tūrei and our Māori candidates for getting the Green message across to Māori voters. Two of those candidates, David Clendon and Denise Roche, will be joining Metiria in Parliament.

A vote for the Greens is a vote for a richer New Zealand in the things that really matter. A richer New Zealand will have clean rivers, healthy kids, and jobs that are good for our environment and our economy.

We are ready and rearing to get back into Parliament with more MPs and more energy than ever before to start working on our priority areas of jobs, rivers, and kids.

We’ve got costed plans to bring 100,000 children out of poverty by 2014, clean up our rivers, and to create thousands of new green jobs.

The Green Party will make Working for Families work, provide better study support for sole parents and beneficiaries, raise the minimum wage to $15, and make sure rental properties are warm and healthy. By doing this we will reduce inequality and make sure our kids get the best start in life possible.

We will create thousands of new green jobs because it is vital for New Zealand’s families, environment, and economy. A reminder: a vote for the Greens is the best way to keep state assets in Kiwi hands.

We will create green jobs by ensuring our state-owned energy companies capture the massive export opportunities in renewable energy. We’ll also shift the drivers in the private sector towards sustainability and increased productivity.

The Greens will also clean up New Zealand’s rivers and lakes to make sure we can swim in them again. Over half of our monitored rivers are unsafe for swimming, one third of our lakes are unhealthy, and two-thirds of our native freshwater fish are at risk or threatened with extinction.

We will set standards for clean water, introduce a fair charge for irrigation water, and support water clean-up initiatives.

So there you have it. Jobs, rivers, and kids: It’s a pretty compelling vision for a richer New Zealand and with your support we can make it happen.

Let’s make history tomorrow,

Russel and Metiria

My new Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill seeks to protect people from being prosecuted for satirising copyrighted content; a protection available in Australia, the U.S. and many E.U. countries. Parody and satire are among the oldest forms of criticism and play an important role in making light and creating understanding of issues the public feel strongly about. They deserve to be protected in our legal system.

I agree with the Creative Freedom Foundation: “Considering NZ has just implemented a law providing Copyright holders with a system for enforcing their rights online, now would be a great time to balance this by protecting artists making transformative works ie remix, mashup, satire, parody, pastiche, and caricature. These creative methods have been around for centuries – wouldn’t it be great if NZ recognised them and protected them in it’s law?”

I’m keen to change the law because parodies like Telecon and Should-A (Smack As Part Of Good Parental Correction…).com, as well as political parodies like the Hitler Downfall remixes, have all been removed because of copyright infringement. My bill would give creators a legal leg to stand on and give them confidence to create.

I thought it was fitting to launch the internet-focused Bill via Reddit — a popular online community that discusses everything from pictures to politics — because people affected by the current law are more likely to be online. You can read the live chat here.

I was also delighted because the appointment represented the fulfilment of a lot of my work in Parliament this term. My Human Rights (Disability Commissioner) Amendment Bill to establish the position of Disability Commissioner was due to be debated in Parliament when the Government announced they would adopt my proposal and create the position.

In recognition of the importance of appointing someone to the post as soon as possible, Paul was appointed on a fixed term contract before the law was officially changed to create his position. The Government has now introduced legislation to establish the permanent position.

Or has it?

It won’t be debated until the next term of Parliament, because the House has now risen for the year, but the Human Rights Amendment Bill has been tabled in the House so we can examine and prepare for it in the next term.

At first glance, I’m surprised and a little perturbed to find that the Bill does much more than just establish the position of Disability Commissioner. The Government seems to have taken the need for legislation to establish the role of Disability Commissioner as an opportunity to review and the whole Human Rights Commission (HRC).

The Bill would make quite major changes to the structure of the HRC and the roles of the Commissioners. Instead of having dedicated Race Relations, Equal Opportunity, and Disability Commissioners, they will all be Human Rights Commissioners, with particular “portfolio” responsibility for different areas. While the Bill stipulates that there must be a Commissioner appointed to lead the work in the three priority areas of Race Relations, Equal Opportunities, and Disability Issues, it actually allows for one Commissioner to lead work in more than one of these “priority areas”. So there would be no guarantee that the Commissioner working on Disability Issues would actually be doing so full time.

It’s even possible that Commissioners wouldn’t be appointed because of their specialist knowledge in these areas, but appointed as Human Rights Commissioners first, and then assigned to one of these portfolios. If that were the case that would run completely counter to the strong push from the disability sector that the Disability Commissioner should have lived experience of disability and a proven track record as a disability advocate.

Obviously this rings some pretty loud alarm bells for me! Other parts of the legislation – like those more clearly spelling out the HRC’s role in promoting and monitoring New Zealand’s international human rights record – might be perfectly reasonable and necessary changes to enable the HRC to operate efficiently. I intend to talk to people within the Human Rights and Disability sectors to find out what they think over the coming weeks and months.

What concerns me is that these changes haven’t been sold by the Government as a major review of the HRC, even though that is what they are. The press releases from both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Disability Issues following the tabling of the legislation merrily celebrated the creation of the new Commissioner with responsibility for Disability Issues, mentioning the wider changes almost as an aside. Both also emphasised that the Bill would enable a full time Disability Rights Commissioner, despite the fact that as drafted, it does not guarantee that the Commissioner wouldn’t have another portfolio as well.

This is at best careless and at worst misleading. If we are going to have a wholesale review of the HRC, then let’s have it out in the open! And if we’re going to establish the full time position of Disability Commissioner, then let’s do that, not do something like that that doesn’t quite meet the description.

I will be following the development of this legislation in the next term of Parliament very carefully, and suggest anyone with an interest in Human Rights, Race Relations, Equal Opportunities, and Disability Issues does the same!

The Construction Strategy Group is a lobby group and is made up of a who’s who in the industry. Their report outlines a number of key initiatives they’d like the Government to take to protect jobs and remove some of the massive volatility experienced by the industry. Many of their policies were foreshadowed in the Green Jobs initiative I released on September 21. They include:

1. Tax changes to discourage property speculation (i.e. a comprehensive tax on capital gains excluding the family home);
2. Adding employment targeting to the Reserve Bank’s sole focus on inflation;
3. Smoothing boom-bust cycles through counter-cyclical government investment in building and construction;
4. Changes to Government procurement processes to drive local innovation in the industry.

The Green Party’s plan to build 2000 new energy-efficient state and community houses before the rebuild of Christchurch gets underway later in 2012 will help retain skilled workers in the industry and soften depth of their current recession.

Where the Green Party parts company with the Group’s recommendations are their proposals to “cut red tape” and further weaken protections in the RMA. The last National Government’s attempts to cut red tape created an $11 billion leaky home disaster. And, in light of the Christchurch earthquakes, we need higher standards in the building and construction industry, not weaker ones.

A key element of our Green Jobs initiative launched on September 21 is a $1 billion boost to R&D funding over the next three years. New Zealand invests just 1.31 percent of GDP in R&D — barely half the average spent across OECD countries. We plan to turn around this legacy of underinvestment to help drive innovation and prosperity.

Our plan did not specify the best mechanism for delivering this new funding. We’d look to best practice abroad and previous experience here at home to create a mechanism that works. Where our approach differs with Sir Paul’s analysis is the urgency with which we want to address the serious environmental threats we’re facing.

The science around climate change means it’s no longer good enough for our industry leaders to be, at best, “environmentally benign”, as he suggests. We can do much better than that. For the sake of our children, we actually need to drive a step-change in our economy.

The clean technology sector is not simply the next latest fad, as Sir Paul argues — it’s much more significant than that. Any new technology that lowers our environmental footprint is clean technology. The possibilities are endless and can include such diverse technologies as biofuels, nitrification inhibitors, biodegradable packaging, or a computer programme that manages a smart electricity grid. Clean technology will enable us to have a prosperous economy and a stable climate.

If this is the direction the world’s economy is moving, through necessity, why wouldn’t we want to secure a big piece of that action? If we don’t turn some of our best R&D minds in the direction of solving the urgent environmental challenges we face, we’ll forever remain technology importers, rather than technology exporters.

The example of Denmark is telling. The Danish Government recognised early the potential for wind turbines and set in place the drivers for innovation and investment in this promising sector. They didn’t “pick winners”, they simply created the right environment for Danish wind turbine companies to secure 50 percent of the world market by 2001. Our approach is no different.

In agriculture, the OECD sees New Zealand as well placed to develop greenhouse gas mitigation technologies and sell these technologies abroad. If we don’t develop these technologies here, a very large part of our economy will become increasingly unproductive and vulnerable to sudden market closure as other countries take their climate obligations seriously.

The Green Party’s economic plan is not about picking winners in the way Sir Paul Callaghan argues, but it is about recognising critical sectors in our economy that need to transition rapidly to more sustainable ways of producing. Our plan creates the right private sector drivers to grow a sustainable economy. And it’s a plan now shared by many others: the OECD, the UNEP, the ILO and the IOE to name a few.

Russel Norman

The House grants outgoing MPs a chance to reflect on their time in Parliament with a valedictory speech. You can watch Sue and Keith reflect on their 12 years as Green MPs below.

Sue Kedgley

Keith Locke

Both Keith and Sue’s tireless dedication will be sadly missed. But, as Sue showed in her speech, the baton has been passed on and we’ve got heaps of awesome young faces coming through.

Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce has taken it upon himself to draft a list (see page 3939) that dictates what institutions can spend their student services levies on. These levies are the way many institutions currently raise and spend funds to ensure students are properly catered for but will be critical under the soon-to-be-passed Voluntary Student Membership Bill (VSM). Only the Green Party opposed the Education Act No. 4 that gave the Minister the power to decide the list of ‘approved services’ and the irony is that, coupled with the VSM bill, it is Steven Joyce, not students, deciding what is appropriate for students.

If Joyce gets his way, students can kiss goodbye to what past generations know as “Orientation” and they can also forget about having adequate representation. Despite their cultural and democratic importance, these two fundamental aspects of student life failed to make the minister’s short list.

Joyce’s plan is to cripple student associations and stifle opposition to his disastrous tertiary education policies. His proposed regulations are overly controlling and somewhat hypocritical coming from a Government whose catch cry was “nanny state” while in opposition. It should be up to students, and the institutions they attend, to decide what their fees go toward — not Steven Joyce.

His proposed law changes, coupled with Act’s VSM Bill, try to turn our universities and polytechs into soulless grey institutions devoid of the on-campus culture previously enjoyed by so many. Students will be relegated to being little more than fee-paying cogs in a machine with little actual say over what they get in return for the thousands of dollars they shell out each year.

Joyce and Co can claim they’re all about freedom and tight ships, but really, they’re just defiling democracy and crushing students’ voice.

It’s unacceptable that 2,000 ticket-holders missed kick-off and thousands of others were seriously inconvenienced by the over-sold and under-delivered trains. The problem of course was that the rail network, run-down, stitched-together and tired, was creakier than Martin Johnston’s knees. It’s a shame previous governments hadn’t converted the spectacular growth in rail patronage in Auckland and started the electrification earlier.

Around 200,000 crushed together at the waterfront and at Britomart passengers were forced to queue for hours where they could have possibly mexican-waved, and created a new rugby chant: ‘We want trains, we want trains, we want trains.’ From accounts just getting on a train at Britomart was like facing the South African scrum. Organisers took their eye off the ball by not setting aside more of downtown for pedestrian play right from the kick off.

It’s clear some trains were affected by passengers pressing the stop button (after rolling mauls developed inside trains) but Veolia blaming them for the  mess-up is about as sporting as Andy Haden’s dive. Looking to the future, Veolia’s fitness to play in future matches should be called into account.

It was a bit of a game of two halves and in positive news the buses delivered clean passes all night. Player of the match awards to the unsung heroes of the night, bus drivers, train ticket collectors and police officers who kept moving what was moving and most importantly kept people safe.

An investigation has been called but I think the ref’s decision will be clear – the transport fail results from poor planning and communication but more importantly a deeper systemic lack of successive government priority and funding for Auckland’s rail network. Both Labour and National governments deserve to be sin-binned for the lack of investment in Auckland’s network. More electric trains and an inner city loop would have kept the play moving.

Everyone seems to be blaming everyone else for the mess and Rugby World Cup Minister Murray McCully passed the buck faster than a Sonny-Bill William’s off-load. The Transport Minister, Steven Joyce, has been invisible in the after-match and has been like a timid player standing deep in the outfield as far away from play as he can be. Joyce, who was on a yellow-card already for spending up large on motorways and cutting the rail infrastructure budget, needs to be subbed off immediately. Ultimately it’s time to call full-time on the National Government and boot them into touch.

The Government needs to get-in-behind public transport in Auckland. For the next big match we need to clear the line out quickly from Auckland to Eden Park. We need to convert demand for transport into results that live up to the hopes and expectations of Aucklanders and our international visitors.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee was discussing my petition to fast-track the CBD rail link. The committee had already decided that both The Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) should be invited to submit on whether or not the government should fund this project based on their research.

However only asking information from MOT and NZTA gave the committee just one side of the story.

I put forward an unsuccessful motion that the Auckland Council should also be able to make a submission on funding for the CBD rail link. Its important to hear from them because they too have prepared an in-depth and internationally-peer reviewed report (unlike the MOT/NZTA’s ‘in-house’ one) and have started the designation process for the link. However, the National MPs on the committee voted to prevent this.

I found it particularly ironic that, of the MPs who voted against, 3 out of the 5 were Aucklanders themselves. Just what are Tau Henare, Jami-lee Ross and Jacqui Blue going to say to their constituents wanting the link? What’s National Party select committee chair David Bennett going to tell his Hamilton constituents who recently found out their rail link to Auckland would terminate at a station that closed ten years ago because Britomart station was at capacity without the rail link?

So why are the National MPs in Auckland so scared of hearing what the Auckland Council has to say? Is it because they know that the public sees the CBD rail loop as being more of a priority for Auckland than their uneconomic Puhoi to Wellsford Holiday Highway?

Why is the Transport Select Committee leaving it up to a Wellingtonian to advocate for Auckland’s voice to be heard?

Do they fear that the council could easily pick holes in the assumptions they made in their own, deeply biased and not internationally peer-reviewed review of the CBD rail link business case? What do you think?

The weekend had a bit of everything: gorgeous scenery, local hospitality, wide-eyed children, even local political drama.

The ride follows the Forgotten World Highway and is framed by Mt Ruapehu at the start and Mt Taranaki in the end. You cross several great passes and ride through the deeply forested Tangarakau River gorge. You’re pedalling along one of New Zealand’s quietest state highways, so you often feel like you have the whole place to yourself. It’s certainly a very safe route for cycle touring.

And that’s where things got interesting. The local head of Federated Farmers wrote a strongly worded letter to the Ruapehu Press labeling the route too dangerous for “pushbikes” and was offended at the thought of cyclists pooping in farmers’ fields along the way. Many believe the letter led to the local mayor to cancel at short notice her appearance at the launch.

The letter was obviously unfair and reminded me of how we can sometimes be our own worst enemies. The Forgotten World Highway Cycle Trail offers Taumaranui the opportunity to diversify and strengthen its economy. It’s one of the safest routes in New Zealand for cycling and any toileting issues, should they arise, can be solved quite simply.

The weekend’s ride gave a handful of New Zealanders their first glimpse of what our Cycle Trail network will eventually look like, with outstanding backcountry road rides joining our network of Great Rides off road and urban cycling infrastructure in places like New Plymouth.

It’s exciting time to be a cyclist in New Zealand.

As Frog indicated, we knew only that ‘a government bill’ would be introduced under urgency.  At about 10.30pm on Wednesday night, we were presented with one paper copy of the bill,  no electronic version to facilitate distribution to caucus members or our researchers; no supporting documentation, no regulatory impact statement, no evidence in support, and this was ‘graciously’ given only on the basis of keeping the strictest confidence.

We were obliged to speculate about the harm that the bill was intended to remedy and the need for the secrecy and urgency; we were required to second guess what the intent and real purpose of the bill might be, and it was not until about 8.15am on Thursday that we got access by phone to a ministerial adviser who confirmed that our speculation was more or less on track. 

We learned in the course of the debate that the Maori party, as a confidence and supply partner, had the bill  ten days earlier.  (I must say in passing that they made good use of the time – Rahui Katene delivered some very fiery and well crafted speeches opposing the bill , and good on her for doing so!).

I have it on good authority that the Act party, on the other hand, was as surprised as we were by the content of  the bill, and had as little prior warning of it. Indicative of the parlous state of the Nat – Act relationship perhaps?

Despite my direct questions, Labour was rather coy about confessing when they were given access to the bill, which leads me to assume they saw it well in advance of the tabling.

My point in all this is that the process demonstrates that the two old parties are locked into the game of making deals with each other, without making any  attempts to build consensus across the House, which they might otherwise have done had they approached us in a reasonable fashion about the ‘error’ they sought to correct. 

Had we been taken into their confidence about the problem (which they have been aware of  for ten months!) we could well have negotiated a process that would have allowed us to air our misgivings, to draw on appropriate legal advice, and even potentially to cooperate in drafting a piece of legislation that would then have gone through a proper process of public and parliamentary scrutiny and delivered an appropriate outcome. 

We have had an MMP parliament for nearly 15 years – how much more time do these guys need to get up to speed with the ‘new’ reality, and to respect and indeed to utilise the possibilites for the more consensual form of politics that it presents?  Maybe the next generation…?

One comment in terms of the substance of the bill – I repeatedly asked the government during the debate for evidence that since the police stopped retaining youth particulars ten months ago, their task of identifying and apprehending young offenders has been more difficult.  I’m still waiting for an answer, which leads me to suspect there is no such evidence, and so the law change was not only procedurally undemocratic but also unnecessary!

Readers may well have heard me talk previously about the Adoption Act. It dates back to 1955, and effectively fossilises the attitudes and values of that time. Greens started looking at this because the Act only permits couples to adopt if they are married, excluding de facto couples (though that has been reversed in Court) and same sex couples from adopting. First Metiria and then I had Members’ Bills in the ballot to change this. However we were persuaded that a lot more was wrong with the 1955 Act, and that total overhaul or replacement was necessary.  Most crucially, the 1955 Act treats children as, effectively, chattels and adoption like a property transaction. The law needs to reflect the primacy of the child’s interests and welfare.

Ten years ago the Law Commission produced a comprehensive report on the care of children. The Labour Government of the time passed the Care of Children Act, which implemented the Law Commission’s proposed changes to limited term guardianship arrangements, but did nothing with the recommended replacement of the Adoption Act. Probably this was because Labour was scared of debate around the issue of same sex couples, and maybe couldn’t muster the numbers within its own caucus – six Labour MPs (including three current ones) even voted against Civil Unions, for goodness’ sake.

Because of Labour filibustering on the VSM bill there is no real prospect that Jacinda’s bill will even go into the ballot, let alone be drawn from it, and anyway National’s approach to all bills from Opposition members has been to vote them down at First Reading. Jacinda argues that the purpose of her bill is to put pressure on Simon Power to instruct the Law Commission to do more work, but I can’t see how her idea of a bill could even remotely do this. Instead the real reason for her announcement is its rhetorical value. On the positive side I guess it indicates to the public that Labour does now support adoption law reform and maybe helps to raise awareness of the issue. Jacinda will also be hoping that gay, lesbian and other progressive voters in Auckland Central will also read into her move that she is doing something about adoption by same sex couples. Unfortunately for Jacinda, while I’m sure she is personally progressive on the issue, she doesn’t get to speak for her Party on it, and Phil Goff, along with opposing gay marriage, has also been at best cagey on adoption.

But while it’s useful for the public to know that Labour now supports some sort of adoption law reform, Labour’s unilateral action with the proposed bill will also damage the work that has been occurring to overhaul adoption law. When I withdrew my previous bill I instead set out to achieve the broader reform of law that was needed, and first developed support for and then convened a multilateral, cross-party group to work on the issues. The progress of the group has been slow but, as I have tried to point out to the less patient advocates for change, the best chance of success is a careful process that builds support and keeps everybody on board. Rushing makes reform less likely, by returning the issue to the traditional arm wrestle for political advantage between National and Labour.

What remains to be seen is whether Jacinda’s move represents an abandonment by Labour of the multilateral approach, and whether National will be willing to stay at the table in the face of Labour’s attempt to gain political advantage from the issue. I will be working to try to keep the cross-party approach alive. Otherwise adoption law reform will be off the table for another decade.