Kiwiblog

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are outraged National is using the members’ bill ballot to advance laws updating old statutes which could be put through Parliament as government legislation.

Oh what a beat up by Labour and NZ First. Almost every members’ bill ever put up by a Government MP could be put through as government legislation in theory. But it is good for backbench MPs to gain experience of being in charge of a bill, and more importantly often law reform can occur quicker through the members ballot.

Labour and NZ First say their democratic right to progress their own legislation is being hampered by frivolous legislation.

The irony, after Labour fucked over the Greens and all other opposition MPs in 2008 2011 by fillibustering the VSM bill all year blocking all other members legislation. The hypocrisy as always is immense.

I mean Labour even fucked over their own private bill on behalf of the Royal Society of NZ, with their filibustering. Again, what effing hypocrites.

And Labour and NZ First are effectively arguing that National backbench MPs should not have the democratic right to enter bills into the members ballot. They are just sour because a National MP won one of the two spots.

Let us look at how many members (not Ministers) had bills in the last ballot from each party.

• National just 9 bills from 35 backbench MPs
• Labour had 15 bills from 34 MPs – so not even half their MPs bothered to submit a bill and they complain they are not winning the ballot
• Greens had 14 bills from 14 MPs – excellent
• NZ First had 1 bill from 8 MPs – again what hypocrisy complaining when someone else wins
• Maori Party – 1 bill from 1 backbench MP
• Mana Party – no bills from 1 MP

So maybe Labour and NZ First would be better spent submitting more bills to the ballot, rather than whining that National MPs are entering in bills they don’t like.

A member’s bill by National’s new MP for Tamaki Simon O’Connor was one of two to be drawn from the ballot yesterday.

The Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill seeks to abolish a 1964 law protecting the family home.

O’Connor said the Law Commission recommended scrapping the old law which “afforded the family home protection against the winds of financial adversity” because it was unused as the same protections were afforded in more recent legislation.

Asked why he had taken up the cause, O’Connor said there was a number of bills the Government had suggested its MPs look at adopting in their names.

“This one was suggested to me and I was happy to put my name to it.”

This has been the practice for Government MPs for as long as I can recall. Not all members bills are like this, but many are. In this particular case, this bill has been on the ballot for around two years – previously under the name of Jo Goodhew.

The Law Commission actually recommended in 2001 (off memory) that this law be repealed. The reality is that it is highly unlikely to ever be deemed a high enough priority by Cabinet to be given legislative priority. Hence a members bill means the law actually gets repealed.

Note again – the law was recommended for repeal in 2001.

Labour’s shadow leader of the House, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous”.

“That sort of bill can be progressed through a statutes amendment bill or omnibus bill, where there is no argument about it.”

It was an unnecessary use of parliamentary time to do something that would have happened anyway, he said.

A simple question then. Why did Labour not repeal the law in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008?

“Someone who just signs on the dotted line to introduce legislation is effectively saying ‘at the moment there’s nothing more important in my electorate that this’.

“I feel quite sad for him.”

Trevor shows how he is a dinosaur of the past, who should stay there. First of all List MPs get to submit members bills also. Secondly, Very few members bills relate to an MPs electorate.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an inappropriate use of the members’ bill process.

“This is just a device where (National) has used private members’ facilities to prosecute government policy.”

It blocked up the ballot, which limits MPs to one bill each, by increasing the number of National bills.

This comes from the leader of the party who submitted only one bill out of 8 MPs. Stop being a whining loser and go submit more bills into the next ballot if you want to improve your chances of winning.

Think if National adopted Labour’s tactics? They could filibuster a members’ bill all year long, so there are no more members ballots in 2012. That would really give them something to complain about. Yet, it would be exactly what Labour did in 2008 2011.

Two brand new MPs had their bills drawn from the ballot today. Good fortune for both of them.

Tamaki MP Simon O’Connor had the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, which is embedded below.

Joint Family Homes Repeal Private Member’s Bill

The bill was previously in the name of Rangitata MP Jo Goodhew. As she is now a Minister, she can’t sponsor it. The bill looks to be uncontroversial. Stuff notes:

The Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill will abolish a 1964 law protecting the family home.

O’Connor said the Law Commission had recommended scrapping the old law which ”afforded the family home protection against the winds of financial adversity” because the law was unused as the same protections were afforded in more recent legislation.

”The Matrimonial (Property) Act made it very clear spouses and partners have the ability to get joint ownership of things.”

Dunedin North MP David Clark also had selected the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill, which was previously in the name of Grant Robertson.

I don’t have a copy of the bill yet, but it proposes that if ANZAC Day and Waitangi Day fall on a weekend, they be Mondayised.

I don’t think it is a particularly important issue, and it was ridicolous when people called for an urgent law change last year because both days were at weekends. However as I noted at the time, I’m not against a change and think the bill should be supported, even though it does impose some small extra costs on businesses.

The additional wage cost is around 0.11%, so not huge. In return for some certainity around the number of days off, I think it is worthwhile.

UPDATE: The bill (when it was in the name of Grant Robertson) is on the web here. The key clause is:

 if either of the public holidays … falls on a Saturday or Sunday and the day would otherwise be a working day for the employee, the public holiday must be treated as falling on that day … and (if) the day would not otherwise be a working day for the employee, the public holiday must be treated as falling on the following Monday

That is sensible, so it does not disadvantage those who do work on weekends.

The ballot for the private members bills had only 24 bills in it this week. Previous ones had 38, 47, and 40.

Why? Because only one Labour MP’s bill was in the ballot. Normally they have 17 – 20.

Trevor blogs on Red Alert:

As may be obvious we are having a crack at getting Darren’s bill up here

I am sceptical about this explanation, and wonder if the truth might be that someone fucked up and forgot to resubmit the bills.

If Trevor is telling the truth, then they should sack whomever came up with the idea of only putting Darren’s in there. Here’s why.

In all the other ballots, the chance of Darren’s bill being selected for a spot is around 2.5% and the chance of a Labour bill being selected around 40% to 50%.

Under this cunning plan, Darren’s chances do increase – from 2.5% to 4%, but Labour’s overall chances plummet from near 50% to also 4%.

Is that not the stupidest cunning plan since Baldrick?

So I don’t know what the reality is. Is Trevor telling the truth and Labour implemented a moronic strategy of not entering the ballot just to lift Darren’s chances from 2.5% to 4.0%, or is Trevor covering up for a fuck up?

UPDATE: The four bills selected are:

There are four spots free on the order paper, so 4/38 bills will be selected. The 38 submitted bills are:

The Herald reports:

National Party MPs might be allowed a conscience vote on a Labour Party bill that proposes lowering the drink-driving blood alcohol limit, Prime Minister John Key said today.

The Government decided last month not to lower the limit from 0.08 milligrams to 0.05 milligrams per millilitre of blood, saying it needed to collect data for the next two years to find out what the effect would be and to demonstrate to the public that a change would be effective. …

Labour MP Darren Hughes has drafted a member’s bill that proposing lowering the limit to 0.06mg, saying the Government is “dithering” and there is already clear public support for the change.  …

However, Mr Key said at his post-cabinet press conference today drink-driving issues were usually dealt with by conscience votes.

“I imagine it would be a conscience vote,” he said.

“I know there’s a wide range of views within our caucus.

“So that’s something I would have to take to caucus, but off the top of my head I’m not proposing to stand in its way.”

While I am against lowering the BAC limit, at least until we have some specific NZ research on the prevalence and accident rate of those driving with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, I think National should allow a conscience vote on the issue of Darren gets lucky with the ballot. I’d rather hear National MPs genuinely give their views for or against any change, rather than be whipped on it.

Hopefully Labour would also do the same, and allow their MPs to vote against should they wish to do so.

The Herald reports:

A members bill to stop loan sharks is up for its first reading tonight but the Labour MP behind it is fearful it will be voted down.

Carol Beaumont’s Consumer Credit (Responsible Lending) Bill was introduced to Parliament last August.

It would allow maximum interest rates to be set and would require a lender to reasonably believe a borrower would be able to repay a loan.

It also seeks to limit the ability of lenders to recover more than they initially lent in the event of a default.

Ms Beaumont said her bill was aimed at preventing loan sharks from charging excessive interest rates and lending irresponsibly.

“Many loan sharks lend out money at obscene rates, without checking to see whether the borrower will be able to meet the repayment requirements.”

This bill is well intentioned, but may have unforeseen consequences. A maximum level of interest rate you can charge could in fact lead to many lenders increasing their rates to the ceiling. Limits often become targets.

But having said that, I think Parliament should vote the bill through to a select committee. It is an honest attempt to deal with what is a real problem. It would be good to allow a select committee to hear submissions for and against what the bill proposes.

There are three vacancies on the order paper, so three of these 3 bills will be drawn in the ballot at midday today.

UPDATE: Sir Roger does it again. His bill to abolish tariffs got drawn. So did Metiria Turei’s on mining and Rahui Katene’s to abolish GST on “healthy food”.

Very disappointed in two first reading votes case last night by the National Party.

The first was against the bill to allow a separate youth minimum wage (went down 5-117). Not only is this a u-turn from the previous position (National voted against Labour abolishing them in 2008), but it is bad public policy. The record high youth unemployment is partly due to young unskilled workers having been priced out of the market.

I wouldn’t be so annoyed if National was voting against it after it had been to select committee. But by voting it down, they are saying we don’t even want to hear the pros and cons of whether having a separate youth minimum wage could help get more young people into work.

The second bad vote is the party vote against the bill to allow New Zealanders to vote on whether or not they wish to be be a republic.

I’m really pissed off that they made it a party vote. National has had an authoritarian streak to it recently, where they are whittling down the number of issues MPs traditionally are not whipped on. They even want to remove conscience voting on alcohol. There are MPs in National (and many party members) who support NZ becoming a Republic, and they should have been allowed to say so.

And what is even more galling, is that National voted this down at first reading. I’m not advocating that the bill (in its current form) should have been voted into law automatically. But if National had allowed it to go to select committee, it would have allowed the public of New Zealand to submit on how they think the decision on republic vs monarchy should be made. That would have been an invaluable exercise.

National has denied us all the right to have our say – both on youth minimum wage rates and on our head of state.

I don’t have a problem with a party voting down a bill at first reading when they are ideologically against it (ie do not expect National to support a bill that made unions compulsory) or it seeks to reverse Government policy. But with most other issues, they are worthy of sending through to a select committee, so the public can have their say on them.

My thanks to the Labour (excluding Jim Anderton), United Future  and Green parties that supported the Republic Referendum bill, and supported allowing the public a say.

Paul Quinn’s private member’s bill to ban all prisoners (rather than just those serving terms of greater than three years) from voting passed its first reading by 63 votes to 58.

National and ACT voted in favour. Labour, Maori, United, Greens and Progressive against.

It has been referred to the Law & Order Select Committee, which will hear submissions on it. I would be interested to find out how many prisoners actually do vote, and how many are eligible to vote.

1. Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill – Tau Henare
2. Smart Meters (Consumer Choice) Bill – David Clendon
3. Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill – Sir Roger Douglas

Tau’s bill requires all votes on strike action to be secret ballots. In theory almost all unions do this anyway, but there has been some dispute on the West Coast recently about whether this does always happen, so it will be good to have it a legal, not a voluntary, requirement to prevent intimidation.

David Clendon’s bill is inherited from Jeanette and regulates the use of smart meters. Not sure of all the details, but it looks to be worth supporting at first reading anyway so a select committee can look into pros and cons.

Sir Roger’s bill will allow the Government to set a different level of minimum wage for younger workers. I welcome it as there is pretty clear evidence that the huge increase in youth unemployment is bext explained by the scrapping of the youth rate for the minimum wage. National will be nervous about being seen to be “cutting wages” but I hope they will support it to select committee, so arguments can be heard about the linkage.

Rather than cut the minimum wage for any current workers, what I would do if I was the Government is just use it to increase the youth minimum wage more slowly than the adult minimum wage.

There are three spaces available, so an MP has an almost 1 in 10 chance of having their bill drawn.

The draw is at midday.

Paul Quinn won the ballot so his Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill will be introduced and go to a first reading.

I’ve asked for a copy of the bill. Presumably it bans all prisoners from voting, not just some of them as is the case presently.

If you do a crime bad enough to go to prison, I think it is repugnant that you still vote. I even think there is a debate to be had about whether there is a period of non voting for those released from prison, if they were convicted of very serious offences.

UPDATE: The bill is here – Electoral _Disqualification of convicted prisoners_ Amen. At present only prisoners serving a term of three or more years are disqualified, and this would extend the disqualification to enrol to anyone currently in prison.

Not sure how this will look as have cut and paste from an e-mail, but here are the bills in the ballot for midday today.

Two of the above bills are substantially the same in substance. A preliminary ballot will therefore be held to determine which of them is to be entered into the main ballot.

These two bills are:

The Dom Post editorial:

The never-ending litany of what human beings do to animals every year in this country makes the average person feel sick. But a group of people delights in the thought – and the act – of torturing animals, sometimes someone else’s pet.

If National’s Tauranga MP, Simon Bridges, is lucky, such persecutors will face greater jail time in future. When Parliament resumes, he will put into the members’ ballot a private member’s bill to increase the maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment of animals from three, to five years’ imprisonment.

His rationale is simple. “A tougher penalty,” he says, “would … be in line with increasingly clear research that those who do serious harm to animals are much more likely to perpetrate family, as well as other violence. In addition, the research shows that psychopathic offenders, often as first offending, demonstrate a propensity for cruelty through abuse of animals”.

Mr Bridges is right. The FBI in the United States has recognised the connection since the 70s, when it analysed the lives of serial killers.

Such individuals have their wiring seriously mucked up. I can understand why people commit most crimes, but can’t understand how anyone can get pleasure from torturing animals.

It is to be hoped Mr Bridges has the luck of the Greens in having his bill chosen from the ballot. Or he might be able to persuade ministerial colleagues whose portfolios touch on the subject – such as Corrections Minister Judith Collins or Agriculture Minister David Carter – to sponsor his measure as a Government Bill. This initiative is overdue and such support would give it heft.

It will be good to see the penalties increased, regardless of how it happens.

The Herald reports:

A first-term National Party MP is seeking cross-party support for a law change for harsher penalties in cases of extreme cruelty to animals.

Tauranga MP Simon Bridges has drafted a private member’s bill to raise the maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment under the Animal Welfare Act from three to five years in prison.

Mr Bridges said tougher penalties for animal abuse were backed by research showing cruelty to animals was an early warning sign of more psychopathic violence later in life.

Murderer Antonie Dixon was an example of this, said Mr Bridges.

“It is time to get tough on really serious animal cruelty. The public’s attitude has hardened on this and so should court sentences,” said the former Crown prosecutor.

“This is about sending a message that Parliament thinks this offending is abhorrent to our society. It’s more than not okay, it’s an outrage.”

I hope all parties will support this bill, if selected. Increasing the maximum penalties is the only way to send a message to Judges that they should increase the penalties they are handing out, which are too light in my opinion:

For example, Wayne Williams, 34, was sentenced to four months in jail for beating his partner’s dog with a metal pole before strangling it to death.

And Peter James Cooksley, 48, shot a cat with a crossbow bolt through the abdomen for entering his house – but was fined just $500. Mr Kerridge said many acts of animal cruelty were committed by people to torment their partners, including a case where a man was sent to prison for 2 months for throwing three kittens against a wall.

The longest sentence ever given out has been 12 months, reduced to 10 months on appeal.

No Right Turn has his normal useful summary of new proposed private member bills:

KiwiSaver (Contribution Flexibility) Amendment Bill (John Boscawen): amends the KiwiSaver Act 2006 to add 6% and 10% contribution rates to the existing 2%, 4%, and 8% rates, improving flexibility for older earners close to retirement and young, high-income earners.

Can’t see anyone objecting to that except the computer programmers at IRD!

Tariff Act Repeal Bill (Roger Douglas): does exactly what it says on the label: repeals the Tariff Act 1988. In the 90′s National legislated to phase out all tariffs by 2006, but this was reversed by Labour in 2000 in the name of protecting local industry. Tariffs have remained fixed at their 2000 rates ever since. And so we pay an extra 26.5% for imported footwear, 18% for imported cane baskets, and 12.5% for imported skateboards (the full list is here), either as some sort of “luxury tax” or to protect businesses which can’t compete in a global marketplace.

ACT is putting its money where its mouth is on free trade here, and challenging the government (which supports the status quo) to move further to the right.

Good God it almost sounds like NRT approves. Well I certainly do. National recently froze tariffs in place until 2015. I’d love it if this bill was drawn out, as I think quite a few National MPs would want to vote for it.

Victims’ Rights (Victim Impact Statements) Amendment Bill (David Garrett): would amend the Victim’s Rights Act 2002 to prevent the courts from “censoring” victim impact statements. At present, such statements are limited to the actual impact upon the victim; Garrett’s bill – driven by the recent Weatherston case – would give victims free rein to vent their spleen against the offender and the justice system. Such material has no place in sentencing, and no place in our justice system; if they want to say it, then there is no reason why they should be given a privileged platform in a court to do so.

Simon Power has said he will be proposing a law change in this area, so it will be interesting to see how that compares to the status quo, and what Garrett proposes.

Good to see National MPs starting to get their private members bills in the ballot, with the result being two of them got drawn this week.

The first is the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill by Selwyn MP Amy Adams. The notes explain what it will do:

The Bill requires professional third party collectors to disclose to potential donators that a portion of the donation will be retained by the collector.

This only applies if the proportion retained is more than 20 percent.

If the proportion retained is between 20 and 50 percent of the total donation then the collector must simply disclose that a portion is being withheld by them, but does not have to disclose the amount.

If the proportion retained is more than 50 percent then the collector must disclose the percentage being retained, to the nearest percentage point.

Transparency is a good thing. There have been a lot of horror stories about people donating money to what they think is a charity but finding out less than half gets to the charity. I can’t imagine anyone will vote against this bill going to select committee. WIll be interesting to hear what the charities say about it.

Rotorua MP Todd McClay had his Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill also drawn. I can’t find a copy of it online, so this is based on reports.

This is a minor liberalisation, which will allow each local Council to decide whether or not shops are allowed to open on Easter Sunday.

This will be lots of fun because you get the unholy coalition of the union left and religious right joining forces to stop even the remotest sanity occurring over Easter Trading. Hopefully Todd’s bill will make it to select committee – the challenge will be getting it back out.

I find it hilarious that the actual public holiday is Easter Monday while the day retail shops can’t open is Easter Sunday. And that Easter Saturday has no significance at all, so people can’t even get a guaranteed long weekend off. The current law really is a dogs breakfast.

One space available and will be drawn at midday. The list of bills is:

Notices of intention have been received in respect of the following bills:

Would be good to see some more National bills in the ballot. It is harder when you are in Government, but am sure there can be more than two.

Two private members bills have been selected from the ballot.

The first is the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill by Labour’s Maryan Street. This bill comes from the NZ Progressive Bills Wiki, so it shows you do not need to be an MP to have a real input inti legislation. It simply “prohibits goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by child labour”.

The second is the Te Rā o Mātāriki/Mātāriki Day Bill by the Maori Party’s Rahui Katene. This bill would make Mātāriki, or the Maori New Year, a public holiday – on the day of the next new moon following the day in which the moon rises in the months of May or June.

By coincidence the Greens are having a Mātāriki Party tonight, which they have kindly invited me to. So I guess they will be pleased the bill has been drawn (even though it is a Maori Party Bill) and there will be lots of organic beer being drunk to celebrate!

The Office of the Clerk is doing a ballot at midday to randomly select two private member’s bills from 24 put forward. The list is:

Only two National MPs have bills in the ballot. All three ACT backbenchers have a bill, as do all nine Green MPs. Maori Party has two, and Labour has eight.

Pardon the formatting – it is a cut and paste.

UPDATE: The luck of the Greens continues. Both draws picked a Green bill – Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Sustainable Biofuel Bill and Catherine Delahunty’s Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bil.e

Labour List MP Charles Chauvel has submitted to the ballot a private members bill – credit-reforms-responsible-lending-bill.

It does four things:

1. allow pawn brokers to charge administration fees, thereby removing any need for high interest rates
2. require lenders to seriously consider the actual means of a prospective borrower and their ability to service the debt
3. allow for the prescription of maximum annual percentage rates of interest payable in respect of consumer credit contracts
4. restrict the right for a creditor to recover from a debtor any amount beyond the value of the goods sold subject to a security agreement.

Taking each in turn

Pawn Broker Admin Fees

I’m not sure what the original rationale for pawn brokers not being able to charge an admin fee, but seems to me flexibility is a good thing.

Lenders to assess ability of borrowers to service debt

I should start off by saying that I am well aware there are many very scummy companies that exploit people with cashflow problems by taking advantage of their desperation to get them to agree to loans that with compounding interest are crippling.

But I am hesitant about putting the burden of assessment on the lender, rather than the person borrowing the money. The borrower does have some responsibility themselves to judge their own capacity to replay. And you could end up with a lot of uncertainity as to what steps lenders must take to assess repayment. I don’t see this as being practical or necessarily desirable – lenders do have an incentive already to check repayment ability – so they can get repaid.

Maximum rates of interest

The proposal is that the Reserve Bank Governor can set a maximum rate of interest for borrowing. This is well intentioned but may have unintentional side effects. Let’s say you can currently get unsecured borrowing from scummy lenders for between 35% and 75% interest. And let us say the Reserve Bank says that the maximum you can charge os 50%. Now yes that will stop money being lent at 75% interest, but may push the 35% rate up to 50%. A ceiling often becomes a target. And you may also get scummy lenderss claiming greater respectability as their interest rates are “approved by the Reserve Bank”.

Creditor Recovery

I’m not quite sure how this clause will work in practice, so will update when I have worked it out. As I understand itm, this is a more minor part of the law change.

I have doubts over the practicality and desirablity of parts of the bill, but neither do I think the current law is working particularly well – many families are getting exploited.

If the bill gets selected from the ballot, I think it should definitely be supported to select committee so they can consider the issues and proposed solutions. Any support beyond that would depend on what changes get made there.

Generally I support most private members bills going to at least select committee for hearings. My exceptions are those that are:

1. Obnoxious (EFA type laws) and so bad not possible to make into good law.
2. Directly contrary to the Government’s policy (designed just to score political points)

The Herald reports on a bill by United Future’s Judy Turner that will allow DNA testing of children for paternity tests. At present a parent can block such a test for a child under 16.

The Government doesn’t seem that keen on it, but the Law Commission backed such a move in 2005.

I would make the point that a court ordered DNA test should only be ordered, if agreement can not be obtained.  It is a last resort, not a first resort.  But it is important that they can be ordered when paternity is in doubt.