Gordon the waka-jumper

With Gordon Copeland's bizarre decision to leave the United Future party tonight, I can't help but think he cited the 'anti-smacking' bill as his reason for waka-jumping merely because he thought this might be his 'popular' issue to go out on.

Now I am not one normally to defend a strong party whip, as I believe New Zealand political parties are usually far more authoritarian than they need to be. Consider the number of British Labour MPs have voted against Blair - this would never happen in New Zealand, given the authoritarian legacy of Prime Ministers such as Peter Fraser, Piggy Muldoon and King Dick Seddon. But there are times when caucus discipline is important, where a moment of idiocy can be as good as a visit from the mass assisted political suicide squad.

On Tuesday Copeland put out a press release bemoaning the failure of the Labour-led government to cut taxes and gave strong support to a report by the Centre for Independent Studies, a group that could only be described as a far right think tank. Did he not stop to think that his comments may cause some embarrassment to his leader Peter Dunne, given that he is the Revenue Minister in the so called Labour-led Government? Especially given it is budget week.

Yesterday Dunne put out a press release criticising the inaction of Justice Minister Mark Burton for being "blissfully unaware" of public concern over the way evidence is presented in New Zealand courts in the wake of the Bain case. Looking back on it now, this release could have been motivated heavily by caucus frictions calling on Dunne to 'differentiate' himself from Labour.

Copeland now says he has been considering resigning for six months, despite the fact Dunne claims Copeland gave him an assurance last week he had no plans to leave United Future. So not only does he define his Christian principles by the right to smack kids, it appears lying does not appear to be much of a moral problem either. It will be mighty interesting if written material happens to emerge over the next few months concerning this tussle in United Future.

Gordon Copeland's claim that his resignation was over the so called anti-smacking bill does not add up. The parliamentary party had already given Copeland a conscience vote allowing him to oppose the bill. My suspicion is that Dunne confronted Copeland over a caucus discipline issue, and Gordon then threw his toys out of the cot.

As the New Zealand Day Bill came up for debate in the house tonight, Dunne began his speech "On behalf of my loyal colleague Judy Turner..."
--
Update: Please note I wrote this before the budget. Inflation adjusting tax thresholds has long been one of Copeland's particular hobby horses, so I imagine he was less than impressed when he discovered Cullen was about to axe the 'chewing gum' tax cuts. Did Copeland's press release on Tuesday almost give away a budget secret? If so, Copeland would be a very naughty boy.

Span links to a number of posts discussing Copeland's resignation from United Untied Future, along with her own thoughts.

Random historical interlude #4: Long history of protest on Anzac day

In my previous post I stated that there has been a long history of intolerance of anti-war opinions in New Zealand, with the treatment of conscientious objectors being one example.

Today is the 30th anniversary of an action taken by four Wellingtonians on Anzac Day 1967, where they attempted to lay a wreath "To the dead and dying on both sides in Vietnam. Why must their blood pay the price of our mistakes?"

They were prevented from placing the wreath at the Cenotaph like other citizens. Despite one Returned Services Association (RSA) representative indicating they could lay it later (which they did), on doing so university lecturer Christopher Wainwright and student Christopher Butler were arrested by the police for disorderly behaviour and resisting the police. A judge later quashed the later charge, but upheld the other charge because they had presented "a point of view, however sincerely held, which they knew would be annoying to some and offensive to many". So much for free speech.

In 1970 the Christchurch Progressive Youth Movement (PYM) made a wreath from the poster of the My Lai massacre with the words "To the victims of Fascism in Vietnam". The Mayor of Christchurch at the time, Ron Guthrey, tore the wreath from the memorial and threw it away. It was put back later, only to be removed by the police. A Hamilton veteran of the Korean war turned his medals into Guthrey as a protest against the betrayal of the values for which he had fought.

A later Mayor of Christchurch, Neville Pickering, refused to attend the 1972 service as he believed the attempts the RSA to control the service, such as placing a cordon between the memorial and the crowd and vetting all inscriptions meant the ceremony was no longer a citizens service. The PYM attempted to place their wreath for the third successive year, only to have it thrown down, stamped on and utterly destroyed by the mob.

Mayor Pickering said "I can fully understand the sensitivity of former servicemen who watched their comrades being killed. But the older generation should show greater restraint and tolerance".

- Material sourced from Elsie Locke's excellent book 'Peace People'

In 'lest we forget' we forget too many

I was very pleased to see Peace Action Wellington's large banner make it into the TV coverage of the ANZAC day ceremonies*. Conscientious objectors (COs) demonstated a great deal of heroism in standing up for their anti-war beliefs, despite facing a great deal of persecution and ostracism from their own society. In some cases their stance did endanger their lives.

This attack on civil rights was driven by the wartime Government of Peter Fraser.

In his 1983 book John Cookson# compares the treatment of CO's in New Zealand with other countries during WWII.
"In no other Commonwealth country - we might add the United States as well - was the proportionate number of conscientious objectors imprisoned or detained, much less indeterminate sentences imposed. New Zealand was also exceptional in the total severity of its policy. There was no recognition of objection that fell short of opposition to all war, no exemption from some form of national service, and no provision for appeals against the decisions of the local boards. The attack on civil rights extended to exclusion from government employment and, for defaulters, disenfranchisement."

So why does it remain controversial to point out that COs were also victims of war? Many were indeed 'prisoners of war' also, but behind bars in New Zealand instead of overseas (note I am not equating this with the worst of the enemy internment camps). New Zealand has a long history of intolerance of anti-war opinions. While this intolerance is not as evident as it used to be, a few of the pro-war mob in Auckland today still thought it was appropriate to attempt to pull down anti-war signs at the ANZAC ceremony in Auckland. Perhaps they though the anti-democratic wartime regulations were still be in effect?

I was also pleased to see the town of Fielding include 17 year old Turkish exchange student Kasim Turkistanli in their Anzac day service. Given the generous welcome given by the Turks to New Zealanders and Australians wanting to visit Gallipoli I am pleased New Zealand is becoming more generous in acknowledging Turkish losses - New Zealand invaded their homeland after all.

In Christchurch the "Women in Black" group highlighted other victims of war, 'In remembrance of women and children raped and killed in wars'. The response from those attending the service was mostly positive, but a few made disparaging remarks claiming that ANZAC day should be only be about the soldiers.

So if ANZAC day is to be a real day of remembrance, why are we so selective in the victims who are remembered? It should be more than the men in suits.

Span has a great roundup of posts on ANZAC day 2007 and her own thoughts here.

* But I do wonder if the loud horns were counterproductive. But I somewhat sadly I also wonder if it had made the news without the arrests or the appearance of 'conflict'.
# Cookson, John "Illiberal New Zealand: The formation of Government Policy on Conscientious Objection 1940-41"

Don't let climate change quibbles weaken the movement

I wish people would stop attempting to undermine the arguments of campaigners working on climate issues by continually demanding they justify their own carbon use, especially in the context of their own campaigns.

Quite frankly, for those of us who are concerned about encouraging real and lasting policy change, such talk is as destructive as it is counterproductive. Encouraging the world to change its ways is going to need an effective political movement, and building such a movement should be the ultimate aim.

A focus on personal responsibility can be taken too far, and it may be said this is more common on the right of politics. A chemical process worker should not be finger pointed at for his job if the society around him does not provide a true alternative source of income.

Collective action will be the most powerful force in dealing with climate change, not individual responsibility.

A few of my greenie friends have refused to fly to meetings, events, conferences etc that would have formed part of most other political campaigns. I think is great people do care, but I sometimes wonder if people get too hung up on it, especially when we are yet to see real alternatives to flying in New Zealand, such as high speed rail. Yes we do need to strongly advocate for such alternatives, but the point is that they do not exist now.

Of course we need to 'think before we fly', especially when there are alternatives available, but I think there is a more important question to ask first - will burning a few tons of carbon build the movement? If so, it may be a case of burning a bit now, to burn a lot less later.

So no, I don't begrudge Al Gore for flying around the world to do his climate change talks. I may think his proposed solutions rely too heavily on carbon trading, but he has been able to communicate the scale of the problem to many people who otherwise would not have heard it. This does not prevent anyone from criticising the oil baron from flying around in his corporate jet - that should be called exactly what it is - needless climate damage.

I hope my friends working on climate change issues don't take this as a criticism - what I am really saying here is Kia Kaha - stand strong! As a hypothetical, say the opportunity came to fly to London to meet up with other climate change campaigners and build international solidarity on the issue. I would want you to go - because of my faith in your ability as effective campaigners.

David Parker and should our politicians be full of convictions?

The resignation of David Parker from all portfolios demonstrates once again how overreaction can often be the best strategy under fire. Political damage is limited as your opponents have nothing to do by agree with your decision.

Don Brash was left trying to make tenuous comparisons with the behaviour of other Ministers - this was only because he was left with little to say about David Parker.

I see political journalists Colin Espiner and John Armstrong both reach the same conclusion. Parker is the fall guy for the mistakes of David Benson Pope. If David Benson Pope had not spent the last few months claiming the tennis ball was out when it was pretty obviously in (would misleading the line umpire would be the appropriate analogy?) perhaps the pressure on David Parker would not have been so urgent. It is a shame Parker is the more able player.

Yet, because of this pressure, Parker will gain greater brownie points among this colleagues for his drastic and quick action. He has done Helen Clark a large favour, and so long as the companies office do not go after him in a big way, he should be back in cabinet within a year or two.

Under the Electoral Act an MP can lose his seat in Parliament if he or she is convicted of a crime punishable by more than two years of imprisonment - this is based on the charge the MP faces, not the actual sentence handed down by a judge. This creates another problem for Parker as filing a false company return, as Parker has done, carries a maximum term of 5 years imprisonment. There is a possibility, abet a remote one, that Parker could be forced out of Parliament.

It may be telling that the Acting Registrar of Companies, Adam Feeley compared Parker's breach of the Companies Act with a traffic infringement.

Even if the Companies Office decides to proceed with a prosecution this does not mean that Parker will necessarily be convicted by a judge. A reasonable case could be made that the consequences of conviction, Parker losing his seat, would outweigh the gravity of the offence. It could be argued that the most serious aspect is that Parker repeated his "mistake" in more than one year, including in a 2005 return while he was a cabinet minister. Assuming Parker has an otherwise unblemished record, I say spare the criminal conviction and give Parker a significant fine.

Recently Don Brash went as far as to accuse the police of 'bias' for not charging Labour over campaign overspending. Of course it was convienent for Brash to forget about the decision of authorities not to take action against National for overspending on election broadcasting, that oh so convienent "mistake" over GST.

Discussing the possibility whether the Companies Office would be taking action, Adam Feeley said, "No regard is had as to who the person is, but rather what the facts of the matter are and what the merits of bringing a prosecution are."

Exactly. Perhaps Mr Feely's words should also be applied to some other recent high profile cases involving politicians accused of potentially illegal acts. It would be an irony if all the shouting from the opposition resulted in a prima facie case of wasting police time. It is the job of the police and other judicial authorities to make the decision whether a "crime" warrants a conviction - and in this MPs should be treated no differently from ordinary members of the public.

PS: I wrote most of this a couple of days ago, but my computer seemed to get a bad habit of attempting to hibernate every time I tried to post it. Gah!