Value Your Vote
Interim Report 2013

Overall Party Mark

Key

Consistent with Family First position
Contrary to Family First position
No Vote
Marriage ReferendumMarriage ConscienceGay MarriageGambling HarmSky City PokiesBail Laws
Act
John Banks
17%
Green
Steffan Browning
33%
David Clendon
33%
Catherine Delahunty
33%
Julie Anne Genter
33%
Dr Kennedy Graham
33%
Kevin Hague
33%
Gareth Hughes
33%
Jan Logie
33%
Mojo Mathers
33%
Russel Norman
33%
Denise Roche
33%
Eugenie Sage
33%
Metiria Turei
33%
Holly Walker
33%
Labour
Jacinda Ardern
50%
Carol Beaumont
50%
David Clark
50%
Clayton Cosgrove
50%
David Cunliffe
50%
Clare Curran
50%
Lianne Dalziel
33%
Ruth Dyson
50%
Kris Faafoi
50%
Darien Fenton
50%
Phil Goff
50%
Chris Hipkins
50%
Raymond Huo
50%
Shane Jones
33%
Annette King
50%
Iain Lees-Galloway
50%
Andrew Little
50%
Moana Mackey
50%
Nanaia Mahuta
33%
Trevor Mallard
50%
Sue Moroney
50%
Damien O'Connor
83%
David Parker
50%
Rajen Prasad
50%
Grant Robertson
50%
Ross Robertson
100%
David Shearer
50%
Su'a William Sio
100%
Maryan Street
50%
Rino Tirikatene
67%
Phil Twyford
50%
Louisa Wall
50%
Meka Whaitiri
50%
Megan Woods
33%
Mana
Hone Harawira
33%
Maori
Te Ururoa Flavell
17%
Pita Sharples
17%
Tariana Turia
17%
National
Amy Adams
33%
Shane Ardern
33%
Chris Auchinvole
17%
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi
67%
Maggie Barry
50%
David Bennett
50%
Paula Bennett
17%
Chester Borrows
50%
Simon Bridges
33%
Gerry Brownlee
67%
Dr Cam Calder
17%
David Carter
17%
Jonathan Coleman
50%
Judith Collins
17%
Jacqui Dean
33%
Bill English
50%
Christopher Finlayson
33%
Craig Foss
17%
Paul Foster-Bell
17%
Paul Goldsmith
50%
Jo Goodhew
33%
Tim Groser
17%
Nathan Guy
33%
Claudette Hauiti
17%
John Hayes
67%
Phil Heatley
50%
Tau Henare
17%
Paul Hutchison
33%
Steven Joyce
17%
Nikki Kaye
17%
John Key
17%
Colin King
50%
Melissa Lee
67%
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga
67%
Tim Macindoe
67%
Todd McClay
67%
Murray McCully
50%
Ian McKelvie
67%
Mark Mitchell
67%
Alfred Ngaro
67%
Simon O'Connor
50%
Hekia Parata
17%
Jami-Lee Ross
17%
Eric Roy
67%
Tony Ryall
50%
Mike Sabin
67%
Katrina Shanks
33%
Scott Simpson
33%
Nick Smith
50%
Lindsay Tisch
33%
Annette Tolley
50%
Chris Tremain
50%
Louise Upston
67%
Nicky Wagner
17%
Kate Wilkinson
17%
Maurice Williamson
33%
Michael Woodhouse
33%
Jian Yang
67%
Jonathan Young
67%
Independent
Brendan Horan
83%
NZ First
Asenati Lole-Taylor
83%
Tracey Martin
83%
Denis O'Rourke
83%
Winston Peters
83%
Richard Prosser
83%
Barbara Stewart
83%
Andrew Williams
83%
United Future
Peter Dunne
33%

** Brendan Horan introduced one SOP calling for a Referendum which he supported, but he didn’t support the other SOP of Winston Peters which gained greater support from MP’s for a Referendum. Both failed.

The Issues

Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – 3rd Reading
April 2012

In ramming through the ‘shot-gun’ same-sex marriage bill, Parliament chose to reject the obvious cultural and natural characteristics of marriage and the subsequent creation and care of children, and made marriage just about partnership. Despite their grandiose view, the politicians never had the authority to redefine marriage - and their efforts only mask reality. In ramming through this bill in a shameful way without due consideration, and with no clear public mandate, politicians committed an arrogant act of cultural vandalism. The equality cause is not advanced by destroying institutions. Equality should respect difference, not destroy it. There was no discrimination in the law as it stood. Ironically, marriage now has become meaningless – and genderless! We will now be using the word to describe something else – not commonly or traditionally conceived, but conceived by politics and political correctness.

With the accompanying consequence of changes to adoption laws, politicians also weakened the rights of the child in favour of pandering to the demands of adults. A child has a right to a mum and a dad. We should not set out in public policy to deny a child that basic right. This is a gender issue – not a sexuality issue. The gender of the parents does matter to a child.

It is perfectly possible to support traditional marriage, while also recognising and respecting the rights of others. There was absolutely no need to redefine marriage to provide legal recognition and protection for same-sex relationships. In 2004, the government introduced Civil Unions and changed over 150 pieces of legislation to achieve this very thing. Adults have a right to form meaningful relationships – they just don’t have a right to redefine marriage.

For millions and millions of people worldwide, marriage is a specific culturally and historically bound institution. Civil unions were always argued to be an acceptable alternative, and there was no need to change the current.

Read more info http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/

FAMILY FIRST POSITION: OPPOSE
Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – Referendum on Redefining Marriage
March 2013

At the same time as politicians were ramming through this bill, many of them were also collecting signatures for a Referendum on state asset sales – saying that NZ’ers had a right to be heard on this issue, and the government should listen to the public. That same courtesy did not extend to this bill, and two proposals to allow a Referendum on this important social change were voted down – despite there being no clear public mandate to make such a significant social and cultural change.

Read more info http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/

FAMILY FIRST POSITION: SUPPORT
Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – Conscientious Exemption
March 2013

The politicians demanded a conscience vote on this bill, ironically at the same time as they voted that the same-sex marriage bill would not protect the consciences of places of faith from having to host ‘same-sex weddings’ if their facilities are available to the general public, and would not protect the consciences of marriage registrars and marriage celebrants who are not part of approved mainline churches or approved organisations to lawfully be able to refuse a request to marry a same-sex couple by reason of the same-sex of the couple.

A poll of 1,000 New Zealanders found strong support for amendments. 80% of respondents thought marriage celebrants should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings if they go against their personal convictions. Only 32% of marriages conducted in New Zealand are conducted by celebrants who may have the benefit of the conscientious exemption which seriously undercuts the assurances given by MP Louisa Wall to Parliament during the 1st Reading.

73% of respondents believed churches, temples, mosques, and other places of faith should not be required to allow same-sex marriages in their buildings. The politicians considered it to be appropriate that it be unlawful for churches, temples, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship to refuse to host same-sex ‘marriages’ if the building is normally made available to the public.

Read theLegal Advice Read more info http://www.protectmarriage.org.nz/

FAMILY FIRST POSITION: SUPPORT
Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill
2013

The gambling bill as originally drafted would have given councils and the public power to cut the number of poker machines in their area and ensure that gambling proceeds are fed back into the immediate community. The bill proposed to:

  • Gives councils power to eliminate or reduce pokies at a venue if the public feels they are harmful.
  • Ensure 80% of gambling proceeds return to the community where the money was lost.
  • Phase out the corporate societies which distribute pokie earnings, and replaces them with transparent, local committees.
  • Insist that venues introduce gambler tracking systems which measure losses, and pre-commit cards which allow players to preset the time and money they gamble.
  • Remove special status of the racing industry as a recipient for the purpose of racing stakes.

Unfortunately the government ‘gutted’ the bill of key provisions during the select committee process and made it not very different to the status quo of how the law operates now. Family First now opposes the bill because of the exclusion of the important provisions above.

In an independent poll of 1,000 NZ’ers, 87% of respondents supported Councils being able to cut the number of pokie machines in areas they are thought to be particularly harmful.

Source: NZ Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10804202

Read more info http://familyfirst.org.nz/issues/gambling-harm/

FAMILY FIRST POSITION: OPPOSE
SkyCity Pokie Deal (International Convention Centre)
2013

The purpose of the Bill was to give effect to an agreement between SkyCity and the Government to build an international convention centre in exchange for legislative changes allowing an extra 230 slot machines and 40 gaming tables, a 27-year extension to SkyCity’s Auckland casino licence, and other regulatory concessions.

Family First is opposing any law change which would allow the mass influx of more ‘mechanical pickpocket’ machines to SkyCity. This law change is completely contrary to the Gambling Act which seeks to reduce gambling harm. Casinos thrive on the false promise of getting rich quickly, but the reality is that those who can least afford to gamble are gambling themselves deeper into debt. Significant risk factors for problem gambling include being between 25-34, Maori or Pacific ethnicity, lower educational attainment, being employed and living alone. Problem gambling is strongly associated with risky drinking behaviour and smoking. Other health problems for gamblers include stress-related health problems, major mental problems, and medical conditions. Of most concern is the impact on families including domestic violence, unsupervised children in casino carparks, children going without food clothes and other necessities, and US research suggesting a link between gambling and physical and emotional abuse.

In addition, there were four other interested parties in building the convention centre. The Deputy Auditor- General was concerned with how unfairly they were treated in the tendering process. The Convention Centre (if needed) could be built without a mass increase in pokie machines.

Read more info https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/issues/skycity-pokie-deal/

FAMILY FIRST POSITION: OPPOSE
Bail Amendment Bill
August 2013

Under the provisions of this bill, offenders charged with serious crimes would have to prove they can be trusted out at large. It makes it more difficult for serious violent, sexual or Class A drug offenders to get bail, and people charged with serious crimes would have to prove to the Crown they would not be a threat to public safety if allowed out of custody. This change reverses the burden of proof for bail cases involving serious offences. At present, it is usually the prosecutor’s responsibility to prove a defendant should not get bail.

We supported what was termed as Christie’s Law (launched by the Sensible Sentencing Trust) - for five good reasons

1/2. Brian and Lynette Brown’s 24-year-old daughter Natasha Hayden was slain by Tauranga man Michael Curran at McLaren Falls on January 10, 2005. Curran was granted bail by a High Court judge on July 7, 2005 after four unsuccessful bail applications and while awaiting trial he murdered 2-year-old Tauranga toddler Aaliyah Morrissey on September 13, 2005.
3. 17-year-old Augustine Borrell was stabbed to death at a party in the Auckland suburb of Herne Bay in September 2007. Murderer Haiden Davis was on bail for another violent crime when he killed Augustine…
4. Vanessa Pickering, who was murdered by Malcolm Chaston while he was on bail. Pickering’s body was found on a hill near Godley Head in Christchurch in February 2010. Chaston, a 41-year-old with a violent criminal history, was jailed indefinitely for her murder.
5. Christie’s Law was sparked by the fatal stabbing of Auckland teenager Christie Marceau. The man accused of Marceau’s murder was on bail at the time of the alleged murder.

Read more info http://familyfirst.org.nz/issues/bail-laws/
see also Bay of Plenty Times - Feb 28 2012
see also Auckland Now - Feb 28 2012

FAMILY FIRST POSITION: SUPPORT
Still to be voted on: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill
2013

Successive governments have undervalued families and families are being penalised for having children. The political and policy focus has been on the needs of the economy, rather than on the welfare of children and the vital role of parents. In reality, this policy would represent about 0.2% of the total government spending, yet research shows that the role of mothers and the early bonding between mums and babies is vital for healthy child development. Ironically, the spending on early childhood education has almost tripled in the past ten years – yet there was no suggestion of a veto by the government then, as there has been on this bill. A 2008 report by UNICEF rated New Zealand 23rd out of 25 countries for effective paid parental leave. Kiwi parents get 14 weeks paid parental leave while the average in the rest of the developed world is approaching one year. In 2009, the Families Commission called for an extension of paid parental leave to at least 12 months. A recent Department of Labour evaluation of paid parent leave showed that only ¼ of mothers thought the paid parental leave was long enough, and up to 75% said ideally they would take a year off. Yet the average time at which mothers return to work is when their baby is six months old. Only 14 weeks of that is paid. ‘Financial pressure’ was cited as a key reason for returning to work earlier than desired. The role of parents during the crucial early years of a child should be acknowledged.

Read more info http://familyfirst.org.nz/issues/paid-parental-leave/

FAMILY FIRST POSITION: SUPPORT
Still to be voted on: Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill
2013

Violence, turf wars and streets littered with syringes and used condoms at Hunters Corner and Manurewa led the former Manukau City Council to have a bill introduced to Parliament. But with the advent of the Super City, the Regulation of Prostitution in Specific Places Bill has been amended to reflect the new governance structure, which means that the Auckland Council could pass bylaws to outlaw street prostitution anywhere in the city. Under the bill, the council must specify where street prostitution is outlawed. It cannot apply a blanket ban. The bill would enable prostitutes to be moved out of residential areas. The Greens labelled the bill “repugnant’! Although Labour supported this bill being referred to a select committee, almost 2/3’rds of the MP’s had previously voted against the ‘Manukau City’ version in 2010.

Read more info http://familyfirst.org.nz/issues/ban-on-street-prostitution/

FAMILY FIRST POSITION: SUPPORT

AUTHORISED BY BOB MCCOSKRIE, 652 GT SOUTH RD, MANUKAU CITY 2241

NOTE: The information presented on this website is based on the actual voting record in 2013 on a number of family related issues. It is not intended to endorse any particular candidate or party, and voters are encouraged to make informed decisions on the candidates’ and parties’ policies across many issues. This website offers a limited but nevertheless important perspective to each candidate and party in matters important to families.

Every attempt has been made to accurately represent the voting record of MP’s. We welcome any documented corrections.

built for Family First