Same-sex marriage: 2013

For millions of people worldwide, marriage is a culturally-significant, historically-bound institution. But a majority of politicians 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. The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act was an act of cultural vandalism. The equality cause is not advanced by destroying institutions. Equality should respect difference, not destroy it.

Read more: ProtectMarriage.nz

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE – FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE: 2013

Under the same-sex marriage legislation, it is unlawful for churches, mosques and synagogues to refuse to host same-sex marriages if the building is normally made available to the public. While the bill was being debated, a majority of MPs voted down an amendment which would uphold the right of individual celebrants and registrars to refuse to marry a same-sex couple. Since the law change, some wedding facilities have been pressured to change their policies, or have stopped making their facilities available to the public, to avoid possible prosecution. Some marriage celebrant applicants have been turned down due to their personal convictions on the definition of marriage, despite assurances from politicians that this would not happen.

DEFINING MARRIAGE: 2005

In 2005, the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill attempted to clearly define and confirm marriage as a union between one man and one woman, in accordance with the common law understanding of marriage. The bill was defeated.

ASSISTED SUICIDE / EUTHANASIA: 2019, 2003

In 2019, a majority of MPs voted for a private members bill from ACT MP David Seymour which legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide. Many MPs had to ‘hold their noses’ and vote for a referendum to be held to approve this law change – despite opposing other referendums on important social issues - in order for the bill to be passed. The referendum will be held at the same time as the General Election this year. Amendments to allow for full freedom of conscience provisions for health professionals, and a mandatory one-week cooling-off period, were both defeated. Previously, in 2003, a Death with Dignity Bill was defeated.

Read more: 20 Reasons to Vote NO to Euthanasia in 2020

LEGALISING CANNABIS FOR RECREATIONAL USE: 2020

As part of the coalition agreement made between Labour and the Greens in 2017, a referendum on legalising marijuana will be held at the same time as the General Election this year.

We asked every MP how they would vote in the upcoming cannabis referendum. For MPs who didn’t respond, we have also looked at public statements they may have made. These are noted with a *

Read more: 20 Reasons to Vote NO to Cannabis in 2020

Decriminalising all drugs

The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2019 was introduced primarily to provide police with additional powers to target the manufacturers and suppliers of synthetic drugs, which have caused significant societal harm and many deaths. However, the Government also used the bill to introduce what the Law Society and the Police Association labelled ‘a de-facto decriminalisation’ of not just cannabis, but all drugs – P, heroin and cocaine. The NZ Police said that discretion was already being used by the Police on a daily basis, including “the use of alternative resolution options including pre-charge warnings, Te Pae Oranga, and referrals to health and other support services” and that their focus “continues to be on targeting the organised criminal networks who supply these harmful drugs to our communities. However, the possession and use of illicit drugs remains illegal and prosecution remains an option in order to prevent harm and keep people safe.’ At the same time as the public are about to vote on whether we should legalise cannabis, the Government is telling police not to prosecute people buying and using hard drugs.

[It is acknowledged in our record that at the 11th hour NZ First was able to force the Government to tighten the discretion in favour of the ‘public interest’ when determining whether to prosecute.]

Medicinal marijuana

In 2019, the Government introduced legislation to make medicinal cannabis products more accessible. Regulations to support that Bill came into force on 1 April 2020, meaning approved cannabis-based medicines can now be prescribed by any medical practitioner. The NZ Drug Foundation said it was a “win for patients”. National proposed an alternative bill, setting out a much more detailed regulatory regime which would allow patients to buy cannabis products from pharmacists, and would not allow for any loose-leaf smoking. While Family First agreed with the concerns expressed by National around loose-leaf smoking – it is clearly not a medicine - we do support the expansion of further quality research into the components of the marijuana plant for delivery via non-smoked forms. Medicinal marijuana should be tested and supervised (and funded) like any other medicine – but not used as a smokescreen for recreational use. We should keep marijuana medical. If the current medicinal cannabis regime is falling short, we should fix that legislation, but that does not mean we should legalise it for recreational use.

In 2018, prior to the introduction of the government bill, Green MP Chloe Swarbrick’s (previously Julie Anne Genter’s) private member’s bill was effectively a grow-your-own-dope-medicine bill, with very little control or safeguards. It was rejected by the majority of MPs.

Read more: SayNopeToDope.org.nz/medicinal

ABORTION LEGISLATION BILL: 2020

The new abortion law – championed by Jacinda Ardern during the 2017 election campaign and passed this year - means that New Zealand now has one of the most extreme abortion laws in the world. A number of amendments designed to remove some of the extreme aspects of the law were all rejected by a majority of MPs.

Read more: Fatal Flaws – Abortion Legislation Act 2020

PARENTAL NOTIFICATION FOR TEEN ABORTIONS: 2004, 2020

Currently, girls under the age of 16 can have an abortion without their parents being informed. In 2004, a law-change proposed to prevent this was defeated. During the debate on the new 2020 abortion law (referred to previously), an amendment which would have seen abortion for minors treated like any other health procedure was again defeated. In all other health contexts, the health practitioner is required to assess the child’s capacity prior to a medical procedure and, where capacity is lacking, obtain the consent of a parent or guardian. It is ironic that abortion advocates want abortion to be treated as a ‘health issue’ – but not when it involves a teenager seeking an abortion.

Read more: LoveThemBoth.nz

ANTI-SMACKING LAW: 2007

Section 59 of the Crimes Act was amended in 2007, removing legal protection from parents who exercise discipline over their children in the form of reasonable physical punishment – despite the fact 87% New Zealanders opposed it in a subsequent referendum. Most social indicators around the welfare of children have continued to worsen since the law change, proving we are not tackling the real causes of child abuse. The amendment makes parents who engage in reasonable correction of their children liable for prosecution and unwarranted intervention by police and Oranga Tamariki. Despite promises that this wouldn’t happen, legal analysis and evidence from families rebut the assurances that were given.

Read more: ProtectGoodParents.nz

DECRIMINALISE NON-ABUSIVE SMACKING: 2009

Just over a week after 87% of New Zealanders voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to change the anti-smacking law, politicians had the opportunity to support a bill that would have decriminalised light and non-abusive smacking for the purpose of correction. This would have removed the fear and uncertainty around the anti-smacking law, which continues more than ten years on. This proposed amendment to the law was virtually identical to that aggressively lobbied for by the National party. The bill was defeated, and all National MPs voted against it.

DECRIMINALISING PROSTITUTION: 2003

Prostitution was made legal in New Zealand in 2003. The new law enabled small brothels to operate in residential areas next to family homes, and failed to protect communities and families from the effects of street prostitution. It also failed to deliver on the stated aim of the law, which was to significantly improve safety, health and welfare for prostitutes. What it has achieved is an improvement in working conditions for pimps and brothel owners. Ultimately, the new law legalised the sexual exploitation of vulnerable people.

Ban street prostitution: 2015

A number of communities around New Zealand have been trying to deal with the problems created by street prostitution: intimidation, noise, litter, and criminal behaviour. The 2003 prostitution law (see above) failed to give local councils the ability to deal with the nuisance and harm caused to both prostitutes (many of whom are under-age) and families. This bill, which was defeated, would have enabled prostitutes to be moved out of residential and family shopping areas.

RAISE DRINKING (PURCHASE) AGE: 2012

Medical evidence on accident probability, disease, and brain development clearly supports delaying the age at which young people have easy access to alcohol. Raising the drinking age would reduce the level of damage to young people - and to society - and would contribute to future health and well-being. The 2012 proposal to increase the drinking purchase age would have undone some of the harm which resulted from the previous lowering of the age, but it was defeated. (This is just one of the 5+ Solutions for reducing alcohol harm which Family First supports).

EASTER TRADING: 2016

After a number of attempts to change the law, the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act was passed in 2016, allowing trading on Easter Sunday. Based on the arguments used by its proponents, Good Friday, Anzac Day and Christmas Day will soon be targeted.