Thursday, December 08, 2005

Marriage bill: the vote

Here's how MP's voted on the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill. The vote was a split party vote, but thanks to the Brown Amendment, parties must now identify who is voting which way, rather than being able to hide behind secrecy:

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 1 (Field); New Zealand National 36 (Ardern, Auchinvole, Bennett D, Bennet P, Blue, Borrows, Brash, Brownlee, Carter D, Carter J, Clarkson, Coleman, Collins, Dean, English, Foss, Goodhew, Goudie, Guy, Hayes, Heatley, Hutchison, King C, Mapp, McCully, Peachey, Roy, Ryall, Smith L, Smith N, Tisch, Tolley, Tremain, Wagner, Wilkinson, Worth); New Zealand First 5 (Brown, Paraone, Peters, Stewart, Woolerton); United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2

Noes 73

New Zealand Labour 49 (Barker, Barnett, Benson-Pope, Beyer, Burton, Carter C, Chadwick, Choudhary, Clark, Cosgrove, Cullen, Cunliffe, Dalziel, Duynhoven, Dyson, Fairbrother, Fenton, Gallagher, Goff, Gosche, Hartley, Hawkins, Hereora, Hobbs, Hodgson, Horomia, Hughes, Jones, King A, Laban, Mackey, Maharey, Mahuta, Mallard, Moroney, O’Connor, Okeroa, Parker, Pettis, Pillay, Ririnui, Robertson, Samuels, Street, Sutton, Swain, Tizard, Wilson, Yates); New Zealand National 12 (Blumsky, Connell, Finlayson, Groser, Henare, Key, Power, Rich, Simich, te Heuheu, Williamson, Wong); New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly, Mark); Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1

It seems the new National lineup is one average far more liberal than the ACT, NZ First, and United Future MPs they replaced - and that ACT is still engaging in false advertising when it calls itself "the liberal party".


When I became politicised and considered my first vote in NZ national elections I narrowed my choices down to the Libertarianz, ACT or the Greens. For a bunch of reasons I went with the Greens (not in the least the implied dismantling of parliament as we know it in their charter). It's votes like Rodney's (and my subsequent understanding of free market economics) that constantly remind me of what a bunch of hypocrites I nearly voted for.

Posted by Anonymous : 12/08/2005 12:54:00 PM

ACT talks a good talk on freedom, but when it comes to the crunch, they don't do the walk. The only freedom they are interested in is the freedom of the rich not to pay taxes; everything else goes out the window in an effort to grub enough votes to push for those tax cuts.

I had hoped that this would change now that ACT has been reduced to a rump of its most consistently liberal members - but sadly, I was wrong.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 12/08/2005 01:05:00 PM

It's at times like this that I am glad I voted for the Greens. While I deplore some of their Luddite tendencies at least I have confidence that their hearts are always in the right place and that on matters of social principle and equality they aren't small minded bigots.

Posted by Amanda : 12/08/2005 02:07:00 PM

If it smells like a conservative, looks like a conservative and votes like a conservative, I am willing to wager that it is not a liberal. Any party that attempts to recruit the moralistic, conservative poster boy, John Banks can’t be taken seriously even as a “classically liberal” party. The NZ Party was the last centre-right liberal party in this country. I understand Bob is a supporter of ACT – maybe he should give them some policy advice?

Posted by Anonymous : 12/08/2005 03:54:00 PM

Or publicly quit if the party no longer stands for what he believes in (if indeed it ever did).

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 12/08/2005 04:15:00 PM

Well I see all the letters I wrote were a waste of time *snort* - especially the one to Rodney calling him on his homepage statement "I want to see more money in the hands of working families, a fairer legal system, one policy for all Kiwi’s, regardless of race, gender or religion..." I guess the "one policy for all" clause was just a bunch of baloney after all.

Anyhoo, we did win out at the end of the day and it's a pleasant surprise to see a few libs crawling out of the National Party woodwork hehehe

Posted by zANavAShi : 12/08/2005 04:38:00 PM

Clause 7 made me laugh out loud. To paraphrase "Discrimiating against couples of the same sex will not be considered discriminatory because we say so - so there!"

Posted by Anonymous : 12/08/2005 07:35:00 PM

Not all the new Nat MPs turned out to be so liberal though. It was sad to see that my new MP, Coleman (Northcote), voted for the Bill. His seat was the only one to be taken off Labour by National in the four main urban centres. One would hope that this would encourage him to be more respectful of the diverse nature of his electorate--a diversity which he praised during his maiden speech to parliament. Demonstrating a troubling understanding of the law for a legsilator, he wrote to me that "There is a question as to whether common law covers the defintion of marriage adequately at present." I do hope someone can explain the whole legal system to him before he's required to vote again. ...Oh, and I note from his webpage that he's planning on getting married early in the new year. How nice for some.

Posted by Anonymous : 12/09/2005 05:34:00 AM

Meanwhile, over on the UFO webpage, Gordon is making resentful noises toward those who said they opposed SSM but voted
against the DOMB.

Craig Y.

Posted by Anonymous : 12/09/2005 11:43:00 AM

interested to note that Brian Connell voted against the Bill given his comments on the Civil Union Bill

Posted by Anonymous : 12/09/2005 04:20:00 PM

I think Connell voted against it just to spite The Donald, who voted for it...

Craig Y.

Posted by Anonymous : 12/10/2005 11:05:00 AM