Peter Dunne - Leaders Letter 7 March 2007

Parliament is engaged in another contentious conscience issue – this time the debate about smacking. These debates often bring out the best and the worst aspects of Parliament, and this round is no exception.

United Future is allowing its MPs to vote according to their own consciences on this issue. That is because we respect the right of our MPs to form their own views on an issue like this and to act in a way that they judge is in the country's best interests. We contrast that with the Labour Party which has decided it knows best and that all its MPs, regardless of what they might individually think, will vote according to a pre-determined collective position.

One of United Future's founding principles is freedom of belief and expression, and we will uphold that principle regardless of the position an individual MP might take on an issue where we have chosen not to form an official policy, because of our overriding respect for human dignity and worth. Making everyone think the same way on a conscience issue is actually an affront to the individual freedom and personal responsibility so many espouse. Because of our commitment to freedom of belief and expression we will continue to trust our MPs to act according to their consciences when issues of this type arise, rather than seeking to make their decisions for them.

After much soul-searching, I personally have decided to vote for the Bill. While I do not like the state telling people how to live their lives, I have been long concerned about New Zealand's appalling rates of child abuse.

I have always found the idea of hitting children to be personally repugnant, which was why I never hit my own children. I think the Bill is an important way of sending a signal to the wider community about the unacceptability of child abuse without compromising unduly parental rights, while offering some protection for vulnerable children. My two colleagues have decided to oppose the Bill and I respect completely their decisions and their right to reach them freely.

Like democracy, in Winston Churchill's famous words, conscience votes may not be perfect, but they are the best we have. It has been my experience over more than 20 years that no MP ever wins from a conscience vote. March 7, 2007 No. 5 Whatever stand one takes, there is always a significant group that finds that position untenable. But that is the accountability we accept when we become MPs and we should not shy away from it, no matter how extreme the argument becomes, or dogmatic, persistent and threatening the respective camps are in the advocacy of their cause. But none of that justifies either taking away the right of MPs to exercise their individual conscience on these issues, or requiring them to surrender their consciences to the dictates of the party.

There is, however, an important safeguard we can introduce to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the decisions reached on such matters have some public support. We believe that any conscience issue passed by Parliament by less than a 60% vote should automatically go to a referendum. The result of that referendum would be binding only if the turnout was at least 60% of all eligible voters, and the measure was passed by 60% of those voting. Deputy leader Judy Turner is moving an amendment to insert this requirement into the current anti-smacking Bill.

Work on the 2007 Budget is coming to a climax, with many key decisions likely to be made over the next month or so before Budget Day on May 17. This year's Budget will be a big one for United Future. The centrepiece will clearly be the outcome of the Business Tax Review, which is likely to produce the biggest round of business tax changes in 20 years, and all because of the initiative we took in our confidence and supply agreement with Labour to carry out such a review.

There will also be significant changes for the tax treatment of personal and business charitable donations, again foreshadowed in our confidence and supply agreement. The trifecta will come with the confirmation of the establishment of a government consultation panel to look at recreational and environmental issues surrounding, deer, chamois, pigs and tahr, issues very close to New Zealanders who enjoy recreational hunting.

These will be major achievements of benefit to many New Zealanders, in a range of walks of life, none of which would have got off the ground were it not for United Future and the constructive role it plays. While others snipe and grandstand, yet again we deliver. My Bill to change Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day will not proceed, although the select committee which considered it has noted there is support for establishing a separate New Zealand Day. That was a conclusion I had already reached separately, so I am not unhappy at the committee's decision that the Bill go no further.

I am now working on what be might an appropriate day to cast as New Zealand Day, while retaining Waitangi Day. There are no obvious candidates. Some have suggested 26 September – the old Dominion Day – which commemorates the day in 1907 when New Zealand was elevated from colony to British Dominion status.

I am not at all convinced that a vestige of our imperial past is the appropriate day to set aside as the day to celebrate our contemporary nationhood and our future. One alternative that does come to mind is the current Queen's Birthday holiday, which is largely irrelevant to most people. It is not even the Queen's actual birthday, and certainly attracts no special celebration.

Its only significance seems to be the release of the Queen's Birthday Honours list, which could easily become the New Zealand Day Honours List, if the day were to become New Zealand Day. A third option is to just pick a day at random and anoint it as New Zealand Day, but this too would have its problems. So I am currently seeking suggestions and feedback before preparing a new Bill to put forward later in the year. The one thing I am absolutely certain of, though, is that our National Day should be the one day each year where we set aside all our cultural, political and other differences and celebrate in Norman Kirk's immortal words the unique gift we possess by virtue of the fact we are all New Zealanders.

A big thank you to all those who have supported the petition Nelson city councillor Mark Holmes and I have been running to extend daylight saving by three weeks. At this stage, it looks as though well over 30,000 people have signed the petition, with thousands more having e-mailed messages of support for more daylight saving. In addition, key sector groups like the tourism industry have also supported the extension, along with a number of Mayors, newspaper editorials, radio talkbacks and news broadcasts.

There is no doubt that more daylight saving is what New Zealanders want, and the Internal Affairs Minister is going to be extremely hard-pressed to do anything other than heed our call. So hopefully we can all look forward to a longer summer at the end of the year. Best wishes to you all and your families.

ENDS

© Scoop Media