If you believe the polls, National is headed for a second term in government. According to some polls, they may even be granted an absolute majority. If that were to happen, the ten people below would be, in Parliamentary terms, the ten most powerful people in the country. But what do they think of you? Chris Banks investigates.
1 John Key
Voted against the Civil Union Act, but in favour of the accompanying Relationships Act, which allowed your partner to be legally recognised as next of kin. Has said that adoption law reform is “not a priority” for the Government. Invited queer youth groups to his office earlier this year to discuss bullying in schools – the groups described the meeting as “positive”, but there was no statement from Key. There was, however, a widely-distributed photo. Told crowd at 2011 Big Gay Out, “In 2008, National promised it wouldn’t roll back any gay rights, and the Government hasn’t”.
2 Bill English
Voted against both the Civil Union and Relationship Acts. Threatened GayNZ.com with legal action in 2007 when they revealed his teenage son was the author of a Bebo page abusing “whiney faggots” and that emos were more hated than blacks and Jews combined, “and for good reason too”. Initially responding with no comment, English eventually issued a statement admitting the page was genuine after three weeks, but issued no apology.
3 Lockwood Smith
A long-time MP, Smith voted against the Homosexual Law Reform Act, the Civil Union Act and the Relationships Act. Long dogged by gay rumours, he married his longtime girlfriend Alexandra Lang at Parliament in 2009. A year earlier, as the party’s immigration spokesman, he made world headlines after remarking that some employers were having to teach Pacific Islanders how to use the toilet and that Asians were better at picking fruit because they had small hands.
4 Gerry Brownlee
Voted against the Civil Union Act and Relationship Acts. During the Civil Union Bill’s first reading, he said this in Parliament:
“The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different, but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is — although some will find this difficult to take — they are not the same.”
5 Tony Ryall
Voted against the Civil Union Act and Relationship Acts, but for the Human Rights Act in 1993, which outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability (which includes HIV status). Despite pleas from NZAF and the mental health sector, failed to step in over the closure of the 198 Youth Health Centre in Christchurch due to lack of funding. The centre provided support for at-risk youth aged between 10 and 25, including queer youth with physical and mental health issues.
6 Nick Smith
Voted against the Civil Union and Relationship Acts, but for the Human Rights Act. During the Civil Union Bill’s third reading, he said this of the Labour Government in Parliament:
“…this is the most anti-family Government in the history of New Zealand. That is a fact. I fear for what will come next. I know that work is going on with the adoption law. I am sure that gay adoption will be the next piece of legislation this Government will attempt to ram through this House. I note that Georgina Beyer wants to introduce another bill to the effect that in this country we not only will have men and women but will separately recognise, through another set of legislation, a third so-called sex, transgender. I say that, too, will be a step backwards for our country.”
7 Judith Collins
Voted against the Civil Union and Relationship Acts. During the Civil Union Bill’s third reading, she said this in Parliament: “Is this a human rights issue? The census figures stated that 0. 3 per cent of adults in New Zealand say they live in a same-sex relationship – not a very large portion of the population – as opposed to the more than 45 per cent of adult New Zealanders who are married. So why would we be looking at this as a human rights issue? Look, if civil union were a human rights issue, I would be the first one in there championing the cause, but I do not think it is. Nor do I think that marriage is a human rights issue, because the moment it is, then so is polygamy. Why is the House not pushing a bill along to the select committee today celebrating polygamy?”
8 Anne Tolley
Was not in Parliament last term, has been Education Minister this term. Has continuously stonewalled queries from Rainbow Wellington over what action is being taken over bullying of queer students in schools. The government-funded Youth 07 study found that over half of queer students polled had been hit or physically harmed in the last year. When I phoned Tolley’s office for comment on this last year, they had not heard of the study and asked if it was American.
9 Chris Finlayson
National’s only openly gay MP, Finlayson’s position as Attorney General is a very senior one. He has publicly acknowledged that he is Catholic, single, as well as celibate, which would fit in line with the church’s bizarre teachings on homosexuality. Believes the civil union legislation is “flawed”, because marriage “is a heterosexual institution and I would not want to think that anything would be done which would harm that institution. I think it’s [civil union] marriage using a different term.”
10 David Carter
Voted against the Civil Union and Relationship Acts. Nothing on the public record with regards to his thoughts on queer issues, but appears to argue very passionately for animal rights. Compare this statement to the statements on GLBT rights above. “Animal welfare is vitally important to New Zealand – as a nation we are passionate and enthusiastic owners of companion animals… more than half of New Zealand households have at least one cat, and just over 35 per cent of households own a dog. Mahatma Gandhi once said: The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. How very true.”
| Chris Banks
NACTional may not have rolled back any Queer friendly legislation but they have put a whole bunch of bigots and homophobes on various Govt appointed committees and bodies which will be to our detriment for years. Putting Brian Neeson on the Human Rights Review Tribunal is like putting Atilla the Hun on the Peace Committee.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
58 
19
This is what happens when people are seduced by and vote for style. That “nice Mr key”, well actually he and his colleagues are far from nice.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
60 
68
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
10
William… seriously? Think about a hypothetical country which is financially stable with sound economic and welfare issues… and yet discriminates against the non-straight population legally. That could be us in a few years under this line-up!
I see a top ten who are completely divorced from ordinary new Zealanders myself!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
13
@ william ok, so you support national, i think people should stand behind their beleifs so i respect your position, just one thing though……..how about staying on topic rather than just ranting off topic into a subject which better suits your party, its a sign that you know your position is weak when you try to divert attention in another direction, which is funny because you arestanding up for them right? and you show signs of knowing their weaknesses………funny.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
25 
31
moving forward, but at what true cost? and I am not talking money wise
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Thanks for printing this, finally a clear outline of how these bastards treat the GLBT community!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
25
based on how I see animals and children are treated by some of my fellow NZer’s i am not surprised there is still prejudice here in the land of the long white cloud..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
5
Anne Tolley “has continuously stonewalled queries”… unfortunate choice of verb, there…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
11
Not at all. Though selected for an ability to act with political neutrality, the Speaker of the House is always a member of the governing party, elected unopposed at the start of the new Parliamentary term. This happens because you can assume that if a party has won (or wrangled through coalition) the majority needed to govern, that Party must also have the neccessary majority to succesfully elect its candidate of choice as Speaker of the House. Lockwood would have to challenge the governing party’s nominee in order to try and retain his position as Speaker under a non-National led Government, which would almost certainly be unsuccessful, because it woud require newly elected MPs to cross party lines in support of his re-election.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
That would be very nice if their financial policies worked, William. But you don’t run a business the same way you run a country. Additionally most polls show Kiwis rank the environment, among other things, higher than the economy in importance (which I think is only about fourth or fifth), and numerous studies show that people would rather have happiness (which includes equality) than wealth.
Incidentally there’s a pretty strong correlation between good economy and good civil rights, so…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
6
Dialectical truth: people who seek to oppress their ‘opposite’ contain hidden elements of their opposite. Finlayson is a case in point. Celibate queers? Puhleeeese
Where do you kiwis dig up these crustaceans from anyway? Would they be good with a lemon butter sauce? (after boiling alive, of course).
Mike in Queensland
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
5
I fear that if National get into government we will see our assets sold to overseas corporations and will end up as another EU country or what has happened in the USA with their home ownership. Also, I believe we will become a poorer country and the rise in those living in poverty.
The youth wage is wrong and it was wrong before which is why it was removed. To pay a student to do the work of an adult and then to pay that student half the amount of an adult minimum wage is abhorrent. My own siblings went through this process the first time around. We need a Labour/Green government. Its the only way we will be able to protect the little we have and to provide for those who have little already. We need to get rid of Pokie Machines if we are to help our poor. Sadly it is addictive and serves absolutely no purpose.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
10
did you read the article, doesn’t sound like you did because nothing you wrote is on subject
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
This is an interesting topic to talk about.
In terms of having National in govt a second term, I don’t think it will have a massive effect – they’re only in term for three years. And a majority of their policies or their plans that they promised in 08 have really only come over the course of the last year. So I don’t think NZ will be in a terrible place after the next three years if National get in.
I’m not so crash hot on politics and this is my first year being able to vote. But I’m beginning to wonder what exactly it is that Labour has done for the LGBTIQ community? From what I have gathered, they were the ones pushing for the Gay Rights Bill 25 years ago and they have done a few things since. But over the last few years I haven’t heard any specific plans to bring in anything more for us? When Q-Youth from Nelson met with John Key, he didn’t state anything but there was the wide publicity of the photo. So then, with the election this year, why was Phil not met with? Its all fine and dandy saying that National aren’t doing anything but it doesn’t seem like Labour are doing much either.
Where does Labour then fit into this? What are they offering us in schools, in the community? Yes they may be more queer friendly than National, but if they’re not doing things that are going to benefit us, then why should we give them our vote?
I would like to see this equivalent used on who Labours main govt would be and see what they’ve said/where their votes have gone.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
There was also the Civil Unions Act and the Relationships Acts giving same-sex partners rights like next of kin, inheritance, power of attorney in medical cases and legally recognising same-sex relationships in the same way hetero marriages are.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
My thoughts on this article is that it just shows to me the bias of the writer (and gayexpress) towards national.
Yes National do not have a good track record on many GLBT issues. But bringing up irrelevant issues (like Lockwood Smiths comments on Pacific Islanders) is just National bashing. Stick to the topic.
Why not show a balanced article and reprint what certain Labour MPs have said about gay MPs across the house. And show how LOTS of Labour MPs voted against key LGBT legislation.
If you are going to purport to be a genuine journalist standard media, then follow some basic principals of journalistic integrity.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
9
Because of course there’s no possibility of queer Pacific Islanders, or that people who oppose queerphobia might also oppose racism.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Queer rights is akin to race equality. They’re the same issue – stopping the marginalization of minority members of our communities.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
1
I hope William realises that you can strengthen the economy *and* improve civil rights at the same time. It’s not a one or the other situation.
Incidentally, I hope everyone has read over the policies of the other parties. The Greens actually have a very strong economic policy this election, balancing sustainable business with efforts to grow the economy.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
5
@Jack – Not a lot has been heard from Labour in the last three years for a range of reasons, but here is their Rainbow policy: http://www.ownourfuture.co.nz/rainbow
The 3 main items in Labour’s policy are:
1. Update adoption laws so the “widest pool of suitable adults” can adopt, allowing ‘gay adoption’. Current adoption law is a mess!
2. Actively support anti-bullying initiatives like Queer Straight Alliances and other diversity groups.
3. Labour also says they’ll continue to grow a strong New Zealand participation in international bodies dealing with Human Rights, especially at UN level. Specifically, Labour will oppose the criminalisation of consensual adult same-sex activity, and other instances of discrimination against GLBTI people.
That’s more than I have ever heard from National.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
7
ok, i have to say, i am glad to be out of the country when i read this, i have always voted for labour or the greens, but when i read the weak policies of labour…..i just would not have voted this time anyway, are those really the three top agenda’s for the party? seems a little out of step with the rest of the world in terms of what is needed in social development, or is it just because we are still so far behind. also, economic rebuilding could potentially be a fairly large social issue of late no???? or is ecenomics and the economy no longer seen as social????????
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Those are only their top 3 ‘rainbow’ policies. Not the top 3 of ‘all’ their policies Damian. Labour have a many policies related to the economy and other social issues as well.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
17
You talk about making an educated vote, then you disregard politicians by jumping to conclusions about their character, just as this article has done. Not voting for someone because they are a “pot smoking activist” is just ignorance. Perhaps you should examine the facts about why people do what they do before casting them off into your own mental bin. It’s like if my reason for not voting Nat was that “John key is a wine drinking banker”
perhaps the greens are activists for educated reasons. Perhaps they have researched what they ingest into their systems. I would bet my money they look into their consumption a lot more than the average New Zealander
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Going after comments made by Bill English’s son that he made as a teenager and then re-framing them out of context shows the article’s authors are scraping the barrel here. By going after the children of politicians you truly are engaging in ignorant gutter politics.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
10
Could someone explain to me what, if anything, is objectionable about Judith Collins’s comparison of homosexuality to polygamy? As a guy who has no desire to engage in either, but a strong desire to let consenting adults do what they want with each other, I can’t really see the problem there.
To be clear, I think her reasoning — saying that civil unions aren’t a human rights issue because they affect just a small percentage of the population — is absolute bunk. I’m just interested in what difference people see between homosexuality and polygamy. As I currently see it, it’s a bit hypocritical to say that one’s OK and the other isn’t.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
That was an interesting one Tim. She seems to be engaging and it’s promising that she’d support civil unions if by allowing them this represented granting a human right. But let’s not get carried away. Tim, to me, the difference is that equality viz a viz the status quo would mean being able to marry or legally “unionise” with the one person I loved, whether they were a man or a woman. Legalising multiple partnerships is a separate concept that is outside current law. Civil unions seek to conform to existing law, to recognise that although non straight people are not the same, their relationships are as equal and worthy of the same recognition as straight ones.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Thanks for your thoughtful answer Sonja, but I have to say I find it unsatisfying. Legalising multiple partnerships is indeed a “separate concept that is outside current law”, but that’s exactly what civil unions for same-sex partners were before 2005 when the Civil Union Act was passed. The Act *changed* the status quo, for the better in my opinion, and so far I don’t see a good reason why it shouldn’t change further — basically I don’t see why the legal recognition that you value should be denied to groups of people who all love each other.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
It’s a good point Tim. I guess it’s bound up in dare I say it religious moral historical reasons – that society is Even less accepting of group partnerships than it was of non straight ones. Which shows the origins of all these socially conservative arguments – fear ignorance and intolerance based on outdated thinking. The sooner we can all discuss the need for all of society, men and women, straight and not, Regardless of relationship form, being better people, parents families and citizens and get away from marginalizing people based on their points of difference, the more mature a society we will become.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another important factor here is that being gay isn’t a choice, so voting against civil unions is denying a portion of the population from exercising their human right to equally participate in a marriage type institution.
I could be wrong but forming group relationships seems more of a choice To love multiple people scenario as opposed to an orientation and decision to commit to one issue. Comparing pologamy and civil unions is just mixing up concepts. Orientation is like race- different races can marry, as should same sex orientation people. The nature of the relationship is the same, the participant characteristics are slightly different. It’s a good discussion.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
well said, its obvious isnt itand yet………..i think it would have been better if you had have written the article sonja
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Carter is VERY far from “very [passionate] for animal rights.”, he goes with the tide on issues of “animal welfare”, inch bigger cages before 2099 and what have you
Jordan Wyatt
INVERCARGILL VEGAN SOCIETY
“all animals are equal”
http://www.invsoc.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
but some are more equal than others
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anne Tolley “stonewalled *queries* from Rainbow Wellington” ; )
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
3
Just seconding Jordan’s comment that Carter is far from supportive of animal rights. Carter has backed pig farmers continuing to keep sows in crates. Minister of Agriculture should also read Minister of Exploitation: i.e. of environment, water, animals, farm employees etc.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
while everything reported here is true, and certainly the fact that national are a bunch of neaderthal’s, it is pretty plainly obvious that the article is written with an agenda, this makes for poor journalism and bad reading as it is not balanced and thus cannot be trusted, its a shame because these backward conservatives frequently show their colours, but every time a peice is written like this it discredits liberals as being too emotional, bias and not clear headed (typical critque of the left).
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Seems more of us might prefer National than Labour going by your poll. Or maybe some of us are just absolutely sick of this childish muckraking by ones that have nothing eklse to offer.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Mod Note:
We have noted that a few people (Northguy included) have logged many, many votes in our poll, which shows a flaw in our poll plug-in. We will make sure this is fixed as soon as possible so each IP address can only vote once.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
For the record, this isn’t Anne Tolley’s first term in Parliament. She was first elected in 1999, but got voted out in 2002. She returned in 2005 (unfortunately).
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Interesting article, checked back on the 1986 law reform vote http://commonz.wotfun.com/bill/ and there they are:
Winston Peters and John Banks voting NO on the Homosexual Law Reform Act
Like or Dislike:
1 
0