Maxim Institute - real issues - No 241
22 February 2007
www.maxim.org.nz

No "state religion" in New Zealand
UNICEF highlights children at risk
Two votes down, one to go

IN THE NEWS
Teenage birth rates continue to rise
Terms of reference announced for alcohol review
Parliament debates Easter trading

NO "STATE RELIGION" IN NEW ZEALAND

Debate has raged over the draft National Statement on Religious Diversity as the document continues to be refined. The Statement, presented to an "inter-faith forum" in Hamilton this week, has eliminated some of the more controversial elements of earlier drafts, but continues to hold that "New Zealand has no state religion." This has stirred strong feelings across faith lines, with some claiming that Christianity, as the religion of the majority, is our state religion.

In fact, New Zealand has no "state religion." This is true in the most obvious sense. We are not a theocracy; the church does not hold the reins of secular power, and both history and modern experience tell us that this is a good thing. Not for nothing has the separation of church and state been worked out over centuries. It is also true, as the Prime Minister pointed out, that New Zealand has no state religion in the sense that parts of Scandinavia, England or Scotland do. In England, for instance, the Church of England, with its doctrine and prayer book ratified by Parliament and the Queen acting as its Supreme Governor, is in a way supported by the government. In that sense, the church and the state are separate in New Zealand in a way they are not in parts of Europe.

But at the same time, Christianity and the Judeo-Christian ethic have a special place in our society as the faith which the majority of our citizens profess, as the foundation of our moral and legal codes and as an integral part of our cultural history and custom. The National Anthem, the Parliamentary prayer and expressions of faith at public events like ANZAC services are all customary rites by which we engage with the transcendent and which point to an authority outside of the state.

More than that, the Judeo-Christian ethic is the foundation of much of what we cherish. A belief in the equality and dignity of human beings under the law originates from this ethic and is one of the foundations of the liberty of conscience. We should treasure the faith elements of our heritage, because they make a common social ethic possible. If we dismiss them, for whatever reason, we risk destroying what we have built on them. It is confidence in this ethic which allows us to welcome, and to engage, with diverse religious opinions. It is only under the protection of this ethic that dialogue between peoples, and between faiths, can occur, and the liberties of individuals and groups can remain entirely secure.

Read the Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity
[http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/introduction/tengirathenzdiversityactionprogramme/nationalstatementonreligiousdiversity.php]

Write to the editor
[http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/links/ri_writetotheeditor]

UNICEF HIGHLIGHTS CHILDREN AT RISK

The latest UNICEF report, An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries, highlights some unpalatable facts about New Zealand children and families. In particular, it reveals a very disturbing truth; across the 24 nations surveyed, New Zealand's children are the second most likely to die before the age of 19.

The report also shows that New Zealand is generally ranked 16th out of 24 nations for outcomes such as overall material well-being for children. This is not that surprising given New Zealand's economy is not as wealthy as other OCED countries, such as the USA and many western European states. What we should not expect, however, is that our children are most at risk for physical harm compared to other OECD nations.

The report also makes a striking connection; children are most likely to be at risk of injury, death or abuse under certain conditions, including single parenthood, poverty, low maternal wage at birth, and weak family ties. These factors are all closely related to each other, and they remind us that parents who raise children alone need our attention and support. In addition, they should remind us of the importance of strong families in promoting the well-being of our children.

Several child advocates have used this latest report to urge for greater intervention from the government. Certainly, government is important; it sets the legal and in some sense the moral environment in which people live. But, ultimately, it is parents who are responsible for the health and safety of their children. If we want to reverse the shocking statistics featured in the report, we need to begin, not with government and law, but with parents, families and communities.

Read the UNICEF report An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries
[http://www.unicef-icdc.org/presscentre/]

Write to the editor
[http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/links/ri_writetotheeditor]

TWO VOTES DOWN, ONE TO GO

After heated debate last night, Parliament advanced the so-called "anti-smacking" Bill another stage. The Bill passed its second reading by 70-51, with Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party all voting in favour of the Bill. They were joined by United Future Leader Peter Dunne, three New Zealand First MPs and six National MPs.

The Bill will now be set down for what is known as the "Committee of the whole House" stage, where any MP can suggest an amendment to it as a precursor to the third and final reading. During this stage, National MP Chester Borrows will propose an amendment which aims to define reasonable force, while allowing parents to use physical force for the purposes of correction.

This amendment is a sensible solution to a complicated and technical issue and if the amendment has the support of 61 or more MPs it will replace the original Bill. However, sponsor of the original Bill, Green MP Sue Bradford, has threatened to abandon her Bill altogether if the amendment passes, because retaining a right of physical discipline "cuts across the intent of the Bill", and she has committed to fighting the amendment "tooth and nail".

Both supporters and opponents of the Bill agree that child abuse is patently abhorrent. New Zealand has a tragically high rate of child abuse and something must be done to reduce it. However, it is doubtful whether the Bill would make a difference in this regard, and it would have significant negative consequences, including the criminalising of ordinary parents for using mild physical discipline such as a light smack.

In the debate last night, Ms Bradford insisted that her Bill would not criminalise parents. While this might be her intention, there can be no doubt that the Bill would result in mild discipline falling within the definition of "assault", thus exposing parents to the risk of criminal prosecution. This is not something good and loving parents should ever have to fear. A great majority of Kiwi parents are decent and competent and should be entrusted with the authority and the responsibility to raise, and discipline, their children.

With the third reading expected as early as three weeks from now, Parliament will have to decide whether to enact an unworkable law that criminalises parents, or whether to accept a reasonable compromise. Hopefully, commonsense will win the day.

See how your MP voted at the second reading
[http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=849]

Read an Issue Snapshot on the repeal of section 59
[http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=834]

Read Chester Borrows' proposed amendment
[http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/6AEC3072-A81A-414E-9D93-AE9950265928/50965/DBHOH_SOP_987_4686.pdf]

Write to the editor
[http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/links/ri_writetotheeditor]

IN THE NEWS

TEENAGE BIRTH RATES CONTINUE TO RISE

New figures released this week by Statistics New Zealand show that the teen pregnancy rate continues to rise for the fourth year in a row. Births to mothers aged 15-18 have risen to 28.4 per 100 head of population, the highest rate since 1999. This concerning trend adds additional weight to the call for debate on teen pregnancy and social disconnection.

TERMS OF REFERENCE ANNOUNCED FOR ALCOHOL REVIEW

The government has released the terms of reference for its promised inquiry into under-age and youth drinking. Announced at the eleventh hour during the debate on the Bill to raise the drinking age, the inquiry looks at all aspects of the supply of alcohol to minors.

Read the terms of reference for the inquiry
[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0702/S00328.htm]

PARLIAMENT DEBATES EASTER TRADING

Last night, debate began on a Bill that seeks to ease the limitations on Easter trading. The second reading of the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill was not completed by the close of debate time, and the Bill will come back for further consideration in three weeks. Parliament will also be considering a related Bill, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill.

Read an Issue Snapshot about these Bills
[http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=804]

TALKING POINT

"To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country and to mankind."

Edmund Burke

A registered charitable trust, funded by donations, Maxim Institute values your interest and support.

Click here to find out how you can support Maxim Institute
[http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/About_us/Support_Us]

Maxim Institute's regular email publication, Real Issues, provides thought-provoking analysis of developments in policy and culture in New Zealand and around the world. You can express you views on any of the articles featured in Real Issues by writing a letter to the editor. A selection of the best letters will be posted each week on Maxim Institute's website [http://www.maxim.org.nz/].

ENDS

© Scoop Media