MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Copeland’s Chronicle – MP Gordon Copeland

Filed under: General — Julie @ 6:12 pm Tue 7th August 2007

They say that time passes quickly when you’re having fun and whether or not that is true, I
can’t believe that we are already into the month of August. Spring is just around the corner.

Family Policy

My new party, Future New Zealand, will continue to place family policy high on our list of priorities. With that in mind I devoted my speech to Parliament in the General Debate on Wednesday the 18th of July to those issues. Our policy will centre around three critical success factors for strong and successful families. These are marriage; the presence of a father in the home; and parenting education. No political party in Parliament currently has a comprehensive detailed policy directed at the strengthening and building of strong marriages or keeping fathers with their children.

Back in 2003 when United Future established the Families Commission, I had high hopes that it would advance work in these areas. Sadly however, from day one, the Commission reported to a Labour Cabinet Minister, initially Steve Maharey and in latter days, David Benson-Pope until his sacking from Cabinet last week! I have learnt a lesson from that experience and in 2008, Future New Zealand will commit in advance to Ministerial control over the Families Commission (if we are in a position to do so).

Marriage in particular will be a distinctiveness for Future New Zealand. The Prime Minister does not support the institution of marriage and John Key, although personally committed to marriage, probably won’t go there for a number of reasons. In particular, I sense he has bought into the false dichotomy that to be pro-marriage is to be anti-all other kinds of family arrangements e.g. solo mums, de facto couples etc. However that is unnecessary. Future New Zealand will make it clear that we will support all family arrangements when it comes to tax and welfare etc. We are for all New Zealanders and their families and therefore seek to ensure the highest and best for all, but especially for children. It is because marriage is “the highest and best” that it will be central to our policy positioning.


  1. Thanks for that Julie. After having a look the first thing that came to mind was a Bernstein’s Bears book I used to read the kids — “this is how not to ride a bike”

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 9:16 am

  2. Bevan,

    How is it I don’t understand what you are saying? But this time I am not going to assume because too many times I get it wrong. lol

    Comment by julie — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 10:24 am

  3. Doesn’t a woman need a man like a politician needs a vehicle? Or am I being cynical?

    It’s a good speech. It’s what we want him to say isn’t it? Doesn’t it step up to the mark? Isn’t it the same take as that of the Republicans?

    As I figure, Gordon Copeland left UF because the centrist conditions of Peter Dunne’s practice dissapated the value of the family and compromised the necessity to fix the problem from within the focus of father present.

    Additionally Gordon Copeland is well respected for his views on fiscal management. Additioanlly, he has given himself protection for option in the same manner that Rodney Hide is protected to his electorate vote. If National stand in his electorate to soak up the Labour vote, yet direct a majority portion of their vote to Gordon Copeland as happened in Epsom, they get two votes from the minor party to the value of one from a duly elected national Candidate.

    Off hand I am not sure which seat Gordon Copeland stands in and its particular political bias.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 11:27 am

  4. My inital thoughts were like Bevans but I agree with Ben. The guy is saying the right things and he is one of the few doing so. Let’s not beat him up.
    He wrote this about child abuse:

    Comment by Dave — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 1:52 pm

  5. I’m with Ben and Dave on this.

    I don’t know much about Gordon Copeland, but if he’s daring to differentiate himself like this, he’s worth a hearing.

    One thing’s for certain: being such a small player he has no need to play to the crowd. He has little choice but to turn his back on the sizable chunk of voters that are already taken. He has the freedom to say what most other MPs cannot, and has the exposure that the non-elected don’t have.

    Maybe he’ll even attract some conflicted MPs from other parties – then we’ve really got a proposition.

    Comment by Rob Case — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 2:59 pm

  6. I am hoping that people remember that he stepped down the day the ‘Anti Smacking Bill’ was voted for. He quit his party and needed to get 500 people to back him up just to stay. He is a hard worker for this.

    And he is my favorite politician because he is always approachable and always writes back with words of encouragement.

    Comment by julie — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 3:08 pm

  7. I’ve just stepped out of question time in disgust. It’s not often I do this but today it was a demand less a revultion.

    Gordon Copeland asked the first question of the House I have heard yet on the topic and; quite possibly with full knowledge that the fathers’ advocacy activism is growing stronger by the moment, particularly on this site. Good on him. Our words shouldn’t be wasted as they have been seemingly for an eternity.

    His question read To the Minister of Development (now Steve maharey) Does the government have any plans to adress the issues of fatherhood, marriage preparation and marriage enrichment to ensure more children are raised in a safe, loving and caring environment”.

    I go up to the House 1/2 an hour earlier than it sits to read the questions before they are asked giving me time to think abouot them, and for my familiarity with how the politicians have responded to our pressures in this area to date, I wasn’t suprised to the manner that it would be answered, which was: Family does not mean including dad – although as you can expect Steve Maharey (He once replied to my letter on its bottom with sm – which I take now fully to mean small man) managed to do this without using the word father. He prattled on avoiding what Gordon Copeland was saying because the question effectively undermined well over twenty years of policy to reconstitute the national psyche interpreting the word “family”. So I didn’t not expect to get what I heard in reply – and noone should have been suprised.

    Yet in the middle of all this vicious defathering acceptance as public policy, he let rip with that little lie thay are all so good at – that little deceipt that each and every one of them knowingly accepts as they jaunter through their parade at each other guffawing and blustering sets and series of words designed purely to keep them in power and privelege with P all to do with the public interest. It is all about them.

    He said something along the lines of “I am sure no member in this House would sees any other value as ideal for the child to live in the home with their biological parents”.

    He knows that isn’t true. NONE of them believe this because they let teh COC go through. They manufactured and lied to have it put in place that a single woman can have a baby without dad. That two women can have a baby without dad. Each and every one of them is an outright liar. Shame doesn’t come close enough to the truth to describe this deceipt against the public knowledge.

    In a series of letters describing my case and the argument that proves the Chief Justice is aware that parliamentary law was broken on June 10th and June 11th 2003, and that this test was brought before them but the judiciary lied outright doctoring my judgment of 20 September 06 (BTW O’Regan not McGrath for anyone following the story) so that it looks like I’m a goon who didn’t say what I said in the hearing proving what I am proving is a point I haven’t yet raised. As it is I am justifiably angry at the moment watching all of these cowards in the house deceiving mum and dad about what really is going on in this country, I’ll bring the point up here – to recognise Gordon Copeland’s contribution, getting behind dads, honouring them, protecting them against the wolves – and that is that if the Human Rights Commissioner and the Minister of Justice and the Chief Justice and all of these judges aren’t telling you all porkies in reply to me, then that means directly, that the authority to bring the extraordinary events of this June 10th and 11th neglect to the responsibility to the honour and integrity of the House belongs to the House and by God those people know how significant that error really is.

    None of them say a thing. No journalist moves. They all know they lie because if I am wrong with my allegations then it is them who has the job to protect their integrity. And there is none.

    The people for those of you who pay child support steal from your net wages, taking money they pretend belongs to them under the disguise of the best interests of the children.

    These people are very bad people. They just do it so well that noone else ever gets to see.

    Good on you Gordon Copeland.

    So they ignore what I am saying.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 8th August 2007 @ 3:53 pm

  8. Julie,

    It took a lot to step away from the practice of centrist policies adopted by Peter Dunne. The complaint levelled on and to his behaviour was of the inconsistency, and its allegance by disloyalty. United Future allegedly were taken by suprise. And this behaviour is a constant with politicians. They play in the matrix of a complex and sophisticated game built off the backs of the public requiring delicacy against an exposure for treating that game in acts of outright contempt. Revolutions from the past bare the cruel reality of how intolerent and brutal an abused public will become.

    If UF did, as there was and remains sufficient reason for them so to become, wary of the times, that the public were revolting, Gordon Copeland made an early move into the safe territory. Yesterday’s question showed at teh very least that he is prepared to back up his separation from political security and advocate into the insecurity if not for outright banishment from parliament of his theology.

    BTW: #31, get real.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 10:03 am

  9. Julie, in the social political and judicial climate that exists in this country, telling your son to get married is courting heartache and disaster. Telling young people in NZ, family is great, get married, it is the building block of society, is like telling them to build a house on the foreshore and pray night and morning for a flat sea. The responsibility doesn’t lie with the younger generation fighting against impossible odds; it lies with the older generation taking responsibility for our own failings, and creating an environment that marriage can succeed in. No Ben, we are not in the same vehicle here, offering an environment marriage can succeed in, is different in the public’s eyes from being the marriage party.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 2:22 pm

  10. Bevan,

    Gosh. I have nothing to say on marriage. For ar against because I can’t be fair.

    But Gordon has every right to think how he does as far as I am concerned.

    But if you are interested. I am against marriage as the feminists and MTGOW are. Get rid of it. But then I can’t push my personal experience on others.

    Comment by julie — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 3:21 pm

  11. But then again Bevan,

    If you get rid of marriage; or the feminists do … can you also get rid of the idea that children need a mum and a dad. And can you also bring forward the pills that make people forget past experiences.

    Comment by julie — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 3:30 pm

  12. That’s right Julie, that is why the instiution requires protection. And yes Bevan, I agree that the environment is platform for reform and not the institution.

    But that one group any could only see the legal institution as the way to preserve the environment and another could only see the environment in the same light is not a value of conflict.

    The instiution protects children from a frame labled as “bastard”. If the institution or the environment are to be protected then with it comes the necessity to mitigate the damage of either on the child, where the child could be born (or exists) as stereotyped. So when a condition like the Civil Union pops up that creates the entitlement for children to have the same conditions as if by marriage this minimises the discrimination agaisnt any child born out of wedlock but at its cost removes the security and protections associable (as they used to be) with wedlock.

    If you want to protect wedlock you have to frame its instiution so to be separate from that of a Civil Union. This, as we have is still moderately secure where marriage remains the bastion of hetrosexuality. But what has been removed – and I add again for the umpteenth time improperly – is the protection opf that hetrosexual bastion as the environment for children. This principle has been eroded for a lack of community condition to stay protective of marriage being the house for any child born. That means mum and dad.

    So here is the weakness from where we have come as to where we are now. The house hasn’t been protected. It would be, as Bevan says, built on the seabed if the instiution and not the environment was protected.

    Where we are now is (most interestingly for the seabed example) is in a place of direct challenge accessible on teh administration of both seabed and civil union, (as well as Supreme Court) where these acts of legislation are post COC. They come down with a successful challenge on the improper tabling of the bill. How that disassembly is handled is up to those who would have that task. You know more about this than others Bevan.

    Yet – where this takes too long for those not recognising teh significance of what is nbefore them someone like Gordon Copeland can take the matters directly into the House.

    So if we want to work to protect NZ children from being adversley damaged from policies that cause dysfunction into families, shouldn’t we concentrate on working with one or two individuals who aready have their feet in teh door – keeping it ajar?

    Why not? Why is the Republican issue of such an important value when the walking wounded for continual bitching are the children?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 4:28 pm

  13. This country has a chronic condition, and there are only two options, find a cure or learn to live with the gradual deterioration.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 5:29 pm

  14. So we have the cure – you know that.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 5:44 pm

  15. Discrimination against children born out of wedlock doesn’t exist. Now that we know the consequences of shutting out Dad that discrimination seems to have had a useful purose after all.

    Anyway my point is that you can make things much harder for people having chidren out of wedlock without having to call children bastards and silly things like that. It’s a non-issue.

    Comment by Dave — Thu 9th August 2007 @ 6:46 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar