This is significant, although the role of the Premier—nominally number two in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) hierarchy—is not quite as important as some may think.

Much of the power is now deeply centralised in President Xi Jinping.

Don't get me wrong—it is still a positive sign for our trading relationship to have Li Qiang here, but as his predecessor found out, he holds little actual power.

The visit, however, reminded me of the court case in Hong Kong in which I have been recently named as part of sedition and foreign collusion charges against democracy activists.

I thought I would share this story below as a reminder of what sort of regime Premier Li Qiang represents.

Currently, several court trials are occurring in Hong Kong involving democracy activists.

These cases result from the relatively new National Security Law that Hong Kong passed at Beijing's behest.

It ensures that any questioning of the CCP is unlawful.

One case involves Jimmy Lai and Andy Li.

Jimmy is a 74-year-old Hong Kong businessman and publisher of the now-closed Apple Daily newspaper.

Some may even recall the clothing brand Giordano, which Jimmy created.

Andy Li is a young Hong Konger who co-founded a pro-democracy group during the 2019 protests.

Both have been accused by the Hong Kong government of sedition and colluding with foreign forces.

In Jimmy's case, he's accused of being behind the massive protests in 2019-2020.

The CCP knows these protests were spontaneous across the populace, but they are keen to scapegoat one man.

That he shared thoughts with journalists overseas, such as my friend Benedict Rogers in the United Kingdom, is now deemed a crime by the CCP.

Andy Li - who we reliably understand has been tortured by the CCP authorities - is also accused of talking to foreigners about the situation in Hong Kong.

He is further accused of voluntarily posting web content for the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC).

For this action in particular, I have been named along with Louisa Wall.

She and I wrote a letter, as IPAC co-chairs, back in 2020, asking the New Zealand government to rule out any extraditions to Hong Kong.

Andy is accused of publishing our letter on the IPAC website.

Yes, you have read that right - a man has been arrested, tortured, and taken to court partly because he published a letter two New Zealand MPs wrote to their own government.

Importantly, we are not the only ‘foreign' Members of Parliament mentioned in the case—ours is but a passing mention.

Others from overseas are accused of much more and named specifically as co-conspirators.

So why is Beijing (and Hong Kong) so keen to name people such as Louisa and me, along with at least fifteen others?

As I told Sam Sachdeva at Newsroom, this is the CCP interfering with the work of democratic Members of Parliament.

It intends to create a chilling effect, or warning, to current MPs to not say or write anything that criticises the CCP or calls into question its actions.

The CCP is making it clear that speaking up has a cost—not just for those in Hong Kong but also for those who support them.

Sadly and wrongly, Jimmy and Andy will be found guilty.

The CCP has already determined this result.

If Jimmy and Andy are said to have colluded with ‘foreign forces,' then we are, by extension, the other party involved and also guilty.

This is not a formal charge, of course, but it still means that travel to Chinese-aligned countries comes with serious risk.

There is also a psychological aspect.

It is deeply upsetting to consider that the normal work of a Member of Parliament can be misused in such a way that innocent people will go to prison.

Let's be clear—the trial is a sham, and good people are caught up in it. But this reflects the heart of autocratic regimes, a regime that Premier Li Qiang represents.

So, as New Zealand Ministers meet this man and roll out the red carpet, they might want to spare at least a thought for Jimmy and Andy.

They are ‘just' two people but represent many, many more who are repressed by this Communist regime.

• Simon O'Connor is a New Zealand politician and a former member of the New Zealand House of Representatives for the National Party. He represented the Tamaki electorate from 2011 to 2023. He chaired the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee from 2017 to 2020 and was a member of the Justice Committee from 2021 to 2023.
• First published by Simon O'Connor from On Point

Under the existing law charitable organisations are allowed tax relief, and receive subsidies with no public benefit test holding them to account.

Gousmett says that while charities must make their financial accounts publicly available under the charities register they do not have to explain what they do to justify their charitable status.

Merely operating as a hospital or school is seen to meet the criteria of charitability because it relieves pressure on the public system, even if the charity is charging fees largely unaffordable to most people.

But Wall said charitable trusts that benefit only the wealthy were "creating divisions between the haves and the have-nots".

"Those who least need charity are benefiting the most. It is helping those who can afford to pay to go to private hospitals and private schools, not those who actually need the help.

"We as a country are giving these organisations up to $600m worth of tax relief under the assumption that $600m should be reinvested back into the community, and if that is not happening we desperately need to change the law".

In 2010 the Government announced its intention to undertake a first principles review of the Charities Act before 2015.

But last year Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Jo Goodhew said that Government would not, for the time being, proceed with a review of the Charities Act 2005.

"The decision to not conduct a review for now reflects that the regulatory regime for charities is still bedding in and the continuing constrained fiscal environment," Goodhew said.

Wall fought against the disestablishment of the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) in 2012 and was outraged when the Government decided to quash a review of the Charities Act.

Social Development Partners, an organisation for community organisations, believes that relevant, modern definition of charitable purpose would provide huge support to the community sector.

They say community organisations are "struggling under multiple loads of ever-increasing demand and complexity in community needs, increased compliance and reduced funding."

"We need a modern definition in order to be able to function in a modern world."

Source

• Stuff.co.nz
• National.org.nz
• socialdevelopment.org
• Image: Thomas.co.nz

The Government Administration Committee said the private member's bill should progress, but with an amendment to make it clear that no minister was obliged to marry someone against their own beliefs.

New Zealand's Catholic Bishops say they have not yet had the opportunity to study the full report in detail, however they are disappointed that the Select Committee has approved the bill.

The Bishops welcome the Select Committee's recommendation that an amendment to the Bill be included that clarifies beyond doubt the understanding that celebrants who are ministers of religion are not obliged to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples if it contravenes their religion.

Ahead of the Second Reading vote the Bishops have asked MPs to consider carefully the magnitude of social change that is before them.

A poll of New Zealanders has found that 47% believe that Parliament should change the definition of marriage, and 43% believe that civil unions are sufficient for same sex couples.

The poll of 1000 people was carried ut by blogger David Farrar's Curia Research.

The poll also found strong support for laws protecting celebrants, churches and schools if the law is still pushed through. Almost half of NZ'ers believe there should be a Referendum on the issue.

In the poll respondents were asked "In 2004, Parliament legislated to allow same sex couples to register a civil union, amending over 150 pieces of legislation to give legal rights and recognition to same-sex couples. Do you think Parliament should change the definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry, or do you think civil unions are sufficient for same sex couples?"

Source

• NZCBC
• New Zealand Herald
• Scoop
• New Zealand Herald
• Image: 3News.co.nz

Not all that long ago, it was illegal to be a gay man in New Zealand. It took a long and often courageous battle against discrimination before it was decriminalised in 1986. Now, in 2012, many people wonder what all the fuss was about. I cannot help but feel that in 20 years' time, the same will be said for the issue of marriage equality.

Labour MP Louisa Wall's private member's bill would allow same-sex couples to marry on the same footing as heterosexual couples. It has garnered significant support, but whether it passes into law remains to be seen. Like the issue of New Zealand becoming a republic, marriage equality has a sense of inevitability about it. One day the New Zealand Parliament will pass such a measure. I do not see why that day cannot be in 2012. Read more

Sources

• Kieran McAnulty in Stuff Nation
• Image: TV3 News

Kieran McAnulty is a proud Wairarapa Bush supporter and treasurer of The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Father Merv Duffy: I oppose the proposed re-definition of marriage in Labour MP Louisa Wall's bill before Parliament because it is wrong, dangerous, expensive and unnecessary.

It is wrong because marriage is a historical and cultural universal reflecting our nature.

Humans are a sexually differentiated species - males and females are different - and we pair-bond. A couple who are attracted to each other set up a household and raise a family. The family, involving the genetic parents of the children co-operating to raise them, is an enduring institution which has taken many forms. Read more

Sources

• Merv Duffy and Margaret Mayman in Stuff
• Image: 3News

Fr Merv Duffy is a Catholic priest who lectures at Good Shepherd College in Auckland; Rev Margaret Mayman is a Presbyterian minister.

Family First, which launched the Protect Marriage website, says after being alerted by media that the website was down, it was informed by its webhost company that the domain was experiencing a large scale denial of service attack.

A denial-of-service attack is an attempt to make a network resource unavailable to its intended users. The means used to carry out DoS attack may vary, but they generally consist of the efforts of one or more people to temporarily or indefinitely interrupt or suspend services of a host connected to the Internet.

The company hosting the Protect Marriage website tried blocking the IP addresses associated with the attack but by late afternoon a notice was posted on the website saying "Due to large scale Denial of Service attacks against this domain it has been decided to ensure the stability and security of our servers and network so this account has been removed."

Protectmarriage.org.nz offered resources and information about marriage. Visitors to the site were invited to sign a petition if they "support the definition of marriage being maintained as one man one woman" and oppose any attempt to redefine this.

Before it crashed bogus names had been added to the online petition gathering support for opposition to the Definition of Marriage Bill. Among the names listed were rappers Marshall Mathers (Eminem) and Curtis Jackson (50 Cent), Tobias Fünke (a sexually-confused character from TV show Arrested Development), "Nosy, Homophobic People Intruding on others lives", and Micky and Minnie Mouse.

The band Train was yesterday informed via Twitter that the video for their song Marry Me had been used on protectmarriage.org.nz and responded by saying "Didn't know. Getting it off asap. Thx 4 tip."

Bishop Patrick Dunn of Auckland has appealed "to our lawmakers to keep marriage as defined as between a man and a woman particularly in light of the fact that other legal avenues exist for same sex couples to publicly cement their lifelong commitment to each other."

He said the Catholic Church affirms love, fidelity and commitment in all relationships, but believes that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman.

"To propose any alternative definition would have implications in law, and in society, but also for education and the family structure which throughout history has been seen as the fundamental unit in every society."

The Definition of Marriage Bill, a private member's bill proposed by Labour MP Louisa Wall, was selected by ballot last week. It will be debated by parliament in August.

Wall says many members of the gay community simply want the same rights and access to marriage that any other New Zealander has.

"I think this is a generational issue, to be honest," Wall says, "because 63% of New Zealanders support same-sex marriage but in the 18-to-24-year-old age group nearly 80% support it - so this is a bit of a challenge for those not Generation X-Y."

She says her bill modernises the concept of marriage, and if it is passed, same-sex married couples will also be legally able to adopt children.

At present, marriage is not defined in the Marriage Act, and Ms Wall's bill would make it clear that marriage is a union of two people, "regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity".

The bill would be decided by a conscience vote instead of along party lines.

According to a survey by TV ONE's Close Up, the bill has the definite support of 42 MPs, and needs 61 votes to pass.

Prime Minister John Key earlier signalled his support for the bill in its early stages, but he has moved on to say said he was unlikely to change his mind over the course of the debate to allow same-sex couples to marry - given it was a conscience vote.

"There will be plenty of people in our caucus who will be deeply opposed - particularly the very religious ones, and I can understand that," he said.

"I think it's quite healthy that New Zealand has the debate, I suspect it won't be what it was when you looked at homosexual law reform in the'70s - I don't think it will be that dramatic."

Mr Key said the bill was likely to reach select committee stage and he thought there would be a lot of lobbying from those opposed and those in support of the bill.

Source