Red Alert

Archive for the ‘Ministers’ Category

Lockwood raises the bar, again

Posted by on January 22nd, 2013

At some stage over the next few weeks, possibly as early as next Thursday, parliament will elect a new Speaker. As an opposition MP I never thought I’d find myself saying this, but we’ll be sad to see Lockwood Smith go. As Speaker, he has raised the bar in terms of ministerial accountability in the House. His most significant ruling, that when asked a straight question ministers should give straight answers, has changed the whole nature of Question Time. That ruling will remain in place long after his departure, although whether the new Speaker has the ability to implement it with the same precision and diligence is yet to be seen.

Just before Christmas, Lockwood raised the bar again, this time relating to ministerial accountability outside the Debating Chamber. Under parliament’s rules MPs are also allowed to ask written questions of ministers. There are a lot more of these and they don’t always receive the same level of attention questions in the House do. But they’re a vital information channel for the opposition, and they’re another way we can hold ministers to account for their performance and the performance of their departments.

Late last year Labour asked a series of written questions about the Novopay fiasco. The Minister in charge Craig Foss tried to brush them off by saying they were ‘operational matters for the Chief Executive’. This reply has been used by successive governments to sidestep bad news. However, the days when Ministers could duck for cover in this way seem to be over. In replying to Labour’s complaint on the matter, Lockwood Smith ruled:

“I note that there is no convention that Ministers are not answerable for operational matters, but that a Minster is not prevented from replying in those terms. These rulings related to a minister being questioned on operational matters for which a crown entity had responsibility. I expect a higher standard for answering questions relating to a department for which the Minister is responsible. A minister should be able to give informative replies about the actions of such a department.”

“As you have noted, the record shows that the Associate Minister has provided the House with information on this matter in response to questions for oral answer. Ministers are no less accountable to give informative replies to questions for written answer.”

Craig Foss subsequently provided more fulsome answers to our Novopay questions. But the effect of this ruling will extend well beyond this one instance. If the new Speaker maintains this new high standard, the improved level of accountability we’ve seen at Question Time will extend beyond the walls of the Debating Chamber. That’s a good thing.

The new Speaker will have big shoes to fill. All the more reason for the government to nominate a candidate who will have the respect of all sides of the House.


Utterly hopeless, Minister

Posted by on October 3rd, 2012

I’ve laid off Minister Kate Wilkinson recently. I’ve even said nice things about her, because the less she gets done on her government’s employment law changes, the better.

But the flip flop around the Mike Tyson visa can’t go unmentioned. The issue has been in the media for weeks. Immigration NZ had made it clear that he would need an special direction from the Minister to be able to apply for a visa.

The Minister duly granted Mike Tyson an exemption, despite his conviction for rape and other violent incidents because he supposedly had the support of the Life Education Trust.  Turns out that she didn’t check the validity of that support, which had come from a volunteer, not the agency’s board.

What’s even worse, the Prime Minister and the Minister didn’t talk to each other about it, so were contradicting each other in public.

It didn’t take long for a member of the public to check out whether the Life Education Trust was really supporting Mike Tyson’s application and find they weren’t.  Why the Minister couldn’t do that, I have no idea.

This is shoddy politicial management.  It demonstrates a government that has taken its eye off the ball and the fiascos just keep rolling on.


Non-Answers

Posted by on April 2nd, 2012

One of the jobs of an opposition MP is to ask questions.  It’s in the public interest to find out what our government is planning, but that’s not how the Minister of Labour sees it.  So I thought you should see just how transparent and accountable our Ministers are with the latest series of non-answers from Kate Wilkinson :

Question: Does the Minister intend to implement the National Party policy allowing employers to opt out of negotiations for a multi-employer collective agreement; if so, when will she introduce legislation to implement that change?

Answer Text: I intend to implement all policies in National’s Employment Relations manifesto in due course.

Question: Does the Minister intend to implement the National Party policy enabling employers to apply partial pay reductions for partial strikes or situations of low-level industrial action; if so, when will she introduce legislation to implement that change?

Answer Text: I intend to implement all policies in National’s Employment Relations manifesto in due course.

Question : Does the Minister intend to implement the National Party policy removing the requirement that non-union members are employed under a collective agreement for their first 30-days; if so, when will she introduce legislation to implement that change?

Answer Text: I intend to implement all policies in National’s Employment Relations manifesto in due course.

Question: Does the Minister intend to implement the National Party policy removing the requirement to conclude collective bargaining; if so, when will she introduce legislation to implement that change?

Answer Text: Guess what ? (To the tune of “Altogether Now) : I intend to implement all policies in National’s Employment Relations manifesto in due course.

Well, I guess we know that the Minister intends to implement all policies in National’s Employment Relations manifesto in due course. I’m sure the 1000 plus locked out workers at Talleys AFFCO will be comforted by these answers, along with the Oceania workers who are still taking action to get something resembling a cost of living increase. I know Kate Wilkinson’s under threat by the takeover of her department by the “business facing” ambitions of Steven Joyce, so I thought she might be asserting herself at the moment.

So please. Can I have a little more?


Shhhh – that wasn’t the real BIM

Posted by on March 5th, 2012

National is planning a raft of changes around immigration that somehow seem to have been ‘left out’ of last month’s Briefing to the Incoming Minister of Immigration (BIM).

There’s a post-BIM BIM – a secret Briefing titled Issues and decisions for the first 100 days, which was prepared for new Immigration Minister Nathan Guy and Associate Minister Kate Wilkinson.

It reveals, among other things, Government plans to tighten up requirements for family members seeking residency in New Zealand, with preference to be given to the better off. Parents seeking residency in New Zealand to be with their children will face tougher tests according to the income levels of both themselves and their children. Parents whose families have higher incomes will go straight to the front of the queue in a  ‘Tier One’ category and face less stringent eligibility tests, while those less well off will be ranked ‘Tier Two’ and will face tougher conditions and longer waiting times.

There are already tough measures around the parent category.  They have to be sponsored and supported for at least five years. There’s a waiting list and defined numbers.  National made it even harder last year with its new “Parent Retirement Categories” which allows rich people to retire in New Zealand and be given preference over others.

The Adult Child and Sibling Category will be abolished altogether. These changes were signed off by Cabinet in May 2011, yet there was no mention of them in the publicly released Briefing to the Incoming Minister.

It  seems that only those with pot loads of money are welcome in our country.  We roll out the red carpet for people for them, to the extent we are prepared to change our laws and sell off our land.

There’s much more required for family reunification and good settlement outcomes than money, but that’s becoming the only criteria that matters.

But shhhh, it’s a secret, and you will only be told when the Minister decides you should be.


McCully takes charge … again

Posted by on September 13th, 2011

McCully doesn’t need to apologise, yes he micro-managed the RWC, but everyone it seems screwed up except him. So in his mind it’s perfectly logical he takes charge. A question: did McCully inform Key before he invoked the emergency legislation that cut the Auckland Council off at the knees – or did he just go it alone?

McCully didn’t see the need to let Len Brown know before telling the world he was taking over, not even a courtesy call – and if Key did know, neither did he. Is that a touch arrogant?

Probably, I imagine that he decided the Council deserved it for spoiling his world cup. But rather than pushing the blame on to the Council, it’s more an admission of wider failure. And for the world’s media, McCully has given the story new legs.

And maybe I missed it, but unlike the PM and Mayor, I didn’t hear the Minister for the Rugby World Cup say sorry. But I guess he’s been too busy being more in charge.


NZ Herald on the lack of depth in Cabinet

Posted by on August 25th, 2011

The Herald editorial today comments on two recent Ministerial stuff-ups and raises concerns about the calibre of the Cabinet beyond the front bench.

They give as examples the decisions on the social welfare scheme to supervise young unemployed and control their spending and to increase the inspectors in coal mines.

“The reason for concern is that not long before the announcements, the ministers in charge of each portfolio had been following a different line.

Social Welfare Minister Paula Bennett had told a correspondent who suggested closer benefit supervision that “such oversight by the Crown would be highly intrusive and rob individuals of their freedom of choice”.

And Ms Wilkinson had rejected repeated calls for more mines inspectors, saying she would wait for the conclusions of the Pike River inquiry.

Yes, that’s right. Saw that unfold in the House.

The position of the portfolio holders sounded like advice of officials. It was standard procedure to wait for the Pike River inquiry, to be wary of intrusive welfare reforms ……………. But politicians are elected to bring common sense to an issue when institutional advice is unduly cautious.

Ms Bennett is now so unnerved that she declines to say whether she can rule out an extension of the new, “intrusive” youth unemployment reforms to all beneficiaries. Clearly she is wary lest Mr Key and the others decide to expand the idea. Clearly she is not in that loop.

The editorial suggests that the government is relying too much on John Key and his popularity and only a handful of Ministers, Power, Joyce and Ryall are really up to the job.

Mr Key’s popularity is of course its greatest asset but it is becoming hard to see anyone behind him. His political instincts are well honed to neutralise controversy and pick issues he can win. Perhaps he does not trust many in his ministry to tread as carefully.

Filed under: Ministers