A great, feisty, funny general debate speech from David Shearer today. Well worth a watch.
A great, feisty, funny general debate speech from David Shearer today. Well worth a watch.
On Twitter this afternoon someone mused on the contrast between the UK parliament being granted a couple of days ago a snap debate on the Leveson Inquiry into the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal whereas today here in New Zealand, our own Speaker would not grant an application for an urgent debate regarding the John Banks investigation and Key not standing Banks down as Minister.
The Guardian has written a good editorial about the role of parliament in holding the government and its Ministers to account. I would hope that our parliament sees its role in a similar vein.
Jeremy Hunt: the court of parliament
Monday 30 April 2012 20.53 BST
If it is parliament’s job to hold ministerial feet to the fire, then a good parliament will make the government sweat.
The Commons got halfway there yesterday, after Speaker John Bercow accepted an “urgent question” about the position of Jeremy Hunt. In opposition, David Cameron proposed Westminster clawing back power from Whitehall, but as prime minister he was dragged across the road from Downing Street in a palpable rage.
In a Parliament where the Governments majority looks shakey and decisions may get through on a slim margin of just one vote can we operate differently in Opposition?
On the opposition benches there will be a number of Parties who will vote against Asset Sales. Labour was unequivocal at the 2011 election SoEs were Not For Sale. But the country has voted and National will drive ahead with its agenda, despite widespread concern from Maori about inadequate protections as affirmed in s.9 of the SoE Act.
Rather than delve into the debate, I wanted to raise whether there was an opportunity for a culture shift in the way opposition parties attacked the Government on specific BIG ISSUES like Asset Sales, like Growing Inequality, Like Children Living in Poverty. Some may consider this a broad coalition of the opposition, and to be frank post-election it will be an organic exercise.
Could it be an opportunity for doing things differently in opposition in an MMP environment – your thoughts?
Here is the timetable for Maiden Speeches as I understand it at the moment (the allocation of exact time slots is a matter for each party and they may switch people around a bit):
Wednesday, 8 February 2012:
Thursday, 9 February 2012:
Tuesday, 14 February 2012:
Wednesday, 15 February 2012:
Thursday, 16 February 2012:
As the new MPs complete their speeches, I’ll add a link to the video clip. If you’re a bit impatient, you can find them on www.inthehouse.co.nz
Not sure what all the SoE Treaty Clause fuss is about.
Easily solved.
Indemnify the companies. Essentially what the act does now. Risk unchanged and stays with the crown.
If the Maori Party settle for less they are stupid.
Better still of course, abandon the sell down.
Read the caveat on this page. This post won’t endear me to colleagues on either side of the House.
New Zealand has a ridiculous number of Ministers for a country our size.
It had got slightly worse under MMP but this government has taken it beyond absurd with 80% of the non National confidence and supply partner members bought off with a Ministerial post, and the final one on a promise of getting one during the term.
I spent three years as a whip which included cabinet committee experience in the 1980s and the nine years as a Minister in the Clark government.
I saw lots of weak, and some frankly useless Ministers. Most, but not all, were in the second half of the rankings. They often caused more work than they added value. There was an enormous amount of time wasted explaining what was either obvious or buried in papers that if they had been read hadn’t been understood.
Quiet discussion has confirmed it is no different in the Key government and was also the case under Bolger.
Consultation time seems to be multiplicative based on the number of Ministers with a stake in an issue. Minor points brought up by a department and easily dealt with or to by a Minister with a broad view become cause célèbre for someone run by their department or with nothing better to do.
I think we don’t need more than ten or a dozen Ministers. They should all be in Cabinet. And to trial talent we should use three or four Under Secretaries who report directly to the relevant Minister.
Having a smaller number of Ministers ensures decisions are well enough thought through to get caucus agreement on merit not on obligation because of position.
Saves bauble money but more importantly is much more efficient.
The Herald editorialsed in favour of a four year term yesterday.
I agree, subject to the proviso that we fix the dates. This year has shown it can be done. Of course if the Governor General was convinced that no one could command the confidence of the house there could be an “early” election.
Four Three years is just not long enough to implement a coherent programme.
There have been two referenda proposing an increase in the length of Parliament in my memory. Both rejected. And we voted to increase drinking hours at the time rejected doing the same to Parliament.
The Sunday Star Times has given artist Sam Mahon’s stupid game unnecessary publicity.
Bloggers have added to that by linking. I’m not.
I’m generally in favour of a pretty liberal interpretation of what it is appropriate for media to cover. But a game that is based on killing the PM is not.
Many politicians who have been in the spotlight get threats. Most are not serious and the vast majority are from people with psychiatric conditions that are unlikely to follow through.
Notwithstanding that, I think it is better for media to if there is any doubt just to ignore stuff like that.
Here is John Key at his Post Cabinet press conference trying to explain his claim in Parliament that Standard and Poors had said there was a much higher chance that there would be a credit downgrade if Labour was in office.
So, lets get this right. John Key gets an email from someone he won’t name who says he was at a meeting with some Standard and Poor’s people and they said something that this annonymous person ‘inferred’ meant that a Labour led government would mean a greater chance of a downgrade.
Up against this is Kyran Curry a named person from Standard and Poors who was at the meeting, on the record in the New Zealand Herald.
Standard and Poor’s sovereign rating analyst Kyran Curry, who attended the meeting in Auckland, said that would not have happened. “In Auckland last month, I might have talked about the importance of the Government maintaining a strong fiscal position in the medium term but I would never have touched on individual parties. “It is something we just don’t do,” Mr Curry said. “We don’t rate political parties. We rate Governments.”
John Key came to Parliament and gave everyone (including as you can hear in the video the Press Gallery journalists) the impression that this was a direct quote about what Standard and Poors said. Judge for yourself, here is what John Key said in Parliament
‘When Standard and Poor’s was giving a meeting in New Zealand about month ago, what it did say was that there was about a 30% chance that we would be downgraded. That is what happens when one is on a negative outlook. It did go on to say, though, that if there was a change of Government, that downgrade would be much more likely
This not true, and John Key knows it. Standard and Poors did not “say” anything, someone who John Key won’t name thinks that is what they might have meant. There is a big difference. As John Pagani said on radio earlier today one of the things that frustrates Labour MPs about John Key is that the public don’t see or hear some of the things he does in Parliament. This time he has been caught out.
And lest anyone forget, this was all part of the strategy of obfuscation and buck passing in response to the fact that we did get downgraded on John Key’s watch, the first time since 1998.
Parliament has lifted until after the election. Whatever the outcome, it will be a different looking parliament.
18 colleagues across the parliament are leaving. Fourteen of them gave their valedictory speeches in the last two weeks. All were posted on Red Alert.
Four didn’t give a valedictory speech. Rodney Hyde, Hilary Calvert and John Boscowan from Act. And Alan Peachey from National.
I think Hilary felt she hadn’t been around long enough. Boscowan is standing in a unwinnable seat in order to secure some Act party votes so couldn’t give a speech and Hyde, well who knows why he didn’t. Perhaps he thinks he’ll be back (like Arnie).
Allan Peachey didn’t give a valedictory for reasons many of us will understand. Trevor wrote a thoughtful post about him.
All the valedictory speeches were all powerful in their own way. I found myself a bit teary during many of them. Doesn’t matter which side of the political spectrum you are on, hearing a colleague speak from the heart evokes an emotional response.
A few I’d like to mention. I learnt things about my colleagues Ashraf, George and Mita that I didn’t know. I loved Lynne Pillay’s line that while she was lucky to have her partner Mike, that he was lucky to have her too (true).
There was a common theme in several of the speeches of the importance of action, not just words.
Jim Anderton put it like this:
To those critics who constantly belittle and cynically demean political participation and representation in parliament, I can do no better than quote the words of former United States President, Teddy Roosevelt, who said, in a speech on ‘citizenship’:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who knows at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall not be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Pete Hodgson, my Dunedin colleague who’s experience and wisom will be greatly missed by me and others (the ODT wrote a great editorial today), put it like this in his trademark succinct style:
In all of those (14) portfolios a lot got done. I was an activist Minister. I was and am a restless person. The government was a restless government. We were criticised sometimes for having too many strategies to implement. I say better too many than too few.
And Simon Power, who despite me not agreeing with much of what he’s done, has my respect for his approach to doing it. He said:
Politicians must have a plan. A plan that is in place early, and one they are prepared to lead.
I believe that politics is 90% preparation and 10% execution. At a day-to-day level, politics, particularly at a ministerial level, can quickly deteriorate to the daily management of tasks – dealing with papers, the media, OIA requests, Question Time, Written Questions, expectations from colleagues and your Party; tasks that become all consuming, and tasks that in the end do not improve the lives of New Zealanders at all.
That’s not why we run for Parliament. We run to lead agendas, improve the lot of our countrymen, to push change, and to execute ideas. People don’t spend years getting elected, more years waiting to get into Cabinet, to then say “Well, I managed that week well, I minimised risk, had no view, took no decisions, stayed out of trouble: well done me.”
Once in office, you’ve got to do something. That is why having a plan matters. Ideas also matter. In politics, ideas matter more than the political players themselves, because those people will come and go, but ideas endure.
The ideas do endure. The people who had them are to be honoured.
We all make mistakes. I make more than most people.
The Herald broke the rules (albeit antediluvian) relating to pictures taken in Parliament. They should have been warned or possibly had a minor punishment.
The Speaker reacted in a way which was almost unbelievable. John Armstrong puts it pretty well.
Backdown with a capital “H”. That is “H” as in humiliation; humiliation complete and utter.
That was the only condition that could be ascribed to Speaker Lockwood Smith yesterday afternoon as he tried to clear up the sorry mess he had created less than 24 hours earlier with his outrageous decision to ban Herald journalists from working within the precincts of Parliament.
National MP Simon Power, the member for Rangitikei, gave his valedictory yesterday
National MP Wayne Mapp, the member for the North Shore, gave his valedictory yesterday
In a lot of ways I would rather not write this post, but I have been reflecting on what happened yesterday in the Parliamentary debating chamber and there are some things I want to say. The incident itself is not a political matter It was an awful experience, and had potential tragedy written all over it. The man who tried to throw himself into the chamber just a couple of feet from where I was sitting, clearly is troubled. Like many people I see in my electorate office it sounds like he has major problems with government agencies, and he was agitated. He was heading over the balcony head first, to a four metre drop, onto a collection of desks, chairs and people. To me it was the act of someone with deep and difficult issues and problems. I hope he is now getting help to deal with those.
The actions of the security guards and members of the public who pulled him back and then had to struggle further with him were courageous and certainly saved him and others from serious injury. I know that all MPs are grateful for their actions. From our party, Phil managed to speak to the guard before he was taken to hospital and Annette visited him last night in A and E (where, I am told, he waited nearly 6 hours before getting medical attention), and I understand he is doing ok today.
But there is a political element, and it was introduced by the Prime Minister. I just can not fathom his reaction. I could not hear everything he said, and it is not picked up on video because his microphone was not on, but from talking to others, it is quite clear he was talking about the incident and saying “Labour should be ashamed”, and that is “down to you”. He then did a strange gesture moving his hand across his throat (you can see it at 2.06 on the video below). What follows from that is the angry reaction from Labour members, and what I think was a very measured and calm response from Phil Goff.
Emotions were running high for all of us, and I accept that the PM would have been as disturbed as anyone in the Chamber. But now that he has had time to reflect, would it hurt for him to acknowledge that somehow trying to link Labour to the incident was wrong, inappropriate and highly likely to cause extreme offense? He has said he was making some reference to DPS. I am not sure what the connection was actually, albeit a DPS officer assisted once the man had been hauled back over the balcony. In any case, that does not make it right to link Labour with the incident.
Parliament can be a high emotion, robust and stressful environment, and in the heat of the moment some terrible things get said. If Mr Key had come out and said yesterday that he was sorry for linking Labour to the incident but that it was a very stressful time, he might actually have gone up in my estimations. Unfortunately, he has gone down.
National MP Georgina Te Heu Heu, gave her valedictory yesterday
National MP Sandra Goudie, the member for the Coromandel, gave her valeditory yesterday
Progressive MP Jim Anderton, the member for Wigram, gave his valedictory yesterday
Labour MP Pete Hodgson, the member for Dunedin North, gave his valedictory speech yesterday
Labour MP Lynne Pillay gave her valedictory yesterday
Labour MP George Hawkins, the member for Manurewa, gave his valedictory