Example of abuse in the House today where the Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key used his position to spuriously accuse Labour leader Phil Goff of racism and then to allege Greens Co-leader Metiria Turei had done the same.
Forced to withdraw and apologise twice. Firstly to Phil Goff, then to Metiria Turei. Is this the kind of behaviour we condone? Should not the Prime Minister be showing an example in the House?
Posted on the politics of abuse a couple of days ago. This is an example.
I can be a fairly strong critic of our media. I think that’s a healthy thing and I hope that it’s viewed as such. Having lived overseas for a long time, you do see things from different perspectives, and experience a broader range of media. I have worked as a journalist and also in the public relations business for a long time, including a period where I worked very closely with the Australian political media in the late 90s.
But I want to say thank you to Tim Watkin, Q&A producer for posting on the TVNZ blog on Guyon Espiner’s interview with Metiria Turei a couple of weeks ago. His post is titled: What makes good political interviewing?
There’s been quite a lot of controversy and discussion about whether Guyon was too hard on Metiria.
I’m not commenting on the substance of his post, rather the fact that he did it. I think it’s great to see some accountability and a willingness to have a discussion about how the media operates and why.
Tim, can we have more of it. That’s engagement.
Green co-leader Metiria Turei struggled to articulate her party’s position on trade in a tough interview with Guyon Espiner on Q&A this morning. She didn’t answer Espiner’s questions on whether or not the Greens supported CER or the China trade agreement.
Labour’s approach to the China agreement is unequivocal:
1. New Zealand’s long term prosperity relies on our firms successfully selling into international markets, particularly in the dynamic East and South Asian economies. We owe it to future generations.
2. China is becoming a super power. Trade (and political, diplomatic, cultural and people-to-people) engagement by NZ and other countries is a necessary part of bringing China into the international community, and fostering its commitment to international law and mulitilateralism.
3. New Zealand can and does use the access we get from our special trade and political relationship with China to raise issues of human rights.
Personally I’ve always been of the view that boycotting trade with China because they don’t share our views on labour, human rights and the environment is not tenable. Chinese workers deserve jobs just as much as workers anywhere else.
Trade liberalisation can harm (for example by reducing the policy space to protect infant industries, or forcing countries to open up sensitive sectors to foreign competition) but it can also help (for instance by getting rid of rich-country protectionism that damage the livelihoods of farmers in poor countries and New Zealand).
Not only is trade the only way that a small isolated country like New Zealand can prosper, it is also one of the most important ways the world’s poorest nations can work their way out of poverty. Trade is not inherently good or bad. It depends how the rules are written, who the winners and losers are, and how trade-offs are managed.
The challenge for New Zealand is to balance the gains we get from liberalising agricultural trade and opening up important new markets, against possible concessions that might reduce our own policy options (for instance the long expected opposition of the US to Pharmac). In the Pacific we and the Australians need to balance the gains of helping Pacific states export more, against liberalisation that could reduce the policy options of governments to protect sensitive sectors.
What do you think?
Gerry Brownlee just refused to answer a question in the House put to him by Metiria Turei. The question was about his ‘stocktake’ of minerals in New Zealand’s conservation estate. It was a politically loaded question, although that’s certainly not unusual, and nor is it unusual to get politically loaded answers.
Rather than rise and respond to Turei’s question, Brownlee just remained in his seat smirking. Technically he is perfectly entitled to do so. Ministers are allowed to refuse to answer and are not obliged to give a reason, but it is a very rarely used privilege.
As for the question being politically loaded, perhaps Mr Brownlee should consider the incredibly politically loaded answers John Key is in the process of giving right now to the very straight forward questions put to him by Phil Goff.
It shows just how arrogant this government has become in the 10 short months it has been in office. It also shows once again how little respect they have for our parliamentary processes (as if their continual use of urgency hadn’t already proved that beyond doubt).
