Trevor Mallard versus Nick Smith

Trevor Mallard as Deputy Speaker ejected Nick Smith from Parliament today, then recalled him to withdraw and apologise, then rejected him again.

Some journalist reports on Twitter:

Nick Smith ordered back to the house after saying on his way out of the house “unfit to ever be speaker”

Nick Smith issue resolved. He’s been back to the chamber, withdrawn and apologised for comment alleging bias on part of the deputy speaker.

From Parliament:

Minister Ejected During ACC Debate

by Editor on Tuesday, September 22, 2015 — 4:53 PM

The unusual event of a minister being ejected from the House while in the chair took place during the committee stage of the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill this afternoon.

During debate on Part Two of the bill there was a strained interchange between Assistant Speaker Trevor Mallard and Nick Smith. Mr Mallard took exception to something Dr Smith said (probably for not addressing Part Two of the Bill in his speech) and Dr Smith took exception to this. As he was ejected from the House Dr Smith said Mr Mallard was not to fit to hold the office.

Eventually Dr Smith was recalled to the House and made to withdraw and then ejected again.

Video of the events as they unfolded:

Draft transcript:

Part 2 Repeal of provisions relating to residual levies

Speech – Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment)

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Part 2 of this bill is about Parliament bringing forward the date on which the residual levy, which is paid by thousands of businesses around New Zealand, can be brought to an end such that ACC levy payers are having to pay only for the costs of the accidents that occur in a particular year. That is something that this Parliament should celebrate: after over 30 years of the ACC scheme, in this year and the next—this financial year—for the first time ACC will be fully solvent and fully funded. That is something we members of the National team are very, very proud of. I must respond to claims around where this residual levy has come from.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, look, Mr Chairman!

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will stand and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: For saying what? I apologise for saying “Mr Chairman”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise without reservation, or he will leave the Chamber.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I unreservedly apologise.

Part 2 Repeal of provisions relating to residual levies

Speech – Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment)

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr Nick Smith will leave the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.SMITH, Hon Dr NICK

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr Nick Smith will take a seat now. I am sorry. Minister Foss cannot take the seat, because he cannot take it while Dr Nick Smith is here. The Serjeant-at-Arms will find Dr Nick Smith and ask him to return to the Chamber, please. What I am going to do is I am going to ask Mr Foss to take the Chair until such time as Dr Smith can be found. I make it clear to those in the Government whips’ chair that if he is not found within the next half an hour, I will proceed with the measures that I am minded to do in any case.

There was a delay while Smith was found. Then:

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I will just ask the member to resume his seat while we deal with this matter.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that you seek my apology, and you have it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): What I would like you to do now is withdraw and apologise for the comment that you made as you left the Chamber, indicating bias on the part of the Chairperson. The member will do it properly. He knows how to do it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will now leave the Chamber.

How would Mallard know what people want?

In a column at Stuff Trevor Mallard talks as if he knows “what we want”, but he doesn’t even seem to know what he wants, apart from dissing an opponent.

Trevor Mallard: Flag issue about PM’s ego, not what Kiwis want

When it comes to a brand spanking new flag, I started the parliamentary process with an open mind.

I don’t remember that bit. He must have closed his mind quite quickly.

The time for change will come I thought. But the middle of the commemoration of World War 1 is not the time.

if you don’t want something to happen you can think of many reasons why now isn’t a good time.

John Key has written that seeing the silver fern at the Bledisloe Cup  game confirmed to him that New Zealand needs a new flag. I watched that game, too.

But something else occurred to me looking around the packed stadium of 50,000 people: you would need three stadia that size to hold all the people who are out of work under National.

That’s why so many New Zealanders are angry about Mr Key’s flag project. There are a lot of serious issues facing New Zealand but the Prime Minister is fiddling about with the flag like he has nothing else to do.

This multi stadia vision of Mallard’s must be quite new. When he was in the Labour Cabinet his responsibilities included Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for the America’s Cup and later Associate Minister of Finance. Financie and sporting events must have been a different priority then.

There are 148,000 people unemployed in New Zealand right now, up 50,000 under National. There are 305,000 kids in poverty, up 45,000 under National. Net Government debt is at a record level, up by $58 billion under National. Homeownership is at its lowest level in 60 years.

$26m wouldn’t solve those problems, but it could make a start. Instead, Mr Key is flushing it away on a referendum that Kiwis have clearly said they don’t want.

Mr Key wrote “in a sense, the people have already spoken”.

He’s right: Kiwis have spoken. In every forum and in the media, the public opposition to a new flag and the referendum is overwhelming. The fact that fewer than 700 people showed up to the Flag Commission’s multi-million dollar roadshow speaks volumes.

The polls are stark – 70% of us don’t want change. Just 25% do.

That’s just one poll, so it’s very misleading quoting that. There are thirteen polls cited here, with a range of results. The three option polls show minorities against change in all three polls conducted last year.

The vast majority of over ten thousand flag design submissions were serious suggestions, suggesting significant interest from Kiwis.

It’s as plain as day that the second referendum will vote to keep the current flag.

It’s as plain as day that Mallard doesn’t know what he is talking about – or is deliberately promoting false impressions.

It’s impossible for anyone to know what the result of the second referendum will be.

The point of a flag referendum is to ask the people if they want change. The clear answer is that they don’t.  Not only do New Zealanders not want change, they don’t want $26m of taxpayers’ money spent on a vote.

No, the point of the two referendums is to ask if people want change. Grumpy old politicians opposing change under a Prime Minister they don’t want given any credit gives far from a clear answer.

John Key wrote that he believes now is the time for us as New Zealanders to have the national discussion around changing the flag.

I disagree. This is all for a vanity project in John Key’s name. We should all remember the word vanity comes from the Latin root Vanus which meant empty.

I began this process with an open mind. My mind is now made up. Now is not the time to change the flag. It wasn’t at the start of the process. It certainly is not now, no matter how many times the Prime Minister tries to convince us it is.

Mallard’s mind was obviously made up a long time ago. He has been campaiging against the referendums and against flag change for yonks.

Mallard announced that Labour would oppose change in March – see Loony Labour line on flag questions – despite change still published Labour Party policy.

But his and Labour’s opposition to flag change the Key way goes back into last year:

Petition 2014/0006 of Hon Trevor Mallard
During our consideration of this bill we also heard evidence on Petition 2014/0006 of Hon Trevor Mallard, requesting

That the House note that 30,366 people have signed an online petition calling for the Government to include a question in the first flag referendum asking New Zealanders if they want a change of flag or not.

The petition, along with other submissions, supported the inclusion of an initial “yes/no” question immediately before the proposed four alternative flag designs to be ranked in the first referendum. The petitioner argues that this referendum structure would allow participants to consider the alternative flag designs to help them decide whether or not they want to change the flag. If a majority voted against changing the flag, then the current New Zealand flag would be kept. The petitioner argued that this structure could save money as it might negate the need for a second referendum.

If the majority voted to change the flag, under the petition’s proposal the second referendum would be a run-off between the current flag and the highest-ranked alternative.

The majority of us recognise that if this procedure were followed, many of those who voted against changing the flag would probably not proceed to rank alternative flags, and therefore not contribute to selecting the preferred alternative. We note that the 2011 referendum on the voting system used a similar structure, and more than 50 percent of voters who voted to keep MMP in Part A did not go on to vote for a preference in Part B.

The majority of us note that the petitioner’s proposed referendum structure was considered by Ministry of Justice officials in preparing the Regulatory Impact Statement on the bill. The option was not among the top four for achieving the goal of a legitimate and enduring electoral outcome. There are a variety of reasons for this. For example, for a change of flag to occur, a majority of voters would have to vote twice for change, both in the first and second referendum; whereas those opposed to change could prevail at either referendum. The majority of us believe that the petitioner’s proposed structure would bias the referendum in favour of the status quo. A further reason against the proposal is that placing a first-past-the-post vote on whether or not the flag should be changed alongside a preferential vote as to the design of a possible new flag would cause complexity and thus confusion for voters. We note that the petitioner argued against this assumption.

Some submitters argued that adding an initial “yes/no” question into the first referendum would save money. However, the advice from the Electoral Commission is that not proceeding with the second referendum would produce only very limited cost savings. Net savings would be $2.27 million (given sunk costs already incurred and additional costs).

The majority of us therefore recommend no change to the referendum structure.

So Mallard is misrepresenting the cost – the first referendum with or without his amendment would incur most of the cost.

New Zealand Labour Party minority view

We stand strongly opposed to this bill.

While we question whether there is a genuine appetite for a debate around the flag, this has not been the primary reason for our opposition. Rather, it is the structure of the referendum that we object to.

And when they didn’t get the structure changed (which would have been against expert advice) Mallard and Labour switched to total opposition.

The most consistent argument against this proposed referendum structure was that it would be too complex for voters—we consider this argument to be an insult to the intelligence of the New Zealand population.


Labour wanted to make it more complex.

Mallard seems to have forgoten about this “most consistent argument” now a simple alternative choice in the first referendum and a simple new versus old i the second.

Mallard’s changing arguments are an insult to the intelligence of the New Zealand population

How can he know what Kiwis want when he doesn’t seem to know what he wants, except to oppose key’s flag initiative? Petty politics at it’s worst.

Flag Referendums Bill passed

The New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill passed it’s third reading in Parliament yesterday. Radio NZ reports:

Parliament passes law to change flag

Legislation clearing the way for referenda on changing the nation’s flag has passed its third and final reading in Parliament.

The bill was passed by 63 votes to 59 with the support of National, United Future, ACT and the Maori Party.

The first part of the referendum is expected to be held later this year, when voters will pick their favourite of four proposed flag designs.

As we know the process to seek and select alternate flag designs is well under way, with the top forty designs now chosen.

I find it odd that the legislation enabling this has only just passed. There has already been considerable effort and expenditure.

It was interesting to watch the twelve speeches in Parliament on this Bill.

Government speakers promoted the process, but more notably Opposition speakers spoke against the flag change process but didn’t look convinced by their own arguments, especially Trevor Mallard, Grant Robertson and Russel Norman.

Bill English (National):

This Bill will give New Zealanders the opportunity for the first time ever to vote on the flag that represents them and their country.

Trevor Mallard (Labour):

I’m an old fashioned Parliamentarian and I think the role of the Prime Minister is to stand up in this Parliament and to state his views.I waited through the first reading of this legislation. I waited through the second reading of this legislation. I waited through the committee stages for John Key to get on his feet and to give his views.

He went on to complain about the lack of Key’s contribution to the debate – but kept calling it Key’s ‘vanity project’. There’s not only a contradiction on that, there’s also a huge contradiction in Mallard’s and Labour’s pro-change but anti this change stance.

And Andrew Little did not appear to speak on Labour’s contradictory stance.

Alfred Ngaro (National):

It’s disappointing to see that a member…to see that he’s come to a point where he knows and he’s agreed, in fact at select committee he agrees with the changing of the flag. He told us that. It’s in Hansard.

He said that changing the flag is the right thing to do, yet today in this house, to the open public of New Zealand he’s only opposing it out of spite.

Grant Robertson (Labour):

I’m one of the members of the Labour party who thinks that there is a place for a new flag for New Zealand.

But I’m equally a member of the New Zealand public who’s angry with John Key for turning a process…I, along with a lot of other New Zealanders am angry with John Key that a discussion about this, a discussion about out national identity, has become a vanity project for him, and there’s absolutely no doubt that that’s what’s happened.

Ironically as Mr Mallard says, the vanity doesn’t extend to coming to parliament to actually talk about the flag change.

They are trying to argue two opposites at the same time, Unconvincingly.

Labour are intent on trying to depict it as a John key vanity project – but Robertson did not look or sound angry. His argument sounded contrived and insincere.

Russel Norman:

This Bill is of course a classic form over substance Bill. So the form of course is actual pattern on the flag…so it’s really about some people saying they want to change the pattern.

But a flag, the reason why the pattern matters is that it actually refers to a deeper substance, and the deeper substance that it refers to is the constitutional arrangements of the country, ah that’s the thing that really matters.

Norman gave a subdued fairly passionless speech. He wanted to change much more than the flag – he wants to change the constitution along with it.

However the Greens have also campaigned against the flag change as not the right time to put any resources into changing anything while there are ‘more pressing matters’. To be consistent they would not want constitutional changes to be addressed until there are zero hungry children and zero damp houses in New Zealand. That’s never.

Marama Fox (Maori Party):

I think this is an important discussion, and it’s important because I absolutely agree with a lot of the objections about why we’re doing this, but actually I absolutely agree that I’d like to see a change in the flag, and I’d like to see a change in the flag because I’d like to see something that does symbolise our duality of nationhood.

Should we be spending this amount of money on doing it? I’d like to think not.

Should we have put a constitutional change first before we put a flag change in? Absolutely agree with that.

Constitutional change would be much more complex, would take much longer and would be much more expensive than the flag change process.

The Maori Party voted for the Bill.

Links to the all the speeches:

New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 1 Bill English
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 2 Trevor Mallard
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 3 Alfred Ngaro
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 4 Grant Robertson
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 5 Jacqui Dean
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 6 Kennedy Graham
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 8 Jono Naylor
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 9 Russel Norman
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 10 Marama Fox
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 11 Chris Bishop
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 12 Jenny Salesa
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 13 Nanaia Mahuta
New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill – Third reading – Part 14 Joanne Hayes, Lindsay Tisch, Tim Macindoe

Labour still campaigning against it’s own flag policy

Labour (led by Trevor Mallard) is effectively actively campaigning against it’s own 2014 policy on flag change which states “review the design of the New Zealand flag involving flag design experts and with full public consultation and involvement”.

Actually their campaigning has been ineffective.

The Select Committee considering submissions on the flag change process has ruled against changing the order of the referendum questions – see Order of flag referendum questions won’t change.

Some wanting to change the referendum questions oppose changing the flag so want to reduce any chance of a change.

The Labour Party seem confused – or are blatantly playing politics despite their own stated flag policy which supports reviewing the flag design. They have actively campaigned to reduce the chances of their policy being followed.

From NZ Herald: Select Committee rejects calls for one-off flag referendum

Labour’s Trevor Mallard had put in a petition signed by more than 30,000 people who believed the first referendum should ask people if they wanted change.

The Labour Party put in a minority report saying it was “strongly opposed” to the bill because of the order of the wording.

Labour MPs argued that a clear vote on change in the first referendum could save up to $6.8 million in the costs of a second referendum. The majority report rejected that, saying the Electoral Commission advice was that it would only save $2.27 million net, given costs already incurred.

This looks like opposition for the sake of opposing something proposed by John Key, giving give anti-John Key campaigning more priority than their policy, which states:

Labour’s policies in Internal Affairs will seek to enhance knowledge, appreciation and pride in New Zealand’s identity…

Labour will

  • review the design of the New Zealand flag involving flag design experts and with full public consultation and involvement.

That’s exactly what is currently happening, but Labour are campaigning against the recommended process and on the Select Committee will put in a minority report saying it was “strongly opposed” to the bill because of the order of the wording.

From Vote Positive, Party vote Labour, Policy 2014:

The New Zealand Flag

Labour will:

review the design of the New Zealand flag involving flag design experts and with full public consultation and involvement.

We believe that the time has come for a change and it is right for the issue to be put to the public. We would however support the ability of the RSA and similar organisations to continue to fly the current flag if they so wish. New Zealand changed its national anthem from ‘God Save the Queen’ on a gradual, optional basis and that process worked.

Contrary to this Labour are trying to prevent the public from reviewing the design of the New Zealand flag.

By promoting a “do you want to change the flag” referendum before public consultation on any alternate designs Labour appear to be campaigning against their own flag policy.

Has their flag policy changed since last year? Or are they just being politically petty in trying to hobble a John Key initiative?

Labour leader Andrew Little answered an NBR Q&A on flag change during the leadership contest last year.

Should NZ change its flag:

What’s your personal opinion?

Should there be a referendum?

If you want the flag changed, what’s your favourite design?

Yes, my personal opinion is we should have something more relevant to an independent, small Asia/Pacific nation. I think a referendum is a suitable way to deal with an issue that can be very polarising. I don’t like the idea of the silver fern on a black background. The elements I would like to see in a flag are the Southern Cross, blue for the sea, green for the land and mountains, and a reference to our Maori heritage.

So why is Trevor Mallard leading a campaign against a sensible flag change process?

Claire Trevett looked at this last month in No room for political spite in flag debate.

This is where Labour comes in, apparently determined to sabotage the process. Labour is a relatively pro-republic party in which most MPs favour a change of flag. Despite that, it has set about political point-scoring, even if doing so undermines the very process that might result in that flag change.

Their primary objection is the order of the questions in the referendums. They argue New Zealanders should first be asked whether they want a change – and have a second referendum only if the majority want change.

Labour claims it is an effort to save money. What codswallop. Labour’s objections are an effort to rain on the Prime Minister’s parade and get headlines.

The Ministry of Justice advised against putting the change question first. That was because for many people not entrenched in either camp, the final decision will depend on what the alternative is.

Had the Government gone against that advice, Labour would probably now be accusing it of penny pinching over a matter of national identity. Labour’s approach is rather selfish and short-sighted and if it has the effect of tainting the entire process, the party might rue it.

Labour has also taken to feeding the perception that it is a “vanity project” for John Key. This primarily comes down to sour grapes. Labour wants a new flag. But they don’t want Key to be the one whose name is linked to it. They want it for themselves.

Questioning referendums is one thing, but trying to influence people’s votes out of puerile political spite is a different matter. It may be true that Key is keen on a legacy, but it should be irrelevant. The referendums are on the flag, not on the political parties or personalities.

The referendums are a treacherous enough process. The officials’ advice also pointed to the risk of “tactical voting”, in which those opposed to change vote for the least appealing option – so the current flag had a better chance of winning.

The referendum process is now before a select committee and the Flag Consideration Panel has started its work of consulting about an alternative. This is the first chance New Zealanders have had to vote on the flag. The politicians would do New Zealand a favour by simply shutting up and letting the public get on with it for themselves.

But still Labour are “apparently determined to sabotage the process”.

Or at least Mallard is leading opposition to the process. Despite Little supposedly being leader. and despite it being Labour policy.

Loony Labour line on flag questions

Labour is following a loony line on the flag referendum questions and have chosen to oppose the Flag Bill.

NZ Herald: Labour to oppose flag bill

Labour will oppose a bill setting up the two referendums deciding the fate of the flag because of a sticking point over the order of the questions.

The Flag Referendums Bill is expected to get its first reading in Parliament soon and has enough support to pass its first stage without Labour, although the Maori Party and the Greens have only committed to support it through to select committee so far.

The bill sets out the process and questions for the two referendums – expected to cost $26 million. The first will be later this year and ask voters to choose between four options for a new flag. The second will pit the most popular new flag design against the current flag and ask voters to pick one.

Labour’s Trevor Mallard said voters should be asked whether they wanted to change the flag in the first referendum. “There should be a yes/no vote at the beginning of the process so that if the majority of New Zealanders don’t want change we don’t spend a fortune on an unnecessary second referendum.”

That may just be a misguided approach, or it could be an attempt to diminish the debate.

From what I’ve seen online those who want a “do you want to change the flag?” question first are opposed to change so want to avoid a chosen alternative from competing against the current flag.

If the first referendum had two questions, a yes/no to change plus a choice of an alternative it is likely confuse people and to distort the result.

It would be odd voting against change and for an alternative at the same time.

If someone didn’t want change they would vote on that question but are likely to not care about the alternative choice.

Therefore if the yes to change vote won then the selection of an alternative would be at risk of being inaccurate.

And the yes/no vote would depend on which alternative was up against the current flag so the two questions can’t be asked at the same time.

Some people are likely to oppose changing to one alternative but may be happy to change to a different alternative.

The only way of dealing with this sensibly is to first select the most popular alternative, and then choose whether you want to change to that or stay with the current flag.

And that’s the plan.

Act leader David Seymour said he would support it and could see the sense in deciding on what the alternative flag would be before deciding whether to vote for a change.

The Maori and Green parties have decided to vote for the Bill to get to the Select Committee stage. That allows it to be more fully discussed and considered.

Labour seem to be taking an opposing position just to oppose a Government proposal.  So they are against a sound democratic selection process.

Seems loony opposition to me.

Mallard as Deputy Speaker

NZ Herald reports that Trevor Mallard has been lined up as Deputy Speaker.

It is understood Labour has nominated the man often labelled the party’s bovver boy for the Assistant Speaker slot traditionally reserved for an Opposition MP, and National has agreed to it.

Mr Mallard would not confirm it last night, saying it was a matter for the Leader of the House to announce.

That sounds like all but confirmation.

Labour’s Ross Robertson was deputy speaker last term. He has just retired from Parliament.

Robertson was not a prominent Member of Parliament but his catchphrase was apparently “courtesy is contagious”. He also unsuccessfully promoted a member’s bill trying to promote better MP behaviour – see Code of Ethical Conduct for MPs.

Mallard contrasts significantly with this. He has frequently clashed with speakers and has been thrown out of the House numerous times. He put himself forward for the Speaker’s position when Lockwood Smith retired.

Mr Mallard put his name forward to be Speaker by way of protest against National’s choice of Mr Carter and declared it was one of his ambitions to hold the job.

Last term he had many clashes and disagreements with Carter.

Labour will be happy if Mallard becomes occupied as Deputy Speaker.

It’s possible Mallard will rise to the responsibility. He has more experience and knowledge of what it involves, albeit on the receiving end of many unruly rulings.

…he has served as Labour’s shadow Leader of the House and is one of the Labour MPs best versed on its rules.

If this appointment is confirmed it will give Mallard a chance to prove he can do more than aspire to be chief nit picker and cantanker.

If he wants to fulfil an apparent ambition of becoming Speaker whenever Labour might lead Government again this will give him an opportunity to prove he is firm and fair enough. He will need to earn respect from opposing MPs that won’t have particularly good feelings towards him.

Contrasting Labour hoardings

Labour leader David Cunliffe put up his first hoarding today, (as snapped by Patrick Gower).

Cunliffe hoarding

Interesting to see no ‘Cunliffe’ on it apart from the picture, and a meaningless slogan the most prominent wording. ‘Party vote Labour’ is far less prominent.

Clayton Cosgrove (source Whale Oil)

Cosgrove hoarding

Cosgrove is 8 on the Labour list but no ‘Vote positive’ or ‘Party vote Labour. Much less red, his own slogan which sounds a bit like National’s, and a very misleading ‘MP Waimakariri’ as Cosgrove is not an electorate MP.

Trevor Mallard has started putting his hoardings up a day early (source Holly Bennett).

Mallard Hoarding

Mallard is standing for the electorate only and isn’t on the list so is promoting himself, with ‘Vote positive’ and ‘Party vote Labour’ far less prominent at the bottom.

Megan Woods:

Hoarding Woods

Same layout as Mallard’s but Woods is also on the list (at 20).

Jacinda Ardern:

Hoarding Ardern

Same again. This seems to be the official 2014 layout. Jacinda is 5 on the list.

Chris Hipkins:

Hoarding Hipkins

Another standard layout with the all important party vote note prominent. Hipkins is an electorate MP and 9 on the party list.


Sue Moroney (source Whale Oil)

Moroney hoarding

Two different versions. The top one is recycled from 2008, promoting both Labour and Moroney but obviously no current slogan ‘Vote positive’. The second is very prominent ‘Party vote Labour.

Ironically Moroney’s recycled hoardings are the best party promotions. She is 10 on Labour’s list and has trouble winning electrates.

It’s strange to see each MP with vastly different hoardings.

Cunliffe and the Labour blokes

Different columns on Labour, one from Rachel Smalley claiming David Cunliffe is trying to attract the female vote, and another by Duncan Garner on Labour blokes disregarding party interests and trying to shore up their electorate chances.

Rachel Smalley: Cunliffe courting the female vote

The most recent policy announcements suggest to me that David Cunliffe is not cutting it with women. You’ll remember Helen Clark lost the support of women in her final term, and I don’t think Labour has ever claimed it back. During his leadership challenge, remember that Cunliffe wasn’t popular with women in his own party. I suspect that’s resonating in the wider public too.

According to polls this year both Labour and Cunliffe have lost support from female voters.

So he’s going after the female vote. Women are more likely to bounce between parties. Men tend to vote for what’s right for their own wallets, but women are more likely to consider issues beyond personal wealth and economics.

A particular problem Cunliffe has is that women are more adept at reading body language and don’t like it when it differs from verbal language.

Even his “sorry I’m a man” speech, which was obviously targeting women, had suggestions of a lack of authenticity.

Meanwhile Duncan Garner posts Three Labour MPs say ‘stuff the party – I want to win my seat!’

Three Labour MPs have broken ranks in recent weeks – quite loudly and very publicly.

They are interested in one thing: self-preservation. They want to win their seats and they’ve given up relying on their party. They are clearly concerned Labour will poll poorly on election night, so they’ve decided to run their own campaigns – away from head office and away from the leader.

These MPs have either chosen not to be on the list or they have a low-list spot. They are vulnerable. It’s all or nothing for them.

They must win their seats to return to Parliament; this sort of pressure usually focuses an MP’s mind. They want to be back in Parliament and they want the $150k salary.

I’m talking about West Coast-Tasman MP, Damien O’Connor, Hutt South MP, Trevor Mallard and list MP and Te Tai Tokerau candidate, Kelvin Davis.

He has left Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene out.

Take Davis: yesterday he engaged Labour in its biggest u-turn in years. He told me he supported the Puhoi-Wellsford road project that his party has openly mocked and criticised.

Davis is a staunch promoter of Northland interests and has put this before the party.

Further south in Wellington, Trevor Mallard is openly campaigning for the return of the moa – against the wishes of his party and the leadership. It’s a desperate cry for attention: Mallard needs visibility and the moa got him the headlines.

That has been a bizarre sideshow. Cunliffe initially responded “the moa is not a goer” but Mallard has kept on going on about his pet project of the future.

And further south again, Damien O’Connor voted with the Government 10 days ago to allow storm-damaged native trees to be harvested in protected forests.

Tirikatene also voted with the Government on the tree bill.

These three blokes are the outliers in the Labour Caucus. And they are blokes too; they need to make some noise to be heard. They clearly have issues with the tame approach within their caucus.

O’Connor and Davis certainly look in touch with middle New Zealand, their electorates and their issues. They have given the one-fingered salute to their struggling party and put self-preservation first.

O’Connor, Tirikatene and Mallard are relying totally on holding their current electorates in order to stay in Parliament, they don’t feature on the Labour list.

Davis is in a doubtful list position and to put a bob each way on his chances he needs to keenly contest Hone Harawira to try and win Te Tai Tokerau off him.

While Cunliffe is struggling to woo the women voters some of the strongest male presence in Labour is going their own way, disregarding the wider party interests, and as Garner says, putting self preservation first. This suggests they don’t hold much hope of the party doing well.

Cunliffe is struggling to appeal to women and failing to appeal to his own caucus for unity.

It’s hard to see how this can work out well for Labour.

Unless Kim Dotcom sinks National, giving Labour  a shot at forming a Government despite their shambles.


Is Mallard serious?

Trevor Mallard seems to be taking his proposal to resurrect moa from their DNA seriously even though it makes one wonder if he’s taking the piss.

But he could have an odd obsession with things from the past going by his social media profiles.

His Twitter profile:

Mallard TwitterHis Facebook profile:

Mallard Facebook


This is a long time MP who has opted out of his party list but is apparently seriously standing to try and retain his electorate.


He seems to have a fixation with looking at things from bygone eras.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,130 other followers