I am contacting all MPs and asking the following:
Do you support “gotcha” politics where attacks and accusations are made to try and damage parties and to discredit and potentially end the careers of fellow MPs? Yes/No?
A comment is welcome. This will be published online.
NOTE: The question refers to what is beyond holding Government and parties to account, it is negative politics aimed at scoring political points and inflicting political damage regardless of the personal consequences and regardless of the reasonable democratic process.
Voters elect MPs and choose preferred parties. It should not be up to party strategists and dirty tricks operatives to try and determine who they want to be forced out of their place in our House of Representatives.
I will post all responses here.
| Name | Party | Yes/No | Comment |
| Adams, Amy | NAT | – | |
| Ardern, Jacinda | LAB | – | |
| Ardern, Shane | NAT | – | |
| Auchinvole, Chris | NAT | – | |
| Bakshi, Kanwaljit Singh | NAT | – | |
| Banks, John | ACT | – | |
| Barry, Maggie | NAT | – | |
| Bennett, David | NAT | – | |
| Bennett, Paula | NAT | – | |
| Blue, Jackie | NAT | – | |
| Borrows, Chester | NAT | – | |
| Bridges, Simon | NAT | – | |
| Browning, Steffan | GRE | – | |
| Brownlee, Gerry | NAT | – | |
| Calder, Cam | NAT | – | |
| Carter, David | NAT | – | |
| Chauvel, Charles | LAB | – | |
| Clark, David | LAB | – | |
| Clendon, David | GRE | No | Personality driven politics based on personal attacks is seldom helpful and can further alienate people from the political process.. There is a responsibility to reveal and critique behaviour that does not meet the standards that people might reasonably expect of MPs, but in general we should seek common ground where possible, and debate policy differences otherwise, but steer clear of point scoring and denigration. |
| Coleman, Jonathan | NAT | – | |
| Collins, Judith | NAT | – | |
| Cosgrove, Clayton | LAB | – | |
| Cunliffe, David | LAB | – | |
| Curran, Clare | LAB | – | |
| Dalziel, Lianne | LAB | – | |
| Dean, Jacqui | NAT | – | |
| Delahunty, Catherine | GRE | – | |
| Dunne, Peter | UF | NO | Most certainly not. There is plenty of substance in the issues to be debated, without descending to gutter politics. |
| Dyson, Ruth | LAB | – | |
| English, Bill | NAT | – | |
| Faafoi, Kris | LAB | – | |
| Fenton, Darien | LAB | – | |
| Finlayson, Christopher | NAT | – | |
| Flavell, Te Ururoa | MAO | – | |
| Foss, Craig | NAT | – | |
| Genter, Julie Anne | GRE | – | |
| Goff, Phil | LAB | – | |
| Goldsmith, Paul | NAT | – | |
| Goodhew, Jo | NAT | – | |
| Graham, Kennedy | GRE | – | |
| Groser, Tim | NAT | – | |
| Guy, Nathan | NAT | – | |
| Hague, Kevin | GRE | No | Certainly not as an end in its own right, although it is important to hold Government and Members (particularly Ministers) to account for their behaviour. For example, it was legitimate to expose Ministers who misused their credit cards or used parliamentary travel for personal business interests. It was legitimate to expose a Minister who intervened inappropriately in the case of a friend dealing with a department that was accountable to him. It would not be legitimate to publicise the fact that an MP was having an extra-marital affair, as this would have nothing to do with that MP’s performance of his or her role. |
| Harawira, Hone | MAN | – | |
| Hayes, John | NAT | – | |
| Heatley, Phil | NAT | – | |
| Henare, Tau | NAT | – | |
| Hipkins, Chris | LAB | – | |
| Horan, Brendan | NZF | – | |
| Horomia, Parekura | LAB | – | |
| Hughes, Gareth | GRE | – | |
| Huo, Raymond | LAB | – | |
| Hutchison, Paul | NAT | – | |
| Jones, Shane | LAB | – | |
| Joyce, Steven | NAT | – | |
| Kaye, Nikki | NAT | – | |
| Key, John | NAT | – | |
| King, Annette | LAB | – | |
| King, Colin | NAT | – | |
| Lee, Melissa | NAT | – | |
| Lees-Galloway, Iain | LAB | – | |
| Little, Andrew | LAB | – | |
| Logie, Jan | GRE | – | |
| Lotu-Iiga, Peseta Sam | NAT | – | |
| Macindoe, Tim | NAT | – | |
| Mackey, Moana | LAB | – | |
| Mahuta, Nanaia | LAB | – | |
| Mallard, Trevor | LAB | – | |
| Martin, Tracey | NZF | No | |
| Mathers, Mojo | GRE | – | |
| McClay, Todd | NAT | – | |
| McCully, Murray | NAT | – | |
| McKelvie, Ian | NAT | – | |
| Mitchell, Mark | NAT | – | |
| Moroney, Sue | LAB | – | |
| Ngaro, Alfred | NAT | – | |
| Norman, Russel | GRE | – | |
| O’Connor, Damien | LAB | – | |
| O’Connor, Simon | NAT | – | |
| O’Rourke, Denis | NZF | – | |
| Parata, Hekia | NAT | – | |
| Parker, David | LAB | – | |
| Peters, Winston | NZF | – | |
| Prasad, Rajen | LAB | – | |
| Prosser, Richard | NZF | No | See below |
| Robertson, Grant | LAB | – | |
| Robertson, Ross | LAB | – | |
| Roche, Denise | GRE | – | |
| Ross, Jami-Lee | NAT | – | |
| Roy, Eric | NAT | – | |
| Ryall, Tony | NAT | – | |
| Sabin, Mike | NAT | – | |
| Sage, Eugenie | GRE | – | |
| Shanks, Katrina | NAT | – | |
| Sharples, Pita | MAO | – | |
| Shearer, David | LAB | – | |
| Simpson, Scott | NAT | – | |
| Sio, Su’a William | LAB | – | |
| Smith, Lockwood | NAT | – | |
| Smith, Nick | NAT | – | |
| Stewart, Barbara | NZF | – | |
| Street, Maryan | LAB | – | |
| Taylor, Asenati | NZF | – | |
| Tirikatene, Rino | LAB | – | |
| Tisch, Lindsay | NAT | – | |
| Tolley, Anne | NAT | – | |
| Tremain, Chris | NAT | – | |
| Turei, Metiria | GRE | – | |
| Turia, Tariana | MAO | – | |
| Twyford, Phil | LAB | – | |
| Upston, Louise | NAT | – | |
| Wagner, Nicky | NAT | – | |
| Walker, Holly | GRE | – | |
| Wall, Louisa | LAB | – | |
| Wilkinson, Kate | NAT | – | |
| Williams, Andrew | NZF | – | |
| Williamson, Maurice | NAT | – | |
| Woodhouse, Michael | NAT | – | |
| Woods, Megan | LAB | – | |
| Yang, Jian | NAT | – | |
| Young, Jonathan | NAT | – |
Richard Prosser:
No I don’t support it.
Whilst there are, by definition and indeed of necessity, always going to be
differences of opinion and philosophy in politics, it behoves us as Parliamentarians
to play the ball and not the man (or woman), and to address such differences, and
attempt to influence policy, through reasoned debate and by keeping an open mind,
and above all by having regard to the wishes of the voting public and the best
interests of the nation.While we may not agree with the views or positions of any particular Member or
Party, it has to be remembered that most MPs enter Parliament with genuinely held
beliefs and with honourable intentions, and we owe it to the future of our
Parliamentary democracy to respect that fact.Beyond holding Members and Parties to account as regards their current and intended
actions, and their present and past indications of character, we have a duty to be
fair in our dealings, and to conduct our affairs in the dignified manner which the
public has a right to expect.Best regards
Richard Prosser
1 Comment