Bad behaviour taxes

Head of the Tax Working Group, Michael Cullen, has signalled to possibility of taxes to ‘change bad behaviours’.

Stuff: New taxes could change bad behaviours, suggests Sir Michael Cullen

A wealth tax, a tax on financial transactions, a broader capital gains tax, a land tax and new environmental taxes will all be options considered by the Tax Working Group, its chairman Sir Michael Cullen says.

Cullen said those new taxes would be among the options canvassed in a “background paper” that will be published on Wednesday week.

Speaking to the International Fiscal Association conference in Queenstown on Friday, Cullen gave several strong clues on his own thinking on the direction of the tax system.

Cullen appeared warm to the idea of taxes on environmental and social ills, such as greenhouse gas emissions, pollution and the causes of obesity.

“In this summer of 2017-18 there can surely be little argument that the effects of global warming are already with us.

“We face many other environmental challenges such as water pollution, possible over-allocation of water, plastic pollution of the oceans, and congestion, in Auckland especially,” he said.

“All this means that the possible use of the system to change people’s behaviour in ways which increase the wellbeing of all of us is very much on the agenda at the present time.”

Perhaps MPs could be taxed to change their bad behaviour, especially in Parliament.

Cullen played down the suggestion New Zealand needed to cut its company tax rate to compete with lower rates being promised or introduced in countries including Australia, the United States and Britain.

“Some would … argue that trends in tax rates and types of tax offshore may also necessitate similar changes in New Zealand. Most commonly cited is the downward trend in company tax rates which means that our rate is now slightly above the OECD average.”

But he said New Zealand’s 28 per cent company tax was not as high as it might seem, given other charges that applied in other countries, and that the evidence of a link between company tax and economic performance was “very weak”.

Cullen has made these suggestions before submissions to the working group have been made.

How Republicans should behave

While some US Republicans see the Trump presidency along with Republican majorities in the House and the Senate as an opportunity to get major things done others have expressed concerns and sometimes outright opposition.

Curt Anderson (who served in the Reagan administration) at Fox News asks (and answers) How to behave in the age of Trump? Five essential lessons for Republicans:

How should we behave in the age of Donald Trump? Many politicians, clients, political operatives and staffers have asked me variations of this question over the past month. Being in somewhat uncharted territory, this is a legitimately challenging query.

What should we do when our president says something that we find offensive? What should we say when the press asks us to comment on tweets that we find less than presidential?

This is, of course, only a problem for Republicans.

Here are five principles for Republicans and conservatives to consider as we begin to navigate the Age of Trump.

His headline points:

1. Don’t help the Democrats

The last thing we need right now is rational and calm Republicans dissing our president, even if and when you think he deserves it.

2. Show Restraint

Don’t take potshots.

3. Give the Trump Presidency a Chance to Succeed.

Time will tell on this, but do not assume that he cannot succeed. Every Republican needs to accept this truth — you need him to succeed, for the good of the country, and the party.

There is some debate about ‘for the good of the country”.

4. Limit your dissent to serious policy matters

A healthy and robust exchange of policy views, sans ad hominem attacks, makes our party stronger.

5. Respect the president

We disagreed with the policies of President Obama, almost all of them in fact.  But it was, and is, incumbent on all of us to respect the president of the United States. We have no obligation to agree with him, but we do have an obligation to respect him.

Respect isn’t an automatic right – especially for presidents. They have to earn it.

Why MPs behave poorly in Parliament

One of the primary reasons why MPs behave poorly in Parliament is because political journalists feed the frenzy by giving the worst of parliament the most attention.

Claire Trevett illustrates this in Pokes and jokes hit and miss but Winston Peters still the master.

Peters may be the master of attention seeking but that doesn’t make it a healthy environment for democracy.

On Key:

To celebrate the occasion and the rare display of Black Caps sledging Australians, Key dedicated much of his speech at the start of Parliament to sledging his own opponents.

On Little:

Little was not bereft of comebacks. He welcomed back Michael Woodhouse – the overseer of health and safety reforms which listed worm farms as dangerous: “I am pleased that we have got through a summer with not a single worm farmer suffering a fatality or serious accident.”

He congratulated newly restored minister Judith Collins for making such a difference in such a short time, noting New Zealand had slipped two places in the corruption index in the two months she had been back.

On Shaw:

But then came poor old James Shaw, the newly minted Green Party co-leader. His caucus was not so well trained at laughing as National and Labour.

His valiant efforts met with a wall of silence.

The circus only rewards clowns.

Nobody was quite sure what he was banging on about, but happily the novice was followed by the master: NZ First leader Winston Peters.

Peters took his usual scatter gun approach to his targets, depending who heckled him.

The sensible leadership over Waitangi events has disappeared in Parliament.

Finally Seymour set about insisting closure of a charter school in Whangaruru was proof the schools worked.

It was all as incomprehensible as circling the desert of the real.

The most respectful and sensible speaker didn’t rate a mention – Peter Dunne. He began by paying a tribute to the late Rt Hon Bob Tizard. He acknowledged Annette King respectfully. And he closed with a welcome back to all members, with a special mention to new MP Maureen Pugh.

But that sort of thing doesn’t rate a mention. We have headline driven political coverage, which grotesquely distorts our democracy.

WHOOPS: And I forgot to mention Te Ururoa Flavell, who flies under the media radar because he’s one of the best behaved and respectful MPs in Parliament.

Blog behaviour and pseudonyms

Interest and participation here is surging, which is very pleasing to see. Thanks to everyone who contributes.

Discussion and debate is increasing and getting more diverse, which has been one of the aims here. In the main people are conducting themselves well, usually addressing the issues and only sometimes straying into personal attack.

A bit of personal bickering will happen in the heat of debate and if it remains as occasional and not too bad I’ll accept it as part of an open and robust environment.

But one thing that’s creeping in a bit is trying to identify people using pseudonyms either as known people or as different pseudonyms here or elsewhere.

One of the strengths of moderation here is community assistance, which is appreciated. Pointing out to someone that they are clashing with our culture a bit is fine. Advising me of something potentially serious is very helpful.

We’ve had some problems with multiple use of pseudonyms. That’s in the main sorted. I can usually quite easily see when that’s happening. By all means if you see something suspicious let me know so I can check it out.

Usually there’s a reasonable explanation and nothing untoward has been going on.

But please don’t confront and accuse people here. I want new visitors to feel welcome and not intimidated. Sometimes they take a while to get the feel of the place and work out how things work here. Give them a chance.

Remember that new people bring new ideas and new approaches to issues and sometimes new approaches to commenting. I’d like this encouraged, that’s the niche that I (and we) have been developing here, generally successfully.

Multiple pseudonyms

As already indicated there has been some problems with a very small number of people using multiple pseudonyms here that break all the rules of blog etiquette. That’s pretty much sorted.

One or two people have been using multiple pseudonyms in a way that has been non-threatening in itself and has added to the flavour of the place. But it also causes problems.

It makes other people suspicious about whether someone new has joined us or someone old has changed their name again. It can create confusion. It risks being seen as impersonation.

And when done in debates it is unfair to others who don’t know who they are addressing.

The use of pseudonyms is an important part of online forums, it allows people the freedom to take part that they wouldn’t have if under there own name. So pseudonyms are fine.

But pseudonyms should not be used as a ‘subject line’ – unless you clearly identify your usual identity in comments.

A pseudonym is something that identifies yourself that is not your real name, not a moving target.

Ideally a pseudonym would follow someone wherever they are online but that’s not always practical or possible. It’s not uncommon to start in a forum with a pseudonym, then go somewhere else and find that pseudonym is already being used or can be confused.

But in one blog, in here at least, one pseudonym per person please.If you feel a need to change your pseudonym then do this openly if possible.

That mightn’t be as much fun for some but it’s more fair for many.

This will help make Your NZ a forum for discussion that can be robust but also where people feel safe to contribute.

Code of Ethical Conduct for MPs

A repost from two years ago on an attempt by outgoing Labour MP Ross Robertson to improve MP conduct that was not supported by either National nor Labour.

After the poor behaviour in parliament last week, hightlighted by the speaker Lockwood Smith and blogged here – Addressing disgraceful parliamentary behaviour – I emailed MPs asking for their opinions on it.

Ross Robertson (Labour MP for Manukau East) replied saying he has a Member’s Bill in the ballot that addresses MP ethics and behaviour. Whether this makes it into parliament is subject to the chance of the ballot. Roberston tried to promote his bill a few months ago:

Tuesday 24 April 2012 Media Statement

Local MP Calls For Support For Parliamentary Code

New Zealand should be a world leader in democratic accountability and transparency, according to Ross Robertson, Labour MP for Manukau East, who spoke to an audience of Rotary members this morning on good governance and democracy.

“Unfortunately New Zealand is not leading as it should be,” Ross Robertson said.

“My Members Bill, title the Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill would see a Code of Ethics adopted by MPs and followed according to its spirit and purpose. Unfortunately this bill is yet to be drawn from the members’ ballot.

Ross Robertson told Rotary members that he was frustrated that Kiwis were being put off politics due to often inaccurate perceptions about standards of behaviour.

 “New Zealanders expect parliamentarians to serve out of conviction and a commitment to the public good,” Ross Robertson said. “This bill aims to clarify that purpose and engage young people who are being turned off politics in droves.”

“We need to demonstrate the relevance of Parliament in order to earn the respect for democracy that is so vital to our future as a free and thriving nation.

“With regard to my goal of raising respect for both Parliament and our New Zealand democracy by improving the performance of Parliament, I believe that to do nothing is not an option, for the biggest advantage of a code lies in its ability to regain the trust of citizens in the institution of Parliament and its Members.

“While progress on my bill is at the mercy of the ballot, I will continue to advocate for these important principles.

“This code is about good governance. It is about such things as integrity, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, an acceptable standard of behaviour, and acting in good faith.

“Good governance and transparency are non-negotiable for a healthy democracy,” Ross Robertson said.

I think there will be a lot of public agreement with this. How to get parties and MPs to take some notice?

Part 2, 7 (2):

It is the duty of every member of Parliament to conduct themselves in a
manner that will maintain and support the public’s trust and confidence in the
integrity of Parliament.

Many of the public would argue that some MPs are not conducting themselves in an appropriate manner in parliament. As this bill is “declaratory rather than mandatory” there should be no reason why parties can’t adopt it’s principles anyway.

Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill

Member’s Bill

The purpose of this Bill is to provide a Code of Ethical Conduct for members of

The legislature plays a key role in promoting good governance and curbing corruption and poor administration in all sectors of society. Citizens expect parliamentarians to maintain a high moral standard in their professional and private lives. They expect parliamentarians to serve out of conviction and a commitment to the public good, rather than for aspirations of personal power and the pursuit of private profit. In turn, they have conferred on them the legitimate authority to take decisions that determine the fortunes of both the state and its citizens.

Failure by parliamentarians to live up to these expectations can seriously undermine the trust citizens have in the ability of their elected leaders to act in the public interest, and also in the legitimacy of the state and its institutions. At best, this leads to cynicism and apathy on the part of citizens. At worst, it leads to a questioning of the entire political system.

It is crucial therefore, that elected members of government act, and are seen to act, in an ethical manner.

The Code of Ethical Conduct is deliberately modest and declaratory rather than mandatory. There is no evidence in New Zealand of the sort of corruption that has plagued other Parliaments from time to time or is endemic in some other countries. 

The role of a member of Parliament comes with both legal and moral responsibilities. The Code deals more with the moral and ethical responsibilities than those imposed by law. This is reflected in the Code’s guiding principles of selflessness, integrity, confidentiality, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

The Code promotes principles of common courtesy and decency whilst sustaining the sense of cut and thrust that is vital in any legislature at the cutting edge of ideas, creation and consideration. The overall purposes are;

  • to promote high standards of service by politicians;
  • to inspire the quality of behaviour which reflects the honour and dignity of the profession;
  • to encourage and emphasize those positive attributes of professional conduct that characterise effective political leadership;
  • to enable politicians to declare themselves publicly accountable.

Labour MP disgrace

The warfare within the Labour caucus is disgraceful. It’s a disgrace to the Labour Party, it’s a disgrace to Parliament, and it’s a disgrace to New Zealand.

Members of Parliament are elected to represent electorates, and they are elected to represent parties. They create, debate and modify legislation that is important. They lead the running of our country.

Members of Parliament should set an example for responsible and honourable behaviour.

But the behaviour of some MPs is disgraceful, as evident by current problems within the Labour Party.

Symptom of a bigger problem

The current disruption and dispute in Labour is a symptom of a bigger, wider problem. Some MPs believe that disruption of Parliament is part of a game. They believe that the destruction if the careers of other MPs is a legitimate aim. They believe that the disruption of Government is a legitimate aim. They believe that bringing down the Government is a legitimate aim, by any means.

They claim they are holding other parties to account. They claim they are holding Government to account. But it goes way beyond reaasonable holding to account. It is deliberately destructive behaviour, attempting to score political points and attempting to win political wars.

It drags down the standard of Parliament into a perception of disgrace and disrepute.

To some MPs a poor standard of behaviour is accepted as normal and even necessary.

Many people – and some MPs – are fed up with this behaviour, but they don’t do enough about it.

Turning on their own

Most of the time the destructive behaviour is directed at opposing parties and opposing MPs.

But this learned and accepted (by some) behaviour sometimes erupts within a party. That’s what is happening within Labour at the moment. They are reaping what they have sown, and it is blowing up in the face of their caucus and their party.

It has become very ugly, and it reflects very poorly on MPs, on the party and on Parliament.

Nastiness, disruption and destructiveness is not normal

No other group, organisation or business would accept anything like the levels of poor behaviour displayed by MPs. So why do parties permit and promote it?

MPs are paid very well. The country should expect very good performance for that. We appear to get very poor value for money from some MPs who are more interestd in their own selfish ambitions and egos than they are in the good of their parties, of Parliament, and the country.

Becoming an MP is not a free pass to do whatever they want, it is a responsibility to serve and to represent the people of New Zealand. This should be a given, it shouldn’t need to be pointed out to MPs. But obviously it does.

Decent MPs need to stand up and speak up

One reason why nasty and destructive behaviour persists is because not enough is done about holding to account the poor behaviour of some MPs. But it’s time to stand up to political thugs and bullies, and to challenge selfish ambitions and disputes.

All parties, all MPs, all journalists, and us

All parties should demand far better behaviour from MPs, and far better behaviour in Parliament. Journalists are also sometimes complicit in the destructive political game, better behaviour should be demanded of them. The voting public should be more active in demanding much better standards.

Labour caucus

Today Labour is having a caucus meeting on their leadership crisis. This needs to address the disgraceful behaviour of some of their MPs – on both sides of the internal war.

Other Labour MPs, decent MPs, need to speak up and demand respectful and reasonable behaviour from their colleagues.

Labour is currently in a major mess of their own doing. It’s going to take a conceretd effort – and a large amount of currently absent respect and cooperation – to recover.

If Labour leadership and Labour MPs make it clear they won’t accept destructive behaviour and will hold to account any MPs or staff who behave poorly and dishonourably within their party and in Parliament then they may go some way to earning some respect from the voting public.

Instead of continuing to self destruct Labour MPs could start to set an example, for Parliament and for the country.

People of New Zealand

Some MP behaviour is unacceptable disgraceful.

Speak up and demand reasonable behaviour and performance from your MPs and political parties.

Repeat of Labour’s dirty politics

There are still serious questions that need answering regarding Kim Dotcom, the GCSB, and John key’s involvement. But once again this has been overshadowed by David Shearer’s inept attempt at a political hit job on Key. After earlier claiming he would not stoop to gotcha politics Shearer attacked using a tactic used by Labour repeatedly.

Labourites try to claim they are ‘holding Government to account’ but it’s obvious their main motive is to destroy political careers and if possible bring down the government by any means, fair or foul. I think this destructive politics needs to be held to account.

I’ve often heard the tactics discussed. For example:

Trevor Mallard ‏@TrevorMallard

yep “@KimDotcom: It’s not the original scandal that gets people into the biggest trouble – it’s the attempted cover-up. Be honest. Be fair.”

Except that honesty and fairness get trampled by ‘any means possible’ – they think that the cause justifies any means.

And from The Standard:


Nice try Matthew. But you’re wrong. There doesn’t have to be a video. There simply needs to be an ‘idea’ planted into the public mindset. And that has happened. Dotcom has become toxic for this government. Key’s numbers are falling all over the place and that, sir, is the name of the game.

So the ‘name of the game’ is:

  1. Raise an issue with as much attention seeking as possible, facts and evidence handy but anything that works will do.
  2. Put pressure on the target hoping they will react badly or make a damaging mistake.

Labour have been playing this ‘game’ repeatedly this year, including:

  • The Mallard and Little attack on Judith Collins ( where Collins called them on it and currently challenged by court action)
  • Cosgrove, Chauvel and Labour activists targeted Peter Dunne over his support of the MOM bill but this was  exposed as factually incorrect (possibly knowingly/dishonestly)
  • Multiple attacks on John Banks (where Banks obliged by stuffing up his responses and enabling a successful hit).
  • David Shearer’s GCSB video attack this week that at this stage appears to be a poorly executed and damaging failure.

This has all been going on under Shearer’s leadership, despite Shearer’s claim in February:

Labour leader David Shearer is poised to deliver a rolling series of speeches setting out his vision for the country – and has made it clear he won’t be pressured into changing his leadership style.

“I’m not the kind of leader who believes in rival tribes playing ‘gotcha…

Shearer appears to have drastically changed his leadership style, but it’s not known if this was under pressure or voluntary.

These all contrast with genuine holding to account, for example:

  • Phil Goff exposing Murray McCully’s restructuring fiasco at Mfat
  • Chris Hipkins probing Hekia Parata over her mishandling of Christchurch school closure proposals.

Political hit jobs aren’t confined to the Labour Party. Winston Peters is well known for his many attempts. Dirty tricks seem to be accepted by some politicians and also by journalists, for example Fran O’Sullivan in her Herald column today:

Labour leader David Shearer has forgotten – if he ever knew – Rule Number One of political scandal-mongering.

If the videos did exist, the Labour leader’s team should have made sure they had a copy locked away ready to be unveiled the moment Shearer had trapped John Key into making a denial. This is school for scandal 101.

Journalists like the juicy stories that can come out of dirty politics and seem to accept standard politics.

But attack politics, especially when blatantly dishonest tactics are used, is widely despised outside the political and media bubbles. It is probably the biggest reason why the reputation of politicians in general is so poor.

Politicians are seen as worse than kids fighting in a playground – it’s much nastier, and they are supposed to be running the country, not running everything and everyone down.

It’s not just despised on the outside. A number of MPs also express disgust at some of the individual and party antics and behaviour. I’ve had direct contact with MPs who hate the worst (and often the most prominent) of politics.

Nasty and destructive politics is similar to drunk driving and child abuse – the offenders will continue making a mockery of decent democracy unless they are confronted and held to account.

A minority of politicians and a minority of journalists are most to blame for the worst of it, but the rest of us need to speak up and stand up against deliberately destructive politics.

Political behaviour needs to be held to account.

Why do our MPs behave so badly?

Sue Kedgley asks this question. It’s not all MPs that behave badly, I’ve had communication with a number of MPs who strongly support better parliamentary behaviour – see Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill.

But some MPs do behave badly, and behaviour in parliament, especially during question time, often seems dominated by the bad behavers.

It’s no wonder we don’t trust MPs

Why do our MPs behave so badly?

I seldom watch Question Time in Parliament these days.

I sometimes wonder who does, other than the press gallery, parliamentary staff, lobbyists and those with a masochistic streak.

It’s supposed to be the high point of the parliamentary day – a time when the opposition can grill the government and hold it to account.

But more often than not it’s a low point – an hour when MPs let off steam by shouting, jeering, point scoring, hurling abuse and bickering with each other.

Few questions are actually answered during Question Time, either, as most ministers are trained in the art of evading rather than answering questions. And some questions aren’t intended to solicit answers, but simply to score points or attack the Government.

A lot of time is wasted on points of order, too, or barracking or interrupting the other side. And the general impression is that nobody is listening, or is there learn. So I decided to watch Question Time the other day, to see if it had improved at all in recent months.

Sadly, it hadn’t. The session was banal, frustrating and pointless.

Sadly that’s the impression of parliament that a lot of people get. Much parliamentary work goes on away from the cameras and media coverage.

But what should be the showpiece of Parliament is odten a shampiece.

To be fair, the present Speaker, Dr Lockwood Smith, has tried harder than most of his predecessors to get ministers to answer questions.

But despite his best efforts, Question Time remains a hopelessly unsatisfying political game. For most MPs, the objective is not to elicit or divulge genuine information, but to score points and attack the other side.

This is a real pity, as Question Time is one of the few times when the House is full, and the press gallery is in attendance. Most of the rest of the time the House is deserted.

Yes, if you watch parliamentary television coverage, apart from question time the house looks mostly deserted.

It’s easy for MPs to get caught up in the daily ritual of Question time, and to end up thinking that the shouting and abuse is normal and acceptable behaviour.

But outside of Parliament, many find it off-putting and even pathetic.

Yes. Many of those outside the political beltway and bubbles often see it as pathetic.

Back in 2002 a group of Wellington High school pupils observed Question Time, and wrote a report about it, expressing their shock at the aggressive, bullying culture in Parliament.

“There was a lot of verbal violence. MPs shouted at each other and abused each other. They would groan or jeer or interrupt if they disagreed with what was being said.

“They didn’t listen to each other and there was no sense of working toward anything.”

The behaviour in the House would not be accepted in the classroom, they concluded, or even the playground.

Fairly typical observations of people not familiar with ‘normal’ parliament.

Many MPs dismiss these sorts of criticism, and defend Question Time, arguing that it is all part of the robust cut and thrust of politics. But I believe the constant sniping and personal attacks have a corrosive effect on public perceptions of parliament and politicians.

Political activists also think that negative, attack politics and bad behaviour is “the robust cut and thrust of politics”.

And political activists seem to behave at their worst when defending this bad behaviour, they seem to hate being confronted on it. In my extensive experience on political social media the worst I see sems to be when activists are trying to defend bad behaviour like blatant lying or abuse.

I’ve been banned or blocked from commenting from three major political blogs for confronting nasty politics.

And when I suggested on Trade Me Message Board yesterday that Labour were acting badly I got the usual attacks.

Bad MP behaviour is supported by political activists.

This needs to be countered. ‘Good’ MPs need to be more vocal in demanding better behaviour of their colleagues.

And those commenting in political social media should speak up more demanding a better standard of politics.

Why do our MPs behave so badly? Because we let them keep getting away with it.

Green comments on parliamentary behaviour

I emailed all MPs on parliamentary behaviour and replies have been dominated by Green MPs, which doesn’t surprise me, they put  more emphasise on standards than some of the other parties.

Green comments about behaviour in parliament included: frustrating, demeaning, unproductive, variable.

Kennedy Graham:

I endeavoured, as the Green MP on the Standing Orders Committee last year, to address this issue in its triennial review of the standing orders.

Got nowhere really.

Gareth Hughes:

I think it is fantastic people are contacting him [Lockwood Smith, the Speaker] and making comment about the level of debate and of MPs behaviour in their Parliament.

I think MPs do themselves no favours with their behaviour in the House.

I support robust debate but often debates get bogged down into petty point scoring, name-calling and rude behaviour. Question Time becomes dominated by pointless points of order which seem more to boost some members’ egos than improving parliamentary process. I believe is one of the reasons why voters are turning away in droves from engaging is the lack of respect for other members and for intelligent debate in the House. The sad thing is that it has gone on for so long it has become normal and acceptable.

Parliament can improve its behaviour and still maintain robust debate but it’s not up to just the Speaker; it’s up to all MPs.

Good comments. I agree that it should be up to all MPs, but it is also up to the parties, and their leaders in particular. And the public should increase the pressure on them to do something about it.

Politicians behaving badly

Politicians behaving badly seems to be far too common. Selfish, petulant, bad examples. Most people roll their eyes when they think of politicians and behaviour.

In need of some House training

The distasteful spectacle of MPs behaving badly in the House is hardly a new phenomenon, but there have been signs in recent years that standards still plumb low depths.

Outside Parliament, many people find the behaviour off-putting and childish. To be fair, a lot of excellent cross-party work does take place – away from the cameras – in select committees in a mostly constructive and positive working environment.

Retiring Green MPs Sue Kedgley and Keith Locke last week lamented the standards of debate in the House.

It would seem naive to think that two valedictory speeches will change the behaviour of nearly a lifetime…

No, it will take more than that. More attention needs to be given to promoting better parliamentary behaviour.

People outside parliament need to pay more attention and put more pressure on politicians to perform positively.

One of the prime aims of Your NZ is to promote better politics and we will be looking at ways of doing this throughout the next parliamentary term.