Nikki Kaye

National MP and Minister Nikki Kaye announced via twitter and Facebook this morning that she has been diagnosed with breast cancer and will take leave of absence from her portfolios.

On Friday I was told that I have breast cancer. It was devastating news for me and my family.

Having the opportunity to serve NZ as the MP for Auckland central and a cabinet minister continues to be a huge privilege. I have always worked hard and given everything I have to both roles. I told the PM on Friday and I took a leave of absence from my ministerial portfolios. The PM has appointed acting ministers to cover my portfolios.

I will also be putting plans in place to ensure my electorate office has additional support during this time to ensure my constituents continue to get good support with their personal issues, policy ideas or queries. I am fortunate to have wonderful hardworking staff and National party colleagues who are helping ensure this support is there for my constituents.

I feel so lucky to have such an amazing family and group of friends who are giving me buckets of love and have been so strong helping me work through this. I also want to acknowledge the PM who has been hugely caring and supportive.

During this time I would be really grateful to have a bit of space and privacy while I get treatment and focus on getting well.

This is very sad news.

However Kaye happens to be just one person diagnosed with cancer. There are around 600 deaths a year from this form of cancer, although it isn’t common under 50 – Kaye is one of the younger MPs at 36 years old. Depending on the type survival rates are improving. Being younger gives her a better chance of survival.

Website: Breast Cancer Foundation

Empathy in electorate offices

This sort of arrogant ‘Labour good, National bad’ claim continues to repel common sense people from Labour.

Te Reo Putake

It’s important to remember that local MP’s have a job to do in their communities and if you want an empathetic hearing in your local electorate office, that’ll only come from a Labour MP.

Or, if you live in the north, from your NZF MP, who I’m told has revitalised the electorate offices up there.

This not only disses David Seymour, Peter Dunne and Te Ururoa Flavell, it could be seen as a swipe at any Green ambitions of going for electorate seats

This was commenting on his own post Stick a Fork in Him, He’s Dunne in which he said:

The biggest loser is obviously Peter Dunne who is going to be an ex MP if the Green Party don’t stand a candidate in Ohariu.

…long time reliable sycophant Peter Dunne twist in the wind.

Dunne’s history is one of disloyalty and self serving behaviour.

If Labour need to talk to Dunne to get the last seat needed to form a coalition this sort of long standing abuse won’t help their case.

So how rattled is National? I reckon they’re shitting bricks myself. Not just because they are going to lose the ever reliable doormat Dunne, but because there’s every chance the Maori party will cease to be as well.

That’s not because of the Greens/Labour pact, but because interwebs/mana are no longer a credible party. Annette Sykes may well stand again in Wairiki, but she won’t get 5000 votes this time around and Te Ururoa  Flavell’s majority will suffer as a result.

No Flavell, no maori Tories.

Another coalition option burnt off. Do Labour Greens really think they won’t need anyone else?

And what’s to say the Greens won’t get the same treatment if Labour only need them and they are desperate – will Labour through them a few crumbs? It would be more than they’ve done before I suppose.

But back to “if you want an empathetic hearing in your local electorate office, that’ll only come from a Labour MP”.

On Paul Henry this morning  – Greens-Labour deal ‘nothing new’ – King – Nikki Kay said:

…as the MP for Auckland Central through my electorate office I’ve done quite a lot in terms of people being homeless in central Auckland.

I’ve gone down and visited Wynard Quarter people who have been in sort of caravans and things down there and it’s really complex, people have many different situations.

…I’ve literally had people in my office and they’ve said for various reasons that’s where they want to be. And sometimes there might be mental health issues, sometimes there might be a range of other reasons why the temporarily want to be somewhere.

Not good enough for TRP.

On that same Paul Henry segment Annette King also dissed ‘bland Peter Dunne”.

She’s deputy to Andrew Little. In contrast they must be as colourful as cooked cabbage who think they only need some Greens to go with them.

On the same Standard thread Colonial Viper:

Dunne ain’t ever supporting a Labour coalition government again. Not after the vitriol Labour has poured on Dunne for years now.

As if they can afford to be that selective. They seem to have thought dumping on Dunne and getting him out of parliament by any means was a pathway to power.

What does Dunne think about it?

Now has jumped on the bandwagon. She says is “bland”. Time to prove us wrong Peter.

Ha! Hardly worth replying to a wet bus ticket slap from someone of so little substance or consequence

I think it’s time hung up his bow tie..Your now just an angry little man with pretty good hair

 I happen to be one of calmest & relaxed people you could meet – I just have an intolerance of idiocy and stupidity

TRP is not stupid, he knows that you can burn off all sorts of potentially useful people and the voters will still think you deserve to be in power on your own. So much empathy.

Or something.

Collins – police and Gay Pride

Judith Collins walked with police during Saturday’s Gay Pride parade in Auckland.

So thrilled to be supporting & Dept of Corrections in today’s


NZ Herald reports that Judith Collins criticised for walking in Auckland Pride Parade

A spokeswoman for Ms Collins said the police had invited her to take part a month ago “in support of their ‘theme of diversity of people and roles in police’.”

“She was pleased that she was able to attend and was very happy to support police in the parade.”

Ms Collins went with the police rather than fellow National MPs Nikki Kaye and Chris Bishop and a National Party float featuring a rainbow of balloons.

During the parade, Ms Collins tweeted photos of herself arm in arm with two officers, writing: “so proud to be supporting @nzpolice and Dept of Corrections in today’s #PrideParade.” She also tweeted a photo of a line of police along the side of the parade holding back protesters, one of whom was carrying a sign that said “**** the police”.

Some weren’t happy the police took part.

The protesters were objecting to the police taking part in the parade, claiming alleged ill treatment of transgender inmates. They held up the parade by about an hour.

They may have some valid grievances about how transgender inmates are treated but disrupting a parade and everyone involved in it seems to be ill-judged.

This follows protests directed at John Key in the Big Gay Out last week. If it becomes a trend it is a concern – should participants in any event be vetted in case a minority doesn’t weant them to take part?

Trevor Mallard thought it was ok for the Police and Corrections to take part.

Mr Mallard said he understood the protesters felt marginalised but it was good Police, Defence and Corrections now took part in the parade. “I think it’s a sign of enormous progress that it’s okay for police to march. I don’t agree with the people who were protesting.”

But he protested about Collins marching with them.

Labour has criticised Police Minister Judith Collins for marching with police at the Pride Parade, saying it was “clear politicisation and totally inappropriate”.

Labour MP Trevor Mallard made the comment on Twitter after Ms Collins took part in the police contingent at the march. He later told NZME that while it was good the police took part in the parade, having the minister with them went “beyond the boundaries of what’s appropriate”.

“She’s not a police officer and constabulary independence is something that is very important. I think it was poor judgment to be part of a police march. It’s a matter of perception as well as fact, and being part of a public march as part of a police team undermines that.”

Andrew Little added to this criticism.

“It was totally inappropriate for her to be there as part of the police contingent. The police department is a special department which is constitutionally independent of the Government of the day and she should not have been anywhere near serving police officers, even in an event such as the Pride Parade.”

“It reflects poorly on Judith Collins who should have known her constitutional obligation to remain independent of the police. It is not an excuse that she got an invitation — she is not a newcomer to Cabinet and I think the New Zealand public are entitled to expect the highest standards of constitutional propriety from her.”

Perhaps there is some Ministerial convention that frowns on Collins’ participation but I fail to see what the problem is here. It seems to be another case of Labour picking lame and probably counter-productive battles.

Nikki Kaye tweeted from the parade:

Feb 19
With Louisa Wall at LGBTI Love ain’t political❤️


So some MPs from opposing parties were able to join in the camaraderie of the event. Kaye and Wall worked together on the marriage equality bill.

But Kaye also expressed disappointment with the criticisms:

Pretty gutted with labour on this one. As ministers we attend events all the time to support the agencies we are responsible for.

has no bearing on their operational independence. Championing diversity&creating change takes leadership-it’s great she marched


Police + Justice system have different arrangements. As a Minister you should not only understand but stand up for what is right

And Kaye replied:

not disputing different arrangements..just don’t agree that a minister marching for human rights compromises independence

It seems that Politic Egos have interfered with Gay Pride.

Mallard had marched and been photographed with placards recognising his support of the Homosexual Reform Bill thirty years ago.


Good on him for that.

Why couldn’t he let the Police, Corrections and Collins celebrate the normalising of common sexual preferences?

Peters a million dollar muck raker?

After acting indignant about a minor dig from John Key in Parliament that he either took major exception to or saw it as an excuse for getting some media attention – see Peters back to barrel scraping  – Winston Peters has proven he is as adept as any politician in making up allegations.

In Question Time on Wednesday Key suggested that Peters spent time in his Northland electorate on his boat fishing – “Not if you count time in your electorate being on a boat, fishing”.

Just prior to that Peters had himself made a claim without proof (and unprovable) – “is it not a fact that I have spent more time in my electorate in the space of just 9 months than he has for the whole time he has been an MP in his electorate?”

Peters followed this up with a $100k challenge to Key to prove his jibe. Key declined.

Then yesterday Peters made the headlines again.

Winston Peters demands explanation after being barred from school bus

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is demanding an explanation from the Education Minister — after being barred from travelling on a school bus.

In a press release titled, “Minister throws Peters off bus”, the MP for Northland said he was today scheduled to visit the Mangakahia Area School, which is at Titoki about 23km northwest of Whangarei.

The community there has been campaigning against the amount of dust thrown up from unsealed roads.

However, Ministry of Education officials informed organisers that the NZ First leader would not be able to join the children on their school bus, as planned.

He suspected that directive came from the National Party, that “will stop at nothing to thwart the Northland MP from doing his job”.

“Minister of Education Hekia Parata must provide answers as to today’s appalling and disgraceful decision-making.”

So Peters has accused the National Party of interfering. This is from his press release:

Northland Bus Ban Just Petty Bullying

Banning Northland MP Rt Hon Winston Peters from a bus was an act of petty bullying by the government, the MP says.

“For Associate Education Minister Nikki Kaye and ministry officials to claim my presence would breach a certificate of loading is bizarre.

“This is a government pushing their officials to tell porkies, to cover up a nightmare of political decision making that went so horribly wrong. They bullied the bus company.

“For the Associate Minister to say, as the media reported, that there were safety concerns if a bunch of politicians went on board with the schoolchildren is absurd.

“This was about one MP, who is a former teacher, has a police clearance, and was invited by parents and a school principal, being banned for political reasons.

“Now we have the government resorting to a cover-up described appropriately by broadcaster Willie Jackson and his commentator today as Busgate – that’s when those in power lie to cover up wrongdoings.

There’s serious repeated accusations of lying to cover to cover something up.

Radio NZ reported:  The wheels on the bus grind to a halt for Peters

Mr Peters was going to take a trip on a school bus in his Northland electorate today but was stopped from doing so after the Education Ministry alerted Associate Education Minister Nikki Kaye’s office.

Ms Kay said it was an operational decision based on safety concerns, not a political one.

The Herald explained:

Kim Shannon, the Ministry of Education’s head of the education infrastructure service, said its transport agent had been advised by Ritchies that Mr Peters wanted to travel on the bus.

“Ritchies had health and safety concerns about this. Under the terms of Ritchie’s contract, they are not able to carry adults or any other ineligible passengers without our permission.”

The bus is a 20-seater vehicle and Ritchies advised that it carried 20 primary and secondary aged students on it.

“Our transport agent advised us that carrying Mr Peters and other adults in his party would placed the company at risk of exceeding the limits of the Certificate of Loading and could mean not all children would get seats,” Ms Shannon said.

“As this request was made at such short notice, it wasn’t possible to ensure that we could ensure the health and safety of the children on the bus under these circumstances. We informed our agent to turn down the request.”

If more notice had been given Mr Peters may have been allowed on the bus, Ms Shannon said.

In John Key turns down Winston Peters’ challenge to find a photo of him fishing in Northland Stuff reported:

Peters says Key should apologise, “pay $100,000 to a Northland charity of my choosing, and stop wasting Parliament’s Question Time with such blatant untruths.”

If Peters thinks a jibe in Question Time is worth $100k how much should he have to pay if his accusations of lying are blatant untruths?

Peters is well known for making things up to attack MPs and not substantiating his accusations.

Does this make him a million dollar muck raker? Or can he back up his claims of Ministers lying with some substance?

Another point – I can’t see any indication when this bus saga happened. Monday was a public holiday and Peters was in Parliament at least on Tuesday and Wednesday, so when was he denied a school bus ride, and why was the story put out yesterday?

Whale Oil Edgelered

Cameron Slater has been running a campaign against Nikki Kaye and Vic Crone on Whale Oil – and yes, it’s fair to wonder if this is a paid for campaign or personal spite.

Today Slater claimed that “Nikki Kaye keeps getting it wrong”.




But along came Graeme Edgeler:


That’s called being Edgelered.

(Thanks for the tip PK)



Nikki Kaye for Education Minister?

A suggestion from a NZ First MP that could have merit:

Would like to see Nikki Kaye promoted up to Minister of Ed. Great Chair of the Education & Science Select Committee

Kaye has proven to be very capable of working with other party MPs.

Perhaps she could find a way of working with education groups – if they have any intent to work productively with a National Minister of Education.

Cross party Christmas cheerfulness

Maybe they’re glad to be finishing Parliament for the year, but whatever, there’s been an outburst of cross party cheer.

Clare Curran

In @nikkikaye ‘s office with @garethmp and @traceymartinmp having a glass of bubbles #digitalliteracy

Gareth Hughes

Great to work with @clarecurranmp @nikkikaye @traceymartinmp on IT education inquiry and to share a glass of bubbles to celebrate today

Tracey Martin

@clarecurranmp @nikkikaye @GarethMP It was a joy to work as a team to advance this important area for New Zealand. May there be more ops 🙂

Nikki Kaye

@GarethMP @clarecurranmp @traceymartinmp yes – cross party Christmas cheer for the progress on this inquiry

I hope the spirit of optimism and cooperation continues next year.

Nikki Kaye’s marriage equality bill speech

Amongst some excellent speeches on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was this from Nikki Kaye.

Video: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – First Reading – Part 2

Transcript (draft):


First Reading

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central):

I am pleased to support the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill . Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

I want to congratulate Louisa Wall on bringing this bill to the House. Today is an important day for New Zealand, because I hope that we are on the cusp of passing a piece of legislation that will strengthen the rights and freedoms of a significant group of New Zealanders.

In this House there is huge diversity. We were born in places across New Zealand—from Takapuna to Ruatōria to villages in Samoa. We have MPs of different ethnicities—Samoan, Korean, Chinese, Pākehā, and many more. We have MPs of different faiths—Muslim to Sikh to Christian. We are a House of Representatives. We reflect the diversity of New Zealand, and our families are all so different.

What binds us together is a shared sense of justice, fairness, and a heartfelt belief in this amazing democratic, hard-working country. My grandfather fought for our freedom, as did many members’ relatives, in this House.

Ronald Reagan once said: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same”. New Zealand has a proud history of leading in issues of equality.

This bill, in my view, is about justice and the basic right of every New Zealander to have equality before the law.

Civil unions gave us a step forward in that it conferred many rights to New Zealanders who had been deprived of them in the past. However, it did not guarantee every New Zealander the ability to marry the person they love. It did not guarantee an equality of status relationship.

I go further and say that this bill not only confers on every New Zealander an equality before the law in terms of their relationship but gives a dignity and an acceptance to a group of New Zealanders who not long ago were criminalised for the people they love.

I stand before you today as a member of the National Party. As the National Party, we have a strong history of bringing together different groups of New Zealanders.

Recently, the Prime Minister commented on the founders of the National Party. He said: “… they thought that the individual freedom promoted by National involved many diverse groups with conflicting interests. Tolerance was the key to working through those conflicts—giving everyone a say, but ensuring the Party ultimately focused on the good of the country as a whole.”

That is why I accept that being a champion of freedom is also about accepting that others may hold strong opposing views and that they have the right to voice and exercise those views in this House.

We may vote differently on this side of the House on conscience issues, but we are bound by equality of opportunity. We are a party that has always treasured freedom of choice. We are a party that is often regarded as the unwelcome hand of the nanny State reaching into the homes of many New Zealand families.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge some of the people and the liberal members in the past who have fought on this side of the House for freedom. Venn Young proposed the first attempt at homosexual law reform, Marilyn Waring dedicated her time in Parliament and her academic career to issues of equality, and the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley proposed and helped pass the human rights legislation.

I also stand before you today as the member for Auckland Central. I represent the wonderful suburbs of Grey Lynn, Ponsonby, and Rocky Bay, and a huge lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.

But at a personal level, regardless of the fact that I am a member of the National Party and the member for Auckland Central, I support this bill because I actually believe it is the right thing to do. I know the arguments in opposition.

I do not believe that tradition is a good reason to block same-sex couples from the ability to marry. If we had accepted in this House the arguments of tradition, then women would have never got the vote, and women would not be sitting in this Chamber this evening. In terms of religion, there will be ministers and people of different faiths supporting the bill and some who oppose it.

Some have raised issues of religious freedom, and I believe that those issues can be worked through at the select committee.

I know how important this bill is for many young New Zealanders. Young New Zealanders overwhelmingly support this bill.

When I look to the future of this country and the many people who will come after us in this House, I believe that if this legislation does not pass today, it will eventually pass. I meet young New Zealanders every day who are very diverse. They are more diverse than their previous generation. They have a high level of tolerance and respect for people’s differences. They do not shun those differences; in fact, they celebrate them.

I stand here as a New Zealander with eight siblings. I have had lots of parents; several step-parents . I have a mother who has a boyfriend of 25 years and I have a father who has had several marriages. Dad, I think you have used my quota!

The point that I make is that New Zealand family structures are very diverse, and a major reason that I support this bill is that I want every New Zealander to have—and I cannot deny any New Zealander—the ability to marry the person they love.

I stand here as a New Zealander who believes not just in equality of the law but also as someone who has seen people prejudiced and teased in the broad light of day in this country.

I have seen the subtle prejudice: the people who say that their partners are not invited to work functions, the people who feel uncomfortable holding hands walking down the street, and the people who may not be invited to the family Christmas. I see it through my electorate office. I see it in the street.

The prevention of prejudice is not just the role of parliamentarians in this House. Our country would be a lot stronger if we all practised the values of greater tolerance, respect, understanding, and compassion for fellow New Zealanders.

I have met through my office people who are scared to come out to their friends, their families, their colleagues, and their community.

In fact, the saddest result of prejudice that I have seen has been—and is reflected in—the high number of youth lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender suicides. Some of these people have taken their lives because they cannot see themselves as being accepted. They cannot see themselves being happy.

This Parliament has an opportunity through legislation to help change that. I will vote for marriage equality so that every New Zealander can marry the person who they want to love.

This bill enshrines a principle that society supports loving and committed relationships between two people. In all of the over 10,000 constituency queries that I have had, I have never had anyone who has said that they want to be married to more than one person.

As a legislator, I support New Zealand having laws that recognise the value of two people making a commitment to each other in law. My idea of strong family policies is initiatives that support the well-being of children and education and health, and that enable two committed people to be in a relationship and have that recognised in law.

That is why I believe that the institution of marriage can actually be strengthened by enabling more people to marry. I want to acknowledge some people who have been on this road and have fought for freedom within our party.

I want to acknowledge Sean Topham, Shaun Wallis, and Megan Campbell. I want to acknowledge Tau Henare. Kia ora, Tau.

I am pleased to support this marriage equality bill in the House, because I believe that this bill is fundamentally about justice, freedom, and equality of opportunity. It is actually a reason why I am a member of the National Party. Our country, in my view, will be a much better place for enabling every New Zealander to walk with a little more freedom this evening.

I commend this bill to the House.


Felix Marwick on the marriage equality bill

Reporting on the reporter – Felix Marwick is the chief political reporter for Newstalk ZB. Yesterday he tweeted…

Normally I don’t take sides on matters political. But I’ve decided to make an exception

…and linked to a statement on his views on the bill: Political Report: The many opinions on marriage inequality

After the bill passed it’s first reading Marwick commented:

Best quality debate I’ve seen in parly for a long time

Must admit the 78 was more than I’d expected. I thought low 70s might be possible. Worth getting out of the sickbed to watch

(The final vote was 80-40).

Conscience vote debates do tend to bring out the best in our MPs. Gives ppl a chance to gauge their character. Not so easy with party votes

It’s the first time I’ve watched a full bill debate. There were a number of excellent speeches, notably (for me) from Louisa Wall, Nikki Kaye and David Clark (my electorate MP in Dunedin North).

Parliament often (justifiably) gets criticised, but this was representative democracy at it’s best – that’s how it seemed to me, but I guess it helps that the speeches and the outcome fit my own views.

Positive politics and gay adoption

The negative side of politics gets a lot of coverage, and many people have a negative impression of inter-party bickering. The working positively and together usually doesn’t get the same headlines.

But it does happen, often behind the seens and media glare.

Political rivals unite on gay adoptions

Two MPs from opposing parties, National’s Nikki Kaye and the Greens’ Kevin Hague, have joined forces to develop a bill that would legalise adoption by gay couples.

Ms Kaye, the MP for Auckland Central, said she had worked for 18 months on the issue with Mr Hague, a West Coast gay MP.

It is possible that the Government could pick up the work Ms Kaye and Mr Hague are doing on adoption and surrogacy laws as a Government measure, while making some of the controversial issues a conscience vote.

Much has been said about the Greens not being prepared to combine in Government with National, but they have always said they will work together on policies of common interest. That’s what Hague is doing here. And thanks to him (and Kaye) this is a policy initiative that may progress.

When the MPs started at looking at the Adoption Act 1955, they decided it would be best to approach it from a perspective in which the welfare of the child was paramount.

The two MPs are drafting legislation to amend the Care of Children Bill 2004 based on a previous Law Commission report that looked at guardianship and adoption.

The measure should be ready in a few months, Ms Kaye said, and would be a private member’s bill in her name or Mr Hague’s.

As a private member’s bill it will depend on being drawn from the ballot.And a Labout MP has something on the go their too:

Labour list MP Jacinda Ardern has a bill in the private members’ bill ballot that would require the Law Commission to rewrite the law to allow gay couples to adopt.

Adern and Kaye are Auckland Central rivals – but the election is over, maybe they could combine on this as well.

With Young National initiatives in getting a remit passed in the weekend at their Northern Conference maybe National will pick it up and ensure it progresses.

Young Nats support gay adoption

The Young Nats’ northern regional conference in Auckland at the weekend passed a remit supporting adoption by couples in a civil union.

With their leader’s support:

Prime Minister supports gay adoption

John Key says he would support a bill looking to legalise gay adoption through its first reading in parliament.

Several MPs, including Nikki Kaye and Kevin Hague, are also behind the proposed move.

Mr Key told RadioLIVE that while he supports the concept, there are wider issues to consider.

“This is the issue with gay adoption it’s the same issue with heterosexual adoption and that is that there’s just not enough kids to adopt. I mean there were less than either 100 or 200 non-family adoptions last year.”

There are always wider issues to consider. That’s what parliamentary process and MPs are for.