Parliamentary Code of Conduct

There have been attempts to have a Parliamentary Code of Conduct for years. This is from 2007: A Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament- is the time ever right?

Greens, UnitedFuture, Māori and ACT signed that proposed code of conduct for MPs. But the time wasn’t right for Labour and National who refused to cooperate.

But times have changed. This term a number of disgraced MPs have led to the conduct of MPs becoming an election issue, with three MPs pulling out of re-election in the last couple of weeks due to very poor conduct.

Speaker Trevor Mallard, who has serious conduct issues himself in the past, is now promoting a Code of Conduct and an independent watchdog.

(Mallard has a battling staffer conduct in the courts at the moment after he outed them for alleged exual assault at Parliament, and they started defamation proceedings against him – see Speaker Trevor Mallard loses suppression argument in defamation claim)

He is now addressing MP behaviour.

Stuff: Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard to MPs: ‘Behave or I’ll out you’

Exasperated Speaker Trevor Mallard has issued a stern warning to MPs, threatening to go public with their bad behaviour if they won’t appoint a complaints’ watchdog.

After a year of MPs wrangling over a code of conduct, Mallard has released the one-page document, urging the parties to sign up.

And he says if they can’t agree to establish an independent commissioner to investigate complaints, he’ll go public with the names of repeat offenders. “People have got to own their actions, basically,” he told Stuff.

“Some people are good but not everybody,” he said. “And then we have another group of people who probably just don’t get the fact that they are treating people badly. It is partly generational, but not only.

“And they are, what I would describe as, repeat offenders who I regularly get reports back … about how they treat other people around the buildings or officials.

“I’ll work with the Whips and talk to people, but I am only going to do it once. If things have been taken up with you, either with me or via the Whips, and you do it again then you can’t expect people not to make that public.”

“I find it really hard to believe. I want to make it clear, it is not only MPs. There are some staff members who treat other staff members appallingly. And there are MPs who treat other MPs appallingly.

“Our history has been one of not embarrassing either the institution or our party. I think we live a decade or two behind most workplaces.”

Before the recent disgraces Parliament has already been found badly wanting as far as behaviour goes.

In a sweeping review released last May, consultant Debbie Francis identified a systemic bullying and harassment problem within the corridors of power.

She recommended an Independent Commission for Parliamentary Conduct, to receive and investigate complaints or disclosures about MPs, as well as “a shared Parliamentary Workplace Code of Conduct”.

A cross party group of MPs, and two union representatives, have been working for more than a year on implementing Francis’ 85 recommendations. It is unlikely to get agreement on the establishment of a Commissioner, and caucuses are yet to give approval on the code.

Mallard said: “In my opinion, the party system or myself [as Speaker], neither of those work particularly well. What I’d really like to do is have someone independent who makes final decisions on whether people are outed or not. I would prefer that not to be my decision.”

It makes sense to have someone independent of MPs and parties overseeing their behaviour – actually I think it is essential, as long as they are given decent powers to deal with bad behaviour.

Of course some have tried to avoid accountability by turning on Mallard because of his past indiscretions.

Mallard has been working to make Parliament a kinder, gentler environment, with family-friendly policies. But his efforts are occasionally dismissed because of his own reputation as an enfant-terrible of politics.

“Like many people I have grown up. And my understanding of what is appropriate and acceptable has changed,” he said.

Trying to divert from accountability for behaviour now because of past crappy behaviour is bollocks, but it’s how some operate to try to remain untouchable.

The new code, which won’t be adopted until the next term even if agreed on by parties, says bullying and harassment are “unacceptable”. MPs will hold people to account for incidents and have a ”responsibility to speak up if we observe unacceptable behaviour, especially if we are in a position to help others.”

Code of Conduct here: Proposed Code of Conduct for MPs

Green Party will sign up to long overdue Code of Conduct

Green Party MPs will be signing up to a Parliamentary Code of Conduct, following its release from the Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard.

Green Party Workplace Relations spokesperson Jan Logie, who was on the Working Group for the Code of Conduct’s development, said:

“I welcome the timely release of the Code of Conduct for Parliament.

“The Green Party commit to signing up to it, so that our MPs and staff have guidance on best behaviour that keeps us all happy and thriving in our workplace.

“The Code of Conduct sets clear expectations on acceptable behaviours in Parliament. For too long this has not been clear, resulting in behaviours that have made people in Parliament feel unsafe, with an increased exposure to bullying and harassment.

“It has long been the case that Parliament, like other institutions, had work to do to ensure our spaces were free of harassment and bullying.

“What has been launched today is an important step in creating a workplace where everyone feels safe and valued.

“People deserve to have trust in Parliament. We look forward to the time when Parliament provides a positive example to the rest of the country.

“I remain focused on seeing the rest of the recommendations from the Debbie Francis review being acted upon.”

According to Stuff Labour then issued a statement claiming the caucus signed up to the code on June 30. “It did not disclose this to Stuff when asked about the code earlier this week”.

I can’t find a statement from Labour on the Code of Conduct. Given Jacinda Ardern’s promotion of niceness and kindness I expect they should be fully supportive of Mallard’s efforts.

National To Adopt Parliamentary Code Of Conduct

Leader of the Opposition Judith Collins will recommend to her National Party caucus colleagues that the party signs up to Parliament’s code of conduct.

“The Francis Report and more recent situations have pointed to a lack of respect for the power imbalances that occur within the Parliamentary environment and in the behaviours of some Members of Parliament.

“Robust parliamentary debate will occasionally be needed in the interest of good democracy, but bullying, harassment and inappropriate behaviours should not be accepted in the parliamentary environment or elsewhere.

“I believe everyone who works at Parliament does so because they want to make this country a better place, even if we sometimes disagree on the best way to do that. But there should be no disagreement when it comes to treating people with dignity and respect.

“I will be recommending at National’s next caucus meeting that the party signs up to the code of conduct released by Speaker Trevor Mallard today.”

I can’t find anything from NZ First or the ACT Party., but this sounds promising with three major parties pledging support for a Code of Conduct.

All candidates standing for election should be acquainted with and pledge support for the Code of Conduct.

This won’t guarantee better MP behaviour, but it should help move them in a better direction at least.

I think that having senior MPs like Mallard and Judith Collins strongly promoting the Code of Conduct (and Collins has made it clear she will deal to anyone behaving badly), despite their histories of degrees of dishonourable conduct, is a positive sign that the winds of change are finally starting to reach into Parliament.

Cross-party committee to scrutinise Government as Parliament adjourns

Parliament was in recess this week but has been recalled today to deal with urgent business related to Covid-19 and the country lockdown, but will then be suspended for 5 weeks. This means the usual scrutiny of Government through Question Time won’t be possible, so  special committee is being set up.

RNZ: Special committee set-up as Parliament is adjourned

The opposition leader Simon Bridges will chair a cross-party committee, that will scrutinise the Government’s response to Covid-19.

Leader of the House Chris Hipkins said all of the Government’s regular legislative programme was now on hold.

Hipkins said tomorrow the house will be focusing on receiving the epidemic notice from the Prime Minister and pass an Imprest Supply Bill, which will allow Government funding to continue to flow as normal.

The epidemic notice would enact the Epidemic Preparedness Act, allowing for actions to be taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19, without having to comply with the usual statuary requirements.

Like last week, Parliamentary business tomorrow will begin with a debate, this time focusing on the epidemic notice and other documents tabled by the Government.

The adjournment will last until April 28, meaning two sitting weeks will be missed.

To enable the politicians to still hold the Government to account, speaker of the House, Trevor Mallard said the cross-party Business Select Committee has put forward a motion to set-up a special Select Committee, which will run for at least the next four-to-five weeks.

He said the committee will meet remotely, be chaired by Opposition leader Simon Bridges with the majority of the sitting MPs being from opposition parties.

The committee will have powers that usually reside with privileges committee, such as the ability to send for people and papers.

“What we think we have got here is a balance of accountability because of a very powerful committee, chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, who can make arrangements to effectively interrogate ministers or public servants on their actions around the pandemic,” he said.

Bridges said it would be a valuable chance for constructive scrutiny of the government, that will make the nation’s response to Covid-19 better and stronger.

Bridges said the committee would be sitting two or three times a week, from next week, to ask the questions New Zealanders want answered.

He said overall, he supported the direction the government has taken, but there are things that can be improved.

However, ACT leader David Seymour called the decision to adjourn Parliament as ‘misguided’.

“We accept that the government has a difficult task ahead, all New Zealanders stand ready to support it, but this is no reason to partially suspend democracy,” he said.

“New Zealanders have just faced the greatest peacetime loss of civil liberties in our history, and it is possible we may not have an election this year.

“ACT believes there should be a Question Time and local electorate offices should remain open,” he said.

From RNZ Live covering an interview of Bridges this morning:

Bridges on the special cross-party committee of scrutiny during the lockdown – says he will have a lot of his front benchers on the committee, National will have a majority in the committee.

He says ultimately he thinks rents need to be paid during this time, says landlords should definitely not be putting up rent at the moment.

He says he’s spoken to some big businesses and what he’s hearing is that the government hasn’t quite hit the mark with the business schemes they’ve introduced.

That’s not surprising. Businesses are facing unprecedented challenges and many will be fighting for survival. The Government is doing what it thinks will help but it must be a work in progress. And they will never be able to ‘hit the mark’ for all businesses.

He doesn’t think benefits should be doubled, like in Australia. Asked whether it would be a good way to pump more money into the economy, Mr Bridges said he didn’t believe NZ’s issue at the moment is an issue of stimulus.

Over the last couple of days Bridges has changed his approach noticeably towards being mostly supportive of Government actions dealing with Covid-19 but with generally sensible sounding questions of some of what is being done. I think this is a good change from him.

Interview with bridges on RNZ: Coronavirus: Simon Bridges to chair scrutiny committee

 

Government and National may cooperate on Covid-19 economic response

Much of what makes the news from Parliament is combative, controversial or the worst of MP behaviour. Here’s an example of how speeches (by Grant Robertson and Paul Goldsmith) can be reasoned and reasonable, with offers of cooperation between the Government and the National opposition.

It’s good to see and important that they actually follow through with their cooperation on dealing with Covid-19.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

COVID-19—Government’s Response to Economic Effects

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance):

I wish to make a ministerial statement on the Government’s response to the economic effects of COVID-19. While there is much uncertainty about the COVID-19 outbreak, it is clear that it is going to impact the world economy, and therefore New Zealand’s economy, for much of 2020. As we know from events like the global financial crisis, New Zealand is not immune to economic shocks that occur offshore and that are beyond our control, but what we can do, alongside our public health response, is to support confidence with a plan to address domestic economic impacts.

Our first responsibility as a Government is the health and wellbeing of our citizens; that is why our response continues to be led by our public health response. This strong public health response will also ultimately be critical to ensuring our economy and our people come through this outbreak in good shape. We have committed to providing the necessary resources to support our health system to protect New Zealanders’ health and wellbeing.

From an economic perspective, the Government has already made a number of immediate interventions, including support for the tourism and seafood industries, funding to increase regional business support programmes, and directing Government departments to pay businesses faster to support cash flow. Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) are supporting businesses and workers on issues like provisional tax readjustments, late payment and filing fees, wage instalment plans, and income support.

MSD’s rapid response teams are in place in regions like Tai Rāwhiti, and we have removed the stand-down period. I met yesterday with the chief executives of New Zealand’s major banks, who told me that they are well-prepared, both in terms of their own operations and in their ability to work with their customers, to get through this. The options they highlighted for customers are reducing or suspending principal payments on loans and temporarily moving to interest-only repayments, helping with restructuring business loans, consolidating loans to help make repayments more manageable, providing access to short-term funding, and referring individual customers to budgeting services. I strongly encourage businesses and banks to talk now and make a plan to get through this challenging situation.

Yesterday, the Government signalled its further steps as the impacts spread across the economy. Decisions on these measures need to balance the risks of poorly targeted spending and moving in time to support affected firms and individuals when they need it. Our business continuity package includes a targeted wage subsidy scheme for workers in the most adversely affected sectors, training and redeployment options for affected employees, and working with banks on the potential for future working capital support for companies that face temporary credit constraints. We will not be able to provide a wage subsidy for all affected firms during the duration of COVID-19. It will have to be temporary. It will also have to be tailor-made. We want to target the subsidies to those who are most affected and least able to adjust. Further details of this package will be announced next week.

These initiatives do not stop us from providing other forms of assistance to people and firms, but they are a sensible place to begin. We have also directed officials to develop longer-term macroeconomic measures that may be required to support the economy, businesses, and workers if there is a major, sustained global downturn. I reiterate that while we are planning for that situation, we are not predicting it, but planning for it is the responsible thing to do.

I want to be clear that this situation is very different to other challenges the New Zealand economy has faced in the past decade. The Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes were events that impacted defined areas, where it was clear which businesses were affected, why, and how. With COVID-19, which is an evolving, global health crisis, we are seeing different businesses in the same industries and in the same regions impacted differently. That is why a tailor-made response is required.

The global financial crisis was caused by the concerns about what financial institutions like banks were experiencing, but that’s not what is happening here. We have a very sound and stable banking system and a sound underlying economy. We have been running surpluses. Our net debt position, at 19.5 percent of GDP, is well below what we inherited and well below other countries. We are already ahead of the curve with the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme, which is supporting the economy.

This is a global problem that New Zealand is well positioned to deal with, and because this Government has the interests of all New Zealanders at heart, if we all work together—Government, businesses, and workers—we will get through this.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):

Video “available shortly”

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party shares the Government’s concern about the economic consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak. Already, these have been significant for the businesses affected. People have lost their jobs, they’ve had their hours reduced, they’ve lost income, and they’ve closed their restaurants without knowing when they’ll open again. Some struggling businesses will fall over, and there’s no longer a sense that the impact will be short and sharp, but only a question of how damaging it will be, and we have seen today that the latest business confidence figures are at their lowest levels since 2009.

We support the initiatives announced so far. We support the tourism and seafood industries, and faster payments from Government departments. We support the efforts of IRD and the Ministry of Social Development to help with provisional tax adjustments and late payments, we agree that businesses in distress should be talking with their banks, and we acknowledge that the Government is putting together its business continuity package, including a targeted wage subsidy scheme for workers in the most adversely affected areas and industries. We were disappointed that the details weren’t available yesterday. This has been going on for several weeks now, and it’s our belief more urgency is required. Yes, it’s complicated, and, yes, the boundaries have to be clearly defined, but we worry that the window to save jobs may be beginning to close.

We also ask the Government to reconsider its plan to lift the minimum wage again on 1 April. The Government announced several very substantial increases to the minimum wage back in 2017, when the economy was growing strongly—a 27 percent increase over three years. The situation has changed dramatically since then in the past few months. The April change will mean the minimum wage has lifted 20 percent in two years.

It doesn’t make sense to be proposing relief to businesses at the same time as significantly adding to their costs. Saving jobs should be the focus. The economic challenge before us is serious. The Government needs to shift its mind-set from adding costs to business to taking pressure off small and medium sized enterprises so that they can survive and continue to employ New Zealanders. So I urge the Minister to reconsider and postpone the 1 April rise for six months while we assess the situation. Nobody knows how widespread and deep the international slow-down will be. We need to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Thanks to the discipline of successive Governments, the country has relatively low debt and the ability to provide stimulus if required. The ability to borrow, however, should not stop the Minister from taking a hard look at wasteful spending, such as with elements of the Provincial Growth Fund. Some of the money would be far better used in a business continuity package than it is being used now.

We also need to recognise the longer-term economic challenges haven’t gone away. The Minister is wrong when he says that New Zealand entered this crisis with strong momentum. That’s not correct. The latest estimate from the Reserve Bank is that New Zealand grew at 1.6 percent in 2019. So a clear, coherent growth plan is outlined. We believe it should include tax relief, a substantial infrastructure plan that is delivered, relief for small businesses, regulatory reduction such as we outlined yesterday, and policies focused on putting more money in the hands of New Zealand families.

Finally, we thank the Minister for his offer of briefings from Treasury, and we undertake to work constructively to suggest ways forward as we confront this economic challenge together.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance):

I thank the member the Hon Paul Goldsmith for that contribution—in particular his offer to work together. I’m sure he’ll appreciate the briefing that he’s getting—I think this afternoon—from Treasury.

Three quick points in response. The first of those is that this package and the work we have been doing has all been undertaken in consultation with the business community and, indeed, with the union movement. It is important that we continue to work with them. They are the people who are telling us that this package needs to be targeted and needs to ensure that it reaches the people who need it.

I also note in that regard, with reference to the member’s comment about the minimum wage, that is precisely the across-the-board, sweeping, knee-jerk reaction that is not useful at this point. What is useful at this point is ensuring that support gets to businesses who need it via a targeted approach while also ensuring that our lowest income New Zealanders get a fair go. We know that those on the minimum wage tend to spend the increases that they get because that is the nature of being on a low income, and we continue to support those New Zealanders to be able to move forward in that way.

Thirdly, I just want to make reference to the member’s comment about the timeliness of this package. All countries around the world are grappling with an evolving situation. He will not be able to find countries other than those directly in the eye of the storm who have taken actions beyond what this Government has done. In fact, this Government is well ahead of the curve, in part because of a fully funded infrastructure package that we announced at the end of January. The New Zealand Government has ensured that we are in a good position to deal with what is a serious situation, and we will continue to take a measured and active approach.

Obituary speeches in Parliament for Jeanette Fitzsimons

Jeanette Fitzsimons is a rare politician or ex-politician who has been widely praised for what she achieved and the manner in which she conducted herself in politics.

Jeanette died suddenly last week (5 March 2020), aged 75, and most parties and leaders in parliament gave obituary speeches today, which not surprisingly were full of praise from across the House.

Both leaders Marama Davidson and James Shaw spoke for the Green Party. It was obviously emotional for them.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke on behalf of the Labour Party and also “on behalf of our coalition partner, the New Zealand First Party” – no MP for NZ First spoke.

Coromandel MP Scott Simpson spoke on behalf of the National Party and the people of Coromandel – Jeanette was MP for Coromandel in 1999-2002 and lived at the base of the Coromandel Peninsula.

David Seymour spoke on behalf of the ACT Party.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green):

I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the passing of Jeanette Fitzsimons.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: I move, That this House mark the passing of Jeanette Fitzsimons, the Green Party’s first female co-leader, celebrate her contributions to Aotearoa New Zealand, and express deep condolences to her whānau and friends.

[Authorised Te Reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It is my honour to stand with my co-leader, James Shaw, and all of our Green MPs here in this House to celebrate the life and acknowledge the passing of our much beloved first female co-leader of the Green Party of Aotearoa, Jeanette Fitzsimons. I acknowledge and send deep aroha to Harry and her children, Jeremy and Mark, and all of their mokopuna. I am thinking particularly of Rod Donald and family at this time, and especially of our friend Holly Donald, who works here in this House. I know that the loss of Rod while Jeanette was a co-leader had a massive impact on her and indeed on all of us.

I am standing here thinking deeply of all of the past Green MPs and particularly those who served with Jeanette in this House. I am thinking of our founding members of the Green Party movement of our party—those who have had a long association with her. Those people are really feeling the loss at this time very deeply, and I want to acknowledge their mamae. I am thinking of Metiria and Russel, with whom Jeanette had a close impact and working relationship. I am thinking of the Young Greens, who held their summer camp just recently in February, as we do every year on Jeanette and Harry’s farm, and were privileged to spend that weekend with her on her beloved riverbank, on her beloved campsite.

I am thankful for the people who have messaged us their love and their thoughts—the many organisations, the many individuals who have had a long association with her over generations and over decades. This kōrero that I stand with much honour to give now is on behalf of James and I and our Green MPs, and I acknowledge James will also be speaking later.

As I start to talk about her achievements, I note—ironically—that one of the biggest is she is noted for her humility, that people recall that her work was never about her as an individual, that she was very clear she was simply doing a job for the wellbeing of our planet and for our mokopuna and generations to come. She was part of the founding movement of our Green Party, right back from the days of the Values Party, through to The Alliance, and then to become the Green Party that we have today. I wanted to start her achievements by recalling her own words, in that her mokopuna have been the touchstone of much of her work. She, of course, was the only Green to ever win an electorate seat, in 1999—ground breaking and still, to this day, the only Green to win an electorate seat.

She also was the Government’s spokesperson—a quasi-Minister, in her own words—who, in 1998, introduced the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act, establishing energy efficiency and solar water heating frameworks, and the legacy of which we are still working through today, thanks to her pioneering. She, of course, helped to bring the climate change conversation into Parliament. She was a leading voice for a new, compassionate, ecologically sustainable economics that has influenced the Government’s new wellbeing approach to this very day. In her valedictory speech, she called this an economy based on respect for people and for nature—simple, but something that to date had not been called for yet. She expanded legal aid for environmental cases and funding for community conservation groups. She, of course, also chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee for six years, in her words, scrutinising the executive, listening to the people, and knocking the silly corners off bad legislation.

Over the weekend, our councils of the Green Party met for a weekend hui that we had long planned, and we started by having a round and reflection for the impact that she had on all of us. Whether you were someone who knew her for decades and generations or whether you were someone who hadn’t yet had the privilege of meeting her, we talked about the fabric of experiences that all of us hold and the marvel and achievement of the work that she led and the person that she was.

There is very much a grieving sense of loss. As I continue to say, I thought we had her for quite a bit longer. I took for granted that she was going to continue to be around to mentor me as co-leader, to mentor us as Green politicians, and to hold us, as the Green Party, to account. I really did think that we had her for a lot longer.

I want to acknowledge and respect that a beautiful funeral, a small family and community and private affair, was held in Coromandel yesterday and respect and acknowledge the beauty that took place. We will be organising a wider, more public event here in Wellington in the weeks to come; I understand people are waiting for that.

I remember her telling me the time when one of our MPs rang her from this House to tell her that he was voting differently to what had been agreed. It was one of the funny stories when she was sitting me down as I was about to take up the mantle of co-leader and saying there is no job description, there is no expectation for what you might expect in doing this role, Marama, but one thing is for sure: you can expect the unexpected.

I recall Harry talking about her trying so hard but failing—after she left Parliament—to get arrested for protecting our marine environment against fossil fuel exploration and drilling. This is only a testament to her work never stopping long after—and to the very end of her life. She was a champion for a progressive vision that would protect our children, our people, and our planet. And she put herself on the line to exemplify exactly that.

Jeanette’s face keeps flashing up in front of me. I was very privileged, at that young Greens summer camp that I mentioned, to stay the night with her on her farm, to have a political huddle—that sort of time was special then. That sort of time with Jeanette was valuable to me in and of itself then. But right now, it’s feeling even more special than I realised it ever was going to be. It was a huddle that confirmed her clarity of purpose for what we—as humans of this world—need to be taking responsibility for, need to be working together for, need to be seeking the change that is indeed going to protect our future, our planet, and our communities. It was an affirmation that she maintained her commitment to those political visions right through to the very end.

Many people have many personal relationships and stories and reflections on her life. I’ve enjoyed reading through a lot of them and hearing a lot of them over the weekend, and there will be more to come. For my time here in this House today, I simply wanted to signal our deep gratitude for her commitment to a kaupapa that was going to be for the good of all of us. There is grief and loss in the gap that has been created, but there is hope in the legacy and the commitment that she maintained and an added drive for all of us, particularly for us in the Green Party and movement, to continue to be steadfast on our principles and our values and to do good in this world. Once again, I send my love to Harry and her children, all of her friends, and her family. Tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister):

I rise on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party and on behalf of our coalition partner, the New Zealand First Party, to acknowledge the death of former Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons CNZM, who passed away suddenly last Thursday night aged 75.

Jeanette will be remembered as a ground breaker, the first female co-leader of the Greens, the first Green MP to ever speak in this House, the first Green MP to win an electorate seat, and the first Green MP to hold an official Government position as spokesperson on energy efficiency. But this official record of impressive firsts only tells half the story. Her true parliamentary legacy will be the paths she laid on important environmental and conservation issues and the shift that she helped lead in our entire country’s thinking, especially on climate change.

In many ways Jeanette was by necessity a politician ahead of her time. Her job here was to agitate, to educate, to force change from those reluctant to make it. It seems strange now, but when Jeanette was first talking and writing about climate change, or global warming as it was often referred to then, she was an outlier, a bearer of an inconvenient truth. She was mocked and she was ridiculed for her earnest and persistent call for political action on the state of the planet.

I entered Parliament some time after Jeanette and even I recall that the response to climate change at that time was not what it is today, and it’s easy to forget that she was the champion of an issue that was not popular, that was not spoken of, and that was often rejected outright. I believe it is in large part to her tenacity that we are now taking this issue seriously, and that the paths she laid meant this House could vote unanimously for the zero carbon Act—a parliamentary consensus that would have been unimaginable when Jeanette was the lone voice when she first entered Parliament in 1996.

Jeanette was a true steward of the New Zealand environmental political movement. Starting out in the Values Party in the 1970s through to bringing the Greens into Parliament in their own right, Jeanette played a pivotal role over decades in building Green political representation in New Zealand and ensuring continuous representation in Parliament for the Greens since the first MMP election in 1996. She did that the old-fashioned way: holding public meetings, getting up media stories, writing op-eds, organising petitions, rallying, recruiting, and training new people. The bread-and-butter work of a political movement was never ever beneath her; in fact, I suspect that’s where she found her joy.

In fact, her commitment to the new generation could be seen in—as the co-leader of the Greens, Marama, has referenced—the hosting of the Young Greens camp each year on her farm in Thames. Passing the baton on and supporting the next generation of environmentalists was so core to who she was.

Jeanette once polled as the most trustworthy party leader in New Zealand; a fitting endorsement of her kind, caring, and passionate brand of politics. I think that she would be proud of the New Zealand Green Party today in that they keep those values in this House till this day.

I recall her presence in this House. I recall her quiet dignity. I recall her intelligence, her respect for others—even when she wasn’t offered that same respect in return. She was completely and utterly how she came across: a different type of politician and leader.

Her post-parliamentary career was not an opportunity for Jeanette to put her feet up and take some well-earned rest; she continued to campaign, to protest, to try and get arrested from time to time, to make presentations to select committee, and to train and support others.

Her final words spoken in this House were to the younger generation hungry for change. “Kia kaha—you are the hope of the future. Haere ra.”, she said. Now it’s time to say “Haera rā” to you, Jeanette. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your determined optimism. Thank you for laying the path that ultimately has meant that you left this place better than you found it. Haere rā.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Jeanette Fitzsimons has left us far too early. I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party and the people of Coromandel. Jeanette Fitzsimons was a character and a personality larger than her sometimes diminutive stature might have foretold. She was always passionate, energetic, and articulate in her advocacy for the policies and principles that she held so dear and lived by every day of her life—those were primarily the environment, conservation, and humanity. She was staunch always with gritty and determined but often humble focus on achieving the goals that she wanted to. She never did it in a personal way; it was always about the policy, about the argument, about the debate, and about the issue rather than the person—something that we sometimes have too little of in this place.

In the Coromandel, she was always an active, articulate, and vocal presence in local communities, even after her time as the member of Parliament. She was never short of a well-considered, well-thought-out, and well-constructed contribution to any conversation or debate on any particular matter. She represented the Coromandel for just three years of her parliamentary career, from 1999-2002, but she left a local legacy that is much greater than often three years in this place might imply from an ordinary constituency MP.

Jeanette was well regarded, well admired, and well respected locally, nationally, and internationally for her views and for the way that she expressed them and presented them not only to those that supported her but those who were opposed or had a different view. No matter what our personal view might have been of those policies and thoughts and ideas that she had, one could never ever underestimate the sincerity or the level of conviction of those principles that she held dear and espoused at every opportunity. She lived, as others have said, by those principles every day of her life.

I had an opportunity to spend a couple of hours yesterday in the Kauaeranga Valley, near the farm, with Harry and the extended whānau and friends at a very beautiful and typically Green-type affair—if I might say—in a pleasing way. It was a very genuine, sincere, and pleasant afternoon beside the river, in the valley that she loved, with the people that she loved and who cared for her.

Towards the end of last winter, the Environment Committee was hearing submissions on the zero carbon bill. It was winter and a sub-committee had been meeting in Auckland for nearly two days in a rather drab Auckland City cold, colourless community hall—in Freemans Bay, from memory. Jeanette Fitzsimons arrived to make her submission on the zero carbon bill but before she started to speak, she presented on the submissions table a posy of bright yellow daffodils taken from her garden in the Thames Valley that very morning. They sat there, a bright beacon of hope and inspiration, while she gave her considered submission in that otherwise drab room. Then, when she’d finished her submission, the flowers stayed and they remained, and for the rest of the day those flowers stood on that table as a beacon of her contribution not only to the debate but as a measure of her views about the issues that we were talking. And they stayed there long after her submission had finished.

I want to extend condolences on behalf of the National Party and on behalf of the people of Coromandel to Harry, her children, and her wider whānau. A bright, green light has gone out on the Coromandel and across Aotearoa New Zealand too soon.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):

I wish to join with other party leaders, on behalf of ACT, in condolence to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ family and in commemoration of her life and her contribution to New Zealand politics and this House. I’m sure that as a lifelong proponent of, and campaigner for the mixed member proportional system, she would want it to be so.

I did not coincide with Jeanette Fitzsimons in this Parliament, nor, unfortunately, was I able to know her, but in a way, the fact that what I know of her has been learnt by osmosis, has bled out through society and through secondary connections, speaks all the more strongly to those values that I know she had. There are politicians who believe it is an achievement to hold a particular office. There are politicians who believe that it is about what she might have called the “he said, she said” BS; Jeanette Fitzsimons was clearly a politician who believed that being in office was not an achievement but presented the opportunity to achieve not on the personality, but on the issues. That’s why we hear so frequently in the last few days, as people up and down New Zealand have come to terms with her passing, words like “principled”, “kind”, “dogmatic”, “humble”, “achieving”: values that I think all of us should aspire to and values for which all of us can have a great admiration for Jeanette Fitzsimons.

I want to extend, again, condolences to her Green Party colleagues and the wider Green Party whānau, and to those in her real biological whānau—they must be feeling such a sense of loss, and our thoughts are with them—and of course, to her, our commemoration of a great life, well lived. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green):

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge and thank the members who have spoken and the memories that they’ve shared. Those tributes, I think, reflect the extraordinary woman that Janette was. As others have said, Jeanette’s approach to politics was to treat everyone with dignity and with respect. Her belief in the practice of non-violent social change always led her to seek to build consensus and common ground, particularly with those with whom she disagreed most strongly. There’s a saying: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

I think, in the long run, Jeanette’s greatest success will be seen to be in the area where people ridiculed her the most: in economics. In her own words she said, “GDP is both too narrow and too generalised to measure anything useful. It does not tell us whether the poor are getting poorer, and if most of society’s wealth is held by a few. It does not tell us if we are paying more and more to control pollution and crime, rather than for real goods and services. It does not tell us if we are plundering the environment to [take] short-term monetary returns.”

Jeanette’s greatest regret was that she was unable to move the establishment on this point. Yet 10 years later the current Minister of Finance had this to say: “if we’ve got this so-called rockstar economy, how is it that we have the worst homelessness in the OECD? How is it that you can’t swim in most of New Zealand’s rivers and lakes? How is it that child poverty [has] grown to the extent [that] it has? The answer, in my view, was because the government wasn’t sufficiently valuing those things. And [because] it wasn’t being valued properly, it wasn’t being measured, and [because] it wasn’t being measured, it wasn’t being done.”

Now, I acknowledge that the other side of the House is, at best, sceptical about this Government’s wellbeing approach, and I also acknowledge that we are still a very long way from the holistic, social, environmental, and economic guidance system for the country that Jeanette envisaged, but we have gotten started. I hope that she knew, in the end, that she had won.

Jeanette had already had a political career spanning two decades with the Values Party when I met her some time after the 1990 general election campaign. I was 18 or 19 or so, and I will never forget it. There was a hui at a lodge in Ōhākune to make some choices about the future of this emerging political party, the Greens. There were some heated debates about whether to be a political party or an outside pressure group, trying to reach consensus on how consensus-based decision-making should work, whether to have leaders or not and, if so, whether there should be one or two, or some other model entirely.

Now, despite there being no clear consensus on that question at the time, it was clear to me that Jeanette was a beacon by which others navigated. The debates continued through dinner and through drinks and on into the lodge’s sauna, where I was a little bit startled to find that not only were the policy prescriptions very northern European, so was the dress code. That’s where I first learned to focus on the policy, rather than the person.

Now, thousands of people around the country will have their own stories of Jeanette: inspiring, challenging, humorous, poignant—endless stories of a life so rich, and which touched so many. Each and every member of this Green Party caucus here has their own, which Marama and I cannot hope to do any justice to today. She mentored and guided each of us, and all of us.

But none of us here served alongside her in Parliament. Gareth Hughes, today our longest-serving MP, entered Parliament when Jeanette vacated it, 10 years ago last month. Gareth himself will retire at the coming election, and someone else will take up the mantle. That is Jeanette’s legacy. She built a political party. She led it out of the wilderness and into Parliament. She helped to midwife it into Government, and it succeeds her.

Her leadership was so profound that it has continued to guide the choices and shape the endeavours of a generation who only entered this place when she left it, and who remain even though she has passed beyond the veil. There are very few people in our history who can make that claim. She was not just a parliamentarian and a leader; she was a mother, a musician, a thinker, a writer, a wife, a friend, a farmer, an academic, an investor, a philanthropist, and a protester.

She wanted a world where we could be counted—as she said—not by the size of our GDP and our incomes, but by the warmth of our relationships with each other and with nature, by the health of our children and our elders and our rivers and our land. We want more people to share the secret of real happiness and satisfaction in life, which comes not from having more but from being more, and from being part of a society that values all its members and values the land, the water, and the other species with which we share them. Farewell Jeanette and thank you, and please give our love to Rod.

Motion agreed to.

Waiata

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Russian PM and Cabinet resigns, Putin power push?

RNZ: Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev resigns

Russian President Vladimir Putin has formally put forward Mikhail Mishustin, the little-known head of Russia’s Federal Tax Service, to be Russia’s new prime minister, the Kremlin said.

Putin gets to choose who Russia’s Prime Minister is?

It came after Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said his government was resigning to give Putin room to carry out changes to the constitution.

And Putin gets to decide on what changes can be made to the Russian constitution?

The unexpected resignation, which came shortly after Putin proposed a nationwide vote on sweeping changes that would shift power from the presidency to parliament, mean Russia would also get a new prime minister.

Wednesday’s changes will be seen by many as the start of Putin’s preparations for his own political future when he leaves the presidency in 2024.

Whoever he picks as prime minister will inevitably be viewed as a possible presidential successor – echoing the way that Putin stepped down from the presidency in 2008 to become prime minister under Medvedev, who then stepped aside four years later to allow Putin to resume the presidency.

Reuters: Putin unveils shake-up that could extend his influence as cabinet quits

Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed constitutional changes on Wednesday that would give him leeway to extend his grip on power after leaving the presidency, and picked a new prime minister after Dmitry Medvedev and his cabinet resigned.

The dramatic moves were widely seen as preparing the ground for 2024, when Putin, now 67, is constitutionally obliged to leave the presidency after occupying the Kremlin or the prime minister’s job continuously since 1999.

Critics have long accused Putin of plotting to stay on in some capacity to wield power over the world’s largest nation – and one of its two biggest nuclear powers – after he steps down. Putin, a former KGB officer, has always kept mum on his plans.

But the constitutional changes he set out, which he suggested should be put to a referendum, would give him the option of taking an enhanced role as prime minister after 2024 or a new role as head of the State Council, an official body he said he was keen to build up.

Under his proposed constitutional changes, the powers of the presidency would be diminished and those of the prime minister’s office beefed up.

Opposition politician Leonid Volkov said it looked as though Putin was digging in.

“It’s clear to everyone that everything is going exclusively toward setting Putin up to rule for life,” Volkov wrote on social media. Dmitry Gudkov, another opposition politician, said Putin had decided to re-arrange everything around him now rather than wait until closer to 2024.

Putin told the political elite in his annual state-of-the-nation speech that he favored changing the constitution to hand the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, the power to choose the prime minister and other key positions.

“It would increase the role and significance of the country’s parliament … of parliamentary parties, and the independence and responsibility of the prime minister.”

And it could increase the future power of Putin, designed by himself.

People vs Parliament

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9881074/election-choice-johnson-corbyn-majority/

A report from Missy in the UK


At the beginning of September Parliament returned from summer recess and boy has it been interesting. First of all is the news that after a summer of threatening a Vote of No Confidence Jeremy Corbyn, (as I predicted), bottled it and failed to table a Vote of No Confidence, however, it doesn’t mean that Parliament has been short of drama.

The opposition managed to take control of the order paper with the assistance of a number of Remain supporting Conservative MPs, and they passed the Withdrawal Act 2 (also known as the Benn Act), immediately after this passed in the House of Commons the PM tabled a motion for a General Election to be held on 15 October which was defeated.

This Act states the PM must ask for an extension to Article 50 by 19 October, and that it has to be until 31 January at the earliest, however, it also states that if the EU offer a longer extension he must accept it unless Parliament rejects it within 3 days. At first many thought it would be defeated as the Conservative Lords were heading for an epic filibuster on the Thursday and Friday, however, all of a sudden the filibuster was called off amidst reports that Corbyn agreed to vote for a General Election if the bill passed. The bill duly passed and the motion for a General Election was tabled again, however, Corbyn reneged and voted against it, prompting accusations of him being a chicken, the reality is most likely that Corbyn is aware of how badly he is doing in the polls and that Boris Johnson would get a good majority.

Whilst the Party Conferences were taking place after Prorogation, a number of court cases were taken out against the PM for the proroguing of Parliament. In Scotland a number of MPs went to court, and the Scottish High Court found in favour, ruling not only that the Prorogation was illegal but that the PM had lied to the Queen, though how they could say he lied to the Queen without actually calling the Queen as a witness to know what he said to her I don’t know. In England Gina Miller took a case to the High Court, which ruled that proroguing Parliament is a prerogative power making it a political process and therefore non justifiable. Both cases were appealed and last week the Supreme Court ruled that the proroguing of Parliament, whilst legal in itself, was prorogued for an excessive period of time and was therefore unlawful (as opposed to illegal). This means the Supreme Court have set a new legal precedent, and have made the proroguing of Parliament for excessive length of time unlawful.

So, last Wednesday Parliament resumed and despite the MPs saying they had to return to urgently debate Brexit they didn’t spend any time on Brexit. MP after MP lined up to have a pop at the PM and Attorney General, Boris however managed to still get the better of them. On a day that the Leader of the Opposition should have been able to have the PM on the ropes, it was the Leader of the Opposition that was on the back foot and the PM that came off the best.

Corbyn kept saying that the PM should resign, and called on Boris Johnson to resign several times, the response of the PM was to refuse to resign and tell Corbyn that if he wanted to get rid of him to agree to a General Election. The PM gave a one time offer that he would accept a Vote of No Confidence from any party that had the courage to call it, many were hoping the DUP would gazump Corbyn and call the vote, they didn’t however. Despite all opposition MPs saying that Boris Johnson should resign and wasn’t fit to be PM they stopped short of calling a Vote of No Confidence to trigger an election. The Government tabled a motion to recess Parliament for their Party Conference next week, they are the only party who have yet to have their Conference, and predictably the opposition spitefully blocked it, however, the Conservatives will go ahead with their conference in spite of it, but it is rumoured that the opposition will do everything they can to disrupt it.

It was reported today that the SNP have come to an agreement with Labour whereby they will support a Government of National Unity with Jeremy Corbyn as PM in return for Corbyn approving a second independence Referendum. This Government will be formed for a period time to gain an extension, have a second referendum which they hope will vote Remain so they can then revoke Article 50 before holding a General Election. This of course will have to depend on rebel Conservative MPs (who have mostly indicated they would abstain or vote against the Government, some even saying they would prefer a hard left Marxist Government to leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement), and the Liberal Democrats who have indicated they wouldn’t support Jeremy Corbyn as PM, but would support someone else. And here is where we get into the most likely campaign strategy for the Government if they can force a General Election in the next couple of months. Whether or not they extend Article 50 the Government’s strategy is most likely going to be the people vs Parliament angle, with Boris Johnson and the Conservatives on the side of the people and the rest the elitist establishment who want to tie the UK into the EU Empire.

This strategy could work, and I am sure those working in Number 10 are gathering the soundbites, videos etc to use, and the most useful for them will be from the Liberal Democrats. Jo Swinson, the Lib Dems leader, has already stated on the record that she would not accept a second referendum outcome for Leave, which most are using as justification for not supporting a second referendum as they believe she would not implement such a vote if she was leader, further the Liberal Democrats have voted to revoke Article 50 if they become Government without a vote, (so this contradicts their previous policy of a second referendum), lastly Guy Verhofstadt spoke at the Liberal Democrat Conference and his speech talked about the future EU Empire, now it is hard to know if the words were chosen incorrectly due to English being his second language, but regardless it does play into Leavers hands on the future empirical ambitions of the EU.

Boris Johnson’s reference to the Benn Act as the Surrender Act is, I believe, part of them positioning for a General Election campaign, it angers the opposition and the more it angers them the more that the PM uses that phrase and the more support he gets. Surrender Act was trending on Twitter when Boris used it, and many Leavers (not just Conservatives) are using the phrase. That is a key thing, May did not have the ability to bring together people from different political views, Boris however is managing to do that, a number of voters in the North of England who are being interviewed are saying they have never voted Conservative, but will vote for Boris.

All in all, I believe that sometime in the next 2-3 months there will be an election in the UK, and the Conservatives will be using the People vs Parliament strategy, it won’t be a formal or official slogan (that is most likely to be Get Brexit Done – which has also been trending on Twitter) but everything said by the Conservatives will be underpinning that message.

 

Paula Bennett speech on PM’s office involvement in assault claims

GENERAL DEBATE

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

The Prime Minister says she did not know there were sexual assault allegations against one of her staff members until Monday. I could go through the various media reports since 5 August and my own representation since being contacted by victims to show the inconsistencies in this, but they have already been well traversed in the last 24 hours.

Back in 2016, Jacinda Ardern wrote an op-ed about the scandal surrounding the Chiefs rugby team. She said that a resignation is not enough: “It’s the PR quick fix—usher the source of the controversy away. But that solves nothing. After all, apologies followed by silence changes nothing, and change is what we need.”

The resignation today of Nigel Haworth cannot be, in the Prime Minister’s words, “the PR quick fix—usher the source of the controversy away.” Yes, Mr Haworth needed to go, and it should have happened weeks ago, but what is also known is that the Prime Minister’s own senior staff and a senior Minister have known the seriousness of the allegations but have not acted.

The complainants were members of the Labour Party. They genuinely believed that the party would listen to their complaints and deal with the alleged offender appropriately, but nothing happened. It clearly has taken an incredible sense of frustration, disappointment, and disillusion for these people to come to me, a National Party MP, to try and see their complaints addressed.

These are serious allegations. The Prime Minister cannot keep her head in the sand and pretend like it is happening somewhere far, far away. It is happening in her own office, in her own organisation. She is the leader of the Labour Party. The alleged perpetrator works in her leader’s office—he works for her.

Less than a year ago, the Prime Minister was in New York at the UN, trumpeting “Me too should be we too.” Well, who knew that that meant her own office was following the path well trod by all those companies who drew a curtain over sexual misconduct and inappropriate behaviour.

I have been told by the complainants that Jacinda Ardern’s former chief of staff Mike Monroe knew about the allegations, her chief press secretary, Andrew Campbell, knew about the allegations, and the director of her leader’s office, Rob Salmond, knew about the allegations. I have been told by two victims who work in Parliament that they went to Rob Salmond around Christmas time and made a complaint about the alleged perpetrator.

The Prime Minister has constantly said her office did not receive complaints and, in fact, encouraged the victims to speak to their line managers. They did. They have told me they went to Rob Salmond and nothing was done, and we are expected to believe that none of these men in her own office told the Prime Minister about the allegations—all of this in the aftermath of the Labour summer camp scandal, when the Prime Minister made it very clear she expected to have been told. And are we really expected to believe that she didn’t know that her chief press secretary, Andrew Campbell, embarked on a witch-hunt to try and find out who in the Beehive was talking to the media about the allegations? The complainants certainly felt hunted and scared that he was trying to shut them up and stop them from talking to the media—classic bullying of victims, and hardly a victim-led response.

A victim has told me that the alleged perpetrator has deep alliances to Grant Robertson, that he was involved in his campaign for the Labour Party leadership, and that Grant Robertson has known the seriousness of these allegations. It is unbelievable that he hasn’t discussed this with his close friend and his leader.

This all smacks of a cover-up. This goes straight to the top: to the Prime Minister, to senior Cabinet Ministers, and—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/HansS_20190911_053250000/bennett-paula-mallard-trevor


Possible of note is in Question time just before this Bennett briefly questioned Ardern.

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with the statement made by Jacinda Ardern in 2016 about the Chiefs rugby scandal that a resignation is not enough: “It’s the PR quick fix—usher the source of the controversy away. But that solves nothing. … After all, apologies followed by silence changes nothing, and change is what we need.”?

SPEAKER: No. That question does not relate to a statement of the Prime Minister.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday that “we need to make sure that we have environments in all of our workplaces that meet the expectations of alleged victims, and that respond to those situations.”, and how does that correlate with a situation where the victims were barred from parts of the parliamentary complex?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday that “we need to make sure that we have environments in all our workplaces that meet the expectations of alleged victims,”; and, if so, how does that correlate that senior male staffers in her office have known about these extremely serious allegations since at least the beginning of the year and none of these men have brought it to her attention?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, to answer the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will she be revising her statement made to the UN less than a year ago that “#MeToo must become we too. We are all in this together.”, in light of her own office’s failure to deal with sexual assault allegations involving one of her staff members?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her previous statements that victims should go to one of their line managers and that no senior people in her office had received a complaint?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At the time that I made the statement, yes.

If Ardern “made the statement” after two complainants went to a line manger (Salmond) around Christmas time she could have a probem.

Abortion Bill passes first reading 94-23

Following speeches by many MPs in parliament today the Abortion Bill passed it’s first reading by 94 votes to 23. Three MPs didn’t vote.

This is a large majority, but it’s just the first of three votes, with some MPs wanting the Bill to progress to public submissions, but with no guarantee of supporting it all the way. NZ First MPs all voted for it but have imp[lied they may not support the final vote unless it goes to a public referendum (although their messages have been missed).

Here are the votes split up:

YES VOTES:

Labour: ARDERN Jacinda, DAVIS Kelvin, LITTLE Andrew, ROBERTSON, Grant, TWYFORD Phil, WOODS Megan, HIPKINS Chris, SEPULONI Carmel Jean, CLARK David, PARKER David, NASH Stuart, RADHAKRISHNAN Priyanca, HUO Raymond, LEES-GALLOWAY Iain Francis, TINETTI Jan, SIO Aupito Tofae Sua William, PRIME Willow-Jean, O’CONNOR Damien, FAAFOI Kris, ALLAN Kiri, JACKSON Willie, CURRAN Clare, DYSON Ruth, WILLIAMS Poto, WALL Louisa, WOOD Michael Philip, ANDERSEN Ginny, LUXTON Jo, RUSSELL Deborah, CRAIG Liz, LUBECK Marja, MALLARD Trevor, EAGLE Paul, COFFEY Tamati, STRANGE Jamie, McANULTY Kieran, WARREN-CLARK Angie, O’CONNOR Greg, MAHUTA Nanaia, HENARE Peeni, WHATIRI Meka, WEBB Duncan.
National: BENNETT Paula, CARTER David, BRIDGES Simon, ADAMS Amy, TOLLEY Anne, GUY Nathan, KAYE Nikki, McCLAY Todd, COLLINS Judith, BARRY Maggie, GOLDSMITH Paul, MITCHELL Mark, WAGNER Nicky, BENNETT David, SIMPSON Scott, KURIGER Barbara, DOOCEY Matt, HUDSON Brett, McKELVIE Ian, BAYLY Andrew, BISHOP Chris, DOWIE Sarah, MULLER Todd, SCOTT Alastair, SMITH Stuart, KING Matt, FALLOON Andrew, LEE Denise, STANFORD Erica, VAN de MOLEN Tim, YULE Lawrence, BIDOIS Dan, WILLIS Nicola.
NZ First: PETERS Winston, MARK Ron, MARTIN Tracey, TABUTEAU Fletcher, BALL Darroch, MITCHELL Clayton, PATTERSON Mark, JONES Shane, MARCROFT Jenny.
Greens: SHAW James, DAVIDSON Marama, GENTER Julie Anne, SAGE Eugenie, HUGHES Gareth, LOGIE Jan, SWARBRICK Chlöe, GHAHRAMAN Golriz.
ACT: SEYMOUR David.
ROSS, Jami-Lee.

NO VOTES:

Labour: SALESA Jenny, KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI Anahila, RURAWHE Adrian, TIRIKATENE Rino.
National: PUGH Maureen, BROWNLEE Gerry, WOODHOUSE Michael, SMITH Nick, UPSTON Louise, DEAN Jacqui, MACINDOE Tim, LEE Melissa, BAKSHI Kanwaljit Singh, PARMAR Parmjeet, YOUNG Jonathan, HAYES Jo, O’CONNOR Simon, RETI Shane, BROWN Simeon, HIPANGO Harete, PENK Chris, LOHENI Agnes, GARCIA Paulo.

ABSENT:

National: WALKER Hamish, NGARO Alfred, YANG Jian.

That was supplied from Stuff who have good coverage with summaries of the MP speeches here – Live: Abortion Bill’s first reading in Parliament

On Tracey Martin (who was put in a very difficult position by her party):

Tracey Martin in tears

NZ First MP Tracey Martin came to tears as she lays out the speech she was going to make on the bill.

She says she was ready to make a personal speech about why she supported the bill, but the context of this week’s news means she can’t.

Martin was the lead negotiator with Andrew Little on this bill from NZ First as the women’s spokeswoman for the party. She told the media on Tuesday morning that the party would not be seeking a referendum on the issue. But later that morning at a caucus meeting NZ First resolved to attempt to introduce a referendum at committee of the whole house.

This led to a somewhat embarrassing media situation on Tuesday afternoon when it all came out on the way into the House.

Martin is detailing this whole story to clarify things.

She confirms that NZ First will block-vote in favour for first and second readings.

I presume she has been able to present the actual party position and won’t be contradicted again.

Aupito William Sio will support the bill at first reading:

Pacific Peoples’ Minister and Labour MP Auptio William Sio is speaking for the bill, at least in the first reading, despite opposing abortion himself.

“I value life,” Sio says.

“I am looking at this debate from the perspective of a father who does not support abortion.”

He says he would want his daughters to not abort – but would support them in their choice, whatever it was.

“I do not support abortion, but I am on the record that I support a woman’s right to choose.”

I respect him deferring to his daughters and to women despite his personal views.

 

End of Life Choice Bill passes second reading 70-50

End of Life Choice Bill passed its second reading last night in Parliament last night, by 70 votes to 50.

That is a comfortable margin, but it doesn’t mean that the euthanasia bill is a done deal. It will now proceed to the third reading, and a lot of Supplementary Order Papers will be debated on and voted on before we know what the final form of the Bill will look like. Then Parliament will make it’s final vote for or against.

NZ First are pushing for the final choice to go to a referendum to be run at the same time as next year’s general election. Whether that will happen is yet to be decided.

There are some strong views and emotional feelings on this issue on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately there are also some outlandish claims being made.

I think the key thing in this is Choice.

I personally would like that choice, if I was ever in a situation of terminal illness.

I understand that others feel strongly against euthanasia. I hope the End of Life Choice Bill will allow them to opt out, while giving choice to chose who want it, with sufficient safeguards.

Parliament has to decide whether to give a legal end of life choice to people.

NZ Herald has a list of How your MP voted on the End of Life Choice Bill

* Denotes MPs who have changed their vote since the first reading


SUPPORT – 70

  • Amy Adams – National – Selwyn
  • Ginny Andersen – Labour – List
  • Jacinda Ardern – Labour – Mt Albert
  • Darroch Ball – NZ First – List
  • Paula Bennett – National – Upper Harbour
  • Chris Bishop – National – Hutt South
  • Tamati Coffey – Labour – Waiariki
  • Judith Collins* – National – Papakura
  • Liz Craig – Labour – List
  • Clare Curran – Labour – Dunedin South
  • Marama Davidson – Green – List
  • Kelvin Davis – Labour – Te Tai Tokerau
  • Matt Doocey – National – Waimakariri
  • Ruth Dyson – Labour – Port Hills
  • Paul Eagle – Labour – Rongotai
  • Kris Faafoi – Labour – Mana
  • Andrew Falloon – National – Rangitata
  • Julie Anne Genter – Green – List
  • Golriz Ghahraman – Green –List
  • Peeni Henare – Labour – Tamaki Makaurau
  • Chris Hipkins – Labour – Rimutaka
  • Brett Hudson – National – List
  • Gareth Hughes – Green – List
  • Raymod Huo – Labour – List
  • Willie Jackson – Labour – List
  • Shane Jones – NZ First – List
  • Nikki Kaye – National – Auckland Central
  • Matt King – National – Northland
  • Barbara Kuriger – National – Taranaki-King Country
  • Iain Lees-Galloway – Labour – Palmerston North
  • Andrew Little – Labour – List
  • Jan Logie – Green – List
  • Marja Lubeck – Labour – List
  • Jo Luxton – Labour – List
  • Nanaia Mahuta – Labour – Hauraki-Waikato
  • Trevor Mallard – Labour – List
  • Jenny Marcroft – NZ First – List
  • Ron Mark – NZ First – List
  • Tracey Martin – NZ First – List
  • Kieran McAnulty – Labour – List
  • Clayton Mitchell – NZ First – List
  • Mark Mitchell – National – Rodney
  • Stuart Nash – Labour – Napier
  • Greg O’Connor – Labour – Ohariu
  • David Parker – Labour – List
  • Mark Patterson – NZ First – List
  • Winston Peters – NZ First – List
  • Willow-Jean Prime – Labour – List
  • Priyanca Radhakrishnan – Labour – List
  • Grant Robertson – Labour – Wellington Central
  • Jami-Lee Ross – Independent – Botany
  • Eugenie Sage – Green – List
  • Carmel Sepuloni – Labour – Kelston
  • David Seymour – Act – Epsom
  • James Shaw – Green – List
  • Scott Simpson – National – Coromandel
  • Stuart Smith – National – Kaikoura
  • Erica Stanford – National – East Coast Bays
  • Chloe Swarbrick – Green – List
  • Fletcher Tabuteau – NZ First – List
  • Jan Tinetti – Labour – List
  • Tim van de Molen – National – Waikato
  • Louisa Wall – Labour – Manurewa
  • Angie Warren-Clark – Labour – List
  • Duncan Webb – Labour – Christchurch Central
  • Poto Williams* – Labour – Christchurch East
  • Nicola Willis – National – List
  • Megan Woods – Labour – Wigram
  • Jian Yang – National – List
  • Lawrence Yule* – National- Tukituki

OPPOSE 50

  • Kiritapu Allan*- Labour – List
  • Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi – National – List
  • Maggie Barry – National – North Shore
  • Andrew Bayly – National – Hunua
  • David Bennett – National – Hamilton East
  • Dan Bidois – National – Northcote
  • Simon Bridges – National – Tauranga
  • Simeon Brown – National – Pakuranga
  • Gerry Brownlee – National – Ilam
  • David Carter – National – List
  • David Clark – Labour – Dunedin North
  • Jacquie Dean – National – Waitaki
  • Sarah Dowie – National – Invercargill
  • Paulo Garcia – National – List
  • Paul Goldsmith – National – List
  • Nathan Guy* – National – Otaki
  • Joanne Hayes – National – List
  • Harete Hipango* – National – Whanganui
  • Anahila Kanongata’aSuisuiki – Labour – List
  • Denise Lee – National – List
  • Melissa Lee – National – List
  • Agnes Loheni – National – List
  • Tim Macindoe – National – Hamilton West
  • Todd McClay – National – Rotorua
  • Ian McKelvie – National – Rangitikei
  • Todd Muller – National – Bay of Plenty
  • Alfred Ngaro – National – List
  • Damien O’Connor – Labour – West Coast
  • Simon O’Connor – National – Tamaki
  • Parmjeet Parmar – National – List
  • Chris Penk – National – Helensville
  • Maureen Pugh – National – List
  • Shane Reti – National – Whangarei
  • Adrian Rurawhe* – Labour – Te Tai Hauauru
  • Deborah Russell* – Labour – New Lynn
  • Jenny Salesa – Labour – Manukau East
  • Alastair Scott – National – Wairarapa
  • Aupito William Sio – Labour – Mangere
  • Nick Smith – National – Nelson
  • Jamie Strange – Labour – List
  • Rino Tirakatene – Labour – List
  • Anne Tolley* – National – East Coast
  • Phil Twyford – Labour – Te Atatu
  • Louise Upston – National – Taupo
  • Nicky Wagner – National – List
  • Hamish Walker* – National – Clutha-Southland
  • Meka Whaitiri* – Labour – Ikaroa Rawhiti
  • Michael Wood* – Labour – Mt Roskill
  • Michael Woodhouse – National – List
  • Jonathan Young – National – New Plymouth

Forty years since “not a monotonous garden” Winston Peters’ maiden speech

I think it’s fair to ask whether Winston Peters is past his ‘best before’ date, but it would be an interesting to consider when he has been at his best in Parliament.

This week marked forty years since his maiden speech in Parliament.

He has become a bit monotonous over the years, but has had a varied and at times successful political career.

Peters was born on 11 April 1945, just before World War 2 ended, 19 days before Hitler died.

He stood for National in the Northern Maori seat but was never going to come close to winning that. It was effectively a practice run.

He stood in Hunua in the 1978 election and lost on the initial result, but this was overturned after an electoral petition. He entered parliament 6 months after the election, on 24 May 1979.

Hitting out against critics and opponents has been a frequent occurrence.

His  first stint in Parliament was short, losing the seat in the 1981 election. He stood in Tauranga and won in 1984, holding that until 2005, when he became a list MP, He and NZ First dropped out of Parliament altogether in 2008, but both Peters and his party got back in in 2011.

So while it is forty years since Peters first entered Parliament he has been an MP for 34 years.