Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

United Future leader Peter Dunne has given up on his annual list of worst-behaved MPs, saying Speaker Lockwood Smith’s reign has ushered in a new era of dignity and propriety.

To be fair, I think the absence of Winston helps also. But the House has been a far less toxic place this year.

Mr Dunne did honour Labour’s Trevor Mallard with a lifetime achievement award in bad behaviour “for services to melodrama, fisticuffs, and generally aberrant behaviour”.

When Lockwood orders him to apologise, you can actually see the supressed rage in his eyes!!

The Herald does find a few insults though:

Labour’s Moana Mackey apologised for referring to Hekia Parata as “Lady Parata” and “her royal highness”. National’s Paul Quinn was pulled up for calling Labour’s backbench “monkeys”.

I’d rather be called Lady Parata than a monkey I have to say – well if I was a female Parata that is!

Some apologies:

SHANE JONES
For saying of Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee, “the notion of him and energy is a mathematical impossibility”.

PHIL HEATLEY
For claiming another “fiddled the books” in ACC and Housing; for wishing the Speaker would use a 90-day eviction order on Trevor Mallard.

Heh.

RODNEY HIDE
For North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams’ “madness”, for calling Trevor Mallard “the angry one”.

Isn’t truth a defence?

JOHN KEY
For claiming Green MP Metiria Turei thought Phil Goff was “racist”. She had said his speech was “the worst kind of politics”.

So worse than racism?

The SST has done an extensive profile of Speaker Lockwood Smith. The beginning:

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS in the snake pit, and somehow Locky remains an innocent. The MP kept smiling his spooky smile through decades of derision and scorn. He began his public life as a fuddy-duddy – should school kids be reading the nasty sex scene on page 96 of The Color Purple? – and threatened to end it as a dork. Smith was appalled at the uproar which greeted his remarks during the election campaign about the small hands of Asian vine-pruners. Gosh, he didn’t mean to upset anyone.

National leader John Key made him say sorry, pencilled him out of cabinet, and in due course sent him to the Speaker’s chair. This is a place where parties put senior MPs they don’t know what to do with. The politician, says a parliamentary insider, was “dead and buried”. But Alexander Lockwood Smith, PhD, 61-year-old owner of a fine baritone voice and the best set of abs in parliament, refused to lie quiet in his grave.

Instead he launched a couple of revolutions and turned himself from laughing stock into an odd sort of political leader. He put an end to aeons of skullduggery and secrecy by publishing MPs’ expenses. He turned Question Time in parliament from a tableau of official evasion into a real test of the government’s mettle. He became that rarest of political animals, the celebrity Speaker. The pundits praised the new hero of accountability and openness.

The whole article is a good read.

Simon Upton writes in the Dom Post:

While coalition politics has certainly blunted the arrogance with which big parties behave in power, only Question Time guarantees that ministers are given a rocky ride, which is why I always found it so hard to understand why Speakers hid behind the mantra that they weren’t there to comment on the quality of ministerial answers – thereby giving carte blanche to those lazy ministers who couldn’t be bothered doing their homework or didn’t want to front up. My political awareness was switched on in the early 1970s listening to Question Time during the days of the Muldoon ascendancy.

His devastating control of Question Time as Leader of the Opposition had me enthralled. By the time I arrived in the House in 1981 that mercurial brilliance had turned to stone.

Muldoon was devastating not just as Opposition Leader, but even as Deputy Opposition Leader. Kirk banned Ministers from going on TV with him.

Lockwood Smith did not spend his parliamentary career dreaming of the Speaker’s chair. But the infelicitous comments that sidelined him from ministerial office turned out to have a deeply silver lining: Dr Smith is requiring ministers to answer the questions that are put to them. This seemingly obvious requirement is, for our Parliament, revolutionary. For the first time, Opposition members have an ally when a minister contemptuously greets a serious question with a non sequitur or a put down. Finally, voters get to see ministers held accountable. And it is all thanks to an MP who has decided that if he’s going to occupy the third highest office in the land, he’s going to take that office seriously. Three cheers for Mr Speaker Smith.

It is ironic. Lockwood ended up Speaker partly as a “punishment” for gaffes, but as Simon Upton says it has a silver lining in the way he has taken the job so seriously.

Whether his brave departure from an indefensible tradition sticks will, of course, depend on whoever succeeds him. Labour and its allies will in due course return to office. Will they be prepared to nominate a similarly tough-minded democrat for the job and be prepared to submit to the same treatment? I hope Phil Goff and his colleagues are taking stock of what Lockwood Smith has done for them. He is the best Speaker in living memory – on this one ground alone – and his initiative deserves to be perpetuated.

If Labour were smart they would keep Lockwood on as Speaker, when they return to office. I suspect he may have retired by then.

Let’s assume Labour win in 2014. Who might be their Speaker? King would be good, but I expect both her and Goff will retire between 2011 and 2014. Darren Hughes will want ministerial office first. Maybe David Parker if he is still here – a lawyer can be useful. I presume Barker and Ross Robertson have retired by 2014.  A possibility could be Winnie Laban – she would be dignified. Damien O’Connor might be a possibility also, if he is still there. He would be popular with most MPs.

Claire Trevett covers Parliament yesterday. I have to say I thought Lockwood was in awesome form as Speaker.

First of all he handled a huge amount of complaints from Labour MPs about his decision to now allow signs about an industrial dispute to be displayed on boxes, so they get seen on TV. The rules allow party logos, but not signs or slogans. You could see certain Labour MPs were right on the brink of either walking out, or trying to wallop Lockwood. Even normally good natured Darren Hughes was pushing it, by slapping a box off a desk onto a seat, rather than placing it there.

But no way was Lockwood being partisan. Gerry Brownlee obviously did not want to answer the question about when the Government decided to back or fund a TVNZ bid but Lockwood kept insisting that as the question was set down, and factual, it deserves an answer. Gerry tried arguing that as no amount had been discussed, he could not answer that but Lockwood insisted. Look at this exchange:

10. BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Broadcasting: When did the Government decide to offer financial support to a TVNZ-led bid to gain the free-to-air rights for the Rugby World Cup?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: The Government is committed to the concept of a stadium of 4 million people supporting the Rugby World Cup in 2011. Free-to-air broadcasts of matches must, therefore, have the widest possible coverage. The Government is united in that view. However, the specifics of any costs have not yet been determined.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need a point of order. The question on notice asked a very straight question: when did the Government decide to offer financial support to TVNZ? Either the Government has or it has not offered support, but the House deserves to hear an answer to the question since it was on notice and it is a straight question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And I gave a straight answer. The specifics of any costs have not been determined.

Mr SPEAKER: The question on notice did not ask what the cost was. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to point out that the Government has not decided to offer financial support, but the question asked “When did the Government decide to offer financial support to a TVNZ-led bid to gain the free-to-air rights for the Rugby World Cup?”. It may be that the answer is that the Government has not decided to do that, but if it has, the question asked about when it decided. It did not ask about how much money is involved. I ask the Minister to answer the question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point or order, Mr Speaker. You are deciding to interpret the question as being one that is correct. I would love to know where the verification that the Government has made such a determination came from in the first place. I decided—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to resume his seat. A perfectly fair answer to the question would be that the Government has not made such a decision. That is a perfectly proper answer, but the Minister did not offer the House that answer. It is a perfectly fair and proper question, and there is public interest in it. I believe that the House deserves to hear an answer. Forgive me; I am not interpreting the question. “When” is a very simple word.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has not determined the specifics of any costs that may be required.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I say the question was one of timing, and “when” is a very simple word. I think your office has been supplied with material from the Hon Jonathan Coleman, which I am sure people will be finding for us now, indicating that the Government had made that decision. All—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to get into debating the substance of the matter. The question simply asked “When did the Government decide to offer financial support?”. It did not ask about the specifics; it asked when a decision was made to offer financial support. It may be that it is not in the public interest to reveal that, but the question has been on notice for some hours and I think the House deserves to hear an answer.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have said three times that it has not made that determination.

I really can’t recall any previous Speaker being so willing to force an answer out of his or her own party’s Ministers.

John Armstrong reports:

Opposition MPs were aghast and Government members agog in Parliament yesterday after Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee broke with convention and refused to respond to a question from Greens co-leader Metiria Turei.

Brownlee had simply had enough. He had already answered five questions from Turei on National’s intended “stocktake” of mineral resources on Conservation land. He had repeatedly told her the Government had no intention of plundering or pillaging national parks or other valued parts of the Department of Conservation estate.

But Turei’s questions – which might more accurately be described as political statements masquerading as questions – just kept on coming.

So what was the actual question Gerry refused to answer:

Metiria Turei: When the Minister said in his speech that “… New Zealanders need to know that this country is also well endowed with natural resources.”, is it not the case that Kiwis already know how blessed we are, already know that our magnificent conservation places are like gold to the New Zealand economy, and are aghast at his attempts to plunder those areas for fool’s gold and dirty coal?

As Armstrong said, it is a political statement more than a question. But so are many questions. Brownlee explained later:

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In answering questions this afternoon I have made it clear that the Government has no intention of mining high-value conservation land. From the member’s question, she does not seem to want to accept the answers given. It is no wonder that she gets no answers to her questions.

However I think it is a bad look not to answer, even the most stupid loaded questions. If the Greens want to waste all their supplementaries getting more and more hysterical over a stocktake of minerals, then let them and swat their questions back at them, rather than refuse to answer them.

There is a precedent it seems though:

However, Parker was trumped by United Future’s Peter Dunne, who had found another ruling which stated a minister was not even obliged to seek the call when asked a question.

In Dunne’s view, such a practice was unusual, and even undesirable. But there was a clear precedent for Brownlee’s refusal.

And words of wisdom from the Speaker:

Saying he was not about to turn these past rulings on their heads, the Speaker still had something to say about Turei and Brownlee.

The former would be “well advised” to reflect on the wording of her questions. She promptly ignored him and asked another highly loaded question which went down the same track as its predecessors

As for Brownlee, the public would make its judgment. “Ministers would be very unwise to refuse to answer them, because in the court of public opinion a minister would be condemned for refusing to do so,” Smith said.

In other words, Brownlee should not make a habit of it.

Indeed.

Colin Espiner blogs on Mallard vs Lockwood:

Initially Mallard seemed to be suggesting taking a motion of no-confidence in the Speaker, but later said on his blog that Labour would “wait for a better case”.

I think he and his colleagues need to draw a deep breath and wait for a considerably better case.

Lockwood Smith is the best thing to happen to Opposition parties since Question Time was invented. He is easily the most fair, unbiased, and straightforward Speaker Parliament has had in years.

High praise.

In sports parlance, he’s a ref who plays advantage and isn’t always on the whistle. When Mallard took a frankly pathetic point of order yesterday to complain that Key wasn’t addressing the chair when he was speaking, but had his back to him, Smith shut him down quick-smart, saying he was more interested in what the Prime Minister was saying than how he was standing.

That’s what I like about Lockwood Smith. He doesn’t suffer foolish or pedantic points of order. He’s all but stamped out the tabling of press releases. He requires ministers to answer, not just address the question. And he doesn’t yell “order” every five seconds for some minor transgression.

For years people have used the ability to seek leave to table a document as a method of scoring an additional point. You would say something like “I seek leave to table the Minister’s press release of xx in which he says how poor people should move house”. Lockwood has no power to refuse to seek leave on behalf of a member, but often reminds the MP seaking leave to table such a document that the Standing Orders Committee has noted this is an abuse of standing orders as you should only seek leave to table a document MPs do not alreay have access to.

This has massively reduced such frivolous tablings, which means more time for actual questions and law making.

Overall, Labour should thank its lucky stars Lockwood Smith is the Speaker and quit moaning.

As a result, I think Parliament is a much more smooth-running and frankly democratic place.

Smith has thrown out far fewer MPs so far than his predecessor Margaret Wilson, and it was always odds-on that Mallard would be the one to finally go.

Colin is assuming that the Labour Opposition are glad to have a Speaker that has made Ministers more accountable and increased the public regard for Parliament.

I am not so sure that is a wise assumption. I would go further and suggest many in Labour hate the fact Lockwood is regarded so well by the gallery and those in the public who follow Parliament. Don’t think that Labour welcomed the changes Lockwood introduced. It was not only National Ministers who protested them. Senior Labour MPs on several occasions asked Lockwood to reconsider his new interpretation that Ministers must answer the question if it is a clear primary question with a potential factual response.

Hunt and Wilson were amongst the most partisan and well connected Labour MPs. They were tribal Labour. Imagine how galling it must be to senior Labour MPs to have even some of their own supporters talking about how great Lockwood is doing and by comparison how bad Wilson and Hunt were?

Those senior Labour MPs will also know that Lockwood’s forcing Ministers to answer questions will (ironically) actually help the Government as the sight of arrogant Ministers being asked “How many unemployed people are there” and refusing to actually give an answer is part of what creates the impression of time to go.

Finally the fact it is Lockwood that has proven so popular as Speaker will also chafe some in Labour. They opposed his nomination, and he has always been a target for certain Labour MPs.

So I think Labour are going to actively look for opportunities to try and attack Lockwood, and possible even no confidence him. They, I suspect, would be more than happy to go back to the old days, if they can.

Lockwood was pretty tough on the Government today. Made Rodney Hide admit there was no cost estimate for the Auckland re-organisation, told Pansy Wong off for far too long answers and slapped down Jonathan Coleman for not answering a question and just attacking the Opposition spokesperson.

To which I say – keep it up Lockwood. Good job.

I missed watching it live, but have now viewed the second segment of Q&A online. The guest was Lockwood Smith (and his fiancee).

The panel discussion afterwards was very interesting. It was Therese Arseneau, Paul Holmes, Ron Mark and Laila Harre. They were all very approving of Lockwood’s decision to try and get Ministers to answer the question, if it is a straight forward primary question.

Laila made an interesting point, about why this may have happened. She said that Lockwood is not personally or politically very close to the National Party Leadership. She contrasted that to Margaret Wilson and Jonathan Hunt who were both extremely close to Clark. In fact we got told how every time she had been in the Speaker’s office, Clark had phoned Hunt while she was there. There is a certain incompatability with being a senior advisor to the PM, and being the Speaker. And we saw that when we had the disgraceful collusion over Harry Duynhoven’s status as an MP.

Lockie I am sure values his own public reputation more than making life too easy for his colleagues. Hence why he has tried to change some things. And ironically I think it actually benefits National also, even though some weaker Ministers may find it hard going. The public see a Government as very arrogant when it refuses to answer even the most simple questions. It loses votes eventually.

What I have found interesting is that Lockie has actually introduced a number of changes, not just redefining the line between addressing and answering the questions. They are:

1. Playing “advantage”. This was referred to as a light handed regulatory approach with clear boundaries, but I see it as a rugby analogy where he concentrates more on kepping the game flowing, rather than penalising every technical infringement. Several times I have heard him say something along the lines of giving the Opposition more supplementaries because a Minister went on too long. So rather than pul everyone up, he is just striving for a reasonably fair process.
2. The previously referred to moving the boundary between addressing and answering the question
3. Is cracking down on points or order that are not points or order. Winston used to be the biggest offender at that – I would say only around 2% of his points or order were legitimate, but Wilson would never pull him up.
4. Discouraging tabling of documents just to be able to read out what it is. He can not stop anyone seeking leave to do so, but has tried to shame MPs by pointing out whenever they seek leave that they are abusing the process and leave should only be sought for documents not already available to MPs. And this seems to have had some effect on reducing such tabling requests
5. Time – it has been many years since question time took only an hour. Hell Helen called a snap election in 2002 because of a few extra minutes a day of question time. In the last two years it was routinely taking around 100 minutes. It is now a lot closer to 60 again.

TVNZ also has online the transcript of the interview with Judith Collins.

Audrey Young blogs three mea culpas:

• Gerry Brownlee’s stuff up over urgency for the Electoral Finance Act repeal
• David Parker’s mea culpa over inflicting us with the the Electoral Finance Act
• Audrey’s own mea culpa over her doubts about how Lockwood would go as Speaker

Gerry’s stuff up is also covered in this article.

John Armstrong praises Lockwood Smith for what he calls his “democratic bombshell”:

Take a bow, Lockwood Smith. At long last, the House has a Speaker who seems serious about removing the blight on New Zealand’s democracy – the increasing tendency of Cabinet ministers to thumb their noses at the constitutional convention that they are accountable to Parliament.

Smith dropped a bit of a bombshell on the first sitting day of the year when he expressed displeasure with Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson’s reply to an Opposition question about the minimum wage, and then instructed her to answer the question again.

Such a practice is almost unheard of. You could see the jaws of National Party colleagues collectively dropping in shock.

I am 100% with Lockwood on this. His ruling does not apply too all questions, but only to the pre-notified primary questions and only when they are asking something factual, rather than an opinion. In those circumstances, one should get a proper response. Now of course the Minister should be able to robustly swipe back at the Opposition also, but this should be on top of giving the actual answer, not instead of.

Such interventions will not win Smith plaudits from his colleagues. They sat in Opposition for nine frustrating years complaining about Labour ministers diving for cover when the political heat was on.

Now in Government, they would expect the boot to be on the other foot. That it isn’t may be unfair on National. But stopping the parliamentary rot meant someone had to start somewhere at some time. Smith has done the right thing by serving notice that he expects ministers to lift their game. The onus is now on him to continue in the manner in which he has begun.

I seem to recall the Herald’s Political Editor saying she thought Lockwood would bomb as Speaker. I look forward to her next blog

In a more minor change Lockwood has also changed the route the Speaker’s procession will take every sitting day at 2 pm. Rather than go straight from the Speaker’s Office to the back entrance to the House through a private corridor, it will now go through the main lobby, allowing the public to see it.

This met with support from all sides, but funniest comment was Dr Cullen who suggested Lockie make it clear that the press gallery can not ask questions of the Speaker during the official procession. I doubt even Duncan Garner would be quite that cheeky!

From Hansard today:

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister—or the country—have any confidence in the transparency and honesty of the Minister of Finance, who, while ramming through legislation before Christmas without subjecting it to the scrutiny of a select committee, deliberately suppressed and withheld from the public and parliamentarians the advice he received from his own ministry that the fundamental parts of that legislation were deeply flawed?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I have complete confidence in the Minister of Finance. If we want to have concerns about Ministers of Finance, maybe we should have concern for a former Minister of Finance, who may well find himself in breach of the Public Finance Act.

Ouch. Does JK know something or was it just a general reminder? Remember you can be prosecuted for breaching the Public Finance Act.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister categorically assure the House that National is not concealing Treasury advice or other departmental advice against any of the legislation now being introduced in the House today under urgency?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I can confirm that the Government is not concealing any briefings or hiding anything from the House. If the member wants to talk about concealing things, maybe he should go and ask people in his own research unit about that, because the last time I saw them they were concealing the booze from the parliamentary Christmas party.

There were gasps to that one. Talking of which what has happened to the thieves?

David Garrett: Can the Minister confirm that the prefab prison—when it is built—will not have underfloor heating, plasma televisions in every cell, and expensive gymnasium facilities, and that criminals in those facilities will be required to work?

Hon SIMON POWER: I can advise that there will be no underfloor heating or plasma televisions in a new prison. Inmates will have appropriate exercise facilities, rather than the type of gymnasium I saw at one of the new prisons built by the previous Government. It seemed flash enough to charge a joining fee and for yearly membership.

Heh annual gym membership fee indeed.

Sandra Goudie: Has the Minister received any other feedback on the cost savings from building prefabricated modular units?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes. The Leader of the Opposition has criticised the Government’s plan to save taxpayer dollars, stating that “If you are short-sighted enough to build something cheap and nasty you will be rebuilding before very long.”, and “When you are building a public institution, you build it to make it last.” That is a surprising claim, when the four prisons built under Labour, where costs blew out by half a billion dollars, have already racked up $9 million in repair bills.

Amazing what you learn once you are n Government.

Hon Annette King: Can she confirm that rather than sitting on its hands, as she claimed, Labour in Government reduced the unemployment rate from 7.5 percent to 3.8 percent through active labour market policies that saw 140,000 fewer people on the unemployment benefit, and if the previous Government’s policies did nothing, which programmes has she cancelled since she became Minister?

Here Annette tells a big porkie. Labour did not reduce the unemployment rate from 7.5%. It was 6.2% at the end of 1999 and at the end of 2008 it was 4.6% – a 1.6% reduction that averaged 0.18% a year reduction. Incidentially the unemployment rate under National declined by 2.5%, which was an average 0.28% a year reduction. And if you discount the nine months of 1991 before National’s policies such as the ECA kicked in, then the reduction was 4.7%, or an annual 0.57%.

Bottom line is Annette lied, and that the unemployment rate declined far more under National in the 1990s, than Labour during their nine years.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why did the Minister reopen the debate on Transmission Gully when it was the preferred route of the previous Government, and continues to be the preferred route of the Wellington region; and is it not a little hollow to claim, as he tried to yesterday, that the Crown contribution was unfunded, when it has been earmarked in the Crown accounts since 2005 when the Wellington regional transport package was first announced?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raised it because the previous Labour Government, which was in office for some 9 years, raised expectations regarding this route that were unfunded at the time that it left office. It suggested that $400 million would be allocated to complete the $1 billion project, but left the remaining $600 million to be funded by local bodies in the region. A regional fuel tax was talked of as a means by which that might happen; I am informed by the ministry that a Wellington regional fuel tax in the order of 13.5c per litre would be needed to fund the $600 million that the Government of the time left unfunded, so it could be described as more of a wish than a plan.

Nice line – more of a wish than a plan.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does the Minister agree in principle with the proposal for the Government to provide alternative funding for community law centres to ensure they do not need to drastically cut services at a time when demand for those services will inevitably increase; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON POWER: I can assure the member that I am taking this matter extremely seriously. This Government is committed to access to justice for all, not just for those privileged few who can afford to access such redress as that offered by, for example, the Supreme Court. Coincidentally, the drop in community law centres’ funding is roughly equivalent to the $4.3 million that was committed by the previous Government to the bronze plating of the new Supreme Court.

And that’s a home run!!

What I found most interesting is that Lockie is taking a strong line with Ministers about answering the question, if it is the primary question. He basically said that if the primary question is asking for some fact or figure, the Minister must provide that as they have hours to prepare for it.  I think it is excellent that he is raising the bar in this way.

I repeat what I said earlier: where primary questions are laid down clearly, members of the public expect an answer. When Ministers are answering questions, they can expect that the answers they give may be further questioned by members of the Opposition.

I was worried about how Lockwood may go as Speaker as he was not a lawyer or a standing orders expert. But he seems to have turned a potential weakness into a strength, noting today:

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further assistance on this matter. I do not want to take up further time of the House. Had the Prime Minister not wished to answer the question, he could have made it very clear that he believed the question was out of order. The Prime Minister seemed to answer it with some enthusiasm. That entitled the Leader of the Opposition to ask a further supplementary question, and I believe that is the way the House should flow, in good order. We do not need to get too precious and pedantic about these things.

This is like a good rugby referee – making sure the “game” keeps flowing. Of course one has to follow the rules, but a but of latitude is a good thing.

Of course not having Winston there does make it a lot easier!

The Dom Post Editorial also calls for an improvement in question time:

In theory, question time is one of the cornerstones of a parliamentary democracy, The Dominion Post writes. It gives the Opposition an opportunity to hold Government ministers publicly accountable for their stewardship of their portfolios.

In practice it is a farce. Names are called, tempers fray and points of order are endlessly relitigated.

As we saw today, with stupidity over electing the Deputy Speaker.

The root cause of many of the shenanigans is the standing order that requires ministers to “address” questions, but does not require them to answer them.

Instances happen every day.

Take just one example. In September, ACT leader Rodney Hide attempted to quiz then broadcasting minister Trevor Mallard about a 2004 TVNZ interview in which serious allegations were made about fishing company Simunovich Fisheries. The broadcast could be viewed on a blogger’s website, he informed Parliament. Had Mr Mallard seen the site or received any reports about it?

Mr Mallard responded by referring him to a different site that had nothing to do with the matters raised by Mr Hide, but ridiculed National leader John Key.

Mr Hide complained. Speaker Margaret Wilson ruled in Mr Mallard’s favour. “The member may not be satisfied with the answer and others will judge the quality of it, but it was addressing the question of blogs.”

The blog in question was Whale Oil, incidentally. But it is a good example. Serious criminal allegations involving perjury to a select committee were the topic of the question, and the Minister treated it as a joke and wouldn’t even give a straight answer to whether he had seen the leaked tape.

It would be naive to think that National ministers, who have spent the past nine years suffering at Labour’s hands, were now going to turn the other cheek and answer questions in a straightforward manner. But new Speaker Lockwood Smith will do himself and his National Party a favour if he insists on a greater degree of relevancy in ministerial answers.

Indeed.

A Speaker’s reputation is inextricably linked with that of the Parliament over which he or she presides. A government’s reputation is influenced by the way its members conduct themselves in the debating chamber – the theatre in which their actions receive the greatest scrutiny. That is something Labour forgot at its cost during its last term in office.

Labour’s sense of entitlement was very vivid in their last term.

My day started in Auckland. I stayed up there for an extra day as National’s Northern Region had its Christmas Party on Sunday Night. The Regional Chair spoke about how well the Party did locally n both the party and the electorate vote.

John Key gave a very funny speech. There were serious parts about the future of mass membership parties, the financial crisis etc but I remember the part about his son ringing him up a few days ago, from the place he was babysitting at and complaining he was hungry. When John asked what he was meant to do, he was informed that as Prime Minister he can surely arrange for some pizzas of he can run the country. The story continued with how impressed the Pizza Hut staff were to have the PM call in an order, and now that they have his cellphone number they let him know how he is doing in the job

This morning I was on the same flight as Helen Clark, and in fact was set to be just behind her in the queue to board the plane. I was just about to greet her automatically with “Good Morning Prime Minister” until I realised that of course is no longer the salutation. I actually had to stop and think for quite a few seconds about what the correct greeting would be, and settled on “Miss Clark”. But by then she had left the line.

Headed into Parliament a bit after 1 pm, and for the first time in nine years sat on the side of the visitors gallery opposite the Government benches. It was nice to be able to see the Nats back on the Speaker’s right.

There was a TV set up in the gallery, so we could see the three Commissioners cross the road and walk through the grounds and corridors of Parliament to the House. The Governor-General is not allowed in the House so he sends three Commissioners to do the opening. They were the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief High Court Judge.

Dame Sian read out the various proclamations and asked the MPs to elect a Speaker. The Commissioners then exited the House and the Clerk of the House proceeded to swear MPs in. They come up in alphabetical order and are grouped by whether they swear or affirm the oath and on whether they speak in English or Maori.

Lots of MPs did modified versions of the oath, as their way to try and score a point. It got a bit tiresome really, as after they did their version, they then did the official one. Several MPs tried to add on references to the Treaty of Waitangi (including a European MP), and Sio tried it in Samoan before doing it in English. I did have to laugh though at Hone Harawira’s one which bore no resemblance at all to the oath as he went on about a duty to Te Tai Tokerau, Aotearoa, his constituents, the public etc. He then did the much shorter standard one.

The funniest part was when they called Darren Hughes and Parekura Horomia up together. This was a slip up as Parekura was to do it in Maori, and Darren in English. Rather than make a fuss Darren said it in Maori with Parekura – he didn’t even do a Milli Vanilli but managed the words well.

Then the election of Speaker at around 2.45 pm. Lockwood was the only nominee and certainly looked the part. He did a really good acceptance speech and referred to being in Parliament when Speaker Gerry Wall threw out the PM and the Opposition Leader on the same day. He said he hoped not to emulate that record but would do so if it was necessary!

This then led to several other MPs telling uncomplimentary stories of Speaker Wall (generally regarded as worst Speaker in living memory) as they congratulated Lockwood. Talking of Lockwood, Audrey Young has a blog on what she sees as his strengths and weaknesses for the job.

Normally after the House elects a Speaker-Elect (believe it or not the GG has to confirm them in the role), the Speaker-Elect travels to Government House to be confirmed and ask the GG to respect the privileges of the House etc. But as Government House is being renovated, we got a rare treat and MPs (and their guests) got to witness the ceremony being held in the Legislative Council Chamber. Took around half an hour all up.

As we were waiting I was chatting to a Minister about special votes and overseas votes and how he was keen for me to do some analysis around them. As I agreed to do so, one of the new Labour MPs sitting just in front of us turns around, and says she’d like a copy also

Actually I’ll probably stick it on the blog once I do finish it, as it is all sourced from public information.

After the GG/Speaker ceremony, there was a function in the State Banquet Hall, hosted by the GG. Got to meet a few of the new MPs I had not yet met, which was nice. What was funny was when talking to one new Labour MP and her husband, the photographer asked if we wanted our photo taken together. I quipped that it would probably knock 1,000 votes off her majority so we declined

Finally as I was leaving Parliament, I had the good fortune to be on the forecourt just as Emma Daken arrived. I blogged about Emma a few days ago – she is walking the length of New Zealand to raise money for cystric fibrosis research. MP Katrina Shanks pointed her out to me. Katrina, like many MPs, has been really supportive of Emma’s efforts. She’s now raised $21,000 but still some way off the $50,000 target. You can donate online to here at this site. I find what people like Emma are doing is really inspiring in its selflessness.

So a pretty full day. Tomorrow is the state opening and the GG reads out the speech from the throne. After that I expect the House will elect a Deputy Speaker, two Assistant Speakers and also appoint MPs to Select Committees. They will then start the address in reply debate, but also go into urgency to introduce and pass some of the laws they promised.

The maiden speeches will start tomorrow, and the best speeches you will ever hear in Parliament are (in my order) valedictory speeches, maiden speeches and then speeches on conscience issues. With 35 MPs that is a heck of a lot of maiden speeches (I guess Sir Roger won’t get one though) so I doubt I can cover them all, but will try to cover a few of them anyway.

NZPA report:

Mr Goff today repeated criticism of National leader John Key’s decision to nominate as Speaker Lockwood Smith, whom he believes is too partisan to be fair.

This is nonsense, especially coming from the party that appointed Jonathan Hunt and Margaret Wilson to the Speakership. Someone should challenge Goff to explain how Smith would be more partisan than Hunt or Wilson?

He also said National intended to appoint Lindsay Tisch as deputy speaker.

He must read my blog, as that fact went unreported until I highlighted it from the video of the press conference

Both Dr Smith and Mr Tisch missed out on Cabinet roles and Mr Goff said the appointments were to placate the long-serving MPs rather than choosing the right person for the job.

Now here Goff is on stronger ground than the nonsense about Lockwood being too partisan. It is a political reality that there not being room for them in Cabinet is a strong factor in why they are the nominees for Speaker and Deputy Speaker.

But this does not mean they will not prove to be sound choices. Doug Kidd was made Speaker in 1996, basically because they needed room in Cabinet for new Ministers. But Kidd went on to be an excellent Speaker.

And let us remember Labour made Ann Hartley Deputy Speaker, and she was a disaster.

He said the roles were being treated as “a dumping ground for those that can’t get into Cabinet” and thought MPs like Eric Roy and John Carter were better choices.

Eric and John would be very sound choices, and there are factors such as Cabinet inclusion at work. But those in glasshouses should not throw stones. Here is who Labour is putting up for Assistant Speaker:

Labour would have nominated Rick Barker for the role.

Asked why Mr Robertson was not considered, Mr Goff said while he was fond of the role he had other talents, had been appointed as spokesman in several areas and was a useful local MP.

Now could anyone claim Barker would be better than Robertson who is widely respected? Of course not. So Goff is guilty of exactly what he accuses National of.

The Herald reports four contenders for Speaker. They are:

1. Lockwood Smith
2. John Carter
3. Eric Roy
4. Richard Worth

They each have their own claims for the job. Lockwood is National’s longest serving MP. John Carter has been a Whip for many years, knowing Standing Orders well. Eric Roy was a very popular Assistant Speaker and Richard Worth would being a first class legal talent to the role.

This may dismay some, but I think Michael Cullen would also be a damn good Speaker. But I think his latest game playing over Treasury accounts has killed off any chance that he could be seen to make the transition from partisan player to referee.

As for the four candidates, it will presumably go to a National Caucus decision and then the preferred candidate checked with coalition partners.

But wouldn’t it be nice if it was left to the House as a whole to decide? If all parties would agree not to apply the whip and allow a free vote, then they could have a preferential ballot as allowed for in Standing Order 19. It would be fascinating to see all MPs vote from their seats.

I presume two of the unsucessful candidates will probably become Assistant Speakers and that Labour’s Ross Robertson will be Deputy Speaker.

UPDATE: Mallard is against Lockwood being Speaker. That probably helps Lockwood immensely.

Over today (and maybe beyond) I’m going to review the 70 electorate battles. Helping me in this will be the nice graphics above done by the NZ Herald.

Northland

On the party vote National was up around 6% and Labour down 5%. The majority for Carter of around 9,500 is unchanged despite Shane Jones being the candidate. A party vote of over 50% for National is quite exceptional for what is a relatively low income area. Of course some peopel going on the Te Tai Tokerau roll makes the comparison not so simple.

Whangarei

NZ First once almost won this seat, but Heatley has made it his own. The party vote for National hit 50% in a first – up 7% and Labour dropped 8%. Heatley’s 9,000 majority has expanded to 13,600 making it one of the safest in the country now.

Rodney

Not too many small handed voters here as Lockwood’s majority climbs from under 10,000 to 14,400. The party vote National goes from 52% to 59% and Labour falls from 28% to 21%.

Helensville

John lifted this party vote from 55% to 65%, and Labour fell from 28% to 18%. And his personal majority went from 12,500 to a stunning 18,500 – the largest in the country I think.

Overall the four seats north of Auckland averaged 56% party vote for National, making it one of the strongest regions in the country for them, if not the strongest.

Colin Espiner speculates that Lockwood Smith will be made Speaker.

Lockie is a former host of W3, so I guess that will be good training

Colin also predicts portfolios:

• Welfare: Paula Bennett
• Corrections/Police: Judith Collins
• Justice: Simon Power
• Education: Anne Tolley
• Health: Tony Ryall
• Trade: Tim Groser
• Foreign: Murray McCully

Was on Larry Williams just before six pm. Larry was defending recent utterances from National MPs, and I was criticising them!

The point I tried to make is it is not just about whether something is true or not. For example it is of course true that new roads built with a PPP will have tolls on them and sure the toll could be $3.

But the issue is whether one even wants to talk hypothetical prices on hypothetical roads. This allows Labour and/or the media to conjure up images of every road into Auckland having a toll on it. And many people do not read beyond the $30 a week toll headline.

TV3 did an item on Lockwood’s comments and talked to some local employers of seasonal labour and they said much the same thing as Lockwood. However my criticism still stands – in an election campaign you have to think five seconds ahead of what you say, and avoid giving needless ammo to your opponents.

Stuff is reporting comments from Lockwood Smith that at best are stupid and at worst offensive:

“There are some skills in the vineyard that some people are perhaps better at,” Dr Smith was reported saying in the Marlborough Express newspaper.

“For example some of the pruning…some of the Asian workers have been more productive…because their hands are smaller.”

Dr Smith said employers should not be solely responsible for teaching or funding training that prepared workers for life in New Zealand.

“Some of them are having to teach them things like how to use a toilet or shower…I don’t think the employer should have to pay for that work.

The RSE scheme is 78% Pacific Island, so the latter comment is being seen as referring to Pacific Islanders.

Lockwood has apologised for his comments, which were repeating what employers had told him:

“My comments, regarding the extent to which employers, under the RSE scheme were being required to provide life skills training to RSE workers, were simply reporting the strong concerns expressed to me by many employers.

“These reported concerns have been expressed in the media previously, and there has been strong advocacy for future changes to the scheme to deal with them.

“Presented in the way they were, I can see that my reported comments may have caused offence. I sincerely regret that because it certainly was not my intention.

Lockwood should not have made the comments, regardless of what employers have told him. Firstly racial generalisations in public are rarely helpful – even if accurate that many Asians do have smaller hands.

The comments on some RSE workers needing teaching to use a toilet or shower are more unwise, in fact quite offensive. I am sure it is true that some workers have needed this teaching, but Lockwood’s mistake was to repeat this anecdotal evidence without any context at all – is it 1% of RSE workers, 10% or 50%? By just referring to anecdotal evidence, it allows people to assume it is a massive problem – something I suspect it not correct. Certainly I would be offended if I was an RSE workers by those comments as it tars them all with the same brush.

In an election campaign, the need for discipline is paramount. Especially in an election where there will be few being spending policy announcements, so stuff like this can end up as a big story for many days.

John Key I have no doubt is bloody angry with Lockwood – both for the comments per se, but also the timing. An option that will be in play is whether the comments merit sacking Lockwood – Roar Prawn certainly thinks this should happen.

I think it is a close call. It would be very sad for Lockwood’s career to end on such a stupidity. He has been a very hard working and diligent MP and Spokesperson – exposing many a wrong-doing in the Immigration Service. We do need to be careful not to demand MPs be without fault. I am not saying one should do a Helen and keep Winston with the baubles of office no matter what he says or does. But few MPs never ever stuff up.

On the other hand, not sacking Lockwood may cause the comments to be more than a one day issue, and sometimes you have to be pragmatic and just accept politics can be very harsh. Sacking Lockwood would also reinforce to National MPs the consequences of stupid utterances in election campaigns.

There are only 17 days left before the election. This means that what positive news National wanted to get out today, will be over-shadowed by this. Stupid indeed.

I suspected, reading the Bill English transcript, that this was not some conversation picked up accidentially between a delgate and Bill. It seemed to me the person he was talking to was most likely to have been the one doing the recording – ie someone fraudulently posing as a National Party delegate asked him questions, while secretly taping him.

This was confirmed with the release of recordings with Lockwood Smith. So my suspicions were correct. I am not terribly shocked – in fact I had predicted such tactics in presentations I have done to the Chamber of Commerce etc. We have seen similar in the US.

This will to some degree set off a race to the bottom as secret tape recordings become a standard tactic in politics.

Anyway let us go to what Lockwood said, according to NZ Herald:

There’s some bloody dead fish you have to swallow … to get into Government to do the kinds of things you want to do … and you have to balance up what really matters.

Heh the term is dead rats. This part is just the obvious. You drop unpopular policies in the areas that do not matter so much so you get to do work in the areas that matter most. This is for example why Labour finally gacve in on tax cuts – to get a fourth term.

If you try to do everything differently you’ll scare the horses and under MMP it’s very hard to win.

Again nothing unusual there.

Once we have gained the confidence of the people, we’ve got more chance of doing more things.

This is in fact the exact opposite of having a secret agenda. I have said much the same on this blog – you gain confidence by keeping your promises, not breaking them, and establishing good faith with the electorate. If National, for examples, serves a first term without selling any state assets, then it means if they campaign in 2011 to consider selling (for example) 25% of Solid Energy, people will trust National that they would only sell those assets it says it will, and not sell everything. You do not gain confidence to break it – you gain it, to keep faith with it. Otherwise you get thrown out.

We may be able to do some things we believe we need to do, perhaps go through a discussion document process … you wouldn’t be able to do them straight off … I’m hoping that we’ll do some useful things that way that may not be policy right now.

And again here he is talking good faith again – talking about having a public discussion process on proposed policies.

Labour are desperate to work up the fear of broken promises and secret agendas, because once National is in office – and does keep its promises, they will never have that weapon again. Anyone who thinks John Key is going to break his election commitments does not know the man well. My prediction is he will have a big wall chart of all the election commitments and have monthly progress reports on how things are going towards implementing them. There will in fact be a zealousness about making sure that in 2011, no-one can seriously claim National broke its word.

The Government is moving in the right direction with its decision to have the Auditor-General investigate the Immigration Service. This is on top of the SSC, Labour Department and Police investigations.

Few would dispute that the Auditor-General has more independence than an internal inquiry by SSC or Labour. In that regard, asking the AG to investigate is a good thing.

Lockwood Smith makes the point that the AG may not be able to investigate what Ministers were told, and when. Certainly it appears in some areas Ministers were never briefed – namely the non doctorate by LSE. But they were briefed it seems on the Oughton report and the investigation into setting up the Pacific Branch.

Yesterday National’s immigration spokesman, Lockwood Smith, said the Auditor-General’s inquiry had to include ministerial involvement. “David Cunliffe and Clayton Cosgrove were briefed but did nothing.”

But Helen Clark said she was satisfied her ministers had acted appropriately on the information they were given.

With all respect, I’d feel much more reassured if there was some verification of that. The issue is whether the public agree that Ministers acted appropriately – and for that to happen, more information is needed.

However it appears the Auditor-General will get to set his own terms of reference – that is a good thing.

Just to show that there is no shame, have a look at how Labour Ministers both claimed wrongly a National MP had said something he had not, but then how nasty they get, and how the Speaker protects them. From yesterday:

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What changed between the time when David Cunliffe, the then Minister of Immigration, was briefed, as he now alleges, on completion of the Oughton inquiry in July of last year, and when he himself was fully briefed in December last year on the Oughton report—what changed between then and April this year, when the Oughton report was exposed to public scrutiny, other than the fact that the cover-up was over?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In order to assist the member, I tell him that the previous Minister was not briefed in December. I was the Minister at that time.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I said you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, the member said “the Minister at the time”, and “the previous Minister”.

Now have a look at the Hansard.  Lockwood clearly refers to David Cunliffe as per-December and Cosgrove as the Minister in December as he says “he himself” in the question to Cosgrove. Cosgrove is clearly wrong with his insistance Lockwood had it wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’re wrong.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I think we may need stretcher-bearers for one particular member. This is a serious issue, and should be dealt with in a serious way. We may need stretcher-bearers for the other Dr Smith. Can I say—

Now again remember Cosgrove is in the wrong here, and Nick Smith is correct in backing up Lockwood. So what does Cosgrove do – resort to the normal smear they use against Nick.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order; it will be heard in silence.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister, in reciting my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s question, was mistaken in his restating of the course of events. In response to an interjection from me saying that he was wrong, I was then subjected to personal abuse. I think it would be helpful if Dr Smith re-asked his question—in which his dating and timing were correct—because it seems that the Minister was confused about the question that my colleague Dr Smith was asking.

Nick doesn’t respond to the taunt, but just makes the point that the Ministers were mistaken so the question should be re-asked, so the Minister addresses the correct question.

Hon David Parker: I, as well as Minister Clayton Cosgrove, listened carefully to the question, and I am clear that the question that was asked included the imputation that the Minister was the prior Minister, not the current Minister, and that is the point to which Mr Cosgrove was responding.

David Parker jumps in, and also has it clearly wrong, as the Hansard shows.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their interventions. I think if members would keep the noise down, it would be easier to hear. As I have said, interjections do occasion responses. Would the Minister please just respond to the question as succinctly as possible.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would appear that confusion has arisen around my question. It was very clear. I would be very happy to repeat it to avoid that confusion.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think we should take it in the order it was. I am happy to look at the Hansard. I heard it also in the way that, I am afraid, others did. The member, obviously, feels that he did ask another question. As I said, I am happy to go and look at it later. Could we have a succinct answer to the question, and there is always an opportunity to ask another question—there are still supplementary questions available.

And now the Speaker also gets it wrong, and even worse won’t let Lockwood re-ask the question, despite the fact clearly the Ministers misheard what he said.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are on question No. 8 and we have had Dr Nick Smith running interference on every question across the House. He is not asking questions; he is just interjecting and yelling out personal comments. I think we have just about had enough today, and I ask you to require him not to continue going on in that fashion.

Annette seems to have missed the log in her own colleague’s eyes.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I think that today comments have been made from all sides of the House. Obviously, it does create disorder, and it has. Members have noted the comments that have been made from all sides of the House on this matter. Could I please ask the Minister to succinctly address the question, and then we will ask Dr Smith to ask the question again. Thank you.

And then the Speaker totally confused says Cosgove will answer/address the question, and then have it re-asked!!! And then it isn’t!

Labour have been warned many times over their repeated goes at Nick with references to taking pills, and now out on a stretcher. That is bad enough at any time, but Labour may wish to consider the old saying that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Ever since the “lie in unison” scandal it has been apparent not all has been well with the NZ Immigration Service. As more is revealed over the preferential treatment given to family members of the NZIS Head, the need for a full inquiry into NZIS grows.

Immigration staff were ordered by a senior official to override normal policies to process late residency applications by Kiribati family members of top immigration official Mary-Anne Thompson. …

In the report, former justice secretary David Oughton said he was concerned about a more widespread problem, saying staff told him the order to breach policy was “not an isolated case”.

Mr Oughton said that when staff were ordered to make decisions they felt breached policy, they wrote “as instructed by” to indicate they had not made the decision themselves.

And even worse:

“The report shows an official had the practice of going round the office until they found someone prepared to take the direction. The fact that staff said this was a reasonably common practice is very serious.”

That is amazing. How can Ministers not think such a culture is an issue?

I don’t think I have seen a bigger beatup than what One News led with last night. It was puerile and almost offensive as they demanded two National MPs bow down and answer questions on their personal views on global warming.

Let us first start with some known political reality. On every single issue that a party decides policy on, there are a range of views within Caucus. Sir Keith Holyoake is on the record as saying that even as PM, he only personally agreed with 80% of what his Government did.  This is the nature of collective decision making and compromise.

Does every National MP support the silly ban on party pills? Absolutely not. But they decided as a caucus to support the Government’s legislation. Does every Labour MP support the ban? Again, absolutely not.

It is absolutely routine and everyday that MPs have private views, which are sceptical or different to a party’s policy. It is impossible to imagine otherwise – MPs are not clones.

It is absolutely no surprise that some National MPs are sceptical of the extent of global warming. But as Williamson and Smith said last night, they are committed to the party’s policy to reduce emissions through an emissions trading scheme.  That is what matters. If National is elected, they will be judged on their record with policy and actual emissions (and let us face it can hardly have a worse emissions record than Labour has had).
Let us look at a comparison for another party. Labour (like National on Kyoto) have recently done a policy change.  For Labour it was on tax cuts.  After years of opposing them and even hiking taxes, they have as a party adopted a policy of lowering personal tax rates.

Now is there anyone dumb enough to think that every single Labour MP genuinely believes that lowering personal tax rates is a good thing (as oppossed to a politically desirable thing). Of course not – there isn’t a chance in hell. Good God they have spent years demonising tax cuts.

But Labour as a Caucus, have decided to implement tax cuts, and hence their MPs are committed to voting for them.

So why has One News not furiously chased down Labour MPs and asked them to all state on camera what their *personal* views are on reducing taxes? Not, whether or not they support what their party’s policy is, but whether they personally think tax cuts are more desirable than increased spending?