Kiwiblog

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?