Labour’s drilling split

November 27th, 2013 at 5:35 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The standoff over deep sea drilling off the Raglan coast is threatening a split in Labour.

Labour MP Shane Jones has backed oil drilling giant Anadarko in a move which puts him at odds with other members of the caucus, including environment spokeswoman Moana Mackey who today called for a slow down in the mineral exploration programme. …

Speaking on Maori TV’s Te Kaea tonight, Jones was outspoken about attempts to stop Anadarko from deep sea drilling and said the protesters should remember that the company had a statutory right to be there.

“Protesters need to bear in mind we are buying oil out of the Gulf of Mexico and other far-flung places when we should be focusing on making an industry in our own country.”

Anadarko was spending a million dollars a day on its programme and that was good for New Zealand, Jones said.

Jones is Labour’s spokesperson on economic development and is ranked No 5, on their front bench. I hope he speaks for Labour, but does he?

But Mackey appeared to back the protesters and blamed the Government for Greenpeace’s announcement that it intends to challenge the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) decision to allow Anadarko to carry out deep sea drilling off the Raglan coast .

She said the regulatory environment under which Anadarko was permitted to drill was “deliberately permissive” and the process had been a shambles.

She also accused the Government of being desperate to expedite deep sea oil and gas exploration because it had no plan B for jobs – which also puts her at odds with Jones, who believes mining is a potential boon for jobs.

Mackey is ranked No 18 and is the Environment Spokesperson. Will the views of No 18 trump the views of No 5?

David Shearer is the Energy Spokesperson. What are his views? Maybe Labour can have three different policies on this issue, rather than just two!

Labour leader David Cunliffe was unavailable for comment.

I bet he was.

Tags: , , ,

Quotes from Marriage committee stages

March 28th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Some good speeches last night during the committee stages. No amendments got accepted but I would make the point that I had no problem with one of the amendments – it was more than it is un-necessary.

I believe no marriage celebrant should be forced to officiate at a marriage that they don’t wish to. As a matter of law, I don’t think they can be forced under the current Act. Section 29 talks about authorising, but not obliging. This means that for example Catholic priests can refuse to marry a divorced person.

There is also the practical issue that Kiwis are pretty common sense on these things. Why would anyone want to force an unwilling celebrant into marrying them, on what should be their happiest day. You’d be nuts to. So while there are some important principles at stake here, let’s not think that this will ever have practical impact.

Now the Select Committee said that there is a concern that possibly some church ministers could face an issue under the Bill of Rights Act. Bearing in mind the fact no Catholic priest has ever faced action for not marrying a divorcee, I think the possibility was remote. However they said let’s be explicit instead of implicit and give celebrants who represent a religion a clear statement they can not be forced.

One of the amendments yesterday was to extend that explicit exemption to all celebrants, not just religious ones. I didn’t have a huge problem with this. In fact I am a bit nervous about singling out celebrants who represent a religion as more deserving. So that amendment passing wouldn’t have been a major issue for me. But likewise if no celebrant had an explicit exemption, I’d be okay with that also as I believe the current S29 which only authorises but not obliges is enough protection. And finally of course it is all highly unlikely to ever be tested as no one wants an unwilling celebrant at their wedding.

Anyway some extracts from MPs speeches. Moana Mackey:

 And can I just point out an issue of reality, which is that this is unlikely to be a problem. On one of the most important days of your life, I do not think that any couple is going to want to have someone presiding over their ceremony who does not want to be there and who is there only under the threat of legal action. That is why this has never been an issue since 1955. It has not been an issue since the Civil Union Act came in in 2004. I do not believe it is going to be an issue going on into the future.

And on the referendum issue:

Members mentioned Switzerland, where they do these issues by referenda all the time and as a result women did not get the vote until 1971—1971. I want to tell members the reasons that were given at the time were that men and women are fundamentally different. On the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs website they point out, saying … What the department said at the time—one of the reasons given as to why women should not be given the vote—was that “It wouldn’t promote equality because their natural modesty would stop them going out to vote when pregnant, and since rural women have more babies than those in town, this would give an unfair advantage to the latter.”

People can always find a reason to oppose change.

Rajen Prasad:

There is one final element that influenced me, and it was this. This bill takes nothing away from anybody. It actually takes nothing away. Those who argue that it does somehow reduce us as a society, in terms of our spirituality, certainly have a difficulty with me because there is nothing about my relationship, my family, my marriage that is negated or diminished in any way. I know that the institution of marriage has been developed for a long time, and no doubt will continue to develop. It is not set in a form that has always been the same. It has always developed. A bit like our society and our civilisation, this institution will also develop.

Paul Goldsmith:

I have certainly struggled with this bill and given it a great deal of thought because it lies in the territory between two of my core political philosophies. My conservative instincts on one hand lead me to respect traditions and the wisdom of centuries. Marriage has traditionally been conceived as being between a man and a woman, and in the British and Christian traditions for centuries it has been between one single man and one single woman. That has been the case only because it has made perfectly good sense. Institutions and ideas change over time, but the conservative in me makes me hesitate before changing something that has served society well for so long. I certainly understand and respect the strength of feeling of many New Zealanders who feel that we should keep things the way we are. Running parallel to that, however, my guiding political belief is my commitment to freedom for people to live their lives in different ways with respect. Life is interesting, society is dynamic, and culture is diverse when people are free and have the liberty to live in different ways. It was 25-odd years ago when we agreed that the State should not outlaw homosexual acts and very few people disagree with that now. So I can understand why some gay couples would like to have access to the institution of marriage. People often ask “Well, why do they want marriage when they can have civil unions already?”. The answer is, of course, that words are important, which is why people on both sides feel so strongly about it. On balance, I have decided that for me freedom or individual conscience trumps tradition, so I am supporting this bill.

A nice contribution from Goldie, on balancing his beliefs.

My background has been that I was raised in the Christian faith in the Baptist church. Many of my relatives and friends from that background are disappointed that I am voting for this bill, and I understand their disappointment, but I would remind them that the Baptist church was born out of the idea of non-conformity. The early Baptists gathered together because they disagreed with aspects of the established church and suffered terribly for their individual beliefs. That tolerance of religious non-conformity, which English-speaking peoples had arrived at, certainly by the nineteenth century, was fundamental in establishing many of the freedoms and the liberties that we enjoy today.

Paul is a writer of history so knows his stuff.

It is highly likely the third reading will be on Wednesday the 17th of April.

Tags: , , ,

Labour’s nominations

September 8th, 2010 at 7:06 pm by David Farrar

Labour have announced:

Labour Party organisations in these electorates will hold their confirmation meetings shortly:

• Bay of Plenty Carol Devoy-Heena

Lost in 2008 by 17,604 votes. Ranked 76th (2nd bottom). I think Tony Ryall can relax.

• Botany Koro Tawa

Ranked No 65. Lost by 10,872 in 2008. Not a lot of new blood coming through is there!

• Christchurch East Lianne Dalziel

An MP since 1990.

• Coromandel Hugh Kininmonth

Lost by 14,560 in 2008. Ranked 75th (third bottom)

• East Coast Moana Mackey

Lost by 6,413 to Anne Tolley. List MP since 2003.

• East Coast Bays Vivienne Goldsmith

Lost by 13,794 to Prince of Darkness. Ranked No 67 in 2008.

• Hamilton East Sehai Orgad

2007 President of compulsory Waikato Student’s Union. Stood for East ward of Hamilton City Council in 2007 and came 10th.

• Hauraki-Waikato Nanaia Mahuta

MP since 1996

• Helensville Jeremy Greenbrook-Held

Very appropriate Jeremy stands against John Key as he writes so many letters to the editor complaining about the Government.  2005 President of the compulsory VUWSA. Is standing for Henderson-Massey Local Board in 2010 elections.

A little known trivia fact is that a few years ago Jeremy and I co-authored a petition to Subway asking them to reverse their sacking of an employee for sharing a free $2 staff coke with a friend.

• Manukau East Ross Robertson

MP since 1987.

• New Plymouth Andrew Little

Former President of compulsory VUWSA, and NZUSA. Labour Party President.

• Rotorua Steve Chadwick

Lost her seat in 2008 by 5,065 votes. MP since 1999.

• Selwyn David Coates

Lost in 2008 by 11,075 votes.Ranked No 74 (fourth bottom) on list.

• Taranaki-King Country Rick Barker

Now this is weird. Barker presumably can’t get nominated again in Tukituki, so desperate to carry on has headed to the west coast. Has been an MP since 1993.

• Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove

MP since 1999. Holding on with a 390 vote majority.

• Wellington Central Grant Robertson

Former President of compulsory OUSA and then NZUSA.

• Wigram Megan Woods

2007 Mayoral candidate against Bob Parker.

If the list above, is Labour rejuvenating, then someone has a sick sense of humour. Their only new candidates are from compulsory student associations.

Of their 2008 candidates, the ones standing again were all ranked in the bottom dozen, and lost by huge majorities.  Where are the Kate Suttons, Michael Woods, Conor Roberts, and Louisa Walls  who all actually have some talent?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The worst behaved in Parliament list

December 23rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

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?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bill having fun

July 24th, 2009 at 10:16 am by David Farrar

I suspect Bill English enjoyed yesterday. It is always a bad sign for an Opposition when Governments are looking forward to question time and complaining it is only three days a week. From Hansard:

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has a great deal more confidence in the Minister than a certain Charles Chauvel had in a former Minister when, as president of the Labour Youth Council in 1988, he told the then employment Minister, Phil Goff, to “take action or resign”. Charles Chauvel is probably feeling the same way today.

Some Researcher or staffer earned his pay yesterday.

Chris Tremain: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of an employment Minister dealing with rising unemployment during a recession?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, he has seen a report that states: “It takes more than hot air, more than rhetoric, and more than using the backs of unemployed people to make political points. … I despair at the gamesmanship of politicians trying to get votes from the problem of unemployment”. That was said by Annette King in this House.

This is the problem you have when both the Leader and Deputy Leader were Ministers in not just the last Government, but also the one a decade before that.

Moana Mackey: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister responsible for cutting the training incentive allowance, and does he agree with Christine of Gisborne, a solo mother of four who now cannot do the nursing qualification that would enable her to move off the domestic purposes benefit and into paid work, when she says: “The Government has been sitting there telling us to upskill, get into jobs, not run up debt, to ride out the recession, and then they go and take away the assistance that some people need to enable this to happen.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What we have learnt from the activities of the Labour Party over the last month is that we have to be pretty careful about believing whether Christine of Gisborne even exists, and also whether she is on the domestic purposes benefit, whether she owns three investment houses, and whether all the information she has given to the Labour Party about her situation has been truthfully represented here.

Once bitten, twice shy. Everyone is going to be very wary of any “example” put forward by Labour.

Tags: , , , , ,

Watch the Ministers sing

April 15th, 2008 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

If you know of any swinging voters, please make sure they see this video of Labour Ministers Ruth Dyson, Maryan Street, Steve Chadwick (and MP Moana Mackey) singing their anti John Key song. I am trying to persuade National to get it made into a DVD and sent to every household!

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Tags: , , , , , ,

Back Benches

April 11th, 2008 at 2:50 am by David Farrar

I am in danger of getting addicted to Back Benches, even though Tim Selwyn still isn’t a fan. I actually like the lighter side such as poking through an MP’s office.

I like being able to watch the show live while drinking and eating at the Backbencher. And this week the MPs didn’t interject so much, which made it better I though. The MPs on Wednesday were Moana Mackey, Chester Borrows, Ron Mark and Sue Bradford.

They encourage three audience questions to the MPs during the show, and when there seemed to be a lack of volunteers, I agreed to ask a question to Ron Mark.

Now I actually get on very well with Ron, having worked with him in Government in the 1990s,  and I admire his loyalty to his Leader even though I think it is misplaced. But that didn’t stop Ron immediately loudly exclaiming that I was a National plant as I got up to ask my question, and so it made good theatre.

I though I asked a very fair, not at all loaded question, just inquiring whether the MPs thought it was a good thing or a bad thing that NZ had a Foreign Minister who was against foreign trade deals, against foreign investment and against foreigners being able to come and live in NZ :-)

Ron said they were not against any of those things, they just wanted smarter investment, smarter trade etc, Wallace (the host) then asked me the three questions from the NZ First ad.  I happily said yes I support the China FTA.  Then he asked if I supported selling the NZ dairy industry overseas.  I was a bit puzzled by that one because as I said, I wasn’t aware it was for sale, and if so who was selling it.  And how would a sale work – are we actually talking of moving all the cows to Japan or something? Finally I concluded that I think the cows are happier in NZ.

I thought Moana Mackey did very well- relaxed and on message.  I did hope though that when they asked her does she think the Diana inquest got it right, she would proclaim no, no Prince Philip really did murder her. Chester Borrows also good – supporting the FTA, and carefully tip-toeing through the issue of Winston. Ron Mark was on the receiving end of most of it, but as usual was the happy battler. Sue Bradford was fairly subdued, but got good cheers from the large contingent of Green supporters.

So was lots of fun, and was nice the MPs stayed around for a while to chat with the people in the BB.

Tags: , , , , ,