Kiwiblog

At 6 pm off to an ASPG event at Parliament on how the relationship between Parliament and the Executive — how it has evolved over the past 20 years and where the relationship might head over the next 20.

At 9 pm will be at Backbenches, where I’ll be doing a 60 second soapbox on the issue of the NZ Flag. I’ll even have some Canadian and Australian flags with me as visual props!

Tomorrow morning I’m one of three submitters appearing on the Electoral (Administration) Bill between 10 am and 11 am in Bowen House. This is the bill that merges the Electoral Commission with the Chief Electoral Office. The major issue all three submitters (The other two are Andrew Geddis and the NZ Law Society) have raised are that the new Commission should be an Independent Officer of Parliament, or the very least the appointment of Commissioners should not be decided by the Minister of Justice, but require parliamentary agreement.

Not sure how this will look as have cut and paste from an e-mail, but here are the bills in the ballot for midday today.

Two of the above bills are substantially the same in substance. A preliminary ballot will therefore be held to determine which of them is to be entered into the main ballot.

These two bills are:

Labour are taking a while to get the hang of Opposition. We saw this at the beginning of the year when former Ministers couldn’t even word oral questions in the House, and we have seen this at years end, with their 4,000 written questions to Ministers in one day.

But a source tells me Labour have made a major fuck up with many of their questions. They are questions that should have been asked of Departmental CEOs through the annual select committee financial review. This is how National MPs got their information in Opposition – because asking about operational matters through a Ministerial PQ would get declined.

And it seems Labour asked relatively few questions during the annual select committee financial reviews – a small fraction of the numbers asked by National MPs in Opposition. Maybe they thought they didn’t need to, and they could just ask them as Ministerial PQs. Rather silly not knowing the rules, considering how many of their MPs are ex-Ministers or ex-Ministerial staff. Maybe they just are not quite as clever as they think they are.

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?

Chris Hipkins just doesn’t learn and continues to misrepresent. He blogged today:

My post yesterday on John Key’s non-answer to some of my written parliamentary questions certainly got the Key apologists worked up. When Key does finally front up with the answers I’ll post the info here and people can then judge whether they were fair questions to ask.

The Key apologists seem to have forgotten that National MPs used to routinely ask tricky questions of the then Labour government. One of their favourites was to ask about staff Christmas parties and presents. Most government departments do some sort of end of year function for their staff, so National’s questions were basically intended to find examples of where they’d gone a bit over the top so that they could shout from the rooftops about “waste”.

This is a red herring. I have not once said the Opposition should not ask questions. It is an important right. But responsibilities go with rights. And you look like a whining wally when you file 4,000 questions in one day, and then complain they are not all answered within the five day target.

Incidentally I am told staff in the Office of the Clerk were forced to work until 11 pm to get all the 4,000 questions asked by Labour MPs onto the website. This would not have happened if they were organised or considerate enough to lodge them over a period of time.

Chris again fails to mention he and his colleagues have asked almost as many questions to the Minister of Ministerial Services in two weeks, than Helen Clark had over three years. And he commits further truth abuses.

Interestingly, they aren’t so keen to answer now that the shoe is on the other foot. I asked a written question of each Minister that’s almost identical to one Brownlee, McCully etc used to ask and they have all come back with the same answer: “The question the member asks relates to an operational matter which is the responsibility of the Chief Executive.”

Interesting to note that when Labour was the government and National was the opposition the questions were OK, but now that National is in government they seem to think a lower standard of accountability should apply.

Chris must think people are stupid and/or do not know how to do searches of the PQ database.

Searching the 2005-2008 Government for the phrase “responsibility of the Chief Executive” finds Ministers used it 745 times. So when Chris tries to lie that there is some “lower standard of accountability” he is being a prize hypocrite.

For those who like percentages, the 2005 to 2008 Labour Government used that response to 1.4% of questions. The National led Government has used it 162 times, which is 0.7% of questions. So Labour used that response twice as often as National.

But it gets worse when you look at the Prime Ministers. John Key has not used that response once, for the 739 questions he has had (all portfolios).

Helen Clark got asked only 569 questions over three years (around one quarter of the number asked of Key per annum) and used the phrase Chris Hipkins complains about on 25 occassions, which is 4.4% of the time.

At this point I must mention that before he became an MP, Chris Hipkins worked in Helen Clark’s office. He in fact probably wrote or approved the very answers that he is now complaining about.

How lucky we are not in Parliament, so people can use the H word.

Now again to keep it simple, here are the percentages for parties and PMs in using the “responsibility of the Chief Executive” dodge:

1. Helen Clark 4.4%
2. Labour 1.4%
3. National 0.7%
4. John Key 0.0%

I do so hope Chris carries on whining like this. It is such fun pointing out the facts.

Labour MP Chris Hipkins blogs:

On the 8th of December I lodged a number of Written Parliamentary Questions to John Key in his capacity as Minister Reponsible for Ministerial Services. They all involved spending on services provided to ministers (eg. self-drive cars, VIP cars, ministerial housing etc). I had assumed that given the “Double Dipton” debacle they’d be keen to be seen as open and transparent.

So far John Key has replied to all of them with the same answer: “I am unable to provide the member with the information requested in the timeframe available. I will provide the member with the answer as soon as possible.”

All of the questions were lodged on the 8th of December, so he’s already had several weeks. In almost all cases there are examples of similar questions having been asked of Helen Clark in the past. I’m sure John Key isn’t going to argue that he should be subject to a lower standard of accountability than his predecessor, so I’ll look forward to getting his answers before he takes off for his holiday in Hawaii.

A snide wee post from Chris where he laves out certain key information. And we won’t even touch on his assertion that a period of 12 days is “several weeks” except to comment this proves the case for national standards in numeracy.

Now the first big omission from Chris is how many questions Helen Clark got as Minister of Ministerial Services. Over an entire three year term from 2005 to 2008, she got 150 – an average of one a week.

And how many have Chris and his mates submitted in just December 2009? 128!!!!

I am all for Ministers answering parliamentary questions – they are important. But frankly you look like a wally if you file 128 questions in the weeks before Xmas (and during a time when the PM is known to be overseas) and then complain that you don’t get replies promptly.

Also important to note is that many of the questions are not ones seeking just one item of information – ie something one staffer can do in under an hour. Some examples are:

How much office or administation area was leased by Departments, Ministries or Crown Entities for which they are responsible in the 2008/09 year listed by department/ministry/crown entity, building name, total area leased and rental cost?

How many days sick leave was taken by staff in each of the Departments, Ministries or Crown entities for which they are responsible for each month in 2009?

What was the total cost to date of petrol for ministerial self-drive cars received by their minister on or after 19 November 2008 and how does that figure break down by month?

Just imagine the scores and scores of hours it will take to compile that sort of information for 128 questions.

Now I am a firm defender of the right for the Opposition to ask these questions and gain the info. But frankly they should not expect to get 128 replies within a couple of weeks and have only themselves to blame for not asking earlier, or spreading them out more evenly.

Again remember, Chris and his colleagues have almost asked more in two weeks than Helen Clark got in three years for this portfolio – a piece of information he forgot to mention in his little snideness.

Tracy Watkins and Vernon Small rate the front benches. Their scores:

• John Key 9.0
• Bill English 6.5
• Gerry Brownlee 6.5
• Simon Power 8.5
• Tony Ryall 8.0
• Nick Smith 5.5
• Judith Collins 7.5
• Anne Tolley 3.5
• Chris Finlayson 7.0
• David Carter 4.0

• Tariana Turia 7.0
• Pita Sharples 6.0

• Rodney Hide 2.0

• Phil Goff 7.5
• Annette King 6.5
• David Cunliffe 6.0
• Ruth Dyson 5.5
• Parekura Horomia 4.0
• Clayton Cosgrove 6.5
• Chris Carter 2.0
• Maryan Street 5.0
• Darren Hughes 6.0
• David Parker 8.0

• Russel Norman 6.0
• Metiria Turei 4.5

While most of the ratings are common sense, I actually would disagree with a few. I can’t imagine how you can say the Shadow Attorney-General (David Parker) is a point higher than the actual Attorney-General (Chris Finlayson). I agree Parker has been one of the better Labour MPs.

Likewise the Dom Post seem to be reflecting Trevor Mallard’s view of Anne Tolley, than the real world. They have rated Parekura Horomia higher than Tolley. Yes, Anne Tolley was a bit unsteady in the House in her early days, but doesn’t look as bothered now. And frankly blaming Tolley for not getting the teacher unions to support national standards as absurd. That is like giving Michael Cullen bad marks as the former Finance Minister for not getting the Roundtable to endorse his policies.

I also can’t see where you rate Carter a 4.0 for Agriculture – just because he is low profile. The feedback I get is that Carter is very respected by the industry.

And on the Labour side, a totally lack of mention of Goff’s biggest fuck up during the year – the Richard Worth scandal. His championing of Neelam Choudary as some shy and retiring person who could not handle Worth blew up massively in his face and damaged his brand. He dropped significantly in the polls after that. A 7.5 is well rather generous for the man whose party is 25 points behind in the polls.

But hey it gets boring if everyone agrees on every rating.

John Armstrong first talks about who not not be Politician of the Year (a new rule stops someone winning it two years in a row so Key is ineligible), and then hands out the awards:

But when it comes to Politician of the Year, it is difficult to go past Tony Ryall. The Health Minister has hardly put a foot wrong in a portfolio which traditionally has been a political graveyard. Ryall’s political management in his portfolio has been exemplary, first with respect to the swine flu scare and then with the Labtests fiasco in Auckland.

Well done Tony. I doubt a Health Minister has ever won the award before.

Backbencher of the Year: Act’s John Boscawen. …

Polite to a fault, the Aucklander is not afraid of putting Cabinet ministers on the spot with well-timed and astutely worded questions that deliberately ignore or undercut Act’s alliance with National.

A self-employed finance and property investor before entering Parliament last year, he scored a minor coup in securing a much-needed select committee inquiry into finance houses.

And the other awards:

Rising stars: National’s Steven Joyce and Paula Bennett; Labour’s David Parker, Grant Robertson, Charles Chauvel, Phil Twyford and Chris Hipkins; the Maori Party’s Rahui Katene.
The “we wish 2009 never happened … please say it never happened” award: Shared by National’s Richard Worth, Kate Wilkinson, Melissa Lee and Kanwaljit Singh, and Labour’s Phil Goff and Chris Carter.
Quiet achievers: Foreign Minister Murray McCully, Trade Minister Tim Groser and (increasingly) Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee.
Jury’s out: Anne Tolley’s performance as Education Minister; Shane Jones’ chances of becoming Labour’s next leader.
Once were farmyard roosters, now feather dusters award: Act’s Rodney Hide and the Maori Party’s Hone Harawira.
Missing in action: The Greens’ new co-leader, Metiria Turei; the Greens in general; large chunks of Labour’s front bench.
Gone – but not forgotten: The Greens’ Sue Bradford.
Gone – and already forgotten: National’s Richard Worth.

Tracy Watkins and Martin Kay hand out their awards:

• Politician of the Year – John Key
• Wally of the Year – Rodney Hide
• The Merit Award for Prime Ministers with English as a second language – John Key
• Koru Club Award For Services to the Airline Industry – Chris Carter with Roger Douglas runner-up
  
• Oliver Twist “Please, Sir, I Want Some More” Award – Bill English
• Interpol Award for Undercover Operations – Rick Barker
• James Bond Medal for Services to National Security – Keith Locke, Sue Bradford & Catherine Delahunty
• Nelson Mandela Award for Services to Race Relations – Hone Harawira with Phil Goff runner-up
• Lazarus Award – Lockwood Smith
• Gone by Lunchtime Award – Richard Worth
• Crimestoppers award – Melissa Lee
• Dr Doolittle Award – Nick Smith
• Stop Digging Award – David Garrett
• Pigs Ear, Silk Purse Award – John Key

The rationale for the Dr Doolittle Award is amusing.

As I did last year. I conducted a survey of MPs on the press gallery. This year I extended it to press secretaries also, and am very pleased with the 70 responses I got. Many thanks to those who responded.

The first initial data is below. This is the raw data. I will also blog next week results for each party (National, Labour, other) and a weighted average to take account of more National MPs than Labour MPs responding.

Respondents were asked to anonymously rate each media organisation and full-time gallery journalist from 0 to 10. The results for journos will be next week also.

I want to stress that this is not an impartial poll on the gallery. It is a poll of the subjects of the articles the gallery write about. Hence a low rating may indicate a media outlet or journalist has written very good stories that happen to damage that party or MP, and a high rating may indicate they are seen as a soft touch.

There are also some differences by medium, Print media will always tend to rate higher (in my opinion) than TV as they have a greater ability to cover more details in a story.

So basically I am saying don’t regard these ratings as some neutral indicator of who is good or bad. Those judgements can be left to individuals. Also do not assume these ratings are my personal opinions. They certainly are not.

Now the data:

The mean is pretty self-evident, and they are ranked in order of highest to lowest. I am not surprised NZPA and Newsroom rate at the top, as they both concentrate more on information, rather than analysis. They are not into selling copies of papers – but into supplying information.

It is interesting that Maori TV rates so highly.

The median is the mid point value. Normally close to the mean.

The mode is the most common score given for that outlet.

The minimum and maximum and range (difference between the two) show how diverse the opinion is petty much every outlet. There is no group-think. Most outlets had some MPs give very low scores and some very high scores.

The S.D. is the standard deviation and again gives some idea as to how varied the ratings were. Radio NZ had the highest standard deviation, or variation.

These are from Gerry Brownlee:

Oral Questions

There were 86 question times.

This compares with:

• 57 in 2008
• 87 in 2007
• 81 in 2006

I’m pleased to see this. With 30 sitting weeks, this means only four times was there no question time. The Govt has gone out of its way to retain question time, even when the House is in urgency.

3^rd Readings

• 70 Government Bills passed their 3^rd reading and into law

• 3 Private Bills passed their 3^rd reading and into law

• 1 Local Bill passed its 3^rd reading and into law

All of the private members bills passed were old ones carried over, not new ones.

No Right Turn has noted that the Government has passed a sessional order that will allow it to sit on Thursday mornings, thus minimising the need for urgency. This is a good thing, as I have always said there should be a difference between merely having extended sitting hours for the House, and urgency which allows you to pass a bill through multiple stages without the normal delays.

Oh this is great. Go to In the House and watch the video of this question from David Parker to Gerry Brownlee:

Has he received my invitation dated 14 December to accompany me, after Parliament rises, on the Gillespie Pass tramping circuit in the north-eastern parts of the Mount Aspiring National Park, so that he can inspect first-hand areas in the conservation estate included in his stock-take of mineral resources, and will he accept it?

Gerry’s response is superb, as is the other contributions to the debate. A nice light touch for the final session of the year.

If anyone is able to You Tube the video, that would be great as I could them embed it here. I see in the comments that next year In The House will allow embedding which is excellent.

The Government has a notice of motion on the order paper:

3. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE to move, That, pursuant to section 25(1) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, this House add the following premises to the parliamentary precincts:

All that part of the mezzanine level of the buildings situated at 1 and 3 The Terrace, Wellington as comprised within Certificates of Title WN41C/804 and WN41C/805, having a net lettable area of 477.2 square metres as more particularly shown on the plan attached to the lease between AMP NZ Office 1 The Terrace Limited and the Parliamentary Corporation, dated 12 August 2009.

Now all we need is an amendment that says:

And all that part of the building situated at 34 Molesworth Street, legally described as Lot 2 DP 318644, having a net area of 493 square metres.

Then MPs can go to the Backbencher without it being regarded as having left the parliamentary precinct (which affects voting in the House).

UPDATE: Sadly the motion has been passed without my Backbencher update, but I can report one amusing exchange passed onto me:

As Gerry was reading it out, Darren Hughes was listening diligently. Gerry reached “having a net lettable area of 477.2 square metres ” and Darren suddenly chirped up with: ”’Aaaah – the member’s pantry.”

Heh.

This is a great move. The Clerk of the House has commissioned a website where Parliament TV segments are viewable. So rather than have to watch entire debates, you can see individual speeches and questions.

The site in In the House. It uses blog technology such as tags, so rather than have to do keyword searches, you can just click on tags etc.

The creators think this is a world first, and it could well be. I’m very impressed.

One request I would have is that they consider adding on the ability to embed videos. They will be far more successful in having people view segments if blogs can embed the videos.

Transtasman has published its annual ratings for our 122 MPs. As usual, I do some analysis. The overall average rating is 4.5

Average Ratings per Party

1. Maori 5.2
2. National 5.1
3. ACT 4.5
4. United Future 4.0
5. Labour 3.9
6. Green 3.7
7. Progressive 3.0

The influx of new MPs saw the overall average rating drop from 4.8 to 4.5. All parties except National had their average drop. National went up 0.3.

Top MPs

1. Lockwood Smith 9.25
2. John Key 9.0
3. Simon Power 8.5

Bottom MPs

1. Hone Harawira 0.0
2. Ashrad Choudary 1.0

Top Labour MPs

1. Annette King 6.5
2. David Parker 6.0
3. Darren Hughes 6.0

Top Third Party MPs

1. Pita Sharples & Tariana Turia – 7.0
2. Jeanette Fitzsimons – 6.0
3. Roger Douglas & Heather Roy – 5.0
4. Peter Dunne – 4.0
5. Jim Anderton – 3.0

Top New MPs

1. Steven Joyce 7.5
2. Rahui Katene 6.0
3. Amy Adams 5.0

Group Ratings

1. Ministers 6.2
2. Cabinet 6.7
3. National frontbench 7.7
4. Labour frontbench 4.5
5. National 2008 intake 4.2
6. Labour 2008 intake 3.7

It will be interesting to see in a year how the ratings have changed. Hopefully by then the Labour frontbench has had a reshuffle. That is a huge disparity between the frontbenches.

The SMH reports:

Politicians are tweeting, blogging and poking, but most remain out of reach when it comes to receiving petitions over the internet.

But all that will change if the Australian Government accepts a recommendation from a parliamentary committee that the House of Representatives should treat electronic petitions the same way it treats those delivered on paper.

What a good idea. No 10 Downing Street allows this, as does the Australian Senate. Would be a good initiative for New Zealand Parliament to also embrace.

Last week I saw a report that there was now a register of official descriptors for MPs. I could not find it on the Parliamentary websie but a kind journalist sent me a copy, which I have uploaded – Register of Descriptors – Final.

There has always been tension over how List MPs describe themselves, as in some cases the terms they have used makes it sound like they are the electorate MP. So (for example) a List MP can not claim to be the “List MP for Wellington Central” or “Green MP for Wellington Central” but can claim to be a “Wellington List MP” etc.

Anyway Lockwood has decided to regularise it, and get each MP to submit all the possible descriptors they want to use, so they are all approved in advance. This is very sensible as it means no argy-bargy later on.

Here are some of the more interesting descriptors:

Catherine Delahunty List member based in Thames; MP Thames; Green List MP Thames;

I didn’t know Delahunty was Thames based, as Jeanette is based there also. Weird to have two List MPs in the same town.

Sue Kedgley, Auckland Green Party List MP; Green List MP Auckland

Could have sworn Sue was in Wellington, but maybe she has been exiled to Auckland since Russel became an MP.

Russel Norman MP; Russel Norman Green Party Co Leader; Green List MP Wellington South

Just Wellington South?

Jacinda Ardern Labour Member of Parliament, Labour List MP, part of the Bay Labour Team

The Bay Labour Team? Sounds like a relay race team!

Brendon Burns Christchurch Central Labour MP working in Marlborough, Labour MP working in Marlborough

Pretty unusual to have an electorate MP have responsibilities for an area so far from his electorate, especially when there is a List MP so close by.

Hon Maryan Street, Labour List MP, Working in the Nelson
Region; Labour List MP working in the Selwyn Region

So Maryan has to look after both Nelson and mid to south canterbury. Again would have thought more sensible to have her do all the top of the south island and one of the many Chch MPs look after Selwyn.

Hekia Parata, National List MP; National List MP Raumati Porirua Wellington;Greater Wellington Region; Greater Porirua Region; Kapiti to Karori

I quite like the Kapiti to Karori tagline.

Paul Quinn, National List MP; Championing the Valley

I wonder what Lockwood would say if you wanted your tagline to be “glad I don’t live in the valley”

Michael Woodhouse, Your National Government’s representative based in Dunedin

Good God – is he wanting students to burn his office down?

I’ve not yet had time to read the Search Surveillance Bill, but have added it to my weekend reading, after viewing this story:

Sweeping powers to spy, bug conversations and hack into private computers could be given to a web of state agencies as diverse as Inland Revenue and the Meat Board.

The Human Rights Commission yesterday warned Parliament of the “chilling” implications of a proposed law that would see the intrusive powers usually only available to the police extended to all agencies with enforcement responsibilities.

It said that under the law, council dog control officers would be able to enter homes to install a surveillance device and the Commerce Commission would be able to detain people.

Inland Revenue would get the powers to assist its tax investigations, while the Meat Board would get them to enforce breaches of export rules.

The Human Rights Commission chief commissioner, Rosslyn Noonan, said the Search Surveillance Bill was giving the powers away to a “grab-bag of every possible agency”.

This summary sounds very bad:

WHAT’S IN THE BILL

THE POWERS:

Video surveillance, watching private activity on private property, installing tracking devices, detaining people during a search, power to stop vehicles without a warrant for a search, warrantless seizure of “items in plain view”, power to hack into computers remotely, power to detain anyone at scene of search.

WHO WILL GET THEM:

Every agency with enforcement responsibilities, such as: Inland Revenue, Meat Board, local councils, Overseas Investment Office, Accident Compensation Corporation, Environment Risk Management Authority, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Pork Industry Board.

I feel bad I haven’t been more up to date on this issue. At first glance it looks pretty horrific. Select Committee submissions have already closed but if the Select Committee doesn’t pare back the range of agencies and powers, then amendments can be done at the Committee of the Whole stage.

Now this is very cool – the House of Lords has a cross-party blog – Lords of the Blog. There are a dozen peers blogging there from all three parties.

Would be great to have such a blog in New Zealand. You could actually have MPs debating issues in front of us, with us able to contribute. I’ll add it to my list of long-term projects. The challenge of course is to get Government MPs (regardless of party) to participate.

Hat Tip: Red Alert

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.

The Australasian Study of Parliament Group has an interesting seminar in November:

Mechanisms used to speed up Parliamentary process

You and your guests are invited to hear Hon Dr Michael Cullen along with Hon Jim Anderton and Hon John Carter discuss the Parliamentary process and how it could be improved.

Dr Cullen is one of the foremost parliamentarians of recent times, a master of procedure, debate and repartee, and for nine years leader of the House. Mr Jim Anderton is another long-serving parliamentarian, who has served in governments and as leader of a minority party. Mr Carter was an effective chief whip for National in opposition.

The seminar will be chaired by Colin James.

Questions and discussion are encouraged.

The seminar will be preceded by the annual general meeting at 5.45pm, at which all are welcome. The seminar will start at 6pm.

Thursday, 19 November 2009

5.45pm – 7.00pm

Venue – West Foyer, ground floor of the Executive Wing (the Beehive)

Please join us for drinks (cash bar) and nibbles from 5.30pm

RSVP (acceptances only) Andrea O’Brien,
Chapter Secretary, ASPG
04 817 9597 Andrea.O’Brien@parliament.govt.nz

That sounds very interesting. I doubt I will able to attend on that date, but hope to get reports from anyone who does.

AAP report:

A FORMER political running mate of Family First senator Steve Fielding says dark forces are casting spells on Federal Parliament.

Catch the Fire Ministries pastor Daniel Nalliah has organised a “prayer offensive” to combat evil forces including witchcraft, homosexuality and abortion.

Boy he really must dislike Albus Dumbledore then.

“These days people don’t think the Devil is real but we have seen the bad effects of the spiritual being known as Satan and we believe there is a spiritual fight over the nation of Australia being fought in the heavens.”

Asked what evidence of Satan there was in Parliament, Mr Nalliah said: “The number of politicians who have serious marriage problems.”

That is interesting in that he blames Satan for the marriage problems of MPs.

Personally I blame it on the fact many MPs like having sex with hot young staff members.

A reader e-mails:

We learned a couple of things about the Greens, yesterday… They don’t support human rights and they don’t care about climate change.

First, they wouldn’t support the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill – even just as far as select committee.

And secondly, when Parliament ran out of members’ bills to debate, and started debating the various reports on the order paper that they almost never get to, the Greens wouldn’t even take one call to discuss the Select Committee Review of the Emissions Trading Scheme. Every Green MP could have taken a 10-minute speech to lay out the Greens’ vision for combating climate change, they could have controlled Parliament’s agenda and presented a unified and united view on what they think we must do. But I guess they don’t have one. Like everyone else, they preferred to take the evening off. Human rights and climate change just aren’t that important…

Ouch. What does Frog say in defence?

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.

I noticed this letter in the ODT:

In an age of perceived isolation from our elected representatives in Wellington I was surprised as a 13 year old to be able to secure the Co-Leader of the Greens, Metiria Turei, onto my community radio show.

When I emailed her I was expecting some automated reply saying that she was too busy, but no I got a very helpful email from her PA wanting to call me and secure this interview, she was actually keen.

I can also testify to the responsiveness of Metiria Turei, and other MPs.

Last week I hosted a visitor from the United Kingdom, who is studying different legislatures for her politics degree. She has also worked for Conservative Central Office. She was especially interested in MMP and the Maori Seats

I e-mailed meeting requests to five MPs. A National Minister, a National Maori List MP, a Maori Party electorate Maori MP, Metiria Turei and one other Maori MP.

Within a few hours four of the five MPs (the two Nats, the Maori Party and the Green Party MPs), or their staff, had responded positively to arrange a time to meet, or if not in Wellington to offer a phone interview.

I think it is a good reflection on our Parliament and MPs, that they are so approachable. Many respond to their own e-mails. A growing number twitter, and Labour especially is blogging big time.