Some good innovations to date from Speaker Mallard. The three main ones are:

1. Pinging MPs who interject during the asking of a question by deducting a supplementary question from them (if an Opposition MP) or giving an extra one to the Opposition (if a Government MP). This has led to a much quieter House during the asking of questions. You can of course still interject for the answers.
2. Allowing an MP asking a supplementary to keep asking further supplementaries without having to seek the call each time. This means rather than have the Speaker constantly in the frame, you just get a back and forward between a Minister and MP.
3. Allowing an MP extra supplementaries if a Minister does not give an informative reply (Speaker Carter did this also)
4. Dropping Jesus from the Parliamentary Prayer. If there is to be a parliamentary prayer it should be one that all religions can subscribe to, not just one religion.

Chris Bishop has done a post at The Spinoff listing 10 big achievements from the last Government. They are:

1. Getting the country through the global financial crisis – and back into the black
2. Building a more productive, diverse and competitive economy
3. Dealing with the Canterbury earthquakes
4. Significant reductions in child poverty
5. The Better Public Services programme and Social Investment
6. A more competitive, affordable, secure and renewable electricity system
7. Reforms to welfare to reward independence and work
8. A big lift in the number of young Kiwis achieving educational success
9. Treaty of Waitangi Settlements
10. A turnaround in net migration

I wonder what the achievements of this current Government will be?

Tom Switzer at CIS writes:

Next week marks the centenary of the Bolshevik Revolution. November 7, 1917 was not just one of the most influential events of all time, it ushered in the most terrifying period in human history. In the matter of scale, the Russian revolutionaries and their later successors in China and elsewhere achieved a record of far more deaths than either world war. According to the London-based project to create a Museum of Communist Terror, 15-18 million people died in World War One; 40-80 million died in World War Two; and 80-100 million died under communist regimes.

A Museum of Communist Terror is a great idea.

Yet 100 years later, many young people in the West are ignorant of the ideology that inspired Lenin, Trotsky and millions of their worldwide followers. According to YouGov surveys, only 55% of American millennials think communism was, and still is, a problem. A third of young people believe US president George W. Bush murdered more people than Soviet dictator Josef Stalin did. And about 70 per cent of young British people have never heard of Mao Tse-Tung, the communist revolutionary whose regime murdered tens of millions of Chinese.

Ignorance of the past can doom us to repeat it. Fox News reported:

Nearly 45 percent of millennials polled said that they would prefer to live in a socialist country compared to the 42 percent who said they preferred a capitalist one.

Yet for some reason they’re not moving to Venezuela.

The report also found that one in five Americans in their 20s consider former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin a hero, despite his genocide of Ukrainians and Orthodox priests. Over a quarter of millennials polled also thought the same for Vladimir Lenin and Kim Jong Un.

Great role models.

One of the most troubling findings of the report is that over 40 percent of Americans believe that there should be restrictions placed on the First Amendment and free speech to ensure that anything being said is not “offensive.”

Sad little petals.

Bryce Edwards writes:

And for Hipkins’ most challenging media interview, you can listen to the six-minute interview with an exasperated Guyon Espiner, who says to Hipkins: “Do you really expect us to believe that?!” – see RNZ’s ‘First day farce’ for new govt in Parliament – Hipkins. 

I also went on The AM Show today to discuss the matter, and expressed my disappointment that the new Government was so quickly moving into heavy spinning mode: “That’s one of the worst things about this story for Labour. Not just that it was such a shambles for them and they lost this manoeuvre by National, but they then tried to spin it… And the public hate politicians that are just so obviously spinning it.

So Ardern had the first day of Parliament going from St Jacinda to being seen as a liar” 

It is such an implausible lie also. They really must think people are stupid.

Tim Watkin also writes on Pundit:

Labour’s response to National’s ambush yesterday was, frankly, pretty pathetic. Remember Jacinda Ardern saying in the debates she could survive politics without lying? Well that didn’t last long… Her claim that Labour knew it had the numbers and really had the Speaker’s vote under control the whole time, is clearly a load of hooey. Otherwise, it’s a display of ineptness. Who would really by choice trade-off years of grief in select committees for a symbolic gesture of unity on a single vote? 

Really, if you believe Labour’s spin on that, I have a unicorn in my backyard for sale.

They both seem very unconvinced.

A reader writes:

I’m a concerned West Auckland ratepayer who has raised some issues about lack of transparency about money in charities linked to art and politicians. In 2015 the charities commission required significantly more detail on accounts saw a number of charities then fail to file accounts.

1. Lopdell Trust (Charity cc2875). Accounts not filed since 2015. 2014, 2015 accounts unaudited, unsigned incomplete. The trusts summary page on charities.org.nz estimates they’ve received $16 million but have expenditure of $400k. Concerns were raised with charities commission about late filing and lack of auditing and Council with no result. Trustee includes Greg Presland.

2. Lopdell Gallery. (Aka Te Uru) (CC41215) Accounts unaudited and haven’t filed accounts since 2014. 2014 accounts unaudited. They receive about $600k from Council per annum. Concerns raised with Council and charities commission without result.

3. McCahon House – (Cc10637) Also hasn’t filed accounts since 2015. An artists residency charity out west where senior artists are given residencies in a 2 bed modern house and studio with stipend next to Colin Mccahons house. From their 2014 accounts Item 14 Note “The Trust holds, for sale, a number of “Limited Edition” art works created by the residents as part of the residency agreement. These have been provided to the trust at no cost , and in accordance with accounting policy are carried at the lower of net realisable value and cost which is Nil.”

The Auckland Council should make it a requirement that any charity they give money to is in compliance with the Charities Act and has up to date financial statements filed.

An interesting report from Pew on satisfaction with democratic Governments in 38 different countries.

The net satisfaction with how democracy is working in their country is:

1. Sweden +59%
2. Germany +47%
3. Canada +40%
4. Russia +23%
5. Australia +17%
6. UK +5%
7. US -5%
8. France -31%
9. Italy -36%
10. Venezuela -48%
11. Spain -49%
12. Greece -58%

You can see how deep the malaise in parts of Europe is.

Another question what whether they trust the national government to do what is right for them. Those saying a lot or somewhat trust were:

1. Germany 69%
2. Sweden 67%
3. Canada 67%
4. Russia 67%
5. US 51%
6. UK 49%
7. Australia 48%
8. Venezuela 29%
9. Italy 26%
10. France 20%
11. Spain 17%
12. Greece 13%

We’re lucky with where we live.

Stuff reports:

Thousands of Uber drivers have been blocked from the ride-sharing company’s platform as it strives to finally operate within New Zealand’s transport laws.

Most of the drivers involved are believed to rarely use the service, if at all, although the group includes some who are in the process of gaining the necessary accreditation.

The US company, which allows customers to find, book and pay for rides using their phone, has been operating outside the law since it arrived in New Zealand in 2014, allowing drivers who do not hold passenger endorsements (known as P endorsements) to offer rides for money.

But new laws which came into force on October 1 regulated ridesharing for the first time, and the company has been granted a small passenger service licence by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

As a condition of the licence, Uber has taken steps to require drivers to hold the endorsement before taking money on rides.

Uber has confirmed that since October 29 its mobile app based platform has only been available to drivers who hold a current passenger endorsement.

I’m glad Uber are doing this. Better to change the law than ignore it.

We now know who the four presiding officers will be for this Parliament.

Trevor Mallard has been elected Speaker. Trevor has the potential to be a very good Speaker, but the test will be whether he can as tough on the Government as Lockwood Smith was with National. He certainly has the knowledge needed, and most MPs say he has done a good job as an Assistant Speaker.

Anne Tolley from National will be Deputy Speaker. In the past this has been a Government appointee also but Labour to their credit has recognised that National’s size in the House would see their appointee more appropriately as Deputy Speaker.

Anne has had much experience as Deputy Leader of the House for National and should do well.

Labour’s Assistant Speakers are Poto Williams and Adrian Rurawhe. They are not particularly well known as contributors in the House, so how they go as presiding officers is harder to predict. They may have a steep learning curve, and Speaker Mallard may have to help tutor them. Almost all existing Labour MPs have become Ministers or Whips so Labour didn’t have a lot of choice.

The only existing Labour MPs who have not become a Minister, presiding officer, PUS or Whips are Raymond Huo, Rino Tirikatene and Louisa Wall.

This suggests that some new Labour MPs will become Select Committee Chairs immediately.

Was it out and about wandering? If so does this reflect the value the PM puts on NZ wildlife?

— Gareth Morgan (@garethmorgannz) November 7, 2017

99% of people are consoling Jacinda on the loss of her cat. Many of us have lost cats to cars and know how devastating their deaths can be.

Gareth shows zero empathy at all. He doesn’t realise that people won’t vote for you if they think you have no empathy. It is not all about policy analysis. People vote for humans they like.

Lecturing Jacinda on the death of her cat and wildlife is like hearing someone’s child has died in a car crash and lecturing them on how cars cause global warming.

It’s a pity that Gareth makes TOP unelectable as they have some decent policies.

Jane Kelsey writes:

Tomorrow and the day after, David Parker will sit down in Da Nang, Vietnam, with fellow trade ministers from the 11 countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and decide what to do with the deal, now the United States has withdrawn.

The new minister knows that agreeing to proceed will contradict the position Labour took in Opposition. Its minority opinion in the select committee report said: “The TPPA will have ramifications for generations of New Zealanders. For their sake, we should not so lightly enter into an agreement which may exacerbate long-term challenges for our economy, workforce, and society.” …

The new Government will suffer a serious blow to its integrity if it proceeds to endorse an agreement that its three parties have previously opposed.

Of course Labour will sign TPP11 because they now have the responsibility of Government, rather than mindless slogans in Opposition.

If Kelsey thinks Labour were ever sincere in their opposition, well that’s naive.

A guest post by David Garrett:

I have watched with some amusement the restricted coverage in the MSM of the violence and riots before and after the Tonga – Samoa rugby league test in Hamilton on Saturday. While the teams themselves apparently toed the party line and made the game itself a festival occasion, out in the streets of Hamilton and Otahuhu, the picture was very different, both before and after the game.

We have all heard this term “pasifika” which, as far as I can work out, is a recently invented  term encompassing people from all Pacific Islands, and implying that underneath the superficial differences in language and culture, all “pacific peoples” are really  one big happy family. The one place one never hears the term is in the Islands themselves! The reason is very simple: the whole “construct” is bollocks, and  a  fantasy of lefties in academia. The truth, for historical and cultural reasons, is that  various Islanders hate each other.

I hasten to make clear that my familiarity with the enmities between Island groups is largely limited to Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji. There may be more truth in the “pasifika” thing as between – say – the Tahitians and the Hawaiians, but I  would be a little surprised if that is the case.

So, far from being one big happy family, the Samoans and  Tongans hate each other  with a vengeance, and the Fijians and the Tongans don’t like each other much either. Why is that? Well, the reasons go back 1000 years or so, and like Maori, Islanders have very very long memories. Grievances can lie latent beneath the surface for a couple of generations until   vengeance – utu for the Maori, huhu’i ho mamahi for Tongans – is exacted.

Why do the Samoans hate the Tongans? Very simple. From about 800 AD so far as modern historians can tell, the warlike Tongans controlled an empire that included the Samoas and Rotuma in Fiji.  This empire lasted until perhaps 1200 AD, and other than the clear genetic evidence of Polynesian influence in Rotuma – which is part of Melanesian Fiji – there was no evidence of it by the time Europeans began to colonize the Pacific in the early 1800’s. Like Maori, neither the Tongans nor Samoans had a written language, so this was all oral history.

Although they don’t talk about it much, the inhabitants of all three Island nations are very well aware of this historical reality. You would never know it at pan-pacific gatherings – at least until cocktail  hour – but the resentments on the part of the two  subject nations, and the matching huge pride on the part of the Tongans is very real and palpable.

While the historical enmities  quickly show themselves after consumption of alchohol – yes folks, as anyone who has lived in the Islands can tell you, most Islanders don’t handle booze too well – alcohol is not necessary for old hatreds and resentments to emerge.

Garrett & Associates of Nuku’alofa only ever employed one male lawyer – my predecessor was right when he said “only hire women; the men are mostly useless”. My one male employee told a great story about what happened when his school rugby team played in Samoa. If the Tongan team were winning as full time approached, the team bus would quietly edge forward  from the parking lot to the edge of the field. Then, a few minutes before full time, the captain would shout a code word, and  Tongan boys would race for the bus. The reason? If the final whistle blew with Tonga winning, there would be an instant brawl, involving both the two teams on the field and their supporters.

My employee was a bit coy on what happened in reverse, when a Samoan schoolboy team played in Tonga and won, but I suspect exactly the same thing happened, with the Samoans making for the bus rather than getting a beating.

What is my point in all this? Of course I will be labeled a racist – yawn – but I don’t believe I am. Racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another merely by reason of their race. To my shame, I admit to having been somewhat racist when I first went to Tonga in 1999. Six months in the country quickly disabused me of the notion that whitey was superior  or that  brown people were inherently inferior: there is a bell curve of Tongan intelligence and other traits just as there is a bell curve for every other race, and every other trait. In all  races there are dumb ones and very smart ones, with most falling in the middle.

My point is that Polynesians are inherently TRIBAL – they like their own kind and tend to strongly dislike “the other”. That has been the case for hundreds of years, and, regardless of the handwringing that might occur in university sociology and anthropology departments, I suspect that will remain so for another few hundred years. Or forever, much as the various “tribes” in the Balkan countries hate each other.

Tribalism, and its close cousin nationalism, is  to a greater or lesser extent, part of the human condition. New Zealanders and Australians have, by and large, reduced it to a friendly rivalry, with much accent mocking and sheep shagging jokes, with the butt of the joke  depending on which side of the Tasman you are on. The rivalry between the Norwegians and the Swedes is similar – the Norwegians are the butt of Swedish “Irish” jokes.  The Tongans and Samoans haven’t quite got there yet. Let’s not pretend otherwise for the sake of political correctness.

Note that guest posts are the views of the author, not of Kiwiblog.

Tracy Watkins writes:

So far so shambolic. If this is a taste of things to come in the new Parliament, get ready for a wild ride.

Labour has run hard up against the reality of dealing with the biggest single Opposition party ever, and the panicked scenes as it tried to bargain its way out of an embarrassing vote to elect the new Speaker are a memory it will want to bury quick smart.

While Labour was still scrambling to recover from that debacle, Foreign Minister Winston Peters dropped a bombshell, serving legal papers taking broad aim at a bunch of Opposition MPs, political staffers, a government department chief executive, and journalists, before heading overseas.

It’s a fair bet that this is not what Labour’s strategists and senior ministers wanted day one of the rest of the next three years to look like.

Winston will be the gift that keeps on giving. He’ll push his personal agendas at the expense of the Government’s.

Ardern insists Labour knew it always had the numbers, but wanted the Speaker elected by consensus, rather than by a vote.

That may be so.

It’s bullshit. There is no way they would have agreed to the select committee changes unless they were crapping their pants that they did not have the numbers.

Their claim that they did it because the Speaker should not face a contested election is farcical as it was Chris Hipkins himself who nominated Mallard vs Carter in 2013. Ardern and Hipkins are lying rather than admitting they stuffed up.

There has been a lot of posturing about the select committee issue in recent days but Hipkins’ refusal to even return National’s calls seems to be what got the Opposition particularly incensed.

That’s a lot of arrogance in their first week on the job.

But Labour should take it as a lesson to live by for the next three years. National is a new phenomenon in our Parliament – a large, well-resourced, and popular Opposition that has a hard-earned reputation as a formidable and well-oiled machine.

A lot of that reputation was earned through its exploitation of the huge resources that go with a Beehive office. The loss of those resources will be telling over time. But if Labour expected National to come back weakened and demoralised from the election loss, it has been given a big wake-up call.

I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how motivated many National MPs are.

The Herald reports:

Winston Peters is taking a scattergun legal approach to those who he believes were behind the attempts to damage him during the election campaign over the pension overpayment leak.

Lawyers for the Foreign Minister are today serving papers on nine people, including former National Cabinet ministers, bureaucrats and two journalists, seeking discovery of material relating to the leaks.

Papers have been served on Newsroom.co.nz editor Tim Murphy and will be on Newshub political reporter Lloyd Burr, who’s currently in Australia.

Winston is fishing for evidence. There is no claim of action, just a claim that they need discovery to see what claim of action they could take.

Murphy also labelled the legal action a “fishing expedition”.

“Peters is seeking journalist phone records, notes, emails in regard to the stories disclosing his super windfall,” Murphy noted.

“And copious documentation, phone records from Paula Bennett, Joyce, Eagleson, Tolley, English and Brendan Boyle.

“It is a real fishing expedition. Even the lawyers recognise [that] of the defendants ‘some will have tortious liability, some will not’.”

What is interesting is who is paying for this. As he is now Deputy Prime Minister, are his legal costs being met by the Crown?

Peters was told about it in mid July, long before it was leaked during the election campaign, and after meeting with the Social Development Ministry, who accepted responsibility for the mistaken overpayment, he paid the money back.

His lawyers are saying his privacy was breached and they will be seeking damages from those served with the papers today.

I’m surprised that Peters wants to keep reminding people that he was claiming more NZ Super than he was entitled to. It’s not going to win votes for him, and it distracts attention from other issues the Government would rather the focus was on.

Stuff reports:

The Government have had to cave to the Opposition’s demands on its first day in the House after it failed to have the numbers to comfortably elect its new Speaker, Trevor Mallard.

That is a new level of incompetence – not to have made sure you have enough MPs around to elect the Speaker.

National and Labour have been clashing for days over the Government’s plans to cut opposition MPs out of select committees.

Leader of the House Chris Hipkins had proposed the number of committee seats be reduced to 96, meaning 11 National MPs would miss out.

So a good outcome from Labour’s stuff up. All backbench National MPs now get the chance to serve on a select committee.

But what a stuff up from Labour. To have five Government MPs away from Parliament on the day the Speaker is elected.

The shambles began when Labour MP Ruth Dyson rose to nominate Mallard for the Speaker role.

Bridges immediately raised a point of order asking for clarification about whether absent MPs, who hadn’t been sworn in on Tuesday morning, had a vote on the Speaker role.

As the House took a break to work out the order, Bridges taunted the government with shouts of “where’s Winston when you need him?”

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters and Trade Minister David Parker have both already left for APEC in Vietnam and several other government MPs including, Labour’s Poto Williams and Priyanca Radhakrishnan and the Greens’ Gareth Hughes, were also absent.

That meant National could “assume the majority”, leader Bill English said.

During the commotion in the House it became apparent National’s nomination for deputy speaker, Anne Tolley, could end up as Speaker.

I commented a few days ago that Hipkins had a huge workload as Education Minister, Tertiary Education Minister, State Services, Ministerial Services and Leader of the House. To almost end up with an Opposition MP as Speaker is a bad way to start a Government.

Lorrie Goldstein writes in the Toronto Sun:

Halfway through his electoral mandate, won on the night of Oct. 19, 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces a sudden and unexpected drop in the polls, along with a growing list of broken promises from that election.

Today, let’s look at some of the major ones: …

rudeau committed in the 2015 election to a “modest” deficit in his first year in office (2016-17) of $9.9 billion. Today, it’s $17.8 billion, 80% higher.

Trudeau committed in 2015 to a balanced budget with a $1 billion surplus in the fourth and final year of his electoral mandate in 2019-20. His 2017 budget now projects a $23.4 billion deficit in 2019-20, and, should he win the 2019 election, deficits of $21.7 billion in 2020-21 and $18.8 billion in 2021-22, with no end to deficits in sight.

Will NZ Labour follow the path of their sister party in Canada? Promising surpluses but delivering deficits.

Stuff reports:

Paid parental leave provisions will be progressively increased to 26 weeks by July 2020.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made the announcement on Monday as part of the new government’s 100-day plan.

“Cabinet today decided to increase the duration of parental leave entitlements to 22 weeks from 1 July 2018, extending further to 26 weeks from 1 July 2020,” she said. …

The current entitlement is up to 18 weeks of paid parental leave, one of the lowest allowances in the OECD. Legislation to allow the increase will be introduced to Parliament under urgency on Wednesday. …

The bill is largely the same one drawn up by former MP Sue Moroney, which gained a parliamentary majority but was blocked by former Finance Minister Bill English at the last hurdle using his financial veto in 2016.

It had been “well-canvassed and supported by all parties” other than National and ACT back then, and would not be required to be put through a select committee process for a third time. 

So Labour is going to use urgency to bypass the select committee process. There is no need to do that with a start date of 1 July, so one can only presume they don’t want scrutiny of the decision.

Business New Zealand chief executive Kirk Hope said the policy was positive and would be welcomed by parents but acknowledged it would be difficult for some firms.

One of the challenges smaller business would face was in managing staff.

“It’s challenging for smaller businesses to manage when people decide not to return [to work] and they’re only going to know that at the end of the paid parental leave period,” he said.

Hope said international research suggested the longer the paid parental leave period, the fewer mothers returned to the workforce.

A select committee process would allow that international research to be scrutinised.

National Review reports:

King’s College in London is paying people £12 per hour to police speaking events on campus and take “immediate action” if they hear anything that might offend the audience.

The marshals also put up posters and hand out leaflets reminding all attendees that “this is a Safe Space.” Examples of speech that might violate the policy “could include derogatory comments about someone’s age, disability, marital or maternity or paternity status, race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, trans status, socio-economic status, or ideology or culture,” according to an article in the Telegraph.

I like how the list gets longer or longer. Once it was gender or race. Not we have paternity status, ideology, socio-economic status and culture also!

And safe space marshalls. George Orwell couldn’t come up with such stuff.

Newshub reported:

On Monday Mr Twyford, the new Housing Minister, warned if “land bankers holding out a massive new development that’s going to deliver thousands of new homes” won’t hand land over, the Government could seize it.

He says the law does not need to be changed to allow the agency to have that power – it already exists under the Public Works Act.

They can try, but if Labour wants to start seizing land off its owners they’re going to have a rough time.

The Public Works Act is generally used for major projects such as a road (or dam). You can’t have a partial road or dam, so you need a mechanism for getting a contiguous area of land for it. That is the Public Works Act.

Now merely wanting to build some houses in a particular area would be hard to justify under the Public Works Act. You’d have to make a strong case that a particular piece of land is essential.

The Environment Court can over-ride the Minister with disputed land under the Public Works Act. They have to be convinced that the objectives of the Minister can’t be met some other way.

So I doubt Labour will get far trying to confiscate land for housing.

In 1999 the Labour Government won 39% of the vote. The next poll had them at 50%. So they got an 11% bump from winning.

It lasted a year. By October 2000 they were back to 40%.

In 2008 National won 45% of the vote. The next poll had them at 56%. SO also an 11% bump from winning.

So both recent changes of Government has seen an 11% bump for the winning party. This is because people like to give a new Government a fair go.

If this Government follows form, then the next public polls should show Labour at 48%. What will be interesting is where any increase comes from.

The other thing that will be interesting is how long the bump lasts for. In 2000 it lasted a year. But National’s bump lasted their entire first term – they never dropped below 49% in the One News Colmar Brunton poll. Will Labour’s bump last for a year, less than a year, or more than a year?

The Herald reports:

The Labour-led Government wants to put the brakes on the burgeoning prison muster so it can axe plans for a new 1500-bed prison – expected to cost close to $1 billion.

The increase in remand prisoners has put pressure on the prison population in recent years and Corrections is now looming as a political battleground, with Opposition leader Bill English warning that it will test the Government.

The number of prisoners has risen since new laws in 2013 that made it tougher to grant bail, roughly doubling the number of remand prisoners to about 3000 today.

The prison muster yesterday was 10,457, well above justice sector forecasts and expected to keep rising.

Last year the previous Government unveiled plans to add 1800 prison beds at a cost of $1 billion, with more double bunking in Ngawha Prison, a new 245-bed block in Mt Eden Prison, and the new 1500-bed prison.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said it was his “strong preference” not to build a new prison, which he called a symbol of the “abject failure of our criminal justice system”.

No one wants more prisons, but if more people need to be in prisons you need places for them.

The good ways to reduce the prison population are:

• Fewer people commit serious crimes
• The re-offending rate drops for existing criminals
• Fewer breaches of parole
• Fewer breaches of bail

The bad ways to reduce the prison population are:

• Giving shorter sentences to serious violent and sexual offenders
• Ignoring breaches of bail and parole conditions
• Allowing serious offenders out more often to commit more crimes and victimise more people

It will be great if Labour reduces the prison population through the first set of measures. My fear is it will be the second set.

Davis said some innovative thinking could be used to rehabilitate women prisoners, whose needs and motives are different to men.

“Men normally do things because we’re a bit stupid. Women normally commit crime to protect others, their families, their children.”

Well that is a gross stereotype. Clayton Weatherston wasn’t thick. He was a sociopath. And Joanne Harrison wasn’t protecting anyone when she stole from the Ministry of Transport. She was just greedy.

Sad to see the Corrections Minister making excuses for criminals.

The Herald reports:

National has accused the new Government of an unprecedented and alarming erosion of democratic rights after disagreement over committees which play a crucial role in passing laws.

Labour has hit back – saying its plan to have 96 select committee places comes after National leader Bill English warned of his party’s size and the effect it will have on how Parliament operates.

National MP and shadow leader of the house Simon Bridges said it was normal for places on select committees to be roughly equivalent to the size of Parliament, or around 120 MPs.

Useful to have some history here. Since 1996 the number of select committee places has been 120. Last year the Standing Orders Committee recommended reducing this number as ” some members have too many
committee commitments”. They decided not to set a number on standing orders and said:

We do not favour specifying the number of seats in the Standing Orders. The Business Committee should retain the ability to determine the size of each committee. We propose instead that the Business Committee adopt a target of 96 seats across the 12 subject select
committees.

This change was made when there were three significant opposition parties. It suited them also as they had MPs on more than one select committee. The reason the number wasn’t fixed in standing orders was to give flexibility if circumstances change.

But what we now have is one opposition party with 56 MPs. And if only 96 spots are available, National gets only 45 spots. That means 11 MPs have no select committee membership.

This is wrong. Serving on a select committee is a vital part of being an MP. It is both a learning experience, but also a responsibility to contribute.

National has said they would be happy with 108 seats on select committees as that would give them 51 spots. The whips, Leader, Deputy Leader and Deputy Speaker don’t normally serve so every backbench MP would be on a select committee.

Labour could agree to this. But because they have appointed such a bloated executive with 31 Ministers and Under-Secretaries they are refusing to compromise as many of their backbench MPs would be on two select committees.

To me it is clear what is the greater harm. Sure it is annoying to be on two select committees, but it is harmful to refuse to allow enough places for an Opposition MP who wants to be on a select committee to serve.

Under Gerry Brownlee and Simon Bridges the Business Committee was flexible and co-operative which has led to a great improvement in the running of Parliament. Chris Hipkins is starting his tenure as Leader of the House with inflexibility which bodes very badly for how Parliament will operate.

All they have to do is agree to 108 places which means four more spots on select committees for Labour MPs, one more for NZ First and one more for Greens.