web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

Judith Collins, MMP, “consensus” & democracy

Written By: - Date published: 6:33 pm, May 14th, 2013 - 68 comments
Categories: accountability, democracy under attack, electoral commission, greens, john key, Judith Collins, Metiria Turei, MMP, national/act government, referendum - Tags:

Today Green MP Holly Walker dragged out of Judith Collins that the NAct government will not be implementing the recommendations of the Electoral Commission on MMP.  Then Collins goes on to defend her position with reference to the lack of  “consensus”, clearly associating this with the need for  “unanimous” agreement on the changes by all political parties.

The Greens may be hair splitting when they say Collins is confusing 2 different terms.  However, they nail it when claiming that NAct don’t want to get rid of the Epsom coat tail effect because it may damage their chances of being re-elected.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I believe that Dr Holly Walker was correct on this matter when she wrote: “There is a tradition of legislation making changes to the electoral system being passed unanimously in Parliament, and it would be great if all parties were able to put aside their own short-term political interests and build a consensus around the Electoral Commission’s report.” Dr Walker wrote that on 6 November last year in a little-read blog called Frogblog, and I agree with her.

Holly Walker: Thank you for the promotion—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member like to start her question again.

Holly Walker: Thanks for the promotion, Minister. Which party or parties have blocked consensus in Parliament on the recommendations of the MMP review?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, no party has been able to reach consensus, because consensus actually requires all parties to agree.

In a later press release, Holly Walker argues that the government did not live up to the promise of improving the MMP system following a review:

“The review was carried out in a timely manner with a robust public submission process, a high degree of engagement and a clear steer from the public on what they’d like to see changed.

“National has undermined this process by ignoring the wishes of the New Zealand public, in particular to abolish the one electorate seat threshold.

“It is weak of the Minister to hide behind the excuse of needing cross-party consensus.

“Consensus is always great to aim for but with the self-interest of the National, ACT and United Future parties always likely to derail this process, the responsible thing for the Government to do was to implement the recommendations of the Electoral Commission as a package in time for the next election.

“The Minister wants to gerrymander the system so that National don’t lose their coalition partners and can rely on ACT and United Future at the next election.

Tonight on Checkpoint on RNZ, Metiria Turei says that Collins is confusing “consensus” with “unanimous” support for all the changes.  Further she argues that there would never be a “unanimous” agreement on the recommended changes.  Turei said the Greens don’t agree with all the recommended changes, but will support them.  Key did promise a review, holding out the carrot of possible changes.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I did get the impression that many people voted to keep MMP, with the idea in mind that important changes could be made to some of the undemocratic elements, such as the Epsom fiddle.  It’s interesting that we learn that changes won’t happen soon after John Banks has said he will stand for Epsom again.

68 comments on “Judith Collins, MMP, “consensus” & democracy”

  1. Nordy 1

    Thanks Carol – yes, an issue that has been ‘flying under the radar’ of late, and the NACT govt are happy with that.

    Typical of Collins to confuse and distract by appearing to be principled and yet in reality to be pandering to the minority, as it suits her. As I said elsewhere, ‘the tail wagging the dog’.

    The difficulty with this and other important issues (e.g the constitutional conversation) is that in reality NACT don’t want to engage on the issues as they don’t really have a position or view based on principles or anything close to democracy. It suits them nicely to distract and divert on anything but the issues – the reason of course they have that ‘nice man Mr Key’ front and centre – just ‘smile and wave’…….

    • Anne 1.1

      Typical of Collins to confuse and distract by appearing to be principled and yet in reality to be pandering to the minority, as it suits her.

      Ms Collins is a dangerous woman. She would not hesitate to use her thugs Slater and Lusk et al… to ‘put down’ anyone who dared to stand up to her. God help us if she ever became prime minister. She would make Thatcher look like a harmless kitten.

      The numbers have been done. NAct can’t afford to lose Banks and Dunne, so to hell with principle and keeping their promise to the proletariat – you know, those pesky peasants (us) whom our forefathers were stupid enough to allow to have a vote.

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1

        And Collins is a possible future PM.

      • Anne 1.1.2

        And here’s the video…

        http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/18499

        Collins left her broomstick at the Chamber door.

      • veutoviper 1.1.3

        Well said, Anne.

        • IrishBill 1.1.3.1

          Collins is despised by many in the National party. She has her uses but she’ll never be leader. You only have to look at how close her henchmen came to seriously damaging National over the Gilmore affair, and Key’s subsequent dismissal of Lusk to see that.

          If Gilmore had decided to use his statement to open the can of worms that is the Nat’s dirty tricks machine (and I understand he came very close to doing so) then any opportunity for National to run a negative lead-in to the 2014 campaign would have been done and dusted. Put simply, Collins’ fools came very close to costing National a 2014 win.

      • Bearded Git 1.1.4

        In this scenario it’s actually best to keep Banks as head of ACT and standing and winning in Epsom, then they will go nowhere.

  2. Northshoreguynz 2

    Looking forward to the MSMs take on this.

  3. ianmac 3

    By the Collins standard that consensus = unanimous, it would be impossible to EVER get this through. John Banks would NEVER agree to lose his cup of tea.
    Consensus usually means a general informal acceptance of a plan. Usually a significant majority.
    Lucky this Government does not need a “Collins Consensus” to pass all its Bills!

  4. Pascal's bookie 4

    Andrew Geddis is going to have something to say about this:

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/running-down-the-clock-on-electoral-reform

    The third future, however, is the worst of all. In it, the Government lets the clock run out on being able to make changes for 2014, while announcing that the lack of consensus amongst the political parties in Parliament means that it intends taking no further action on the Commission’s recommendations.

    I really hope this isn’t a future that the Government plans to visit on us. But if it is, I already have planned a post of Old Testament fury that will make Samuel L. Jackson’s quotation from Ezekiel look like a lullaby to a sleepy child. So, let’s see what the future holds

    • QoT 4.1

      Is it “CALLED IT” following by a Z-snap of the fingers?

      • Is it “CALLED IT” following by a Z-snap of the fingers?

        What is this – 2006?

        Actually, I went down the restrained smouldering and sarcastic tweaking of the NZ Herald route. Sorry for over-promising and under-delivering.

  5. vto 5

    .
    John Key

    John Banks

    John Key

    John Banks

    John Banks

    John Key

    John John Key John Banks John Banks Key

    Banks Key Banks Key Banks Key Banks Key Banks Key

    John Banks Key

    • toad 5.1

      I doubt that even the good voters of Epsom would elect someone so demonstrably corrupt at the next election.

      Goldsmith likely to be the next MP for Epsom, despite the Nats’ undemocratic machinations.

  6. Tamati 6

    To be fair, the voters of New Zealand didn’t get a chance to vote on whether they wished to remove the coattail provision and lower the threshold to 4%. The best thing to do would be have another referendum at the next election, where voters can decide on these two issues. I imagine they support removing “coat tailing” but would reject lowering the threshold.

    • karol 6.1

      All voters got the opportunity to make submissions to the review. Only a small proportion took it up as usual.

      • Tamati 6.1.1

        And all voters should have the opportunity to decide if changes should be made to the electoral system, in a referendum.

        • karol 6.1.1.1

          I can see the value in that, Tamati. I’m not sure how well it would go down right now. Also, the government would get to choose the wording of the questions, compared with a Citizen initiated referendum, which would require a petition.

          My feeling is that most kiwis would choose to end the coat tail requirement.

          • Tamati 6.1.1.1.1

            Indeed.

            Having said that, I imagine a majority of New Zealanders would also vote to remove the Maori seats if given the option. The majority will of the Mob is often not always the best long term decision.

            A link for any classical scholars out there,
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mytilenian_Debate

            • KJT 6.1.1.1.1.1

              The minority will of parliament is almost always not the best long term decision.

              Fixed it for you.

              If you do not trust in the will of the majority, why have voting at all!

              • Tamati

                Read my above post on the Mytilenian Debate.

                A simple majority of Parliament could of course change the electoral system, if it chose to.

        • gobsmacked 6.1.1.2

          Yes, there’s a case for having the 2014 election under the current rules and a simultaneous referendum (“Do you support the Electoral Commission’s proposed changes?” or whatever).

          That solves the whole “consensus” question, which is why Collins/Key don’t want to do it. They prefer an excuse (however hollow) to do nothing at all, until the system starts to go against National. It’s blatantly self-serving.

          Let’s hope Colin Craig gets 4% at the next election and National lose, and start whining “it’s not fair!!”. That would be so funny.

        • Arfamo 6.1.1.3

          Yes. Great idea. Which party will push it?

          • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.3.1

            Neither major party will. Not in their interests to have more small party competitors stealing what they see as votes belonging to them/

        • QoT 6.1.1.4

          Well … we did have the opportunity to decide if changes should be made, when we had a referendum on MMP vs other systems with the understanding that if MMP was triumphant its current implementation would be reviewed.

          I must say it’s going to be an eternal black mark against NZ First for popularizing the idea of screaming “BUT WE NEED A REFERENDUM” every time changes are happening that we don’t like. Representative democracy: learn you some.

          • Tamati 6.1.1.4.1

            Referendums and horrible things, just ask a Californian!

          • KJT 6.1.1.4.2

            Representative democracy is an oxymoron.

            Getting to change the seats in the dictatorship every three years, IS NOT DEMOCRACY!

            • Tamati 6.1.1.4.2.1

              So we should run our nation like New Zealand idol?

              Text into vote whether to amend the habeas corpus Act?

              • Colonial Viper

                Works for Switzerland

                • Tamati

                  Banning Minarets?

                  • Colonial Viper

                    A decision by the people, for the people.

                    • Tamati

                      The majority effectively legitimizing racial discrimination against a minority.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      yeah, that’s right. But Switzerland also voted to increase taxes on executive super salaries, and increased the minimum wage to around $50,000

                    • KJT

                      Why is banning minarets discrimination?
                      We effectively banned church bells early sunday morning long ago. Same thing.
                      Don’t think having amplified calls to prayer at 6 am would be too popular here either.

                      I havn’t noticed “representative democracy being too hot on minority rights.
                      Unless it is protecting the rights of the extremely wealthy to the detriment of all the rest of us, especially Maori.

                    • stargazer

                      “We effectively banned church bells early sunday morning long ago.”

                      but they haven’t banned church steeples. you can have minarets as a design feature without any noise coming out of them. just like we do in nz.

                      the swiss decision is straight discrimination.

      • KJT 6.1.2

        Not surprising. Most New Zealanders have given up on our political process.

        As we are all ignored by our dictators, who do whatever they choose, except for a few bones on election year.

  7. From National’s PoV, it was worthwhile going with the review because there was always the possibility it would recommend changing to Supplementary Member, or even scrapping proportional representation altogether. It hasn’t, so now it has to be ignored as quietly as possible. Good on the Greens for putting a stick in their spokes.

    • Lanthanide 7.1

      Er, the review was specifically set up to follow the first referendum. They can’t have recommended swapping to SM or ditching proportionality, because the public voted for MMP.

      If the public had voted for some other form, then the review would have scoped out how that was to be implemented.

      • Psycho Milt 7.1.1

        The review of MMP involves a referendum and a commission. The commission’s had no point ever since the referendum returned the “wrong” answer.

        • Andrew Geddis 7.1.1.1

          No.

          The Commission’s review ONLY kicked in if the voters decided to retain MMP … so (under this analysis) the Commission’s review had no point at all. Which turned out to be the case, but it would have been nice to hear this before everyone wasted their time taking part in it.

  8. gobsmacked 8

    The Greens score a major headline by asking a direct, simple, clear question.

    For the past 4 years many of us have been begging Labour MPs to do this. But of course they know better (and never read blogs, they tell us), so they persist with “Does he stand by his statements?”, which nearly always leads nowhere.

    They are either too stupid to learn from Winston and the Greens, or too complacent to care.

  9. ianmac 9

    1.Scrapping the provision that allows MPs who win electorate seats to bring others in on their party’s list even if they did not reach the 5 per cent threshold.
    2. Lowering that threshold to 4 or 3 per cent to compensate for any loss of proportionality from that.

    I would ask each party if they agree with 1. Yes or No
    I would ask each party if they agree with 2. Yes or No.
    Then it might become clear just who is denying Consensus.

  10. veutoviper 10

    Well done to the Greens – again – on asking the direct question. As Gobsmacked says at 8, when will Labour ever learn to do the same instead of the useless “Does the … stand by all his/her statements?” AND Supplementary Questions with two parts thereby allowing the Minister to answer only one part.

    We now know that National are going to do nothing – but that should not be surprising considering the consistent attempts by them and their spin doctors (eg Boag) over the last two weeks to blame the Gilmore situation on MMP. They want a return to FPP.

    Interestingly, I/S at NRT presents a different viewpoint on National’s decision/admission that the review recommendations will not be implemented.

    “As someone who thinks that the Electoral Commission’s recommendations are worse than what we have at present, I’m not exactly broken up about this.

    MMP needs to be tweaked, but those tweaks must enhance representation, not diminish it. The changes proposed by the Electoral Commission on their own assessment give us a less representative Parliament than we have at present, and thus it is better that they are dumped. National is acting out of pure venality, but I think its a better result for our democracy than if they’d implemented everything. But it is kindof spitting in the face on everyone who contributed to the review. And having done this, National is inviting future governments to make changes without consensus, which could be even worse.

    It also raises the question of what our political parties could reach consensus on, and why at least those changes are not going to be implemented. And if the answer is “none”, then it suggests that consensus is simply too high a bar, and that the government set up the review to fail all along.”

    http://www.norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/the-mmp-review-is-dead.html

    • Tamati 10.1

      I think this whole issue reinforces the importance of the constitutional review. You simply can’t have politicians drawing up their own rules.

      I disagree with I/S about trying to make parliament more representative though. Already we have seven parties represented in parliaments, with a broad spectrum of ideologies and policies. TBH the only group who aren’t really represented are christian conservatives and I’m not really missing them! Israel has a highly representative system, and it’s safe to say comes up with pretty disastrous results. Extremists and single issue politicians rule the roost, moderation and consensus has long been abandoned.

  11. Alanz 11

    Wow! Sharp, intelligent interview responses from Meteria.
    I have never voted Greens but after hearing that, Meteria has my two ticks on the ballot paper.

    • vto 11.1

      clear as a bell and resonating

    • karol 11.2

      Yes, I’m glad she is fronting more for the party this year. I have long been impressed by Turei’s clear and sharp thinking and talking.

  12. mikesh 12

    It was perfectly reasonable for minor parties such as UF, ACT and Mana to oppose the commission’s recommendations. After all if any of them happened to score, say, 3% support, which would entitle them to 4 seats, then in a proportional representation system they should be allowed their 4 seats. But, equally, a party like the Conservatives can argue that if they are not allowed list seats because they didn’t reach the threshold then other parties that did not reach the the threshold should not be allowed, on the basis of winning an electorate seat, list seats either.

    It seems to me that the only solution which would keep all contenders happy would be to get rid of the threshold altogether. The fact that this solution would be fair to all parties overrides, in my opinion, the main objection viz that it could lead to a proliferation of small parties.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1

      No orphan single MP parties unless they represent an electorate.

      • mikesh 12.1.1

        We have three ‘orphan” single parties in parliament at present. What diffderence does it make to the parliament whether they represent an electorate or not? But in any case “orphan” parties would, I think, be a small price to pay in return for a system which gives all parties represenentation in proportion to their support.

    • felix 12.2

      And anyway, what’s the matter with a proliferation of small parties? It’s not as if the large ones are demonstrating a commitment to mind-blowingly high standards.

  13. AmaKiwi 13

    Would the people have voted in a referendum to:

    Lower taxes for the rich?
    Approve TPPA?
    Destroy local government in Auckland?
    Make Gerry Brownlee Czar of Christchurch?
    Approve Labour’s Seabed and Foreskin bill?
    Allow casinos?
    Allow all our major banks to be sold to foreigners?
    Allow party drugs (legal highs)?
    Have GST. Raise GST from 10% to 12 1/2 % and now 15%?
    Sell off Mighty River Power?
    Reject changes to MMP?
    Approve the Sky Casino deal?
    Give GCSB more power?
    Allow the appointment of Susan de Void?
    Treat our military like serfs.
    Destroy unions?
    Cut industrial safety inspection?
    Allow foreign companies to plunder our fishing grounds?

    Etc., etc., etc.

    We (the overwhelming majority of us) have a very low opinion of MPs of ALL parties.

    Why do we let people we don’t trust and consider incompetent run our country?

    Our political system is dysfunctional. The people should be sovereign, not the politicians.

    • ianmac 13.1

      The “Collins Consensus” (actually = Unanimous) would stop any Bill from being presented let alone passed -ever. Unless it was a Bill doubling MP Salaries.

      • karol 13.1.1

        I laughed at Collins on RNZ this morning saying that the majority of parties do not agree with the electoral commission’s recommendations: she referred to something like 5 parties not agreeing. So that would include 2 one-man parties (UF, ACT), National & 2 other small parties?

    • Ugly Truth 13.2

      “The people should be sovereign, not the politicians.”

      Sovereign. A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler with limited power.

      Sovereignty. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; …

      Black’s dictionary of law, 5th edition.

      Sovereignty is vested in a state, it is not assumed. Sovereignty is a purely abstract concept, in reality no sovereign state has absolute and uncontrollable power. Sovereignty embodies the concept of being at the top of the hierarchy, but just because a group has a hierarchical structure with a single member at the top, it does not mean that the power of that group is supreme, absolute, or uncontrollable.

      As for the sovereignty of a people, this maxim of the common law is relevant.

      Derativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva. The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.

      It’s meaningless to talk of the sovereignty of a people unless the source of power is understood.
      The common law describes this source of power, but the civil state denies both denies the existence of the source and claims the benefits arising from it.

  14. fambo 14

    Best to let sleeping dogs lie. Any changes National made would only make matters worse

  15. tracey 15

    Only two days ago Joyce was railing att eh Greens for undermining democracy with their stance on the casino deala nd compensation… He and Collins obviously never talk!

  16. Tanz 16

    maybe Labour shouild push the recommended changes to MMP as in promising to make the changes if they win next years election. What a loss for democracy though, with Key once again, holding all the trump cards. He will do anything to win votes and stay in power, no matter how unprincipled.

  17. freedom 17

    Consensus comes from consultation. Which as we have heard today, was not exactly forthcoming from Judith Collins, and now we hear that is not “actually” her job.

    Well sorry Judith, but it is “actually”
    You even “actually” said so yourself “actually”.
    ““The Government will now carefully consider the Commission’s recommendations and will be consulting with other parties in Parliament for their views,” Ms Collins said.”

    http://www.judithcollins.co.nz/index.php?/categories/1-News/P9.html

  18. the pigman 18

    I thought the best bit of all this was Collins as quoted in an earlier stuff.co.nz article:

    She said it was not her role to “do deals” on MMP reform.

    “I’m actually not a party leader, I’m the Minister of Justice”, she said.

    “But I will be soon”, she could be heard muttering under her breath. Even from here, I can almost hear the echoes of her dark incantations over a cauldron somewhere in Nu Zihl.

Links to post

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

1 2 3 7

  • Ministers must answer questions on IRD blowout
    The current and previous Revenue Ministers must front up and explain how the child support system had a budget blowout from $30 million to $210 million in just four years, says Labour’s Revenue spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove. “Peter Dunne was Revenue… ...
    15 hours ago
  • Curb stratospheric public CEO salaries
    A review of the way MPs’ pay is set should also look at ways to curb excessive rises in the salaries of public service chief executives, Labour Leader Andrew Little says. “Some of these CEOs have had stratospheric pay increases… ...
    19 hours ago
  • 50 cents? Makes no sense.
    The minimum wage rose by 50 cents this month from 14.25 to 14.75. While it’s a small step towards ensuring minimum workers get a fair share, it’s important to remember that real wages only rose 1.5% while productivity rose by… ...
    GreensBy Denise Roche MP
    2 days ago
  • The Serco corrections circus
    It should seem obvious to employers, private or public, that it’s important to do what you can to retain your best, most experienced staff. They make life easier for you because they’re effective, attentive and often respected by those around… ...
    GreensBy David Clendon MP
    2 days ago
  • Time for NZ to prohibit the killing of great apes
    That ban was widely hailed, and spurred efforts in other countries to get similar bans. However, apes are still being exploited, abused and killed, both in captivity and in the wild. Examples of cruelty, neglect and abuse abound. Apes are… ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers MP
    5 days ago
  • Auckland building consents: Tragic
    The only word to describe the latest building consent figures for Auckland is ‘tragic’, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “Whatever the Government is doing to address the Auckland housing crisis, it is clearly not working. ...
    5 days ago
  • A whiff of a new biosecurity scandal?
    A pest which could create havoc for New Zealand’s horticulture and agriculture sector must be as much a focus for the Government as hunting out fruit flies, Labour’s Biosecurity spokesperson Damien O’Connor says. “While the Ministry for Primary Industries is… ...
    5 days ago
  • Government shrugs off health sector crisis
    Despite new evidence showing that cuts to health spending are costing lives the Government continues to deny the sector is struggling, Labour’s Health spokesperson Annette King says. “Health services in New Zealand are in crisis. ...
    6 days ago
  • Parata lowered the bar for failing charter school
    When Hekia Parata became aware that the Whangaruru charter school was experiencing major problems her first action was to drop standards by reducing the number of qualified teachers they had to employ, Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins has revealed. “Hekia… ...
    6 days ago
  • National not being straight about the economy
    John Key and Bill English need to be straight with New Zealanders about the damage their failure to diversify the economy is doing, after new figures show export growth plunged due to a collapse in dairy exports, says Grant Robertson.… ...
    6 days ago
  • Mind the Gap
    This week the International Monetary Fund released a report on the wider economic value in closing the gender pay gap. When even the bastions of free-market economics start to raise concerns about gender pay gaps, we have to realise how… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    6 days ago
  • Labour will hold National to parental leave promise
    Labour will hold National to its promise to increase the support given to new parents of premature, multiple birth and babies born with disabilities, Labour’s paid parental leave campaigner Sue Moroney says. "I am naturally disappointed that after battling for… ...
    6 days ago
  • It was all just pillar talk
    Steven Joyce’s confession that he can no longer guarantee a pillar-free design for the New Zealand International Convention Centre shows the Government has abandoned its dream of creating an ‘iconic’ ‘world-class’ structure, says Labour Economic Development spokesperson David Clark. “Steven… ...
    7 days ago
  • Australians move on offshore speculators
    John Key might want to have a quiet word with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott about Canberra's just-announced crack down on offshore speculators when he visits New Zealand this week, Labour's Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says."Tony Abbott's centre right government… ...
    7 days ago
  • Government at odds on overseas driver crashes
    National backbencher Jacqui Dean has spoken out about overseas driver crashes, putting herself at odds with Prime Minister John Key who is on record as saying it’s not a big issue, Labour’s Transport spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “I’m not surprised… ...
    7 days ago
  • Human Rights and the Palestine Crisis
    Last week I heard two Palestinians speak at Wellington events about the ongoing crisis in their country. Samar Sabawi spoke to a full house about the history of Palestine and gave us a lucid and disturbing account of the situation… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    7 days ago
  • Time to take real care of our kids
    An Amnesty International report has once again criticised New Zealand’s track record on looking after our kids, Labour’s Children’s spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says. The annual report, which looks at global human rights abuses highlights not only the fact that high… ...
    7 days ago
  • John Key wrong about Labour’s war vote
    John Key’s desperate claims that the former Labour Government didn’t put combat troop deployment to a Parliamentary vote are simply wrong, Labour’s Defence spokesperson Phil Goff says. “It was disgraceful that the Prime Minister ran rough shod over democracy and… ...
    7 days ago
  • Māori language bill needs work
     It is clear that the first draft of the Māori Language Bill was about structures and funding rather than the survival of te reo Māori, Labour’s Māori Development Spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta says.  “Labour is pleased that the Minister of Māori… ...
    7 days ago
  • Report proves troubled school shouldn’t have opened
    The long-awaited release of an Education Review Office report into Northland’s troubled Whangaruru charter school proves it should never have been approved in the first place, Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says. “This report identifies problems with absenteeism and disengaged… ...
    1 week ago
  • Manus Island and the New Zealand Government
    This week the Greens have participated in awareness activity about Manus Island, the refugee camp on an island in Papua New Guinea where Australia dumps asylum seekers. John Key says that he has every confidence in the Australian Government’s claim… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Election Inquiry – Getting accessible voting on the agenda
    James Shaw has been doing a series of blogs on the Election Inquiry into last year’s general election.  I thought this was a great opportunity to raise an issue very dear to me – accessible voting. Last year’s general election… ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers MP
    2 weeks ago
  • RMA changes no solution to Christchurch housing
    Housing will continue to be a big issue in 2015. The latest Consumer Price Index, released last month, shows both good news and bad news on the housing front. After years of being the most expensive place to build a… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Saving kokako in South Auckland’s Hunua Ranges
    It is amazing that you can hear the song of the endangered North Island kokako in South Auckland’s Hunua Ranges, less than 50 kms from the central city. A heavy schedule of policy workshops at the Green Party’s Policy… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Let’s not turn a blind eye to human rights
    The Cricket World Cup has just opened in New Zealand, and it’s an opportunity for us to shine on the world stage. International sport can be a chance for us to build relationships with other countries, and examine what it… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Its Just Not Cricket
    This week it was my privilege to work with Sri Lankan Tamil communities in this country and host Australian journalist and human rights advocate Trevor Grant. I knew a bit about Trevor from his biography but I didn’t know just… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    3 weeks ago
  • Time for NZ to #BeCrueltyFree
    The Government is about to progress the final stages of the Animal Welfare Amendment bill. This will be our last opportunity to get changes made to improve the bill to ensure a better outcome for animals. I have put forwards… ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers MP
    3 weeks ago
  • We want access!
    Access to buildings is a big issue for many New Zealanders. It looks like that, due to the hard work and persistence of people in the disability community, the Government may finally be starting to take access to buildings seriously.… ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers MP
    3 weeks ago
  • Greens call on Super Fund to divest from fossil fuels
    The Green Party today called on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Fund) to divest from fossil fuels, starting immediately with coal. The call was accompanied with a new report, Making money from a climate catastrophe: The case for divesting… ...
    GreensBy Russel Norman MP
    3 weeks ago

Removed at the request of The Daily Blog.
Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere