Written By:
mickysavage - Date published:
10:13 am, February 1st, 2024 - 48 comments
Categories: chris hipkins, Christopher Luxon, israel, james shaw, national, Palestine -
Tags:
Yesterday in Parliament Christopher Luxon showed that he is struggling on the job.
Good Prime Ministers have a solid grasp of the detail. They are briefed, are on top of the facts and understand and are prepared for the variety of potential attacks on the Government’s position. Helen Clark was extraordinary, Jacinda Ardern was exceptional and John Key was frustratingly good. He was always well briefed, knew his stuff and was able to pivot and avoid traps.
Christopher Luxon is none of those. Here is exhibit A in support of this statement.
And here is exhibit B.
His misunderstanding and mischaracterisation of the International Court of Justice decision on Palestine was particularly galling. As shown in this exchange with Shaw:
Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that under article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, New Zealand has an obligation to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not sure the point of the question that the member is trying to ask or get to.
Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. To assist the Prime Minister, the point of the question was to ask if he was aware of article 1 of the convention.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Personally not aware, but if he’d like to direct a specific question to the relevant Minister, I’m sure we could help.
Hon James Shaw: What actions is the Government taking to meet its obligations under article 1 of the genocide convention in light of the recent ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that found a plausible risk of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It was a provisional finding, and it wasn’t a plausible risk.
Hon James Shaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that the ICJ did find that there was a plausible risk of genocide, which would—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Excuse me; when a question is being asked, the House is silent. Start again.
Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that the ICJ did find that there is a plausible risk of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza—
Hon Chris Bishop: And not a genocide.
Hon James Shaw: —and that—
SPEAKER: Mr Bishop.
Hon James Shaw: —and that that would trigger New Zealand’s obligations under article 1 of the convention to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct.
Hon James Shaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a difference between having found whether genocide has taken place or whether there is a plausible risk of genocide taking place, and that article 1 of the convention requires New Zealand to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs—i.e., when there is a plausible risk?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said earlier, the court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct. That is part of a full and substantive hearing that will take place in subsequent months and years.
The point is important because the ICJ clearly found it plausible that Israel’s actions could amount to genocide. The consequence is, as pointed out by Shaw, that New Zealand is then required to take steps to prevent genocide. A finding that it is plausible that genocide is occurring means that New Zealand and other States should take action. Luxon has no understanding of the nuance of the question, nor even what New Zealand’s obligations under the treaty are.
And he had to come back to Parliament and correct his answer. From Hansard:
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): I seek leave to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question during oral question No. 4 today.
SPEAKER: That’s to give a personal explanation?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I said that there wasn’t a plausible risk. What I should have said is that the court was not required to determine whether Israel had actually breached its obligations under the genocide convention. Therefore, the court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct. However, the court found that there is a plausible case that Israel’s conduct in Gaza may breach its obligations under the genocide convention. That will be the subject of a full and substantive hearing in the International Court of Justice.
From Hipkins’ questions it is clear that Labour has information that Casey Costello gave NZ First policy documents to Officials to then develop policy options for the Government. I expect we will hear a lot more about this in the future.
In the meantime I suspect that National and Luxon are beginning to dread every time he stands up in the house. And it is abundantly clear that in the house he is no John Key.
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Goodness me mickysavage you're going to have to give up your day job if things continue as they are.
I linked to those two "exhibits" yesterday on OM. I couldn't believe what I was seeing/hearing – the ignorance, the incompetence and the plainly wrong information.
Of course some official/officials leaked the info. to Labour's Ayesha Verrall. They would have been justifiably appalled at what they were being asked to do. In short, they were whistle-blower/s and they have put a duty to inform before personal gain.
I wouldn't be so sure of that, Anne. Leaking to a news outlet is one thing. Doing so directly to an opposition spokesperson is quite another.
As a public servant myself there's just something about it that makes me deeply uncomfortable. The right is already looking desperately for an excuse to sideline or purge the public service. And being seen to be taking sides in a political debate may just be the casus belli they've been looking for.
Or maybe I'm just old-fashioned and believe strongly in the political neutrality of the public service, despite my fundamental disdain for the current government and its "policy" (if you're feeling charitable enough to call it that).
Lux had to correct himself sometime later: you definitely scored a point there! Risk of genocide seemed so hard for him to concede that he was initially forced into denial of the ICJ verdict which made him seem both stupid and perverse.
So looks like his minder pointed this out & Lux then realised he was damaging his reputation. Fatal self-harm for a political leader!!
Good on James & Marama for labouring the point. Lux played for time by kicking for the sideline. We'll see if parliament can comprehend risk management when they do their eventual diagnosis of the ICJ advisory…
National must wish they could have that minder sitting right next to Luxton in the chamber.
Doubt it. Geopolitical risk isn't normal business in parliament so the ICJ is a curve-ball to be dodged. Only if debate in parliament were to focus on genocide prevention as risk management would the rarified heights of intellectual positioning become attainable, at which point his lack of intellect threatens to expose him. We will have to await the foreshadowed debate to see if this happens…
Dont forget the ministerial re-shuffle at the start of last week.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/507629/prime-minister-announces-minor-cabinet-reshuffle
Looks like he wasnt on top of what ministers would be doing back when it created his ministry
National's Erica Stanford will become Minister for the Crown Response Unit of the Royal Commission Inquiry into Abuse in Care. She is already minister for Education and Immigration.
ACT leader David Seymour will become Associate Justice Minister with responsibility for the Treaty Principles Bill.
NZ First MP Mark Patterson adds Associate Regional Development to his Rural Communities and Associate Agriculture roles.
NZ First's Jenny Marcroft, who is Parliamentary undersecretary for Media and Communications, will now also be Parliamentary Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries.
The kind of mistakes he keeps making suggests there's no remedy for his problem, that what ever it is that makes him so useless as a leader is very much part of who he is and how he's become hardwired to operate.
It is no surprise.
Key had more experience in the House, and was Finance Spokesperson in the Brash campaign in 2005 before becoming leader and then PM after the 2008 election.
Luxon is in the House becomes Leader, runs a campaign, forms a coalition and then has more learning to do about being a Minister in Cabinet and PM while answering questions in parliament.
It is now up to the Opposition to stamp on the Ministers of the 3 parties acting independently of coalition policy (Cabinet policy) to develop and promote their party policy with the help of ministry (public) resources – which is a form of lobbying on behalf of their party donors. At least until Luxon demonstrates either an understanding of Cabinet responsibility or the role of the public service.
Don't agree SPC, a person who has attained the positions that Luxon has had should be a fast learner, he's not, ergo, he's an idiot who has one trick that has kept him afloat and that trick is bullshit with a side dressing of flannel.
A lot of the art of politics is learnt by osmosis, he is from outside that world.
The same problem occurs within the public service with the neo-liberal tendency to bring in those of some "executive class".
The type do not do complexity, procedure and nuance well.
What you seem to be suggesting, Adrian, is that Luxon would struggle to keep that job at McDonalds he posed for in the cover photo for Micky's post.
Umm . . . I agree!
Maybe somebody should investigate the manner of his leaving!
Luxons a risk the hollow men are happy to take as they needed a fresh electable face they could craft the campaign around.
Key also had heavy lifters like ryall, Joyce, blinglish and findlayson covering the bases.
Opposition need to keep it simple and nag away consistently as a team for the country's sake.
Agreed, tc.
It is the public face of an erstwhile coalition leader largely manipulated and outflanked by prime ministerial pretenders Seymour and Peters.
They won't be complaining. Luxon's weakness is their strength and whilst it works that way their notional truce will continue.
Micky’s quoted questions and replies from Parliament illustrate much of the problem here.
Is Mr 7 pads Luxury Baldrick Luxon, genuinely thick, lazy, mis-speaks, unprepared, unaware of Parliamentary procedure & public presentation, or just does not care that much?
I guess we will find out in the next few months, for now watch him at Waitangi where he will likely do a bit of crawling and then square off afterwards. The Three Amigos–hey!!
What a tool he is.
Another issue Luxon has is the cronyism and corruption within his government.
Gun toting Judith Collins as Minister of Defence. The same, minister for Orivida as AG.
Casey Costello, ex shill for The Taxpayer Union as a minister.
Chris Bishop, current unaccredited big tobacco lobbyist, a senior minister.
Nicole McKee, Firearms Minister, and gun lobbyist.
Winston Peters, bought and paid for by the racing and commercial fishing industries.
At some point these are going to blow up in Luxon's face. He does not have the political nous to be able to cope.
It's happening slowly, right now.
Micky has certainly given me one good laugh for the day.
I would certainly agree that both Helen Clark and John Key were fully in control as to what their Governments were up to. However He also tells us that. "Good Prime Ministers have a solid grasp of the detail. They are briefed, are on top of the facts ……. Jacinda Ardern was exceptional and ……"
Jacinda Ardern on top of the facts? You have got to be joking or, as John McEnroe put it "You cannot be serious"
This was the woman who didn't know the difference between the Crown Accounts and the GDP figures. This was the woman who had no idea of what was in the Treaty of Waitangi and only came out with the words that Willie Jackson was whispering to her from behind her and which she couldn't expand on.
On top of the facts? You cannot be serious.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2019/02/04/jacinda-ardern-fumbles-over-what-treaty-of-waitangi-articles-say-article-one-on-the-spot/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/107160622/prime-ministers-office-admits-mistake-over-arderns-economic-growth-hint-claim
https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tTP1TcwKzc1sTBg9FLKys_IU8hNTs0ryk9VqMwvVUhOzMvLL1FISlUoTi3KzC8tBgBc9g_j&q=john+mcenroe+you+cannot+be+serious&oq=john+mcenroe+you+cannot+be&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEC4YgAQyCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyBwgBEC4YgAQyBggCEEUYOTIICAMQABgWGB7SAQoyNTMyNGowajE1qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:50750c96,vid:t0hK1wyrrAU,st:0
She's gone Alwyn.
Chris Luxon is the Prime Minister now.
I suggest that you tell Micky about that. He was the one who brought up Helen, Jacinda and John.
I am pretty sure that no-one under 20 can remember when Helen Clark was PM. They wouldn't have started school when she left Office but Micky still retains the happy memories of his youth.
I agree that his correlation of Jacinda & facts seems rather loopy & you've reminded us of her track record effectively. I'm inclined to explain that as not due to any inherent incapacity however.
Seems to me having a young child will always reduce one's attention span & which facts are relevant is subjective anyway. Plus a leader is meant to lead from a big-picture view which often means helpers mind the details.
Helen's track record on the relevance of Greens values to politics was total ignorance/evasion till Al Gore's movie forced her to get real so obviously she was too stupid to grasp the scientific facts until then. Key was a fact-free zone in all directions until political necessity forced him to confront them in particular situations. So poor old MS clocks in a score of 0/3 for accuracy.
No matter, a political essay can still succeed despite being fictional on one particular dimension! His did, I reckon.
"Jacinda & facts seems rather loopy." Such as? two examples mentioned @10 do not demonstrate that.
"Seems to me having a young child will always reduce one's attention span & which facts are relevant is subjective anyway" Saw no evidence of that, that is sexist rubbish.
Grow up. Any parent of young children will correct your view real fast.
The topic was Jacinda, not any other parent and as I said, I saw no evidence regarding your sexist, belittling remark. Jacinda was always sharp as a tack.
You really believe she's not typical in that situation?? Your grasp of reality really is rather marginal. Anyway her lack of interest in relevant details of situations was so widely reported in the media for so long I don't really need to advocate the common view. Your ignorance of that suffices to demonstrate your lack of credibility.
Best demo is this unicorn hunt: search for the reported instances of Jacinda explaining the details of Labour's adoption of co-governance. Bet you can't find any!
Do you have kids, Dennis?
Yeah.
And did you have baby-brain when they were born, or did you keep on blogging at a high level throughout?
I think it’s really important to call you out on your extremely lazy reference to Ardern’s performance being hampered by her child.
I’m surprised you haven’t asked if she timed her baby specifically to get the job like a lot of your fellow nut jobs do.
"her lack of interest in relevant details of situations was so widely reported in the media" Links to back up your opinion?
"The prime minister says co-governance arrangements are not something to be feared, and described them as key to upholding Treaty of Waitangi obligations."
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/08/jacinda-ardern-says-co-governance-is-key-to-upholding-treaty-of-waitangi-obligations.html
"Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says her government won’t be backing down on advancing Māori issues, even if National frames co-governance as central to the 2023 general election.
“You’ve got to be able to sleep at night, knowing that you’ve done your best and you’ve done what you’ve believed is right,” Ardern told TeAoMaori.news
The Māori Health Authority, Three Waters and Māori seats on councils were achievements Ardern said the Government was proud of.
Ardern said she was “comfortable” the government was doing its best to fulfil obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/jacinda-ardern-wont-back-down-on-maori-issues/NSVB6NBQVVEE3JELQORV2U7WTM/
None of those expressions of feeling fit the criteria specified: "explaining the details of Labour's adoption of co-governance."
The obvious facts to search for are the day the policy was adopted by the party, and the actual event that produced the adoption, and the text agreed to, and the decision-making body that effected the formal adoption. Another key detail would be the decision not to inform the media at the time…
Thought it was explained. Cannot understand why people like yourself are against such a partnership that has been going on for years. National under Key introduced some co-governance arrangements. There was no political hysteria over it then.
"So under both Labour and National co-governance has been orthodox policy for over 30 years."
https://thestandard.org.nz/co-governance-is-orthodox-policy-for-both-national-and-labour/
https://www.dia.govt.nz/Water-services-reform-about-the-reform-programme
MS used the former prime Ministers as a comparison to Luxon, whose lack of knowledge, understanding, and inexperience is showing.
Winston was coaching Luxon on what to say during question time. 2 weak examples do not show that Jacinda was not on top of the facts, because she most definitely was and she demonstrated that through post-cab pressers, media interviews, daily updates during the pandemic, and question time.
[to Alwyn]
Complete nonsense. The opposition kept complaining that Ardern was given too much TV time. They thought it was unfair, because she used that time so effectively.
If you asked the current opposition if Luxon should hold daily press conferences live on TV, and answer more questions in the House, they would say "please, please let it happen". He is a walking gift.
This week Luxon even cancelled the weekly post-Cabinet press conference.
observer
With both Minister of Justice and Minister of Foreign Affairs in Australia, Luxon is an open mark for Hipkins.
As Sepuloni has noted, they had 3 separate corrections after making their Parliamentary responses to questions given well in advance.
I'm looking forward to Hipkins and Shaw exploiting this Parliamentary question time to its fullest.
Yes.
Luxon will learn. He is new to the game, and a fast learner. Hipkins in comparison has been there for years, it's been his only job. He was woeful as prime minister and got routed in the election. He will get the occasional success, as he seemed to today, but these will become few and far between. He will be gone by the next election. Luxon will be at his best in his second term.
Luxon is not a fast learner. He is not even a slow follower …
Luxon is a flake
A lot of learning is by osmosis, the agitation of the water helps the flakes to work.
As will an opposition asking the right questions of a government out of its depth.
I don't ask a right-wing PM to favour leftish policies. I don't expect him to be the PM I want.
But couldn't he at least buy a dictionary? Maybe read a book? Anything to expand his vocabulary beyond a handful of cliches.
On the 6 pm news tonight he was asked about Costello, and even if you didn't see it, you already know … "What I would say to you is … Look … what I would say to you …"
His language bingo card has about four phrases. Smallest bingo card ever.
And more credit is due – he also said at the end of the day. Bit late for speech training, unfortunately.
There is a rumour going around that Luxon's sister in law works for American Tobacco.
Don't know how to link to Instagram but she is Barbara Luxon and is their Marketing Manager living in Christchurch.
Remembering the anger poured on the Maori Minister for connections to her husband, I guess Christopher will have some explaining to do.
She's had the job since 2004, it has little to do with the recent politics.
Gosh Bishop is a tosser, like father like son I guess…. "I will never be coming back to this Cafe again"… Ugh…
I totally agree with Shaws findings.
I will however remind everyone on the left that we totally underestimated John Key and from 06-16 said exactly the same things we said about Key, that we are now saying about Luxon.
Noone on the left ever took Key seriously or thought he was competent while he was PM, Noone on the left was ever able to understand why he was popular, people mocked him for the way he talked, his weird statements that had to be corrected and his inexperience, his wealth, being a corporate banker etc
And it NEVER dinged his popularity.
I don't like Luxon but history is repeating all over again.
We're totally underestimating this dude who took national from it's second worst defeat in history to government in two years and Labour have only beaten him in a couple of polls in two years.
Attacking leaders on inexperience doesnt work, kiwis HATE professional politicians.
Attacking him on his corporate career doesn't work cos kiwis like hearing that their leaders had jobs before parliament
Attacking him on his wealth doesn't work because people think one day they too will be rich and bear "oh they are jealous of his success"
Attacking him on the way he talks doesn't work because it's just mean.
Attacking him for not being popular doesn't work because it's a bit rich since he won an election and the LOTO is polling at 13%
Attacking him for owning multiple houses doesn't work especially when most of the other side do too.
We never beat John Key, he resigned while polling in the high 40's and early 50's….
Luxon took a splintered broken terminally ill party into govt in less than two years.
We always underestimated Key we never took Key seriously and we are doing the same thing with Luxon and attacking him in the same ineffective ways we attacked key.