Change

So, nearly four weeks after the election, and two weeks after the results, Winston has chosen Labour and the Greens. While I'm not overjoyed at the result, because Winston, its certainly the better outcome of the hand the voters dealt the parties. And while a government saddled with Winston won't be able to achieve everything we want it to, the involvement of the Greens should both push Labour to the left while being a check on Winston's more odious policies. Meanwhile, there's some solid policy the three parties agree on, like building state houses, raising the minimum wage, and even passing a Zero Carbon Act (where NZ First seems to get off is any actual policy to meet the targets such an Act will set). So, I'm hoping that it will turn out OK. I know the Greens at least will be working constructively to make that happen.

The part of Winston's speech that really stood out and signified his direction was this:

Far too many New Zealanders have come to view today’s capitalism, not as their friend, but as their foe.

And they are not all wrong.

That is why we believe that capitalism must regain its responsible - its human face. That perception has influenced our negotiations.

And he's right. Capitalism is broken. Just look at housing, or poverty, or our shitty, low wage employment market - its just not providing for ordinary people (and that's not even getting into the ways it doesn't work around the environment). Whether it can be fixed or not is an open question, but I'm not going to fault people for trying. And if they manage to do something about the awful poverty (and associated cruelty) we tolerate, then maybe Metiria's martyrdom will have been worth it.

Burn it all to the fucking ground

That's my immediate response to the news that Metiria Turei has resigned and will be leaving Parliament. Rage, just utter rage at a political system where this can happen. Where people who have been poor are villified and harassed because of the choices a corrupt, unfair, immoral system forced them to make. Where those people are sent a clear message that they should not and never can be involved in politics. Where instead, we're ruled by entitled wankers like Gower and Hosking and People Like Them who meet their approval.

The actual resignation was triggered by unsubstantiated rumours put about about Metiria's family. The sort of rumours which are impossible to answer without involving people who never signed up for politics. Rather than do that, Metiria resigned. It was the decent thing to do. At the same time, it is utterly fucking vile that these arseholes get to win like this. It is absolutely disgusting that the right wins by going after people's families. But that's the sort of arseholes we have running this country.

Earlier today, I said that if the right wants a C19th "democracy" which excludes poor people, they need to be reminded of the C19th solution: pitchforks and guillotines. I stand by that. Fuck them all, burn it all to the fucking ground.

Martyria

A couple of weeks ago, Metiria Turei confessed to not telling WINZ everything about her living arrangements when she was a poor solo mother on the DPB in the 90's. Since then there has been a relentless barrage of hate from the dead white male establishment commentariat, outraged at the thought that a mother would do whatever she had to to keep her kids from starving. Yesterday, it emerged that - shock! horror! - in 1993 she had enrolled in a different electorate from the one she lived in (something which was fine for the PM and fine for his predecessor, because under NZ electoral law you live where you say you live, provided you only live in one electorate at a time). The hate intensified. And so today, Metiria fell on her sword and ruled herself out of any Cabinet position if the Greens were lucky enough to be involved in a government.

This is utterly ridiculous. Legally, its not clear that there was any offence, and even if there was, it is so long ago and so minor as to be utterly trivial (seriously - its on the same level as the standard protest charge of disorderly conduct. And can you imagine the palpitations those establishment political commentators would have if it emerged that Turei had ever participated in a political protest?) This is not the sort of thing that should rule anyone out from a political or Ministerial career. But Metiria's real crime wasn't stopping her kid from starving, or voting in the "wrong" electorate: it was putting the issue of our society's weaponisation of poverty front and centre, and standing up for the poor and downtrodden. And it has now been made crystal clear that that is absolutely intolerable to the establishment, and so she has been crucified for it. Which kindof proves her point, neh?

We desperately need change. Political change and social change. We need a political system where people who have escaped poverty are allowed to seek power. And we need a media where people can talk about the experience of being poor without being denigrated for it or treated like a criminal. And the first step to that is to change the fucking government.

Not very radical

Green co-leader Metiria Turei gave her "state of the nation" speech today, in which she both defended the Greens' nature as a radical party, while also trying to claim that they're not very radical. And she's got points both ways: on the one hand, the Greens are consistently political leaders, advocating for policies that the other parties first decry, then adopt. Policies like capital gains taxes, better public transport, a price on carbon emissions, and not beating children. But on the other, one of the reasons these policies look radical in the first place is because policy has already been pushed in radical directions: by Roger Douglas, Ruth Richardson and their heirs destroying our economy and our society, by National and its efforts to pave the planet with roads, and by farmers who want to fill our rivers and lakes with shit. And compared to this, Green goals of clean water, liveable cities, and not letting kids starve or go homeless do look pretty conservative. Which is I guess a nice example of the fluidity of political labelling and its relativeness to the policy-space.

Also in the speech Meyt proposed a small policy: a Policy Costings Unit to provide independent assessments of the costs of political parties' policies. Its hardly a radical idea, but it is a good one. More information for voters is always good, and it would cost a pittance to provide. But there is one problem: the Greens would locate it within Treasury. While they'd firewall it against Ministerial interference, I don't think such firewalls could be trusted, and in addition Treasury is a deeply politicised department and cannot possibly be considered "independent". It would be far better if such analysis was done by a truly independent agency - and the best way to get that would if the unit was an Office of Parliament.

His own worst enemy

I've just watched an extraordinary exchange in Question Time, which saw Speaker Carter threatening to punish the Greens for following proper process.

Metiria Turei had tried to ask the Prime Minister a question about his crony deal with Sky City. Key didn't want to answer it, so it was transferred to the Minister for Economic Development. As the question was asking whether the Prime Minister stood by one of his statements, Turei quite rightly challenged that transfer. She then, as is usual practice, tried to change the Speaker's mind when he refused. Having failed, she then sought a further point of order. At that stage, the speaker went berserk and started issuing threats. After a prolonged exchange which tied up the House for a good five minutes, he finally relented - at which stage Metiria was allowed to ask her points of order: to seek leave for the question to be transferred back, and then to exercise her right to withdraw the question.

So, a party which tried to follow the proper and accepted process - seek a ruling, attempt to argue it once, seek leave to over-ride it, then withdraw the question - was threatened by the Speaker for doing so.

Its an unpleasant example of Carter's biases - and of his failure as a Speaker. He is his own worst enemy in the role: his authoritarianism and partisanship make the job unnecessarily difficult for him, in the process wasting valuable House time and bringing the House into contempt with the public. Bluntly, if he wasn't such a dick about it, his job would become significantly easier. But sadly, that's probably too much to expect.

(The irony: one of those vague "does the Prime Minister stand by all his statements" questions I hate provided a gateway for the Turei to bypass the transfer and ask Key directly. Which he Did Not Like. Which means Carter will probably be moving to limit the scope of such questions in future in order to protect the Prime Minister from public shame).

Goff still silent on transparency

Rodney Hide, who last year was busted for abusing his Parliamentary travel perks, has come out in support of transparency, saying that it is public money and that the public have "an expectation around transparency and accountability these days". The Greens' Metiria Turei is also backing transparency, as well as calling for a full independent review of Parliamentary perks to remove the taint of MPs setting their own entitlements.

Meanwhile, Phil Goff remains silent. New Zealand's leading progressive party isn't leading on this. That doesn't just put them in the wrong - as Hide says, this is public money, and so we are entitled to see how it is spent - it also puts them on the wrong side of the public.

In the ballot XXXIII

Another batch of Member's Bills currently in the ballot. Previous batches are indexed here:

Crown Minerals (Protection of Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill (Metiria Turei): would amend the Crown Minerals Act 1993 to require an Act of Parliament to remove land from the protection of Schedule 4. Land would still be able to be added by a simple Order in Council. This would prevent selective excisions to allow mining, and reflects the current regime for national parks.

Fisheries (Precautionary Approach) Amendment Bill (Kevin Hague): Originally a government bill put forward by Jim Anderton in 2008 and then discharged, this would amend the Fisheries Act 1996 to require decision-makers to take a precautionary approach in decision-making where information is absent, uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate. The most significant effect of this would be to shift decisions on the total allowable catch under the Quota Management System in a more sustainable direction, reflecting the international consensus towards precautionary environmental management contained in a number of international agreements to which New Zealand is a party. It's a sensible measure, but the fishing industry - which thinks that fishing is sustainable until the last fish is caught - hates it.

Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill (Ruth Dyson): Amends the RMA to tighten the criteria for the granting of requiring authority status (allowing a company to compulsorily acquire land under the Public Works Act) by re-inserting a "public interest" clause. This was originally in the law, but was removed by the Resource Management Amendment Act 1993. Since then there have been several dubious grants of requiring authority status for private profit - most notably in the case of Central Plains Water Ltd for its unsustainable Central Plains Irrigation Scheme.

As usual, I'll have more bills as I acquire them.

Refusing to answer II

The transcript from Question Time today:

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?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has to at least attempt to answer a question properly put to him by another member of Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Unless the Minister considers it not to be in the public interest, he should answer the question. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee. The Minister clearly has nothing to say in response to the question.

This is simply unacceptable behaviour from a Minister. Being held accountable by Parliament is part and parcel of holding a Ministerial warrant. And if Brownlee is unwilling to do that, he should resign.

Refusing to answer

Question time today started with Metiria Turei hauling Gerry Brownlee over the coals over his desire to dig up the conservation estate. She has just asked a detailed question about the relative value of minerals versus conservation. In response, Brownlee said... nothing. He did not even rise to respond, just shrugged his shoulders and refused to answer. He did not hide behind the claim that it would not be in the public interest to answer - he simply did not bother to respond. And the Speaker has allowed him to get away with it.

I have never seen this happen before, and with good reason. Question Time is the primary means by which Ministers are held to account by Parliament. If they can simply refuse to answer - not claim public interest immunity (which is open to some examination and challenge), not quibble over Ministerial responsibility (another favoured tactic), but simply refuse and stand mute - then that task is made impossible. Both Brownlee and the Speaker have failed our democracy today.

One rule for them, another for us

In Question Time today, Green co-leader Metiria Turei quizzed the Prime Minister on his decision to give ministers a stealth pay rise under the guise of "slashing" ministerial accommodation costs. In the process, she asked a very pertinent question:

Does the Prime Minister know that low-income workers need to prove evidence of their actual housing costs in order to receive a supplement through Working for Families; is it not reasonable that his Ministers do the same?

Key's response? "No, I do not think that it is". Apparently, that would involve spending money on administration - something the government has no problem with when it is ensuring that we plebs get only what we are entitled to. But I guess its one rule for them, and another for us...

Medicinal cannabis: the vote

Last night, Metiria Turei's Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill was voted down, 84 - 34. So, who did it? Who are the guilty, without compassion, who would rather see people suffer than let them legally use a drug which helps them? Thanks to the Long-nosed Potaroo, I've got a little list:

Noes:

• The entire National Party, who bloc-voted against it
• Jim Anderton (Progressive Coalition, Wigram)
• Rick Barker (Labour, List)
• Ashraf Choudhary (Labour, List)
• Clayton Cosgrove (Labour, Waimakariri)
• Clare Curran (Labour, Dunedin South)
• Lianne Dalziel (Labour, Christchurch East)
• Kelvin Davis (Labour, List)
• Peter Dunne (United Future, Ohariu)
• Te-Ururoa Flavell (Maori Party, Waiariki)
• Phil Goff (Labour, Mt Roskill)
• George Hawkins (Labour, Manurewa)
• Parekura Horomia (Labour, Ikaroa-Rawhiti)
• Darren Hughes (Labour, Otaki)
• Raymond Huo (Labour, List)
• Rahui Katene (Maori Party, Te Tai Tonga)
• Luamanuvao Winnie Laban (Labour, Mana)
• Nanaia Mahuta (Labour, Hauraki-Waikato)
• Trevor Mallard (Labour, Hutt South)
• Stuart Nash (Labour, List)
• Damien O'Connor (Labour, List)
• David Parker (Labour, List)
• Mita Ririnui (Labour, List)
• Ross Robertson (Labour, Manukau East)
• Pita Sharples (Maori Party, Tamaki Makaurau)
• Su'a William Sio (Labour, Mangere)
• Tariana Turia (Maori Party, Te Tai Hauauru)

Ayes:

• Jacinda Ardern (Labour, List)
• Carol Beaumont (Labour, List)
• John Boscawen (ACT, List)
• Sue Bradford (Greens, List)
• Brendon Burns (Labour, Christchurch Central)
• Steve Chadwick (Labour, List)
• Charles Chauvel (Labour, List)
• David Cunliffe (Labour, New Lynn)
• Catherine Delahunty (Greens, List)
• Ruth Dyson (Labour, Port Hills)
• Darien Fenton (Labour, List)
• Jeanette Fitzsimons (Greens, List)
• David Garrett (ACT, List)
• Kenedy Graham (Greens, List)
• Kevin Hague (Greens, List)
• Hone Harawira (Maori Party, Te Tai Tokerau)
• Rodney Hide (ACT, Epsom)
• Chris Hipkins (Labour, Rimutaka)
• Pete Hodgson (Labour, Dunedin North)
• Sue Kedgley (Greens, List)
• Annette King (Labour, Rongotai)
• Iain Lees-Galloway (Labour, Palmerston North)
• Keith Locke (Greens, List)
• Sue Moroney (Labour, List)
• Moana Mackey (Labour, List)
• Russel Norman (Greens, List)
• Lynne Pillay (Labour, List)
• Rajen Prasad (Labour, List)
• Grant Robertson (Labour, List)
• Heather Roy (ACT, List)
• Carmel Sepuloni (Labour, List)
• Maryann Street (Labour, List)
• Metiria Turei (Greens, List)
• Phil Twyford (Labour, List)

Grant Robertson is listed as voting both ways, and I am seeking clarification as to his actual vote (update: he voted in favour). Roger Douglas was overseas. Chris Carter and Shane Jones apparently did not vote.

There's a very obvious division there in the Labour Party, with most of the Labour MPs voting against being electorate MPs, and most of those voting for being list MPs. This could reflect the differing pressures on list and electorate MPs, or it could reflect age, as the list MPs are generally younger. It does bode well for the future of Labour, though - the "class of 08" are considered to be the futue of the party, and the vast majority of them voted to send the bill to committee.

And ACT, for once, lived up to its "liberal" branding, with David Garrett showing himself more liberal on this issue than John Key or Phil Goff. That has to hurt...

Same-sex adoption on the agenda?

The Greens' Metiria Turei is calling for the Adoption Act to be changed to allow adoption by same-sex couples.

So bring a Member's Bill on the subject already. The Greens are already running out of bills to put in the ballot (the Green ballot mojo has its disadvantages sometimes), and this would give them another issue to campaign on. In addition, it has a high likelihood of passing. As I pointed out last year, same-sex adoption is the progressive issue with the best chance of passing this term. As a basic issue of equality, only the most retrograde of Labour MPs would oppose it, and it would have universal support from the Greens. According to the profiles at NZVotes, two National MPs (including John Key) were willing to publicly back such a bill - and this did not include answers from National's traditional liberals such as Pansy Wong, Clem Simich, and Katherine Rich. Add in Brian Donnelly (who really seems out of place among the dinosaurs of the NZ First caucus), and it sems there would be a majority there, without having to consider the unreliable ACT vote, or the position of National's new (and therefore unknown) MPs.

The only worry is that United Future would threaten to bring down the government if they backed such a bill - but I don't think that forcing them to make such a statement publicly would hurt in the slightest. They'd immediately be tarred as a party of fundamentalist bigots intent on imposing (their peculiar version of) "God's Law" on the rest of us - and such parties have never really done well electorally in New Zealand.

The current situation is blatantly discriminatory, and for no good reason. Gays make as good parents as straights, and that should be the only question in adoption decisions. The sooner the Adoption Act is amended, the better.

"Love the fundamentalists, but hate their fundamentalism"

Ouch. Metiria Turei of the Greens has delivered a stinging attack on the opponents of the Civil Unions Bill, calling a spade a spade and pointing out that opposition to the bill is rooted in simple bigotry and homophobia:

"All this talk about upholding the sanctity of marriage is just a PC way of masking rampant homophobia," said Ms Turei, the Greens' Associate Spokesperson on Justice.

And she's right. The underlying assumption of many opponents is that same-sex relationships are "defective" or inferior in some way that makes them unworthy of legal recognition. The Maxim Institute makes this explicit when it draws a distinction between "preferred" and "tolerated" relationships, with only the former worthy of state sanction. You can guess which category they put gays in. Like it or not, "bigotry" is the appropriate word here, and if opponents of the bill don't like it, then they shouldn't be bigots.

But best bit of is a neat play on the homophobe's "love the sinner, but hate the sin" line:

"I urge all supporters of the Civil Union Bill to be tolerant. We should love the fundamentalists, but hate their fundamentalism," she said.

Beautiful.

This is why I love the Greens. Despite their perceived fluffiness about tree-hugging and spiritual values, they have been consistent advocates for a secular and liberal society which allows people the freedom to follow their own vision of the good. And they've been the most outspoken defenders of human rights in the present Parliament, opposing government legislation on principle unless it conforms to international human rights standards (though to be fair, Matt Robson has been giving them a run for their money, and gets the No Right Turn stamp of approval as well). No matter what you think of their positions on GE or TV advertising, they can't be faulted on this front.