Parliament needs to be subject to the OIA

In Aotearoa we have democracy. That means not just elections, but a government which is constantly accountable to the people, and which justifies itself on an ongoing basis. One of the ways this happens in practice is that when a Minister or official makes a statutory decision, we get to see the reasons and the evidence - either as a matter of course, or by using the Official Information Act. That helps ensure that decisions are made lawfully and correctly and that people are doing their jobs properly.

But Ministers aren't the only people making statutory decisions. As we all learned yesterday, the decision on whether to apply s55 of the Electoral Act - Labour's shitty anti-party-hopping law - is a statutory one. But unlike other cases, there's no transparency. Unlike government agencies, Parliament is not subject to the Official Information Act. Which means that the Speaker can make a seemingly nonsensical decision - that someone is no longer a member of a political party, but is somehow still an MP - and we have no way of judging whether that decision was correct, or whether it is an abuse of office. Likewise, because Parliament is not subject to the OIA, we can't confirm or refute the claims that a second letter was delivered to the Speaker, which was subsequently withdrawn. And this has practical effects: without evidence, people can't use the courts to correct an incorrect decision and hold the decision-maker to account.

This isn't good enough. Parliament must be made subject to the Official Information Act to ensure public confidence in the Speaker's statutory decisions. Nothing else will do.

What a shitshow

That's the only way to describe the defection of (now-former) Customs Minister Meka Whaitiri to Te Pāti Māori. Normally such defections are preluded by a long period of disagreement, for high or petty reasons. Instead, this has happened completely out of the blue. To have a backbench MP suddenly decide to bail like that is bad enough, but to have a Minister do it really suggests something is seriously wrong in Labour. For them to accidentally resign from Parliament because they don't understand the law they voted for twice would just be icing on the cake.

(I oppose Labour's anti-party-hopping law, but I'm happy to laugh at someone who hoists themself with their own petard like that).

Whaitiri was infamously sacked from Cabinet for bullying. Labour has since rehabilitated her - which you'd hope means there's been a change in behaviour - but she's also clearly at the bottom of the Ministerial rankings, the sort of mediocrity who will be dumped to make way for coalition party Ministers or new talent if Labour is lucky enough to be able to form a government after the election. Which makes her sudden switch seem opportunistic and driven by career ambitions, especially in the absence of any announced point of principle to justify the switch ("coming home to her whakapapa" is not a terrible reason, but seems a bit weak for this sort of sudden change). But I guess that's ultimately going to be up to the voters of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to judge.

We should not tolerate parties which tolerate this

In the wake of National MP Nick Smith's resignation on Monday night, people have finally been talking about what a scumbag he was. Newshub reports that his behaviour was an open secret around Parliament, something everyone knew about but no-one talked about, with people saying (anonymously, for fear of repurcussions):

• "Smith was notorious for that red mist"
• "One of the most difficult assholes I've ever worked for"
• "I have no fond memories of that guy"
• "He was prone to bouts of extreme verbal anger towards other ministers and staff. It was out of the ordinary even then. But we didn't complain because we were Gen Xers. We should have"

Meanwhile Stuff reports that the complaint which led to his resignation was not lodged by his immediate victim, but by "another National Party staffer who recorded the incident and made a complaint". Which suggests that Smith's behaviour was so toxic that his own staff were habitually recording him to document it. Which raises the obvious question: why do parties put up with this? Because as Smith shows, abusive MPs are a PR bomb waiting to go off, and when they do it damages both the party (who are rightly suspected of covering up and/or condoning abuse) and our political system as a whole. They're simply bad politics. So why not downlist, de-select, or otherwise show them the door to remove the risk?

Sadly, the answer seems to be that the main parties are staffed by bullies and run by bullies. Judith Collins is out there this morning defending Smith, saying he was under "tremendous stress" and suggesting that recording his outburst was illegal (which is getting pretty DARVO). But then, she's a bully herself. As for Labour, Meka Whaitiri (who allegedly assaulted a staff member) is not just still in Parliament, but has been reappointed to Cabinet. So Labour supports bullying as well. Voters should not. And we should make that clear at the ballot box.

An unrepentant bully

The Department of Internal Affairs has released the redacted investigation report into the allegations of bullying against former Minister Meka Whaitiri, showing that the investigator David Patten found it probable that Whaitiri grabbed (that is, assaulted) her staffer and yelled at them. DIA also released a letter from Whaitiri's lawyer, showing that she vigorously contested the allegations and the report's conclusions, and even alleged that they were politically motivated. But the clincher is Whaitiri's press release, the core of which is this:

I am disappointed my behaviour led to a complaint.

Not disappointed in the behaviour, but that someone had complained about it. Which is what you'd expect from a bully.

Whaitiri's responses simply confirm the allegations of the report and show that she is completely unrepentant to boot. Faced with a complaint of bullying, she's tried to bully her way out of it. I'm glad she failed, and glad she's no longer a Minister. While she can't be sacked as an MP, the sooner she leaves Parliament, the better. There should be no place for bullies in our Parliament.

As for the Maori caucus, their backing for this unrepentant bully reflects poorly upon them all. They need to take a long, hard look at themselves, the behaviour they are supporting, and the political standards they accept. Supporting a bully to keep on bullying is never right, and they need to acknowledge this.