Latest news with #NZPolitics
RNZ News
2 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
'I've had a wonderful life': 90 years of Jim Bolger
Jim Bolger in December 2016. Photo: RNZ Jim Bolger, who was the prime minister between 1990 and 1997, turned 90 on Saturday. He reflected on the last nine decades of his life on Sunday Morning - after having celebrated with a "big gathering" of family, friends, and neighbours. On his political career, Bolger said the biggest issue was to get Pākehā to "face up to the reality that we owed Māori". "We took big steps in the economy, and got the economy going, and all the rest, but the country and society is more than the economy," he said. "Māori ... had been badly, badly treated by the early settlers, we owed Māori redress and change. "I put that higher than managing the books, as it were, with the help of others, and of course you're always helped by others, but the Treaty principles and recognition that the early European settlers did not treat Māori fairly, I think was hugely important." Bolger said he did not understand those, such as David Seymour - who had also been sworn in as deputy prime minister on Saturday - who "want to diminish the role of Māori in New Zealand". "They were here first, they were here very much before everybody else, and they have been part of our history from that time on." He said the current prime minister, Christopher Luxon, needed to tell Seymour "to shut up with his anti-Māori rhetoric" - and to thank Winston Peters for what he's doing in foreign affairs - "because I think he's doing that job well". "Winston's a very interesting political figure, there's no question about it. He's certainly left his mark on politics in New Zealand." Bolger said his Irish ancestry helped him engage emotionally and attitudinally with Māori. "I sort of instinctively knew what it was like to be treated as second-class citizens, and Māori were treated as second-class citizens. And some people still want to do that." Bolger grew up in coastal Taranaki, and said he was not taught "a single word" about the invasion of a pacifist settlement at Parihaka, but was taught about War of the Roses in England. Parihaka Pa, circa 1900, with Mount Taranaki - taken by an unidentified photographer. Photo: Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand / Ref 1/2-056542-F, Alexander Turnbull Library, Reflecting on his life outside of his political career, he could not say what he was most proud of - "I think it'd be foolish to try and select one over another." He began as a farmer - from helping his neighbour to milk cows at nine, to leaving Ōpunake High School at 15 to work on the family dairy farm, and owning his own near Rahotu at 27. He got married and moved to a sheep and beef farm in Te Kūiti two years later. Bolger then joined the National Party and was an MP, the leader of the opposition, and then the prime minister after National won the 1990 general election. He later became New Zealand's Ambassador to the United States, was elected Chancellor of the University of Waikato, and has been the chairman of a number of state-owned enterprises and other organisations. Bolger was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal in 1977, the New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal, the New Zealand Suffrage Centennial Medal in 1993, and was appointed a Member of the Order of New Zealand in 1998. He also has nine children and 18 grandchildren. "They were all important and very interesting positions to have, and I enjoyed it," Bolger said. "When you get to 90, and reflecting back over my variety of positions I've had across the world, and the countries I've visited, which are without number, there's so many, that it's just been very fortunate. "I've had a wonderful life with a wonderful wife and family, and it's all been good." As for advice he would give to New Zealanders, Bolger said the main thing would be to listen to others. "Don't try and dictate to them, listen to them, see what they're saying, see what their issues are, see what their concerns are, and then you might be able to make a sensible suggestion to help their lives. "And if you approach it from that direction, you know, how can I help this person or that person, then I'm sure you'll be much more satisfied with your life, and hopefully, they will be better off." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Categories and strategy: The path of Parliament's members' bills
The biscuit tin that members' bills are drawn randomly from at Parliament. Photo: Supplied / Office of the Clerk Some of the most socially significant law in Parliament's history originated as a member's bill. Without luck in the members' bill ballot, it is possible that gay law reform, marriage equality, end-of-life choice, or anti-smacking law reform would have waited years, deemed too controversial. But not all members' bills are social blockbusters. Many have less lofty ambitions. Members' bills often correct gaps in legislation or close loopholes - you might call them tidy-ups. They can also be political statements; to tautoko (support and affirm) party policy, or offer a counter-response to it. Bills that could be seen as examples of this are Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke's Members of Parliament (Duty to Uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi) Legislation Bill / Te Pire mō Te Here ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or Hamish Campbell's Gang Free Ports Bill. Members' bills from governing-party back-benchers often have very narrow policy aims, but their very presence has a purpose, to reduce the odds of opposition bills being picked. The House chatted to National's Andrew Bayly and Labour's Phil Twyford (who have a total of 26 years of Parliamentary experience between them), about the political strategy behind what bills go into the ballot. Parliament's agenda is dominated by government bills - legislation agreed by Cabinet and put forward by government ministers to enact government policy. Non-ministers can also propose laws. Any backbench MP (non-minister) can develop an idea for a law change, write a draft bill, and submit it to Parliament's Table Office. Usually that takes the form of a member's bill. (Local bills and private bills are two other types of non-government bills.) The difficult part? Being lucky enough to have your bill drawn from the ballot. Only eight bills are available to debate at a time, from about 90 sitting in the old biscuit tin used to draw the ballot. From Bayly's perspective, members' bills generally fall into one of three types. "The first one," he says, "is backbenchers who see the opportunity to test some thinking, which they might want to put into legislation." Andrew Bayly (file photo) Photo: RNZ / Anneke Smith "Secondly, there are sort of additions to existing legislation that people want to seek clarification on, so they might be technical in nature or have some benefit when it comes to interpretation. For instance, [the current law is] not working well, it needs to be improved. "The third [type] are slightly off [from] traditional government thinking, but they are nonetheless maybe the cause of the day, and those are the ones that can extend where we are in terms of debate into new areas, and they are the more adventurous ones." Bayly's counterpart across the aisle, Phil Twyford, reckons members' bills are one of the few opportunities MPs get to break out of the confines of the partisan default they generally follow at Parliament. Phil Twyford (file photo) Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone "Our parliamentary system," Twyford suggests, "is so dominated by political parties that exercise discipline and whip their MPs to vote on a party line. Members' bills have a really important function in our system because they provide a little bit of an outlet. They allow individual MPs to have a go, and to try to get some new law made outside of the party discipline." Twyford suggests that with the introduction of MMP came the hope that lawmaking would be a bit more bipartisan. The reality, he says, is that MPs are still very much locked in to their parties. "I think that members' bills offer a little glimpse of how the world could be a little bit different and a bit more spontaneous, a bit more interesting." Members' bills, while a valuable tool for any MP, perhaps mean that little bit more to opposition MPs, who have less influence in a legislature dominated by the governing parties. This also means, Bayly suggests, that they can "be a bit more adventurous". Of course, being adventurous doesn't always equate to being successful. Members' bills still need to receive a majority of MP votes in the House, which for opposition MPs is rare but certainly not unachievable. Twyford's Labour colleague, Camilla Belich, recently won support for a member's bill that made employer theft of employee wages a crime . Twyford believes it is a bill "the government wouldn't have usually supported". He says that as an opposition MP, "that's kind of a special thing". Belich's bill even split the governing coalition partners (New Zealand First voted with the Opposition in support; National and ACT voted against). Members' bills can be divisive, even within parties, especially if they relate to social or conscience issues. Bayly says those bills have the potential to "cut that social strata right across the whole party, and in many cases, there are certain issues that people have a personal vote on, even within caucuses". Traditionally these personal votes have been for bills relating to alcohol, drugs, religion, sex, abortion and so on, and they can originate from an MP anywhere on the political spectrum. Members' bills are free to deal with all the trickiest issues. They can't do everything though. Bills with ideas that would rely on a big investment of money can be vetoed by the government, even if they are passed in the House. Governments can adopt a member's bill as their own, though it might be changed as part of the process. "[In government] you are sort of tied down into a different type of bill", Bayly says. "For instance, we've just got a new bill around phone (social media) usage and things like that for under-16-year-olds, which has come through, and is actually going to be adopted as a government piece of legislation . It can be quite useful in terms of driving the social agenda, but also government agenda over time." If the government might adopt your bill anyway, why not go straight to the boss with your idea? The answer, Bayly suggests, comes down to the fact that Parliament's legislative agenda is jam-packed. "Traditionally, we pass between about 80 and 100 bills a year, and all ministers are trying to get bills up. A lot of these [members' bills] are outside this normal cycle of going through the update of the regulatory system, and therefore, [members' bills are] a way to interject and make a change much more quickly outside of that cycle." So you've got your bright idea that you want to turn into a member's bill, what next? "This place is very collective and very tribal," Twyford says. "Group discipline is everything and I'm sure it's the same for all the parties. If an individual's got a bright idea, you have to take it to caucus, usually to a caucus committee, and get your colleagues' agreement before you are given the license to go and put it in the biscuit tin." Once your idea is sound, and your colleagues are okay with it, then you put pen to paper, and draft an actual piece of proposed legislation. This is the "nub of the work" in creating a member's bill, Bayly says. "[It's important to] draft it in a way that is appropriate and actually gets to the issue, and as the Parliamentary Counsel Office (which does all the legal drafting here in New Zealand) will tell you, it's pretty hard to do that appropriately." (The Parliamentary Counsel Office only drafts government bills, but MPs can get assistance from the Office of the Clerk for non-government bills.) Once you're satisfied the bill has been drafted "appropriately", (as Bayly put it), you knock on wood, wear your lucky tie, keep a rabbit's foot, and play the waiting game to see if it is drawn from the tin and added to the Order Paper for debate. Some MPs are lucky and get multiple bills picked from the ballot, other MPs pass long careers in Parliament without a single member's bill chosen. If your bill gets drawn and survives a first reading, then Bayly says, "you've got to go into the select committee, and often the [departmental] officials look at your bill and think it's a bit of a nuisance for them and [they] may actually be [against it progressing, as well as there being possible opposition from], government ministers or members. So, you know, it's not an easy road, but it's great when it happens." To listen to the full interview with Phil Twyford and Andrew Bayly, click the link near the top of the page. * RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- RNZ News
David Seymour takes reins as deputy prime minister
David Seymour has taken over from Winston Peters as deputy prime minister. A ceremony marking the ACT leader's transition took place at noon at Government House in Auckland. Seymour vowed to keep speaking freely, as he takes over the role at the halfway point of the current government. The official paperwork making David Seymour the new deputy prime minister. Photo: Felix Walton / RNZ He said the transition - in most respects - would be "business as usual", adding, "I've actually been the acting prime minister several times and we're all still here, so don't worry". Seymour admitted he felt the position was largely symbolic. "Any position in politics is only an opportunity to be good and do good, and I will be judged by how much we deliver for the people of New Zealand," he said. "All of the people, those who support ACT and those who don't. "However, I also believe that for many people who never ever thought an ACT leader could be deputy prime minister, there is some significance in the position." Reflecting on his career to this point, he poked fun at his history. "If I've proved anything, it's that anyone can dance, not always that well, but well enough to earn people's respect and give a lot of entertainment along the way." Seymour was featured on Dancing with the Stars NZ in 2018, in which he finished fifth. Seymour's first task as deputy prime minister was to confront media questions about cabinet minister Chris Bishop's behaviour at Thursday night's Aotearoa Music Awards. Bishop acknowledged he should have kept his comments to himself, after saying "what a load of crap" during Stan Walker's performance, which prominently featured Toitū Te Tiriti banners. Musician Don McGlashan confronted Bishop, telling him to "shut up, you dickhead". Seymour denied the hubbub had distracted from his big day. "Only the people watching or reading your news can decide that, and I suspect that there'll be people who think Bish was absolutely right," he said. "People who think he was wrong, people who don't care... each person will make up their own mind. "Just because you become a senior minister, it doesn't mean you should stop having opinions and it might well be that, based on [what] Chris saw in that moment, he was correct. It may be that people will agree with him." Despite his elevated position, Seymour promised to remain "quirky", although declined to elaborate on what that meant. "Well, the great thing about quirkiness is it's spontaneous, it sometimes just happens. Anyone who plans to be quirky is, to quote Don McGlashan, a bit of a dickhead." Watch the press conference at the conclusion of the swearing-in. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
David Seymour set to take over as deputy PM
David Seymour has vowed to keep speaking freely as he takes over as deputy prime minister - while an unshackled Winston Peters shifts into campaign mode - with a plan to avoid another handover next term. Deputy political editor Craig McCulloch reports. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
RNZ News
7 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Government urgency plans slow to a crawl
A snail slides across the forecourt Photo: Daniela Maoate-Cox / Jürgen Schoner Parliament's post-Budget urgency did not go as the government might have hoped. Opposition MPs debated contentious bills, bringing the House to a virtual standstill and forcing the government to abandon one bill entirely and jettison debates in order to make progress. After Thursday's Budget announcements and the opening stanza of the eight-hour long Budget Debate, the House followed tradition, pausing that debate to take urgency. The government's plan was to move 12 bills through 30 stages. Five bills would go to a Select Committee and six would skip that stage and be passed through all stages during the long urgency debate. The twelfth bill (the Supplementary Estimates) is not like the others: it receives no first reading debate and isn't sent to committee as a bill, but its contents are examined regardless. It was a bold plan but doable, so long as Opposition resolve crumbled, and/or the debate took much of the possible time allowance-until midnight Saturday (the House doesn't meet on Sundays). A snail slides across the forecourt Photo: Daniela Maoate-Cox / Jürgen Schoner The Opposition was willing to fight very hard and debate past the midnight hour. MPs' weeks included sitting from 9am on Friday until 1am on Saturday, returning at 9am to continue until midnight Saturday. And yet, despite the long hours the government's plan fell well short. When the House paused at 10pm on Thursday it had finished just three of the 30 planned stages of debate. It hadn't yet completed the first full bill, with ten beyond that yet to even begin. By the end of Friday (at 1am on Saturday morning), the House had toiled through 13 more hours of debate but completed just four further stages. The Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2) (which had gummed up the works on Thursday) took all of Friday morning to complete, and dribbled on a little after lunch. The House then had a short burst of speed to move the Regulatory Standards Bill and the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill through their intended first readings and refer them to select committees for public feedback. The Regulatory Standards Bill was highly contentious and looks set to have an interesting time in select committee. On Friday afternoon the House hit another roadblock - the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. Welfare is one policy area where the governing coalition and opposition parties stand a chasmic distance apart. This bill was intended to pass through all stages, but it soaked up the entire Friday evening (until 1am) in a long Committee of the Whole House stage that remained incomplete. Note: This level of slow-down is possible because the Committee of the Whole House stage has no time limits, enabling opposition MPs to filibuster (to some extent). Contentious bills debated under urgency (and skipping public feedback in select committee), tend to get extra attention in the House's own Committee stage instead. When the House met again at 9am on Saturday it still had eight bills to move through a combined 21 stages. It had managed just nine stages (nearly ten), in two days. Some previous oppositions have capitulated during Friday, resulting in the pace of debate accelerating until it was practically flying. The somewhat dispirited National-led opposition in the first Ardern government had wilted like that at times. The Opposition in this Parliament have not done that so far, and survived a seemingly endless Friday with reserves. On Saturday morning the MPs were still showing enough pep that the Chair had to call for restraint, saying "Members, I know those first early morning coffees are starting to hit home, but can we just keep the noise down? It's very difficult to hear down here, in what's becoming a mosh pit." By lunchtime Saturday the pace of progress had not increased. The Accommodation Supplement Bill had finally been completed, and MPs had managed the first two readings of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill. That bill was also highly contentious. When the dinner break came four hours later the bill was still stuck in the Committee Stage with no clear end in sight. At that point the government rather than the Opposition might have been described as capitulating, or at least organising a managed retreat. With just five hours of debate left before the midnight Saturday deadline, the government abandoned the Mandatory Reviews Bill halfway through its Committee of the Whole House stage (they can come back to it later). They opted instead for debates on less-contentious bills, debates that could not be filibustered; they also reordered the bills still to come, (in effect dropping one of them entirely). All of that is very unusual. Under normal conditions, Parliament's Order Paper is not easily changeable once the day has started. But the order of bills in an Urgency Motion is not sacrosanct, but it doesn't often change. The government also opted to only debate some stages, ending debate before the lengthy Committee of the Whole House stage could begin. This means that the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill and the Invest New Zealand Bill both had first and second readings and then went no further. Doing so means that, despite the fact that not all stages were read under urgency the bills have avoided being sent to a select committee. If just one reading had occurred they would be sent to a committee automatically. The Public Finance Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill were both read just once. Both of those bills were sent to select committee (the second for a shortened four month consideration). When midnight Saturday finally arrived, the government's urgency plans had recovered somewhat, but were still badly bruised. Eleven stages of debate had not been started. Two others were left incomplete. Of the six bills that the government wanted passed through all stages, only two had been completed. One of them had not even begun. Opposition MPs can never really win the three-year war that is a Parliament, but they sometimes show that they can make the victor fight very hard to win, and leave them bruised by endless skirmishes along the way. During the first reading debate on his Regulatory Standards Bill, David Seymour nominated a select committee and added, in the usual language, "and at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 23 December 2025." Ministers indicate a specific day for a committee to report back on a bill if the committee's duration will be different to the automatic six months - in this case seven months. Shortly after his speech, Seymour interjected during a Point of Order, saying to a Te Pāti Māori MP, "God, you're an idiot." When the debate ended and it was time to follow through on that earlier promise of a seven-month committee, he… forgot. The committee will therefore meet for six rather than seven months. It is not against the rules to fail to follow through with the earlier indicated intention. There was an extended battle in the minutes around midnight Friday over whether or not a request from National to end the debate had been correct, and then whether or not the House should recall the Speaker. Behind the fuss was the knowledge that once the debate ended, the voting on proposed amendments would begin and would be very lengthy (it took an hour). Once it began, the House would continue until all the votes were made (it went until 1am). The Opposition would rather have that voting take place (and take up time) the following morning. The government would prefer it didn't. In the chair, Maureen Pugh sided with the governing side of the House. Unusually, when the Opposition asked to recall the Speaker (so he could adjudicate) the governing side went against normal protocol and voted against the request. During the brouhaha, Assistant Speaker Maureen Pugh made one or two rulings that appeared to be very gently walked back the following morning by Assistant Speaker Teanau Tuiono. His message appeared to be - more or less - that those rulings shouldn't be considered a new precedent. Another extended argument occurred over whether or not there should be a debate about the request for a shortened select committee consideration. Government ministers can nominate any committee duration they want, but if the period is shorter than four months, a debate must occur on the decision. That debate uses up time, so government ministers nominating shortened hearings opted for exactly four months. or did they? The date for reporting back was actually short of four months. The Speaker agreed with the government that, as the calendar in the House does not move forward during a multi-day urgency, it was still actually Thursday 22nd (even if it was really the 23rd or 24th outside the Chamber). Therefore, the shorter period was allowed without debate. One of the many ways that opposition MPs filibuster during the Committee of the Whole House stage is by suggesting amendments to bills. They know the amendments are almost certain to fail, but their existence gives them something to talk about, and voting on each one also takes time (if they are allowed). Many of those amendments are serious, some less so. They get especially silly when the topic of debate is the title of a bill. The 'we're all going a little mad after such a long debate' prize probably goes to Lawrence Xu-Nan (one of the Parliament's most impressive new MPs), who tabled an amendment to the title of the Accommodation Supplement bill, replacing "(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)" with "(National Loves Cars So Much That They Want More People to Live in Them)". It was, of course, against the rules (as merely an attempt to criticise the bill), but it probably helped keep up spirits during the long filibuster. *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
