It says a lot about the Labour government that it has spent such an extraordinary amount of political capital defending and shepherding Trevor Mallard through the last five years – not to mention earlier in his career.
On what other single issue has the government taken so much flack but battled doggedly on nonetheless?
Child poverty? No. Building state houses? No. Tacking climate change? No. Making farmers pay for polluting waterways and trashing the environment? No.
Three waters? Perhaps – but not the decades long history of taking hit after hit defending Mallard’s awful, adolescent behaviour.
Labour has burned up huge amounts political credibility with misplaced loyalty towards one of its long-standing MPs who never grew up or matured into anything. Tribal loyalty trumps loyalty to party principles.
As Minister of Education in the previous Labour government he made a name for himself by closing small country schools – gutting rural communities from one end of the country to the other. What else will he be remembered for? Nasty, venal behaviour.
He has been a career politician of the Labour tribe. That’s all. He has served his time and Labour is putting him out to pasture as the Ambassador for Wine and Cheese in a European capital.
Another example of the abuse of power by successive Labour and National governments who use lucrative overseas appointments to solve their internal party problems.
One way of helping break the crippling tribal politics of the big parties could be bringing in genuine proportional representation by scrapping the 4% threshold for a party to enter parliament.
It is precisely because Labour and National vehemently oppose such a policy that it should be enacted. These cosy Political Veterans Clubs need to be forced to work much harder for the privilege of political leadership of the country.
A kick in the guts from an adolescent arrogant government to the people about whom it cares nothing at all.
Jacinda Ardern needs to justify why she is behaving in this way.
Is it more that he was Labour’s ‘heavy’ and simply knows too much? Any attempt previously ran the risk of exposure and mutually assured destruction?
I think if faced with the option of going quietly or taking the whole ship down with him, Mallard would historically have taken the latter option.
Yeti. Yes, that’s the question : What has Mallard got on Ardern?
Yeah, pretty disgraceful from our PM and Labour in general but hey, it’s only public money they’re using to fix their own issues! I honestly cannot tell the difference between them and National on most fronts.
John, while lowering the threshold will have a number of positive effects, the ending of political cronyism is not one.
There’s a lot to be said for scrapping the threshold. Opponents always argue that this would allow ‘fringe’ or ‘hateful’ elements in, but we already have ACT, who consistently push policy that hurts 99% of New Zealanders. If we had a Samoan Nazi party that supported the enslavement of all non-Samoans it’d be standing up for the rights of more New Zealanders than ACT does.
John White Specious comment that.
I’m afraid you don’t know the meaning of the word ‘specious’. Do you not consider New Zealanders of Samoan origin New Zealanders?
Of course there will be a knighthood.
I have never forgotten Mallard making that comment about putting a bottle up someone’s backside, just appalling stuff, he should have gone then!
The political parties need to stop giving these jobs to failed politicians. Yes he was there for years be he is a failed politician.
I’d have thought that Trevor should get a Damehood if I didn’t rather like Pantomimes and if some nutter didn’t construe it as sexist or something, but it’s still a dreadful thing to be doing to tragic Mother Ireland who has suffered more than enough from mad white men.
John, serious question. Do you believe the prior speaker David Carter was a promoter of free speech and in particular, was permitted to be a speaker whom ran a dictatorship style of parliament?
Leave Trevor alone, Winstone is being nasty is he jealous cause he didn’t get a diplomatic posting overseas he needs to give it a rest and stop being so vindictive he needs to retire as his party is finished. NZ first was only a one man band we saw it at the last election. Winstone is trying to be relevant and frankly I wish he would just f…k of as any respect I had for him is waning FAST.
Three cheers for Winston Peters taking legal action against Trevor the Ducker. Well done, Sir.
Respect you mean you actually had that for the man, What, the party was always just about Winston and what he wanted, most of us know that.
I see now Peter Dunny has called Trevor an embarrassment this is the man that legalized synthetic cannabis and did so much damage to our country and many people dropping dead on the streets.
Covid you aren’t allowed to mention history, it’s to traumatic for Coward Kraut and I’m Incredibly Totally Wrong.
Covid is pa. Regardless of how many people are dropping dead on the streets, Trevor Mallard is still an embarrassment, a boorish oaf, and an ill-bred bad tempered bully boy.
Trevor knows where the bodies are buried.
Andrew. It’s still a rotten thing to do to Ireland and a cruddy advert for Aotearoa New Zealand.
Disgusted with Labour over this. That utter idiot who treated citizens with contempt by using the sprinklers and playing loud music at parliament grounds. Then trespassing 5 former MPs. Not to mention the fight he was involved with in parliament and the bill taxpayers had to pick up when Trev screened rapist.
Disgusted with Labout. Trev should have been demoted.
Oh and Louisa Walls Pacific job because Labour wanted to get rid of her not much better
Anker It wasn’t just citizens in flimsy tents being watered from above and below and blasted with loud music throughout that freezing cold Saturday night, it was also children. It would have been better had children not been there, but they were. It is at this point that Mallard’s antics become unacceptable by any civilised society’s standards.
Such a person now being morphed into some sort of diplomat is appalling. Equally appalling are this government’s attempt’s to abolish the Office of Children’s Commissioner without reason. Not a good country to be a child on so many counts.
Quite right John, but the 4% threshold is just one of many undemocratic aspects of the colonialist constitution. We need a radical analysis of colonialist politics in the same way that we need to radically analyse colonialist economics.
A few starting points.
Everyone should be able to choose their own constituency. They should be able to choose whether to be represented on the basis of geographic location, party affiliation, hapu or iwi membership, or hapori of any other kind. It follows there should be no fixed size of electorate, no threshold for representation and no maximum number of electorates.
Everyone should be able to change their representative (rangatira) immediately at any time of their own choosing. It follows that there should be no fixed term for a parliament, no election day and no election campaigns and no “election result”.
Everyone’s choice of representative should be a matter of public knowledge so that there can be no suspected, alleged or actual electoral fraud and people would be accountable for their choices.
These three simple changes would deliver a true democracy (rangatiratanga) capable of expressing and responding to the will of the people.
I agree. They (Labour) have burnt up considerable amounts of political capital on defending Mr Mallards’ behaviour which is completely unacceptable as it clearly displays biased attitudes in favour of said Mr Mallard. What they are not counting is the number of middle class heads turning away from them and fixating on National. For what Christopher Luxon, Nicola Willis, and other MP’s in the National caucus can offer them in the way of fresh perspectives, is far superior to the old rotten trout they’ve been getting from Labour.
One way of helping break the crippling tribal politics of the big parties could be bringing in genuine proportional representation by scrapping the 4% threshold for a party to enter parliament.
John I suggest that you are sheltering a vain hope from last centruy in this as much as Labour has with Mallard.
We do not want a lot of poisonous toadstools growing up, reaching whatever threshhold, and being served up to us as possibly useful which we have to venture to try to find whether they are benign, very beneficial or causing immediate death or a crippling putrefaction. I know strong antibiotics are needed to control that sort of infection but in a weakened body they wouldn’t hold.. Please stop with 20th century ideas and wishes. They could have worked then who would know, but now we can’t afford to play around with airy fairy ideas that people have carried around their whole lives. Their time has passed. Please come out with practical ideas for scary now, not dusted-off last century’s has-beens.
Nonsense there should not be a threshold if X% want a particular party and they have the votes why shouldn’t they have a candidate in parliament. What makes you think they will be poisonous. It is currently stacked for the two main parties neither of which I would ever vote for.
Practicality Michal amongst other things. I think a threshhold of 4% is adequate. Every w”’er with strong opinions and able to rally his own gang upsetting any chance of reasoned discussion in Parliament when he/she can is not my idea of good governance. You are one of these dreamers who want to give things a try, let them have a go etc. It isn’t a game like Sim City on the computer. Parliament arranges and impacts on our lives. Free-thinking individuals who want to bring something fresh into Parliament can end up actually showing off a lump of coal, or some new roadkill. I am against young people under 21 becoming MPs, though internship might be the answer.
But I am inclined to think that those in power should have some special education on the madness of democracies, and how to understand contentious matters to get reasonable conclusions. But also it would be good to have skilled people in material things, makers of articles, doers, not just clever clogs with computers, or in ducking and diving in high finance, or too often, knowing how to extract money from the lower classes, rather like tapping trees to get maple syrup.
A dreamer I am not but someone who has demonstrated on the front-line and worked on the front-line.
All potential politicians should go and work with their party for at least a fortnight, get used to the huge piles of papers required for select committees and all the other stuff, not just the nice things.
The Greens did this in the 2000s not sure about now.
There should be no threshold.
Greywarbler
Practicalities meant that women didn’t vote so I have heard back in the day.
All good for you to complain about those who have committed their lives to their political thinking … not just for the ongoing, cheap gotcha allegations against others. Certainly, Trevor is far from perfect, but how is his time as house leader any different to John Carter or Lockwood Smith – both of whom ran roughshod over Labour and other left of National parties. Short memories.
Most folk who commit to life in politics could earn much more money in the private sector – but make a financial sacrifice for the sake of ruling the country – yes, even National and ACT politicians, are doing their ‘time’. An overseas placement seems a reasonable reward for long service in circumstances where such service is not in the financial interests of the politician.
Finally a Bob I can agree with.
Oh dear they could be better off doing something else but they sacrifice their own interests to be pollies. I wasn’t born yesterday – I am sure that it is a testing job – but there are gains from doing it. I suggest that there be a limit on the time they can serve, and have stand-downs on a regulated basis with newer ones, with the required attitude and experience that makes them worthy, coming along. The norm would be three terms, and for some with outstanding abilities, four. Experience and interest to serve and guide NZ would be served.
But wot about the workers? The civil servants – should they have longer service times than the seemingly short term contracts now?
If money is why they are there then piss off. It is all the other things that go with being an MP access to all sorts of organisations and people and things!
And when they get out lots of them get plum jobs because of their status!
No one should be able to be there for more than 3 terms. If they haven’t achieved what they went there for (a knighthood) then they have had more than enough time.
We should never ever have career politicians. Dangerous stuff.
you’re funny
hum…https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/09/speaker-trevor-mallard-explains-why-he-removed-jesus-from-parliament-prayer.html
The Speaker confirmed he is not considering making further changes to the Parliament prayer. But he said he would “consider” any proposals made by the committee.
He said it was “particularly clear from the Jewish community” that changes should be made.
so the prayer in parliament goes something like this:
Dear God, didn’t you tell us we were meant to prosper? Shabbat Shalom
(sarc)
Ginhag. I don’t believe it was “ particularly clear from the Jewish community “ that the Christian Lord’’s prayer should be abolished in New Zealand. This has never been a concern of educated Jews. Northern hemisphere governments have had Jewish members in both houses for hundreds of years, without getting twitchy about the mode of prayer. But if Trevor Mallard had really felt an uncharacteristic empathy towards another group
then he could have substituted a blessing from the Old Testament and kept both lots happy, but he didn’t.
There are New Zealand government departments who mark every occasion with some sort of prayer from the Maori community without being concerned about whether this exclusivity in insensitive to non-Maori. It’s all akin to 21stC cultural warfare.
Agree with scrapping the threshold in principle, but the largest demographic not currently represented in parliament is fundamentalist Christians (New Conservatives etc). The other main beneficiary would be TOPS. Also keeping the threshold high improves the chance of keeping out Winston and his kingmaker bullshit. So from a purely selfish lefty perspective, we’re better off keeping the threshold where it is at the moment.
Just because Winston is still around is not a good enough reason to have a cut off percentage.
I’d like to see some TOPS people in there.
But the greatest problem really are the ministries themselves and who they are run and guided by.
Most of them have a neo liberal agenda – and a number of them have refused to do things their minister has asked them to do.
About the MMP threshold, I’d like to see someone follow in Arthur Taylor’s footsteps – it must be possible to seek a declaratory judgement that the threshold breaches the NZ Bill of Rights
Labour Party dead wood-get rid of him
Comments are closed.