NZ First has set new standards in hypocrisy in campaigning to abolish the Māori seats but now voting for a Bill that entrenches them, National’s Electoral law spokesperson Nick Smith says.
“NZ First MP’s are total hypocrites. You cannot go to the electorate promising to abolish the Māori Seats and then vote for a Bill that entrenches them.
“The NZ First policy to abolish the Māori seats was announced as a bottom line of the party by Winston Peters who described them as ‘separatism’, that they ‘had had their day’ and ‘had to go’.
“Mr Peters stated in April ‘That entrenching the Māori seats was not part and parcel of any coalition agreement’ and Shane Jones ruled out voting for it saying ‘I don’t know anyone in our caucus who is going to vote for the entrenchment.’
“NZ First has attempted to hide it’s nakedness on this issue with a fig leaf claiming it will introduce an amendment to the Bill providing a referendum on abolition. This is out of scope under Parliament’s rules and prohibited.
“The only conclusion New Zealanders can draw on this disgraceful back flip from NZ First is that you cannot trust a word that Mr Peters or his party says and something that is becoming increasingly true of the entire Government. They will say whatever it takes to get votes and do whatever it takes to stay in power.”
The Government’s decision to remove performance pay for public sector CEOs will lead to higher CEO salaries, remove incentives for good performance and reduce accountability, National’s State Services Spokesperson Nick Smith says.
“The Cabinet paper outlining the details of the decision to remove performance based pay for CEOs in the public sector reveals that CEOs will not have their salaries cut. Instead, the overall pay packets will increase to offset the cut in performance pay.
“Instead of missing out on the performance element of their pay, Public Sector CEOs will simply have the performance based component of their remuneration rolled into their guaranteed salary. This does nothing more than remove the incentive to perform well.
“The Coalition Government has been completely duplicitous by spinning this announcement like it was reining in state sector pay. But in reality they are simply paying these CEOs the same, and in some cases more, while reducing any incentive for them to perform well.
“The Government will now pay bad CEOs the same as good CEOs. This makes no sense and will lead to a worse performing Public Sector.
“It was also disingenuous of the Minister to hide the fact that all Chief Executives would be given an extra week’s holiday. The taxpayer is effectively being asked to pay more for less.
“The unions believe everyone should be paid the same, regardless of their performance. That attitude is now being embedded in the state sector and it shows the dangerous direction the Government is headed in when it comes to its industrial relations reforms.
“This is another example of the Government reducing accountability. They have already axed the Better Public Services targets, and removed specific performance targets for DHBs and Police which were leading to better results for New Zealanders.
“The Public Sector needs more accountability and better incentives, not less.”
Revelations that Government MPs are required to sign a legally enforceable contract meaning they must pay $300,000 if they do not follow their Leader’s instruction is an affront to our parliamentary democracy, National’s Electoral Law spokesperson Nick Smith says.
“The 2016 amendment to NZ First’s constitution states its MPs must pay damages of $300,000 if they personally disagree with Winston Peters, turning them into indentured workers with an extraordinary price tag hanging over their heads.
“It means every time an NZ First MP votes or comments on an issue, they have 300,000 reasons why they should just parrot Winston Peters and not to speak out even if doing so would be in the public’s best interests.
“This is abhorrent. These types of contracts are illegal in other workplaces and would be unconstitutional in most democratic countries, so why are they at the core of our current Government? They turn elected representatives into puppets of a party leader who is now attempting to impose the same restrictions on free speech on Parliament’s other MPs, in spite of universal opposition to the Waka Jumping Bill.
“It is a sad commentary on the NZ First Party and Mr Peters that such draconian contracts are required to maintain caucus discipline – and now to keep the Government together.
“It also contradicts Mr Peters’ previous hollow position that MPs ‘have to be free to follow their conscience. They were elected to represent their constituents, not to swear an oath of blind allegiance to a political party’.
“The contracts were revealed after I was contacted by a concerned NZ First source who advised that all NZ First MPs had signed them except Mr Peters.
“NZ First must publicly release the full details of these contracts, outlined in article 57 (h) of its constitution, so the public can see the restrictions imposed on its elected MPs. This is even more important with NZ First playing such a pivotal role in the current Government.
“Disclosure is also required to be consistent with the Government’s pledge to be the most open and transparent ever, a claim looking increasingly ridiculous when even the Minister responsible for Mr Peters’ Waka Jumping Bill, Andrew Little, had no idea about the clause.
“That’s despite his legislation increasing the legal weight given to party rules and his acknowledgement that MPs should be able to do their job with being subjected to such restrictions.
“New Zealand needs MPs who are not bound by orders or instructions but whose responsibility is to act as representatives of the people.
“The existence of these contracts opens the question as to whether New Zealand needs additional protection to prevent its parliamentary democracy from being manipulated by these sorts of oppressive contracts.”
The Government’s decision to defer the consideration of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill this week gives the Green Party another opportunity to rediscover its principles and reject this draconian Bill, National’s Electoral Law Reform spokesperson Dr Nick Smith says.
“National’s strong opposition to this Bill has forced the Government to back down on passing it this week. This opens a window of opportunity for the Green Party at their conference in Palmerston North this weekend to do what’s right, stay true to its values and vote this anti-democratic Bill down.
“Winston Peters’ Waka Jumping Bill was set down for a third reading last week, but the Bill did not make it to that stage. It was then set down for passage this week, but it has been moved from the first Government Order of the Day to the tenth on the Order Paper. This means the Bill will not now be considered until Parliament resumes in September.
“The Green Party is risking its survival in voting for a Bill that it describes as ‘a threat to democracy’ and ‘anti-democratic’. By voting for a Bill that breaches the Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights it is making an absolute mockery of its professed ‘advocacy for human rights’.
“The Green Party cannot justify voting for this Bill because of its Confidence and Supply agreement. Co-leader James Shaw has said that the benefit of the arrangement is that the party doesn’t have to vote for bills it opposes. So why are they voting for this?
“The Greens need to reassert their values as a party that stands up for free speech, respect for dissenting views and democracy.
“National is prepared to work with the Greens on any amendment that will reduce the harm to New Zealand’s democracy from this draconian Bill. We have drafted many amendments that limit its application, increase the judicial checks, raise the bar for MP dismissal and introduce sunset clauses.
“The Green Party conference this weekend needs to send a message to their MPs to stay principled. They need to find their voice on this Bill and just say no.”
The use of extended sitting hours to ram through controversial electoral law is an abuse of parliamentary processes and will continue the downward spiral of free speech in New Zealand National’s electoral law spokesperson Nick Smith says.
“This morning the Government, without agreement of the Business Committee and without debate in Parliament, will attempt to shove through their draconian, free speech limiting waka-jumping bill.
“The use of extended sitting hours, normally reserved for Treaty and other technical bills that have full support of the Parliament, makes a mockery of their claim to be the most ‘open and transparent’ Government in history.
“The sham of the Parliamentary process is not just that it is being passed under extended hours, but that the Government is blocking debate to serious amendments.
“Many submitters and New Zealanders see a clear distinction between constituency MPs who are directly elected and do not want party leaders having the power to dismiss them from Parliament. The Government refused to allow this to be debated.
“The breadth and depth of opposition to this constitutionally significant bill is a worry to all New Zealanders who value free speech, tolerance of dissent and democracy.
“The Attorney General himself has described the law as having a ‘chilling effect’ on the free speech of MPs, and the attempt to push the law through using pseudo-urgency is shocking.
“Critics also include 21 electoral law experts from four of our universities, editorials from journalists in all of New Zealand’s main cities, the Legislative Advisory Committee, the youth wings of the Labour, Green, National and Act parties, past and present Green Party MPs, former Speakers and even the Clerk of the House.
“This continues a worrying recent pattern of attack on free speech in New Zealand.
“The National Party will fight this law every step of the way. I’m calling on just four Green MPs to show the courage of their convictions, reject this ‘dead rat’, and put an end to the law their very own leader calls ‘a threat to democracy’.”
The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill will pass its second reading today with the support of the Green Party even after it has become clear that their support is not required under the confidence and supply agreement with Labour, National’s Electoral Law spokesperson Nick Smith says.
“The Green Party position over this Bill sets a new low in parliamentary integrity. Co-Leader Marama Davidson says this Bill is undemocratic, a threat to democracy and that it goes against the Green Parties principles and its policy. And yet they are voting for it.
“The Greens justified their support of the Bill by saying that it is part of the supply and confidence agreement with Labour and that they had to.
“This is patently untrue, with leaked advice from the cabinet office outlining that it, in fact, was not part of the agreement and that the Greens are at liberty to oppose the legislation.
“Late last year Green Party Co-Leader James Shaw stated the advantage of the supply and confidence agreement was that ‘Green MPs won’t vote for anything they don’t agree with.’ Ten months down the track that this is exactly what is happening here.
“This betrayal of core values could not be more serious. Founding Green Co-Leader Rod Donald said of the same bill in 2001 that it was ‘the most draconian, obnoxious, anti-democratic, insulting piece of legislation every inflicted on this parliament’, yet is now to become law with the Green Party votes.
“I call on Green members throughout the country to encourage their MPs to at least vote for our amendments that add a sunset clause and greater judicial checks which would lighten the dark stain this Bill will leave on the Green Party’s integrity.
“It is also not too late for the Greens to do the right thing and pull their support for the Bill, retain their integrity to their principles and voters and choose not to ‘swallow the dead rat’.”
The Government’s actions today, blocking the public release of the Justice Select Committee draft report on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, shows the extent it will go to hide critical advice on the Bill, National’s Electoral Law spokesperson Dr Nick Smith says.
“This Government is going to unprecedented lengths to hide critical advice and the poor process on this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill because it exposes just how bad this undemocratic Bill is for New Zealand’s democracy.”
Labour members of the Justice Select Committee blocked a report on the Bill being published last Thursday and the Government today in Parliament denied leave for the draft report prepared by the Clerk’s Office to be tabled, earning a rebuke from the Speaker.
“These actions come on top of the Government reversing years of practice, by refusing to release officials’ advice on the Bill’s compliance with the Bill of Rights,” Dr Smith says.
“We also had the very unusual situation of the select committee unanimously inviting these officials to appear before the committee who then refused to attend.
“The devious ways this Government has blocked the publication of reports and advice on this Bill makes a complete mockery of its commitment to be the most open and transparent Government ever.
“It is bad enough that this Government is undoing a 330-year-old principle that voters alone get to fire MPs, by giving this power to party leaders, but it is even worse that it is doing so through a dodgy process and against the views of the majority of Parliament.”
The Justice Select Committee’s failure to make changes or report on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is an indictment on the Government’s respect for good parliamentary process, National’s Electoral Law spokesperson Dr Nick Smith says.
“The committee was unable to consider any amendments, nor get any advice from officials on key issues. Government MPs simply stated the Bill had to be reported back to the House unamended to meet the demands of Winston Peters.
“This Bill received a torrent of opposing submissions from 21 constitutional experts, former Speakers, former Green MPs, the Human Rights Commission, the Law Society and even the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
“In fact, not a single submission supported the Bill without amendment yet the Government insisted it be progressed as is. The Ministry of Justice would not provide any views on the Bill and simply stated it was Government policy to pass it unamended.
“The process over the critical issue of compliance with the Bill of Rights made a complete joke of the Government’s promise to be the most open and transparent ever. Constitutional experts said it breached the Bill of Rights and previous officials’ advice from earlier versions of the legislation said the same.
“The Government refused to release officials’ advice on Bill of Rights compliance even though it has been long-standing practice to make such advice public. It was also unusual for officials to refuse a unanimous request of the committee to appear and give evidence.
“National moved motions to require the officials and the Attorney General to appear and to get independent advice on Bill of Rights compliance. These were voted down by Labour members of the committee.
“It was Labour’s decision to block a factual report on what occurred around the Bill of Rights from being included in the select committee report that led to the committee being unable to agree to a report to the House.”
The Justice Select Committee is equally split with four Labour and four National members and was unable to agree on the Bill’s progression. The Bill was automatically reported back to the House with all submissions and advice being released at midnight.
“The offensive part of this Bill is enabling a party leader to dismiss an MP, a provision demanded by Mr Peters to enable him to wield even more power. It’s particularly outrageous that this Bill is proposing to be passed when a majority of Parliament oppose it.
“It is an affront to the core Kiwi values of freedom of speech, tolerance of dissent, and democracy. National will continue to fight this Bill every step of the way,” Dr Smith says.
Government changes to New Zealand MMP electoral law enabling a party leader to dismiss an MP would break the constitutional law Allied Powers put in place following the end of the Second World War, National’s Electoral Law spokesperson Dr Nick Smith says.
“The Government cannot justify this draconian law change on the basis of MMP. Germany has had MMP for over 70 years and has no such provisions. In fact, the Human Rights Commission has drawn to Parliament’s attention that it would be ironic and wrong for New Zealand to have insisted on specific democratic protections in Germany, but to be breaching those protections at home,” Dr Smith says.
It is not just Germany that has constitutional protections for MPs’ free speech. The European Court has over-ridden similar laws like those being proposed for New Zealand as undemocratic. The Supreme Court in Papua New Guinea struck down similar laws there in 2010.
New Zealand is putting itself in the company of totalitarian states like Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Sierra Leone with these electoral law changes.
“In these countries, Members of Parliament have been dismissed for challenging corruption in their own Government, for participating in a press conference without their leaders consent and for voting in Parliament differently to how their leaders instructed them. The Government is opening up the risk of this happening in New Zealand.
“New Zealanders should be deeply concerned that changes are being made to our electoral law that would be illegal and unconstitutional in most parts of the world. At a time when autocratic rulers are on the rise, New Zealand should be strengthening and not weakening our protections for democracy and free speech.
“This draconian bill that the Government accepts will have a ‘chilling effect on the expression of dissenting views by MPs’ must be abandoned.”
Stats NZ’s admission that over 400,000 New Zealanders were not counted in this year’s census raises serious questions for the Government to answer, National’s spokesperson for State Services Nick Smith says.
“Census 2018 has turned into a shambles with the lowest participation rate in over fifty years. The Government must figure out what went so wrong and how the serious flow on problems for the public sector can be rectified,” Dr Smith says.
“The data for over 400,000 people is missing – that’s the equivalent of the population of Christchurch. This will compromise the quality of the statistics.
“Stats NZ yesterday delayed publication of the statistics from October 2018 to March 2019 so they can fill the hole using 2013 Census data and computer modelling. This is at a time of strong population growth and turns what would usually be reliable statistics into guesswork. Any assumptions about the make-up of the 400,000 will significantly distort the statistics.
“There is over $10 billion of health funding allocated to the twenty DHBs each year based on census population data. The funding formula for the operating grants for our 2500 schools is derived from the census as are decisions about the allocation of resources in social services, police, sports, transport and many other services.
“It also has major implications for the Representation Commission. The number of general and Maori electorates in Parliament are determined by the Census and the process for determining the new boundaries was due to start in November.
“Changes in population figures as small as 1 per cent can impact on whether there is, for instance, an extra or the removal of one of the Maori electorates. This process will now not be able to start until April next year and the compromised statistics will affect the integrity of the make-up and boundaries for the 2020 and 2023 elections.
“The Minister and Chief Statistician must accept responsibility for this debacle. They rejected serious concerns about the excessive reliance on online census returns, repeatedly reassuring the public of the census’s success.
“Reports that high need people including the elderly, those in rural communities and those with disabilities faced greater problems in participating in the 2018 Census are also particularly concerning.
“The public need answers on went wrong and what reliability the public sector will be able to place on the 2018 Census data given the size of the hole in the data and the door needs to be left open to bringing forward the 2023 census if it is found that the data is compromised.”