As Frog indicated, we knew only that ‘a government bill’ would be introduced under urgency.  At about 10.30pm on Wednesday night, we were presented with one paper copy of the bill,  no electronic version to facilitate distribution to caucus members or our researchers; no supporting documentation, no regulatory impact statement, no evidence in support, and this was ‘graciously’ given only on the basis of keeping the strictest confidence.

We were obliged to speculate about the harm that the bill was intended to remedy and the need for the secrecy and urgency; we were required to second guess what the intent and real purpose of the bill might be, and it was not until about 8.15am on Thursday that we got access by phone to a ministerial adviser who confirmed that our speculation was more or less on track. 

We learned in the course of the debate that the Maori party, as a confidence and supply partner, had the bill  ten days earlier.  (I must say in passing that they made good use of the time – Rahui Katene delivered some very fiery and well crafted speeches opposing the bill , and good on her for doing so!).

I have it on good authority that the Act party, on the other hand, was as surprised as we were by the content of  the bill, and had as little prior warning of it. Indicative of the parlous state of the Nat – Act relationship perhaps?

Despite my direct questions, Labour was rather coy about confessing when they were given access to the bill, which leads me to assume they saw it well in advance of the tabling.

My point in all this is that the process demonstrates that the two old parties are locked into the game of making deals with each other, without making any  attempts to build consensus across the House, which they might otherwise have done had they approached us in a reasonable fashion about the ‘error’ they sought to correct. 

Had we been taken into their confidence about the problem (which they have been aware of  for ten months!) we could well have negotiated a process that would have allowed us to air our misgivings, to draw on appropriate legal advice, and even potentially to cooperate in drafting a piece of legislation that would then have gone through a proper process of public and parliamentary scrutiny and delivered an appropriate outcome. 

We have had an MMP parliament for nearly 15 years – how much more time do these guys need to get up to speed with the ‘new’ reality, and to respect and indeed to utilise the possibilites for the more consensual form of politics that it presents?  Maybe the next generation…?

One comment in terms of the substance of the bill – I repeatedly asked the government during the debate for evidence that since the police stopped retaining youth particulars ten months ago, their task of identifying and apprehending young offenders has been more difficult.  I’m still waiting for an answer, which leads me to suspect there is no such evidence, and so the law change was not only procedurally undemocratic but also unnecessary!

So what I have deduced from the Speaker’s ruling is it is okay for women MPs to wear anything as long as we look like men. And, presumably, behave like them as well. This ruling is indicative of the fact that Parliament is still the male citadel that it was when I entered it 12 years ago – based on male rules, male culture and male values.

Here is some of the advice to women about wearing “business attire” that I found on Google:

• Conservative colours and fabrics remain a standard in business attire for women. Plaids and subtle patterns, that appear solid from across a room, are conservative and safest. Wide stripes and fabrics with a high sheen are too distracting for business meetings.
• Typical formal business attire has an advantage because it can easily direct listeners to your eyes. A light blouse under a closed dark jacket forms an area of brightness near the face … a contrasting scarf can heighten the effect.
• Avoid clothes that are the latest fad and choose a more conservative look. Keep your hemline conservative, about one or two inches above the knee. Do not wear flashy jewellery or jewellery that makes a clanging noise when you move.

These posts show how ridiculous it is to instruct women to wear “business attire.
It also shows how confusing the ruling is; you get a different interpretation depending on which Google post you read.

The Speaker is going to have to spell this ruling out more clearly to avoid confusion. For example, is it okay to wear a cardigan in the House? What about a dress with short sleeves? A clarification of the Speaker’s ruling is urgently needed.

Greens’ vigilance on Gillard merits praise – John Armstrong

The Greens have got some unwarranted stick for blocking Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard from addressing Parliament while it is officially in session. They were right to do so.

Their intervention has produced a compromise which most people will struggle to see as much different from what John Key had originally proposed. That saves face for him.

The compromise is significant, however, in the huge symbolic difference between what will happen tomorrow and what Key had hoped for.

The Australian Premier will be speaking to a meeting of MPs which coincidentally is being held in the parliamentary chamber outside sitting hours with the permission of the Speaker. The meeting will not become part of the official record, normal rules will not apply and the meeting will carry no special status.

The Greens’ objection to Key’s plan was made clear to MPs during closed-door meetings some months ago. Had it been ignored, there was a strong possibility they would have refused leave for Gillard to speak – only one MP’s refusal is required to halt proceedings. That would have been humiliating for her and acutely embarrassing for Key.

So what, after all, was wrong with the original plan? The Greens had two reasons for blocking Gillard.

The first follows the British constitutional line that the floor of the House remain sacrosanct and only the people’s elected representatives should tread it. This flows from English history; that MPs should not be threatened or unduly influenced by “strangers” – such as the King’s soldiers.

The second reason is that giving Gillard the full honours would have set a worrying and dangerous precedent. As Green Party co-leader Russel Norman says, no Government could avoid the Chinese President officially addressing Parliament if there was such a precedent.

The Chinese would take refusal as a massive diplomatic snub. But going ahead would provoke a huge uproar if, in Norman’s words, “the No 1 enemy of democracy” was allowed to lecture a chamber filled with democratically elected MPs.

What message would that send? Key may yet have reason to thank the Greens for their vigilance.

The background to this is the following. Her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, was visiting last year and had specifically requested to address the NZ Parliament, in session. I was involved in this discussion in my role as the Green Party musterer, our representative on the House Business Committee. 

After considerable discussion the Green Party opposed this proposal. We did so for the following reasons:

The NZ House of Representatives, sitting in session with the mace, is the symbol of national sovereignty. No one apart from New Zealand MPs has ever been allowed to address a sitting session of Parliament, not even our own Governor-General. The reason for this is that sitting sessions of Parliaments are for New Zealand law makers to exercise their democratic powers.

The idea that we would only invite our ‘closest friends’ to address Parliament in session is problematic.  Who might they be, and where might the line be drawn?  Australia might be seen as no. 1.  Perhaps the US would be no. 2, and the UK no. 3.  Which other countries might fit in the top ten?  What would be the criteria?  Where could the line be drawn? Such decisions are intrinsically political, and therefore subjectively influenced by the colours of a particular Government of the day – whereas the issue must be seen as having constitutional implications independent of politics.

The Green Party position, however, pertained only to having a foreign leader address the Parliament in session.  We made it clear at the time that we welcomed the proposed visit as we had with previous visits.

The US Congress formally moves out of session when they receive addresses from overseas dignitaries; our position is consistent with this.
 
The PM, who is effectively acting as host of a state occasion, has decided that Ms Gillard may address MPs (not the Parliament) in the debating chamber, out of session (with no Mace present, and with Dr Lockwood Smith acting as chairman of the meeting and not as Speaker).  While the Legislative Council Chamber would probably have been a better choice of venue, the choice is for the PM to make, and we respect that decision.

We are looking forward to listening to the Australian PM’s address to us.

We think it is healthy to have a debate about this issue but believe such a change should not be made at the whim of a sitting government.

Here are some of the highlights

I used the training incentive allowance to help with study costs, I shared childcare with friends and family, I sometimes had to use the special needs grant to pay my power bill and buy food when things got really tough.

I got support when I needed it; my Dad did not. So I am here for my father.

The minimum wage must go up to $15 per hour as soon as possible. The minimum wage must go up to immediately help out the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

Lifting the minimum wage is good for the economy. There is an increased demand for goods and services, because people on low incomes spend most of their money.

The Green Party supports a comprehensive state house building program to increase the stock by 6000 homes in the next three years. This building program would create 28,000 jobs.

This building program would help those New Zealanders most in need and it would help our struggling construction industry. My dad would have loved a job like that, building houses for people he cared about.

We’re unique in that we still own the majority of our electricity generation assets—the big renewable projects that our grandparents built – so we have the ability to look at a progressive pricing scheme which would help our most vulnerable families stay healthy and warm.

You can read the whole speech here.

“The plans to increase lignite use are extremely concerning as they would produce huge quantities of carbon dioxide which contributes to climate change – the biggest environmental threat we have ever faced.”

The PCE also recommends changes to the ETS,

“Those extra emissions are likely to cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year and much of that cost could be borne by the taxpayer unless changes are made to the Emissions Trading Scheme.”

It adds further weight to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ argument that we have to keep the coal in the hole.

You can access the full report here.

That is, unless you work in the Parliamentary complex itself—in which case you can’t.

Not because the PCE doesn’t want you to have the report. But because of an IT stuff up a couple of months ago that has not been fixed. Numerous calls/complaints/jobs have been made to ICT and nothing has happend.

Essentially parliamentarians do not have access to an electronic copy—or any of the other information on the PCE’s website—while they’re on the Parliamentary network. Despite the fact it is the Parliamentary site that Members need access to.

In the meantime, while we wait for access to the PCE site, here is a clip from the IT Crowd.

Parliament is a strange place, and often the only images we get are of MPs shouting at each other across the chamber during Question Time. But when the gloves are off, how do MPs from different parties get on? In this podcast three Green MPs – Catherine Delahunty, Kevin Hague, and Gareth Hughes – talk about their cross-party relationships.

Can friendship flourish across the political battlefield? In an adversarial Parliament, is there room to find common ground?

Click to play

For the first time, we’re delighted to be able to provide a transcript of this podcast – kindly transcribed for us by an award-winning New Zealand novelist, woohoo! Go here and download the transcript file. This is something we hope to provide more in future.

If you’re having problems with our Flash player, or to download the file and a transcript, go here. This podcast series is now available on iTunes.

In more recent times, New Zealand society has begun to develop a more enlightened attitude towards mental illness.  The prevailing attitude now is that people with mental health issues should be part of their communities unless they are a threat to themselves or to someone else.  Unfortunately, the resources have not followed them to the extent necessary, and mental health is still a poor relation of the health system, but at least there has been some progress.

There has also been, thanks to organisations like the Mental Health Foundation and campaigns such as Like Minds, Like Mine (which I was involved in establishing) significant progress in de-stigmatising mental illness and reducing discrimination against people who suffer from it.  There is an increased recognition in society that people with mental health issues need to be supported and treated; not hidden away, discriminated against, and made the butt of crass humour.

Sadly, that increased recognition does not seem to have permeated our Parliament, which often still seems like my childhood schoolyard.  I have had to sit in the House and listen to put-downs such as “Did you forget to take your medication this morning?” or an MP referring to another’s speech as a “psychotic outburst”.  One MP, who had to take some stress leave from Parliament many years ago, is even today frequently taunted in the House about his mental health.

Yesterday, we hit a new low, with the unedifying spectacle of the Prime Minister laughing at assertions that an MP may have mental health issues, and asserting that the MP concerned didn’t because “[h]e didn’t look very sick to me last week”.

John Key can’t have spent much time watching the Like Minds, Like Mine campaign advertising, or he would have known that you can’t judge the state of a person’s mental health just by looking at them.  Not every person with a mental health issue is the rambling incoherent stereotype John Key seems to think they are.

It was a remarkable afternoon in the House, made more so by the presence of the Maori King Te Arikinui Tuheitia Paki.  The Bill was supported by all but one of the parties in Parliament, so there was quite a celebratory tone and some powerful speeches, many in te reo. I made the effort to say something sensible on behalf of the Greens (you can go here to see if I succeeded!)

As well as (at last) recognising the rights of mana whenua, and that the river was taken illegally by a combination of military and legislative action, the bill puts in place some very positive practical remedies.  It sets up a River Authority, with equal numbers of mana whenua and government appointees, who will work under a co-management arrangement with the primary goal of restoring the health and the mauri of the river.

This model is new for New Zealand, and no doubt it will hit some speed bumps, but it could also inform the format of other settlements still to come.

I would seldom suggest that people read legislation for fun, but in this case it is worth a look at the preamble to the bill (click on Download PDF, preamble is p.6) and the 1^st schedule (starts at p.85) which gives the flavour of what has been agreed and the vision and strategy for the future.

The proof of the deal will be in its implementation, as ever, and one hopes all the goodwill expressed today translates into action and positive outcomes for the River and the Waikato – Tainui people.

I suspect the Speaker was a little less diligent than usual in his timekeeping, when it came to the final speech from Hon. Nanaia Mahuta, and that was a good thing, because she spoke with remarkable honesty and with a passion worthy of the occasion.  Following the vote there was an immensely satisfying waiata and haka performed by those in the gallery.

A memorable day, and now the House goes into recess for a week, so we can all get on with our other work around the motu!

Many groups have spoken out against this silliness, but despite some solid advice on how to fix the problem, the government still has not expressed support for remedying it.

The idea that Energy Minister Brownlee rejected my Smart Meters (Consumer Choice) Bill is mistaken. The Minister has said repeatedly that he rejects extensive regulation of smart meters, something with which I entirely agree. The Minister has also accepted the advice of the Electricity Commission that “The Commission does, however, recommend regulating some technical standards, for example on information exchange protocols and data security, through electricity industry rules”.

This is precisely what my Bill does, as well as requiring that companies installing smart meters, offer the customer an in-home-display, and a variable rate tariff that allows them to save some money, but only if they want it.

In effect, my Bill does four things:

1. Makes some parts of the voluntary industry standard mandatory
2. Requires the smart meter to be installed with the smarts – a HAN chip
3. Requires the installer to offer money saving accessories to the consumer
4. Requires the power company to offer a money saving electricity tariff.

The customer wouldn’t be required to buy or accept any of it. That’s the consumer choice bit.

Last week the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, spoke to Grey Power about the power of truly smart meters:

My basic job is to provide Parliament with independent advice on the environment. It’s a set up that gives me independence from the government of the time and allows me to give full and frank advice to our legislators.

Of course this occasionally leads to me getting involved with some controversial issues such as the current mining debate or indeed, my reason for being here today — smart meters.

We are not always blind consumers. When I go to the shop to buy apples, I see the choices laid out in front of me. But when I buy electricity, my information is very poor. And therefore the market cannot function well. My monthly bill is largely mysterious. Maybe it’s lower than last month. I don’t know if this is because I bought a more efficient refrigerator. Or because the weather was warmer than usual. Or because the price has fallen – but pigs might fly.

What makes a meter really smart?

At the heart of a really smart meter is a Home Area Network chip – a HAN. We have computer chips in many things now – in our washing machines, for example.

First a really smart meter – one with a HAN chip – will be able to talk to an in-home display. An in-home display might be as simple as a globe that sits on your coffee table or kitchen bench and glows red in peak times to remind you to turn off unnecessary lights or appliances. Or it could be something much more sophisticated giving you detailed information about how much electricity you are using and how much you are paying – what is called real-time information.

Overseas evidence shows that in-home displays, delivering only simple consumption information to a readily accessible location, can lead to a 5 to15 percent reduction in electricity use. This could happen virtually right away – Noel Leeming, Dick Smith and L V Martin will make sure in-home displays are quickly available as soon as there are meters that can talk to them.

What more can I add to that? If Parliament’s independent watchdog says that truly smart meters are a good idea, I’m keen to take that advice and put it into law. That’s what my bill sets out to do, and I hope I’ll have the Government’s support when it has its first reading in the House. Then we can have a full and open debate about the benefits of smart meters, and how best to ensure that New Zealander’s get one of them, and not the half-dumb meters being installed at the moment.

Metiria’s speech was a rousing call to action, and she contrasted Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson’s outrage over  tourists’ smuggling of geckos and shooting of kereru with her failure to stand up for the habitat of our threatened species in the face of Gerry Brownlee’s bullish determination to mine it.

And while Phil Goff burst our eardrums with his new found outrage, Metiria pointed out that the tireless campaign to protect the iconic Happy Valley from being dug up for coal was stymied at every turn by a Labour Government.

Visual highlights from the day were the young women painted in Avatar blue, the radical cheerleaders, and my favourite placard: ‘Surgical mining, its like Scientific Whaling’. Yep.

Big ups to Nelson man Joni Bridges for kick-starting the whole thing and getting such a diverse and passionate bunch of people together to resoundingly tell the Government, ’Not Mine, Ours!!!’

This is just the start of a long and fierce campaign. If you haven’t already, check out our submission guide and make your voice heard before submissions close on May 4.

As one of the veterans of the Hauraki/Coromandel campaign, it was really inspiring to see so many people expressing their love of this land and their contempt for short sighted policy.

I know from experience that all that stands between foreign mining companies and our treasured lands is our passion – and it’s people who will stop them!

I look forward to seeing you and your families on the protest lines – let’s show the Nats we mean it when we say NO MINING IN NATIONAL PARKS!

[For the political junkies, Labour have voted with National 12 times at first readings, and 16 times at third readings, since the start of this term of Parliament. For the Maori Party it's 13 and 17. For the Greens it's 0 and 1.]

Yesterday, Labour voted with the Government again on a Bill that everyone except the Greens supported – the Education Amendment Bill.

We opposed this supposedly “technical” Bill because it included clauses to facilitate corporate control of school boards. In doing so, we seem to be the only ones consistently opposing privatisation in the education system.

The Maori Party did express concern about these aspects of the Bill but they still voted for it.

It’s fascinating, because if you just read the Regulatory Impact Statement which describes the Bill it would seem to be just about police vetting of school tradespeople and registration issues for teachers. Actually, like most legislation there is always fine-print to examine.

This Education Amendment Bill continues a trend towards corporate control by allowing corporates to be statutory managers of schools. It also allows the combining of school boards, potentially disenfranchising local communities.

The Quality Public Education Coalition (QPEC) was one of the small number of submitters against this Bill who saw its potential to further undermine public schools. QPEC has the experience and the capacity to step back and analyse the bigger picture.

With their support, we are prepared to be a lone voice in Parliament to at least make sure there is opposition to any form of privatisation on the public record.

Schools are not businesses to be managed efficiently in order to produce more labour for the market. Schools are communities, and as communities in partnership with the state they need the ability to run their own affairs and proper resources. We don’t need Pepsi Cola High School being managed by a firm of corporate auditors whose bottom line is profit.

This week we present some highlights from his maiden address.

Click to play

If you’re having problems with our Flash player, try this alternative site.

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.

Yes, the sad day has come, but we’ll see her off in good style!

This post is a place for frogblog readers to send a personal message to Jeanette or recall a favourite memory. If you would like to debate the consequences or your reaction, do so here.

What I’d really like to do is take a moment and celebrate an awesome political career. In Jeanette’s words from Green at Heart:

“Sometimes you wonder, when the world is moving toward an
acknowledgement of all the issues we have highlighted, why do people still feel compelled to say ‘Mind you I’m not a Greenie’?” she questions.

“Perhaps it’s because we’ve never acceded to populism and green-wash. We’ve always been real. That said, I’m infinitely proud of what we’ve achieved as it’s been through a mix of integrity, influence and good ideas. In that respect the Green Party is in good shape and this great bunch of people will keep on promoting solutions to get us all out of this mess.”

All I want to say is that we are infinitely proud of you Jeanette, and that we will miss your leadership and your example. It’s you who have kept it real!

As I said earlier, this post is a place for frogblog readers to send a personal message to Jeanette or recall a favourite memory.

This is the post where we can discuss what it all means.

Judging from past events, we will once again have to field all the speculation that this means the end of the Greens. Poppycock! As Mark Twain famously mused:

“The Rumors of my Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated.”

Jeanette was the first Green MP to speak in Parliament. She will by no means be the last. To use Jeanette’s own words:

We’ve always been real. That said, I’m infinitely proud of what we’ve achieved as it’s been through a mix of integrity, influence and good ideas. In that respect the Green Party is in good shape and this great bunch of people will keep on promoting solutions.

It’s an exciting time of renewal for the Green Party, and Gareth Hughes, who will replace Jeanette, will bring some youth and vigour into the Green Party caucus.

If you want to leave a message or tribute for Jeanette, take a look at the next post. This post is for the debate about consequences and reactions.

What do you think it all means?

It’s the sort of environmental entrepreneurship that the Greens envisage in the latest Green New Deal package released today. Full PDF here.

On forestry, the package proposes we plant 665,000ha of forest in the next ten years. Commercial forestry can do half it with some confidence in the carbon price; the Government can joint-venture with iwi and community interests to match that; and kicking-the-tyres of the Afforestation Grants Scheme and the Permanment Forest Sinks Initiative would spur more again.

Much of it can be native forest, planted or regenerated permanently for carbon; and we can use the opportunity with the rest to diversify our forests into higher-value, more durable species that are better for the environment. There’s 27 million tonnes of CO2 in this new forest over 10 years.

On pest control, the package suggests ways we can do more pest control, and do that on the ground so more people are employed and the fur industry can use more of the fur. Many of the remaining textile factories in New Zealand are dependent on possum fur, and are desperate to expand production. For example, Wool Yarns in Lower Hutt and Manawatu Knitting Mills. Done right it can be another win-win for jobs and the environment.

And on wilding conifer eradication, the package extends the argument of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in her high-country report, showing how, with future control funding brought forward, we could actually nip this problem in the bud. There’s some DOC video here.

Taken together we reckon that this would create 50,000 job-years over ten years (a job year is one FTE for one year). We’ve costed it and it adds up to less than half a billion dollars over 10 years. There’s plenty of opportunity there for a government keen to reduce unemployment, fix environmental problems, and bolster rural and provincial New Zealand.

A Green New Deal is about hugging trees with spades, traps and chainsaws. Is the Government ready to muck in and get its hands dirty?

There’s been commentary claiming the government hasn’t actually done very much in its first year. Rodney’s embarrassment aside, it seems safe to say that Rod wouldn’t agree.

First off is the long list of backward steps taken on environmental protection. National started the year as it is likely to finish it – under urgency. Under the guise of the collapsing world economy, legislation having little to do with the crisis was repealed, such as the act that set standards for sustainable biofuels, and one that established a renewable preference for electricity generation.

At the other end of the first year, we have the fiasco of the government’s 0-20% emissions target (for who knows where it will end up), and an Emissions Trading Scheme that will subsidise polluters by the billions at taxpayer expense, likely increasing our emissions rather than reducing them. I’d forgive Rod if what he might have to say about that wasn’t even printable.

The great worry is that this government has only just begun its programme of environmental negligence. The Resource Management Act part two reforms is an example of things still to come, with the government showing it will trade short term economic gain for long term economic and environmental sustainability.

And you can be sure Rod would be out there gathering signatures for the Green Party mining petition too.

Rod's tree at Parliamentary Library

One of the other early casualties was Rod’s beloved Buy Kiwi Made programme, ably implemented by Sue Bradford after Rod’s death. The Kiwi Diary 2009 notes today is the anniversary of when the Green Party won the battle to have the “Buy Kiwi Made” campaign restricted to goods and services manufactured and processed in New Zealand, 2006. Even Labour didn’t get it.

There are so many other examples. But most of all, I think Rod would be gearing up for the next public discussion on MMP, due to occur over the next two election cycles. Rod was a passionate advocate of the new system recommended by the Royal Commission and helped lead the coalition advocating change. Rod knew that MMP meant  fair representation for all Kiwi voters and that it would lead to the current diversity we see in the House today. I think Rod would agree that there are improvements to be made to our MMP system. I’m certain he would be fighting hard on behalf of all citizens for its retention.

Greens across Aotearoa are thinking of you today, Rod.

Kia kaha Sue!

In the meantime, the rushed consultation period is coming to a close, hot on the heels of the urgency motion that created this fat invoice to the taxpayer.

In summary, the Government is moving fast to emasculate the already weak ETS and turn it into a subsidy programme for big polluters. You only have until Tuesday 13 October 2009 to have your say.

Use the Green Party ETS Submission Guide to help you get your head around the issue and have your say.

The Guide gives you a simple how-to for making a submission, and highlights some of the bigger issues with the National-Maori Party ETS Bill. We encourage everyone to use this as a starting point and add any other issues that you feel are important. The Bill is so flawed we couldn’t possibly cover them all!