Well, it kind of feels like the inevitable has happened, hasn't it?

After receiving his final final warning a few weeks back, it wasn't going to take much for Stuart Nash to lose his portfolios and job as a Minister.

Especially, as many thought Prime Minister Chris Hipkins's actions over his previous cabinet manual discretions were not firm enough.

So, this time around it has been revealed that Stuart Nash sent an e-mail to two of his donors, revealing confidential information from cabinet discussions that was of interest to them.

Details about where several ministers stood on the issue of a commercial rent relief package for Covid hit businesses was passed on which once again contravenes the Cabinet manual, which states discussions at Cabinet and Cabinet Committee meetings as informal and confidential.

As you’d expect it to be.

Members of cabinet are bound by collective responsibility and must not detail who took what position on an issue.

So clearly the Prime Minister had no choice but to fire Nash and it was good to see that there was only two hours between the e-mail being revealed and the Prime Minister announcing his sacking from Cabinet.

Inexcusable is how the Prime Minister described Nash's actions. Nash crossed a line that is totally unacceptable to the Prime Minister. Well, now we know where the line is. Maybe you felt the line had been crossed before.  

Look, I'm not hugely surprised, and I doubt you are either, about Nash's actions.

I'm sure Nash is not the only Minister in any Government to have had a conversation with an interested party about policy.

Maybe just giving them a bit of a heads up about which way the Government is swaying, although I don't think they're all silly enough to record it in writing, in an e-mail.

But we know that Ministers and their departments are lobbied by various different groups all the time.

Lobbyists, academics and researchers, business organisations, federations, charities, community and activism groups, depending on how closely aligned and values, I'm sure they have been given the occasional heads up in the past as well, but when we're presented with the evidence so bluntly, it does make you wonder whether the Prime Minister has his Ministers under control.

Are they acting with due propriety? Like me, you might not be surprised by Nash’s actions, but should we be accepting it? And the answer is no, we shouldn't by any Minister.  

LISTEN ABOVE

Well, it kind of feels like the inevitable has happened, hasn't it?
After receiving his final final warning a few weeks back, it wasn't going to take much for Stuart Nash to lose his portfolios and job as a Minister.
Especially, as many thought Prime Minister Chris Hipkins's actions over his previous cabinet manual discretions were not firm enough.
So, this time around it has been revealed that Stuart Nash sent an e-mail to two of his donors, revealing confidential information from cabinet discussions that was of interest to them.
Details about where several ministers stood on the issue of a commercial rent relief package for Covid hit businesses was passed on which once again contravenes the Cabinet manual, which states discussions at Cabinet and Cabinet Committee meetings as informal and confidential.
As you’d expect it to be.
Members of cabinet are bound by collective responsibility and must not detail who took what position on an issue.
So clearly the Prime Minister had no choice but to fire Nash and it was good to see that there was only two hours between the e-mail being revealed and the Prime Minister announcing his sacking from Cabinet.
Inexcusable is how the Prime Minister described Nash's actions. Nash crossed a line that is totally unacceptable to the Prime Minister. Well, now we know where the line is. Maybe you felt the line had been crossed before.  
Look, I'm not hugely surprised, and I doubt you are either, about Nash's actions.
I'm sure Nash is not the only Minister in any Government to have had a conversation with an interested party about policy.
Maybe just giving them a bit of a heads up about which way the Government is swaying, although I don't think they're all silly enough to record it in writing, in an e-mail.
But we know that Ministers and their departments are lobbied by various different groups all the time.
Lobbyists, academics and researchers, business organisations, federations, charities, community and activism groups, depending on how closely aligned and values, I'm sure they have been given the occasional heads up in the past as well, but when we're presented with the evidence so bluntly, it does make you wonder whether the Prime Minister has his Ministers under control.
Are they acting with due propriety? Like me, you might not be surprised by Nash’s actions, but should we be accepting it? And the answer is no, we shouldn't by any Minister.  
LISTEN ABOVE

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Francesca Rudkin: We might not be surprised by Nash's actions, but should we accept them?

May is New Zealand Music Month, the theme for this year ‘Amplifying Aotearoa’, aiming to shine a light on those who are the heartbeat of the nation’s music scene.

One of the artists being highlighted is Tami Neilson, a country and soul singer-songwriter.

She’s fresh off a plane from Nashville where she paid tribute to Patsy Cline on the sacred stage of the Rhyman, rewarded with a standing ovation from the audience.

Neilson told Kerre Woodham that it was so overwhelming and unexpected.

“I still haven’t really processed it.”

Despite the accolades, making a living as a musician is no easy feat, most artists waiting by the phone until they can snatch up a gig.

“This business is, is not for the faint of heart.”

LISTEN ABOVE  

May is New Zealand Music Month, the theme for this year ‘Amplifying Aotearoa’, aiming to shine a light on those who are the heartbeat of the nation’s music scene. 
One of the artists being highlighted is Tami Neilson, a country and soul singer-songwriter. 
She’s fresh off a plane from Nashville where she paid tribute to Patsy Cline on the sacred stage of the Rhyman, rewarded with a standing ovation from the audience. 
Neilson told Kerre Woodham that it was so overwhelming and unexpected. 
“I still haven’t really processed it.” 
Despite the accolades, making a living as a musician is no easy feat, most artists waiting by the phone until they can snatch up a gig. 
“This business is, is not for the faint of heart.” 
LISTEN ABOVE

Tami Neilson: NZ Country and soul singer-songwriter discusses New Zealand Music Month

Remember the Tau Henare-Trevor Mallard stauch back in 2007? 

Senior Cabinet Minister Trevor Mallard said the punch he threw at National MP Tau Henare is “one of the most stupid things I've ever done in my life” and in a life full of them, that's saying something. The scuffle broke out in the parliamentary lobbies. Allegedly, Henare had made some snide remarks about Trevor Mallard's personal life, which is pretty nasty, but Mallard lost the plot and then promptly lost his Sports Minister portfolio and was demoted by then PM Helen Clark. 

He was allowed to stay in cabinet, though, which some thought was very lenient on Helen Clarke's behalf, but she was always incredibly loyal to those who showed devotion to her, so I guess that's how he stayed and then went on to have a fabulous career and is now living on the pig's back in Ireland. Oh me, oh my. If only you'd been sacked then and there, it could have spared us a lot. But there we go. 

That was a particularly unsavoury moment in parliamentary history. More recently, Nationals Tim Van de Molen was judged to be in contempt of Parliament after he was found to have threatened and intimidated Labour MP Shanan Halbert in a Transport committee hearing. He accepts he stood over him, Van de Molan stood over Halbert and generally behaved like an oak. He was censured effectively, a public telling off in the House of Parliament, and stripped of his portfolios by Christopher Luxon. 

Now we have Green MP Julie Anne Genter committing a sin at least as egregious as Mallard’s, certainly, far more egregious than Van de Molen. By marching across the house and standing over National MP Matt Doocey, getting right up in his grills and behaving in a totally intimidating manner. She apologized and says she was trying to impart information. 

What, by shoving it down his throat? It was completely unacceptable and over the top and I cannot believe that there are texters who are defending the behaviour, why? How, how can you defend that? It doesn't matter if she's a Green or if she's a woman, God, imagine if it was a man had done that. We all, we all know how bad that would have looked, even if Matt Doocey had stood up. He was probably just gob smacked because she was behaving completely irrationally. And when you're confronted like that, it's really quite shocking and you turn into a flight and fight response and the adrenaline surges cause you're thinking, what is the mad tart going to do next. 

I cannot believe already there have been texts this morning saying, oh, come on, it’s fake news, you know. Bigger things to worry about. I don't think so. What is it about Transport Committee hearings that excites so much passion? Because that's what happened with Van de Molen and Halbert. And the last one, it was a transport committee. And here we had Simeon Brown answering questions from the floor. 

I don't know how much the Debbie Francis review into bullying in Parliament cost, but it doesn't seem to have improved matters much, does it? Julie Anne Genter deserves all the censure Parliament can throw at her, as would any MP of any hue who behaved in that fashion? 

And as an aside, she has taken the gloss of James Shaw's valedictory speech. He should be the ones getting the headlines. He should be the Green MP that everybody's talking about. He has shown dignity and professionalism throughout his career, and to have been upstaged by one of his own MPs, one of his own party members with her appalling lack of professionalism is extremely disappointing. 

Remember the Tau Henare-Trevor Mallard stauch back in 2007?  
Senior Cabinet Minister Trevor Mallard said the punch he threw at National MP Tau Henare is “one of the most stupid things I've ever done in my life” and in a life full of them, that's saying something. The scuffle broke out in the parliamentary lobbies. Allegedly, Henare had made some snide remarks about Trevor Mallard's personal life, which is pretty nasty, but Mallard lost the plot and then promptly lost his Sports Minister portfolio and was demoted by then PM Helen Clark.  
He was allowed to stay in cabinet, though, which some thought was very lenient on Helen Clarke's behalf, but she was always incredibly loyal to those who showed devotion to her, so I guess that's how he stayed and then went on to have a fabulous career and is now living on the pig's back in Ireland. Oh me, oh my. If only you'd been sacked then and there, it could have spared us a lot. But there we go.  
That was a particularly unsavoury moment in parliamentary history. More recently, Nationals Tim Van de Molen was judged to be in contempt of Parliament after he was found to have threatened and intimidated Labour MP Shanan Halbert in a Transport committee hearing. He accepts he stood over him, Van de Molan stood over Halbert and generally behaved like an oak. He was censured effectively, a public telling off in the House of Parliament, and stripped of his portfolios by Christopher Luxon.  
Now we have Green MP Julie Anne Genter committing a sin at least as egregious as Mallard’s, certainly, far more egregious than Van de Molen. By marching across the house and standing over National MP Matt Doocey, getting right up in his grills and behaving in a totally intimidating manner. She apologized and says she was trying to impart information.  
What, by shoving it down his throat? It was completely unacceptable and over the top and I cannot believe that there are texters who are defending the behaviour, why? How, how can you defend that? It doesn't matter if she's a Green or if she's a woman, God, imagine if it was a man had done that. We all, we all know how bad that would have looked, even if Matt Doocey had stood up. He was probably just gob smacked because she was behaving completely irrationally. And when you're confronted like that, it's really quite shocking and you turn into a flight and fight response and the adrenaline surges cause you're thinking, what is the mad tart going to do next.  
I cannot believe already there have been texts this morning saying, oh, come on, it’s fake news, you know. Bigger things to worry about. I don't think so. What is it about Transport Committee hearings that excites so much passion? Because that's what happened with Van de Molen and Halbert. And the last one, it was a transport committee. And here we had Simeon Brown answering questions from the floor.  
I don't know how much the Debbie Francis review into bullying in Parliament cost, but it doesn't seem to have improved matters much, does it? Julie Anne Genter deserves all the censure Parliament can throw at her, as would any MP of any hue who behaved in that fashion?  
And as an aside, she has taken the gloss of James Shaw's valedictory speech. He should be the ones getting the headlines. He should be the Green MP that everybody's talking about. He has shown dignity and professionalism throughout his career, and to have been upstaged by one of his own MPs, one of his own party members with her appalling lack of professionalism is extremely disappointing.

Kerre Woodham: Julie Anne Genter deserves all the censure Parliament can throw at her

Happy International Workers Day to all the labourers and workers out there. All right, brother. All right, sister. Dedicated to recognizing the contributions and achievements of workers worldwide and taking the opportunity to promote workers rights and opportunities so. Go us, all of us paid grunts. 

MPs, would you consider them paid grunts? Not really public servants, sure, and reasonably well-paid public servants. Too much? Well, who decides that? The remuneration authority, that's who. A very good idea to leave the setting of certain public servants pay to an independent authority. And let's face it, it is never a right time for MPs to be accepting pay rises, they're on a hiding to nothing. Particularly tough, though, when the government has been calling for financial restraint when it's been calling for cost cutting in every government department. At a time when hundreds, if not thousands, of workers are being made redundant, you get the remuneration authority saying ‘look time for a pay rise for MPs.’ On a sliding scale, depending on what job you do. It doesn't matter that many of those who were sucking off the public tit shouldn't have been there anyway. That hiring spree in the last six months of ‘23 was an outrage. Redundancies are punishing and create uncertain times for those on the receiving end of a ‘don't come Monday’. 

The Remuneration Authority has announced pay rises backdated to October 2023 and coming in tranches through to 2026. It will be the first increase to MPs salaries since 2017 and the first major overview of the remuneration package since in about 20 years. The Prime Minister's salary will rise by almost $50,000 over six years, from $471k to $520k. Which you know, if you're the CEO of a big company, as he likes to see it, or if you're the Prime Minister, you probably wouldn't begrudge. 

I don't think people begrudge the big money for the big job. It's when you look at some of the backbenchers from numerous parties that you start to get a little sniffy and a little bit, what about me-ism starts to creep in. The Prime Minister has said he'll donate the extra to charity, as has become almost customary. 

So, what to do? What to do? 

Now we can all say they don't deserve it, but that's not true. Some of them do deserve the money they get, be they a backbencher from any party, be they a minister, be they a leader of an opposition party, some of them work hard for the money. They understand the concept of public servant. They are there to do their best for their constituents, for their party, for the country. Some of them are underpaid. Others would be overpaid if they were on the dole.  

So, what do you do? Would you do the job for the money? I heard the man from the Remunerations Authority saying, look, it's a matter of looking at what similar jobs pay in the private sector. It's a matter of attracting people to do the job and it's a matter of retention. Now, I know you've got to look for comparisons, but when it's attracting people to the job, you wouldn't do it for the money, would you? When you look at the hours they work, the scrutiny they're under, the pressure they're under, the meetings they have to sit through, the numpties they have to listen to. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't be in a backbench MP. Not for the money. I might do it if I thought I could add something and help create a New Zealand that's fair and just in the way I want to see it, but I certainly wouldn't do it for the money. 

As for retention, quite frankly that's not up to a wage band, that's up to a voter. If you're doing a good job, you'll be retained. The voters will vote you back in. It's got nothing to do with the money. 

So, when it comes to the backbenches, some of them are overpaid, massively, given what they do, others are underpaid. If you look at the work of the ministers, I think it's too soon to tell from the current government as to whether they’re value for money. 

The last lot? Well. You know my views on that. Very few of them I think could have commanded a ministerial salary in the private sector, and I'd be really interested to find out from those who have left Parliament, got bundled out of Parliament, what they're doing now and whether they're earning anywhere near as much as they were earning as a minister. Somehow, I doubt it. Other than Grant Robertson, who managed to land himself, get his trotters inpossibly the biggest trough in the country, 600 odd thousand at the Otago University. 

They're on a hiding to nothing. Well, how else do we set their pay? An independent authority does it? They haven't had a pay rise since 2017. It's the wrong time to do it. Absolutely the wrong time to do it. When is the right time? We get value for money for some, not for the others. And still again, the question: would you do it for any money?

Happy International Workers Day to all the labourers and workers out there. All right, brother. All right, sister. Dedicated to recognizing the contributions and achievements of workers worldwide and taking the opportunity to promote workers rights and opportunities so. Go us, all of us paid grunts.  
MPs, would you consider them paid grunts? Not really public servants, sure, and reasonably well-paid public servants. Too much? Well, who decides that? The remuneration authority, that's who. A very good idea to leave the setting of certain public servants pay to an independent authority. And let's face it, it is never a right time for MPs to be accepting pay rises, they're on a hiding to nothing. Particularly tough, though, when the government has been calling for financial restraint when it's been calling for cost cutting in every government department. At a time when hundreds, if not thousands, of workers are being made redundant, you get the remuneration authority saying ‘look time for a pay rise for MPs.’ On a sliding scale, depending on what job you do. It doesn't matter that many of those who were sucking off the public tit shouldn't have been there anyway. That hiring spree in the last six months of ‘23 was an outrage. Redundancies are punishing and create uncertain times for those on the receiving end of a ‘don't come Monday’.  
The Remuneration Authority has announced pay rises backdated to October 2023 and coming in tranches through to 2026. It will be the first increase to MPs salaries since 2017 and the first major overview of the remuneration package since in about 20 years. The Prime Minister's salary will rise by almost $50,000 over six years, from $471k to $520k. Which you know, if you're the CEO of a big company, as he likes to see it, or if you're the Prime Minister, you probably wouldn't begrudge. 
I don't think people begrudge the big money for the big job. It's when you look at some of the backbenchers from numerous parties that you start to get a little sniffy and a little bit, what about me-ism starts to creep in. The Prime Minister has said he'll donate the extra to charity, as has become almost customary.  
So, what to do? What to do?  
Now we can all say they don't deserve it, but that's not true. Some of them do deserve the money they get, be they a backbencher from any party, be they a minister, be they a leader of an opposition party, some of them work hard for the money. They understand the concept of public servant. They are there to do their best for their constituents, for their party, for the country. Some of them are underpaid. Others would be overpaid if they were on the dole.   
So, what do you do? Would you do the job for the money? I heard the man from the Remunerations Authority saying, look, it's a matter of looking at what similar jobs pay in the private sector. It's a matter of attracting people to do the job and it's a matter of retention. Now, I know you've got to look for comparisons, but when it's attracting people to the job, you wouldn't do it for the money, would you? When you look at the hours they work, the scrutiny they're under, the pressure they're under, the meetings they have to sit through, the numpties they have to listen to. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't be in a backbench MP. Not for the money. I might do it if I thought I could add something and help create a New Zealand that's fair and just in the way I want to see it, but I certainly wouldn't do it for the money.  
As for retention, quite frankly that's not up to a wage band, that's up to a voter. If you're doing a good job, you'll be retained. The voters will vote you back in. It's got nothing to do with the money. 
So, when it comes to the backbenches, some of them are overpaid, massively, given what they do, others are underpaid. If you look at the work of the ministers, I think it's too soon to tell from the current government as to whether they’re value for money.  
The last lot? Well. You know my views on that. Very few of them I think could have commanded a ministerial salary in the private sector, and I'd be really interested to find out from those who have left Parliament, got bundled out of Parliament, what they're doing now and whether they're earning anywhere near as much as they were earning as a minister. Somehow, I doubt it. Other than Grant Robertson, who managed to land himself, get his trotters inpossibly the biggest trough in the country, 600 odd thousand at the Otago University.  
They're on a hiding to nothing. Well, how else do we set their pay? An independent authority does it? They haven't had a pay rise since 2017. It's the wrong time to do it. Absolutely the wrong time to do it. When is the right time? We get value for money for some, not for the others. And still again, the question: would you do it for any money?

Francesca Rudkin: We might not be surprised by Nash's actions, but should we accept them?

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips