Dann cited Mr Luxon’s exclusion of asset sales, substantial cuts and changes in social benefits, and his apparent renunciation of socially conservative goals as evidence of his argument.
Mr Luxon’s reply that New Zealand was a great country going in the wrong direction and that National would put it back on the right track – whatever that might mean – hardly abolished a major philosophical difference between National and Labor… but given their respective places in the polls at the moment, maybe he doesn’t think it’s necessary?
Mr Luxon was questioned in the context of the appalling but unsurprising decision of the US Supreme Court to appeal Roe v. Wadeabout whether his own conservative views on abortion would shape national policy.
He’s adamant they won’t, although his comments earlier in the week that gnaws settled case law was not easy as it was exactly what several Supreme Court justices who just overturned have said during their hearings.
While Mr Luxon tried to keep pace with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on the matter, her Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson went out of his way to trip Mr Luxon.
Until Thursday, when South Dunedin’s favorite son became the last MP to fight Covid-19, Mr Robertson used every of his significant media opportunities to cast doubt on Mr Luxon’s stance on abortion, and he also made a game of it on Wednesday when he heads the weekly general debate for Labour.
It is unusual for another country’s issues to be at the center of New Zealand’s political debate, even more so for an individual’s personal views on what has traditionally been a matter of conscience for MPs to be so hotly debated.
It may be a sign that Labor is being tricked by Mr Luxon and, on the issue of abortion rights, thinks it has found a problem that could cast him as the bogeyman and scare hesitant middle voters back from his cause.
But National also scares many people about what Labor might do too, and it spent most of Wednesday offering more serious warnings and forecasts.
Most of the day’s debate was taken up by the Canterbury Regional Council’s (Ngai Tahu) Representation Bill, which is being steered through very choppy waters by Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene.
Local bills are rare beasts — very few have been passed in the past five years — and since existing legislation requires central government to change anything that affects a region or location, they rarely attract much national excitement.
This one is different because, if passed, Ngai Tahu could appoint two members to the Canterbury Regional Council (ECan).
Those appointed members would have the same functions and powers as other councilors, including, crucially, voting rights.
As for National and Act New Zealand, this is nothing short of an attack on the very foundation of democracy – one person, one vote – and will open the floodgates to similar legislation.
On that front, there are no doubt many in the Maori Labor caucus and beyond who would like the bill to be just that, the thin end of the wedge for more extensive legislative change than just within the confines of Canterbury.
The argument goes that, in the same vein as Maori seats in parliament, mandatory Maori representation in local authorities would reflect the partnership envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi.
Attempts to pass a similar bill for Rotorua were withdrawn amid major controversy, but the Ecan legislation looks likely to become law soon, despite opposition efforts to filibuster a very short bill for as long as possible.
National and Act all claim to be in favor of Maori representation in any elected institution, but only as long as those representatives are actually elected to it.
New Zealanders like to think that we live in an egalitarian and responsible nation, and for many there is something deeply disturbing about the thought that people don’t have to submit to elections before becoming their representatives.
This is a problem for both parties.
To many younger New Zealanders, perhaps raised with a different view of the meaning of the Treaty than their ancestors, the argument for Maori representation seems perfectly reasonable: National doesn’t want to alienate those voters by appearing too sharp.
But Labor also knows that a sizable percentage of central New Zealand, often the people whose votes determine the election, are alarmed by the generational shift taking place before their eyes: Labor doesn’t want to alienate those voters by pretending to be public opinion. .
The next elections are still a long way off, but election rhetoric is well underway.
Gone, don’t forget
Former Dunedin South MP Clare Curran, who was even formerly the broadcaster’s minister, made an unexpected “return” to the debating chamber on Thursday, quoted by both Melissa Lee and Judith Collins in their first reading speeches of the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill .
“Let Clare Curran go,” pleaded Labor MP Dr. Deborah Russell, just for the newer, cuter Ms Collins to comment:
Member Deborah Russell suggests I let Clare Curran go.
“Well, I sure have, and so does she. That’s fine. She’s a nice person, but let’s focus on this.
“Go on, go on, Dr Russell pleaded, and Parliament did it, away for the three-week winter recess.