Fare thee well, Simon...

At the age of 64 I am beginning to learn how to recognise those who are true politicians, and that vast majority who have not grown out of their kindergarten sandpits. Associated with those latter are the political groupies.

Let me illustrate.

Cactus Kate’s most recent item sings the praises of Tau Henare who in the past few days gave “…an hilarious speech in the general debate where after giving Stuart Nash a tickle up he manages to lampoon Charles Chauvel and his car…”

That has been the norm in our Parliament for as long as I can remember; even to the old man getting heated about Holyoake (the original “Sir Toothpaste”) burbling and pontificating at the perceived inadequacies of Her Majesty's Opposition. Both sides do it. These days all sides do it.

I heard – through the auspices of National Radio – about Simon Power’s valedictory. I have have a regard for him for some years now, in his occupation of both sides of the House. It is perhaps a reflection of his respect for government and the process that he is one fairly conservative MP that the political groupies like CK and the blubberman like to beat up on from time to time.

I want to quote direct from his valedictory –

…
When I first came to this House, I was encouraged to be partisan, an aggressive contributor to the debate, and told that the most important thing in Opposition was to hold the Government to account. That was a view I passed on to others who came after me, and it remains, on one level, fundamentally correct.
…
Politicians must have a plan. A plan that is in place early, and one they are prepared to lead.

I believe that politics is 90% preparation and 10% execution. At a day-to-day level, politics, particularly at a ministerial level, can quickly deteriorate to the daily management of tasks - dealing with papers, the media, OIA requests, Question Time, Written Questions, expectations from colleagues and your Party; tasks that become all consuming, and tasks that in the end do not improve the lives of New Zealanders at all.
…
A formative experience in my last year in Opposition triggered a fundamental shift in the way I viewed politics.
As Chair of the Privileges Committee in the last term of Parliament, I had to chair the inquiry into the matter of certain donations to the New Zealand First Party. My view of politics, and how best to participate in it, was altered from that point on. This was a highly partisan issue in front of a parliamentary committee which had a history of being above politics.

I realised then that working with other political parties to reach consensus, where possible, was a legitimate way to advance legislation and to progress an agenda. Not everyone agrees with me on this approach, but I know I'm right.
My experience has been that expanding the decision-making mandate, without sacrificing the kernel of the idea, has improved the quality of the legislative product immeasurably. That means not being afraid to back down, not being afraid to reconsider a position after listening to an alternative view, and, in at least one case, not being afraid to amend a bill on the floor of the House in response to a high-quality debate.
…
So much of Parliament's time is spent attacking each other, trying to out-manoeuvre each other, and just plain loathing each other. It's an incredible waste of energy and time.

And so, as the current Parliament scraps its way out the doors to the lobbies (so that they can enjoy what is left of the RWC) we have the spectacular of legislation affecting the rights – fundamental rights – of every NZer being shovelled through the House under urgency. The attempts to legalise and authorise police actions that were not necessarily illegal but which ran well outside the running rails of acceptability were just rank. There was no thought given. There was no principle applied. The whole process was wrapped into the web of obfuscation that characterises the jonkey’s idea of politics and more particularly of government.

I have no doubt that Simon Power was absolutely instrumental in implementing the changes that emerged from the Select Committee. Those changes gave at least a nod to the niceties of statute law and proper legislative process.

Simon, you get thanks from me.

And I want to repeat one part of his valedictory for emphasis.

My experience has been that expanding the decision-making mandate, without sacrificing the kernel of the idea, has improved the quality of the legislative product immeasurably. That means not being afraid to back down, not being afraid to reconsider a position after listening to an alternative view, and, in at least one case, not being afraid to amend a bill on the floor of the House in response to a high-quality debate.

That is the fundamental behind the original pressure for the change to MMP. It is the fundamental behind the reason for retaining MMP. It is also the reason why those who oppose MMP want it changed.

When it comes to the vote in November, every elector should remember the Police Surveillance Powers legislation and how it could have happened under a different system of representation.