Jacinda Ardern has caused great offence in her short time as PM.

Even the Media party are having conniptions. In Australia the offence has cut deep:

This season of joy is anything but for Malcolm Turnbull. Australians are fed up with a constitutional shemozzle which has seen numbers of MPs and senators forced from office for the crime of being dual citizens.  Abbott and his conservative cronies have never accepted Turnbull’s legitimacy and keep up a running commentary on his failings in the media.

The Australian Labor Party consistently leads opinion polls and the leader, Bill Shorten, is clawing his way to more respectable poll numbers.

Into this toxic political mix comes a novice New Zealand prime minister with sharp criticisms of Australia’s hardline but bi-partisan immigration policy and the tragedy unfolding on Manus Island.

Canberra is underwhelmed by the timing and tone of the Kiwi commentary. There are dark mutterings of Ardern’s naivety and self-serving “dog whistling” – sending a coded political message to the New Zealand electorate that Kiwis occupy higher moral ground than do those coarse Aussies.

Clearly, this plays well in the New Zealand media still offering a warm honeymoon to the new Labour Government.  Aussie bashing appears to be a regular theme in print and especially in broadcast commentary. But bombast makes a poor substitute for old-fashioned reporting of the facts.  

I think the Media party have taken that on board.

Take the widespread view that New Zealanders have a more humane and decent record in dealing with refugees.

Last year, New Zealand raised its refugee intake from about 750 a year to about a thousand.  It was the first time in 30 years that the refugee intake had been increased.

By comparison, last year Australia’s intake was more than 20,000 and this figure will rise by about a thousand in each of the next two years.

Then there is the view, often retailed in New Zealand, that Australia operates a brutal maritime blockade to stop desperate people from landing on its shores.

Between 2008 and 2013, more than 50,000 people travelled to Australia on more than 800 unauthorised boat trips. More than 1200 died at sea trying to make the journey.

New Zealand has yet to have a single unauthorised boat land on our shores.

Salient and inconvenient facts for Ardern and her apologists.

This has not gone unnoticed in Canberra. Last week the Australian Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, took a thinly veiled swipe at New Zealand by saying that New Zealand benefits from Australia’s tough border protection policies without paying for them.

“We have stopped vessels on their way across the Torres Strait planning to track down the east coast of Australia to New Zealand. We have put hundreds of millions of dollars into a defence effort to stop those vessels.

“We do that, frankly, without any financial assistance from New Zealand,” Dutton said.

The other senior Australian minister with a close interest in the regional implications of Canberra’s border protection policies is the Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop.

Bishop is a toughie who has never publicly backed away from her statement that she would find it “very difficult to build trust” with a New Zealand Labour Government.

None of this is to suggest that New Zealand’s political leaders should not have concerns about the effects of Australia’s hardline policies or should moderate their criticism. But the view in Canberra is that the new Labour Government in Wellington should be doing more than offering armchair criticism. 

Jacinda has only ever done hot air and slogans.

Prime Minister Turnbull is remarkably well briefed on New Zealand’s view. His new chief of Staff, Peter Woolcott, was until recently Australia’s high commissioner in Wellington. A former high commissioner to Wellington heads Australia’s Defence Department.

That a new Australian high commissioner has not been appointed to Wellington for several months may reflect a certain grumpiness in official circles in Canberra.

Some pundits in Australia are suggesting that history may be about to repeat itself and Malcolm Turnbull could become the latest victim of Canberra’s Killing Season.

If their grim predictions are accurate and Turnbull is dumped as leader of the Liberals, the Canberra cognoscenti speculate than two ministers lead the pack to replace him.

The most likely replacement is the deputy leader, Julie Bishop. After her comes the Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton.

Something for Ardern to think about. Very carefully.

I’m not sure thinking was ever on her CV. She’s put herself and us in the firing line of some rather grumpy Aussie politicians. Those same politicians would think nothing of rescinding visa free travel rights for Kiwis.

-Fairfax

Finance Minister Grant Robertson needs to front up on the costings for his Government’s expensive policy pledges, National Party Finance Spokesperson Steven Joyce says.

“Yesterday we learnt that Mr Robertson did have coalition costings prepared by the Treasury before the coalition was announced on 19 October,” Mr Joyce says.

“This is despite him refusing to release the costings on 28 October on TV3’s The Nation because he hadn’t had the opportunity to ‘work with the public service’.

“It is clear now that excuse was a blatant fabrication.

A bald-faced lie.

“Then today we have the very unusual situation where the policy on lifting student loans and allowances by $50 a week is announced by Minister Hipkins, with no substantive costings whatsoever.

“All the public has to go on are the suggested costings from the infamous BERL pre-election fiscal plan that Mr Robertson refuses to stand by.

“Where is the information on the cost of student allowances? Where is the expected extra write-off on student loans caused by this change?

“We know that Treasury and the Ministry of Education would have provided costings for this policy for it to go through Cabinet. Mr Robertson needs to release those figures.

“This is serious stuff. The Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement released less than two weeks ago had multitude caveats in it about domestic policy uncertainty because they have no idea what the new government is planning.

“This isn’t Labour’s money, it’s the public’s money. And the public is entitled to know what the new Government is spending in its name.

“Mr Robertson needs to step up and release his coalition costings, and also insist Ministers release policy costings when new policies are announced. Or are they just afraid to spoil their ‘good news’ stories with some fiscal reality.”

Essentially, Labour is winging it.  On the one hand, we have people rushing around in the media handing out money like it is a lolly scramble.   On the other, Labour hasn’t even told Treasury what the Coalition government has agreed to spend money on.

I’d laugh if it wasn’t so serious.

The real reason why Labour is so reticent to come forward with the numbers is probably that it will prove Steve Joyce right after all:  a huge budget hole well in excess of ten billion dollars.

The left-wing used to throw their toys about John Key when he was offshore. They said he was embarrassing, that he couldn’t pronounce things properly and he was a poor representative.

Now we have Jacinda Ardern, and her petulance and churlishness is even more embarrassing.

The NZ Herald reports:

Sainsbury, who is well known for his impersonation of National MPs on Snapchat, made the claim on Radio Live this afternoon.

He said he was chatting with Ardern while they were backstage at the Vodafone NZ Music Awards on Thursday night.

 

“I don’t know if I should be saying this, but she said that Donald Trump was confused for a good amount of time thinking that she was Justin Trudeau’s wife.”

Sainsbury said Trump eventually realised who Ardern was, and that Ardern had also said that Trump was “not as orange in real life”.

In a statement, Ardern said: “Someone thought the President had confused us, but in all of the conversations we had it was clear to me he hadn’t, and recalled the conversation we had late last month.”

Seriously?

But then she added this nonsense:

She said that Trump had “patted the person next to him on the shoulder, pointed at me and said, ‘This lady caused a lot of upset in her country’, talking about the election”.

“I said, ‘Well, you know, only maybe 40 per cent’, then he said it again.

“I said, ‘You know’, laughing, ‘no-one marched when I was elected’. It was only afterwards that I reflect that it could have been taken in a very particular way – he did not seem offended.”

Ardern took part in a women’s rights march in Auckland that coincided with the millions-strong march across the US and around the world the day after Trump’s inauguration in January.

Yeah, Jacinda, no one marched because the right-wing aren’t petulant violent assholes who can’t accept democracy.

After insulting Australia and Malcom Turnbull, Julie Bishop and now Donald Trump, someone might like to take the child PM aside and teach her a thing or two about decorum.

So  much for “relentless positividdy”

-NZ Herald

GREYMOUTH, NEW ZEALAND – NOVEMBER 30: Flames burn out of control from a ventilation shaft at the Pike River Mine on November 30, 2010 in Greymouth, New Zealand. Rescue teams have been working around the clock to recover the bodies of the 29 New Zealand mine crew that lost their lives following two blasts at the Pike River Mine 50 kilometres north of Greymouth on New Zealand’s west coast. (Photo by Iain McGregor-Pool/Getty Images)

It’s still thought to be one of the most dangerous workplaces in New Zealand, and the Government has just set a date to re-enter the Pike River mine.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced the formation of a new government department called Pike River Recovery Agency, Te Kahui Whakamana Rua Tekau ma Iwa.

It’s intended to fulfil an election promise Labour made to the families of the Pike River men, that if in Government it would re-enter the mine to try and recover their bodies.

So that is a definite YES then. They will re-enter the mine and attempt to recover the remains.

[…] The new agency has some specific objectives and they begin with gathering more evidence to figure out what the actual cause of the explosion at Pike River mine was.

What has that got to do with re-entering the mine and recovering the bodies? What is the point of gathering evidence when a deal was made previously to drop charges against those responsible for the mine’s operations in exchange for reparation payments to the families?

[…] Ardern says the Government will work from the basis that it will re-enter the mine, unless there is sufficient evidence to prove it really shouldn’t.

So her stance is either:

A) That the National Party lied about the advice and evidence they received which led to them deciding that it was unsafe to enter the mine

B) She made the promise knowing that it would be easy to find evidence that it was unsafe to enter the mine because she knew that the previous government decision was an honest one was based on facts.

She said it was a contrast to the previous Government’s stance that the mine was not safe enough to send any one else down there […]

No, it is not a contrast. A contrast would be stating that the mine is safe to enter and that they definitely will be entering it.

Adams said the Government had “wound back its promises significantly, from both prior to the election and in recent weeks”.

“The Government is now recognising that it cannot waive health and safety laws, rush or force a re-entry.” National supported re-entry if it could be achieved safely.

So, in other words, the new boss is just like the old boss. Labour has said they will re-enter the mine if it can be achieved safely. It can’t be achieved safely so after wasting some more money on a brand new agency they will come to the exact same conclusion that the National government did.

[…] When Labour was still in Opposition, it floated it could change the workplace safety laws to allow re-entry. In Government it’s position on that appears to have changed, with Ardern and the responsible minister Andrew Little both saying they don’t believe that necessary.[…]

Of course not. They don’t actually want to make it possible to enter the mine. It is too darn dangerous and they know it.

-Politically Correct

Jacinda Ardern has started to walk back the insults to Donald Trump made in front of her big mouthed luvvie mates.

Jack Tame impressed me yesterday morning with his questioning, and it has now made international media about her stupid ill-considered comments.

The New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, has expressed regret over gossiping about a meeting with Donald Trump after it was reported the US president may have mistaken her for Justin Trudeau’s wife.

Ardern was visibly uncomfortable when asked about reports that she had revealed details of the encounter at the East Asia summit in Vietnam last week to a friend who later went public.

The friend – comedian Tom Sainsbury – revealed in a radio interview that Ardern had told her Trump was “not as orange in real life” and that he had been confused about her identity.

Sainsbury said: “[Ardern] said that Donald Trump was confused for a good amount of time in thinking that she was Justin Trudeau’s wife.”

Ardern, when questioned about this, said she did not want to turn the issue into a “diplomatic incident”, or discuss everything that occurred behind the scenes.

Yeah, then why did you?

Thought it was all shits and giggles with your lefty mates? What were you on? Coke?

Jeebus girl, you’re the Prime Minister.

But the prime minister, whose appearance at the high-profile summit was her first major international test since being elected, stressed that when she was formally introduced to Trump he seemed to know who she was.

“Second-hand someone observed that they thought that it happened, but in all my interaction, certainly President Trump didn’t seem to have confused me when I interacted with him. But someone else observed this,” Ardern said, explaining the incident.

Ardern would not reveal who the person was who observed the alleged case of mistaken identity, but said it was not someone in her team, nor was it a New Zealander.

Ardern said she had told the “full story” of the incident to two people in New Zealand, but would not budge when asked to share the full story with TVNZ host Jack Tame, who questioned her for six minutes on the topic.

Why not? Surely it is public interest? She attended the event as Prime Minsiter…she must answer OIA requests, surely? If Labour thought it was ok to ask if John Key texted me then surely we have a right to know who she has been gossiping to?

Ardern then said she would not make the same mistake of sharing a backstage “yarn” again – as Chinese whispers had brought the story to the attention of the media, which was not her intention.

Oh, so it was a mistake…how about calling up Trump and apologising?

“I’m in a circle, I am with someone else, I did not hear the full conversation, they observed what they believe to be mistaken identity, I didn’t pick that up. I then had an interaction that suggested he [Donald Trump] knew who I was, that was at the point where I was properly introduced which probably cleared it up.” Ardern said.

Tame continued pressing Ardern on whether she had told the full truth regarding the incident, or whether she had misled New Zealanders. Ardern responded: “Jack, at this point I don’t want to give away every single element of conversation I have with another world leader, because I accept that things happen behind the scenes, that I’m not always going to give the full details around.

“Tom’s a mate of mine. I shared a story with him, he shared it with someone else, I can see how that then spirals … it is a trifling matter.

“It was a bit of a funny yarn, something that I don’t want to cause a diplomatic incident over.

“I think I should never have recounted the story.” Ardern said.

You think? Stupid silly little socialist fool.

Insulting world leaders isn’t ever a trifling matter. If Donald Trump didn’t know who you were before he does now and he won’t be happy.

MFat must be beside themselves having to hose down the child PM’s stupid utterances all the time.

Want to know how bad it is? Try this on for size.

Does the Prime Minister stand by all her statements? She will have to answer yes, but will probably say, within the context they were made.

Then; Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement that “Donald Trump isn’t as orange in real life”?

Then; What context was the Prime Minister making that statement in when she insulted Donald Trump?

Yeah, Question time should be good, if the National party has the stones.

-The Guardian

Phil Twyford is writing cheques his government can’t cash…he’s now doubled down on the housing promise of building 10,000 houses a year.

Before the election, Labour said it would build 1000 state houses a year – now the Government’s saying that number could double.

Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford told TVNZ’s Q+A he was confident the Government could build more than 27 houses a day, to reach its KiwiBuild goal of 100,000 houses in 10 years.
Part of the Labour-led Government’s affordable housing plan was to deliver a net increase of state houses.

On Sunday, Twyford told TVNZ he had asked officials to see whether Labour’s original promise of 1000 houses could be doubled to 2000 extra state houses a year.

Unfortunately for Twyford he has his numbers all wrong. In order to build 100,000 houses in ten years Labour is going to have to build 10,000 houses per annum, not 1000…after ten years that will only get him 10,000 houses not the 100,000 needed. He’s actually saying that Labour are going to build 1000 STATE houses, on top of their Kiwibuild promises. This is real fantasy stuff.

Even at his new rate of 27 houses per day that only equals 9855 houses per annum, 145 houses short of what it needs.

The Reserve Bank has said it would be more likely the Government would be able to build about 5000 houses rather than the 10,000 promised, because private building activity would decrease.

Twyford said he believed the Treasury advice, which informed the Reserve Bank commentary, was incorrect.

“We’ve looked at the advice; it was based on incomplete information. I’ve had the Treasury officials in my office. We’ve talked through the elements of the policy, and I’m confident we can move ahead and be on the same page,” he said.

I know a few people in the building industry who are telling me that there simply is no capacity to get anywhere near their numbers. They are simply heroic.

Listening to Twyford he keeps talking about “doing this at scale”…it is simply a bumper sticker slogan. How on earth does he think the government can build houses cheaper than existing developers?

Twyford also claims he won’t be subsidising existing developers to build “affordable” homes, if that is the case then why on earth would they build them?

Labour has massive risk from people Phil Twyford. They have no real-world experience with things like building, most of them couldn’t run a bath, much less their ministry.

Reality is going to bite.

I’ll bet that by June next year not a single house will have been built.

Would you take a handful of lollies if you knew that some of them were poison? PM Jacinda Ardern when she was unable to pressure Australia into giving her the leftover dregs ( the worst of the worst) of the illegal migrants left on Manus instead handed over three million dollars of New Zealand taxpayers money to assist them.

News reports revealed before her visit that the reason why these dregs of society didn’t feel safe on the island was because they had turned the islanders against them with their criminal behaviour. The men are known for having sex with underage girls, ten of who they have made pregnant so far. Manus, in other words, is currently a haven for a group of paedophiles. We can only wonder how many of these 150 dregs of humanity that Ardern has been working so hard to bring to our slice of paradise are paedophiles.

A group of Manus Island asylum seekers are luring underage girls as young as 10 into sex, an Australian Government intelligence report claims.

The Australian Government has confirmed the accuracy of the diplomatic cable, obtained by The Australian Financial Review and Stuff.

However, the timing of the leak, and several others in Australian publications, suggests rising levels of frustration within the Australian Government that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was putting undue pressure on a domestic Australian policy issue.

It is hardly a leak since there have been news stories on the paedophiles on Manus previous to Ardern’s visit. She must be willfully blind to not be aware of them.

It’s prompted questions on this side of the Tasman, over whether there were concerted efforts from Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull-led Government to force Ardern to back down on a strong stance that Australia should accept an invitation to resettle 150 people seeking asylum in New Zealand.

[…] Intelligence advice to the Australian Government, sent in early October from Papua New Guinea, details allegations of shocking behaviour by some of the asylum seekers squatting in the now-closed Australian centre on Manus Island.

“In addition to broader allegations of drug taking and dealing (Marijuana), there were overarching community concerns regarding allegations that some residents were engaged in sexual activities with underage girls,” the report states.

The report was concerned that male camp residents were travelling into the community to procure sex with underage girls.

It states that “some residents were renting rooms throughout Lorengau and luring underage girls between 10 and 17 years of age, with money, goods and food”.

[…]  the local provincial health authority had written to the provincial police commander expressing concerns about “increased interaction between the residents and the young girls from a health perspective, saying they had seen an increase in sexually transmitted infections and HIV”.

[…]  local Deputy Mayor Kakao Karani was concerned about “the closure of the Regional Processing Centre and the relocation of the residents closer to town”.

According to the cable, Manus Island residents were also “unhappy with the stigma attached to the girls who engaged in the activities and the number of children born from the ‘relationships’ (reported at least 10 at the time of our last visit)”.

Ardern has been increasingly insistent Australia should let New Zealand take some of the 600 asylum seekers remaining on Manus Island, following the closure of Australia’s Regional Processing Centre.

It is understood the Turnbull Government is furious with what it views as Ardern’s “moral posturing and naivety” on the matter.

Naive seems almost too kind a word for what Ardern is doing. How can a PM push to take paedophiles and criminals that are a clear danger to our society with a clear conscience? Of all the genuine refugees in the world that she could choose to help why is she so insistent on ones that are ideologically incompatible as well as morally and criminally a threat to our society and our children?

[…] Australian government sources say they are extremely concerned about the messages Ardern is sending to people smugglers.

A spokesman for Ardern said “the relationship with Australia is strong”.

Yeah right, Mommy and Daddy were up all night fighting and throwing things but don’t worry kids everything is just fine.

“The offer to take 150 refugees from Manus Island and Nauru remains on the table, but clearly it’s up to Australia to take up that offer,” he said.

“In event the offer is accepted, all refugees will undergo comprehensive screening and assessment processes that includes credibility and risk assessments and security checks.”

They have already been comprehensively rejected by America for resettlement. What redeeming features will our screening assessment find to allow these undesirables access to our fair shores? Only the bad ones are left. The good ones have already been taken.

“Refugees who do not meet New Zealand’s relevant immigration policies, security and biometric checks and risk and health assessment are declined.”

Well, that should be all of them then.

[…] Australian officials are understood to be perplexed about why Ardern’s rhetoric has ramped up on the situation.

The Labour Party has had a long-held policy to double the refugee quota to 1500. However, it had not previously voiced opposition to the way the previous National Government had handled the issue.[…]

There are concerns the issue could damage relations between the two countries, Australian Government sources familiar with the matter said. It comes after Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said she could “find it very difficult to build trust” with an Ardern-led government prior to the election.

[…] The concern is Wellington would get the credit for taking the asylum seekers, while it was Canberra that would face security risks and ultimately be responsible for processing any that turned up in their waters.

It would also be the Australian Coast Guard and Navy that would be forced to intervene if boats ran into trouble in notoriously dangerous stretch of ocean. Drownings were not uncommon.

One senior government source said that the “people smugglers’ pitch could be: Go to Australia, end up in New Zealand”.

Credit: Luke

Looks like another of Labour’s promises has been walked back after Chris Hipkins was altogether too gobby with his promises.

Labour’s election promise to reinstate post-graduate student allowances has no set start date and won’t be introduced until at least the 2018 second semester.

During the campaign, Labour pledged to restore allowances for post-graduate students. It has promised to do so since National scrapped them in 2013.

But Education Minister Chris Hipkins told Newshub reinstatement of post-graduate allowances “isn’t being actively considered as part of the Government’s 100-day plan”.

“It will be considered as part of the Budget 2018 process.”

The Budget typically occurs at the end of May, so changes won’t come into effect until at least the second semester of 2018. With no set start date, though, students would be unwise to bank on when the allowance would come into effect.

AUSA President Will Matthews says the student union is “firmly in favour of them being reinstated”, but wants a start date.

“It’s good the Government is doing it,” he said. “We would prefer to have a less tentative response, but we understand there are financial requirements to be met.”

Another bumper sticker slogan put on the back burner as the reality of actually having to govern bites

Little

Now it is Andrew Little walking back Labour’s election promises. This time it is the promise to re-enter Pike River.

Pike River Mine minister Andrew Little says he cannot guarantee a re-entry of the mine and has told family members that he will do what he can but safety is the top priority.

Little will take his proposals for the membership and structure of the Pike River Re-Entry Agency to Cabinet on Monday after commemorating the seventh anniversary of the disaster at Pike River tomorrow.

Those plans include another risk assessment to decide whether a manned re-entry is possible.

He had promised family members they would be involved every step of the way.

“When we get to the point where we’ve done the planning, done the risk assessment and we’re at the point where we make a decision yes or no, they will be part of that decision.

And in the end there can be no absolute guarantee. But what we can guarantee is that we’ll do the job properly, plan, prepare and assess and they will be involved every step of the way.”

Andrew Little is just another lying politician who is preying on vulnerable people. He was the head of the EPMU when the mine blew up. He said the company was brilliant, safety conscious and exemplary….until he became a politician. Then he played politics subscribing to every conspiracy theory there was about Pike River. Now he is walking back his promises.

He said that would involve assessing whether any risks could be mitigated and on the advice he had seen so far, that was likely.

“Ultimately, and the families are very clear, the first principle of the set of principles that are governing what we do is safety, the safety of anybody involved in the re-entry project. I’m not going to put anybody at undue risk. I’m simply not going to.”

He did not intend to legislate for any exemption to the health and safety laws or immunity from liability for the Pike River Agency.

“I’m confident we can do everything that’s needed in terms of planning and preparation without it.”

Little said there were several options for the Cabinet to consider which ranged in cost from less than the $10 million National had set aside for Pike River to more costly and thorough options.

As Labour leader, Little had promised a manned re-entry to the drift of the mine to look for the remains of any of the 29 miners who died in the November 2010 explosions and any evidence.

It was an empty promise. There are no miners in the drift, the two that were there survived the blast. Everyone else was beyond the rockfall past the drift.

They and the whingers who keep bringing this up have milked it and milked it for all it was worth, and now reality is starting to sink in.

Trust Andrew Little and Labour? Not likely.

Duncan Garner has given Labour a good kicking for their grandstanding over paid parental leave:

I’m in that really unlucky cohort that paid for everything and got almost no handouts.

No paid parental leave, no 20 hours’ free childcare and no free university.

But there was Alliance MP Laila Harre in 1999. She kicked all this baby leave off. Labour came slowly to the party and National, in office, was a most reluctant participant.

Anyway, that was then and this leave is now the norm, 22 weeks for mums next year at just over $500 a week.

By 2020, it’ll be 26 weeks. It’s more than helpful. It’s the difference between struggle and comfort, petrol and nappies are affordable, the groceries are covered and some rent.

Dozens of countries offer paid parental leave. It’s a no-brainer. We pay every pensioner a guaranteed state income, it’s good for their health, yet it’s the early years where the differences are made. Supporting families should be the norm, not a luxury item.

So why is it just for mums? Why can’t families split the 26 weeks so mum and dad can share it, spend time together, bond with baby? Because Labour says it’s best for mum to have 26 weeks with baby. Bullkaka. Plunket says flexibility would be good. Stop while you’re well behind.

But Labour knows best…we’re back to the Nanny state now, and the capital N was deliberate.

What is Labour to be telling us what’s best for our families? It has no right. No-one is asking for a dollar more. We just want flexibility for mum and dad to take the time together. I would have taken it – it would have been so very welcome.

No, this is a case of Labour throwing its toys out of the cot. Labour can’t see past its own nose on this one.

It doesn’t want to pick up the flexible approach because it’s National’s idea.Plain and simple. It can’t be seen to be accommodating the baby blues when the Nats saw red over paid parental leave in the first place. 

This is truly pathetic from Labour on an overall policy that most support. 

Nothing National is asking for will cost more, it’s a disgraceful, short-sighted, pathetic and petty decision by Labour to deny families the chance for mum and dad to share the early weeks together at home.

Of course National is grandstanding. Yes, their record on this issue is poor. But on the flexibility argument they are right.

All it takes now is for Labour to listen.

All this happened while Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was out of the country.

But now she’s back she could fix it. The PM could say families are too important to get this wrong. As a father, Jacinda Ardern, I urge you to do it.

Are you really a positive new government that cares for people and doesn’t leave people behind?

If you are all that, then do the right thing. Allow families the right to decide their own future.

I know you’re planning to make it flexible later anyway, so do it now. Give families the right to choose, after all, it’s their life, their baby. Over to you now Jacinda. What will it be?

The relentless positividdy seems to have evaporated. Jacinda’s first day in parliament was rather snarly and unbecoming.