The Prime Minister has outlined details of the working arrangement between herself and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters while she is on maternity leave.
In a letter to Peters, made public this afternoon, Jacinda Ardern confirmed that it is her intention to take six weeks of absence from next month.
During which time, Peters will take over as Acting Prime Minister.
The pair addressed media at her weekly post-cabinet press conference on Monday afternoon, given the “public interest” of what will be happening over this period.
“As Acting Prime Minister, you will exercise the functions and powers of the Prime Minister, in consultation with me where appropriate, particularly where matters of significant political, strategic or public interest, or national security arise,” Ardern said in the letter.
She says she will continue to receive Cabinet and Cabinet committee papers while she is on maternity leave and will be consulted on “significant matters.”
When pressed for details on what this would constitute, Ardern says that would “instinctively” be well known to both her and Peters, as they already operate on that basis.
She says she and Peters drafted the letter together.
Peters will manage the “day-to-day” business of the Government, which includes chairing committees usually chaired by the Prime Minister, overseeing the Government’s policy programme and answering questions in the House.
He will also fill in for Ardern at her weekly post-Cabinet Press conference on Mondays.
Ardern says the situation is no different from any other time the Prime Minister is away and the Deputy Prime Minister fills in.
But, given the significant interest – and the fact it is for a “slightly longer period” than has previously been the case, she chose to outline the details of the arrangement in the letter.
If Peters has to leave the country, Labour deputy leader Kelvin Davis will take over as Acting Prime Minister, as was the case when both Ardern and Peters were in Vietnam late last year.
But it is unlikely Peters will be doing any overseas travel during that time, Ardern says.
“At the time, I sat down with the deputy Prime Minister and advised him of my news, I did ask him if he had any travel plans for that six-week period and his response was ‘well, I don’t now.’”
78 Comments
Could be worse you could have Trump instead of Winston
I’m so proud of my country of birth electing a pregnant young woman and making her PM
This should be aired far & wide around the world for it is in my opinion anyway commendable
If only other aspects of NZ could achieve the same enlightenment
Well Done New Zealand
The majority of the population voted for this government, that's how democracy works. Anyone who voted for Greens or NZFirst knew that if they were going to be in government they would be lead by Ardern.
Winston campaigned on changing the government, it was pretty clear that's what voting for NZFirst meant.
... when he passes on I'll open a bottle of a good single malt whisky , and toast one of the enduring legends of our political scene ...
And the one pollie who has done more to support the senior citizens cause than all the other pollies put together ...
...but , we may be waiting a long while for that dram .... 'cos , if his Mum is anything to go by , Winston has another 20 years or more in him ....
Just to put the heebie-jeebies into Rex Pat, the newly elected Prime Minister of Malaysia is 92 years old. Winston could have another comeback or two left in him. By that time Rex Pat will be grateful for the extra social benefit baubles Winson throws his way...gold card converted to platinum card etc.
He could well live that long, but the grim reaper will be collecting his voting base on a regular basis, if there is any left after being judged along with the COL. My parents vote for him to stick it to political parties that have done them wrong, he’s the protest vote.
If your comment is loosely directed towards mine, for the record I voted labour. I just cringe at the idea of someone who takes the role as Prime Minister and then goes to have a baby within the first year. But that that’s just my opinion, babies are funny creatures (ive got a 1 year old).
....so when a wifey gets preggy and has a kid they go on holiday?
I'd say runniing a country is hard but runnng all other mattesrs are taken care of - especially with plenty of $ a house hubby and servants. Working, running a household and raising several kids while being broke would be harder. And plenty of women do this very well.
I like that. When my wife had her second baby she was not going to be rushed out of hospital with a free bag of nappies. She told them she will go when she is ready, as she knew what she was in for. Taxinda is unwittingly foisting herself on the feminist maternal martyrdom pedastal. If you look at how much respect ex PMs get (none) then at some stage she will look back and go wtf was I thinking.
I love this.
"Taxinda this, Taxinda that."
Then...When it comes down to it, socialised services are great.
Might as well have said "I'm fine with excessive use of public resources, so long as it is only me that does it."
Get a grip. You're as big of a hypocrite as they come.
How big is your sample? Is is statistically significant?
Having just paid tax on my redundancy payout equivalent to two years salary, I know exactly how much I’ve been forced to pay to keep the trough filled up for the lefties to pass out to bribe every man, woman and their dogs. I’ll take every dollar of that I can get back. Working for families will be due to me from 1 April next year. It will be nice to receive rather than give to Taxinda and the COL.
"How big is your sample? Is is statistically significant?"
huh?
A sample isn't ever considered statistically significant. It's results that are.
"Working for families will be due to me from 1 April next year. It will be nice to receive rather than give to Taxinda and the COL."
See, my point again.
"Taxes are the devil. But don't you dare touch my transfer entitlements."
You are just as much a part of the problem.
Ironic really, the only reason you have a redundancy payout at all is because of "lefties" like unions and political parties like Labour.
"it will be nice" about sums you up really. Personally I thank my lucky stars I dont need Govn help as I am doing well enough.
Haven't been a union member since 1980. Even then I only joined because I was forced to by the Public Service Boss. I lasted 10 months in that job and have never been a member since. Given I've been salaried since then, and can afford to live in 1071 I'd say that's a black mark for unionism.
None of that changes the history of labour reform though and its role in creating a better middle class working experience for all of us. Wee luxuries like 8-hour days (nominally), paid leave etc. were all hard fought for.
These things swing back and forth over time...At the moment we're seeing the folk in the USA bearing the brunt of a swing too far back the other way. Fire at will laws, zero hour contracts, emaciated lower-middle class wages. National deserves credit for banning zero hour contracts in their last term before they infected NZ.
(Heck, we even forget in the discussion of labour shortages in orchards that the job used to pay significantly more in real dollars in the past than it does now. I read somewhere recently that a rate equivalent to the 1980s would be around $25 per hour today.)
You are talking history, I'm talking about the last 38 years of my working life where I haven't needed a union to end up with good working conditions. Even in my last couple of years my employer was offering items unprompted. When the time came to be paid out, I thanked them. It was never an adversarial relationship, which is what I see with Unions. "Workers of the World unite" is not my mantra. I prefer "do unto others as you would have them do to you" and my employer did that until the revenue didn't support my employment. If the orchards are short of pickers then they need to pay up or go out of business. That's the free market. I have no sympathy for them.
Yes, we have to be aware of history. Otherwise we're easily indoctrinated to simplistically view unions as some sort of nasty evil when the reality is that society swings back and forth between companies having too much power and unions having too much power.
You and I enjoy benefits and norms that were the result of previous generations' work. We can't suppose the last 38 years exists in isolation, completely unaffected by what came before it. Like some sort of social instantaneous existence theory.
If we don't learn from history we're doomed to repeat it.
True, but if unionism is voluntary then it has to work for and justify its existence. I never saw a reason for me to join one and I still don't. Others may have different views and that's fine, just don't make it compulsory again so I have to pay for something I see no personal value in.
I've never needed to be part of one either, because they succeeded in earlier efforts. Though as in the example of USA, things don't stay static but swing back the other way where they can. Companies exist for one reason only: to make money for their shareholders. You can't expect moral behaviour from an amoral entity. Unions are necessary where things swing too far back the other way or societal norms or laws start to allow exploitation.
Arguably hospitality might be an area that could benefit from stronger unionisation in New Zealand, given the amount of exploitation we're seeing in it currently (especially of foreign student workers).
One could make the same argument for unions as companies in, that they exist only for the profit of their members.
In my 40 plus years wotking, i've seen far more amoral behavior from unions than companies. And yes, I was an involuntary union member for most of my career.
Numerous states in US are essentially bankrupt due to the strong negotiation power of public unions, as the pension liability has become wildly outsized, and far beyond the income capability of the local government.
I think we're still on the balance thing, aren't we? Because getting better treatment of workers was pretty critical to creating a middle class in the first place. Of course there needs to be a balance. And large pension loads are a generational burden not only common to unions. We're facing the same in NZ - over 50% of our social welfare benefits are paid to older folk regardless of need.
Note, I used amoral to refer to companies, not immoral. I.e. companies only have one purpose, to earn money, so we can't expect moral behaviours from them. As opposed to immoral, where they're very naughty actors, always.
But if we're talking immoral, did this 40-plus years span such the collapse of a bunch of finance companies, for example?
Agreed about the swings between corporate and union power.
I kinda had my first exposure to union standards as a new hourly employee on the assembly line. In the first week of work, the local shop union steward came up to me and stated that I needed to stop working so quickly. Ummm, wot? Over the next couple of weeks I got increasing pressure from the union steward to reduce my productivity. It was at that point that I realized that I was pursuing the wrong type of work and sent in my uni application, which started me on my career as an engineer. I've seen some good come from unions, and far more bad from unions. Employees certainly need protection from some company actions. Companies also need protection from many union actions. The idea that I need two union people to pick up a box, when I should be able to do it myself, well, if you want a reason for poor productivity one wouldn't be amiss by critically towards union rules and actions.
Just recalling your statement recently that you decided not to return to Singapore because you didn't want to pay for your children's schooling. Not having socialism helping you out was going to be expensive, apparently.
In the choice between capitalism and socialism, socialism won.
Singapore was $30,000 per annum per child for International schools and hard to find a place. Considering I hadn't contributed to their tax trough I didn't consider local schools there, not that my children would survive in their regimented school culture anyway. I've put enough tax in my redundancy payment to school locally in NZ with no qualms.
20,000 is still a big number; plenty of schools, houses, new roads, extra teachers and doctors needed. 20,000 just puts us among the other OECD countries rather than leading the pack. I wonder why other countries don't try our immigration policy? But compared to today I'd be content with 20,000 so long as all are high paid.
... does Winnie have to change nappies ?
No ... not of PM Jacinda's bubba ....
... of all those big fat Gnat babies still bleating and pooping their pants that they actually won the election .... go on a worldwide speaking tour guys , hook up with that other " winner still blubbing " Hillary Clinton ....
Don't you recall that she didn't want to be PM - she might have known around the time that Andrew Little was standing down as Labour leader perhaps.....what would you do if you were in her shoes? (especially if you knew what the polls were indicating?) Would have been a rather difficult choice for her to make - I'm sure.
I have absolutely no problem with people having babies , we had three of them , but the way in which this thing unfolded leaves a sour taste .
She would have received way more support and sympathy if she had been honest with us .
That's my view , and all the comments by people who disagree with me will not change my view
I dont care less about the state of her ovaries , but I do care about my country .
If she knew and was not honest with us , then she is dishonest and and deceitful and cannot be trusted to run the country plain and simple .
We cannot have deceitful person as leader of our country, and no can any country afford this ............. just look at Donald Trump
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.