New Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has named a mostly unchanged Cabinet that he said was a balance of renewal and stability, but as expected he has replaced Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta with Kieran McAnulty and said he's taking “another look” at Three Waters.
The surprises were the replacement of Andrew Little as Health Minister by Ayesha Verrall and the demotion of Peeni Henare in the Cabinet rankings, who loses Defence to Andrew Little. Phil Twyford is also gone completely as a minister. Megan Woods and Michael Wood see their roles beefed up, with Woods adding Infrastructure to her housing, building and construction portfolios, while Wood adds a new Minister for Auckland role to his Immigration and Transport portfolios.
“New Zealanders want to see the Government getting on with the job but I also want to demonstrate the depth of our talent and bring some new energy and focus to the task ahead,” Hipkins said.
“Our top team of myself, Carmel Sepuloni, Kelvin Davis, Grant Robertson and Megan Woods will provide stability, experience, and proven leadership,” he said, appearing to name his own ‘kitchen cabinet.’
“Grant Robertson will remain Minister of Finance. He has seen New Zealand households and businesses through the greatest economic shock since the Great Depression. This reshuffle gives him the time and support to apply his full focus on fighting inflation and helping New Zealand families and businesses to get by,” Hipkins said, although he confirmed last week Robertson would keep the key Finance portfolio.
“Michael Wood moves to number seven in the Cabinet ranking and becomes Minister for Auckland and an Associate Finance Minister. Having a senior Minister with a focus on the city ensures Auckland has the attention it needs. That’s going to be even more important following the events of recent days,” he said.
As expected, interim Education Minister Jan Tinetti got the role permanently. Stuart Nash was also named permanently to take the Police Ministry, which he was named to temporarily last week when Hipkins gave up his Education and Police portfolios. Henare replaces Nash as Tourism Minister.
Kieran McAnulty was elevated into Cabinet and picks up the full Local Government portfolio, having been associate minister in recent months. Nanaia Mahuta retains her role as Foreign Affairs Minister.
Ginny Andersen and Barbara Edmonds were named as ministers for the first time, with Anderson becoming Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Seniors, Associate Minister of Immigration and Associate Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Anderson’s roles were held by Nash (Small Business) and retiring MP David Clark (Digital Economy and Communications)
Edmonds will become the Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister for Pacific Peoples, Associate Health Minister for Pacific Peoples and Associate Minister of Housing.
New Ministers outside of Cabinet included Duncan Webb (Commerce and Consumer Affairs), Willow-Jean Prime (Conservation and Youth), Rino Tirikatene (Courts, Trade and Export Growth), and Deborah Russell (Statistics and EQC).
129 Comments
It doesn’t seem right that the Agriculture & Trade portfolio is ranked only at 12th. And it’s not just the ministry or minister himself , some of those ranked higher are lightweights relative to NZ’s reliance on being a mercantile nation. Here is a classic example of internal politics, the pecking order in the hen house, taking priority over the actual importance of governmental functions, relative to industry, to the country as a whole.
She doesn't like Foreign Affairs by many accounts, so it may be a punishment.
Mahuta will remain as Foreign Minister and Hipkins said she had been unable to travel in the beginning in the early days of the role and that had changed now.
It is also convenient as Hipkins can now send Mahuta overseas on a long mission of peace, thus keeping her out of the country while three waters gets reformed.
Absolutely. While the dawn raids were clearly racist targeting of Pasifika ignoring the majority of overstayers from the UK & South Africa the undeniable fact is that they all were suspected (many guilty) of breaking NZ laws.
There is a big difference between that & wilfully undermining & changing NZs fundamental democracy with no mandate.
Some sympathy for Andrew Little. Ill suited to being Health Minister and taking over a badly troubled portfolio he nevertheless soldiered on, burdened in a no win situation. Could at least have given him the foreign minister role to get away from it all but perhaps Hipkins thinks having Mahuta often out of the country will be even more beneficial. The seniority levels of the Maori caucus have been markedly challenged in this reshuffle mostly by who hasn’t been upgraded. Don’t believe they will take that lightly. More discord on the horizon methinks.
Little was way outside his depth in health. At the Nth Island GP conference the lead plenary speaker highlighted 4 issues facing primary care. Ageing work force, dependence on foreign Drs, burn out and worsening financial reward (Aus was used as a benchmark). Little took the podium and read from a pre-prepared speech which addressed nothing that his predecessor had raised. The audience were underwhelmed.
I'm actually not a lefty at all.... Of course I don't care what the colour of his skin is, but the general tone of these comments is white good, Maori bad and that's total BS. I'm actually no fan of Mahuta, but I'm also able to unbundle her as a person and her being Maori. It's a shame more can't.
DD62, If you think that pakeha within their network don't put themselves first you are naive. Old boys, golf club, family friends etc etc. Mahuta certainly does not speak for all Maori and if you think that you should not be commenting. Maori have a spectrum of political and philisophical views no different to pakeha. The issue is that so few Maori make it to Mahuta's level there are little to no role models. She may not be ideal, but at least other Maori women know it can be done.
Dr Shane Reti and his elevation within the National caucus is never the subject of such vitriol. It really just comes down to Māori on the political left = bad; Māori on the political right = good. With ignorant 'friends' like that, it's no wonder there are so few Māori on the political right.
Correct Kate. Winston Peters rose to king maker because he largely abandoned his culture, he had to adopt pakeha culture completely and even turn his back on Maori at times - and that's his right if he chooses. That was the way it was for my grandmother and fathers generation, but no longer.
Winston Peters is not just Maori, he also has other ethnicities within his DNA. Why is it, if a person with Maori DNA is seen to 'abandon' his/her culture, by other Maori, if they choose one of their other cultures to live by/be known by. I know several kiwis with Maori DNA (some within my family) who choose NZ European as their ethnicity.
You are being pedantic, the point was he had to visually abandon his maori culture to get to power and I stated that was his right. As for "Maori DNA", I really don't know what that is, that's not how Maori think about it or define themselves. You immediately identify yourself as not being Maori by referring to it in that way.
DNA NZ - Just NZ customers of MyHeritage but shows what a varied DNA mixture we are. See MyHeritage source
"The percentages represent the portion of MyHeritage DNA users in New Zealand who have that ethnicity.
English 57.7%
Scandinavian 45.3%
North and West European 27.4%
Irish, Scottish, and Welsh 18%
Iberian 15.6%
East European 14.6%
Polynesian 8.8%
Italian 7.1%
Balkan 7%
Baltic 5.3%
Greek and South Italian 4.9%
Finnish 4.7%
Ashkenazi Jewish 2.8%
West Asian 2.7%
South Asian 2%
Chinese and Vietnamese 2%
North African 1.9%
Filipino, Indonesian and Malay 1.2%
Mesoamerican and Andean 1%
Nigerian 1%
Papuan 0.2%
Melanesian 0.2%"
The surprises were the replacement of Andrew Little as Health Minister by Ayesha Verrall and the demotion of Peeni Henare in the Cabinet rankings, who loses Defence to Andrew Little. Phil Twyford is also gone completely as a minister
Andrew Little simply had enough in charge Health where he had nothing but overwhelming health worker shortages. He did nothing to solve the problem, and will not solve any problems there.
Phil Twyford, flat failure as ministers. where is the kiwi build at by the way?
So long Mahuta. You lied, have probable conflicts of interest and advanced Three Waters against the wishes of a majority of NZers. Ardern lacked the guts to rein you in but Hipkins removal of your role was a first step whilst not alienating the Maori caucus.
Now grow a set and have a clean out acknowledging that Robertson and Orr are directly responsible for the worsening inequity in NZ.
I look forward to a new "Minister for Not Auckland" to more adequately represent the 66% of people that don't live in Auckland.
In fact, I think we could improve on that even more. We should have a representative for every electorate, we could call them Electorate MPs. They could do then do a previously overlooked job and represent their electorate in Parliament, instead of simply being party patsies.
We have moved to Auckland from once being farmers in Central Otago. OK on the outskirts in the Norwest. Right now we are encountering Watercare releasing water from further up. I am regularly, with my non slip gummies, checking the height of the water on 'ther side of the culvert.
When you get a mayor more worried about his tennis game, perhaps having someone who has a look at the urban design,[ they should check with my irrigator husband just saying,] and someone who doesn't just look at the macro but the micro part of living in a big city. We need more open spaces!
Your first problem is you moved to the Norwest (as you put it) That is like saying you chose to move to the worst serviced area and poorest neighbourhood. You get the worst service access and the poorest council maintenance while AT are actively trying to make the roads and public transport in the area worse than 30 decades previously. The SHAs are an object lesson in how to screw up developments with poor city planning. Many of the homes out that way needed to supply their own water, their own waste management and rubbish collection, they have no footpaths or drainage infrastructure that function as they should (yet they pay rates for the same level of service as if they were central city) and as a bonus the public transport to much of the area was scrapped and made worse. Adding 10000 houses to that mix was as sensible as expecting the council to look up from the office parties in central Auckland long enough to care about the cleaners wages and housing. Even South Auckland has much better public transport access and neighbourhood infrastructure.
Wasn’t there a minister of regional development? I think they have now axed that as it was an NZF thing. And remember all the regional payouts NZF did for no real reason? About time Auckland had some representation, the small town policies forced upon it by Wellington have been pretty harmful.
I agree with you but that is racist and unbecoming. We need to acknowledge people are different and express their cultures in unique ways. My repulsion is facial tattooes full stop. Question-does being anti-circumcision make me anti-Semitic? I’m against female genital mutilation FGM which carries no legal sanction in Somalia. Can I be anti-FGM and not ‘racist?’
I think being anti- moko is pretty small minded, if not racist. It’s a cultural expression. It doesn’t hurt anyone, other than the person who chooses to get it done. I like it - but really it’s not relevant whether I like it or not. That’s the point.
Genital mutilation, by comparison, is a horrid procedure forced on people with no choice in the matter, and part of a nasty culture repressing womens rights.
I concede my comment about appearance is very on the edge, it's not however racist, I would say the same if Mahuta was white, black or yellow. Coming from Europe, I understand that some countries place emphasis on presentation, and being a foreign minister, you represent, visually, your country, and other first world countries will think worse of NZ because of our foreign minister's presentation, no matter what skin colour he/she has.
Sadly in other cultures facial tattoos are highly offensive and it would be racist not to recognize that. However one would hope that other trade delegates can get past their own cultural practices to appreciate other cultures also.. But that is a catch 22. Do we honor our culture more than the host country and trade partners culture... In this we have to walk the line and hope that facial tattoos become more accepted to other cultures through generations of births and deaths. We force our appreciation of them onto their culture. Hoping some way in the middle there will be less bias against those with them... It is tricky though because our major trade partners are pretty much steeped in many millennia of cultural practices that would be harder to shift and why as the smaller party we often defer to their practices in meetings somewhat, unless they are here for a tourist junket to the islands and see us as entertainment.
We probably have more of a problem in that she is a women in which many countries have very strict rules against females traveling and performing work, and religious obligations (thankfully not major trade partners though so we can avoid those countries). Likewise a catch 22. Do we honor our culture more than the host country and trade partners culture... In this we have to walk the line and hope that women become more valued to other cultures through generations of births and deaths. We force our appreciation of equal rights onto their culture. Sadly though we can only do this in a very limited way for the major MPs & PM. The workers and expats all face the same conformity to the host country with women going so far as being forced to marry coworkers or anyone else so they can travel and work there with limited access to work and extra conditions placed on them when they do so (like not being able to report to managers equally etc).
Perhaps it would help if we liked her and were proud of her. However she seems very unpopular here. If she cant engage and be liked by her own population, how could she possibly succeed in her job overseas? No matter how we felt about Winnies politics, we liked seeing him on the world stage.
She is of both strong voice and personality. That can be seen as being strident, overbearing particularly if one’s contemporaries are weak in comparison which I suggest was the case with Ardern and others in cabinet. The old expression of having to much rope to play with comes to mind. Tariana Turia was strong too and with it she was refreshingly straightforward. Personally, although I didn’t agree with the message all the time, I came to admire her advocacy and respect her integrity. To see where Mahuta has got it wrong you only have to compare it to where Tarania Turia got it right.
Not at all based on Party. Some people just present as dodgy and I trust my gut instincts.
From the various media intereactions I have seen, heard and read. I believe his attitude, demeanour, and general body language give me cause for concern.
Based on all of this I was not surprised by the claims made about him by Sharma, and they strike me as more likely to be true than false.
Nope, I believe if you review all my posts you will find I am very critical of him, and numerous other MPs across all parties. Example: https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/113373/judith-collins-demotes-…
by Noncents | 24th Nov 21, 10:00pm
Convenient that it pops up now.
Guess ol' chrissy boy is the no 1 contender now.
He is as toxic as Collins, so I guess even more votes for the ACT chumps.
Ultimately the lure of being an MP attracts a specific type of person. Who (in my view) tend to hold morals/ethics that I would consider dubious at best. The Party system we operate under, tends to favour and further encourage these personality traits.
Although I believe in policies first and foremost. The reality is that you need to have the right people to a) design those policies, and b) action those policies. So ultimately you need to vote on the people. It is why I seldom vote unless there is a Referendum.
If he rescinds co-governance policies, removes the Maori Health Authority, removes the 'history revisionist' ti tiriti framework for allocation $100M of public broadcasting funds
https://d3r9t6niqlb7tz.cloudfront.net/media/documents/2022_03_Irirangi_…
,reviews the history curriculum in schools, bins the media merger and bins 3 waters then we might be making some progress. Otherwise its just rearranging the deck chairs.
Worst case scenario is a Labour+Green+Te Pati coalition at the end of the year. That will test Hipkins 'centrist' ambitions.
Umm... why remove the Maori Health Authority? I agree that the current structure doesn't seem to align with the objectives of dealing with the underlying issues (mostly because the bulk of funding still sits within the mainstream) and there are a few bullshit artists that have been promoted above their pay grade.
But isn't it time we started taking risks? The alternative is increasing anger and dehumanisation?
I'm a softie with a rental portfolio, but I'm not alone in thinking that small sacrifices are needed to set a new path!
Maori Health Authority is an unnecessary duplicate bureaucracy created to appease a Maori racial separatist element in the Labour party. To state that the current health system is racially biased against Maori is absurd. There are many factors that impact Maori health including environment and genetic. Asian NZ'ers have a longer average life expectancy than Europeans. Does this imply that the health system favours Asians??
Different health strategies are required for different ethnic groups based on their cultural, social environments and genetic predispositions, but that doesn't mean that we need a separate institution for them. Should we create a Pacific peoples health authority, Asian, Caucasian and African health authorities, or should we just create our own form of apartheid?
Marketing at work.
Just because the flashlight moved from Cindy to Chris, remember that this is the same party without any deep skills.
I am still waiting for an announcement to reverse back on 3 waters, and start addressing serious cracks in the economy.
The facts are sadly that the track record of this Labour party is far from good, and a seating rearrangement does not improve the skill set of the party.
Your reply suggests that National have "deep skills". No objective proof of this...more likely drawn from the same shallow proffessional politics that has bedevilled us since Ruth Richardson. The issue has become one of balancing equity and economic issues, which both parties seem determined to set aside in an election year.
The sad thing is though, if you let someone wanting to disagree with Maori politics talk long enough, eventually they end up saying something pretty racist. Well, 9 times out of 10 anyway.
Most less prejudiced types are usually pretty indifferent to the subject, so conversations are a bit of a magnet for interesting sorts.
Goes both ways. Inherently everyone has some level of personal bias and hatred. Let anyone speak long enough and you will see it.
Any race based party should rightfully attract calls of racism. Afterall their raison d'etre is based solely around racism (the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another)
Surely a “race based” party could just be trying to keep their culture alive and prosperous, that doesn’t mean they think they are superior. Mainstream governments have tried to make Māori adopt European culture for generations with the Don Brash mantra that we are all one country and everyone should adopt the predominant (white) culture.
There's identifying with a race, and then there's being racist.
Very true. There is no doubt there was significant historic racism towards Maori, and that this has been to the detriment of Maori today, but two wrongs do not make a right.
Saying I was Maori as a kid was shameful, not knowing my own culture now is equally shameful. Seeing my kids grow up without either of these issues fills me with pride, and has been accomplished without denigrating others.
Preferential treatment due to race (even if it is to try and rectify past wrongs) is divisive and only breeds a superiority/inferiority complex for those impacted.
You're assuming restorative and inclusive policy centred around Maori will eventuate into something equivalent to what happened to Maori post colonisation, but to non-Maori.
That'd be like denying an assault victim self defence lessons in case they beat up their attacker one day.
And that has happened forever, everywhere. Why on earth did everyone come here? Because life wasnt easy or fair where they came from. My kids have maori, scots and english and maybe some spanish (if the rumour is correct...bad great nana) We have to move on from race. My kids arent interested in race. They are interested in people. They want to see hard working people contributing to society. They have no interest whatsoever in their heritage. Anglo, Pacifica or European. They just dont give a shit. They are making up their own, they are kiwis. A bit of this, a bit of that.
What language should that one country speak - English by any chance? What culture should that one country be aligned to - European by any chance?
Would you be happy if the one set of rules were made mainly by Māori aligning to their culture: no land ownership, no speaking English in schools, signs all in Te Reo, no Christmas holidays, etc. That would be fine by you as long as it’s the same for everyone?
..."equality for all" - I don't think that's anyone's aspiration.
Equity for all, sure. And it is social justice and equity (the US refers to it as "liberty and justice) for all, that Māori politicians (when advocating for their people) seek. My experience of Māori who seek to lead, be they in the political or social spheres, are not by culture or spirituality, insular or parochial. If one follows tikanga with a true spirit, manaakitanga is embedded in practice.
It is unjust to hold people back/deny them access to basic needs, which is exactly what preferential treatment of any kind does. Letting someone jump the queue no matter how "just" it may seem, means someone further back misses out.
None of the proposals solve inequity, they only move it to a different cohort.
No that is not what equity means. If you were born with deformed legs you should not be denied education, housing, employment and income solely because you had deformed legs that does not define your worth or life value. In fact often those who experience poverty are more likely to reduce it for others in their efforts and work so as a society they have more to give back to the populace. Think doctors versus investment bankers or scientists versus council managers or small business innovators versus sports celebrities. Equity in terms of allowing everyone the opportunity to human rights such as education, access to housing etc. When you are denied those things as disabled often are then the outcome is predetermined as those without education and income often are denied living equitably within the community (they are more often denied access to work to the be productive).
Equity actually is to allow everyone the opportunity to access their community, education, housing and work. Without those things work is not possible. Working is actually an advantage (in access) to many as they would literally would love to be able to do that but are denied the income, access and means to do so. So many seem to think not working is an advantage but when it comes to equitable living ability it is the reverse; you are lucky to be able to work not the reverse of being denied the ability work, denied access to the community, denied the income and denied the achievements work promotes. Being able to work is an advantage over those who are physically literally denied those things and therefore suffer in destitution only to die early from preventable disease and lack of access to medical care in NZ (as most tend to do).
Pleased to see Mahuta lose the Local Government portfolio. A poor communicator unfortunately which has not helped in the whole 3 Waters debate. Leads with her chin. Looks slightly more suited to Foreign Affairs. Shame really. Shows the dearth of Maori talent in the labour caucus. That Kiri Allan leaves the rest for dead. Great lady.
I hope so. I think Nanaia faced a lot of difficulties that, very similar to Ardern was unjustified, and in many ways irreconcilable.
Many people are of a nature that they don't really elicit strong first impressions. They can easily build relationships over time.
But those who elicit strong first impressions, where those impressions are initially negative, are treated unjustly over time.
Those who rely on 'gut instinct' over objectivity often never come round from their strong first impression..
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.