New Zealand’s justice minister resigned on Monday after police charged her with reckless driving and resisting arrest after a car crash.
Kiri Allan was involved in the crash shortly after 9pm on Sunday in Wellington, said prime minister Chris Hipkins, and she was detained at the central police station before being released four hours later.
Police have charged her with careless use of a motor vehicle, and refusing to accompany a police officer, and summonsed to appear in court at a later date. Allan was handed an infringement notice for excess breath alcohol between 250 and 400mcg.
The incident involving Allan was the latest in a series of missteps and scandals involving government ministers less than three months out from national elections. Polls indicate the conservative opposition has pulled level or moved slightly ahead of the incumbent liberals in what promises to be a close race.
Once considered a rising star of the Labour party, Allan had recently taken time off for her mental health after being involved in a public split with her partner and accusations of poor working relationships with staff.
Hipkins said he spoke to Allan on Monday morning and told her that he thought she wasn’t in a fit state to remain a minister and that it was untenable for a justice minister to be charged with criminal offending. She agreed and resigned her ministerial roles, Hipkins said.
For now, Allan remains a member of parliament.
“While her alleged actions are inexcusable, I’ve been advised she was experiencing extreme emotional distress at the time of the incident,” Hipkins said. “Her recent personal struggles with mental health have been well documented and it appears some of those issues came to a head yesterday.”
Allan said she was sorry for her actions and was heading home to consider her future in politics. “Over recent weeks I’ve faced a number of personal difficulties. I took time off to address those, and believed I was OK to juggle those challenges with the pressure of being a minister,” she said in a statement. “My actions yesterday show I wasn’t OK, and I’ve let myself and my colleagues down.”
Last month, transport and immigration minister Michael Wood resigned after failing to disclose a possible conflict of interest with stock he owned. In March, police minister Stuart Nash was sacked after it came to light he had given confidential information to donors. In May, customs minister Meka Whaitiri was fired after switching allegiance to another political party.
Hipkins took over as prime minister in January after his predecessor Jacinda Ardern stepped down. New Zealand’s elections will be held on 14 October.
So, NZ Peeps … for those of us not paying attention to your politics … is this party/govt clearly on its way out after Jacinda’s exit (and this event I suppose)?
I don’t see how they stay in power. Their cabinet has been a train wreck of scandal after scandal. Beyond that, their policies have resulted in worse poverty, worse homelessness, worse housing affordability (Auckland is now one of the least affordable cities in the world), the largest increase in house prices in NZ history, significantly worse crime, fewer people in prison and horrific cases of murder while on home detention, a faltering dollar, failing infrastructure like basic water services and access, and a health system on the verge of collapse. The cherry on top is Labour’s dogged adherence to the wildly unpopular and extremely racist “co-governance” principles. They seek to give people greater power over natural resources on the basis of race. It’s pants on head insane.
I can’t think of any government in NZ history which has performed worse. I don’t think National will solve all these issues, but it’s physically impossible for them to do any worse. Betting odds strongly favour National in the coming election, and betting sites typically outperform polls.
extremely racist “co-governance” principles
So, without any awareness of the context and details … this does sound like an anglo-NZ person being upset at attempts at reconciliation with the indigenous population and the effects of colonialism … and therefore, on face value, a problematic or at least superficial position. Any chance you can fill me in?
Yep, that’s what it is.
The ten second version is that New Zealand has a rather unique situation in that the country is founded on a treaty between the indigenous people and the British Crown, rather than just straight invasion. Due to - among other things - translation issues, as well as some pretty egregious breaches of said treaty by the Crown, there are major disagreements over the extent to which Māori ceded their sovereignty, if at all.
It’s a complicated situation with no perfect outcome possible. By and large, Māori have been entirely reasonable and conciliatory in seeking redress for historical wrongs and restoration (where possible) of elements of their self-sovereignty. But it’s an uphill battle with heavy opposition, from a loud minority of thinly-masked racists, of any attempt to give them any real say in the governance of the country.
Racism is never acceptable, even when one thinks they have a good reason. All racists think their racism is justified. In a democracy each person gets one vote. We don’t give people extra votes on the basis of race. Democracy is sacrosanct, and any party seeking to dismantle it is going to be rightfully voted out of power.
The current government seeks to give Maori tribes (iwi) preferential power over national water assets. It is effective control over how water is distributed throughout the country.
Yea, hard disagree there. Getting things back in shape often requires going in the opposite direction, even somewhat extremely. Cultural inertia, selfishness etc are often what hold back things like reconciliation and reparation. Absolutes aren’t nearly as useful, IMO, as their adherents like to think.
So I looked into it a bit further and you’re being fed half a story.
There’s a whole saga about the government selling off it’s water assets to private businesses and Māori basically bringing up their old, but still intact, legal ownership over the water to null and void the attempted sales.
There’s another saga about a city council selling rights to drain an aquifer to a private company that is siphoning huge amounts of water out and selling it to China for profit.
Water rights in New Zealand are a mess.
I don’t agree with this take.
I agree I don’t think they are likely to stay in power - New Zealand likes to change after 2 terms unless there is a compwlling reason not to.
But you seem to be blaming their policies for problems that have been steadily getting worse and worse over the last 20 years, no matter who has been in power. No one is going to fix it.
a faltering dollar
The dollar, incidentally, is at US 62 cents. This is pretty close to the ideal dollar strength preferred by the last Centre Right government (John Key and Bill English are on record saying as much). New Zealand is an export economy. Getting paid in a stronger currency than ours is good for exporters.
There are of course factors outside the control of the governing party, but they are not blameless. They’ve been in power for six years. Are you really arguing they’re not responsible for anything? I don’t think that’s a reasonable position.
NZDUSD has had a pretty rough decade. It hit a peak of 88c in 2014 and has steadily declined to 62c now. I don’t place much stock in the musings of John Key or Bill English. The bottom line is Kiwis can buy less with their money now.
Are you really arguing they’re not responsible for anything? I don’t think that’s a reasonable position.
I don’t think that’s a reasonable position either. And no of course I’m not arguing it. I don’t think anything I said above suggests I was.
A high dollar (and a high OCR) benefit me personally so I understand where you’re coming from and why you would think it’s a good thing.
However, exporters prefer a low dollar because that way they effectively get paid a lot more for their exports, and New Zealand is primarily an export economy, meaning exports are how we get the money to buy things in the first place.
For that reason, New Zealand politicians of both major parties have a target somewhere between 60c and 70c. If you want to vote for a party that wants to deliberately drive the dollar back to 88c, I think you will have a hard job finding one.
Surely the low dollar means we get less for our exports? Our exports just become more in demand as they’re cheaper for our customers to buy (costs them less to get the NZ dollars to pay for them).
Not really how it works. You can sell to them in their own currency (or USD if theirs is volatile), at the price their market will bear. When your own currency’s down that means you either get more NZD when you exchange, or else you can lower your price and undercut your competition from other countries without losing profit. This applies to people exporting services as well as goods.
Seriously, what I’m saying is not controversial. Check out the link in my other comment.
I don’t think that’s a reasonable position either. And no of course I’m not arguing it. I don’t think anything I said above suggests I was.
Forgive my misunderstanding but it really does look like you were arguing Labour are not responsible for the continued decline:
But you seem to be blaming their policies for problems that have been steadily getting worse and worse over the last 20 years, no matter who has been in power. No one is going to fix it.
I’m glad to read that we agree that they are, at least in part, responsible.
However, exporters prefer a low dollar because that way they effectively get paid a lot more for their exports, and New Zealand is primarily an export economy, meaning exports are how we get the money to buy things in the first place.
You’re right: a low dollar does help exporters. China keeps their currency artificially low for this reason. There are economic benefits, but I’m not sure the benefit is worth the cost. Especially for the average voter. I’ve heard both National and Labour defend a weak NZD, but I’ve never seen any policies aiming to keep NZDUSD at 60-70c. Do you have a link?
Sure, here’s an example of it being clearly stated: New Zealand dollar catches breath.
Finance Minister Bill English told Radio New Zealand today the high local currency had made it difficult for a lot of export industries to do well and the recent fall in the currency meant that headwind is now reducing in strength. His comments follow Prime Minister John Key noting yesterday that he preferred a lower currency, noting the ‘Goldilocks’ rate – neither too high nor too low – was probably about 65 US cents.
Nothing controversial about this, he was stating the obvious. Notice in that same article there is talk of the RBNZ intervening if it gets too high.
The New Zealand dollar has declined from a peak of 88.35 US cents in July after Reserve Bank governor Graeme Wheeler said the high level was unjustified and unsustainable, language signalling he was considering intervention. Wheeler confirmed in the central bank’s monthly release of foreign exchange data yesterday that he did intervene in the market last month, selling a net $521 million to push it lower.
And, it’s not a political stance it’s just practical economics. The RBNZ is non-political. We saw this same behaviour under Labour before the GFC when we had a high dollar and a high OCR.
My google fu isn’t great right now so I’m going to leave it there, but you will probably notice it yourself, going forward.
Thanks! To extend an olive branch, NZ’s heavy reliance on primary agricultural exports does pose systemic economic risk with a very high dollar. So I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the target of those in charge. They just rarely put it into their policy documents. Probably because it’s very unpopular with voters.
Not clearly, no. They’re currently polling two points below the next most popular party so it’s anyone’s race at this point.
JasSmith@kbin.social has obviously been reading very different newspapers to me.
Agreed, it’s far from clear. This resignation, plus Friday’s murders by someone on home detention (when National has already chosen the ‘tough on crime’ angle as the cornerstone of their campaign) makes it look very bad for Labour, though.
