Simon Bridges left the door open in opposing the second reading of the Zero Carbon Bill and while he was still making up his mind about it, two of his ministers came out in opposition.
In this interview with Corin Dann, Bridges says he expects his ministers to toe the party line – even though they don’t know what that is!
Corin:
Are you prepared to let any of you MPs cross the floor on a potential vote on a carbon ah zero bill? There has been some speculation from Richard Harman that Judith Collins may be open to crossing the floor if that bill is not ah to her liking.
Simon:
N…no I don’t accept that MPs can or should cross the floor. It’s a situation in the National Party where on conscience issues you get a free vote – you certainly don’t where the party has decided the position.
To be clear on our position on that bill we haven’t decided yet, we may well vote against it, which I think was the tenor of the Harman ah piece ah there. Ah but we know our position quite clearly on methane targets and the economic impact and we will be pushing for changes so that we can support it.
Corin:
So, sorry have you hardened your position here? You might vote against this bill?
Simon:
I don’t think it’s a hardening. I think if you go back ah, I’ve said this before, but you go back over a year ago to a speech I gave at the field days… I… I’ve known exactly where National stands on these issues. Those positions haven’t changed, we worry about the methane target, we worry about the wider economic impact, we will be pushing for changes in the committee of the whole house ah as they call it, if they don’t ah… if we don’t see changes we may well vote against it, but of course we would like to support it because the majority of the bill, the architecture if you like, actually is much of our plan.
Corin:
Has Judith Collins indicated she would vote against it, to you?
Simon:
Ah, look I’m not going to characterise what happens in caucus, what is said, there’s a range of views in National. I could be candid with you about that. From those who say, you know what, we really should be supporting this, through to those who are much more reluctant given the rural supporters they have in rural NZ and the clear worry from farmers about this.
Look, I’m not pretending it’s an easy issue for National, or indeed for NZ, and we are grappling with those things right now. We do know our position though and we will be seeking changes in the ah process through parliament.
Radio NZ transcript Starts at 8:40
Judith Collins publicly opposed the bill.
“National MP Judith Collins says she will vote against the Zero Carbon Bill in its present form thus apparently pre-empting her Leader and caucus who have made no final decision on what to do.
Her statement is being interpreted to mean that she would be prepared to vote against National if they agree to support the Bill.
And in making her pledge she is leaving National Leader Simon Bridges facing a political dilemma which could see him lose support whichever choice he makes.”
Politik
Matt King has a bob each way. He supports the farmers but also doesn’t want to abandon the party position, describing himself as a “climate enquirer”.
“The Northland MP [Matt King] copped heavy criticism over the weekend for a social media post that claimed climate change “is natural” and accused the Government of unfairly targeting farmers in efforts to lower carbon emissions.”
[…] On Sunday King tweeted that he’s a “climate inquirer” rather than a denier.
“I think everyone’s an enquirer, aren’t they?” he said on Tuesday when asked about the term. “We’re all finding out what the story is.”
His National Party colleagues were less enthused about embracing the identity of “climate enquirer”, with Gerry Brownlee, Chris Penk and Nicky Wagner all denying they’d encountered the term before.
[…]”Everyone in the National Party believes that climate change is real,” Chris Bishop told media.””
Newshub
Bridges should thank Chris Bishop for taking the party line despite not knowing quite what that line is.
But Bridges has a bigger problem with Collins who outstrips him in the popularity polls and now in climate change as well; showing decisive leadership where he did not.
Collins gave Bridges a golden opportunity to establish his leadership by propelling the party into a decisive stance against the bill, but instead, he prevaricated.
Bridges defended his party’s acceptance of the large $150,000 Chinese donation. He argues that no laws were broken but conveniently forgets the spirit of that law, which is to avoid political parties being influenced by representatives from foreign countries. It is highly doubtful that someone giving a large sum of money would not expect some sort of consideration. It’s another example of weak leadership.