Paula Bennett: Robertson unfair to criticise Luxon over Roe v Wade abortion issue

Opposition leader Christopher Luxon acknowledged his personal view on abortion, but clearly stated that he accepts the current law. Photo / File

We have seen in the past week what the election campaign strategy is for the next 14 months for the Labour Party. They are worried.

Repeated polls has National on the rise and Labour going backwards. Their reaction is to attack Christopher Luxon, as we have seen in personal attack ads they have been running and on the very contentious issue of abortion.

For the Deputy Prime Minister to come out last Monday and say that Luxon was playing politics with his statements was purely and simply Robertson himself playing politics.

A lot of people (myself included) have strong views on the issue of abortion and for some of us the USA decision in Roe vs Wade was a real blow for women. I do not think that such a contentious issue should be used for political game playing in NZ.

Luxon came out on Saturday after the decision of RvW completely consistent with his many previous statements on abortion.

Responding to an ill-thought-out and timed post by MP Simon O'Connor, Luxon acknowledged his personal view but clearly stated that he accepts the current law in New Zealand has been through a thorough, fair and democratic process and no changes will be made under his leadership. No politics, no game playing.

He has been respectful and honest in both his statements and actions. For Robertson to then accuse Luxon of not being consistent and use the already highly tense debate about women's rights is pure politics of the worse kind.

I voted and contributed in the debate to the law changes in 2020. I voted in favour and felt strongly about abortion being a women's choice and a health matter. MPs in both Labour and National voted against this legislation. That is their right.

At no time was I approached by colleagues with a differing view to mine to persuade me to change my vote. We were respectful of differing views and although I may not agree with theirs, I have always liked that National can have differing opinions, debate them maturely and then agree to disagree.

Luxon will not review the current law and to insinuate that he will is just playing games. As history has proven, National is not interested in social engineering.

A National government would put cost of living, the economy, law and order, education, health and the environment at the centre of all that it does.

A good leader is upfront about their own beliefs but then respectful of others. I hope that over the next 14 months or so we have a contest of ideas and debate openly the important issues that affect us all and not resort to personal petty politics.