Had a really interesting response from the Speaker to Breach of Privilege complaint about Tolley. The essence of the reply is that because it was impossible to prove that Tolley knew that she was misleading Parliament when she did then there was not a prima facie breach.
In the past Ministers when challenged on facts (not opinions) check them and if they are in error, correct their answers. Tolley doesn’t do that. There are probably a dozen examples now – just a couple have gone to the Speaker as representative cases.
To be fair to the Speaker he has acknowledged a gap in the Standing Orders and a wish to examine the issue at the Standing Orders committee.
But in the interim being ignorant is an excuse.
[Comment deleted - thoughtful criticism is welcome here, unconstructive abuse isn't - admin]
But surely ignorance IS a defence to the charge of making misleading statements. Tolley’s “crime” is to not correct erroneous statements when she discovers them. In my view, it’s just as bad as misleading the House but it’s not the same thing.
I remember Mr Key making a big noise about having his ministry applying a higher level of ethical behaviour and respect for the House than applied previously. Perhaps he’s the one who’s misled the House!
But Trevor a dozen examples is a lot. If Anne Tolley had to correct herself on every one of these, the voters might get the impression that she was a very confused person who had no idea of what she was talking about!
Of course you use exactly the same defence when accusing people of things.
I note you are yet to apologise to Melissa Lee about the things you accused her of that you got wrong.
Please try and stay on topic – know it is hard but obviously happy for you to keep the general debates on your site and penguin’s Trevor
Trevor – I am sure that you are well aware – and have been for a long time – that only knowingly misleading the House is a contempt. You seem to think the response here is novel…
Except that it is a longstanding speaker’s ruling that corrections should be made at the first opportunity. So giving an incorrect answer in ignorance isn’t a contempt but failure to correct when one becomes aware an answer is wrong is.(or at least it used to be)
Perhaps Tolley got it ‘wrong’ and meant to give parents up to $2000 to help get their kids to school?
And Whalemeat and Penguin “The Frosty Couple from the DeepBlue Rinse of NwZild Politics” izzit?
Cameron, shush! The adults are talking. If this site needs the injection of some low-brow humour, valueless analyses, obsessive narcissism or badly done photoshop we might call you down from your room. But for now, just be quiet while grown-ups speak.
This is just over the limit for personal abuse – have left it up because I know Cam won’t care but beyond the tone wanted for Red Alert. Trevor
There is never proof, Mr Speaker, that someone “knew” they were misleading the House, until there is a hearing. Prime facie a statement being incorrect, and it being sufficiently probable the Minister could/should have known, is what “prima facie” has to mean in those circumstances. The proof of the knowledge can only be conclusively determined after a hearing.
This Speaker is showing himself to be the most partisan we have ever seen.
Trevor, It would help add weight (and clarity) to your post if you provided a PDF of the reply and an outline of the original complaint.
I’m not sure that it would be good form to release the Speaker’s letter. I think me raising the issue is ok and I’m sure he would be happy to discuss the issue in general terms but because the specific case involves an MP it would probably not enhance my relationship with him to release it.
Trevor
Here is a link that sheds some light on what Anne Tolley has been trying to say. In this instance, she is receiving valued asssistance from new MP Nicki Kaye:
http://fundypost.blogspot.com/2009/06/clueless.html
The problem Trevor is that its hard to take you seriously unless you’re willing to show us the contents of your complaint letter and the speaker’s reply.
There are a number of occasions on this blogsite and in other forums where you put out things that we later find to be not true. Bennett’s supposed gesture, the abolition of modern apprentices, the end of interest free student loans … the list goes on.
It’s a great hit and run strategy, but leaves posts like this lacking more than a little credibility.
Speakers’ ruling 170/1 seems closest to where you want to go – although it appears directed solely at answers to written questions – but there is absolutely no indication that failure to do so might be a contempt.
And rulings 186/2 and 186/3 appear to negate any suggestion that a contempt could be established under the route you suggest. If Winston Peters stating asserting in the House that Bob Clarkson gave false evidence in the Peters v Clarkson election petition doesn’t reach the standard of misleading that should see a referral to the Privileges Committee, then a failure to correct inadvertence isn’t either. (Clarkson didn’t even give evidence)
Interesting to read the two comments above together.
Blair’s attack is that my comment is not credible.
Graeme’s comment is that the speaker is correct – which must be based on my comment being credible.
I know that consistentcy is the last refuge of fools but both can’t be right – I prefer Graeme’s version as it does help highlight the issue – as the Speaker has done.
“This Speaker is showing himself to be the most partisan we have ever seen.” mjwkiwi you can not possibly believe this statement. Margaret Wilson was an absolute disgrace.
Re-reading your original post, I now note that you refer to the Speaker has having declined your complaint on the basis that as it was “impossible to prove that Tolley knew that she was misleading Parliament when she did then there was not a prima facie breach.”
This is interesting because while the Speaker used to have an obligation to determine whether a prima facie breach had been established this has been removed. I understood that the test was now whether the matter raises a question of privilege. I would consider this a lower threshold, but it doesn’t seem to have been interpretted as such since the change.
=)
Re-reading your original post, I now note the following: you refer to the Speaker having declined your complaint on the basis that as “it was impossible to prove that Tolley knew that she was misleading Parliament when she did then there was not a prima facie breach.”
This is interesting because the Speaker is no longer reponsible for determing whether there is a prima facie breach, but rather whether the matter raises a question of privilege. I would have thought this a lower threshold, but it doesn’t appear to have been treated as such.
D’oh! Sorry about the double-post – it really seemed like it had failed the first time ’round. Feel free to delete one of them (and this post too!).
Trevor – I wasn’t trying to be consistent with Graeme. It’s no argument against what I’ve claimed to say, “you’re not being consistent with ‘x’ other person.”
I’m interested in a proper response to the fact that you’ve floated some kites lately that have turned out to not be true – why should we believe that you’re giving us an accurate read of the speaker’s letter in this case?