Red Alert

Key’s Growing Nose

Posted by on June 23rd, 2009

John Key tried to tell the House today that it was not in the public interest for him to reveal whether or not he had information not now in the public arena when he lost confidence in Richard Worth. Not what information, not the source but whether there was such information.

Revealing the fact that such information exists, or does not exist will assist the public in making a judgement as to whether Worth has been dealt with fairly or harshly and key has an obligation to reveal the specific information unless there is some security intelligence, defence or commercially sensitive reason for not doing so.

Political sensitivity is not a reason one can invoke the public interest.

I told Key I didn’t believe him, told him his nose was growing. He lied to the House and quoted me as calling him a liar. Speaker Smith required me to withdraw and apologise for saying something I did not say. To do so would have been to admit saying it. Smith did not allow me to say that I had not made the comments and tossed me out in probably the most blatantly biased decision of the year.

77 Responses to “Key’s Growing Nose”

  1. Craig Ranapia says:

    Hum… so it’s “inaccurate and defamatory” to suggest some people around here would benefit from reading a classic of children’s literature (which was adapted into a very well-known animated movie), whose hero’s NOSE GREW WHEN HE TOLD A LIE?

  2. bikerkiwi says:

    I think that the speaker handled that very well, was professional and clear.

    Got to love the comment made by Labour that Key made a false acusation in the house.

  3. Trevor Mallard says:

    Thanks Whale. Made the point exactly. Key got it wrong. Smith accepted his word. I have already said I didn’t handle it well after that.

    bikerkiwi – it is possible to be clear, pompous and wrong.

  4. GPT says:

    To be fair to Mallard in terms of deleting things I have posted two critical but (I like to think) non abusive posts. Both have got through.

  5. Trevor Mallard says:

    Now had discussions with a few more members re No confidence and have decided to wait for a better case.

  6. Tim Ellis says:

    Mr Mallard, I am unsure again why you have deleted my last post. It was neither abusive nor unfair, in my view. Could you please explain which parts of it you took offence to?

    I pointed out to you some time ago that it is not appropriate blogging etiquette to delete comments without a specific reason. You have been blogging for some time now, and should know better.

    No correspondence will be entered into. see inv @ 10.43 above Trevor

  7. roddersnz says:

    Cant wait for the start of parliament today, will watch with baited breath to see you in action today Trevor….. You as i said in the email last night are the new character in the house.

  8. Tim Ellis says:

    Mr Mallard, it seems to me that you are simply deleting any negative comments. The post of mine that you deleted was in no way abusive. I pointed out the last time a motion of no confidence was made against a speaker, and highlighted the trivial nature of your call by comparison.

    If you don’t want comments on this blog, then I suggest you and the Labour caucus who write here make that decision. Please do not insult the intelligence of people who read this blog by claiming that you invite comments, only to delete only the comments that are slightly difficult for you to handle.

    When this blog began, I congratulated the Labour Party for coming up with such a constructive means of open dialogue with the public. It seems however, Mr Mallard, that you are intent on shutting down any negative dialogue.

    I think that is a shame. One of my first comments on this blog was to point out the risks of sycophantic blogging. The example I gave was the New Zealand First blog, where a staffer for Mr Peters systematically only allowed comments that complimented Mr Peters. Sadly, it seems to me that you are taking the comments on your blog posts down a similar track, Mr Mallard.

    I hope that other Labour MPs who write here are able to take a more mature approach to constructive criticism than you have done today.

    For goodness sake Tim read through this comments thread and make sure brain engaged before fingers hit keyboard. Trevor.

  9. exbrethren says:

    Is this evidence? John and friends

  10. Maynard J says:

    Tim, that they put up with any of your pompous grandstanding makes a mockery of your pithy complaints that only sycophantic comments are allowed.

  11. dave says:

    Mr Mallard, the post you deleted of mine was no also no way abusive.

  12. Graeme says:

    Trevor – is there a reason you do not consider that The PM and Speaker were both using the phrase “accusing me of being a liar” as shorthand for “accused me of having a nose that grows, implicitly calling me a liar to anyone who has heard of Carlo Collodi or Walt Disney”?

    Do you believe that accusing someone “your nose is growing. your nose is growing” is not an accusation of lying? You may not be “calling them” a liar, but surely you are accusing them of lying?

    As an aside, I was in Melbourne a few weeks back and stopped in on the State Parliament. The Upper House was debating some industrial relations measure and the opposition speaker accused the government of hypocrisy over something. The roof did not fall in; no-one really seemed to care. I wonder if our Parliament is a little precious over things like this.

  13. Trevor Mallard says:

    @Graeme been thru guts of issue above but on the Aussie issue I think we have it about right here. The Aussie parliaments are not places where governments can be held to account. While yesterday mightn’t have been the best example I think our parliament is generally one of the best in the world.

  14. jabba says:

    come on Trevor, we all know that Smith is trying to do the right thing with the limited powers he has on making ministers answer a question. Speaker Wilson let you guys off with murder during her time and you know it

  15. Graeme says:

    Oh right. There’s a whole other page of comments!

  16. indiana says:

    “Now had discussions with a few more members re No confidence and have decided to wait for a better case.”

    Should the NZ Public now take the view that Labour Party’s new plan is to “create” a better case for them to call a vote of no confidence? Any chance you guys will get back to actually making NZ a better place?

  17. Simon says:

    Any chance you guys will get back to actually making NZ a better place?

    @indiana – Labour is a Marxist Party, or at the very least a front for one. Labour firmly believes in an eventual “crisis of capitalism” which they hope to manipulate into a socialist revolution according to the 1-2-3 that Trotsky outlined and that they subscribe to. All of Labour’s policy revolves around the central policy objective of hastening this mythical crisis.

    Asking Labour to “make NZ a better place” is asking them to set aside their ideology, become something they are not. Their raison d’etre is to destroy not to build.

    Break out the Tui Trevor

  18. karli says:

    When will you learn,we dont want nationl in an longer than necessary,but this sort of public stupidity by Labour MPs is stalling this goal.
    Im so sick of your actions,behave or I will drop my membership of 18 years.FOOLS you need to behave.

  19. Michael says:

    Smith has certainly been keeping his powder dry, but I guess the mask is starting to slip. I think your on the right track with this one. Consider the wide range of bad judgment calls that Worth has made over such a small period of time, it really could be anything going on here, and it’s important that you get too the bottom of it.

    You must be hitting a raw nerve now that you have Smith running interference for them, keep up the good work.

  20. Jon says:

    [Comment deleted – personal abuse – admin]

  21. indiana says:

    To Saint John,

    Trevor also posted this link, but it begs the question that if Labour are intent on showing up John Key as trustworthy then it also shows up Labour as only capable of digging for dirt because thats all they can do. I’d like to see Labour getting back to influencing policy whilst in opposition instead of behaving like a spoilt child moaning about he said, she said. If Mr Goff reads this blog, I hope he get the party to get back on the right strategy, because all I see at the present is a party intent on finding ways to raise a vote of no confidence against the speaker.

  22. Saint John says:

    To Indiana

    No reason not get it back on the current page. Tell me which National Party policy was it that won the last election for National? They hardly had any. Interesting that you don’t think trustworthiness is a trait we should expect in a Prime Minister.

  23. Tim Ellis says:

    Saint John, as I recall Labour were making that claim about National Party policy thre months before the election, at a time when National had hundreds of policy pages and documents up on its website, while Labour had zero.

  24. Boris McCarty says:

    You are right Tim. While the National Party had scary people and scary policies, it seemed to me that the Labour Party did not really think about the last election. In the end, Labour was difficult to vote for, and that was disappointing.

  25. […] post on the House of Lords wins the prize for most number of comments. Correction: Trevor’s post on Key’s growing nose won the prize for most comments (76). Trevor (also) wins the prize for […]