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.
Your behaviour Trevor was disgusting. This was not a bias decision. This was you acting stupid. Instead of attacking the speaker, perhaps you would be best to look at your own behaviour. It reflects badly on you and more importantly reflects badly on your party.
That Speaker is the worst ever. He has to go. He pretends to be so neutral and fair, and really believe that himself…
sorry should have said “really acts like he believes that himself”
I watched it. You know perfectly well that you inferred he was a liar.I may be wrong, but I think such inferences are considered unparliamentary and offense was taken.
You had a tanty. And you did the cause no good by diverting attention away from the line of questioning. I wonder what the media will be reporting on the subject…your dummy spit or key’s evasion?
I heard you on the microphones that you thought the decision was the worst he’s ever made.
I agree.
I think the Speaker knows it too.
PS: He’s also right though, you could have handled it better, but if it meant that I missed you utter that one liner as you left the chamber, perhaps it was worth it.
My opinion FWIW Trevor – you’ve been spoiling for a fight with Lockwood Smith for quite a few weeks now. Today you got it. I’m looking forward to the video!
I heard on the microphones as you left that you thought it was the worst decision the Speaker has ever made.
I agree.
I think the Speaker does too.
PS: I think you might want to listen to the Speaker’s suggestions, you could have handled that better, but i guess if it meant that I would have missed your one-liner, then maybe it was worth it.
You got your just desserts.
Well done Lockwood-Smith who is turning out to be an outstanding speaker.
This is quite funny. Your entire post is calling Key a liar. Now you expect us to believe you didn’t say it in the house?
If you truly believe he’s a liar why are you so annoyed for anyone saying you said it?
Deep breathing Trevor – deep breathing
Y’know what?
I wish there were a few Trev’s on National’s side of the house.
At least he has a damn go, for the ideals he believes in.
And at least he believes in something.
Good on you Mr. Mallard.
Stick it up those gutless National wimps and their smirking stand for nothing leader.
After Key’s words on the smacking referendum, I’m done with the lot of them.
Sounds like I turned off too early.
As for the substantive issue, I think it is extremely odd that if I asked that question in an OIA request, the PM would be required (if necessary, by the Ombudsmen) to give an answer, but if Pete Hodgson asks it in Parliament – supposedly the primary venue by which Ministers are held to account – he is not. At the least, those hiding behind the public interest should be required to indicate why – something which is not obvious (or rather, all too obvious: political expediency) in this case.
There must be something to hide there!
Was there really enough ammunition arising from the Korean woman affair to lose the confidence of John Key?
It reminds me of the David Garrett case that has been raised over the weekend. From all accounts, he sounds like a logical successor to Bob the Builder.
In the case of Worth, all we need to know is whether complaints regarding the Korean woman were all it took to get Worth sacked, or whether that was not the case. For some reason, John Key does not want us to know that?
If it was the Korean woman case, it would be embarrassing if the investigation led to nought.
If it was something else, then it could be politically embarrassing in other ways.
Either way its embarrassing for National and John Key – that is my analysis.
“There must be something to hide there!”
Of course: that Key had no other information (because if he did, he would simply say so). And his attempt to hide this fact just makes him look shifty and self-interested.
But while Key can hide in the House, he can’t hide from the OIA (particularly on information concerning the existence of information), and there will be answers in the end. Key’s shiftiness may very well come back to bite him.
Thanks I/s. Pete already has some in. I agree that the most likely answer is that the information that should be withheld in the public interest doesn’t exist. But will make sure one is direct enough on that very narrow issue.
Related to this Labour members are now discussing whether to put down a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.
While clearly I have an interest in his decision today, both the decision itself on the basis of (another) Key lie and his comments after I left the house show an unacceptable victory of prejudice over fairness.
Prediction – Key will be forced to shift his position in the House tomorrow.
I think the left should be a little less hasty in labelling Lockwood Smith the worst Speaker ever, or to accuse him of being impartial in any way. National and its supporters did that all throughout Margaret Wilson’s tenure as Speaker, and it was really just a cheap way to con the public into thinking Labour was in some way corrupt. Although I don’t like Smith and his pompous attitude, I think he has actually done a good job in the House, perhaps a little too good for his National Party colleagues.
However, I certainly agree that Key’s take on what is and isn’t in the public interest is dubious to say the least. His election promises of a more accountable government under stern leadership have been shown as the charade they were. To claim it is not in the public interest for the public to know why the PM lost confidence in someone they were paying $200k per year is like saying someone can be appointed to a public office but not required to back the decisions made by that office. Oh, wait…………
I’ve been generally impressed with Smith as Speaker (and as Much as I want to disagree, he is correct on his interpretation of Standing Orders around refusal to answer int he public interest. Which suggests those rules need to be amended…) His actions today however did not live up to his usual standards. Throwing someone out of the House for something they said is one thing; evicting them for something they did not say (and cutting off what seemed to be an offer to withdraw and apologise for what was said) is quite another.
Lockwood Smith is not biased. Not in any real way anyway.
You want biased, just look back to Margaret Wilson.
Anyone who remained silent for the period of time that she was speaker has a damn cheek to be condemning Lockwood Smith for bias today.
Maaaaate!!!
After the previous speaker(s) that let you guys get away with murder I cannot believe that you can whine about anything Smith does. At least he makes National answer the questions… something the last sycophantic cow didn’t require you to do.
Man o man I know you lefties are unbalanced and largely unhinged but I am truly stunned at this hypocrisy.
I don’t think he’s biased – I have been impressed with his fairness and his attempts to make Ministers more accountable to Parliament. But like everyone else, he is also human, and occasionally makes bad and hasty decisions such as the one today. And I’m not sure whether the nuclear option – a motion of no confidence in the Speaker – will help solve that problem.
I/S – it wasn’t a “bad and hasty” decision by Smith today. Mallard had been interjecting consistently throughout QT. And reading what follows, I would say that Smith was very deliberate and considered in his decisionmaking.
XXXXXXX
“Mr SPEAKER: The matter is very simple. Today during question time I have listened to the Hon Trevor Mallard interjecting inappropriately on a number of occasions. I have pulled him up on a couple of occasions. The problem at the end was that when I asked him to withdraw and apologise for it because offence had been taken, he started to dispute with the Speaker. I will not tolerate that. The manner in which he did it was the problem; it was not that he had interjected. He could have withdrawn and apologised for that. It is not a difficult thing. The dignity of the House was totally destroyed by the way that the member behaved, and I will not tolerate that in the House. The honourable member will just have to learn to control his anger. It would have been perfectly within my right as the Speaker to have him called back into the House and have him named. I have not done that, because I do not want to do that, but the member will have to learn to behave with a little more decorum. He is a senior member. He has the authority from the Labour Party, it seems, to raise points of order on behalf of the party. The shadow Leader of the House appears to allow him to do that on a number of occasions. If he is going to do that, he has to respect the House and respect the dignity of the House, and not behave in the way that he did just now. He will be out for the rest of this day, and he will learn to behave in a manner befitting the dignity of this House. I did not make that decision lightly. Members will note that I resisted the temptation. In my time in the House, I have seen members named for that kind of behaviour as they left the Chamber. I did not want to do that, because I realised that the member had lost the plot for a moment and he was angry. That is the end of the matter. But I want all members, on all sides of the House, to realise that it does not matter about me as the Speaker; it is the treatment of this House. This House will be treated with its proper dignity.”
XXXXXXX
Mallard should count himself very luck not to have been named today. Then again, if he continues to litigate this matter and to criticise the Speaker in a public forum such as this, there is every chance that will happen tomorrow.
“To insinuate a member is lying is out of order,” Dr Smith said. – Cant argue that – you were inferring that he was. To argue the toss over that is childish. Sad to see that you dont have the balls to take ownership for your own words.
“He said it was Mr Mallard’s manner that resulted in his expulsion. ”
Funnily enough it seems that Labour got ejected from Government for the same reason – when will you learn ????
Motion of no confidence? Oh grow up. Speaker Smith has been a breath of fresh air. Actually trying to make ministers answer questions for a start (something that you, as a minister, never had to do under Speaker Wilson). He has also been more than patient – particularly with the abuse of points of order (not that National is squeaky clean on that either).
The issue is dead. Worth is gone – to the relief of many – including Goff I would suggest.
Playing “is it this information” 2- questions is juvinile and reminiscient of third formers trying to illicit which girl someone likes.
Trev – move on, no one cares about this anymore. On the news today the only thing that got a mention was Mallard got lippy and got kicked out.
Keep losing your rag and you’ll be back in the naughty chair soon enough
It certainly was a bad and hasty decision to eject and no amount of after the fact rationalisation from the Speaker – thanks Inv2 – can change that.
I didn’t handle the post ejection situation well – I accept that, and if he had to ask me to withdraw and/or apologise for something I had said – of course i would have done so.
But I’m never going to pretend Key told the truth when he didn’t either in his answer to Pete’s question or and especially in his complaint about me.
The sad thing is that when he fessed up to the Speaker the Speaker neither reprimanded him for lying nor sought to indicate that he had been hasty in his treatment of me.
Budgieboy’s comments above demonstrate quite clearly the gutter politics of the right, and hence my view that Labour should not stoop to the level of calling the Speaker biased. Margaret Wilson, although not having as much control of the House as she could have had, was not biased. In fact, I recall her ejecting Helen Clark from the Chamber on one occasion. The right’s criticism of her abilities as Speaker were/are based solely on the fact she was a Labour MP.I am yet to see any conclusive evidence that, over her entire three year term, Wilson consistently applied the rules in a way that favoured Labour over National.
“I didn’t handle the post ejection situation well – I accept that, and if he had to ask me to withdraw and/or apologise for something I had said – of course i would have done so.”
So would you be willing to apologise for inferring he was a liar?
As Dr Smith said “”a little more decorum” would go a long way. its hard to have any respect for someone who acts like you did today.
Yes. Right after Key’s correction and apology.
[...] Trevor Mallard doesn’t do remorse! Check out his latest blog post. We will copy and paste it, as we reckon the link will suddenly die when he realises what a fool he [...]
Good on ya Trevor! You did the right thing. For Democracy!
Just a few words Trevor in regards to Key. It’s actually a bit of satire. As former President Nixon said to David Frost:
“It is not illegal when the President does it.”
This was in regard to the Watergate scandal. My point is that if Key is hiding something, he is abusing his position as Prime Minister. And yet he campaigned on “No red tape;listen to the people” etc. Frustatingly though, we just don’t know the truth.
Remember this :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrPgK3bf9_4
I agree with Trevor.
I actually have a soft spot for Lockwood. He has been pretty good as a speaker.
But today’s decision in the words used by the NRL commentators was a shocker. He was chucked out for calling Key a liar when he did not do so and Key acknowledged he did not do so. He wanted to apologise for calling Key “pinnochio nose” but was not allowed to.
Some will think that it is splitting hairs but it was an appropriate complaint and Smith should have taken a breath before ruling the way he did.
The trouble with a motion of no confidence in the Speaker though is that there is a mitigating factor for the Speaker – there is not much doubt that for acting as he did Trevor could have been named and that will always count as a factor in this matter. Maybe, this isn’t the right incident to go with. There will be more – Lockwood Smith is an inveterate liar. I remember him in 1990 at a student meeting clutching my hand, looking me in the eye and promising to get rid of fees – and we all know his honesty didn’t count for much in that situation.
Just watched the replay. You decided to run a linguistics debate with the speaker when ordered to withdraw and apologise and when (rightly) cut off you threw a tantrum. Talking about a nose growing is quite clearly out of order and an insinuation that a member is lying. Trying to grasp the moral high ground (particularly when ordered to withdraw and apologise) by claiming that you did not actually use the word liar is pretty weak.
With respect, you let yourself down badly and the follow up was pretty poor. To your credit you have more or less apologised for that but now it was Key that set you up?
A long bow to draw.
And besides, as my mother always said, it is your behaviour that counts at the end of the day. Your storm out would have embarrassed by five year old God-son.
Still, it gives us all something to talk about I guess.
Isn’t seddition still a crime? Be careful Trevor!
In all seriousness, you’re a great debater and goader. If I were picking a cricket team, I’d have you as keeper – but the problem is you’re not an effective debater outside of the chamber once you’ve been asked to leave.
Plenty of times in the past, members have said their inflammatory remark and apologised, knowing that the very fact they said something that has shaken an opposition member. It still has the desired effect, and you’ll see lawyers deliberately overstep the mark to make a point to jurors, even if they end up withdrawing.
It’s interesting how well organised the right wing is in responding to this kind of controversy…
Strange to see righteous indignation coming from those so well practised in innuendo, insinuation and fallacious argument throughout 2007-8 designed to undermine the Labour Government and still being trawled out at every opportunity by the bloggers and political position bludgers.
@ mjwkiwi 12.02am – I can’t (and won’t pretend to) speak for anyone else on the right, but I started blogging about Mallard’s ejection from the House as soon as it happened. I was listening to the radio in my office. Contrary to your perception and innuendo, some of us are actually capable of thinking for ourselves and fighting our own battles without any directives from Head Office
A number of recent comments have been grossly inaccurate and offensive – rather than answer one by one have taken them out. Lets stick to the issue here guys – if you want to defame do it on Whaleoil here :- http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/content/lockwood-goes-duck-hunting
What I find staggering about this whole affair is that we are expected to accept that we are not going to find out why Worth was sacked. Unacceptable. Unprecedented.
The thing is that worth made around 7 appointments as minister. We as the public have a right to know if these appointments, where our taxes are being spent are on good quality people, not people that RW thought he had a chance at getting jiggy with.
The the other thing is, how is Trevor’s Comments in anyway as bad as JK saying everyone on the other side of the house (who think Rankin was a terrible appointment) don’t care about child abuse?
If Lockwood Smith was replaced as Speaker
Is there a possibility this man may again be a Cabinet Minister?
Take care Trevor!
My comments have not been offensive or inaccurate – yet you still delete them.
Ill kindly post the screen shots onto whaleoil as you seem to be overly sensitive.
I think that might be described as a win win. I’m happy and your comments go where they fit in.
Censorship Trevor? Why not follow DPF’s lead and leave the comment showing, but add your comment as a footnote? At least that way readers can make their own judgment as to whose comment may have the most validity.
Might look at that approach sometimes but the difference is that while somedays I can devote a bit of time to the blog there are some days like today where I have other work that is of a higher priority. It is David’s full time role whereas most days I can only do about twenty minutes a couple of times a day or as I did for a while last night respond by interupting my work on a policy paper. There is a limit. Trevor
Mr Mallard, your behaviour in the House yesterday was disgraceful. It seems to me that you have been pushing the Speaker for some time. You appear to be making far more points of order than any other Labour Member.
Have you been appointed the shadow leader of the house? Is there a particular reason why you appear to be leading Labour’s management of the house and points of order?
I don’t know what you hoped to achieve with a face-off against the Speaker, but the fact is you clearly implied that John Key is a liar, which is unparliamentary.
Throwing a tantrum like that in Parliament is very poor form for a person with your experience in the House.
A
‘Why not follow DPF’s lead and leave the comment showing, but add your comment as a footnote? At least that way readers can make their own judgment as to whose comment may have the most validity.’
There is a degree of irony in Mr Mallard evicting some chatters because of their comments.
Perhaps if they withdraw and apologise…
I agree, Smith should go and Mallard for Speaker!!!!
Trevor – You were slung from the house for defying the Speaker, he asked you to withfraw and apoligise, and you decided to debate the matter. That Margaret Wilson didn’t sling Winnie from the house daily for that crime is her biggest failing as Speaker and allowed question time to drag for over 90 minutes. Jonathan Hunt was far to lenient on the daily Prebble/Peters show (or is that saga) becuase of his admiration for both as astute Parliamentarians.
I dare you to put in that motion of no confidence – I suspect National will use it to highlight some shortcomings of the two previous speakers! And I suspect you will be crucified in the media for it as they have taken a shine to Lockwood as Speaker.
[Personal abuse - deleted - admin]
Could people please learn the difference between inference and implication!
http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-imply-infer.asp
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000232.htm
“Isn’t seddition still a crime?”
Nope.