Key now proven liar – Speaker investigating
Posted by Trevor Mallard on August 4th, 2009
When John Key told Parliament that he had rigorous costings on the cycleway he was lying. He had none.
His own staff proved him a liar (PDF). Thanks Wayne.
The matter has been refered to Speaker (PDF).
Thanks to Idiot Savant for the legwork.
Could be really interesting privilege hearing.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 4th, 2009 at 12:47 pm and is filed under national, parliament.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
That made for interesting reading. Just out of curiosity how does a member get Honourable in front of his name? I know how right honourable is earned.
Essentially by being appointed a Minister. But in the house all are refered to as honourable members. One get to keep the Ministerial honourable if confirmed by Queen on leaving office. Pretty much automatic.
[This IP address you're posting from is subject to a one week ban. If you think your address is being captured in error, please re-comment with an explanation - admin]
Oh boy, this governments really getting some some action in.
That’s brilliant work Trevor! Well done, it will be an interesting Privillage committee.
Kyle: it might not make it to committee. First, the Speaker has to decide there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege and refer it. And he has a number of technical grounds he could use to do so (though at the cost of effectively giving Ministers the ability to lie with impunity).
I can’t tell if Key’s flippancy is an affectation, a reflection on his inexperience in parliament or just plain deceit? I get that his image is that of a man of the people, direct, uncomplicated and plain speaking, but I struggle to comprehend how the word “rigourous” came into this answer when in fact the answer ought to have been “none”.
Just a thought, as you all head into question time today:
If Labour MPs were not so busy shouting, and instead were listening to the answers, and thinking on their feet, they would hear more Ministers getting themselves into trouble with their replies. I’m tired of hearing Ministers give openings to Labour, which you lot then ignore, because you’re arguing with Lockwood Smith, or some other pointless exercise. I’m afraid Key will get away with this blatant lie, because at the time, you let him.
Clear, focussed questioning will reap reward. When was the last time, in the history of Parliament, that a Minister was forced to resign just because of opposition noise?
At a time that we are being asked to look at our costs and treat every dollar as a prisoner, how much is this going to cost? Will the cost of this lead to a faster and better recovery from the recession? What is the real outcome you want from this Trevor?
Cost will be time for people already employed – Key might get outside lawyer and if so he bears the cost if any.
indiana: the real outcome I want is Ministers, including the Prime Minister, taking their accountability to Parliament seriously. That’s a foundation of our democratic system, and it is vitally important. The chain of accountability which links Ministers through parliament to the people is broken if they can just stand up and lie casually and with impunity, and effectively flip us off when we try and hold them to account for what they are doing.
Fascinating: the “cycle way” is a silly idea and it will be very unfortunate of John Key gets nailed over this.
Bryan: the expected benefits for some of the projects look pretty good – but without the expected costs, we can’t actually judge whether they’re a worthwhile use of public money or not.
Of course, whether the cycleway is a good idea or not is a completely seperate question from whether Key should be honest about it.
So write a letter…I don’t see the point of taking this to a privilege committee…waste of productivity if you ask me.
By the way, I’ll hold Key to account in 2011
Indiana: Ministers lying to the House is a very serious business, and the Privileges Committee is the proper place to deal with it. As for “waste of productivity”, you may regard economic output as more important than basic democratic values, but I do not.
The idea that we will get productivity when the community including the business community can’t rely on the Prime Minister telling the truth in Parliament is a joke. He is not even a subtle liar.
Rock on I/S !!! You’re a brave operator and I fear that you might be about to have your personal details splattered all over the place. National Inc’s tactics when under attack were made clear when Basher Bennett hung out those two DPB recipients. Good luck mate.
Trev, mate, I’m the last one to quibble over typos but, tell me, in section 11 of your letter to the Speaker did you mean “charged” and not “changed” – and, in section 15 did you mean “he” and not “she”. This really is a golden opportunity to put the spotlight on National Inc’s previously subterranean mendacity – I would hate to see it managed in a sloppy manner. Those Tories will have legal beagles poring over this looking for anything that could leverage a technicality. Please, please – dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
Bugger – the trouble when I blog too much and don’t worry about details as I should. Will fix.
Trevor, I had understood the Speaker did not “investigate” complaints of contempts of the House – “considering” might have been a better word.
I/S – the Speaker certainly does not decide whether there is a prima facie case of contempt made out. That used to be the responsibility of the Speaker; this was changed such that the Speaker now considers whether a question of privilege has been raised. I’d have said this was actually a lower test, but it doesn’t seem to have been treated that way.
Graeme I agree with the comments you make to I/s – I’m not sure if practice has caught up with the rule changes, except possibly in the Peters case last year. This would be a good one to continue with.
I’m sure if you saw the package of evidence that the Speaker has to look through the word investigate fits.
This is very good, I prefer Phil Twyfords parody on the honours system but this is very amusing and a nice touch with the idiot savant person.
Good to see Labour keeping their sense of humour.
I take it you’re an authority on both subtlety, and telling the truth, Mr Mallard?
“At a time that we are being asked to look at our costs and treat every dollar as a prisoner, how much is this going to cost? Will the cost of this lead to a faster and better recovery from the recession? What is the real outcome you want from this Trevor?”
indiana. take your logic a step further and it doesn’t matter what the government does, no-one should ever try to call them to account because to do so would cost money.
Anyway, this doesn’t cost anything additional to the existing budget.
Classic National Inc Crosby/Textor School of Karl Rove – attack the messenger and not the argument. I can see Timoth’s off to a great start.
Crusher Collins, Chopper Tolley and now Basher Bennett!
This rigorous costing of cycleway does not make a great deal of sense, when we have a cycleway meandering to “off centre” places like Waihi and Wanganui.
To confuse the issue further, we have heard various fragments about who is paying for what. The cycleway will evidently be unsealed and in places it may follow existing tracks. It has been suggested that signposts will be adequate in these places.
Under these circumstances, it was hard to see anything like a rigorous costing emerging – given variable terrain, distances from towns, and actual construction requirements – in different segments of the track.
Trevor, will you swear that you wrote that letter yourself ?. It sounds to me as if it was written by an American bagman.
What I can’t understand is why there is not a word from Labour on what a naughty boy the Deputy PM is. Surely you should be attacking National MPs for these abuses of expenses. Why not Trevor?
If this is the best that Labour can come up with to attack the government I feel that what should be a 9 year reign could well extend to 15 years. Can I have permission to note the names of Labour MPs who, over the last decade, have behaved somewhat less than honourably ???.
@ Tim I have observed Key and English together over the last few years. English is a more subtle liar, Key just reckless. And it did take C/T a long time to send you the lines today.
Won’t work today I’m afraid.
@johnbt my letter, my proofing and my cock up now corrected with speaker.
And I think the facts stand for themselves on English. They don’t need reinforcing.
Aren’t you banned anyway?
Arts said: Crusher Collins, Chopper Tolley and now Basher Bennett!
The Mnisterial nickname I like best is the one that appeared at The Dim-Post today:
Except that Wayne Mapp now appears to have out-dipped Sir Double Dipton.
This is why a tool like Red Alert is so cool. We can see what the PM has claimed, we can see that those claims were dubious and we can have a discussion about what that means.
All in the space of a few hours.
Nice work, Red Alert bloggers. I’ve been really enjoying your posts… what a breath of fresh air in NZ politics!
Mr Mallard, could you please explain where Mr Key has lied to the house?
Would it not be more fair to say that Mr Key has not answered the question fully?
And so I am wondering was there a follow up questioning of Mr Key for the source of the “rigorous analysis” he spoke of?
Note that you Mr Mallard in this blog header used the words: “rigorous costings”
Where did Mr Key use those words?
Mr Mallard, your complaint and this blog post are mischievous, and somewhat misleading?
Will he be looking for his own evidence, or for anything that wasn’t provided by you (or Key) to him? Will he be interviewing/questioning you or Key, or anyone else who was there?
Reading a file – no matter how thorough (and thoroughly) – is not investigation.
@ Baz Hansard 1 July
“Hon Phil Goff: What analysis did Treasury do on the cost-effectiveness of the national cycleway scheme in producing jobs, and is he prepared to provide the Treasury analysis, oral and written, to members of this Parliament; if not, why not?
Hon JOHN KEY: Rigorous analysis was done. We do not need to show the Leader of the Opposition the analysis; I can take him on the bike rides, because they are starting soon. They are going to be fantastic and there will be lots of jobs as a result of them.”
And Baz rigorous analysis by Treasury always includes costings – sometimes there is more sometimes much more.
@ Graeme – if he asks a question of Key or his office is it consideration or investigation. And BTW does it matter for the purposes of this blog as opposed to the Supreme Court.
Yes thanks Trevor, I did read the pdf links, but again,
Would it not be more fair to say that Mr Key has not answered the question fully?
And since the question asked on the 1st of July, where is the follow up questioning of Mr Key in the house for the source of the “rigorous analysis” he spoke of?
He did not mention Treasury, it has been implied?
Or is it a given that any response is assumed to completely answer the question, and also answers the wording of the question?
You say he has lied, but is this not more a sin of omission?
And also a failure on Labours part to clarify the answer given by him?
Neil nice attempt but off topic – deleted Trevor
No. I wouldn’t have commented on it if there wasn’t the point about prima facie to comment upon as well. But then you responded, so I responded to you. And am doing so again.
I thought the two linked together quite well. The suggestion that the Speaker determines whether there is a prima facie case I thought inaccurately describes the role he plays. Indeed, I’d argue it inaccurately describes it in a similar way as describing the role as an investigatory one – I think the more usual analysis is that it is “gatekeeper” function.
In the grand scheme of things, the blog matters not a jot. On this matter, the Speaker, and potentially the privileges committee and the House will have the say.
That I think the test became lower following those changes to Standing Orders will impact in absolutely no way on the process. Blog comments very rarely do
I think I used the example before of Winston Peters accusing in the House, Bob Clarkson of giving false evidence in the Peters v Clarkson election petition case (it happened at least twice – 12 October 2006, and 5 August 2008), and I understand a complaint of misleading the House was laid at least in relation to the first; Bob Clarkson cannot possibly have been (in Winston Peters’ words) “the perjurer”: he didn’t even give evidence (a matter of which Peters must surely have been aware). Yet this did not end up at the privileges committee.
Perhaps this case, like many others of MPs misleading the public – or the House – should really be one in which the voting public determines its importance: campaign at the next election and argue that Key is a liar, and shouldn’t be trusted with another three years.
Baz – read the question.
David please avoid personal abuse – or if you want to continue go to another blog Trevor
Since when did *LAbour* ever listen to treasury? Hilarious.
John Key might be a victim of his and Lockwood Smiths higher standards of integrity than exhibited the previous administration. Interesting post on Field over Kiwiblog:
“21 Jul 06 – Margaret Wilson refuses to refer report to the Privileges Committee despite the massive amount of issues in the report that could be a matter of privilege http://bit.ly/WTez1“
Trevor Mallard said:
I say to Trevor – read the answer.
I listen to question time frequently and it never ceases to amaze me how poor the questions are. It’s effectively like cross examination in a court hearing and therefore the questions should be relatively closed and tight. If they’re not the desired result is simply not going to come. You need to control the questions when giving cross. But this question, like many questions, is simply too longwinded and in my humble opinion is simply not going to get the desired result. Key simply said rigorous analysis was done. Of course the inference is that this was done by Treasiry as that was the pretext of Goff’s question but Key doesn’t state the rigorous analysis was done by Treasury, just that it was done. I don’t know what supplementary question was asked but I bet it wasn’t this: “And the rigorous analysis just spoken of was done by Treasury?”
Is there a reason why the questions are so long and open? Is it to get ministers talking and then trying to catch them out on the lon answer they invariably need to give? If so, wouldn’t it be best to focus on particular areas like the rigorous analysis done by Treasury?
Gooner the shape of the question doesn’t entitle Key to deliberately mislead Parliament as he did.
It seems you are not interested Trevor in answering clear questions which do not fit your mindset.
Will wait with interest to see how this plays out.
I take your point Trevor but I still think my admittedly verbose comment deserves an answer.
Why are questions always so longwinded?
Gooner, question time is nothing like a courtroom cross-examination.
For one thing, the question is half the point; for another, the purpose is not (usually) to generate short, pithy replies – the more verbose the replies, the better, since Ministers frequently just make things up on the spot and the more they talk, the easier it is to catch them out; finally, and most critically, questions are very limited, and are linked. Each one needs to fulfill several different functions, only one of which is extracting an answer from the Minister.
L
Hey Trevor, slightly off topic but I’m curious, are you actually looking forward to riding some of the cycleway when/if it is completed?
Dryan:
No. That was absolutely the right call. National’s proposed motion to remove her over that made them look like idiots to anyone with any understanding of matters of privilege. Even Richard Prebble was publicly stating at the time that the Speaker had made the right call. Our MPs do not have a general code of Code of Conduct (contrast with the UK). It would have been far more offensive were the Speaker to invent one on the spot, ignoring the decision of Parliament to reject the idea on a number of occasions, than to apply the actual rules.
When MP Nick Smith invoked Parliament as the “Highest Court in the Land” to place pressure on a witness in a family court proceeding, I suppose it could have been argued his doing so potentially brought Parliament into disrepute. Indeed, maybe his actions did bring Parliament into disrepute, but even if they did his actions would not/did not give rise to a question of privilege.
For one astoundingly simple reason, really: Nick Smith did not abuse one of the privileges of the House (like the privilege of free speech in Parliament). His actions weren’t protected from the scrutiny of the Courts by the Bill of Rights 1688, and Court was the right place to have the complaints surrounding his behaviour determined.
So too with Taito Phillip Field. The Courts were the place to deal with such corruption charges, and they have appropriately done so. National MPs laid complaints against Taito Phillip Field with the Department of Labour (over alleged breaches of minimum wage rules), and looked at laying complaints with the IRD over various property transactions. In all these matters the investigating bodies had the same powers in investigating Taito Phillip Field as they would over you or me. If they thought he was guilty of an offence and believe they can prove it, they can charge him, and the broad privileges all MPs receive in Parliament would have been of zero assistance to him.
We have a Privileges Committee because we need somewhere to hold those to account whose actions are protected by the privileges of Parliament. We gave Parliamentarians extensive rights with the privileges of the House – guaranteed in the Bill of Rights 1688, the right to speech, free from the possibility of civil or criminal sanction, amongst the most important. Such a broad right carries with it a danger of grave abuse – MPs could defame people, or threaten to kill them without fear. We have the Privileges Committee to guard against such abuse, and it has substantial powers to be able to do that job (including recommending the removal of an MP from Parliament or sentencing to prison for a term up to and including life, or unlimited fines).
If an MP were to corruptly accepts payment to ask a written question of a Minister on behalf of a constituent the story would be different. Written questions of Ministers are protected by Parliamentary privilege, and cannot be impeached in court; the likelihood of proving corruption if a prosecution cannot rely on the Parliamentary record is diminished; moreover, the Courts really have no place in a country governed by the rule of law and the separation of powers, in determining whether the actions of an MP, protected by Parliamentary privilege, are actually corrupt. But there is a question of privilege: in this latter example, the MP has abused one of the privileges of Parliament (that of free speech) to corrupt advantage.
Anyone – Bryan, DPF, anyone – what was the question of privilege involved with Taito Phillip Field? Because I can’t see one.
That is not to say Margaret Wilson was a great Speaker. Merely that your suggestion that she got this one wrong is misplaced.
My apologies – that’s obviously meant to be “Bryan”.