The Standard has new material which shows that Melissa Lee lied even more than we knew earlier. Will be interesting to see if her mentor John Key continues to back her or whether he has the backbone to sack her.
I bet he will do neither but will be relaxed as he does.
Nats Auckland list might have a winnable spot with Worth gone, Blue, Mapp and now probably Lee going.
And isn’t it a pity that Tim Ellis is banned. Watching him trying to defend this one would have been entertaining.
Evidence, I’ve got to read that.
Maybe it will bea bit like how the former prime minister acted so quickly when evidence came out against Taito Philip Field, or is that different?
Cross posted from The Standard thread:
It meets the “Worth” test for sacking. What ever that was
@rjs – I wouldn’t put Lee quite in the Field camp yet – though they both seem to have an aversion to telling the truth when caught.
I doubt that ‘Tim’ has gone, there seems to be some newbies with the same hectoring tone
I’ve had a look through the Standard and it’s compelling stuff which raises major questions for the veracity of what Melissa Lee and John Key said. If you want it in a nutshell or have any doubts about what is being said, listen to the October 13 Morning Report interview clip http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/2009/10/13/asia_downunder_moves_to_correct_accounting_error
In it, Lee says she wasn’t aware of the issues raised by NZ on Air about contingency funding retained by her company and advised in a letter to her business partner “which I have just received.”
This is more than 4 months after she emailed Wayne Verhoeven of NZ on Air “regarding your question on ‘contingency.’ The email from Lee goes on to detail how Asia Down Under kept the “contingency’ after reducing its markup on the funded programmes.
In the House on October 13, Key repeated Lee’s claims that she had just heard of the matter about the contingency funding.
Good work Standard.
Spud@ 6.01pm,
Why don’t you read that instead of making a useless, non contributing comment?
Is the goal to be first to comment? or are you really Trevor?
( I can assure you Spud is not Trevor. Please stick to commenting on the post and avoid personal comments. Have allowed Spud right of reply, but no more of the tit for tat please. Thanks. Grant)
@Sherylyn – interesting how you say non contributing when 90% of your comments are directed at me! Not only directed at me but consisting solely of criticism of me, not even of the post.
I’ll write as much or as little as I please
It’s fun to be first, but today each post I got to be first on was a coincidence. Unless I’m racing someone (like Rich) I don’t usually care if I’m first.
I’m not Trevor, but would love his salary
Wouldn’t it be great to be mistaken for Trevor and to be able to steal his life for a week. 
Now I’m going to read that post, as originally intended now that I have a bit more time.
deleted. off topic, Grant.
Yep that timeline is pretty damning. Good to see Ti, m E, llis alive and well in cyberspace.
@Grant – thanks for that
or whether he has the backbone to sack her.
Sack her from what? She’s not in Cabinet, she’s just an MP. And the Prime Minister doesn’t get to sack them.
Poor Trevor you have been slapped hard by Idiot/Savant.
Wet bus ticket. In our party the leader would move first to have them removed from caucus and then from the party. There is a process to follow but you certainly can be sacked as a Labour MP. I’m sure the tories can do the same.
How long did Labour stick up for Phillip Field. I seen to remember he was only being helpful to constituents being the excuse.
Doug – If you want to be pedantic, anybody who’s employed can be sacked! She can be sacked by her and I think it would be on the recommendation or insistence of Key that it could/would happen.
Over at The Standard Zorr explains it fairly well
December 6, 2009 at 11:25 pm
“She is a List MP. She wasn’t personally elected to the position she currently holds and has been sworn in to Parliament as selected by National as a result of voting, not by the voting of an electorate for her. So she can actually be sacked and replaced without subverting the democratic process.”
Damn my kingdom for an edit function.
In our party the leader would move first to have them removed from caucus and then from the party.
I’m confused – aren’t you in the Labour Party?
Why has the MP’s reply’s stopped coming up in red?
@Danly McLauchlan: How do you do the italics?
@James
Italics and other stuff.
Trevor, we don’t actually have either Tories or tories in NZ. It may be an appropriate name to use for the British or Canadian Conservative Parties, but is not politically appropriate for members of the NZ National Party to be referred to as such. You obviously intend it to be a derogatory or perjorative term, but fail as it is not appropriate.
Thanks andy, I know you posted that linke for James, but I hope to practice different formating.
Oddly enough Richard, Tory is not an uncommon term in Wellington. I’ve been bumping into it being used to describe National party MPs ever since I got here, well over a decade ago.
Why don’t you think it is appropriate?
Richard Morgan, and ‘Helengrad’ is an appropriate term for Labour? Or any of the others used so liberally. Tory is fairly tame terminology, I would have thought.
I suppose RM is right,
that ‘Tory’ is an inaccurate name for the NZ National Party,
who’s historical roots stem not from any sort of principled conservatism,
but rather from a tired and reactionary impulse,
aimed solely at keeping the NZ Labour Party out,
by cobbling together a do-nothing coalition.
Tory flatters them, it implies thought.
Pascal’s bookie. That’s an intelligent thoughtful post.(?)
However you like. It’s not untrue though. The National party was cobbled to gether to keep Labour out. No biggie. Just like calling them tories is no biggie.
(BTW, I’m reading some of your namesake’s SF novels, good stuff, if you like that kind of thing. Which I do)
I have heard of him but never read one of his books. I will try one over the holidays on your recommendation. By the way, another Richard Morgan is Professor of Geography at Otago Uni. Thai Airlines sat us together on a flight to London once. They must have been totally confused.
NP has been very successful in keeping Labour out of government, haven’t they.
PB;
It might be true but that doesn’t make it even remotely relevant.
It’s a bit like saying the Green Party exists only because Jim Anderton has poor management skills. It might be true, but it’s in no way representative of the current reality.
Relevant to what?
It was relevant to why they should or shouldn’t be called tories.
As to being no longer true what exactly does National stand for these days, other than Not Labour? It may be unpleasant for Nat voters to think about their parties traditional lack of intellectual heft, but that’s not my fault.
Please link to me something that will give me an insight into John Key’s political philosophy, I’ve been looking, but get pablum.
And the Green Party existed as a part of the Alliance, and they have very clear philosophical roots and so on. So shiny green apples vs soylent blue there, I’m afraid.
But you are right that this is way off topic. How about that political oversight from Key. Lee seems to have about as much respect for him as Worth did.
True Richard, the National Party has been successful at keeping Labour out of government. However some credit for that can be placed at the feet of First Past the Post. Counting from 1975, there have been 12 elections, National won seven of them, but the National party only won the popular vote between the two parties five times. Most tellingly, under MMP, National has won government only two times out of five.
Back to Key and Lee: it should take the mainstream media a couple of days to pick up this story. That will give Key plenty of time to get relaxed about this.
@ Sean
If it is going to take the MSM a couple of days to pick up on the Lee story, then shouldn’t someone be directing them to the online source ie.The Standard? Especially given they have provided indisputable evidence. Indeed, why didn’t the MSM conduct an investigation themselves? Scared of getting off-side with Emperor Key, or just plain lazy?
@Andy. Thanks very much
I gather there was a question on Lee at the post Cab presser today so it may be that it is in fact being followed up following the Standard posting.
I’m going to go with lazy Anne L.
The Standard is clearly working with with documents, and although they don’t say how they were recieved, I think perhaps the writer did an OIA. Idiot/Savant got a story up on the John Key’s false claim that a great deal of planning went into the cycleway by doing an OIA as well. The mainstream media, given their size and function, don’t do as many OIAs as they could. Why? The journalist recieves no immediate gratification in a 24 hour deadline environment.
I’m pretty sure that journalists do check websites though, and the Standard is one blog that they will check. So a day to find the story online, another day to check it, then it makes headlines.
Remember too , that Miss Lee is a media producer too, so that she has people like Brian Edwards who gush all over her and other journalists may be wary of running a negative story
In other words Sean and ghostwhowalksnz it’s a bit of both – laziness and wariness. I thought the 4th estate was supposed to be the bearer of news and information so that people can make informed judgements. Pathetic, pathetic pathetic.
I thought the 4th estate was supposed to be the bearer of news and information so that people can make informed judgements. Pathetic, pathetic pathetic.
Agreed Anne L. New Zealand seems to be short on good in-depth journalism, which may say something about the quality of newsrooms, or the continuous cost cutting in news organisations.
And don’t get me started about ‘Opinion columns’… shudder.
@ Sean
Can’t get to see blogs some week days hence the delay in responses but your last comment is depressingly accurate. As for ‘opinion columns’ – best not to read them if you want to retain your sanity. After all we’ve got Timmy Ellis and one or two others and that’s enough!