My view is that Key is not going to be caught by the use of the helicopter but by the hamfisted attempt on his part and that of Bill English to cover it up.
They knew it looked awful as they were cutting expenditure and attempted to bury it.
Update: for those without broadband, the Hansard is below:
8. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: At what precise time and date were the “security related” meetings of 11 December 2009, that he referred to yesterday, diaried?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: To the best of the Prime Minister’s recollection, the meeting was arranged during the afternoon of 11 December 2009.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Can he confirm that when he referred to “security-related meetings” he was referring to issues of national security or international security; and if he was not referring to matters of national or international security, what was he referring to?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.
Hon Pete Hodgson: If he had travelled by car from Hamilton to Auckland, as previously arranged, would he have arrived on time for his security-related meetings?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It has never been the Prime Minister’s practice to talk publicly about security matters, and he does not believe that it is in the public interest to do so now.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Straightforwardly, the question was not about the meeting or the content of the meeting. The question has not been addressed. It was specifically about whether the Prime Minister would have arrived in time for the first of the security-related meetings, not what the security-related meeting was about.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the member makes a fair point. The question was whether, if a car had been used, the Prime Minister would have arrived on time. The question was not about what the security issues were. That deserves to be answered.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not the custom of this Prime Minister, or any other, to give any indication of the time or whereabouts of meetings he has that are related to matters of national security, and he is not going to start doing so now.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that answer, given the widespread publicity yesterday of the Prime Minister indicating he had a security meeting in Auckland on the day in question. That answer just cannot be true.
Mr SPEAKER: That last point is not the issue. The issue is simply that the question was asked not about the nature of the security meeting but simply whether the Prime Minister would have arrived in time for the meeting, whatever the meeting was, if a motor vehicle had been used. We still have not heard that answer. It may not be in the public interest to answer that; I am not sure. But we certainly have not heard an answer to that question.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply repeat the answer to the question: It is not the custom of this Prime Minister, or previous Prime Ministers, to provide information that could compromise the security of that kind of meeting. It is not in the public interest to provide that information now.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Without discussing the tail on the end of my previous point of order, yesterday on TV3 the Prime Minister indicated he had—
Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member is now debating the issue. I have done what I can to get the question answered. The Minister has indicated on behalf of the Prime Minister that he believes that it is not in the public interest to answer the question asked. I have to accept that. Members can make their judgment about that, and there are further supplementary questions available to dig into that. The Hon Pete Hodgson has that right.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise; I am not wishing to trifle in any way. I do not think I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say it was not in the national interest to answer the question. I do not think I heard him say that, at all.
Mr SPEAKER: He did at the end. The last past of his answer was that he considered it not to be in the public interest to answer that specific question.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I am struggling to understand what it is, though.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I will enlighten you.
Mr SPEAKER: I will be enlightened.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: In making your judgment you have extensive powers and you can ask the Minister—as you have twice, I think—to adhere to the Standing Orders and answer a question. I simply pose the question of how it is not in the national interest to confirm the Prime Minister’s arrival time.
Mr SPEAKER: The member is trying to debate the issue. I can assist members in getting answers to questions, but the Speaker cannot judge the quality of answers, nor can the Speaker insist for a question to be answered when a Minister asserts that something is not in the public interest. I cannot—and must not—judge that as Speaker. It is not my role to judge that. People can judge that themselves. They have heard the assertion being made that it is not in the public interest. People heard the question that was asked. They have heard the Speaker seek an answer to the question that was asked. People can make their own judgment about the assessment that it is not in the public interest to answer the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Why was it in the public interest yesterday for the Prime Minister to indicate the timing of the security meeting but it is not in the public interest for him to do the same today?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yesterday the Prime Minister gave a general indication of the type of meeting and no further details. It is not his plan—any more than it has been the custom of any other Prime Minister—to release details on those matters.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Would the Prime Minister have arrived on time to the security meeting he outlined yesterday if he had taken a car?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: have already answered that question three times.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have advised us to use tight and direct questions, and you have indicated previously that you thought the Minister had not answered the question.
Mr SPEAKER: What I think on the matter is not relevant. If the Minister is going to claim that it is not in the public interest to answer the question, which was a very tight question, then the Minister should not just say he has already answered the question but should tell the House that he believes that it is not in the public interest to answer the question.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I believe that it is not in the public interest to provide those details.
It reminds me of Chopper T
LLEY’s joyride.
Pete and Trev laying into Bill.
Good ol Lockwood!
Actually, I now think it is in the public interest to know if he would have arrived in time for that meeting had he taken a car. For that matter or any other, it seemed to be in the public interest to know that the Prime Minister had to take a helicopter from the V8 racing in Hamilton — where again paraded and ogled at scantily clad women (not Liz Hurley) — to get to some poncy golf club ahead of the GG. I agree with Garth George…is this bloke on some kind of permanent photo op? or is he serious about his role as PM?
His bum-seater boy (Bull Bunglish)fudges on his behalf like Rodney pandering to his new master.If it was fair and just to question why Helen Clark raced through Timaru and be lambasted, then it should be fair and just to question why tax payers had to suddenly foot rt Hon.Key’s helicopter trip. Smile and wave is starting look like slick and oily.
Is it just me, or did Key look particularly shifty on TV last night, inventing the ‘national security’ alibi? Reminded me of Dick Nixon when he was quizzed about the break in. He claimed ‘national security’ too. Back then, the media went to work and the truth came out, eventually. These days, if he can make it through the news cycle, he knows he is in the clear.
ehoa: “Smile and wave is starting look like slick and oily.” Have you just noticed what many commented on years ago?
I see what Labours election year plan is……spend all your time saying how evil/bad/corrupt/dishonest/useless everyone else is in an attempt to cover the void of policies that Labour has. Cant win by telling us the things you will do so you spend your time telling us how bad eveyone else is….not a great plan.
fureongo, so to extend your thinking therefore, we should abandon the primary role of opposition which is to point out the evil/bad/corrupt/dishonest/useless because it keeps happening because six months out from an election you want to hear explicit policy detail?
Yours is not a great plan, yet. It is coming, it is coming, it is coming.
Meantime, National and Act are evil/bad/corrupt/dishonest/useless, as you say.
@ fureongo, you seem to have slipped into a time warp and come up in 2007 in a National Party strategy meeting.
Actually furango, the opposition parties have given much more of an idea of their upcoming policies than National had done at a similar period in the last election cycle. The NZ news media were pretty fed up with the lack of polcies coming from National. I was reminded of this by a recently released US diplomatic cable:
http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/03/08WELLINGTON105.html
<blockquote.Journalists have told Post's Media Specialist that they are
becoming very frustrated with National's lack of stated policy and
its unwillingness to take positions on issues of public interest.
Meanwhile, at that time, NAct were going all out attacking Clark & Labour with all kinds of smears (some of it initiated by blogs, talkback etc, or by Rortney to distance the attacks from Key & National). Remember all the attacks on Clark re Owen Glen, NZ First/Winnie etc…. the continued personal smears & whispers?
Labour are much more upfront & owning their attacks on other parties, and if you’d been paying attention, they’ve given some good outlines of the policies they are planning, and will flesh out more as the election approaches.
Meanwhile you spend your time with misdirected attacks on Labour…… pot…. kettle….
Is it just me, or did Key look particularly shifty on TV last night, inventing the ‘national security’ alibi?
No Jennifer it was not just you. Key was lying. I’ve seen the same look on his face before when it was proven at a later date he had been lying. Example: the claims he made about his Trust assets.
All *my* meetings are now national security related. I’m refusing to answer any questions about any meeting I’ve had nor will I answer any question about the timing / location of any such meeting.
I’m a mere peon but fair’s fair. If Key can claim this without a skerik of justification, I can too.
Hey Chris. Your wife says “Yeah Right!”
So watch your back lad.
And while Labour continue to waste parliaments time on issues like this and filibustering on the VSM bill the country is apparently going to ruin. Yet you waste many many times the cost of a helicopter flight raising non issues and delaying worthy legislation. Sounds like desperation and panic rather than reasonable politics.
I don’t have to like a PM to view them as credible. That said John Key lacks credibility to any degree in my book. He’s an odd fellow.
That looks like Phillip Vellas Helicopter