At the beginning of August I laid a complaint with the Speaker Lockwood Smith asking him to refer Steven Joyce to the parliamentary Privileges Committee for having deliberately misled (ie lied to) parliament in answering a written question more than two years ago.
The complaint was that he had deliberately misled the House. It’s a very serious matter. I take it seriously. I hope all MPs and Ministers do. You can lose your Ministerial portfolio and even your job for doing so.
The Speaker has since replied to me saying that he has determined that no question of privilege is involved.
He doesn’t have to give reasons.
For an understanding of why I laid the complaint and the seriousness of the issue read here and here. And here.
The letter that Joyce lied about was important because it implied the government held opinions on the structural separation of Telecom and that they were being communicated to Telecom well before the tender process had begun on the ultrafast broadband project.
Well before Telecom had been named as being the successful bidder for the broadband project. Well before Telecom had announced it would structurally separate if it won the UFB; and well before pre-emptive legislation was brought before parliament on that issue (before the contract was announced).
Sound weird? And suspicious? Well yes it is.
This is a very big government project. A large amount of taxpayers money is involved. Steven Joyce has not been straight with the public throughout the process.
He has a track record of negotiating government contracts in great secrecy and getting the outcomes he wants with little or no transparency for the taxpayers. He fought for two years to keep that letter from the public arena once the DomPost discovered it existed.
I can’t challenge the Speaker’s decision. My concern is that if it’s okay to mislead (lie to) parliament about an issue this important, what else is it okay for this government to lie about? And get away with?
I have lodged a Notice of Motion with the Clerk of the House to refer the issue to the Privileges Committee which I will attempt to move next Tuesday in the House.
Man that sucks Clare (rose).
It might “suck” but I don’t believe that gives a right to accuse someone of having “lied”; particularly when the Speaker of the House has dismissed the complaint (regardless of how someone might feel about that ruling).
I believe such a self-rightious dismissal of the ruling; and use of inflamatory language accusing the government of having “lied”, “not been straight” and doing things in “great secrecy” is a case of two wrongs not making a right. It’s as if someone was channelling Ian Wishart when writing this posting. :-0
@Williamsheridan
Why don’t you read Joyce’s comments to Parliament, then read the letter and then attempt to reconcile the two without deciding that Joyce was telling fibs.
Then we can have a real debate on the issue.
@Williamsheridan – the Nats number 3 (funny that) has dropped the ball on this one. So much for being a “straight shooter”. I think it more than “smells”. I think this has the appearance of bias and underhanded dealing. It may be true that the letter in question reflects far more badly on Telecom (as begging dogs for corporate welfare from a minister they believe will be receptive.. wonder why) than on the egghead himself.
Williamsheridan
But he did lie and now the Speaker is protecting him and the government from the consequences of lying to parliament.
I agree the complaint was of a serious nature and the Speaker may not be required to give reasons for rejecting the complaint but should have anyway. The question for me is why has the issue not elevated to the point that Phil Goff has taken it up the leadership on the issue ?
@All….. it’s not about me.
It is about a parliamentarian calling a Mnister a liar.
That is a serious allegation, especially when the parliamentary process is still being worked through – with her referring it to the privileges committee. Ahead of that I believe it is wrong for her to cry “conspiracy” and make actionable allegations on a website…… not exactly PR/communications smart, in my view.
I also wonder where the moderators are when someone calls a Minister an “egghead” ….. (though in some intellectual circles that might be regarded as a compliment rather than the insult intended).
Funny how the tory team fades away on Red Alert when they are on the spot re a verifiable matter. Joyce lest we forget is one of the orginal Hollowmen.
Clare, can you really be surprisd that a born to rule ‘arch-Tory’ like Lockwood would fail to see any breach? He’s not a referee, never has been, regardless of his little show-trials of neutrality to fool the gallery.
As for National’s ‘greater transparency’, that obviously also was a lie.
I have lodged a Notice of Motion with the Clerk of the House to refer the issue to the Privileges Committee which I will attempt to move next Tuesday in the House.
Good luck with that one Clare.
William Sheridan, Clare may be saying that Joyce lied. Maybe her comments are actionable, but she isn’t really taking a risk.
Does Joyce actually want to take her to court about it, have the case judged in a court of law? Nope, not a chance. The same way Joyce wasn’t interested in taking Nicky Hager to court over “The Hollow Men”.
Oh but she is taking a risk …. as her disrespect for parliamentary process – the very process she is rallying for – put as risk voter respect for her and her party.
…. your probably right though, I doubt Steven Joyce will give her the pleasure of a court stage for her antics…. but that doesn’t mean she isnt breaking a law.
Oh I see williansheridan’s tactics: paint the accuser as the criminal, not the accused.
Very clever Tory distractions.
Simply fact of the matter remains that Joyce may have lied about issues affecting hundreds of millions worth in contracts and Lockwood should follow up as a matter of priority.
@ws and @cv
I don’t get it either. It appears that a Minister may have misled Parliament and failed to disclose a letter when he should have and you seem to be unconcerned. Yet you are upset about Clare for being “disrespectful”. What the?
Criminal? Really? If there is a crime, please call the police.
Perhaps all we have instead is a raw MP painting a picture of a mass lies and conspiracy. There might have been a cock-up by some officials who made an assumption… but that’s not a crime.
Oh I see williansheridan’s tactics: paint the accuser as the criminal, not the accused.
Very clever Tory distractions.
Simply fact of the matter remains that Joyce may have lied about issues affecting hundreds of millions worth in contracts and Lockwood should follow up as a matter of priority.
Good grief, CV!
I’m no fan of Joyce but you seem to have a tenuous grasp of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
1. There is no criminality here
2. No one in parliament or on this blog is trying to smear C Curran
3. An accusation has been made but nothing proven (you yourself say “may have lied”).
4. The Speaker has made a determination that there is no case to answer in terms of parlimentray process.
WS is right – A sitting MP using a public forum to continue to shout ‘VWRC people, wake up!’ from the rooftops just looks amateur.
While you’re re-arranging Titanic deck chairs Clare why dont you do the same thing for Simon Power ( or whoever was his sock puppet proxy on the day ) for the reasons he gave to parliament for getting the recent Copyright bill ‘considered’ under urgency.
Of the multitude of vague reasons presented to parliament for the grab bag of bills to be considered ‘urgently’ exactly 0 of them apply to that bill….
( See the Hansard record for further clarification).