Comments on: Worth asking http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/ The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newspaper. A group of us thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0 - now in a new format The Standard v3.0 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:21:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ari http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144923 Ari Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:27:19 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144923 Because as we all know, the media is only getting tired of him because he stopped giving them awesome stories about how like Obama he was. Because as we all know, the media is only getting tired of him because he stopped giving them awesome stories about how like Obama he was.

]]> By: felix http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144922 felix Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:19:41 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144922 Yeah, in a very general sense though. Making sure all ministers know that they have the option. This is a bit different. Yeah, in a very general sense though. Making sure all ministers know that they have the option.

This is a bit different.

]]> By: Zetetic http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144921 Zetetic Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:45:16 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144921 it's a bit more complicated than that.lockwood had been raising public interest for weeks. it’s a bit more complicated than that.lockwood had been raising public interest for weeks.

]]> By: felix http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144918 felix Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:26:02 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144918 Yep, Hodgson used the words first, but only because he was quoting the standing order which contains them. He was referring the speaker to the other part of the standing order though. What was weird was that Lockwood told the house this: <blockquote>From what I heard the Prime Minister give in his answer, his assessment of the public interest is that it is not his intention to say any more about the matter, and he gave the reasons why.</blockquote> If you look back to the PM's answer to which the Speaker was referring, the question of public interest was never invoked. We seem to be seeing the Speaker, of his own volition, providing a defense for the PM. Trevor picked this up the next day (after a repeat of the same question and answers) when he said this: <blockquote>I think the problem we are getting to now is that you are providing an answer for the Prime Minister that he himself is not prepared to give. What you have done in your ruling is indicate that it is the Prime Minister's view that it is not in the public interest to give further information. If that is his view, then it is incumbent on him to say so. It is not incumbent on you to interpret—in fact, you should not interpret—that the Prime Minister is saying that, because it could well come out later that that is not the fact, and, effectively, the Prime Minister will be hung by your ruling.</blockquote> And then a little later: <blockquote>I think the matter could be easily cleared up by the Prime Minister indicating that that was, in fact, what he meant.</blockquote> To which the Speaker replied: <blockquote>There was absolutely no necessity for that whatsoever.</blockquote> And that was that. So now we have the Speaker actually blocking the PM from answering clearly whether he was indeed intending to invoke the "public interest" excuse or not. Very strange. Yep, Hodgson used the words first, but only because he was quoting the standing order which contains them. He was referring the speaker to the other part of the standing order though.

What was weird was that Lockwood told the house this:

From what I heard the Prime Minister give in his answer, his assessment of the public interest is that it is not his intention to say any more about the matter, and he gave the reasons why.

If you look back to the PM’s answer to which the Speaker was referring, the question of public interest was never invoked.

We seem to be seeing the Speaker, of his own volition, providing a defense for the PM.

Trevor picked this up the next day (after a repeat of the same question and answers) when he said this:

I think the problem we are getting to now is that you are providing an answer for the Prime Minister that he himself is not prepared to give. What you have done in your ruling is indicate that it is the Prime Minister’s view that it is not in the public interest to give further information. If that is his view, then it is incumbent on him to say so. It is not incumbent on you to interpret—in fact, you should not interpret—that the Prime Minister is saying that, because it could well come out later that that is not the fact, and, effectively, the Prime Minister will be hung by your ruling.

And then a little later:

I think the matter could be easily cleared up by the Prime Minister indicating that that was, in fact, what he meant.

To which the Speaker replied:

There was absolutely no necessity for that whatsoever.

And that was that. So now we have the Speaker actually blocking the PM from answering clearly whether he was indeed intending to invoke the “public interest” excuse or not.

Very strange.

]]> By: Zetetic http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144917 Zetetic Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:19:19 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144917 you're assuming that the public interest excuse is justified at all in this case. hard to think how it could be. you’re assuming that the public interest excuse is justified at all in this case. hard to think how it could be.

]]> By: Anita http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144910 Anita Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:17:10 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144910 But the possibility should be enough to remove a public interest justification to refuse to answer shouldn't it? But the possibility should be enough to remove a public interest justification to refuse to answer shouldn’t it?

]]> By: Trevor Mallard http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144908 Trevor Mallard Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:12:47 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144908 Yes he could Anita - but very hard for a PM to do these days - the media would just not be satisfied. Yes he could Anita – but very hard for a PM to do these days – the media would just not be satisfied.

]]> By: QoT http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144904 QoT Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:07:11 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144904 I think it's a lot less "a desire to be reasonable" and a lot more "a desire to make everyone like him" - and the presence of a whole room of journos saying "Oh please, Mr Key, we'll write such lovely things about you if you just give us a <i>little</i> more info!" is too much to resist. I think it’s a lot less “a desire to be reasonable” and a lot more “a desire to make everyone like him” – and the presence of a whole room of journos saying “Oh please, Mr Key, we’ll write such lovely things about you if you just give us a little more info!” is too much to resist.

]]> By: Anita http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144903 Anita Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:03:20 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144903 Couldn't Key still answer the question in the House and be protected from the legal action by parliamentary privilege? Couldn’t Key still answer the question in the House and be protected from the legal action by parliamentary privilege?

]]> By: Anita http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144902 Anita Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:57:27 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144902 Now I have read it, thanks for the steer! :) I looks to me like Hodgson raised the "public interest" question when he raised a point of order about Key not answering the question. It looks to me like Smith was helping Key out, but not that he brought in public interest himself. And yes, interesting things only happen when I'm too busy to notice. I'm away from Wgtn for four days this week, and out of NZ for three of those I expect to come home to a full cabinet reshuffle, a resignation, or yet another privatisation-by-stealth announcement (tho I reckon we'd get the latter even if we all had the radio on all day). Now I have read it, thanks for the steer! :)

I looks to me like Hodgson raised the “public interest” question when he raised a point of order about Key not answering the question. It looks to me like Smith was helping Key out, but not that he brought in public interest himself.

And yes, interesting things only happen when I’m too busy to notice. I’m away from Wgtn for four days this week, and out of NZ for three of those I expect to come home to a full cabinet reshuffle, a resignation, or yet another privatisation-by-stealth announcement (tho I reckon we’d get the latter even if we all had the radio on all day).

]]> By: Trevor Mallard http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144901 Trevor Mallard Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:54:14 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144901 I've speculated on Red Alert that Worth might have threatened Key with legal action which gives Key a public interest excuse to shut up - long bow but the best I could do :- http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/07/03/maybe-key-was-telling-the-truth/ I’ve speculated on Red Alert that Worth might have threatened Key with legal action which gives Key a public interest excuse to shut up – long bow but the best I could do :- http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/07/03/maybe-key-was-telling-the-truth/

]]> By: felix http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144893 felix Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:53:13 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144893 Yeah I know, nothing happens until you miss one day... If you're interested in reading the Hansard, it's question 12, June 16. Yeah I know, nothing happens until you miss one day…

If you’re interested in reading the Hansard, it’s question 12, June 16.

]]> By: Zetetic http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144891 Zetetic Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:46:51 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144891 pretty sure it was lockwood who first suggested public interest. in fact he had been mentioning it for weeks before worth. that aside. if key uses public interest as an excuse, speaker has to accept that at face value. pretty sure it was lockwood who first suggested public interest. in fact he had been mentioning it for weeks before worth.

that aside. if key uses public interest as an excuse, speaker has to accept that at face value.

]]> By: Anita http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144890 Anita Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:40:34 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144890 Oh, weird! Lockwood can be a bit of a fanboy sometimes. I need a job which is evenly busy so I don't end up with big gaps in my knowledge of what happened :) Oh, weird! Lockwood can be a bit of a fanboy sometimes.

I need a job which is evenly busy so I don’t end up with big gaps in my knowledge of what happened :)

]]> By: felix http://thestandard.org.nz/worth-asking/comment-page-1/#comment-144889 felix Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:35:49 +0000 http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=16592#comment-144889 But the PM wasn't saying any such thing - not until a day later. It was Lockwood who effectively answered the question for Key without giving Key a chance to say a word about it. Very weird day in the house. But the PM wasn’t saying any such thing – not until a day later. It was Lockwood who effectively answered the question for Key without giving Key a chance to say a word about it.

Very weird day in the house.

]]>