web analytics

Daily review 11/12/2020

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, December 11th, 2020 - 90 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

90 comments on “Daily review 11/12/2020 ”

  1. Chris T 1

    Meanwhile Trev' again.

    Their timing on releasing all this is extremely embarrassing to watch.

    Should feel sorry for him, but he is a bullying arsehole, so not possible.

    Will be very interesting to see how our caring, sharing govt will vote in his vote of no confidence in the new year, and whether they vote to support his bullying.


    Parliament's Speaker Trevor Mallard costs taxpayer $333,000 after rape allegation

    Speaker Trevor Mallard has cost the taxpayer more than $333,000 after a parliamentary staffer he accused of rape pursued legal action, and the National Party now says it can no longer support Mallard in the job.

    The figure, revealed to the National Party in a written parliamentary question, includes a $158,000 settlement payment from the Speaker to the staffer, $171,000 to cover legal fees, and $4641.70 for Crown Law advice to the former deputy speaker.

    Mallard on Tuesday afternoon publicly apologised to the staffer, saying, in a statement, he had been wrong to describe the allegation as rape, and apologised for the “distress and humiliation” this caused the staffer.

    The statement was slipped under the Stuff press gallery office door on Tuesday afternoon, hours after the Royal Commission on the March 15 terror attack released its report. It did not detail the cost of the settlement.

    Mallard would not comment on the matter in the House or to media and, when ask to comment for this story, responded: “No.”

    National leader Judith Collins, in a statement releasing Mallard’s answers to written questions, said her party had decided Mallard was no longer fit to be Speaker of the House.

    “This is unacceptable behaviour from the Speaker …. It is the Speaker’s job to set the standard of behaviour for everyone at Parliament, but he has been reckless with his words, resulting in taxpayers footing a bill of more than $330,000 to clean up this mess.

    “There has been no formal apology to Parliament for this, despite the National Party encouraging the Speaker to do so on the final sitting day this year.

    “Because Mallard has not lived up to the high standards of behaviour that he has set for Parliament, we believe he is no longer fit to hold the role of Speaker.”

    • The Al1en 1.1

      Only of real interest to political opportunists looking for a hit out.

      More important is the quote from a sufferer in Alison Mau's take.

      She praised Mallard for his "take no prisoners" attitude and said it was a relief to hear him call serious sexual assault, rape.

      “I think Trevor’s helped us turn a bit of a corner here,” she said.

      “When a woman makes an accusation of sexual offending she is confused and scared that she somehow imagined it. She feels responsible for the trouble she is causing. To have the man fronting the response (be) so unequivocal about where the blame lies, relieves her of all that confusion and blame, and fear.”


      • Shanreagh 1.1.1

        This is an important counter to the 'poor me' expressed for the person who has had a payout.

        This person has admitted to touching. What more is there to say really.

    • Robert Guyton 1.2

      "he is a bullying arsehole"

      You're siding with Judith on this.


      • Chris T 1.2.1

        I am not siding with anyone.

        It is my own opinion.

        He is a prick. I have had the displeasure of meeting him, and have seen enough with his reported past escapades (Like his fist fight).

        • Anne

          "It is my own opinion."

          It is an ignorant opinion.

          A man was sexually harassing young women. No, it was not technically rape, but to the unfortunate victims it had the same effect – that is, fear and a feeling of degradation. Mallard voiced those feelings with his comment that ran along the lines that… it looked to him to be rape.

          Maybe unwise given his parliamentary status but not a sacking offence.

          The perpetrator used the technical breach to obtain $160,000 compensation which is yet another example of the morality – or the lack of it – of the NZ justice system and indeed the perpetrator himself.

          • Chris T

            The perpetrator who was sued and apologised, changed the rules apparently, and paid out 1/3 of a million dollars of tax payer money to make it go away was Mallard.

            [please provide a credible citation to support that allegation. Linking to hearsay and unsubstantiated opinion doesn’t count – weka]

            • Anne

              Shit off. laugh

            • weka

              mod note for you.

            • weka

              dropping you in premod until I get a response. You ignored my first request, now it's from a moderator. It's not ok to keep repeating the same lines without backing up your claim.

              • Chris T

                Do you mind pointing out which bit, as I had to guess.

              • Chris T

                You gave me 4 minutes and didn't actually say which bit you wanted a response to.

                [You’re in premod because I was about to log off for the night and you were already spamming the thread with the same lines. Nothing to do with other timing. It’s pretty clear from my mod note and comments what I want backing up. We’re now in wasting moderator time phase and I’m inclined to just ban you until after the holidays simply because I don’t want to spend my time on this.
                – weka]

            • Chris T

              I said apparently.

              Forgive me.

              "Apparently, according to political editor Barry Soper"

              [you don’t get to decide where the boundaries are. Adding the word apparently doesn’t change things. Either provide evidence for the assertion or withdraw it or get a ban – weka]

            • Jester

              In my opinion Mallard should resign. He's cost the tax payer thousands slandering someone which has been proven to be incorrect. It's not only Judith that wants him gone but also Seymour as well of course. I would be surprised if there were no Labour MP's that think he should go after this.

        • Robert Guyton

          We should regard your opinion as … Chris T's.

        • Robert Guyton

          "I am not siding with anyone."

          Ha, ha, ha, ha!


        • Shanreagh

          I have worked with him along with many others during 1992-1996 when Mallard was Whip. A more straight up person you could not meet. Called a spade a spade, what you see is what you got. Far preferable to anyone who is of a touchy feely bent, and many other and who cannot see or read the environment to note that touchy feely is actually not on in a workplace and especially where there is an imbalance of power.

          I don't know the person, I could easily find out. He has damned himself by owning up to hugging, kissing and complimenting – all actions that sensible people don't do in a workplace.

          I doubt, given that he has publicised ie minimised what he did, that anyone other than he himself may have caused people in the future to wonder about 'fit' in a workplace where women work.

          Your view/opinion exhibits a degree of personal animus that makes me wonder.

      • Incognito 1.2.2

        I agree with Judith Collins, the Speaker “has been reckless with his words”, which is “unprofessional” according to David Seymour, and the Taxpayers’ Onion wants him to pay the money back, which is ironic coming from them 😀

        However, it was the current Speaker who instigated the Independent External Review into Bullying and Harassment in the New Zealand Parliamentary Workplace (https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/office-of-the-speaker/corporate-documents/independent-external-review-into-bullying-and-harassment-in-the-new-zealand-parliamentary-workplace-final-report/) and it seems he was overzealous and overstepped the line.

        AFAIK, Parliamentary Services have been following up and implementing many (?) of the recommendations in the Report.

    • weka 1.3

      Arch hipocrisy from National, given nine years of creepy FJK including him yelling at the opposition that they support rapists.

      • Chris T 1.3.1

        Are you saying that condones what Mallard has done?

        • weka

          No, I'm saying Collins should shut the fuck up. Running lines that Mallard should resign because of unacceptable behaviour when she supported all Key all those years is bullshit politicking.

          • Chris T

            Given the brand Ardern has created for the govt, they shouldn't have to be told by anyone the bloke should go/be moved to a different position.

            [You see, it’s comments like this one that make me wonder whether or not you’re really a clever troll siding with the DP gang in and of National. In this case, you’re trying to politicise the issue to attack Ardern.

            Here’s another almost identical example, in a thread on a sensitive and complex issue: https://thestandard.org.nz/assisted-dying-law-in-new-zealand-and-the-uk/#comment-1770385.

            My tendency is to give people the benefit of doubt but my gut instinct is telling me that you’re a troll. I have looked into your history here on this site and you’re a recidivist offender who has received many bans and countless Moderation notes. You’re wasting precious Moderator time.

            Lprent recently cut the Gordian Knot when he said this in a Moderation:

            Ambiguity carries penalties around here. And as most ambiguity seems to be a tactic, it leaves it completely up to a moderators personal choice about how they want to treat it.

            You can look it up yourself.

            Well, the tea leaves show an awful lot of ambiguity when asking about your motives here.

            Feel where I’m going with this?

            You’re in Pre-Moderation watch by weka but I think it’s fair to let you know that I’m actively monitoring you now to boot you off the site for a while. So, this is your final warning, as far as I’m concerned – Incognito]

            • Incognito

              See my Moderation note @ 6:43 PM.

              • Chris T

                I have seen it. But since this Pre-mod thing I can't post (well at least after they said it, so the booting off threat is a bit moot.

                Edit: Apparently now I can, you just have to approve them.

                [Warnings, warnings, warnings, so many warnings. Warnings are not threats. They are invitations to you to lift your game here. Something tells me that this is not going to happen.

                This particular warning was not an invitation to you to rebut or litigate your moderation. It was a request to take heed.

                Generally, Moderators are happy to answer any questions commenters might have about (their) moderation but in your case we’ve passed it and it would simply be wasting more of our time; ignorance is no excuse and you cannot feign it anyway.

                You’d be better advised to get yourself out of Pre-Moderation by providing an adequate response to weka’s moderation notes. Of course, if you’re a troll, and I’m now more convinced of this, then it will be another token effort until next time with lots of “I’m sorry” and “please, forgive me”. If you’re genuine, then we will see a genuine and lasting attempt to lift your game. Others here make an effort to improve so why not you??

                TTFN – Incognito]

                • Incognito

                  See my Moderation note @ 7:17 AM.

                • Chris T

                  Weka's moderation post didn't say which part of my post I had to clarify.

                  I get modding is annoying. I do it on other forums, but this

                  My post

                  The perpetrator who was sued and apologised, changed the rules apparently, and paid out 1/3 of a million dollars of tax payer money to make it go away was Mallard.

                  "The perpetrator who was sued and apologised,"

                  Mallard in the case in question we were discussing Unless you deny this happening when it was reported in multiple media.

                  "changed the rules apparently,"

                  My fault. Should have put a disclaimer it was an accusation by Soper.

                  "and paid out 1/3 of a million dollars of tax payer money "

                  This is true and reported in multiple links provided by me.

                  "to make it go away was Mallard."

                  Admittedly my opinion, apologies, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist given the timing.

                  [all you had to do was provide a credible link to support your assertion that wasn’t from a partisan hack like Soper. I would have accepted something from a right winger, had it been credible. But seeing as how you can’t even be bothered to do that, I’m banning you until after the holidays so I don’t have to keep spending my time on this. Can’t emphasise how much wasting mod time is a factor in moderation, learn from this when you come back – weka]

                  [checked the Mod post to see previous moderations and there’s too many to look at. Three month ban mostly for wasting my time, but also, if you want to comment here you *have to provide evidence for assertions of fact especially about public figures. Noting in the back end because if this happens again you can expect a much longer ban. See also https://thestandard.org.nz/a-bit-about-how-the-standard-works/ – weka]

                  • weka

                    two mod notes.

                  • weka

                    Re the 4 minute, no warning complaint. My first mod note was at 8.06pm on 11/12/20. The ban was given after 10pm and you had posted again by then. I don't know if you didn't see my notes, or ignored them (again, the issue here is about my time spent and the onus is on the commenter to do the legwork), but my suggestion is to use the Reply list so you can see who has replied to you and if it is a moderator, go read what they say before doing anything else.

                • Chris T


                  In August, the Speaker issued new 'directions' (rules for MPs funding and spending), which expanded the range of legal costs MPs could have funded from the taxpayer purse, to include "damages and payments to settle a legal action."

                  In the past, that funding was only available for legal costs to defend the legal proceedings taken against them in their capacity as MPs – and not for settlements.

                  To get approval for it, it has to be signed off by the Speaker and chief executive of Parliamentary Service.

                  They must "consider the extent to which the member's involvement in the proceedings is due to the member acting in their capacity as a member of Parliament."

                  The money usually comes out of a political party's overall pool of funding.

                  There are separate provisions for Cabinet Ministers' legal costs.

                  In cases where Cabinet minister are sued for something such as defamation, the Cabinet Manual said Cabinet will decide whether their legal costs are covered – and whether to pay for any costs or damages awards if the Minister loses in court.

                  [thanks Chris. Had you provided that the first or even second time you were asked for it, two things would have happened. One is you wouldn’t now be on a 3 month ban. The other is that we could have had an actual political debate about that aspect of the situation, because instead of partisan hack reckons, we had some actual facts to work with. That’s what we are here for. – weka]

          • Shanreagh

            Yes, agree but then she/National Party not given to introspection or knowledge of the glasshouses and stones analogy.

            And arguably the involvement of Paula Bennett in this whole saga when she treated the fact that women had come to her as a political point scoring exercise rather than alerting the PM in a one on one basis was another low point.

  2. Bazza64 2

    Jacinda did say in politics we should be kinder to each other & that she would have an open & transparent government. She has failed on both counts & when questioned about Mallard’s behaviour doesn’t act like a decent prime minister. If Helen Clark was in charge Mallard would be off to the chopping block.

    • weka 2.1

      Why should Mallard go?

      • Chris T 2.1.1

        He accused a staff member of being a rapist, which basically cost the bloke his career (given the size of Wellington.

        He is supposed to understand the intricacies of House Rules, yet doesn't know what rape is.

        He tried to hide his apology in amongst the announcements of the biggest report of the year.

        According to Soper this afternoon he changed the rules after doing it so he didnt have to pay for his bullying, as he obviouslyknew he would lose.


        It's been confirmed that the almost $334,000 in legal costs have been paid out by the taxpayer. Why? Well Mallard had the rules changed after he made his outrageous comment to protect him from having the pay the bill for something he clearly knew would go against him.

        • weka

          there's a lot of unsubstantiated assertion in that opinion piece, and its from Soper, do you have a better reference?

          Mallard made a mistake in an RNZ interview, conflating legal definitions of sexual assault with rape. He didn't know who the staffer was and from what I can tell believed that the person wasn't known generally. I don't know if he was mistaken on that.

          • Chris T

            No offence, and forgive me if I am wrong, but you seem to be coming across as trying to fob off what Mallard did as just a mistake, lets just forget about it.

            Wellington is a small place, with loads of govt departments who all know each other and gossip.

            Trust me. Most of them know who it is.

            • weka

              It's not 'just' a mistake, it's an important mistake, but not one that I think he should lose the Speaker role for. I haven't seen a convincing argument for why he should eg he knew who the man was and knew his words would seriously impact on the man.

              Also, if you ask me who I think is more likely to be accurate and truthful over the nature of the assaults, Mallard or Soper, I'd pick Mallard. But I don't know the details of the case, so I am guessing.

              • McFlock

                Especially as we don't know the details of the case that had been described to Mallard at the time.

                One the one hand you have the guy's description:

                The man claimed the three allegations were related to hugging a colleague, complimenting another colleague on her hair, and kissing another on her cheek as he said goodbye to her after she visited him and his wife for tea.

                and at the other end there is Mallard saying:

                "We're talking about serious sexual assault. Well that, for me, that's rape," he said. "That is the impression I get from the report."

                I know the right wing have nightmares about "woke liberal" complaints, but there's more than just a semantic difference between those two descriptions of behaviour.

                • weka

                  the extent to which those on the right are willing to use rape culture and minimising of it for political gain (including Collins today) is a big factor in why I'm more inclined to believe Mallard. Although it could just be that I don't trust Soper as far as I could throw him.

                  • Shanreagh

                    Agree with you Weka. I would trust Mallard over Soper any day and Mallard over Collins any day.

                    National Party is the last party to be acting shocked about this and calling anyone to account……bearing in mind the lack of ethical and moral framework that was so apparent last year.

                • Shanreagh

                  There an important time delay between the statements. Mallard's was in reaction to the Debbie Francis report, a survey done of Parliamentary staff, ongoing cases of sexual shenanigans, Paula Bennett using the approach of several Labour staff members to her as a political point scoring exercise. There were allegations all round. At one stage it was thought that there were several of these men in staff positions.

                  I have not seen the statements from the person who got the payout before now. These were not around or public when all the above were going on. We did not know who it was.

                  So Mallard was not aware that the person had admitted to touching, kissing and complimenting ie his 'rape' response was not to this. It was to report after report seeming to be coming out about Labour staff having gone too far.

                  The point is in all of this is that the man has admitted to doing things that could be unwelcome, could cause women to wonder if they were safe etc with him, wonder if they are going to be able to keep working there. Power imbalance

            • Robert Guyton

              Trust you? You're connected to the "loads of govt departments who all know each other and gossip"?

              We should trust you on that basis??


            • Robert Guyton


              "Gossip" !!

              Our new realty – gossip!

              Nice, Chris T!

        • McFlock

          Shades of Helen Clark and her own issue over the legal semantics between "murder" and "manslaughter". Meh.

          Soper's mate claimed it was all about an innocent hug and a hair compliment. Yeah, right.

        • Treetop

          334k is a lot of money to have been spent on lawyers.

          Surely a legal opinion was given to Mallard at the onset.

          It is a big stretch from unproven indecent assault to an allegation of rape.

          I have little faith in any MP when it comes to a mental injury covered by ACC because I am not at all surprised by their ignorance.

          Mallard has seen his error. If the situation affects how he does his job as speaker in the future, then his job has become untenable.

          • Anne

            It is a big stretch from unproven indecent assault to an allegation of rape.

            It may not have been proven in a court of law but from memory several women came forward with complaints about the same person. That indicated he harassed and degraded young women.

            My memory of the context around Mallard's words was not a formal allegation of rape, but rather he regarded it as something along the lines of rape. A fair enough conclusion given what else was being reported at the time.

            This is the usual kind of pathetic political one-up-man-ship game we have come to expect from National and ACT.

            • Shanreagh

              And so we minimise the 'things' that this person has done…….by applying male chauv standards. Next thing we know he'll be saying 'she couldn't take a joke'.

              a hug, when one may have neither wanted or expected and certainly not normal in a public service setting.

              compliments – most thinking bosses or people in charge know this is an absolute minefield.

              kissing on the cheek – see above when one may have neither wanted or expected and certainly not normal in a public service setting.

              These do sound overly touchy feely and unwelcome attention from someone in power to an underling and fit the usual definitions of sexual harassment.

              • Treetop

                Do not put words in my mouth which I did not say.

                Clearly something happened and Mallard's stupidity has probably added to the distress of the women who spoke up about the government employee.

            • Nic the NZer

              This appears to have been investigated by parliamentary services. They concluded the accusations were unsubstantiated so the only account we have of the nature of events is from the Soper interview.

              There isn't really anything public backing up Mallards description of events, not even a claim by reporters that the accusations were more serious than described.

              • McFlock

                And yet the idea that Mallard read a report about a hug and felt that it amounted to something on the level of rape just doesn't scan.

                • Nic the NZer

                  No it doesn't, but your honour I'm not that stupid, wouldn't qualify as a defence and holds up even less in the court of public opinion.

                  • McFlock

                    Well, the former appears to involve a settlement, and the latter isn't actually a court.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      Given the price of the advice I would like to believe the defence was of a higher standard than that…

                    • McFlock

                      Personally, I hope he's not taking the reputational hit just to protect the complainant by keeping the details of a serious sexual assault from being trawled through civil court.

                      300k isn't all that's stopping Grant Robertson from signing the cheques for a bold nay revolutionary government agenda of social and economic reform. In the greater scheme of things, it's fuckall.

              • Anne

                They concluded the accusations were unsubstantiated…

                I remember no such claim from Parliamentary Services!

                What I do remember is evidence they tried to sweep the complaints under the carpet which many of us have found to be normal practice from Public Service entities when faced with allegations of bullying, sexual harassment and other forms of intimidation.

                • Nic the NZer

                  Your saying they swept an accusation of sexual assault under the rug?

                  • McFlock

                    Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

                    But other options include:

                    • Mallard thinking a hug was akin to rape;
                    • a complainant who didn't want to be targeted by Soper and tories so did not want to take their complaint further, and Mallard is taking a hit for summarising the complaint accurately but prematurely in public;
                    • the initial confidential findings getting a massive backtrack when employment and more serious options started being pursued
                    • Mallard completely misread and conflated the allegations into something that nobody had described;
                    • maybe some other possibility that hasn't occurred to me

                    If I were offered a million dollars if I could pick the correct scenario, I wouldn't be picking that Mallard thought an innocent but unwelcome hug was a serious sexual assault akin to rape.

                  • Anne

                    In the past that is exactly what some Public Service entities did when an employee came forward and tried to lay complaints about a superior officer.

                    In my case, it was bullying and intimidation but I did also report a series of obscene phone calls I was receiving around the same time. Instead of giving me support, they effectively accused me of lying.

                    It happened a long time ago now but I have noted from cases which have landed in the media from time to time that in reality not a lot seems to have changed.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      I don't see how calling an accusation of sexual harassment 'a rape' and being unable to pursue that with the police is helping victims of sexual harassment. So unless the accusation was of that nature I don't see any difference between parliamentary services sweeping this under the rug and alternatively sacking the staffer for inappropriate behaviour. Probably they think the punishment was fit and you think it was a thorough cover up.

              • Shanreagh

                You need to look at the Debbie Francis report. Read press from the time. There was also an SSC(?) or parliamentary services (?) investigations. There were around 40 complaints, from memory, about things there.

                These were piling up and then the latest, whether a conflation of several complaints, or what, was that there had been at least instance of more serious issues.

                it did not come out of nowhere

                we had no idea who was involved then though some could find out joining dots

                all the accounts were saying that a person/s were persistently crossing boundaries

                'kissing', 'hugging', 'complimenting' were not what Mallard was directly referring to, he may be hot-headed but he is not silly enough to call that rape.

                They were unwarranted and unwise approaches to young female staff by a person who should have known better.

            • McFlock

              It's the appropriation of empathetic sounds while obviously not understanding a word they say that pisses me off. They just seem to think it's some sort of ritual one does to score points.

            • Treetop

              I was not saying that nothing did not happen. When it comes to what Mallard said happened (allegation of rape) this did not happen and the government employee was defamed.

              The women who were harassed were put into a position by Mallard which possibly made it differcult to make a complaint to the police. Where there is no police complaint the police usually do not do an investigation. Not every person wants to make a complaint either.

              • Anne

                I don't think it was Mallard who put them in that position. It was more the actions of Paula Bennett and the politically motivated furore – aided an abetted by some in the media – that followed. They didn't want to go the police. They wanted their employers, Parliamentary Services to take action -perhaps move on the person who was causing them grief.

                • Shanreagh

                  Yep. Fair summary.

                • Treetop

                  It is never good when an organisation investigates itself when bullying, harassment sexual assault and making up false allegations occurs.

                  • Anne

                    Mallard did not make an outright allegation. He served to make a comparison with rape as the effects of the harassment on the young victims were reasonably serious. Not a good suitable description granted and he has acknowledged as much.

                    It is different to an allegation of rape, and that is conveniently being ignored by Collins, Seymour, Soper and other journos who have jumped on the story.

                    • Treetop

                      I do expect any MP or the speaker of the house who is in charge of Parliamentary Services to know the difference between bullying, sexual harassment, gaslighting, indecent assault, sexual assault, sexual violation and rape. All of these offences cause harm. In some cases years go by until a person is psychologically well enough to make a complaint and has the resources for a lawyer. In some instances the perpetrator continues their horrid behaviour and the employer needs a reason for them to be removed or excuses are made by the employer for not removing the perpetrator.

                      What is the answer?

      • Chris T 2.1.2

        Sorry. Missed a bit from the article

        The $158,000 made to him is for the payment of his legal bills and a $171,000 has been paid to Mallard's lawyers at Dentons Kensington Swan. A further $4641 went to Crown Law for advice to Parliament's then deputy Speaker Anne Tolley who Mallard delegated to have the rules changed to protect him.

        • weka

          yeah, that's some of the unsubstantiated assertion from Soper.

        • McFlock

          In Soper's opinion.

          Pretty sure Mallard ordering Tolley to "change the rules to protect me" would have raised some pretty big headlines, even if Tolley were inclined to go along with it. Seems more like Mallard stepped back from the issue due to the conflict of interest.

          • weka

            In which case it's interesting that Soper feels free to assert that.

          • Phillip ure

            @ mcflock..


            I think if sopers' allegation that mallard had the laws changed to save his own pocket…are true..

            mallard has to walk…

            that is corruption..

            (just in case anyone was wondering)

            it is one thing to run off at the mouth…

            …but to do what soper alleges..

            ..is corruption..

            and he can't stay in that role that he now has..

            • McFlock


              • Anne

                Barry Soper went berserk when Labour won the 2017 election. He could not hide his anger and malice and behaved like a spoiled brat for a year or more afterwards at every PM media stand-up. Ardern's patience with him was remarkable. I would have told him to shit off and never return – which is why I never contemplated a political career.

                • Phillip ure

                  I have long thought that soper is a feckin' idjit…

                  but that does not necessarily mean his allegation is untrue…

                  ..and I really must note..that if a tory speaker was alleged to have done this..(changed the law to protect his pocket)

                  most here now defending mallard..would be screaming for his head..


                  • McFlock

                    If someone credible made the allegation and had evidence, Mallard would be in deeper shit than "Soper wants me to quit".

                    • Phillip ure

                      this is only day one of this little purler..

                      if true it has a way yet to run..

                      and if proven correct..

                      ..I can't see mallard surviving it..

                      and..you all seem to be focused on shooting the messenger..eh..?

                      soper is just repeating what he has been told..

                      the focus should be on the proving..or not..of the corruption allegation

                    • McFlock

                      For one thing, NZ political commentators are breathless gossips who are completely wrong more often than they are correct.

                      The only message they communicate is their own. One or two of them have been treading the line between reporting and advocacy (ISTR allegations of friendship between them and the staffer?). So "if" you have any actual evidence that Mallard committed a corrupt act, take it to the cops.

                    • Phillip ure []

                      um..!..you seem to be confusing me with the source of this allegation..

                      I am not making it ..

                      I am commenting on it..

                    • McFlock

                      So you have nothing other than your faith in the truth and accuracy of half a dozen words from a NZ professional parliamentary opinionator.

                      Like I said: "if".

                    • Phillip ure []

                      a bit more than that..

                      all I am saying is that it needs investigating..

                      ..and while not defending soper…yes I can see him spinning..

                      but this is a serious/detailed allegation..

                      ..involving the speaker and the deputy speaker..

                      ..so it can't just be ignored..

                      and I don’t see soper just making it all up..

                    • McFlock

                      You have a bit more than Soper's word for it?

                      No you don't.

                      You might not see Soper "making it all up". Neither do I. I'm quite prepared to believe that Mallard recused himself from making the decision due to a conflict of interest, and delegated Tolley to decide what the correct thing to be done was.

                      But I can definitely see Soper spinning a proper and responsible course of action into something corrupt, especially if Soper happened to be mates with the guy who got three definite complaints for inappropriate behaviour.

  3. Phillip ure 4

    new zealand is crying out for a clark & dawes..

    we have no political satire..

    • Sabine 4.1

      consider that satire is now called normal day in politics and then we don't need any more comedians.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Twenty highlights of 2020
    As we welcome in the new year, our focus is on continuing to keep New Zealanders safe and moving forward with our economic recovery. There’s a lot to get on with, but before we say a final goodbye to 2020, here’s a quick look back at some of the milestones ...
    2 weeks ago

  • Bay Cadets learn skills to protect environment
    Bay Conservation Cadets launched with first intake Supported with $3.5 million grant Part of $1.245b Jobs for Nature programme to accelerate recover from Covid Cadets will learn skills to protect and enhance environment Environment Minister David Parker today welcomed the first intake of cadets at the launch of the Bay ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 hours ago
  • Cook Islanders to resume travel to New Zealand
    The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Supporting communities and landowners to grow employment opportunities
    Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Border exception for some returning international tertiary students
    The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Tiwai deal gives time for managed transition
    Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • New member for APEC Business Advisory Council
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Govt’s careful economic management recognised
    The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Additional actions to keep COVID-19 out of NZ
    The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • 19 projects will clean up and protect waterways
    $36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand Government acknowledges 175th anniversary of Battle of Ruapekapeka
    The commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the Battle of Ruapekapeka represents an opportunity for all New Zealanders to reflect on the role these conflicts have had in creating our modern nation, says Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Kiri Allan. “The Battle at Te Ruapekapeka Pā, which took ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Better care for babies with tongue-tie
    Babies born with tongue-tie will be assessed and treated consistently under new guidelines released by the Ministry of Health, Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall announced today. Around 5% to 10% of babies are born with a tongue-tie, or ankyloglossia, in New Zealand each year. At least half can ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison over
    The prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison is over, with all remaining prisoners now safely and securely detained, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis says. The majority of those involved in the event are members of the Mongols and Comancheros. Five of the men are deportees from Australia, with three subject to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Pre-departure COVID-19 test for travellers from the UK and the US from 15 January
    Travellers from the United Kingdom or the United States bound for New Zealand will be required to get a negative test result for COVID-19 before departing, and work is underway to extend the requirement to other long haul flights to New Zealand, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed today. “The new PCR test requirement, foreshadowed last ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • PM congratulates New Year Honour recipients
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has added her warm congratulations to the New Zealanders recognised for their contributions to their communities and the country in the New Year 2021 Honours List. “The past year has been one that few of us could have imagined. In spite of all the things that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • David Parker congratulates New Year 2021 Honours recipients
    Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment David Parker has congratulated two retired judges who have had their contributions to the country and their communities recognised in the New Year 2021 Honours list. The Hon Tony Randerson QC has been appointed a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • New Year’s Honours highlights outstanding Pacific leadership through challenging year
    Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio says the New Year’s Honours List 2021 highlights again the outstanding contribution made by Pacific people across Aotearoa. “We are acknowledging the work of 13 Pacific leaders in the New Year’s Honours, representing a number of sectors including health, education, community, sports, the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Supporting seniors to embrace technology
    The Government’s investment in digital literacy training for seniors has led to more than 250 people participating so far, helping them stay connected. “COVID-19 has meant older New Zealanders are showing more interest in learning how to use technology like Zoom and Skype so they can to keep in touch ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago