Double down – protect parliament – ban Bridges for a month

Written By: - Date published: 10:30 pm, December 5th, 2018 - 104 comments
Categories: activism, Gerry Brownlee, Parliament, Simon Bridges, trevor mallard - Tags: , ,

This is a circumstance that I see all of the time on this site. As a moderator I help to preside over the unruly robust debate on political processes.

To achieve this we have rules and policies that are there to bind the moderators to protect commenters just as much as they are there to protect the institution from the idiots who try to disrupt it. Like any other activist, politicians who deliberately break the rules of their institution, whether it is for a good cause or not, need to also accept the consequences of their actions. Every activist knows this. From Valerie Morse with her flag-burning that turned a new corner in our jurisprudence to the late Penny Bright who endured a lot of flak for her stance against the lack of transparency in the Auckland City auditing,  and a lot of  flak from me for violating the policies of this site with cut’n’paste comments.

Parliament is not really particularly different to this site. In fact a lot of the policies that we have on this site to promote robust debate and accountability are deliberately modelled on the rules of our parliament.

So what to make of this bit of National party stupidity?

During Question Time, National leader Simon Bridges was asking Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern a series of questions relating to the case of the jailed drug smuggler Karel Sroubek .

He asked if she had entirely washed her hands of anything to do with the Sroubek fiasco and if she was ducking and diving to get out of his way.

Yeah right. Not in any of her portfolios.

Speaker Trevor Mallard then rose and before he spoke, Bridges said off-microphone “here comes the protection”.

Mallard then told him to leave the House and after Shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee asked if Bridges had “touched a nerve” the Speaker asked him to leave too.

Which was entirely within the standing rules of the house. You may not preempt the judgment of whatever speaker happens to be on duty with trying to pre-meme their response. The speakers are just as constrained by the rules of the house just as much as any other MP is. To try to run what looks like a deliberate PR strategy as a pre-emption looks to me like a deliberate insult to the house. Of course it isn’t helped by this…

Fronting media after his expulsion, Bridges doubled down on his accusation the Speaker was protecting the Prime Minister from scrutiny.

“I was trying to ask the Prime Minister serious questions about the Sroubek fiasco. She wouldn’t answer and the speaker leaped to protect her – I called him on it. I said ‘here comes the protection,’ ” Bridges admitted.

Criticising the Speaker in such a way is a fairly serious breach of the parliamentary rule-book. But Bridges said it was in the public interest to break the rules in this instance.

Hopefully Simon Bridges as a former prosecutor is willing to accept the same basic rule that he has expected the justice system to honour for any other activist seeking social change. If you choose to defy the rules, then you must accept the consequences without whining like a child that it is ‘unfair’ – which seems to be his position at present. If it is in the public interest, then he should be willing to accept the consequences of his actions.

But in my opinion, this is unlikely. The problem is that Simon Bridges and those of the National party often seem to think that they are should be handled differently from the mildly deranged activist occupying a park in pursuit of social change. They are not.

They have no special privilege in the house apart from being an MP. If they choose to defy the rules of that their past and present MPs have imposed, then they should also be prepared to suffer the consequences of those rules.

Those who walked without offense should be able to do what they like, all the way to choosing a  new leader in parliament. There is nothing in the parliamentary rules that says a MP must be present in the chamber.

Those who defy the speaker may try the privileges committee, however I suspect that they couldn’t mount a defense beyond their own sense of massive self-entitlement. Which won’t help them

But if Simon Bridges chooses to not apologize to the position of speaker in the house that he has maligned before actually seeing what the statement from the speaker would have been, then he should suffer further consequences. Any other position is a direct challenge to parliament.

If he did that on this site, and depending on his previous sentences, then he would probably cop at least a further months ban.

Now I’m not going to suggest what Trevor Mallard will actually do (there are some interesting legal rules about that), but I think that it is necessary to protect the position of the moderator of the house and a harsh position sounds like it would be appropriate.

104 comments on “Double down – protect parliament – ban Bridges for a month”

  1. Kat 1

    Difficult when you have senior political editors publicly commenting that Mallard’s “intolerance is an ongoing problem” and therefore seemingly provides some justification for Bridges actions.

  2. Anne 2

    I noted on both TV1 and TV3 that the reporters appeared to be accepting that Simon Bridges’s version of the events were the correct one. They did so by failing to report the other side of the picture.

    Bridges’ questions to Ardern were about operational procedures within both Immigration and the Police. It is not Ardern’s place – or indeed any other parliamentarian – to comment on or express an opinion about operational matters. That is why she was not answering his questions and he well knows it. In other words, he was in the wrong for asking them in the way he did in the first place.

    I suspect that is exactly what Speaker Mallard was about to tell him, hence the derogatory remarks that saw him and Brownlee sent from the chamber.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1

      I noted on both TV1 and TV3 that the reporters appeared to be accepting that Simon Bridges’s version of the events were the correct one. They did so by failing to report the other side of the picture.

      The only thing that the reporters should have been reporting on this is how Bridges broke the rules.

      Anything else defence of the indefensible.

      • tc 2.1.1

        TVNZ needs a top down overhaul with news management first up.

        Such a basic issue reported with spin like that shows a clean outs long overdue.

        • Johnr 2.1.1.1

          Your criticisms of tv news also apply to RNZ after hearing guano espiners interview of brownley this morning.
          Sorry can’t reference it on phone

          • ianmac 2.1.1.1.1

            Yes Johr. Espiner not only encouraged Brownlee this morning but also introduced Audrey Young’s opinion that Mallard was indeed biased against Bridges and was favoured for Adern. A shocking interview by Espiner with no attempt to question the other side of the question.
            https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018674360

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.2

            Yep. Serious misreporting all round.

          • Rob 2.1.1.1.3

            One of Espiners most unprofessional interviews
            One must question RNZ and their objectivity on even considering an interview about this with someone so intimately involved
            It should have been some independent legal expert giving any comments at least.

    • Cinny 2.2

      Was almost like they didn’t even watch the question, rather they based their whole report on whatever simon and brownlee told them.

    • Michelle 2.3

      He (soimon) is getting desperate Anne and desperate people do desperate things hence why he is trying so hard to make himself relevant when in fact its backfiring.
      He maybe starting to realise his dream of being our PM is just that a dream. People are over him every time he opens his mouth its a big fat put of. His negativity kiwis don’t like this and they don’t like his style (he doesn’t have any) just as many did not want bill who tried 3 times.

      • ankerawshark 2.3.1

        Maybe in the long run this bias will work for Labour…………………it keeps Simon there longer. That is a good thing.

        But yes Simon broke the rules big time…………..best response was Winnies………….

  3. Gabby 3

    Slick’s not seen the details, he’s not concerned about it, he’s moving on.
    He’s not seen the details, he’s not concerned about it, he’s moving on.
    Not seen the details, not concerned about it, moving on.

  4. marty mars 4

    I love how the gnat dropkicks all followed him out – what a bunch of sad losers – he’s the best of them LOL and that must be so hard for the gnat supporters to swallow.

  5. Chris 5

    It was sickening seeing Nathan Guy talk about the speaker’s unfair treatment of the National Party followed by Carter getting up all faux-statesman-like to give advice to the novice Mallard. What a cock. Carter was the most biased speaker in this country’s history. He was total filth. Just fucking sickening. Hypocritical filth.

    • Herodotus 5.1

      So how is Mallard any different ??
      And remember this has all arisen from a very poor initial decision by ILG and how we were mis lead by being asked to “read between the lines” , and I am not referring to

  6. Nick 6

    Yep, Soimon is just an egomaniac joke. Imagine him one day in the future trying to explain to his grandkids some of his rubbish. He’ll have to Bullshit them Hard about the environmental problems they live in. “it was Labour’s fault, tamariki”.

  7. Jenny 7

    Turning parliamentarians into toadys

    Parliament should have primacy.

    There have been a number of law changes that have undermined that primacy.

    The ‘Waka Jumping’ law for one.

    Simon Bridges is just following the same downward curve.

    Would so many National MPs have followed their leader out of the house if, there weren’t a law hanging over them that allows their leadership to sack them from the Party and Parliament if they defy their Caucus?

    • solkta 7.1

      Would so many National MPs have followed their leader out of the house if, there weren’t a law hanging over them that allows their leadership to sack them from the Party and Parliament if they defy their Caucus?

      Still spreading misinformation about the waka jumping bill i see. The thing has passed now so time to stop telling lies about it. The leader can’t sack MPs but only two thirds of caucus and then only when it can be demonstrated that the proportionality of parliament has been distorted.

      • Jenny 7.1.1

        What part is “misinformation”?

        That caucus can now expel ‘rebel’ MPs that don’t toe the party line is a fact?

        The fact that once caucus may have stayed their hand in fear that this would change the proportionality of parliament is now longer the case?

        That now they can be sacked without affecting the proportionality of parliament?

        That if they are electorate MPs that they can be forced into a by-election against their own party if they dare oppose the party line?

        That if they are a list MP they can be replaced with no ceremony at all?

        That all this gives political demagogues, of whichever party, more power to act, even in defiance of the speaker and the rules of the house, knowing that they need not fear any back bench revolt at this sort of behaviour?

        Tell me Solkta which part is misinformation

        • solkta 7.1.1.1

          The misinformation is you trying to suggest that the waka jumping bill could be used against MPs who didn’t walk out.

  8. Ross 8

    You know you’ve got problems when the only MP representing the National Party is Jami-Lee Ross. 🙂

  9. RedLogix 9

    Suggesting the Speaker should ban the Leader of the Opposition from the House, even hypothetically, is an idea well down the slippery slope. It’s all very well to get around the banning climate change deniers from commenting on a website (and even then that’s an action we shouldn’t take much pleasure from) … but de-platforming the Leader of the largest party in our democracy seems damned dangerous.

    • lprent 9.1

      There are what? 53 other National MPs. I am sure that some of them would like more question time.

      But seriously, when was the last time that you saw the Labour leader having to leave the house while in opposition?

      I think that Winston has done it a few times.

      My opinion of this little stunt is that Simon Bridges is liable to look at it as being a way to get more controlled attention from the media. If there is no substantive penalty, then it isn’t a reason for him not to repeat it. Which is exactly the reason why we escalate penalties here – to prevent rewarding bad behaviour.

      • RedLogix 9.1.1

        There is perfectly good precedent to expel any Member for the day. Month long bans are another thing altogether.

    • patricia bremner 9.2

      Are you implying the Speaker should soak up the rude badly constructed questions by the Opposition Leader because he Bridges is above the rule of Law?? Surely not!!!!

    • Draco T Bastard 9.3

      Suggesting the Speaker should ban the Leader of the Opposition from the House, even hypothetically, is an idea well down the slippery slope.

      No it’s not. We have rules for a reason and Bridges broke the rules.

      Letting him get away with it is proving that the rules don’t apply to him. It’s how you induce chaos.

  10. Dennis Frank 10

    Petulance isn’t the kind of look that is ever likely to impress anybody. If Bridges & Brownlee think that demonstrating it will bolster National’s public support, the more fool them. Peters commented to the media that other Nats followed them out in dribs & drabs, so slowly that it wasn’t effective as a protest.

    Chris Trotter told the AM Show just before that he had measured the time the PM had spent answering Simon’s questions on the issue: eight minutes. Made the point that complaining to the speaker that she wasn’t answering seemed contradicted by the evidence that she had done so for rather a long time.

    So what if all her answers were evasions? Isn’t that just normal parliamentary politics? And I have no problem with Mallard’s handling of it. Never thought much of him, but he’s been no worse than Carter, and maybe not as bad. If he wants to discipline Bridges further, I suspect he has a sound basis to do so.

    As regards the minister the PM was defending, I share the view of his critics that he has been less than forthcoming. No evidence yet to find any other fault. His poor performance is due to the fact that he’s a typical Labour minister, and acting in accord with that norm. They only do lowest-common-denominator democracy. Hiding behind privacy is normal now. I agree that the public deserves more forthright honesty and accountability, but Labour and National have created the legal and political quagmire they are wallowing in. They know that. That’s why they stage political theatre like walk-outs and evasions. To mask the truth.

  11. Chris T 11

    “Yeah right. Not in any of her portfolios.”

    She is the PM. They can ask her about anything under her govt

    “There is nothing in the parliamentary rules that says a MP must be present in the chamber.”

    There is, but admittedly it is a financial penalty

    Personally I think you would have to be blind not to see that Mallard is the most blatantly biased speaker we have had in living memory, but what did people expect given this thugs own history of being kicked out every second week?

    He is also wildly inconsistent with his own new “Mallard” rules of running the place so no one knows where they stand.

    But he ain’t going any where, so Bridges needs to grow a pair and suck it up

    • R.P Mcmurphy 11.1

      dont talk rot.
      Speaker Mallard has bent over backwards to give the tories a fair go.
      They were in power for nine long years and became accustomed to bullying and ignoring due process and they are having to learn some hard lessons.
      The nationals party mp’s have mistaken his forbearance for weakness and dont like it when the whip comes down.

      • Wayne 11.1.1

        No, Trevor Mallard has not beeen fair. His practice of deducting questions from the opposition is grossly unfair. It takes away their key opportunity to hold Ministers to account. Other speakers have not done this nearly to the same extent.

        Both Mallard and Carter say it is enough to address the question, whereas Lockwood Smith said you actually had to answer the question asked. I personally thought that was a good change, though I could never really answer climate change questions to Lockwood’s satisfaction, since he was a climate change skeptic.

        Coming back to Mallard, he needs to stop deducting questions in the way he does. Audrey Young’s article in the Herald pretty much summed things up.

        • veutoviper 11.1.1.1

          I actually agree that Lockwood Smith was probably the best of the lot, in requiring Ministers to actually answer – and not just address – the question. I had never held him in high regard until he became Speaker, but was then surprised at how good a job he did. He found his niche.

          As for Mallard, I hold him in much higher regard than Carter. The less said about the latter the better.

          The giving and taking off supplementary questions as an experiment to getting better behaviour has not sat well with me frankly. IMO it does not feel in keeping with the history, rules or stature of Parliament and more suited to the sports field, lotto or similar.

          However, it seems that Mallard was reconsidering that approach and looking at other options; but yesterday really found himself in a situation where Bridges, Brownlee and others had been regularly undermining the role and authority of the Speaker to the stage that expelling them from the House was the only option. They had been building to such a stunt in my opinion, and don’t tell me that was not staged. I was around Parliament etc for as long as you, Wayne, albeit in a different capacity.

        • Gabby 11.1.1.2

          He deducts supplementaries wayney, which in Slick’s case consist largely of squeaking ‘confess dammit’ repeatedly.

        • Anne 11.1.1.3

          His practice of deducting questions from the opposition is grossly unfair.

          You hypocrite Wayne!

          He deducted supplementary questions on ALL sides of the House. In fact, my understanding is, he deducted more from Labour’s ranks than he did National. The difference? Labour didn’t kick up a fuss. National did and, in the process, convinced themselves they were being more hard done by.

          Anyway Mallard has abandoned the practice now. He hoped it would improve QT time but it didn’t so he has reverted back to withdrawing and apologising and tossing the worst offenders out like his predecessors did.

          At least he tried.

          • Roflcopter 11.1.1.3.1

            The problem is that by deducting from National, you are removing the ability to further hold the Government to account.

            Deducting supplementary questions from Labour only limits the ability to extend crowing coming out of patsy questions.

            • Anne 11.1.1.3.1.1

              What he actually did was to give National the extra supplementary questions he deducted from Labour. Can’t say whether he is still doing it because I haven’t watched much QT in recent weeks.

        • ankerawshark 11.1.1.4

          OK Wayne, I haven’t kept a tally of the question deducting thing.

          But straight up question. Should Bridges have been told to leave the chamber yesterday after saying when Trev rose to speak “here comes the protection?”

      • Michelle 11.1.2

        agree 100% RP mC MURPHY

      • Mr Marshy 11.1.3

        Do you actually know what a Tory is? I think not. You are in the wrong country moron.

      • Gabby 11.1.4

        It’s the Combine Murph, they’ll not take this treatment lying down.

    • You_Fool 11.2

      I didn’t realise that “living memory” was just the last year… Carter was worse.. in fact Mallard is no different to just about every speaker (other than maybe Lockwood Smith who was a bit more unbiased than normal)

  12. R.P Mcmurphy 12

    simon Bridges was a prosecutor without warrant in the Tauranga court where he obviously got a free pass to beat down on lower socio economic losers and disadvantaged Maori youth.
    well that style of getting your own way does not work in the full glare of the parliamentary chamber and he is exposed for having no real substance whatsoever

  13. Cinny 13

    Simon acted like a complete dick yesterday.

    Not sure if anyone picked it up, but he slowly read out his sup’s, including one twice, he seemed to realise his error, judging from his body language and tone, but he kept on going.

    4.14 into the question and then 5.05mins

    By continuing to raise the ‘ex wife’ he’s making things way worse for the exwife, no doubt at all exwife wishes it would all go away and she could get on with living her life. But no simon, mark mitchell etc keep bringing her up, doing so is not considerate, it’s vindictive nastiness.

    The nat’s didn’t all walk out at once, they walked out in drips and drabs, was almost like that had to wait to receive a text to tell them what to do.

    Re The Speaker….. I remember David Carter being just as biased.

    It’s a new era and Trev’s not going to put up with nationals shite anymore.

    • alwyn 13.1

      “but he slowly read out his sup’s, including one twice”
      It is actually a very good tactic, as Simon would know from his previous profession, to repeat a question when you are emphasising that the person you are questioning has made no attempt to answer it.
      Doing so slowly only adds to the emphasis.
      That was quite deliberate in my opinion.

      • Gabby 13.1.1

        Or he’s a bit thick wally.

      • Cinny 13.1.2

        You think Alwyn?

        Because I saw a person reading questions off a sheet and near on stopping himself when realising he read out the same question twice, was almost like…. no one noticed I’ll just keep on going with it.

        Do agree with you re the slow talking tactic being deliberate.

    • Chris T 13.2

      What a crock of crap

      The ex wife was brought up by Winston speaking on behalf of Ardern, accussing her of being some sort of informer with an agenda.

      If Ardern can’t handle questions because of this, then pick a non dickhead to answer questions when she ain’t around instead of Winston.

      Maybe Kelv’. He is always good to have a laugh at

      • Michelle 13.2.1

        Are you upset chris because your preferred party isn’t getting its way anymore leave kelvin alone I remember john was not the best speaker but many fell for his bull kaka

        • Chris T 13.2.1.1

          I’m not the one moaning because the opposition are pointing out the speaker is acting like some sort of protective guardian over the poor defenseless Ardern.

          • ankerawshark 13.2.1.1.1

            Chris T Mallard stood up and he didn’t even open his mouth………….Bridges said heres the protection……………………and he was kicked out (rightly so from the house),……….thems the rules. Simons statement implied Mallard was bias. Whether he is or isn’t that isn’t how he needs to address the issue. There are channels for the opposition to challenge the speaker, not sarcastic quips.

            I don’t think Trev is biased, but that is just my opinion. I accept othe rs will see it differently. When we think about it, a referee in sport never refs a game from his own country. But this is the system we have that the speaker is from the govts party. Personally I thought Lockwood Smith was good and Carter incompetent.

            I thought Jacinda answered the questions that were asked very well. She is hugely articulate. I have watched the clip twice now after I heard Carter said she looked worried. I didn’t think she looked worried, but tired.

            The questions about police and immigration visiting this guys ex wife were silly questions, because as Ms Ardern said, she doesn’t get the level of detail and also she can’t comment on operational matters. What did he expect her to say “yeah that was bad of the police”…………………..come on………….that would be seriously bad. She also let Bridges know about the avenues this woman can take if she had a complaint. And called Bridges by saying its concerning if the woman felt vulnerable but bringing it up in parliament was not going to help. My apologies these are not direct quotes by from memory as I am not going to watch said tape a third time.

            • Mr Marshy 13.2.1.1.1.1

              You do realise the definition of answering a question is to actually address the content of the question. Not waffle on about not too my knowledge nonsense … I heard it first in the media blah blah blah … Now if they had asked whats the baby getting for Christmas – instant answer, Im sure

              • ankerawshark

                No Mr Marshay. Contents of questions such as What did she think about two immigration people and two police turning up to interview said would, leaving her vulnerable, she should definitely not answer!!!!!! She shouldn’t comment on operational matters………….She didn’t have the facts and it may be that it is appropriate the woman felt vulnerable. If there is a complaint about those officials Simon can advice the woman what to do or speak to the Minister concerned.

                His questions had no purpose other than to keep the Karl S issue in the media………………….

          • ankerawshark 13.2.1.1.2

            Ms Ardern doesn’t need protecting……………..She runs rings around Bridges. His line of questioning about this case is just to keep it in the spotlight in the hope it boost s Nationals polling………….plan and simple.

            Ms Ardern’s answers yesterday were bang on even I thought she looked tired……..She is clear articulate and to the point.

            • Anne 13.2.1.1.2.1

              I thought she looked tired……..

              Baby Neve must be coming up to six months now. I expect she is teething and maybe they’re getting broken night’s sleep atm.

              • ankerawshark

                Yes Anne re the baby. I remember at times John Key looking tired. Its a demanding job for all of them.

                Despite looking tired she answered the dumb question perfectly.

                I wonder if Nationals plan is to continue to bang on about Strobek (sorry sure I haven’t spelt that right) to help them in the polls.

                Actually I cannot see any point in his questions. The most ridiculous one was the last (ducking and diving)

            • Mr Marshy 13.2.1.1.2.2

              Lol … sure

            • veutoviper 13.2.1.1.2.3

              I agree that Ardern runs rings around Bridges – and always has. They have been sparring and debating one another for years.

              Back to what actually was said yesterday, including Ardern’s answers to Bridges, as well as the videos now being up in about half an hour or so after the live show (so to speak!), draft written transcripts of question time and debates are usually up on the Parliament website within an hour or so.

              Here is the draft transcript for yesterday’s Question Time, and following debates. Chris T can read it for himself.

              https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansD_20181205_20181205

              Parliament website – how to find Hansard transcripts
              From the Home page – https://www.parliament.nz/en

              Click on Parliament Business – https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/

              Then go down to Hansard Debates and click Read More
              https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/

              Then again click Read More under the ‘Read Hansard ‘main item – https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/

              The latest transcripts will come up or a search can be made by date etc using the Filter function.

      • Cinny 13.2.2

        Yes, that was last week chrisT. Winston mentioned her in the debate re the jailed husband.

        Nat’s could have let it be, but nooooooo THEY kept on bringing her up, starting on Tuesday, and from the looks of it intend to do so again today via paula and woodhouse Q’s 1&2.

        I really feel for this woman, how many more times will she have to ‘live it out’, due to another persons agenda.

        • Sacha 13.2.2.1

          From what we heard last week, she passed information to the Nats which they raised in parliament in the first place. Save your pity for someone with cleaner hands.

          • Chris T 13.2.2.1.1

            “From what we heard”

            Yeah. Brilliant

            “Save your pity for someone with cleaner hands.”

            You are actually saying a woman in witness protection that the govt has been saying is an informant brought it on herself?

            You do realise that the cops don’t just throw out witness protection willy nilly

            They did it because the bloke is a violent thug crim’ with connections to gangs

            Way to victim blame

            • veutoviper 13.2.2.1.1.1

              How about you do your own research etc before making claims etc. For example by watching Parliament or reading transcripts etc. See my comment above at 13.2.1.1.2.3

              In fact your claims above are in complete conflict with what has come out in Question Time today (Q1 and 2) whereby:

              – Police protection had been offered to the ex-wife three times but turned down. (She just wanted to see a lawyer.) Q 1

              – She is not in police protection; Q 1

              – Her address was already known by Immigration NZ and not supplied to them by NZ Police. Q 2

              As pointed out by the DPM several times, if anyone is victimising or jeopardising the safety of the ex-wife, it is National with the massive number of times they have raised issues relating to her in public (56 public statements) and formally in Questions in the House (23 to date). He said she was “being used as a trump by the Opposition”. (see Q1 below from 4.30 mins on.)

              I suggest you watch the videos of the two Questions today on the Parliament website or read the Hansard Transcripts when they up. The videos are taking longer than usual today and are not yet up; and the draft transcript should be up probably this evening.

              And here you are Q1 and 2 videos are now up:

              https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=204425

              https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=204424

              • Chris T

                Where is this?

                ” She is not in police protection; Q 1″

              • Chris T

                I watched it live btw

                And I repeat

                Where is this?

                ” She is not in police protection; Q 1″

                • veutoviper

                  I highly recommend Bay Audiology.

                  Perhaps your reading abilities are better than your hearing, but if not I am happy to track down a reading help programme in your area.

                  Try reading the draft Hansard transcripts for Qs1 and 2 here –

                  https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20181206_20181206_08

                  In particular this section of Q1:

                  ” Hon Paula Bennett: When she said yesterday that the Minister followed up this safety issue, what was that follow-up?

                  Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, and to the best of the Prime Minister’s knowledge, the Minister of Police would have appraised her of the fact that the police, on three occasions, had tried to ensure that there was protection if that was a concern, and the woman in question said that she did not want protection; she just wanted to speak to a lawyer. So they couldn’t get to even offer the protection that seems so much central to this case right now from the Opposition.

                  Hon Paula Bennett: Was the estranged wife under the protection of police when an immigration officer visited with the police?

                  Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be very axiomatic that if on three occasions the police had offered protection and she hadn’t availed herself of it, then maybe when the police came with the immigration officer, she wasn’t under protection. It sort of follows like night follows day.”

                  I liked Winnie’s last sentence …

                  If you need any further help with comprehension, just ask.

                  • Chris T

                    Try as I might I can not see Winston saying she wasn’t under police protection at the time.

                    Is there a reason you have to make shit up?

                    • veutoviper

                      I give up. If you cannot read what Peters is actually saying in those two quotes above then you do have a reading comprehension problem.

                • veutoviper

                  And a little addition to my earlier reply above.

                  For other reasons, I have just relistened to and reread the Hansard transcript for Q2 on Tues, 4 December, on the Sroubek saga.

                  At 7.08 in the video Bridges raises the subject of immigration officers accompanied by police officers visiting Sroubek’s estranged wife.

                  Bridges’ wording of his question also makes no mention of her being in witness and/or police protection at the time and is quite specific as to where they visited her, ie, from the Hansard transcript:

                  Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware that in order to elicit changed statements from the estranged wife of Mr Sroubek to bolster the Minister’s decision, police and immigration officials turned up unannounced at her home leaving her feeling extremely vulnerable, exposed, and under threat? END

                  If she was under police and/or witness protection, probably the last place she would have been was “at her home”.

                  The answer given by the Deputy PM did not really address these points but here are links to the full transcript and the video:

                  https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20181204_20181204_04

                  https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=204207

                  —————

                  And by the way, it is well within the provisions of the Immigration Act 2009 for Immigration Officers to be accompanied by Police Officers, and to turn up unannounced in cases where someone is under investigation on immigration matters including fraud etc , and consideration for deportation.

                  Note the following is a very rough first draft of some research/summary of relevant parts of the Imm Act I am currently doing.

                  Immigration Act 2009

                  Immigration Officers are warranted officers (s.388) with powers of entry, investigation and seizure of documents etc; and warranted Police Officers have the same powers as warranted Immigration Officers (s.292 and 293), as well as their own wider powers of entry, seizure etc.

                  These powers of entry, seizure etc are detailed in Part 8 of the Immigration Act (s.272 – 303) – Compliance and Information

                  In certain circumstances Immigration Officers need to have search warrants (s293A) but in many circumstances Immigration Officers are entitled to seek information from third parties such as Sroubek’s estranged wife as well as from the person under investigation. These third parties are legally obligated to provide this information (s.281A) . Immigration Officers have the power of entry to search for identity documents (eg Sroubek’s false passports) under S.281B.

                  Under further provisions of Part 8 of the Act relevant to the Sroubek case, certain agencies including government departments (including but not limited to MSD, Corrections, NZ Police etc) are required to produce address information to Immigration NZ (s.274 and 275).

                  As already mentioned, Immigration NZ already had Sroubek’s wife’s address, but if they hadn’t had it, NZ Police would have been obligated to provide this.

                  The remaining provisions of Part 8 focus on the powers to share information between government agencies etc on immigration and other matters (eg Immigration NZ is also obliged to share its information to NZ Police etc).

                  Some of these provisions are also seem to be relevant in the Sroubek case – for example, Section 294 re “Information matching to identify immigration status of person sentenced to imprisonment or community-based sentence”; and section 303 re “Disclosure of information to enable specified agencies to check identity and character”.

                  ——————-

                  Now, if you think these powers of entry, seizure etc are pretty wide ranging etc, you might want to take them up with the National Party.

                  The previous Immigration Act was extensively revised and the current Act passed in 2009 under the last Nat Govt; and many of these powers were further extended etc to align with the controversial Search and Surveillance Act 2012 also passed by that Government.

                  Links to the Immigration Act and S and S Act in that order:

                  http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2009/0051/latest/whole.html#DLM1441016

                  http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2012/0024/latest/whole.html?search=ta_act_S_ac%40ainf%40anif_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=1#DLM2136536

              • Chris T

                I can read perfectly fine thanks

                He says she was offered protection in the past and turned it down.

                It makes no statement that she didn’t have it at the time of the people turning up on her doorstep, apart from inuendo.

                If you can point out otherwise please do…….

                • Give it away, Chris. You are asking for proof of a negative. Peters said she’d been offered protection and turned it down. If you have evidence that she was under protection at any time, best you put it forward. If not, it’s time to move on.

            • Anne 13.2.2.1.1.2

              What a gullible twat you are Chris T. Victim protection indeed. Just a load pf exaggerated crap from a political party desperate to take the heat off their own woes and gross mismanagement of errant MPs.

          • Anne 13.2.2.1.2

            Feel a bit the same Sacha. She seems to be playing a little game. Says one thing to one side and another to the other side.

    • Mr Marshy 13.3

      You have to keep repeating the question, when you dont actually get an answer. I think the dick is someone else here …

  14. Pete 14

    The National caucus has announced the venue for their end of year do:

    https://i.imgflip.com/2o9dyk.jpg

  15. Mister Smokey 15

    The cub, deservedly well-cuffed by the big-maned Lion, wanders off.

    A bulky mammal departs.

    Hyenas trail after. While ants make tracks.

  16. ankerawshark 16

    LOL Pete, Cinny and Mister Smokey (great name by the way MS)

  17. Mr Marshy 17

    It makes me smirk that you socialists just cant accept what a complete biased idiot Mallard is showing as speaker. And to try and turn it around that it is actually Bridges at fault really shows how dim you are. Time to roll out the ‘first baby’ for a photo op after the poll results …

    • In Vino 17.1

      That would be a very dumb smirk, Mr Marshy-mind. Even Blue-Rinse Audrey in the Herald accepted that Bridges was rightly thrown out, despite accusing Mallard of bias. Try to look at things in a little more depth, please.

      • Dazzer 17.1.1

        A statement I can actually agree with. Bridges was rightly thrown up for his comment AFTER his question.

        Why Mallard thought [the Prime Minister] was unable to answer a simple question is the other wrong.

        Given Mallard’s violent and bullying behaviour in the past, he’s totally the wrong person to be speaker.

        As for [the Prime Minister], what happened to transparency and read between the lines?? Not to mention Ministers making fundamental decisions without telling [the Prime Minister].

        The trainer wheels are falling off.

        [I’m only going to correct your misogynist, belittling language one time, Dazzer. Please don’t do it again. TRP]

        • Drowsy M. Kram 17.1.1.1

          Bridges x1, Mallard x2, ‘Cindy’ x3.

          Why is Dazzer misnaming Prime Minister Ardern? Simply a misogynist? Whatever the reason, it makes for a weak game.

    • Mister Smokey 17.2

      Now, come on, Mr Marshy, Kiwi-politics 101, when the Speaker stands, you sit down and shut-up. If you don’t you’re in trouble. If you are silly enough to offer insult as well, the trouble gets big. These are the clear-cut rules.

      So, there’s a deliberate breach by Bridges & Brownlie. For reasons of distraction, it’s said. I believe that.

      Whatever the reason, their expulsions were well earned.

      And some now, with indignation, attempt to defend the crass behaviour.

      “False outrage,” this year, is a National speciality. There’s some ham-actors on the loose in the House.

      For you to allege Mallard is “a complete biased idiot” for upholding the basic rules shows you to be…perhaps…not too well informed.

      On the site today you have used these words: “moron,” “dim,” “biased idiot”.
      Life in the swamps makes you insightful, I guess.

      You mention your smirk Mr Marshy.
      My dictionary defines “smirk” as: “affected or conceited or silly smile.”

    • Gabby 17.3

      He’s been far too polite to Jeery Browneye Messes Mash. Et Does gedden.

  18. Ad 18

    Mallard’s imposition upon the Leader of the Opposition needs to be seen in context with the original leak story from Bridges, and with the anti-bullying programme the Speaker has underway.

    Collectively they signal a really interventionist Speaker, who is seeking to change the entire culture of Parliament from the debating floor to the way staff are treated. To me this sets up a struggle between intra-party maneuvering and parliamentary processes.

    Because personal power is the very substance of being in Parliament in the first place, it has traditionally been a violent place in which to do business. People are yelled at, threatened, cajoled, ridiculed, and pushed out of their jobs with little or no protection. The interview with the ex-Maggie Barry staffer on RNZ Tuesday morning is testament to that violence. And what caucuses do to their leaders is best illustrated by how Labour treated David Cunliffe. Same is happening now to Bridges . We are seeing bullying at its most raw, to the degree that the Party caucus would rather kill their own and have a faction win internally, than win an election.

    Speaker Mallard is seeking to change at least a part of that, and it will be an almighty struggle.

    Same goes for treating actual staff members as if they were human. Human, instead of in a perpetual master-slave relationship in which everything is in a great vault of goodwill to which you much demonstrate perpetual fealty. Most burn out, all are damaged, few last more than a year.

    Parliament, rather than being a place that represents the highest ideals of our democracy, is a shit-hole of a place to actually work for actual workers.

    Again, Speaker Mallard is seeking to change at least a part of that ,and it will be just as hard, even if Mallard has more control in this domain.

  19. Ian 19

    I like to read between the lines .Stroubeck has supplied drugs to high ranking politicians and their associates. NZ residency was his bonus reward. Can’t wait for the guy to start singing like a canary.

  20. Cantabrian 20

    Brownlee is constantly rude to the speaker. Ban him – permanently.

  21. JustMe 21

    The antics of Bridges and co to date have been so childish, immature and bullying.

    Quite honestly I am of the opinion that the walk-out was all pre-planned either earlier in the day or some days before the walk-out. And so the actions of Bridges was just all an act to gain publicity from the main-stream NZ media. Bridges badgered and baited both Jacinda and Trevor and all for the purpose of a publicity shot. I bet he had even already pre-warned the main-stream NZ media that is in the NZ National Party pocket to be there at parliament long before he walked out.

    The few National MPs that remained in the debating chamber after their colleagues had walked out were perhaps there at the earlier behest of Bridges to ‘give the illusion there is a democracy all thanks to the NZ National Party….’. Lets call those that did not walk out had ‘pulled the shortest straw’. The more senior National Party MPs were automatically excluded in having to make this draw.

    We need representatives of the New Zealand who are elected by us, the voters and taxpayers of this beautiful country, to act with some sense of adult maturity.

    About the ONLY politicians that seem to behave like adults is the Coalition government. Where the Opposition is concerned they(the Opposition)behave like school-yard bullies having constant temper tantrums. I now take a very dim view of the NZ National Party and its various MPs. They are coming across as a gross waste of NZ taxpayers money.

    Mind you out of the whole Stroubeck matter I am wondering as to where the National MP who was a government minister was at the time whilst Stroubeck was in NZ through-out 2008 through to 2017. Right now National are suffering from selective amnesia and the arrogant approach that they never made any mistakes in their ENTIRE political life-time.

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Andrew Little – Speech to Amnesty International event to mark the 70th Anniversary of the Univ...
    ANDREW LITTLE - SPEECH TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL EVENT TO MARK THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS DAY, PARLIAMENT, WELLINGTON ...
    20 hours ago
  • Tax reforms focus on fairness
    New tax legislation has been introduced to Parliament to ensure greater fairness in the way the tax system shapes commerce, investment decisions and social policies. Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has introduced the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019-20, GST Offshore Supplier ...
    6 days ago
  • Preventing death and injury on our roads
    Police Minister Stuart Nash and Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter are encouraging road users to be alert to a new safety campaign launched today by Police and the NZ Transport Agency in the lead up to the Christmas. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • New comms centre improves public services
    A new digital services and communications centre opened on the Kapiti Coast will help transform the way Police connect with the public and work to make communities safe. Police Minister Stuart Nash has officially opened the Police Digital Services Centre, ...
    2 weeks ago