Naughty Nick’s Parliamentary Porkie

Written By: - Date published: 7:39 am, March 22nd, 2018 - 39 comments
Categories: national, nick smith, same old national, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, trevor mallard, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Nick Smith told a whopper in Parliament yesterday. He had been asking questions of Megan Woods about if the proposed changes to Electoral Law allowing parties to sack list MPs was in breach of UN obligations.

The video is here:

The whopper occurred because he misspoke. He asked:

Can the Minister name a country with high standards of democracy and a respect for human rights that has the sort of rules where a party leader can dismiss a member of Parliament, like what he is proposing for New Zealand?

Woods seized the moment and answered the question that was asked.

New Zealand. But I do find it a bit rich to take lectures on democracy from the member who cancelled democracy at Environment Canterbury in Canterbury.

Things then went strange. Smith insisted he said “another country” when he clearly said “a country”.

From Hansard:

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question to the Minister was whether the Minister could name another country. Another would not—

Mr SPEAKER: No. I think the member said “a country”.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was “another country”.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, sorry. I will go back and have a look at it. I was under the impression that the member said “a country”. I’m getting some support on my right for that point of view. If the member gives me an absolute—and I will go back and look at it. If the member gives me an absolute assurance—[Rt Hon Winston Peters stands], I’ll take the point of order soon—that he said “another country”, then I will ask the Minister to answer the question. The member has given me assurance, so that is at a very high standard. The member has given me assurance.

Smith then repeated the “misspeak”.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Mr Speaker, it’s been some time. Can I please request that the member re-asks the question.

Mr SPEAKER: As long as I have an assurance from Dr Smith that it’s going to be re-asked in exactly the form that he did previously.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, indeed. Can the Minister name another country with high standards of democracy and respect for human rights that has the same sort of laws that enable a party leader to dismiss an MP, like he is proposing for New Zealand?

The privileges committee could be invited to consider the matter.  It seems rather trivial but Smith’s insistence that he was right when he was clearly wrong raises concerns about the accuracy of everything else he has ever said.

39 comments on “Naughty Nick’s Parliamentary Porkie ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Chris T 1
    22 March 2018 at 8:05 am

    Don’t you wish you had a job where you get paid that much and stuff like this was the issue of your day

    Lol

  2. Keepcalmcarryon 2
    22 March 2018 at 8:30 am

    Probably a big deal for someone somewhere.

    • Gabby 2.1
      22 March 2018 at 12:19 pm

      Makes you wonder what else he might have misremembered doesn’t it calmy. Meetings, phone calls, expressions of preference…

    • tracey 2.2
      22 March 2018 at 12:26 pm

      Hang on. Only a few days ago questions were SO vital the Greens were bei g flayed

  3. mac1 3
    22 March 2018 at 8:50 am

    I watched this live. It was so easy on Sky to rerun the passage to hear Dr Smith clearly say “a country” and then return to the House floundering over what he actually said. A video referee would have had the big red OUT on the screen.

    Did I hear Smith return later to the House to make a personal explanation admitting the error?

    Megan Woods used the opportunity brilliantly to give Smith a serve over ECan.

    Smith was of course using the old ‘guilt by association’ argument over the waka jumping bill, insinuating that because leaders of lesser democracies had similar powers, this government was the same. Winston Peters very hotly denied this power actually was envisaged as Smith said, arguing that the process of removing a Party MP was far more involved than just on the say so of the Leader.

    So, in this case there were important matters. The government minister showed she listened and could think quickly on her feet, as did Ardern, Robertson and Peters in their turns. It also showed that the opposition use dubious arguments to try to score points on the government. It also showed that Dr Smith was quite willing to misrepresent the government’s position. Seemingly a minor matter, but serious undertones to the way the opposition will conduct its business.

    The government is alert to the tactic, more than once rejecting the premise implied in a question.

  4. Wayne 4
    22 March 2018 at 9:19 am

    Not remotely a lie. At best a misunderstanding. Nick Smith obviously always thought he said another country. He was gob smacked when Woods said NZ.

    In any event I saw Woods in a couple of questions yesterday. If Labour thinks she is good, well I guess that is their view. I came away with the complete opposite view. Her answer on the science questions (Q12) were incredible. No wonder Simon Bridges seized upon them in the general debate.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 4.1
      22 March 2018 at 9:45 am

      NZ has been ‘in the poo’ for some time, and there isn’t enough clean water (or enough clean politicians) left for a good hosing. Dr Smith had the ‘right‘ idea – limit representative democracy regarding water,

      https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ecans-democracy-limiting-bill-introduced-smith-ch-180105

      legislate ‘poo’ out of existence,

      https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nick-smith-tweaks-freshwater-swimming-standards-b-206286

      and carry on wallowing in muck. I actually feel for the muck.

      “Do it tomorrow because we have got about five years before this hits our shores like a massive tsunami.”

      Leaving ‘it‘ up to ‘bought-and-paid-for’ politicians is hopeless. Stop trying to polish turds.

      https://thestandard.org.nz/activists-bring-mataura-river-poo-to-the-environment-southland/

    • mickysavage 4.2
      22 March 2018 at 9:58 am

      The article uses the words “porkie” and “whopper”. He may have been mistaken. But he was asked if he said something that he definately did not say and he said he did. As an absolute minimum it is a gross misrepresentation.

      • Enough is Enough 4.2.1
        22 March 2018 at 11:14 am

        As the whole thing is recorded, he would not have raised the point of order if he had not genuinely believed he had said ‘a’ rather than ‘another’.

    • cleangreen 4.3
      22 March 2018 at 10:09 am

      “At best a misunderstanding. Nick Smith obviously always thought he said another country.”

      Mr Mapp at (4)

      Pick another country on your ‘map’and send your mate Nick Smith there please ASAP

    • Cinny 4.4
      22 March 2018 at 10:18 am

      Nah, I watched that question, he assured the speaker he said ‘another’ even claimed to have had the question written down in front of him, when challenged on what he said.

      nick smith does not like to be proven wrong, he’s not good with it, part of his bully mentality.

      Don’t forget to stand in 2020 nick smith, you will lose and I’m going to love every minute of it, please stand again.

    • Babayaga 4.5
      22 March 2018 at 10:50 am

      Woods, Twyford, Jackson, Curran…they’re all an embarrassment to Labour.

      • veutoviper 4.5.1
        22 March 2018 at 1:10 pm

        Oh look Babayaga – another National MP is leaving the sinking ship. And this one is an electorate MP, Jonathan Coleman.

        Will this set the ball rolling for other National Electorate MPs who are an embarrassment to National? Maybe, the man of the moment in this thread, Nick Smith?

        • Babayaga 4.5.1.1
          22 March 2018 at 1:33 pm

          A ‘sinking ship’? The largest party in parliament? No this thread was a poor distraction from what even the left is mocking as our talk-talk Government http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018636926/govt-announces-39-reviews-groups-investigations-in-5-months.

          • Hanswurst 4.5.1.1.1
            22 March 2018 at 5:51 pm

            Even the largest ships can (famously) sink. It’s not size that counts there, but whether the ship is on its way down.

            • Babayaga 4.5.1.1.1.1
              24 March 2018 at 7:46 pm

              In politics size matters. End of story.

              • Incognito …
                24 March 2018 at 7:58 pm

                Sadly, you are right and we all suffer, to a greater or lesser extent, from a tyranny of the majority.

                • Babayaga …
                  24 March 2018 at 8:03 pm

                  Even great ideas like democracy have their shortcomings. I was having dinner tonight with two couples- one from Germany, the other from the US. The German couple were sadly describing the wreckage being wrought on their country by Merkel’s immigration policies. Not the tyranny of the majority, but the tyranny of a government not acting in the majorities best interests.

                  • Incognito …
                    24 March 2018 at 8:44 pm

                    That is still the tyranny of the majority, in Parliament, or whatever it is called in any democratic country. Coalition governments might be more representative in theory but in practice it still comes down to the smallest majority in Parliament.

                    For a democracy to incorporate a consensus model for decision-making the citizenry needs to not only value but actively promote tolerance, mutual respect and trust. Unfortunately, the world is now more than ever under threat of polarisation & protectionism and thus becoming less tolerant of counter-views and minorities in general.

                    • Babayaga …
                      25 March 2018 at 12:16 pm

                      You make some good points, however in the case of Germany the tolerance of my minorities (in their case alleged ‘refugees’) has brought them little more than increased crime and insecurity.

          • Incognito 4.5.1.1.2
            22 March 2018 at 10:09 pm

            Dinosaurs went extinct and some were huge with teeth & claws (but small brains) 😉

  5. Stunned Mullet 5
    22 March 2018 at 9:45 am

    A pox on them all.

    • mac1 5.1
      22 March 2018 at 10:32 am

      A rather broad generalisation there, Stunned Mullet.

      I’d prefer a pox on silly stupid asinine behaviour, a pox on slippery rhetoric, upon misrepresentation, on sloppy or worse deliberate misuse of logic, meanings of words, and faulty argument.

      If we damn all politicians, we practise the same faulty logic.

      We also proceed towards that old canard “Why vote, it only encourages them,” a meme which is beloved of anti-democrats and other manipulators to discourage participation in voting as a democratic right.

      • Stunned Mullet 5.1.1
        22 March 2018 at 10:54 am

        No – the whole thing was a waste of time and money by all involved apart from perhaps Trevor Mallard and he’s a tool many times over due to his past behaviour.

        They really all can go and get stuffed.

        • mac1 5.1.1.1
          22 March 2018 at 11:24 am

          Certainly a pox on this one!

          https://thinkprogress.org/20000-illinois-republicans-voted-for-nazi-7bbeeb7631fd/

          Although the Illinois Republican party chairman openly condemned this candidate as being unworthy of representing Republicans, he was unopposed in their primary for a House seat.

          Unopposed!

          Therefore he got the nomination.

          All it takes is for good men to do nothing.

          All it takes is for good people to not enter into politics.

          All it takes when all politicians are tarred all with the same brush…………….

  6. CHCOff 6
    22 March 2018 at 11:59 am

    The law should be that a party, however it is structured for such matters, can dismiss a m.p. – not necessarily that it is the leader’s right alone to (although it may be).

    For unless a m.p. was elected as an independent (which happened when?), they are there – these days in NZ history – with the bountiful salary and positions of advantage (to the average de-centralised wage earner), because a proportion of the voting public voted for their association with a political party/banner.

    That Smith is raising a point of incredulous protest, about a widespread misapplication of a fundamental democratic principle being given some thought to applicability, without understanding what he is saying, does in a way, say a lot.

    It is after all, abit confusing!

    • Gabby 6.1
      22 March 2018 at 12:25 pm

      Even if a party, having been elected on a set of promises, decides to break them all and dispose of the honourable few MPs who stand by them?

      • CHCOff 6.1.1
        22 March 2018 at 12:41 pm

        That is correct yes.

        Party members should look (& work) at their foundations, making sure they are satisfactorily in accordance with whatever it is they are supporting with their banner as much as they are interested in working and gaining influence for their banner.

        That would also only lead to better applicable policy outcomes from what it is being put forward for the public to support.

        • Gabby 6.1.1.1
          22 March 2018 at 4:55 pm

          I’m unconvinced by your management speak, better applicable policy outcomes notwithstanding.

    • Anon 6.2
      22 March 2018 at 4:07 pm

      Lists are published prior to election, so people /are/ currently voting for the people on a parties list. Changing party vote to effectively a blank cheque of seats does fundamentally change our democracy.

      • CHCOff 6.2.1
        22 March 2018 at 4:45 pm

        That’s a pretty big fundamental perception, that the NZ democracy is geared up primarily towards the party lists in relation to the voting public’s intentions of what they are identifying with in voting behaviour.

        Wanting no further addition to that, i say that stating the obvious to any great degree is usually a waste of time to the direction of the wind.

  7. Anon 7
    22 March 2018 at 4:10 pm

    It’s not a lie if you believe it, and this is a common enough speech condition that I’m perplexed the progressive left would react in such a way to disability. Disgusting really.

  8. Lurker 8
    23 March 2018 at 5:19 pm

    Nick Smith will get away with this, if he provides written evidence that he meant to say “another”, and claims he was sure that was what he said, as that was what he meant to say.

    Regardless, after asking assurance from him, he should have taken it more seriously.

    One thing that bothers me though is, I do not want Labour to win on “technicalities”

    They should be better than that, and in the spirit of their slogan of open and transparent, they should have made it clear that as an open and transparent government, they do not care for a “technicality” out of it by slip up, but will rather answer all questions even if it could make them look bad.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.