Paula’s petulant parliamentary outburst

Written By: - Date published: 8:41 am, May 24th, 2018 - 247 comments
Categories: john key, labour, paula bennett, Politics, Simon Bridges, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, trevor mallard - Tags:

A bit of drama happened in Parliament yesterday.  It seems the simmering resentment within National’s ranks reached boiling point.

It started after Bennett showed her inability to ask a simple question, or at least one that is within Parliament’s standing orders.

The rules are clear.  Here they are:

Questions must be concise and not contain—

(a)       statements of facts and names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated, or
(b)       arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets, ironical expressions, or expressions of opinion, or
(c)       discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression.

And here is the question that started it all off.

Hon Paula Bennett: So why was a $2.8 billion bribe for tertiary students more important than her promises around health, education, and police that she’s promised?

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, no. I’m going to require the deputy leader of the National Party to rephrase that question in a way that she knows is within Standing Orders, and she’s not getting an extra question for doing it; this will be a new supplementary.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why was a $2.8 billion payment for tertiary students more important than her promises around health, education, and police?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, a narrow view of the policy given this will have a greater potential impact for those workers who have never ever engaged in post-secondary education. But my second question: if it’s a bribe, will you reverse it?

“Bribe” is one of those unparliamentary phrases (see page 13441) which causes disorder and Mallard was right to pick up on it.

Bennett became upset because she had to use up a further question to ask the question properly and then stormed out of Parliament.  All I can say is diddums.

Brownlee also lost it, vented and then cost National a further five questions.

You would have thought this would be the end of the matter and National would lick its wounds but no.

National has chosen to escalate the matter and attack Mallard on a different basis, essentially that he leaked a National MP’s description of Jacinda Ardern being a “silly little girl” to the media.

From Radio New Zealand:

The National Party has issued a strident letter to Parliament’s referee Trevor Mallard, demanding he explain his role in a story about an alleged sexist remark.

Mr Mallard, who is Speaker of the House, insists he heard a National MP call the Prime Minister “a stupid little girl” in the debating chamber two weeks ago.

The remark was first reported last week by Newshub but no source was given. Mr Mallard confirmed on Wednesday those were the words he heard.

The audio recording of the incident is unclear and National’s MPs have denied saying any such thing.

National MP Gerry Brownlee said it was unacceptable for the Speaker to promote stories about unverified events.

“None of us heard it and none of us said it,” he said.

“The only person who says he heard it is the Speaker and we are concerned about why some days after it had been dealt with, it’s now back in the media.”

The allegation is strange.  When you watch the video Mallard immediately responded to something that was shouted out in Parliament.  The implication that Mallard is making this all up days later is bizarre.

And this Heather Du Plessis Allan interview of Bridges raises more questions than it answers.  Bridges was asked who called the Prime Minister a stupid little girl and Bridges gives this reply:

I don’t know if anyone cause here’s the thing I was sitting there, I didn’t hear it, I’m closer to the supposed people who might have said it.  I’ve informally gone around some of the people who supposedly are in the line up of culprits or possible culprits.  No one has told me they said it so was it even said.

Heather Du Plessis Allan then asks a remarkably good question.

OK so you have gone through the list of people, does mean that you have spoken to Brownlee, Bennett, Foss, Carter, Doocey, Young, Smith Finlayson and O’Connor.

And how is this for an answer from an ex Crown prosecutor:

I don’t know if I have spoken to all those people.  I am not going to go on some witch hunt about a supposed theoretical thing.

So let me get this right.  A lawyer has a list of nine suspects and does not ask any questions to exclude them as suspects?  This really sounds like cone of silence stuff.

It looks like National has realised there is no audio of the statement and are using this to attack Mallard.  And vent at the same time although as he pointed out he has given National 22 extra questions in rulings so far.  Claims of being one sided appear to be excessive.

But this could be an interesting day in Parliament.

And if you do want to see what happens when unparliamentary language is used and how awful the last speaker was can I remind you of when John Key said that Labour and the Greens were backing the rapists?

Or how the speaker refused to make Key apologise?

Interesting times …

247 comments on “Paula’s petulant parliamentary outburst ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Robert Guyton 1
    24 May 2018 at 8:45 am

    Staged.

    • Puckish Rogue 1.1
      24 May 2018 at 8:50 am

      I think some in National don’t understand that they’re not in power anymore and some in Labour don’t understand they’re not the opposition

      • cleangreen 1.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 9:02 am

        PR 100% well said there.

        David Carter was very aggressive brutal speaker to several opposition high level PMs always.

        One was namely the present speaker (Trevor Mallard) and Winston Peters also.

        David Carter makes Trevor Mallard look like a ‘fairy godmother.’

        • Puckish Rogue 1.1.1.1
          24 May 2018 at 9:03 am

          Wonder if Lockwood smith could be coaxed out of retirement 🙂

          • cleangreen 1.1.1.1.1
            24 May 2018 at 9:14 am

            Once a national party man = always a national party man.

            PR;
            You did say National “don’t know they are still not in power”.

            So if labour are in power; – why would they want to use a national party Speaker of the House??????

            • Puckish Rogue 1.1.1.1.1.1
              24 May 2018 at 9:30 am

              Because I think (and i’m sure most here would agree) that Lockwood Smith has been the best and fairest of all speakers we’ve had for a very long while and, like rugby referees, all we want in a speaker is to be neutral and consistant

              • roy cartland …
                24 May 2018 at 9:40 am

                Yes, and so would Mallard be if the oppo didn’t behave with such audacious entitlement. Lockwood was seen as a good ref because both sides played fair.

              • mike …
                24 May 2018 at 10:56 am

                Lockwood Smith! That comment is word for word, a repetition of National Party propaganda. Ask the then opposition if he was the ‘best and fairest’. They’ll have another view. He was nothing but a pompous prat parading down the house trying to imitate the queen walking the aisle of westminster abbey. He even arranged with the messengers to make sure the 2 o’clock tour was right outside his office door when he left for the house. Liked a smattering of plebs to grandly gesture to. Lockwood? Scmockwood

                • Gosman …
                  24 May 2018 at 11:11 am

                  Other people disagree with you here Mike including the author of this post MickeySavage.

              • Nik …
                24 May 2018 at 11:44 am

                Some of us are old enough to recall before politics Lockwood was the quintessential school quizmaster on W3, and It’s Academic. Perhaps we need more game show hosts in the Speaker role?

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  24 May 2018 at 11:51 am

                  Wasn’t there something where he was hosting and someone answered orgasm instead of organism

                  But yeah whats Steve Parr up to these days

                • Gabby …
                  24 May 2018 at 12:12 pm

                  Orgasm Nik, orgasm.

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                24 May 2018 at 3:19 pm

                Mallard is in basically every meaningful way the Labour Party equivalent of Lockwood Smith. The difference is that the opposition actually cared about the rules of Parliament when National were in government as a means to create a productive working environment. This opposition, however, simply wants to use those rules to assuage their egos and attack the government in any way it possibly can, and it not interested with working with a speaker who is making every effort to be fair.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  24 May 2018 at 3:24 pm

                  “Mallard is in basically every meaningful way the Labour Party equivalent of Lockwood Smith”

                  Well they’re both males but thats about it

                  • In Vino …
                    24 May 2018 at 4:41 pm

                    Wrong PR. Only National think Lockwood was the best ever. Mallard has actually been fair: he has been just as hard on his own side of the house, to the extent that National are ahead of Govt in the questions won/lost stakes. Mallard has been rapping his own side over the knuckles as well as poor little National.. Lockwood did the same to National, and that is another thing that both have in common: they discipline their own side as severely as they do their opposing side. MW’s comment stands.

                  • Matthew Whitehead …
                    24 May 2018 at 5:06 pm

                    They are both former bruisers in the house who have done very well as Speakers because they know all the tricks that Members get up to from experience and are ready to shut them down.

                    They are both members who were relatively useless as Ministers and disruptive as MPs, but much, much better as Speakers.

                    They both oversaw useful innovations in Parliament.

                    They both defended their own government, but only to the extent that Standing Orders and Speakers Rulings allowed, and did not try to twist existing ruling or make new rulings specifically to shield their own Party, and for no other reasonable purpose.

                    They were both Speakers who intend to improve the tone of Parliament and be fair to the opposition where possible.

                    You can argue that Mallard has failed on that last count. I would argue that he has been every bit as fair as Smith was, but that Smith had constructive partners in Opposition willing to work with him in improving the tone and order of Parliament, and Mallard does not. Even innovations which are beneficial to the National Party are bristled against because they don’t like change, and they don’t like the Speaker treating them like the public would if they were in his shoes in order to control the house: as misbehaving children who need to be corrected in a busy classroom environment. Except unlike children, they don’t have valid excuses like being poor and not being diagnosed as needing glasses, or whatever.

                    Mallard has refused to be a punitive Speaker, and is introducing smaller punishments in order to hold members of the house accountable immediately and incentivize good behaviour even in small ways. He is simultaneously letting people get away with less antics and reducing the extremity of the punishment when they’re caught. If that’s his only legacy as Speaker it will be a good one.

  2. You_Fool 2
    24 May 2018 at 8:48 am

    I continued to be disgraced that Paula Bennett is my MP. I would like it if she could stop her childishness and actually ask useful questions to hold the government to account.

    • cleangreen 2.1
      24 May 2018 at 9:19 am

      Paula Bennett was a ‘staged act yesterday as she was always present in the last National Government.

      When they had the ruling hand of the worst most aggressive speaker of the house we ever had.

      David Carter who was ‘brutal’ on many opposition members of the house so Paula go away and cry crocodile tears somewhere else please.

  3. Wayne 3
    24 May 2018 at 8:52 am

    The “punishment” of deducting 5 supplementary questions for that day, basically without warning, is arbitrary and capricious. I have said previously that this policy will infuriate the Opposition since Question Time is their major opportunity to hold Ministers to account. The alleged balance of deducting questions from the government is irrelevant. They don’t really care whether they ask questions or not.

    Question Time is primarily about the Opposition, so a Speaker has to be particularly careful not to limit the opportunity they have. Trevor has transgressed this principle. So (in some face saving way) he needs to back down.

    Lockwood Smith got the balance right, Trevor needs to take some lessons from his example.

    • mickysavage 3.1
      24 May 2018 at 8:54 am

      How do you explain National being in credit by 22 questions Wayne?

      • Gosman 3.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 9:04 am

        Do you agree that Lockwood Smith was the sort of role model that speakers should aspire to MS?

        • mickysavage 3.1.1.1
          24 May 2018 at 9:12 am

          I thought Lockwood was a good speaker Gossy.

          • Gosman 3.1.1.1.1
            24 May 2018 at 9:18 am

            Then we need to apply the same standards Lockwood Smith followed to subsequent Speaker’s.

            David Carter fell far short of these hence why he was not a good Speaker.

            The question is whether Trevor Mallard is meeting these standards or not. According to National he is not at the moment.

            • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1.1
              24 May 2018 at 10:04 am

              National is known to lie.

              • Gosman …
                24 May 2018 at 10:16 am

                According to people like you Draco. Thankfully people like you do not get to decide who lies and who doesn’t.

                However you do highlight why people like you are dangerous for democracy as you think you should have an ability to decide those sorts of things and do something about it. It is why full blooded Socialism leads to totalitarianism as people who think like you move to purge those who they deem to be liars and ‘threats to the revolution’.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  24 May 2018 at 10:19 am

                  We’ve seen your preference in action – wholesale looting and lying – there’s fuck all democratic about it.

                  • Gosman …
                    24 May 2018 at 11:08 am

                    Stop spinning nonsense. Nothing was looted from anywhere.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      24 May 2018 at 11:41 am

                      Since you jumped in at that point.
                      Why do you think national is 22 questions in credit ?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 May 2018 at 11:58 am

                      SCF was looted, EQC funds were looted Solid Energy was looted Housing Corp was looted what was MAF was looted – more things were looted than not. And your denials add nothing to your already shaky credibility.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    24 May 2018 at 11:20 am

                    Remind me again which government sold off the most of NZs assets, National or Labour?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 May 2018 at 12:00 pm

                      Neither here nor there – all the looters should spend lose all their assets for their crimes. Proven deterrent for corruption in office.

                    • Gosman …
                      24 May 2018 at 12:17 pm

                      Selling assets is not the same as looting them. The Vikings did not go and buy the contents of the Monasteries they attacked.

                • paul andersen …
                  24 May 2018 at 12:06 pm

                  do you actually proof read what you have written before you push send gossy??accusing someone else of being dangerous for democracy by stating an opinion, then doing the exact same thing………possibly you should stick to the totalitarian echo chamber that is whalepuke

                • Gabby …
                  24 May 2018 at 12:15 pm

                  I haven’t heard Browneye say he didn’t use the words stupid, little or girl yet gozzer.

                • Wensleydale …
                  24 May 2018 at 2:38 pm

                  Nice hyperbole, Gosman.

                  If it was just Draco’s opinion that National lie, you’d have a point. But that National’s relationship with the truth is tenuous at best is pretty much documented fact. They lie. They misrepresent. They massage statistics so vigorously I’m surprised it’s not regarded as assault. They will claim that up is down and black is white until they’re blue in the face. They’re utterly dishonest. If you’re happy to support them in their ongoing efforts to cheat and deceive the general public, good for you. I’m sure your mother is very proud.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.2
          24 May 2018 at 10:03 am

          No.

      • Anne 3.1.2
        24 May 2018 at 9:17 am

        Apart from Newshub who mentioned it briefly in passing, I haven’t seen a single news story that mentions the fact National has gained 22 extra questions at the expense of the government parties since the Speaker’s new policy ruling began.

        Serves to confirm for me that Bennett’s petulant exit from the debating chamber had more to do with the TV cameras than it did any feelings of hurt and frustration.

        So, this is the latest strategy eh? Discredit the Speaker. I seem to remember they used that one when Margaret Wilson sat in that chair.

        As for the sexist comment Mallard picked up the other day. Has anyone noticed that Bridges is now claiming nobody heard anyone say “stupid little girl”. That’s true, because the comment was said to have been “silly little girl” and we all know who was the likely culprit.

        • Gosman 3.1.2.1
          24 May 2018 at 9:30 am

          Wilson was a useless Speaker in the vein of Carter.

        • Baba Yaga 3.1.2.2
          24 May 2018 at 9:33 am

          No, who? If you’re implying it was Bridges, then you need to take that up with Mallard, who said the comment came from ‘behind the leader of the opposition’.

        • paul andersen 3.1.2.3
          24 May 2018 at 12:14 pm

          you are correct anne. I asked the question before about the greens also giving extra questions as well as speaker mallard awarding them extra questions, and the natz trolls on here have conviently ignored these facts and instead waffled on about something else….these clowns have been given more questions than they were entitled to, but have somehow made a dogs breakfast of this gift, and are now having a massive whinge. Im wondering if much of this sulking is to try and take the focus off bridges appalling performance in the house. a classic case of ” look, over there, a talking dog”

        • ankerawshark 3.1.2.4
          24 May 2018 at 1:48 pm

          The National opposition made it clear when Bill English was around that it wasn’t their job to help the place run well, so it appears this is what they are doing…..

          It doesn’t look great though. Just childish…………….still I guess their critique of the budget was pretty poor……………………….so they have had to find something to make a noise about.

          Surely btw that is spin that Mallard leaked it. He pulled them up on it in the chamber for all to see, live as it were.

        • Margaret 3.1.2.5
          24 May 2018 at 7:34 pm

          Yes I recall the terrible time they gave Margaret Wilson. This is a continuing strategy obviously, shame on them, they are exceedingly rude.

      • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.3
        24 May 2018 at 3:32 pm

        To be fair to Wayne, National is in credit because New Zealand First are even worse about respecting the rules of the house than they are. If it were Labour and the Greens versus National in terms of net questions, National would be in the hole very badly.

        However, that does address allegations by certain extreme right-wing partisans that Mallard is acting as a partisan speaker. He would be an absolute rubbish attempt at being partisan if he was holding his own government’s support partner to a higher standard than the opposition. If the National front bench wants an example of a partisan Speaker, they just need to turn around and find David Carter on their back benches.

        Any other speaker would have ejected Brownlee from the chamber entirely rather than deducted five questions. Given that Brownlee is also supposed to be ensuring that the rest of his party know relevant standing orders and procedures, it would have effectively been a blanket punishment on the entire party to eject a member in his role, so the National Party really did get off lightly. It is absurd to complain that the Speaker has chosen to be more lenient on them than prior Speakers.

        I would add that the innovation of rebalancing supplementaries based on behaviour in the House is a vast improvement in a number of ways, at least under a Speaker who tries to be fair to the Opposition. The most obvious is its use as a replacement for ejection from the house. Under Carter and previous speakers, you had to do something pretty serious to be ejected from the house immediately, but the line as to where your accumulated minor transgressions added up to being ejected was incredibly blurry, and effectively would reset each day, meaning members could get away with a lot of small transgressions with no actual consequences to themselves or their party, and it was very difficult to tell in advance where the line was between say a few deliberate offenses against minor rules to make a political point and repeatedly misbehaving so much you irritated the Speaker into kicking you out.

        It’s now very clear- being kicked out of the house is reserved for either refusing to co-operate when the Speaker gives a member a chance to withdraw and apologize, or for doing something so far outside the rules that it’s simply unacceptable. Mallard also now has some teeth against small infractions by having parties incentivised to keep order while questions are being asked by holding their supplementaries at ransom, and the fact that he has given National more supplementaries than he deducted has in fact shown that he is holding the government to just as high a standard as the opposition. Yes, he is allowing some rulings that shield Ministers to stand, but if National didn’t like that, they should have agreed to repeal those Standing Orders when they were in government and the opposition would have leapt at the opportunity. Mallard is actually applying the rules as they stand, and when there is a fair argument that Ministers haven’t followed them he requires them to give a real answer.

        I would also point out that personally I’m not very amused with the opposition’s game of trying to get the Speaker to repeat their unsavory remarks. If it’s not on Hansard or they can’t see what the problem is specifically from Hansard, then they should write to the speaker asking for clarification on what the nature of the unacceptable comment was. It’s not reasonable to expect the Speaker to repeat such remarks verbatim.

        • In Vino 3.1.3.1
          24 May 2018 at 7:33 pm

          Last paragraph – exactly right. Unlike Mallard, I stayed teaching. (Better colleagues with a higher level of behaviour.)
          I still get dumb 4th form types who use bad language in class, and, when I haul them up for it, they say back. “Why, what did I say?” Hoping to get the teacher to repeat their bad language, and thereby bring teacher into ridicule.
          Silly little amateurs.
          National, by copying this juvenile drivel, are not covering themselves in glory.

    • Robert Guyton 3.2
      24 May 2018 at 8:58 am

      Your opinion of ex-Speaker Carter’s time in the chair, Wayne? You’ve given your view on Mallard so freely…

      • Gosman 3.2.1
        24 May 2018 at 9:06 am

        Carter was pretty useless and by far too partisan. However if he is your role model of how Mallard should act then you should not complain next time National is in power and appoints another person like Carter.

        • Robert Guyton 3.2.1.1
          24 May 2018 at 9:17 am

          Carter’s no role model, Gosman, more a salutary lesson in partisanship. Trevor Mallard’s making a good fist of managing the Grumpies.

          • Gosman 3.2.1.1.1
            24 May 2018 at 9:21 am

            The Speakers role is not managing the Opposition. It is managing the running of Parliament. If you think antagonising one side is success then I don’t think you are a very good judge on what makes a good Speaker.

            • Robert Guyton 3.2.1.1.1.1
              24 May 2018 at 9:24 am

              All sides require management, Gosman. Managing the petulant, grumpy, “We should be sitting in those seats” Nats, is, I would suggest, Trevor’s Pleasure.

              • Gosman …
                24 May 2018 at 9:28 am

                That is not his prime role and certainly shouldn’t be his pleasure.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  24 May 2018 at 9:45 am

                  He’s loving it and so are we!

                  • Gosman …
                    24 May 2018 at 9:49 am

                    And that is the problem. A Speakers role is not to “love” harassing the Opposition. By doing so he highlights his partisanship. Do you want a partisan Speaker?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 May 2018 at 10:21 am

                      Gnat behavior is consistently unparliamentary. Really they should resign – Trevor’s been pretty gentle with them so far – time he used a bit of stick frankly.

                    • Gosman …
                      24 May 2018 at 10:29 am

                      If National is acting in such a manner then the public will soon grow tired of them and vote them out of Parliament. You only want them to resign because you are blinded by your political bias.

                    • Brigid …
                      24 May 2018 at 10:36 am

                      “A Speakers role is not to “love” harassing the Opposition.”

                      There has been no claim that the Speaker harassed the Opposition or that he loved it.

                      Do you enjoy being dishonest Gosman?

                    • Gosman …
                      24 May 2018 at 10:48 am

                      Read Robert Guyton’s comments above Brigid.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      24 May 2018 at 11:59 am

                      Nonsense, Gosman, I’ve said Trevor’s loving his job, as we all should. Your attempts to reinterpret the words of others is not admirable. Trevor’s showing how best to handle those grumpy Rats, that’s for sure. We should all celebrate Trevor’s success, Gosman and ignore your attempts to tell fairytales.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 May 2018 at 12:03 pm

                      Nonsense – they are not meeting the most basic minimum of our democratic system – telling the truth.

                      You want to give them a free pass because you’re so fucking corrupt you think lying is ok. That’s your bias – and not a pretty one.

                    • Wensleydale …
                      24 May 2018 at 2:44 pm

                      You know that ruling against the Opposition doesn’t constitute harassment, right? I know they’re your people and all, and it infuriates you to see the Blue Team get a good slapping, but it’s not harassment, Gosman. Stop pulling things out of your backside.

                    • Passatore …
                      24 May 2018 at 3:48 pm

                      LOL..”You only want them to resign ….because you are blinded by your political bias……” Pot….kettle…… black..join the dots!

            • Anne 3.2.1.1.1.2
              24 May 2018 at 10:17 am

              So, you are refusing to acknowledge that the Opposition has stood to gain from the new policy by 22 extra supplementaries?

          • Baba Yaga 3.2.1.1.2
            24 May 2018 at 9:24 am

            By leaking to the media an alleged comment that a partially deaf speaker heard and no-one else did?

            Mallard is a petulant bully, and his performance is matching that of some of the most incompetent government ministers. And he has plenty of competition.

            • roy cartland 3.2.1.1.2.1
              24 May 2018 at 10:06 am

              It’s a shame the opposition set the tone so low, of course Mallard is a boofhead; but they can only ever see it as a problem when they’re on the receiving end. Entitlement, like I said.

              • Baba Yaga …
                24 May 2018 at 10:27 am

                Setting a low tone is what politicians do. Of all stripes. And I’d suggest all governments are happy to have a speaker who is favourable to them, Labour in Wilson’s time being a case in point. From memory Bolger’s government nominated a Labour speaker (Tapsell?). Perhaps Mallard should realise his own limitations and step aside for his deputy.

            • Stuart Munro 3.2.1.1.2.2
              24 May 2018 at 10:22 am

              “Mallard is a petulant bully”

              Nope – you’re thinking of Brownlee.

              • Baba Yaga …
                24 May 2018 at 10:28 am

                No, I had it right the first time. And his running interference for Ardern is so obvious I wonder if they’re related. On that subject, I’ve never known a government to hide so many of its ministers after such a short period of time.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  24 May 2018 at 12:04 pm

                  “I had it right the first time.”

                  You’ve never had it right in your life.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                24 May 2018 at 10:42 am

                https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10483091

                “Cabinet Minister Trevor Mallard has moved to put a bad year behind him -pleading guilty to fighting in a public place and apologising to whistleblower Erin Leigh. ”

                Nope, thinking of Mallard

                • Stuart Munro …
                  24 May 2018 at 12:06 pm

                  Irrelevant – but if you want to go historical, barging Brownlee, the bloke who throws elderly guys down sets of stairs can’t really point the finger.

                  • Brigid …
                    24 May 2018 at 12:14 pm

                    Beehive letters
                    Gerry Brownlee to Trevor Mallard
                    RE: Listen here you prick

                    https://twitter.com/BeehiveLetters/status/999206250784018432

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    24 May 2018 at 12:16 pm

                    Actually it is quite relevant:

                    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10411294

                    “For example, this year he copped a telling-off for his comments about Don Brash’s alleged affair with Diane Foreman. In Parliament, he called out to the Leader of the Opposition, “How’s Diane?”

                    Brash apparently looked dumbfounded. When Brash began questions of his own about the handling of the “Taito Phillip Field affair” Mallard yelled, “Speaking of affairs … ” and was ordered by Speaker Margaret Wilson to “please contain himself”. ”

                    He was quite happy to bring up Don Brashs affair but when Tau brought up Trevors own affair Trevor assaulted him, bullys don’t tend to like a taste of their own medicine

                    • Enough is Enough …
                      24 May 2018 at 1:05 pm

                      Mallard is a Bully.

                      How he ever got to be Speaker is beyond me.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 May 2018 at 1:21 pm

                      It’s not relevant because the matter in hand is his behavior as speaker – and Brownlee’s thuggishness in the house rather than outside it.

                      Mallard has behaved well as speaker. Brownlee, having no other skill set, is trying to bully him. The sooner Mallard names him and throws him out the better.

                  • Baba Yaga …
                    24 May 2018 at 6:25 pm

                    Oh PR well and truly got you there Stuart!

                    • In Vino …
                      24 May 2018 at 7:38 pm

                      No, not at all.
                      Mallard, according to SRO, has done nothing wrong as Speaker, and if some foolish National wannabe really makes a legal challenge it will fail. Eat and accept it.

                    • Baba Yaga …
                      24 May 2018 at 7:58 pm

                      “Mallard, according to SRO, has done nothing wrong as Speaker,”

                      You missed the point, which was about Mallard being a petulant bully. He is, and PR nicely put Stuart in his place.

                    • In Vino …
                      24 May 2018 at 8:26 pm

                      If you cannot raise a legal challenge to his conduct as Speaker, give up with the specious innuendo. I never liked Mallard myself, but you people are pushing a silly campaign that is doomed to fail. I don’t wish you well: I am more inclined to be nice and offer you my sympathies.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 May 2018 at 9:23 pm

                      Dreaming as usual.

                    • Baba Yaga …
                      24 May 2018 at 9:23 pm

                      “If you cannot raise a legal challenge to his conduct as Speaker, give up with the specious innuendo.”
                      Huh? I’m calling him a bully. That is hardly controversial when it comes to Mallard. The fact that he’s proving to be an inept speaker is hardly surprising.

                      “I never liked Mallard myself, but you people are pushing a silly campaign that is doomed to fail.”
                      What campaign? I was quite impressed with Mallard at first, I found his approach refreshing. But as time has gone on he’s just looking increasingly out of his league.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 May 2018 at 9:31 pm

                      “I was quite impressed with Mallard at first, ”

                      So you’ll be able to quote one of your comments endorsing him? You’re not fooling anyone but yourself.

                    • Baba Yaga …
                      24 May 2018 at 9:33 pm

                      “So you’ll be able to quote one of your comments endorsing him? ”

                      I tend not to waste time endorsing people for doing a job they are well paid to do. But when they start acting like buffoons, as Mallard is, like many others posting here I’ll call them out.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 May 2018 at 9:35 pm

                      You tend to lie through your crooked teeth which are false.

                      Rather like your parliamentary idols come to think of it.

                    • Baba Yaga …
                      25 May 2018 at 10:22 am

                      “You tend to lie through your crooked teeth which are false.”

                      The total absence of an argument. Well done Stuart, you have excelled even your own ignorance.

    • Sacha 3.3
      24 May 2018 at 9:00 am

      Lockwood was a good Speaker, yes. However after years of Carter’s shameless partisanship it’s rather cute for the Nats to complain about being given 20 more supplementaries than they were originally due. Guess the internal factional pressure is getting to some of them. And I’d personally love to see the end of patsies.

    • KJT 3.4
      24 May 2018 at 11:03 am

      I take it Wayne, you are happy with childish, irrelevant, petulant obstructionism, in Parliament?

    • Wainwright 3.5
      24 May 2018 at 7:04 pm

      Typical righties. All about personal responsibility and do the time, do the crime right up til they get repeat warnings to stop shouting pointless abuse in question time. Then its an abuse of democracy dontchaknow

      Sure Labour have been just as bad in opposition but if its really about ‘holding Ministers to account’ why dont they try doing that for once instead of all the nasty comments?

  4. Robert Guyton 4
    24 May 2018 at 8:56 am

    Jacinda’s remarkably adroit in replying to National’s attempts at “holding the Government to account”, better than Key ever was, not having to revert to ‘forgetting’ or demeaning the questioner as Key so regularly did. She’s a force in the House. No wonder Bennett and Brownlee (Bridges isn’t even worthy of a mention) are going full-huff on it!

    • Puckish Rogue 4.1
      24 May 2018 at 9:00 am

      I agree, theres only one person that can hold Jacinda to the fire and shes currently wasting her considerable talents in smacking Twytford around

      Jude for PM!

      • Robert Guyton 4.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 9:07 am

        Jude & Pucky, up in a tree…
        Really, Pucky – “Twytford”?
        I thought you a little classier than that.
        In any case, Jacinda’d make Jude look like a ginned-up, over-powdered dowager after a night at the Bingo; our J’s quick and sure! Jude’s smashes her way about, thrilling the likes of you but to no useful end 🙂

        • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1.1
          24 May 2018 at 9:10 am

          “Jude & Pucky, up in a tree…”

          I’m going to go and have a lie down, I’ve sudden;y come over all flustered and light headed 🙂

          • Robert Guyton 4.1.1.1.1
            24 May 2018 at 9:18 am

            Feeling crushed?

            • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1.1.1.1
              24 May 2018 at 9:42 am

              She is a competent, strong, decisive women and without detracting from her considerable intellect shes also quite fetchingly attractive as well

              She’ll make a fine leader of NZ 🙂

              • Marcus Morris …
                24 May 2018 at 10:06 am

                And she doesn’t have baggage? Her style might suit red necks but she would inspire few others.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  24 May 2018 at 10:09 am

                  Like all powerful women she has her detractors (mostly weak men) but real men prefer strong women

                  First take over National, second take over NZ and lastly take over the world! Yes!!

              • Robert Guyton …
                24 May 2018 at 10:59 am

                You’re the dag to Jude’s fleece, Ducky.

        • adam 4.1.1.2
          24 May 2018 at 11:30 am

          “””Really, Pucky – “Twytford”?
          I thought you a little classier than that.”””

          Pucky has no class, just gutter politics. Pretends to be nice, but really is just your run of the mill bigot who rolls out the occasional racist or sexist comment. The bit that pisses me off, is that he will then cry’ poor me’ or present some piss poor joke, when called on it.

          • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1.2.1
            24 May 2018 at 11:37 am

            “is that he will then cry’ poor me’”

            Really? Would you care to elaborate on that?

      • cleangreen 4.1.2
        24 May 2018 at 9:23 am

        100% we agree;

        Trevor Mallard is as fair Speaker of the house as we have ever seen of late.

        • Puckish Rogue 4.1.2.1
          24 May 2018 at 9:28 am

          While i agree with you, its also a sad state of affairs that I agree with you…

    • patricia bremner 4.2
      24 May 2018 at 2:26 pm

      I agree Robert. Also this is a hoot from the woman who said “Zip it sweetie”
      That was sexist and nasty of Paula Bennett, who felt Jacinda Ardern shouldn’t speak!!
      It must gallng forl her that she is DP in Opposition and Jacinda is PM in Government.

      Trevor reacted very quickly, I can hear “little girl” but not the “silly” because of the volume of interjections.
      Paula is “in contempt” of Parliament with her walk out imo, and she was pulled up by Speaker Mallard, for use of the word “bribe” which is not allowed in standing orders.

      So, I wonder, is Brownlee making moves to unseat Bridges??? This gives him a platform.

  5. paul andersen 5
    24 May 2018 at 8:59 am

    correct me if Im wrong, but didnt the greens gift questions to the nats?

    • cleangreen 5.1
      24 May 2018 at 9:28 am

      Yes Paul;
      The greens foolishly did that sadly, and now national is complaining ???????

      “how much is enough”?

      Considering how they forced labour to give National control of most of the Select committees during the beginning of parliament when the election of the house speaker which was a bloody shambles.

      • roy cartland 5.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 9:36 am

        It seems it wasn’t foolish though doesn’t it, the Greens gave them the rope…

  6. Neil 6
    24 May 2018 at 9:02 am

    Extremely telling that the “silly little girl” story has gone completely unreported by the NZ Herald for two weeks – while it was picked up by a number of credible and respected overseas publications – and then on the very day the National Party launch a coordinated deflective spin strategy, it’s all over the NZ Herald.

    Partisan much?

    We can only imagine the tabloid witch hunt the Herald would have indulged in if the comments had been shouted by one of the Labour blokes at Amy Adams.

    #nzheraldwherebalancedjournalismgoestodie

    • Puckish Rogue 6.1
      24 May 2018 at 9:07 am

      Well being that we only have T.Mallards word that it was actually said I’d say its a good thing this alleged slur isn’t repeated

      I head the recording and I could only make out Laurel…or maybe it was Yanney

      • ianmac 6.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 9:09 am

        In this tech age it should be possible to “clean up” the recording. But something was said eh Puck?

        • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1.1
          24 May 2018 at 9:24 am

          Yeah I’d have thought it’d be possible as well (unless Hollywood has been lying to me all this time) but the thing is we’re all believing that a guy in his 60s clearly heard a specific phrase over all the hullabaloo in the house

          I can’t make out what was said, the journalists who’d love to to be able to prove that the mean ol’ National said something unkind about the peoples princess can’t confirm it and yet its taken as gospel because Trevor Mallard, the paragon of virtue, says so

          Look if its proven that something like that was said then whatever penalties are given for this kind of thing should be levelled at whoever said it but not on the say so of one person

          • Matthew Whitehead 6.1.1.1.1
            24 May 2018 at 3:59 pm

            Hollywood to some degree is lying to you. While you can absolutely remove unwanted noises, it helps a lot if:

            a) There are multiple recording points to provide extra points of reference, likely there was only a single mic live in that recording.
            b) The noises are very dissimilar to each other.
            c) There are relatively few other noises to remove. Each time a sound is removed from a track there is the possibility you are distorting the remaining sounds a little, making it harder to make them out.

            And, of course, it can be time-consuming or expensive to go to a forensic audio engineer, which nobody is going to do over this stupid story.

      • Robert Guyton 6.1.2
        24 May 2018 at 9:20 am

        Mallard, from the Chair, heard it, Pucky, days later and at at significant distance, didn’t.
        Who to believe????

        • Puckish Rogue 6.1.2.1
          24 May 2018 at 9:26 am

          Trevor claims to have heard it you mean but what do you hear when you hear the recording?

          • Robert Guyton 6.1.2.1.1
            24 May 2018 at 11:02 am

            Pucky, it’s unseemly of you to be challenging the Speaker and instead paying heed to the likes of Bridges; I’d come to expect more from you. Seems you’re sinking as low as the cowardly Nat who said it.

            • Puckish Rogue 6.1.2.1.1.1
              24 May 2018 at 11:05 am

              I listened to the recording and couldn’t make out what was said, I was curious as to what you heard, if you’ve listened to it that is

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                24 May 2018 at 4:01 pm

                Of course you can’t hear it on the video. The video is giving you a single live mic amid a chorus of very loud interjections, which is a very different perspective to that of someone on the floor.

                Numerous speakers in the past have kicked people out for interjections that were not caught in the audio or on Hansard. Mallard is not the first to do so, and it was clear that there were interjections at the very least, so National’s claim is basically “well yeah, we broke the rules, but not in the way he said we did.”

                • Anne …
                  24 May 2018 at 4:38 pm

                  It’s interesting to note that no-one has made the obvious observation:

                  If Mallard heard the comment incorrectly, then the person who made it (and it is clear someone said something) would have been the first to jump up and down… that’s not what I said blah blah. The fact they didn’t suggests they did say “silly little girl”.

                  And now we have all the “silly little RW trolls” digging into the dim, distant past looking for misdemeanours committed under former Speakers in an effort to muddy the waters.

                  • Matthew Whitehead …
                    24 May 2018 at 5:09 pm

                    Indeed, that would have been the more reasonable way to resolve the issue, but it doesn’t allow them to maintain deniability and to attack the Government, so why should National care?

                    It looks like we’re firmly in the “anger” phase of grieving I guess.

            • Gosman 6.1.2.1.1.2
              24 May 2018 at 11:07 am

              They deny ever saying it. All we have is Mallard’s opinion he heard something.

              • dukeofurl …
                24 May 2018 at 11:52 am

                Some have denied saying it. Apparently not all those nearby havent been asked- a usual trick they learned under Key.
                Deny something which isnt the whole truth.

              • R.P Mcmurphy …
                24 May 2018 at 8:34 pm

                well I trust Trevor Mallard every time over the lying dissimulating nationals party operatives

          • Gabby 6.1.2.1.2
            24 May 2018 at 12:34 pm

            Slick claims not to have heard it puckers.

        • Baba Yaga 6.1.2.2
          24 May 2018 at 9:56 am

          Mallard is significantly deaf in his left ear. There is no evidence of the comment having been made, and no government or opposition MP supports Mallard’s claims.

      • cleangreen 6.1.3
        24 May 2018 at 9:35 am

        PR I heard that set of words muttered as she got up to leave the chamber too.

        It is incredible that others did not hear it.

        Trevor mallard is quite correct to force MP’s to act civil to each other as we know National is raging full of anger and hate right now.

        As you say National still don’t realise they are no longer in power, – so they need to heel as Labour had to for nine years, and get over it.

    • mpledger 6.2
      24 May 2018 at 11:37 am

      I heard about it on Radio NZ and I was quite surprised at how the story was reported. It was reported totally from the point of view of the National party e.g. that the speaker had done something wrong and that National had some right to be aggrieved. For a news item, it definitely wasn’t balanced and devoid of context and most of the facts.

      It smacked of the newsroom quoting a press release direct from the National party.

      • Grantoc 6.2.1
        24 May 2018 at 3:37 pm

        mpledger

        Mallard had ‘done something wrong’ (slagging National off to the media for a sexist comment no one else heard).

        National ‘had a ‘right to be aggrieved’ – they were portrayed by mallard in speaking to the media negatively and unfairly and in a politically biased way – the speaker is supposed to be neutral.

        These are the facts as that were presented by the situation that occurred.

        The media reported these events accurately.

  7. Kay 7
    24 May 2018 at 9:07 am

    Clearly not meeting her obligations as a recipient of taxpayer monies so I expect to see sanctions applied immediately.

  8. ianmac 8
    24 May 2018 at 9:07 am

    It was a contrived sulk from Paula Bennett. Seems simple to me. The referee controls the whistle. Figure out what the referee expects of you. And rather than act like a petulant child just follow the rules. Silence during the question asking and during points of order. That shouldn’t be too hard?

    Note that Brownlie was very “trembly” during his stand-up in the foyer last night. And no sign of Bridges???

    • Wensleydale 8.1
      24 May 2018 at 2:54 pm

      If Bennett could actually ask a question without being condescending, insulting or making dubious insinuations, she’d probably be more successful in her role. Too much to hope for, I know.

  9. dv 9
    24 May 2018 at 9:19 am

    Can the speaker ask each Nat individually under oath, if they said the offending words?

    • Gosman 9.1
      24 May 2018 at 9:23 am

      He could try. What purpose would that serve apart from antagonising National even further?

      • R.P Mcmurphy 9.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 10:12 am

        who gives a shit. the nationals need to be antagonised and drubbed and drubbed again. they are like spoiled brats and need to be dragged kicking and screaming into adulthood instead of treating the house like some sort of free for all kindergarte where everything is subsumed under this deluge of infantile outbursts

        • Stuart Munro 9.1.1.1
          24 May 2018 at 10:31 am

          Absolutely – they haven’t contributed anything positive to NZ in a decade – time they were weaned off the public teat and sent out to make their own way in the wasteland they’ve created.

        • Gosman 9.1.1.2
          24 May 2018 at 10:32 am

          If you agree the position of Speaker should become partisan then by all means promote that view.

          • mpledger 9.1.1.2.1
            24 May 2018 at 11:41 am

            But you could make that comment about any ruling made by the speaker against National.

            I think it’s fair that if the speaker hears a misogynist comment that is clearly against standing orders then he has a duty to investigate and hold the guilty to account. If he doesn’t abide by standing orders then parliament will descend into chaos.

            • Gosman 9.1.1.2.1.1
              24 May 2018 at 12:15 pm

              He is by all means entitled to investigate it. However if he goes about his investigation in a manner which fails to get to the bottom of it AND he alienates the opposition doing so (e.g. by releasing information about the allegations to the media) then this does is disservice to the oddice of the Speaker in terms of maintaining perceived impartiality.

              • dukeofurl …
                24 May 2018 at 2:19 pm

                releases information ?
                he raised the issue in the house immediately he heard it, why shouldnt he then speak to the media when they ask for ‘more information’ about a major issue in the house.

                As usual you are being less than truth-full in your version

          • Stuart Munro 9.1.1.2.2
            24 May 2018 at 1:25 pm

            It’s funny – I don’t think even as vile a troll as you is prepared to openly state that the speaker should be partisan – though you never made a peep about Carter. Mallard isn’t anywhere near as bad as Carter – so as usual you have no argument whatsoever.

            • Gosman 9.1.1.2.2.1
              24 May 2018 at 1:46 pm

              Pretty sure I never defended Carter. I can’t remember if I ever attacked him but I see no reason why I wouldn’t have. He was not a good Speaker.

              • dukeofurl …
                24 May 2018 at 2:24 pm

                Carter in the big scheme of things was average, just he was unlucky to have to give a pass those un parliamentary antics of Key and Brownless.
                Once English became PM most of those sort things went away.

              • David Mac …
                24 May 2018 at 7:01 pm

                Yes, Carter’s heart never seemed in it. A recipe for an average performance.

                I think Trevor’s heart is in it and he has the potential to be a great Speaker. It’s just that I feel his using the granting of questions as a punitive device is punishing you and me. They’re our employees, we pay our opposition to ask questions, lots of them. Polite, fair, probing, illuminating questions.

                Trevor does seem to have a streak of School Dean about his manner… For a minute I thought he was going to make Paula spend her lunchtime picking up paper on the Beehive lawn.

                In sport, no matter the code, boxing or football. A referee or umpire at the top of their game, you don’t notice them, a fair match with invisible adjudication. I think that should be the goal of a speaker, facilitate fair vigorous debate and hardly be noticed.

      • Sabine 9.1.2
        24 May 2018 at 10:33 am

        maybe they learn to abide by the rules, be polite, leave the insults at home and be decent human beings?

        National, Party with no friends and no manners. 🙂

  10. roy cartland 10
    24 May 2018 at 9:35 am

    They simply don’t get that they’re not in the position to bully and flout any more. Trying to smear the speaker now, really that is desperate.

  11. R.P Mcmurphy 11
    24 May 2018 at 10:08 am

    beenits performance was truculent, petulant and basically infantile because she did not get her own way. we have just had nine long years of childish behaviour and mallard should call it for what it is.

  12. R.P Mcmurphy 12
    24 May 2018 at 10:10 am

    it seems to be the policy of the nationals party to try and turn parliamentary debates into some sort of nonsense fest where no one is actually sure of what is happening.

  13. Puckish Rogue 13
    24 May 2018 at 10:13 am

    So its fair to say that the last few speakers (including the current) have been a bit of a let down, to put it mildly

    Lockwood Smith seems to be an unanimous pick for being the best of the best so my question is (because I don’t know) how do the standards of the Speaker be raised so that Lockwood Smith is seen as the bare minimum standard for Speaker?

    • cleangreen 13.1
      24 May 2018 at 10:16 am

      PR;

      We watch Parliament almost every day during Q+A time and I how witnessed many times when Trevor Mallard has pulled up many opposition Members for saying things off hand that others have not heard so his hearing is very good .

      PR have no fear there, so it seems that the national opposition has already embarked on a mission to topple the speaker of the house by this action.

      It seems to have been a staged event, and we noticed that Gerry Brownlee was also in the fray trying to stir this plot along too;

      Oh yes “Dirty politics” is well alive and kicking here by the national party.

      Someone should place a charge against National party interference in our parliamentary democratic procedure of disrupting government from their job to serve the NZ people.

    • roy cartland 13.2
      24 May 2018 at 10:20 am

      To achieve this, all sides have to agree to behave in a Parliamentary fashion, meeting Speaker’s Rulings and Standing Orders. National clearly sees no reason why it should, as Bennett(s) and Brownlee so aptly demonstrate.

      Even you must be “pretty sure” they never really thought the standards they demand of others applied to them.

    • bwaghorn 13.3
      24 May 2018 at 11:07 am

      Don’t get an mp to be speaker . Hire a high court judge of good standing

      • Puckish Rogue 13.3.1
        24 May 2018 at 11:14 am

        I guess you’d need to get an agreement from all the parties or something which may prove…contentious

  14. greywarshark 14
    24 May 2018 at 10:21 am

    How come Ms Bennett seems always shown with sunny smiles and looking perky.. Have the photographers been bribed? Anyone else gets caught mid-sneer, looking thoughtful which looks depressed, twisted face when annoyance registers for a moment. Aren’t there any unflattering pics of her. If not, how not?

    • cleangreen 14.1
      24 May 2018 at 10:51 am

      greywarshark,

      Like PR said on Puckish Rogue 1.1
      ‘some in National don’t understand that they’re not in power anymore and some in Labour don’t understand they’re not the opposition

      Trevor Mallard is a pussycat compared to the aggressive, bruising tyrant David Carter and Paula Bennett needs to remember those times when David Carter ruled over the opposition with such fervor.

      • Puckish Rogue 14.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 11:03 am

        Heres the thing, at some stage National will be back in power, I don’t want a David Carter, Margret Wilson or Trevor Mallard. I want a Lockwood Smith

        • Stuart Munro 14.1.1.1
          24 May 2018 at 1:32 pm

          It’s by no means certain.

          After they dump Simon and discover that Judith, though aggressive, is less popular than ebola, and cull the deadwood, they may find they don’t have much left.

          What does National represent besides backroom deals and bad behavior? They have pissed away the few principles they ever had and disgusting pieces of crap like Brownlee are revealing who they are to the general public.

          There’s a more than sporting chance that the party will collapse, especially as their long record of failure, suppressed successfully by Key in government, is finally coming out.

          • Puckish Rogue 14.1.1.1.1
            24 May 2018 at 1:53 pm

            “It’s by no means certain.”

            Seriously? Yeah its certain, its certain that Labour, at some point, will be out of power and, at some point, National will be back in power.

            The question is when

            “There’s a more than sporting chance that the party will collapse, especially as their long record of failure, suppressed successfully by Key in government, is finally coming out.”

            If it didn’t collapse after Nationals 22% I highly doubt collapse at 40%, even 30%

            • Stuart Munro 14.1.1.1.1.1
              24 May 2018 at 3:34 pm

              Labour has rebuilt significantly over the last few months. National still haven’t worked out that they lost. The Key kleptocracy has destroyed whatever shreds of credibility the party retained.

              A little bit more bullshit, a few more rotations of leaders without looking like more than a circus of the socially and morally inept, and we can close National’s sorry chapter and get on with the better New Zealand the useless turkeys have been obstructing.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                24 May 2018 at 3:42 pm

                You are incorrect. Labour fluked a win with Cindy, prior to that Labour were floundering. Labour still hasn’t rebuilt because Labour is Cindy, Cindy is Labour. Cindy leaves parliament and Labour won’t get back in.

                If Cindy left who would replace her as leader?

                National is still currently running at 43% so their credibility is still high and as for the rest of your ranting well at some point National will be back in power, the only question is when

                • Stuart Munro …
                  24 May 2018 at 3:56 pm

                  It’s not a completely empty assertion, in that she has brought some value to the role – but if you reflect, the situation of National sans Key is pretty much that of the future Labour you describe.

                  But Labour has rebuilt – the demise of the Maori party, one of the key features that had kept them out of power represents a significant bit of work.

                  National’s comparable structural reform to deal with such developments seem to go no further than wishful thinking about blue greens or an ACT revival.

                  No surprise though – they still imagine they were robbed.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    24 May 2018 at 4:03 pm

                    “It’s not a completely empty assertion, in that she has brought some value to the role – but if you reflect, the situation of National sans Key is pretty much that of the future Labour you describe.”

                    I agree she has and shes very good at what she does but if she was to leave who’d replace?

                    I also agree National need to stop acting like they’re in power and start acting like an opposition, however they have time on their side in that Cindys sparkle and baby will almost guarantee another term so a spell in opposition might just do them some good

                    “But Labour has rebuilt – the demise of the Maori party, one of the key features that had kept them out of power represents a significant bit of work.”

                    Labour shouldn’t assume the Maori Party is dead and shouldn’t take the Maori seats for granted either:

                    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12053609

                    “National’s comparable structural reform to deal with such developments seem to go no further than wishful thinking about blue greens or an ACT revival.”

                    I’m guessing part of their strategy will be to remind rural voters what NZFirst said before the election and what they did after, its a bold prediction but I’m making it here, NZFirst will not make 5% at the next election if Winston Peters is still leader

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      24 May 2018 at 4:24 pm

                      Certainly right about needing not to take Maori for granted.

                      The same logic runs for the Gnats attacking NZF as Labour used to run against the Greens – they are competing for the same vote, but they need to be aware of the commonalities. And, attacking NZF makes it hard to chase coalition with them.

                      I’d lean the other way on NZF – the threat comes when Winston leaves. They should steal the Green co-leadership model – it softens exits.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      24 May 2018 at 4:25 pm

                      Personally if i was advising National i’d advise them to completely smash NZFirst into the ground, take them completely out

                    • McFlock …
                      24 May 2018 at 4:31 pm

                      lols because that worked so well for the nats last year.

                      If National “take out” NZ1, it’s all or nothing. And they obviously can’t handle being the most popular losers in parliament.

      • greywarshark 14.1.2
        24 May 2018 at 11:59 am

        Yes all true. But Missy B is just one of the mainstays of Gnashionals social climbing, late-colonial nouveau riche. Flouncing and posturing is one of their specialties.

        What I am wondering is how she controls, presumably, her images which tend to be 90% attractive. I remember saying in Helen Clark’s time how blue the colouring of the image was making her appear drained and gaunt, and her facial expression chosen for reproduction tended to be sour looking. Paula must be often like that but I don’t see it. Image is so important in the middle class conformist world, so it is no light matter.

  15. Marcus Morris 15
    24 May 2018 at 10:41 am

    The bad news for Gossy and abba dabba is that, unless the Nats can find some political friends, TM could be in the chair for some time.

    • cleangreen 15.1
      24 May 2018 at 10:57 am

      MM yes how true that is;

      Perhaps the National Party supporters are incensed that they have to finally contemplate that they need to ‘smoke the piece pipe’ with others to garnish some friends now eh?

    • Gosman 15.2
      24 May 2018 at 11:05 am

      Unlikely. The natural length of time for any governing arrangement in NZ is approximately 6 to 9 years. Anything more would be highly unusual. By the third term the Government has usually grown stale and tired and has burnt off much of the support from the support parties. It happened to Labour under Clark and it happened to National. I have yet to see anything to suggest it won’t happen to the current Government.

      • Marcus Morris 15.2.1
        24 May 2018 at 2:34 pm

        I think it fair to say that the formation of the Maori Party and a last throw of the dice by ACT lead to Helen Clarke’s Labour Party loss. I doubt that the Maori Party will be a force again and even if “twinkle toes” from Epsom wins DWTS (heaven forbid such a travisty) I doubt that will see a rise in ACTS fortunes so I wouldn’t be so sure that we will see a “normal” electoral cycle.

        • McFlock 15.2.1.1
          24 May 2018 at 2:39 pm

          Who knows what’ll happen in two elections.

          It will be interesting if labgrn figure out a way to regenerate their caucus while in government, though.

          Maybe term limits for non-cabinet list MPs? Clear out the less productive ones?

          • greywarshark 15.2.1.1.1
            24 May 2018 at 2:50 pm

            Now term limits would be good. How many do you think? And for all MPs too not just list MPs – though there might be different limits for them.

            MPs in – 3 terms then break? List MPs one and review how their electorates had viewed them, two and then see how they compare with good new ones?

            • McFlock 15.2.1.1.1.1
              24 May 2018 at 3:02 pm

              The thing about regeneration is that the objective is to sustain the good performers and replace the weaker performers with new blood.

              Electorate MPs are different – their performance comes down to directly winning votes. List MPs are more indirect.

              Because it would ideally be an ongoing process every election, one wouldn’t want to drop too many at a time – gotta keep the caucus memory. Maybe just kick the bottom three list members off the list, possibly with some sideways researcher jobs if they still want to contribute. And if they do well there that bodes well for their next selection, clean slate.

              • greywarshark …
                24 May 2018 at 5:08 pm

                Yes McFlock that sounds good. Take them off the bottom after a while.

                But perhaps from the top too. I am brassed off with career pollies. I think that they have a lot in the USA and could be one of the reasons for so many stuck in the swamp now spreading round the world.

                (Incidentally this term started in the USA …
                by – Ronald Reagan, who called for “drain[ing] the swamp” of bureaucracy in the federal government in 1983. Wikipedia)

                Don’t know that the swamp ever did his career any harm.
                I think he was repeating something he had learned at some workshop on destroying democracy.

                • McFlock …
                  24 May 2018 at 5:32 pm

                  We do need the occasionaly thirty-year-or-whatever mp to help get folks up to speed. People who might not be especially big hitters, but who can be useful in caucus meetings and telling folks where the caucus room even is lol

                  People who know the House rules better than most Speakers.

  16. Pat 16
    24 May 2018 at 11:11 am

    The public were largely disinterested in Carters performance as Speaker…..I expect that trend will continue

  17. David Mac 17
    24 May 2018 at 11:12 am

    Parliament are not there for themselves. They’re there for you and me. They speak for us.

    Wayne says that question time is there for the opposition to hold our government to account. I agree, but they’re not doing it for themselves, they’re doing it for us. Question time isn’t for politicians, it’s for you and me. If society has issues, the opposition raises matters for debate in the house on our behalf.

    I don’t think Mallard should be treating Question time as a device to put naughty children on detention by lording over their opportunity to speak for us…..can’t we bring back the cane, just for the Beehive.

    • mpledger 17.1
      24 May 2018 at 11:44 am

      I think the naughty step would be more appropriate – the guilty party has to remain on the step 1 minute for every year of their age – according to Super-nanny anyway.

    • alwyn 17.2
      24 May 2018 at 1:43 pm

      “can’t we bring back the cane, just for the Beehive.”
      It is a very long time since Trevor was a teacher. He may not even realise that teachers aren’t allowed to cane their students any more.

      Putting him back into the real world would probably be to much for him. He is now locked into his own little world where he has to be obeyed because HE is the boss.
      I’ll bet he nostalgically tosses a bit of chalk dust onto his gown to remind him of the happy days when he was a tyrant to the third formers.

  18. David Mac 18
    24 May 2018 at 11:59 am

    Ha! Their egos are such, the prospect of wearing a Dunce’s cap for 10 minutes would probably do a better job of reigning them in than clipping the Q’s and supps.

    • Puckish Rogue 18.1
      24 May 2018 at 1:04 pm

      Have that as a binding referendum and I bet you’d get a large turnout

  19. SPC 19
    24 May 2018 at 12:32 pm

    It’s tough being in opposition when one has been in power – it’s like being an ex and stalking the one whose has come into their own since you lost power over them.

    Stalking them each day at question time, barring protection orders from the Speaker …

    Nikki chastising the “boy in shorts” over how he is raising the children, Paula demanding that no one ever has it so good as she did when on the DPB.

  20. Delia 20
    24 May 2018 at 12:36 pm

    National MPs are struggling to accept they no long are the govt and so they have these paddies..this is just the start of them. Yep Paula keep wasting the taxpayers dime arguing with the Speaker. If you have an issue put it in writing do not use House time.

  21. Ffloyd 21
    24 May 2018 at 1:34 pm

    I hope Trevor Mallard doesn’t rise to the bait and respond to brownlees DEMAND. What a chuckle he is.
    . They are falling to bits and don’t have clue between the lot of them. All as thick as two short planks. Where was “why? why? Si.’ Out getting schooled by key no doubt.

  22. repateet 22
    24 May 2018 at 2:42 pm

    Apparently Brownlee used to be a teacher. Was he ever a pupil? He’s acting like a slow learner.

    Seeing ‘Brownlees’ like looks like Brainless.

    He isn’t brainless just petulant and pissed off he’s not calling the shots. And his unruly rabble are throwing toys all over the chamber.

  23. Cinny 23
    24 May 2018 at 2:54 pm

    Well, well, well, paula can’t handle being in opposition, gerry isn’t dealing with it either.

    Meanwhile, nats are making loud animal-like noises in parliament today, so professional….. lmfao, how embarrassing for their supporters, super amusing 🙂 lololz

  24. ianmac 24
    24 May 2018 at 3:04 pm

    Crikey! Q5 a means for Mr Bennett to disrupt and deflect the progress of Question Time. Paula Bennett has been sent out.

  25. mac1 25
    24 May 2018 at 3:17 pm

    The Nats in the House are truculent, disorderly and disobedient.

    Paula Bennett has been sent from the House. Mr Bennett was threatened with being
    ‘named’ for not standing, withdrawing and apologising for remarks made to the Speaker during the asking of a supplementary question. Mr Brownlee is exasperatingly picky and used a point of order procedure to use three times the phrase complained of by the unidentified member about the PM.

    It got to the point where a comment by Andrew Little that Mr Bennett was ‘trivialising’ an issue concerning incarceration statistics was complained of, by way of point of order, as being a breach of rule 120.

    Brownlee is now being asked to apologise for raising spurious points of order and then repeating the dose. Speaker Mallard was very kind to him.

    By now I would have banished him.

    Mallard is a former teacher. Brownlee is a former teacher. I am a former teacher. Mrs Mac1 is a former teacher. I am sure we all recognise the behaviour of fourth formers on a Friday afternoon after exams at the end of the year, especially when the students
    involved have poor nutrition and have been drinking cans of “V”. Though Brownlee and Mallard weren’t teaching when ‘V” fuelled misbehaviour.

    The opposition is leaderless, rudderless, ruder and more disarrayed than I believe possible.

    Perhaps Simon Bridges is their best, after all………………….

    • Ad 25.1
      24 May 2018 at 3:22 pm

      Mallard must have got pretty close to Naming MP Bennett.

      If this is the only way National can get airtime during the budget debate, they have a long, long term ahead of them.

      • mac1 25.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 3:30 pm

        The option of naming was spelled out by the Speaker. Mr Bennett nearly choked on the words when he finally complied.

        Interesting that the way in which some apologies were given did not vocalise the word “I”.

        What we often heard was “Withdraw and apologise.” The miscreants can’t even personalise and own up for themselves…….. embarrassing, way past any possible sense of schadenfreude.

        • Ad 25.1.1.1
          24 May 2018 at 4:00 pm

          Nats aren’t looking good on TV1 news.
          Smart of the Speaker to have a shave for the coverage.

        • dukeofurl 25.1.1.2
          24 May 2018 at 4:03 pm

          He was asked a 2nd time to with draw and apologise after a new interjection reflecting on the chair, after a delay he then said
          “I withdraw etc etc”
          Then Bennett was then booted out…. she looked ready to defy Mallard for a bit.

        • Matthew Whitehead 25.1.1.3
          24 May 2018 at 4:46 pm

          That may also be because sometimes mics are turned on and off to follow who’s speaking, and it takes a little while for a new speaker’s mic to be switched on, so you’re just missing the “I” before “…withdraw and apologize.”

      • David Mac 25.1.2
        24 May 2018 at 7:28 pm

        It’s been a fizzer of a budget debate.

        A full wallet has left few attack angles for a party that would of delivered a similar budget.

        It’s a situation that has Gerry raising points of order like: “You’re only able to do the job you’re doing because of the groundwork we did for you.”

        Regardless of how true this may or may not be, it’s an attitude that does nothing to further our nation. It does nothing to hold the government to account. It smacks of sour grapes and does his party or you and me no favours.

        Please use question time as you should Nats. Ask the questions we want to. This new housing estate in Manakau: How is the infrastructure being paid for? Re-instating rail to Hawkes Bay, why wouldn’t you push it through to Gisborne?

        • Ad 25.1.2.1
          24 May 2018 at 7:32 pm

          At the rate the Nats are going it’s going to take a full term to stop saying “but me too”.

  26. mac1 26
    24 May 2018 at 4:08 pm

    A thought. Has the National opposition got wind of a turn down in their political polling? That might explain their terrible performance in the House, their misbehaviour, their truculence, their loss of control.

    • roy cartland 26.1
      24 May 2018 at 4:18 pm

      Absolutely. They’re trying to manufacture a coordinated a take-down of the Speaker for godssake. That’s a risky tactic with a high chance of failing spectacularly, and a very slim chance of benefit. Desperate and chaotic without a doubt.

      • Puckish Rogue 26.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 4:20 pm

        • Mac1 26.1.1.1
          24 May 2018 at 4:32 pm

          Puckish Rogue, you’ve got the hat shape right. The shape of misguided clerics of some rank, Gilbert and Sullivan admirals, onetime failed dictators, and assorted sundry gentry, nobility and beyond.

          Admiral Key, Bishop Bridges, Napoleon Brownlee and Town Crier Bennett.

    • Gosman 26.2
      24 May 2018 at 4:46 pm

      Why would that explain their behaviour?

      • McFlock 26.2.1
        24 May 2018 at 5:06 pm

        Because their idiocy stinks of desperation.
        Also, shouty is not taking the lead on this at all, Brownlee the 8th is.

      • mac1 26.2.2
        24 May 2018 at 7:12 pm

        Gosman, how else would you explain their behaviour? You do agree that this misbehaviour is truculent and out of control?

        You don’t mean that their behaviour could be explained by testosterone, narcissism, divine right to rule and by anger and despair caused by unjust usurpation of their rightful powers?

        Perhaps, too, it could be more Caesarean?

        National MPs so fear losing power and having to face scrutiny of their actions, from Oravida to Saudi Arabia, from Deep Creek to Mycoplasma Bovis, from Afghanistan to Auckland cafes, that they declare war on the Chief Magistrate since they no longer have imperium in Wellington? Hmmm, Trevor Mallard as Pompey, Simon Bridges as Caesar, and who will be Caesar’s horse, to carry him across the Rubicon?

        • Gosman 26.2.2.1
          25 May 2018 at 5:18 am

          How about their behaviour is related to how they feel they are being treated by the Speaker?

          • Robert Guyton 26.2.2.1.1
            25 May 2018 at 6:14 am

            Not credible, Gosman. Labour were treated badly and unfairly by Carter, yet didn’t resort to histrionics as National are doing. Mallard is not exhibiting unfair behaviour of any significance, despite Gerry and Paula’s cry-baby protestations. Their behaviour is calculated and far from admirable and part of their wider intention to disrupt in order to make the Government appear to be unable to manage the role.

          • mac1 26.2.2.1.2
            25 May 2018 at 9:42 am

            “How they feel”.

            No-one can deny another person their feelings, Gosman.

            But how people act is for adults an act of will and intellect. It’s called behaviour, and it’s supposed to be good.

            Are National ruled by their heads or by their hearts?

            What happened at their caucus when they decided not to have a mass walk-out? That was an example of their heads ruling.

            If National used their heads, they would use the remedy allowed them in Parliamentary procedures. But no, they flout the rules instead.

            Or are you saying this is on a par with civil disobedience?

  27. Ffloyd 27
    24 May 2018 at 5:02 pm

    So it’s all about disruption now. Looks like a concerted effort to unsettle the Speaker.Brownlee is being stupider than ever. What a pack of tossers. They look rudderless. Perhaps Si needs to drop anchor for a while so they can scan the horizon and get their bearings.

    • ianmac 27.1
      24 May 2018 at 7:28 pm

      Where is Bridges? Has he done a Key act by being absent when trouble brews?

      • Graeme 27.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 8:26 pm

        Down in Queenstown trying to claw back some of the trust National have lost around town. And getting out into rather dodgy territory in what he’s saying, but hey, gotta get those votes…

        https://crux.org.nz/community/simon-bridges-pushes-more-local-autonomy-for-southern-lakes/

        “In an earlier interview with Crux, Mr Bridges said that his party had changed its position on a possible Bed Tax for Queenstown and Wanaka ” to pay not just for the infrastructure items like roads but also some of the softer things like a new theatre or auditorium.”

        PS Peter Newport is doing some good journalism with his Crux project.

    • cleangreen 27.2
      24 May 2018 at 7:41 pm

      yes disruption is the national Party name of this game as “civil disabedience” is now in the hands of national party.

      if I was a national supporter (which i am not( I wouikld be very worried now.)

      These MP’s are disrupting parliament now and that will hurt us all and National will pay for it.

      Labour need to grow balls and rise above these childlike national Party antics, and trevor Mallard is keep a good line on them today, as he wont be shaken by this as he like winston has been thoiugh times before like this and will draw on his knowledge of thes idiots inside national and deal to them just fine.

  28. ianmac 28
    24 May 2018 at 7:43 pm

    Anyone notice Jerry Brownlie’s physical state during his standup in the House foyer tonight and last night. Breathing in short spans and shaky with it. Is he well?

  29. David Mac 29
    24 May 2018 at 8:13 pm

    Google is not serving me well. It’s a difficult question to ask.

    What happens to Mr Bennet if he is named?

    • ianmac 29.1
      24 May 2018 at 8:41 pm

      He loses voting rights and other privileges I think if he is named.
      I suspect that Bennet, P Bennett and Brownlie were nominated to disrupt and undermine today. Orchestrated.

      • Dv 29.1.1
        24 May 2018 at 8:55 pm

        Working down the alphabet eh

        • mac1 29.1.1.1
          25 May 2018 at 2:33 pm

          Dv, you could be right on the alphabet. Amy Adams was also very vocal and had to be told to not interrupt again.

          Next up, if we’re right is Barry, Bridges, Bakshi and Bishop . Well, Bishop got a correction on his question from the Speaker yesterday which made him blink uncomprehendingly, so he’ll be all revved up. Barry never is tough except on weeds and Bridges will be energised from his sojourn in the “escape from the apocalypse” capital of the world down in Central Otago. Mr Bakshi is an unknown contender, as yet, along with Hunua’s Bayley.

          Amongst the “C”s we have Crusher Collins who is always in attack mode except when disarmed by laughter, Coleman has already made his last delivery, and among the ‘D”s we have AC Doocey and Dowie. That is an average bunch following the top ABCs of National.

      • David Mac 29.1.2
        24 May 2018 at 9:16 pm

        Yep, I agree Ian. Today’s Nat game-play was laid out on the whiteboard in the greenroom pre-show.

        Voting rights? Really, Trev can manipulate a vote by naming the naughty?

  30. David Mac 30
    24 May 2018 at 8:18 pm

    Gerry looks fabulous in a Hibiscus print shirt flipping rosemary and lamb sausages on the teak patio of his beach-side holiday house and that’s exactly what he should be doing and I’m counting the days until he agrees with me.

  31. David Mac 31
    24 May 2018 at 8:34 pm

    I think swapping the Beehive for fishing and the resultant diet will put 10 years on Brownlee’s life.

    The people who love him, the reason we all do what we do. They will love him for it.

    You ain’t a Simon Bridges kinda guy are you Gerry? Pack it in, live, come and catch some Snapper Sport, you’ll love it.

  32. R.P Mcmurphy 32
    24 May 2018 at 8:37 pm

    dear god. will you please stop these people from being so nasty to each other. if they were nice to each other then it would be so groovy and people would be happy

    • David Mac 32.1
      24 May 2018 at 8:54 pm

      Ripping holes in someone’s plan creates animosity, friction.

      When it’s working as it should, it serves us well. A solid and carefully plotted plan should be able to withstand attacks on it’s merits.

      I think our government does nobody any favours when they trot out “Look at the mess you’ve left us to deal with.”

      It’s not the Alpha stance. It can be drawn to our attention without it being a wheelchair.

  33. peterlepaysan 33
    24 May 2018 at 9:49 pm

    I understand paula flounced out stating she objected to being treated like a child.

    It is easy, sweetie, stop behaving like a child.

    Sigh, nats feel soo entitled, just like my grandchildren (aged 3 to 5).

  34. riffer 34
    24 May 2018 at 11:01 pm

    I fear Trevor Mallard will reflect on how effective his policy of removing questions is, and choose to revert to the methods of previous Speakers.

    Then we will see a large amount of National MPs taking some time out from the Debating Chambers.

    While it would make me smile, and possibly laugh, I fear it will merely stoke the fire of those in the media who have been bleating on about “how unfair the Speaker is to those poor MPs who are just trying to hold the Government to account.”

    National really are the architects of their own misfortune on this one, unfortunately. It could be so easy for them to just ask questions properly. And that would get them what they want. So easy. A pity their egos and their anger make it so hard for them. Poor things. 🙂