Discussion:
Mallard must go!
(too old to reply)
John Bowes
2020-12-14 03:05:50 UTC
Permalink
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!

If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
Mutlley
2020-12-14 03:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Tony
2020-12-14 05:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
John Bowes
2020-12-14 06:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
Funny how they were changed by the totally unbiased lame duck Mallard himself*! Talk about self interest!

*Rich80105 that's me being sarcastic (just so the fucking moron doesn't think I like Mallard or ever have!)
Rich80105
2020-12-14 11:04:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
Tony
2020-12-14 19:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Rich80105
2020-12-14 19:43:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
did not make the decision to change: See from that article:

"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.

Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.

The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."

So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
John Bowes
2020-12-14 21:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
BULLSHIT! You as usual couldn't comprehend the facts against Mallard Rich!
Here are the first line of the article Tony cited: At the same time Speaker Trevor Mallard was being sued for defamation, he changed the rules so other MPs could also have theirs covered by the taxpayer without disclosing it publicly."

<further crap snipped>
Tony
2020-12-15 01:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
John Bowes
2020-12-15 02:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
Due to Rich having zero comprehension skills he doesn't understand it's not the disclosure that proves Mallard is corrupt but the fact he changed the rules knowing full well if he didn't it would cost him!
Rich80105
2020-12-15 02:36:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
Tony
2020-12-15 02:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it. The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Rich80105
2020-12-15 09:29:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:47:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government.
Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it.
Only in relation to the conduct of Parliament in the House; arguably
not on a lot of things in government.

He rightly left the decision in this case to someone else - Paula
Bennett.
Post by Tony
The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Why not with the person that made the decision?

The buck has stopped. If voters are concerned, they will be able to
express that view through the ballot box. It is a small amount
compared with the results of some other errors anyway.
Rich80105
2020-12-15 09:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:47:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably
Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government.
Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it.
Only in relation to the conduct of Parliament in the House; arguably
not on a lot of things in government.
He rightly left the decision in this case to someone else - Paula
Bennett.
Post by Tony
The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Why not with the person that made the decision?
The buck has stopped. If voters are concerned, they will be able to
express that view through the ballot box. It is a small amount
compared with the results of some other errors anyway.
Ooops, Anne Tolley, not Paula Bennett. Apologies to both.
John Bowes
2020-12-15 09:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:47:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably
Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's
tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government.
Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to
keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it.
Only in relation to the conduct of Parliament in the House; arguably
not on a lot of things in government.
He rightly left the decision in this case to someone else - Paula
Bennett.
Post by Tony
The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Why not with the person that made the decision?
The buck has stopped. If voters are concerned, they will be able to
express that view through the ballot box. It is a small amount
compared with the results of some other errors anyway.
Ooops, Anne Tolley, not Paula Bennett. Apologies to both.
None needed Rich we all knew it was only another failed attempt to cover up for another Labour fuck up!
John Bowes
2020-12-15 09:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:47:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably
Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government.
Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to
keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it.
Only in relation to the conduct of Parliament in the House; arguably
not on a lot of things in government.
He rightly left the decision in this case to someone else - Paula
Bennett.
Post by Tony
The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Why not with the person that made the decision?
The buck has stopped. If voters are concerned, they will be able to
express that view through the ballot box. It is a small amount
compared with the results of some other errors anyway.
It was an error Rich and Mallard needs to pay for his fuck up NOT the taxpayer! Hell the governments just been told moneys tight for education and Health. Imagine what could have been done with $330,000 in either portfolio!
Rich80105
2020-12-15 18:34:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:47:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:47:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably
Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's
tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government.
Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to
keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it.
Only in relation to the conduct of Parliament in the House; arguably
not on a lot of things in government.
He rightly left the decision in this case to someone else - Paula
Bennett.
Post by Tony
The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Why not with the person that made the decision?
The buck has stopped. If voters are concerned, they will be able to
express that view through the ballot box. It is a small amount
compared with the results of some other errors anyway.
It was an error Rich and Mallard needs to pay for his fuck up NOT the taxpayer! Hell the governments just been told moneys tight for education and Health. Imagine what could have been done with $330,000 in either portfolio!
There was definately an error, John Bowes, but of course we all make
errors. I traveled on the Kapiti expressway recently - they are still
working on re-sealing parts of that road, which had a defective road
surface that broke up far too quickly; it is widely believed there was
inadequate oversight of that project by the Government,. We know about
problems with health, and the investment now being made in mental
health and buildings and wages for nurses and admin staff, but many
have recently realised that we also ran down the number of specialists
in other areas - Orthopedics is having large waiting lists due to
insufficient specialists . . . But well done to you on recognising
those past areas; many also remember the ''distraction'' of the flag
referendum which cost over $ 80 million - also seen as a mistake by
many . . .
Tony
2020-12-15 20:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:47:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:47:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed.
Regrettably
Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's
tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government.
Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to
keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed
during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it.
Only in relation to the conduct of Parliament in the House; arguably
not on a lot of things in government.
He rightly left the decision in this case to someone else - Paula
Bennett.
Post by Tony
The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Why not with the person that made the decision?
The buck has stopped. If voters are concerned, they will be able to
express that view through the ballot box. It is a small amount
compared with the results of some other errors anyway.
It was an error Rich and Mallard needs to pay for his fuck up NOT the
taxpayer! Hell the governments just been told moneys tight for education and
Health. Imagine what could have been done with $330,000 in either portfolio!
There was definately an error, John Bowes, but of course we all make
errors. I traveled on the Kapiti expressway recently - they are still
working on re-sealing parts of that road, which had a defective road
surface that broke up far too quickly; it is widely believed there was
inadequate oversight of that project by the Government,
In fact the failure was not the road surface but the sub-surface, an error by
one of the construction companies and being repaired under warranty.
NZTA were part of the group that built that road, if there was inadequate
government oversight then NZTA were at fault. They are the representatives of
government for transport in most cases.
Post by Rich80105
. We know about
problems with health, and the investment now being made in mental
health and buildings and wages for nurses and admin staff, but many
have recently realised that we also ran down the number of specialists
in other areas - Orthopedics is having large waiting lists due to
insufficient specialists . . . But well done to you on recognising
those past areas; many also remember the ''distraction'' of the flag
referendum which cost over $ 80 million - also seen as a mistake by
many . . .
John Bowes
2020-12-15 22:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:47:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:47:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably
Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's
tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government.
Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt to
keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed
during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it.
Only in relation to the conduct of Parliament in the House; arguably
not on a lot of things in government.
He rightly left the decision in this case to someone else - Paula
Bennett.
Post by Tony
The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Why not with the person that made the decision?
The buck has stopped. If voters are concerned, they will be able to
express that view through the ballot box. It is a small amount
compared with the results of some other errors anyway.
It was an error Rich and Mallard needs to pay for his fuck up NOT the taxpayer! Hell the governments just been told moneys tight for education and Health. Imagine what could have been done with $330,000 in either portfolio!
There was definately an error, John Bowes, but of course we all make
errors. <another stupid attempt at distracting snipped>
Most of our errors don't affect a persons employment or mental health Rich! Comparing Mallards bullying and lying with your minor cockups is imbecilic! If Mallard had any ethics or morals he'd have apologised and resigned before the election!
Tony
2020-12-15 19:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:47:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed.
Regrettably
Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government.
Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt
to
keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it.
Only in relation to the conduct of Parliament in the House; arguably
not on a lot of things in government.
He rightly left the decision in this case to someone else - Paula
Bennett.
Post by Tony
The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Why not with the person that made the decision?
Because, obviously, that allows people in positions of power and influence to
hide.
And that is what he appears to be doing. He needs to be held to account for
this. not sure how but it ie necessary for thsi government to be seen as
honest. This could be a good or bad start.
Post by Rich80105
The buck has stopped. If voters are concerned, they will be able to
express that view through the ballot box. It is a small amount
compared with the results of some other errors anyway.
John Bowes
2020-12-15 22:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:47:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed.
Regrettably
Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's
tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government.
Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt
to
keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it.
Only in relation to the conduct of Parliament in the House; arguably
not on a lot of things in government.
He rightly left the decision in this case to someone else - Paula
Bennett.
Post by Tony
The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Why not with the person that made the decision?
Because, obviously, that allows people in positions of power and influence to
hide.
And that is what he appears to be doing. He needs to be held to account for
this. not sure how but it ie necessary for thsi government to be seen as
honest. This could be a good or bad start.
Post by Rich80105
The buck has stopped. If voters are concerned, they will be able to
express that view through the ballot box. It is a small amount
compared with the results of some other errors anyway.
His resignation or sacking is the only way Ardern can ever make the whole sad saga better. What is even more disgusting than Mallard is Ardern (our supposed çaring PM) supporting the bullying bastard!
Tony
2020-12-15 19:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:47:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:19:05 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:08:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:41:04 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed.
Regrettably
Trevor
mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted
with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government.
Mallards
just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to
clear
the
air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
Ardern says he made a mistake, the understatement of the year.
It was firstly a baseless accusation and secondly a deliberate attempt
to
keep
the cost from the public. It appears also that the rules got changed during
this debacle, how convenient is that?
What rule was changed, Tony?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/rules-quietly-changed-so-taxpayer-coughs-up-for-cost-of-mps-court-settlements/TNK2HUS3VWWN3DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
It was reported by virtually every news outlet in NZ.
Certainly he did not fight against the apparent change, but Mallard
"It brings the rules for ordinary MPs in line with ministers however
only ministers are subject to public disclosure rules under the
Official Information Act. Other MPs and Parliamentary Services are
exempt from having to disclose when legal costs are claimed.
Mallard's case was handled by Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and it was
considered that because the Speaker is the Minister responsible for
Parliamentary Services, the same rules should apply as for ministers.
The process for Mallard's legal costs were signed off by Tolley rather
than Cabinet."
So are you objecting to the decision by Anne Tolley?
Don't be an idiot, sorry you can';t help it can you.
You are arguing with the wrong person as is so often the case. If you disagree
with the article then take it up with the jpournalist or the publisher. Easy!
I was merely pointing out that the article is inconsistent - in one
paragraph it says Mallard made a change, in another it says it is Anne
Tolley. It appears that Mallard left the decision to Tolley; you are
correct that the article is poor journalism.
I did not say that, you did.
Any way you spin it he condoned or requested or organised the change in rules.
He is the highest authority in parliament as I understand it.
Only in relation to the conduct of Parliament in the House; arguably
not on a lot of things in government.
No he is responsible for the management of parliament.
You are confusing parliament with government, they are very different things.
Post by Rich80105
He rightly left the decision in this case to someone else - Paula
Bennett.
Post by Tony
The buck has to
stop with him. Simple really.
Why not with the person that made the decision?
The buck has stopped. If voters are concerned, they will be able to
express that view through the ballot box. It is a small amount
compared with the results of some other errors anyway.
James Christophers
2020-12-14 20:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
What are the rules governing the removal of a Speaker? By what constitutional process has he/she been appointed?

BTW, In the UK parliament the Speaker is traditionally a member of the Opposition. Do you know why this is? (There have been a few exceptions.)
John Bowes
2020-12-14 21:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
What are the rules governing the removal of a Speaker? By what constitutional process has he/she been appointed?
BTW, In the UK parliament the Speaker is traditionally a member of the Opposition. Do you know why this is? (There have been a few exceptions.)
He's a list MP and was appointed by Labour which means he can be canned at any time Keith.
Personally I believe the speaker should be part of parliamentary services and not picked by politicians!
John Bowes
2020-12-14 21:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
What are the rules governing the removal of a Speaker? By what constitutional process has he/she been appointed?
BTW, In the UK parliament the Speaker is traditionally a member of the Opposition. Do you know why this is? (There have been a few exceptions.)
In New Zealand this is what happens Keith: Members of Parliament vote to elect the Speaker at the start of each new Parliament (after every general election). This is the first task of every new Parliament once members have been sworn in.
Candidates are nominated by another member and, after the election vote, the Speaker-Elect visits the Governor-General to be confirmed in office.

The position of Speaker is high-ranking — the Speaker commands the respect of other members. This is because the Speaker is the member that the House chooses to communicate with the Sovereign on its behalf.

It is important that the elected Speaker is not biased towards any political party. This ensures that every member of Parliament has an equal chance to contribute to debates and take part in other business in the House.


Despite this, the Speaker of New Zealand’s House of Representatives is allowed to maintain links with their political party, but must not show political bias when chairing business in the House. The Speaker must not show either preference or disrespect for any political party, for the Government, or the Opposition. All members of the House must be treated equally."

https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/office-of-the-speaker/role-history-of-the-speaker/role-election-of-the-speaker/

On top of him changing the rules to suit himself he's failed in the applying the last paragraph from my cite with monotonous regularity (much like your support for other political shysters in the past Keith!)
James Christophers
2020-12-15 02:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
What are the rules governing the removal of a Speaker? By what constitutional process has he/she been appointed?
BTW, In the UK parliament the Speaker is traditionally a member of the Opposition. Do you know why this is? (There have been a few exceptions.)
In New Zealand this is what happens Keith: Members of Parliament vote to elect the Speaker at the start of each new Parliament (after every general election). This is the first task of every new Parliament once members have been sworn in.
Candidates are nominated by another member and, after the election vote, the Speaker-Elect visits the Governor-General to be confirmed in office.
Thank you.

So, such confirmation is made under the authority of the Governor-General thereby formally appointing the new Speaker to his/her role. The formal protocols and top-down pecking order throughout are therefore maintained and sustained.
Post by John Bowes
The position of Speaker is high-ranking — the Speaker commands the respect of other members. This is because the Speaker is the member that the House chooses to communicate with the Sovereign on its behalf.
Despite this, the Speaker of New Zealand’s House of Representatives is allowed to maintain links with their political party, but must not show political bias when chairing business in the House. The Speaker must not show either preference or disrespect for any political party, for the Government, or the Opposition. All members of the House must be treated equally."
https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/office-of-the-speaker/role-history-of-the-speaker/role-election-of-the-speaker/
The Speaker is therefore and thereby the highest authority in the House, hence every member including the PM defers to him/her. The PM therefore cannot directly "sack" him/her as Mutley suggests.

So again, what are the rules governing the "sacking" of the Speaker? (Remember, Parliament is sovereign)
Post by John Bowes
It is important that the elected Speaker is not biased towards any political party. This ensures that every member of Parliament has an equal chance to contribute to debates and take part in other business in the House.
So again, why does the Mother of Parliaments traditionally elect the Speaker from the Opposition rather than the ruling party? It is relevant, particularly in the light of Boris Johnson's massive Tory majority and, I would have thought, Ardern's unprecedented and unassailable overall Labour majority within an MMP electoral system.


In New Zealand's case, the question of "sacking" is further complicated by the Speaker holding a Ministerial position. So, can he/she be fired from that ministerial position while still remaining as Speaker, or not? And who in this case would be authorised to carry out such a "sacking"?
John Bowes
2020-12-15 04:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
What are the rules governing the removal of a Speaker? By what constitutional process has he/she been appointed?
BTW, In the UK parliament the Speaker is traditionally a member of the Opposition. Do you know why this is? (There have been a few exceptions.)
In New Zealand this is what happens Keith: Members of Parliament vote to elect the Speaker at the start of each new Parliament (after every general election). This is the first task of every new Parliament once members have been sworn in.
Candidates are nominated by another member and, after the election vote, the Speaker-Elect visits the Governor-General to be confirmed in office.
Thank you.
You're welcome :)
Post by James Christophers
So, such confirmation is made under the authority of the Governor-General thereby formally appointing the new Speaker to his/her role. The formal protocols and top-down pecking order throughout are therefore maintained and sustained.
Post by John Bowes
The position of Speaker is high-ranking — the Speaker commands the respect of other members. This is because the Speaker is the member that the House chooses to communicate with the Sovereign on its behalf.
Despite this, the Speaker of New Zealand’s House of Representatives is allowed to maintain links with their political party, but must not show political bias when chairing business in the House. The Speaker must not show either preference or disrespect for any political party, for the Government, or the Opposition. All members of the House must be treated equally."
https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/office-of-the-speaker/role-history-of-the-speaker/role-election-of-the-speaker/
The Speaker is therefore and thereby the highest authority in the House, hence every member including the PM defers to him/her. The PM therefore cannot directly "sack" him/her as Mutley suggests.
So again, what are the rules governing the "sacking" of the Speaker? (Remember, Parliament is sovereign)
Post by John Bowes
It is important that the elected Speaker is not biased towards any political party. This ensures that every member of Parliament has an equal chance to contribute to debates and take part in other business in the House.
So again, why does the Mother of Parliaments traditionally elect the Speaker from the Opposition rather than the ruling party? It is relevant, particularly in the light of Boris Johnson's massive Tory majority and, I would have thought, Ardern's unprecedented and unassailable overall Labour majority within an MMP electoral system.
We have done it here in the past Keith.
Post by James Christophers
In New Zealand's case, the question of "sacking" is further complicated by the Speaker holding a Ministerial position. So, can he/she be fired from that ministerial position while still remaining as Speaker, or not? And who in this case would be authorised to carry out such a "sacking"?
The PM has always had the right to "sack"non preforming ministers and Ardern has (after buggering around for a while ) done it. Mallard (like so many of the current ministers) is clearly in breach of the requirements for the job of speaker and as a result if the PM is a true leader she not only has the right to sack him from the speaker position but in this case needs to unless she's as corrupt as Mallard!
Firu
2020-12-15 13:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Mutlley
Post by John Bowes
The stench of corruption lessened when Winston got tossed. Regrettably Trevor mallard was still stinking parliament up wit it!
If Ardern sits on her hands virtue signalling it just shows she's tainted with the corruption that permeates Labour and the current government. Mallards just a party hack being he's a list MP so Ardern should be able to clear the air somewhat by firing the arrogant bastard!
He's most likely safe as any attempt for a vote of no conference in
him as speaker will fail due to Labor's numbers and the princess will
not sack him.
What are the rules governing the removal of a Speaker? By what constitutional process has he/she been appointed?
BTW, In the UK parliament the Speaker is traditionally a member of the Opposition. Do you know why this is? (There have been a few exceptions.)
Not sure if that's really the case. I think the impartiality of
candidates is more important. Any MP can stand as long as they have 12
sponsors from three different political parties. MPs then vote on the
candidates. Speaker Boothroyd was the speaker (just!) when I left the UK
in 1992, Speaker Bercow left office when I was in the UK last year.

He was only the third speaker in all those years. He certainly pissed
off Blow Job, (aka GB prime minister), cos he never got a peerage when
his term ended. Only speaker not offered a peerage since the current
parliament was constituted. (The only others who didn't get one either
died in office, but their missus got a title and in one case when the
bloke turned it down!)
Loading...