Unlike Greta, they have to deal with the practicalities of policy administration. I doubt they will dance to her tune. The government find it difficult put into effect their own aims and goals let alone Greta's!
Printable View
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...ation-case-fee
Cindy tells NZers to get stuffed - she is standing with Trevor Mallard.
What a kind and considerate person is she!
Don't forget who signed off on the Crown covering the costs - a National MP.
She, also, got the rules changed so that the speaker was included in the MP and Minister Govt coverage of court costs (though some say that the speaker was already covered and this just made the existing situation clearer).
Not true and it's so typical of Cindy's apologists like you, dobby41, to try and spread misinformation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...DCGIYXLG2J6VU/
Excerpt :
"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.
National and Act leaders yesterday said they no longer had confidence in the Speaker after he revealed he'd cost the taxpayer more than $330,600 settling a case after incorrectly calling a former Parliamentary staffer a rapist.
It has also now come to light that the rules for when MPs can claim legal costs when they're being sued were expanded by the Speaker in August so damages and settlements can come from the public purse.
Those applications have to be signed off by the party leader, the Speaker and chief executive of Parliamentary Service."
DISGUSTING - just like Cynical Cindy.
Be careful what you read and when.
Typical of you to stop at the first article that supported your position.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...ing-to-it.html
Quote:
Tolley, a former National MP, changed the rules last year while she was Deputy Speaker so Speakers, including Mallard, would have access to the same legal financial support as ministers.
She later signed off on the use of taxpayer money being used to cover Mallard's legal bill.
Tolley told RNZ Mallard made the comments as speaker and had no protection when legal action was taken against him.
There was then a discussion about whether the speaker should qualify for legal financial support as he was "essentially the minister of Parliamentary Services, he's responsible for the management of Parliament."
"It didn't seem right that there was not a similar protection for him," she told RNZ.
Why would the Speaker need the same protection? The speaker is meant to be neutral, not some malicious, accusatory SOB maligning and bullying others while he is presiding over a review to stop those very things.
Was Tolley acting on Mallard's request?
What value can we place on Mallard's apology when it is the taxpayer that bears the cost of his malicious idiocy?
How can Ardern maintain confidence in a malicious, vindictive Speaker? Remember Mallard, again at our expense, tried to have the person named.
Ardern is burning political capital, but she needs Mallard's protection in the House. That's where her motivation truly lies. To hell with principle.
So you are saying that the others who have protection are "malicious, accusatory SOB maligning and bullying" since they require the protection?
By the way - I'm not defending Mallard at all and I'd like to see him gone.
I think she has a mind of her own - she isn't silly!Quote:
Was Tolley acting on Mallard's request?
Agreed (I removed the last part of what you said because I don't agree with your conjecture).Quote:
What value can we place on Mallard's apology when it is the taxpayer that bears the cost of his malicious idiocy?
How can Ardern maintain confidence in a malicious, vindictive Speaker? Remember Mallard, again at our expense, tried to have the person named.
Ardern is burning political capital,
One can only wonder at the vitriol in the comments of jonu and balance and the motivation behind them?
Of more importance in the Mallard case is the amount of money paid to the lawyers which exceeds
all other costs. The inability to pay legal costs prevents many from obtaining advice and representation and justice. An enquiry into the legal profession's charges is long overdue.
westerly
I don't disagree with the general sentiment about the legal profession, however the more immediate problem is the malicious prick who is currently Speaker of the House and still has the confidence of our luvvy luvvy, be kind PM.
Remember Mallard did this on the back of a Review into behavioural standards in Parliament Buildings.
Interesting statistics. Different to other countries, the huge increase in debt in NZ is all household and Government, not corporates. Canada doing really well !!
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-...he-world-1.png
dobby41 I think you are missing the main point, which is that Mallard falsely accused a person of a serious crime and destroyed his career and severely upset his personal life. He didn't need help from anyone. Did it all by himself. He even went further and never showed any contrition and tried, thankfully unsuccessfully, to have the man's name made public. What sort of perverse and sick person would do that. He has shown himself completely unsuitable for the Speaker's role and Jacinda should be ashamed of herself for supporting him. But then again, she owes him for all the protection he's given her in parliament.
Deleted
Deleted
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...ng-wage-growth
Runaway house prices - Cynical Cindy berated the previous government for a housing crisis and now, she does not have a clue how to tackle the housing disaster under her watch.
The Government’s top economists have warned that house prices are likely to keep rising “for some time” as Treasury released its latest set of economic forecasts showing a nightmare scenario of house prices rising at about twice the rate of wages for the next five years.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/barry-...S4JDX6Q6SDCNQ/
The Trevor Mallard scandal laid bare.
Excerpts :
"Mallard's excuse for the rules being changed to make the taxpayer pick up the tab for his uncontrolled outburst was lame. Because he was facing the defamation action, that he must have known he would lose considering he knew the rape claim was wrong, he handed responsibility for the rule change over to his deputy, former National MP Anne Tolley.
It removed any conflict of interest, he claimed. Yeah right."
"Mallard told a shocked Parliamentary select committee that he knew within 24 hours that his rape claim was false. Well if that's the case why didn't he retract the claim and save the taxpayer almost $334,000? He said he didn't do that because the inquiry into the cuddle was being reinvestigated. That was reinforced by the head of Parliamentary services which carried out the original inquiry and found it was unsubstantiated."
"Truth is more likely that he withdrew his rape claim now because if he did it last year chances are he wouldn't have survived a no-confidence vote in his Speakership. New Zealand First wouldn't have supported him.
Next year he'll survive a vote with Labour's majority and with mother of kindness, well-being and transparency Jacinda Ardern saying he simply made a mistake and he's the man for the job. The man he maligned is out of a job and if now suffering ill health."