-
15-12-2020, 08:43 AM
#361
 Originally Posted by jonu
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!
-
15-12-2020, 08:43 AM
#362
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!
-
15-12-2020, 09:54 AM
#363
Originally Posted by Balance
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).
-
15-12-2020, 10:06 AM
#364
Originally Posted by dobby41
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.
Last edited by Balance; 15-12-2020 at 10:18 AM.
-
15-12-2020, 10:22 AM
#365
Originally Posted by Balance
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.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/progr...-signed-it-off
-
15-12-2020, 10:23 AM
#366
-
15-12-2020, 11:00 AM
#367
Originally Posted by Balance
Not true and it's so typical of Cindy's apologists like you, dobby41, to try and spread misinformation.
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
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.
-
15-12-2020, 11:34 AM
#368
Originally Posted by dobby41
Changes nothing - why is Cynical Cindy standing by him?
Which part of bullying, destroying a person’s life and getting off scot free in the land of kindness and compassion does Cindy not get?
-
15-12-2020, 11:56 AM
#369
Originally Posted by dobby41
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.
-
15-12-2020, 12:34 PM
#370
Originally Posted by jonu
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.
Let her burn political capital.
She can only fool so many people for so long - shxt stinks and it is a matter of time before the putrid smell comes out.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks