All indications are that the PM ordered the cover up and supplementary payment for Joyce Dickson’s silence.
Yes, it has John Key's way of operating all over it. The fact that he had no respect for our institutions of governance or for our constitutional laws, instruments and conventions was one of the most revolting things about him to my mind.
He was a cowboy PM, but that's probably unfair to cowboys.
My understanding is that Parliamentary Services are there to service the Parliamentary branch of government (the legislature), not the Executive branch of government (the Ministers and Cabinet). Public servants who work within Departments serve the Executive branch of government (in other words, the CEOs and staff are responsible to a Minister of the Crown). In that respect, their work programme is determined by the Executive and the Executive can require certain things of them, but they are supposed to provide ‘free and frank’ advice. A part of that is critical analysis of the Executive’s direction. The idea of them servicing the public/being ‘public servants’ doesn’t have much meaning in law to my knowledge.
I strongly believe there is a great deal of public interest in this kind of 'epic' in terms of years of injustice. The adage: 'justice delayed is justice denied' is to my mind abhorrent, and I suspect would be for most. Society is so focused these days on the eradication of bullying - our institutions ought to be a step above the rest - not the worst example of it. Bullying by the state - that's the way I'd frame it. Reminds me of some of the CHCH EQ issues, only you've been up against it longer, if I understand the timeline right.
I agree with you and Peter that some day there will be a formal Public Inquiry into this and wider disability issues - but many of these are set up arising from this type of specific case exposure.
I was so - 'surely they're not going to try that line' - that I went looking for the article;
And it's even more disingenuous than saying Barclay was ignorant of the law - Bill English is saying HE was ignorant too!!!!
Speaking to media in Auckland, English said during the dispute his advice to Barclay had been that "that wasn't good behaviour".
When a police investigation started it raised issues about possible offences and "I don't think [it] had occurred to anybody that there may be some potential offence", English said.
English said once there was an investigation established the possibility of an offence became clearer.
"But earlier on, for those who weren't involved it was hard to know what exactly happened. There was no implication of behaviour that could be an offence.
Todd Barclay and his $80,000 exit package from Parliament - but what will he do for the money?
And to form, The Herald is on top of the real estate story in it!
Barclay has recently accrued fresh outgoings with the $721,000 purchase of a three-bedroom, two-bathroom home in Arrowtown
Hope it leads on the 6 o’clock news.
And it did - on TVOne anyway - both WP and AL in question time.
And an opinion piece on circling wagons from Tracy Watkins;
Tadpole dispensed with – now for the lying toad who masterminded the cover-up…
They’re gone too. Oh, hang on…who are we talking about?
Yippie, Winston Peters just asked lying toad II (yes I appreciate that lying toad I is gone) in Parliament why he hasn’t resigned over the cover-up.
Hope it leads on the 6 o’clock news.
My admiration for you and the other six families is tremendous. Not that anything will make much difference other than finally sticking it up the bastards. Hope you have the victory campaign worked out - there's a very good investigative journo and film crew at Newsroom. To my mind this 'epic' ought to be committed to a documentary as the injustices deliberately and calculatingly committed by the Crown should be on record for all to see. These officials still have the attitude of colonisers.
And … Todd’s gone.
That is, he will stay on till the election but will not content Clutha-Southland for the National Party.
Tadpole dispensed with - now for the lying toad who masterminded the cover-up...
At the risk of bringing up a tired question (sorry!), how do people think Labour is doing with its response to this, given it’s the primary opposition party and the election’s approaching?
It is interesting to read the press releases from Labour and NZ First to get a handle on the different styles in opposition;
As I mentioned earlier, Andrew Little did a really good job in my opinion during question time - given he had to walk over the broken glass that the Speaker had thrown in front of him on the issue. Not saying the Speaker acted wrong - he was right to bring up the relevant Speaker's rulings, and Andrew tailored his questions accordingly. Bill English's responses were weak and back footed.
Little's style is neither a subtle/dirty politics player, nor an attack dog, nor a comedian in the House - all roles that JK could happily switch between. I think Little's style reflects having been involved in the role of mediator/negotiator for so many years. A principled sort of decision-maker - making judgments and taking actions based on objective criteria, which is the textbook approach to win-win conflict resolution.
In the above two press releases, NZ First ends with a 'we feel sorry for you, Clutha-Southland' comment, whereas Labour ended with a 'time for change' comment. Very different psychologies at play there.