Yesterday was predicted to be an abrasive day in parliament. It was expected that John Key and John Banks would be taken to task at Question Time.
Green co-leader Metiria Turei put a question to Key and followed up with supplentaries that went off on a different planet.
3. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that Hon John Banks has “got a version of events, others have got a different version. It’s not for me to forensically go through that”; if so, whose job is it to hold his Ministers to account for the veracity of their statements?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : The member is referring to statements made to the police, whose job it is to assess the evidence before them. I have no responsibility for assessing evidence given to the New Zealand Police. However, I would note that the police decided there was “insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution under section 134(1) of the Local Electoral Act …”.
Metiria Turei: Why does the Prime Minister believe John Banks when John Banks says that he did not read his donations declaration even though he signed it, despite comments by John Banks’ ministerial press secretary that he did read the documents and that his campaign treasurer went over the declaration with him?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I accept the Minister at his word.
Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table an email exchange dated 13 September 2012 between John Banks’ press secretary and a New Zealand Herald journalist where the press secretary first claims that John Banks read the declaration and later clarifies that John Banks’ campaign treasurer went over the form with John Bank.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that documentation. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
- Document , by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Metiria Turei: Is it a new policy of the Prime Minister that Ministers are not responsible for documents that they sign, and is this a new “don’t read, don’t care” defence on “Planet Key”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I refer the member to the fact that the document was signed when he was not a Minister.
Metiria Turei: Will homeowners on “Planet Key” now be allowed to default on their mortgages and then claim it is OK because they did not read the documents; will business people on “Planet Key” now be allowed to sign illegal—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. I could not hear her question and it is important I can. I invite her to start again. Members must make it possible for the Speaker to hear the questions.
Metiria Turei: Will homeowners on “Planet Key” now be allowed to default on their mortgages and then claim it is OK because they did not read the documents; will business people on “Planet Key” now be allowed to sign illegal contracts under his new “don’t read, don’t care” defence?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know so much about “Planet Key”, but my expectations are it would be a lovely place to live, it would be beautifully governed, golf courses would be plentiful, people would have plenty of holidays to enjoy their time, and what a wonderful place it would be. But I would expect people on such a place—referred to as nirvana—to comply with the law, and that is what Mr Banks did.
Mr SPEAKER: Metiria Turei. [Interruption] Order! I want to hear this question.
Metiria Turei: Thank you. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the question.
Metiria Turei: Is there one standard for ordinary New Zealanders, who are legally responsible for any statement or contract that they sign up to, and another for the Prime Minister’s Ministers, who can put their name to whatever falsehood they like as long as they live on “Planet Key”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The question here is whether Mr Banks complied with the law, and it is our belief he did. As I was saying earlier, the law prior to the changes for central government would have seen many members of this Parliament do things that would be illegal today but were legal back then. There are also successful candidates who have funnelled money through trusts, for instance, which are legal when it comes to the law. I expect people to comply with the law. That is pretty simple.
Mr SPEAKER: Metiria Turei.
Metiria Turei: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear this question.
Metiria Turei: Will his Government now be changing the law so that enforcement agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office or the police can also apply his new “don’t read, don’t care” defence, or, again, is it only Ministers on “Planet Key” who are entitled to that privilege?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is missing the point. The point is whether the member complied with the law. The member may not like—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the right honourable Prime Minister, but I will not tolerate that kind of interjection. The member will not do that any further. He knows that it is contrary to the Standing Orders of this House to accuse another member of lying.
Trevor Mallard and Winston Peters then took over, trying to score points against Key and Banks.
But since then Turei seized on a comment by Key and ran (and ran and ran) with it. It sounds like an intended extended use of the term because she said ‘Planet Key’ seven times (twice when she repeated a question).
Soon after a Twitter campaign was started by another Green:
@Andr3wCampbell
@katieabradford I note he said there were lots of golf courses and holidays on#planetkey. Sounds like a rich mans dream
#planetkey sounds like a gated community in Parnell
And Turei joined in (presumably while she was sitting in parliament):
On
#PlanetKey everyone plays golf,never goes to work, has infinite leisure, sounds like the idle rich to me#thatsBankersforyou#nzqt
@chipmatthews yep,#PlanetKey has infinite cash flow from kids giving up their breakfasts and women cleaning his toilet for pin money
@chipmatthews true, on#PlanetKey, everyone can work as servants while the idle rich laze about on golf carts driven by even more servants.La La Land is the biggest continent “
@everjanet:@metiria#PlanetKey - would that be the same place as La La land?”
On
#PlanetKey solo mums will work for peanuts in Aussie big box childcare centers looking after other kids while their own scrabble in bins
@chipmatthews on#PlanetKey prisons are the housing pens for golf cart drivers and drinks servers. And for making nice maari carvings
#NotPlanetKey ”it wld be restored, food for our kids would be plentifu,l people wld have enough to enjoy a dignified life#ttrtpt#PlanetKeyOn
#Planetkey no one knows what domicility really meansOn
#PlanetKey Maoris dress like Lady Gaga but sing better aye,@patrickgowernz
@DamienService thx but it’s always a collective effort. If his response hasn’t been so elitist it wouldn’t have gone far.#PlanetKeyOn
#PlanetKey there ain’t no friggin Afganistanians… but lots of Pomeranians#puppycuddlesfordaddyTrue! “
@Keyweekat:@metiria and#bullydogs”.#PlanetKey
Joined by Gareth Hughes:
@GarethMP
Today in Q time John Key said on#PlanetKey it’s nirvana (Golf and holidays) what do you think is on#PlanetKey ?NASA has announced they are still searching for signs of intelligent life on
#PlanetKey
This has now been continued with the Green pseudonym ‘James Henderson’ posting at The Standard:
Journey to Planet Key
In the House yesterday, Metiria Turei threw National’s ‘Planet Labour/Planet Green’ line back at Key, asking if ordinary people get to break the law too or if that privilege is reserved for ministers on Planet Key. Like all little bullies, Key couldn’t take it back. He lashed out and, like Romney’s fatal gaffe the same day, it exposed something of Key’s real world view.
He said that Planet Key “would be a lovely place to live, it would be beautifully governed, golf courses would be plentiful, people would have plenty of holidays to enjoy their time, and what a wonderful place it would be”.
It looks like a planned strategy to try and turn Key’s ‘Planet Green’ line back at him, but it all seems a bit pointless and trivial. Except that ‘James Henderson’ has tried to add the usual gross overstatement of The Standard, talking it up into a ‘fatal gaffe’.
Good grief. What planet do the Greens think they’re on?
And for what? I’ll leave the last word to @metiria
@richardhills777 yeah, lame, but makes me feel great!
Darryl
/ September 19, 2012What a waste of time Planet Labour/Greens bring to Parliament. Good on you Planet Key, you made the little madam, look childish.
robertguyton
/ September 20, 2012“It looks like a planned strategy to try and turn Key’s ‘Planet Green’ line back at him, but it all seems a bit pointless and trivial”
When Key trotted out his ‘Planet Green’ line earlier, did you run a post saying that it was ‘pointless and trivial’, Pete.
If not, why not
Pete George
/ September 20, 2012I don’t know when he did it. I don’t notice anything. It and many other things are trivial and a waste of parliamentary time.
robertguyton
/ September 20, 2012Oh, and I’d love to hear your views, Pete, on whether you found Key’s calling Metiria Turei ‘barking mad’ to be admirable behaviour from Key?
Pete George
/ September 20, 2012I agree with the Speaker, it wasn’t appropriate. Not admirable behaviour – the PM should set a much better example of behaviour in the house.
robertguyton
/ September 20, 2012“Pete George (14,653) Says:
September 20th, 2012 at 10:15 am
Par for the course, Greens demonstrated their own passion, their bravery, and their willingness to flout the law during the election campaign.”
Hey Pete, you are telling lies over on Kiwiblog. Why is that?
Pete George
/ September 20, 2012I was playing on Julie’s own words. Otherwise that isn’t a lie. Greens are known to have been involved in deliberately defacing the property of National.
robertguyton
/ September 20, 2012By ‘Greens” you mean Green Party MPs?
If you said ‘Nats’, you’d mean ‘National Party MPs’, yes?
You are accusing Green Party MPs of being involved in defacing the property of National. You are promulgating a lie.
Pete George
/ September 20, 2012No, you’re accusing me based on your own (incorrect) assumption, if it was just an assumption.
Greens’ means belonging to the Green Party. I’d be very surprised if any MPs were directly involved. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Green MPs were aware of more than has been admitted openly.
Darryl
/ September 20, 2012I support the Prime Minister, saying Miss Turei is Barking Mad. Her smart, smug and rediculous questions deserved the answer she got. Mind you Typical hyperthetic Greens.
robertguyton
/ September 20, 2012Darryl, you’re being a dill. It’s unbecoming for a Prime minister to call the Leader of an Opposition Party, ‘barking mad’, in fact, to call anyone that. He is supposed to be the Prime Minister of our country, not a petty name-caller. Pete, I note, agrees that Key’s behaviour was unseemly. You’re the odd one out
Pete George
/ September 20, 2012Robert – do you agree with @metiria when she tweeted this yesterday?
John Key and National proved today how anti women and anti children they really are #childpoverty #suffrageday #nzqt
robertguyton
/ September 20, 2012“I don’t know when she did it. I don’t notice anything. It and many other things are trivial and a waste of my time.”
How’s that for an answer Pete (see above).
My point made, I have to say that I haven’t seen the tweet til now and don’t know what it refers to, so can’t agree or disagree. I do however, find it appalling the way Key and his Ministers are avoiding any statistics gathering around child poverty. It smells as though they are obfuscating to escape the reality. As for Bennett claiming that it ‘changes daily’ so it was impossible for her to put a figure on it – that’s sociopathic and a very sad way to behave.
Pete George
/ September 20, 2012Sounds like you’re avoiding that one.
I agree that better statistics would help understand exactly what levels and types of poverty there are, but sampling may be simpler and adequate.
When Jacinda Ardern announced a member’s bill aimed at defining and measuring poverty she bizarrely also quote numbers (for example 270,000) which I have no idea what they are based on.
But ultimately more important than measuring is taking practical steps to address the many and complex problems. National think they are doing this in their own way, Greens have a different view. I think most people realise the country can’t afford to just throw more and more money at it.
robertguyton
/ September 20, 2012“Sounds like you’re avoiding that one.”
Don’t be dim, Pete. I clearly said I was not aware of the tweet (I don’t – tweet) and don’t know what it’s referring to. Avoiding? Okaley-dokely.
More important than measuring? Sure, practical steps to address the problems, but you’d need to measure first</i. don't you think??
Maybe you don't, and support unfounded, untested ideological 'action'.
Do you?
robertguyton
/ September 20, 2012So, I’m pleased to say, did the Speaker of the House. Good man. makes you seema bit dizzy, Darryl.
Darryl
/ September 21, 2012LOL, who is the dizzy one, Mr Robert. Look in the mirror.
Pete George
/ September 20, 2012“John Key and National proved today how anti women and anti children they really are” was referring to question time in parliament yesterday, which proved nothing much except Turei was trying to score some points.
You can see the exchanges (including ‘barking mad’ here.
http://inthehouse.co.nz/video_archive
I think accusing National of being anti children and anti women is as bad as calling an MP barking mad.
Darryl
/ September 21, 2012Metiria Turei, is nothing but a smart and smug little madam. She created her own answer. If anyone is a dill it is you,(Mr Robert) your name calling is no better than The Green Party. She is BARKING MAD, and deserved the answer. You get what you give.
robertguyton
/ September 20, 2012Do you?
Attacking a party is as bad as attacking a person?
Interesting morals you have, Pete.
You are forgetting, perhaps, that we are discussing the quality of the Prime Minister’s behaviour. His attack on another politician was petty and unbecoming. Or have you changed your view on that?
Pete George
/ September 20, 2012You may want to focus on Key, but I’m calling Turei’s behaviour too, trying to smear many people – PM, 69 MPs, party – can easily be as bad as one on one name calling.
‘Barking mad’ was a one off out of order dig, continuing a campaign of smearing a party is worse.
And I note that Key withdrew and apologised (when prompted). Turei didn’t.
robertguyton
/ September 20, 2012Now you’re saying that Metiria’s behaviour was worse than Keys! You’re a classic, Pete. Confused, but classic. You should do stand-up.
“And I note that Key withdrew and apologised (when prompted). Turei didn’t.”
Funny as. You don’t ‘get’ why Metiria wasn’t ‘prompted’ (prompted! You are a wag!) to withdraw and apologise, where Key was – can’t see it, huh, Pete?
Pete George
/ September 20, 2012Maybe you should stand down, wrong on several counts. You keep making things up Robert. Like Metiria.
Darryl
/ September 21, 2012Agree with you Pete.
robertguyton
/ September 21, 2012It’s like being savaged by two saveloys!
Pete George
/ September 21, 2012Maybe you should put away the sauce and try some substance then. Surely you can do better than attempt inaccurate attacks and then hissy responses when you’re called on it.
It looks like you’re more intent on disruption than serious discussion.
robertguyton
/ September 21, 2012You are chanelling Keeping Stock, Pete, and his inability to sustain a debate with me is a very precedent for you to follow – you need not be so lame. My arguments are around the facts. Let’s try a simple fact; was Key ‘prompted’ to apologise for his innapropriate remarks, or was he ‘asked’?
Here’s some factual material to help you.
“Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that last statement. That is totally unfair. The Prime Minister should withdraw and apologise for that last statement.”
You’ve claimed that Metiria’s comments ‘smearing a party’, are worse than Key’s offensive comments, then perhaps you can explain to me ans Darryl, why the Speaker didn’t ‘ask’ her to withdraw and apologise?
Thanks.
Pete George
/ September 21, 2012I’m not channelling anyone. Your arguments are often not basd on facts, as I’ve already pointed out. And you should be careful of making accusations of ‘lame’.
“perhaps you can explain to me ans Darryl, why the Speaker didn’t ‘ask’ her to withdraw and apologise?”
Because what she said in parliament was not against the house protocols.
“You’ve claimed that Metiria’s comments ‘smearing a party’”
Yes, but not a single comment in parliament, what she said there is part of a bigger campaign.
When you combine what she said in that and other exchanges (I”ve blogged more on that today), and what she tweeted straight afterwards, and what she and other Greens say in various forums, then a picture of a smear campaign is clear.
“National proved today how anti women and anti children” (from here tweet) is just a part of it. Rich people bad, poor people deserving. Etc etc.
Barking up the Green tree but widely seen as madly out of tune with the real world.
robertguyton
/ September 21, 2012You mean the world where ther are no toilets, Pete?
The Greens are right to broadcast Key’s ridiculous statements and National’s harmful policies. You just don’t like it when it happens.
Btw – you might not know, but the front page of the Southland Times features a story of how the new recreational drugs that have taken the place of those your foolish Peter Dunne campaigned against and removed from the market, are MUCH WORSE and causing psychotic episodes in school children. Thanks alot, Dunne. Clot.
Darryl
/ September 21, 2012Why don’t you set up a commune with your Green mates. You would fit in well.
Pete George
/ September 21, 2012The clots are those who use the drugs.
Alternative drugs like K2 would have been able to be imported and sold by drug pushers regardless of the current temporary regulations.
It will be more difficult when the new laws come in next year, but you’d have to be barking mad to think there’s any way of preventing all possible drugs from coming into the country.
robertguyton
/ September 21, 2012The drug users in this case are children. Are you calling them clots, Pete?
Planning to stand for Parliament again, are you?
robertguyton
/ September 21, 2012Darryl – (re your comment above)
Brilliant! I can’t counter your argument at all, so cleverly constructed is it and so piercing your wit. Please forgive me if I don’t engage with you again, I can’t take the intellectual thrashing you give me. Are you a professor at the Uni? I wish someone had warned me!!!