Q&A: Curran and RNZ

Clare Curran fronts up this morning to explain her meeting with Carol Hirschfeld, and presumably her aims with publicly funded television and RNZ.

Corrin Dann says that this interview was arranged before the RNZ story broke this week.

Curran stuck to her guns and defended her initiating the meeting with Hirschfeld. I think she did fairly well.

Leave a comment

25 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  April 1, 2018

    Second on the card to Joshua Parker?

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  April 1, 2018

      He was second on the card to my birds, as it turned out. She’ll have to be third on the card for me. I’ll see how she goes on the Plus One channel. One would hope that she’s got nowhere to go but up, but with this government’s Minister at the moment there seems to be mainly scope for deterioration.

      Reply
  2. Zedd

     /  April 1, 2018

    The media making ‘a mountain out of a molehill’ .. because Ms Hirschfeld was ‘thrown under the bus’ for apparently breaking RNZ rules ?

    BUT Clare has reportedly not broken the cabinet rules.. perhaps she is walking a fine line though ? :/

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  April 1, 2018

      Who was party to her breaking the rules? Would it be Curran? Should Curran have put CH in that position in the first instance? Why was Curran talking to CH about RNZ policy rather than the head of RNZ? Is that ethical or politically sound for a MP/party promising ‘open transparent govt? Why did Curran not set the public record straight about the nature of the meeting?

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  April 1, 2018

        Because she made it clear on Q&A what’s going to happen. And it isn’t going to be liked by the current chair and board of RNZ. And calling the discussion “high level” is a meaningless fluff label that isn’t going to work as a distraction. They obviously talked specifics, and a job for Carol, imo.

        Reply
  3. Gezza

     /  April 1, 2018

    Curran stuck to her guns and defended her initiating the meeting with Hirschfeld. I think she did fairly well.

    Yes. She did. The Hirschfeld resignation is really the most bizarre thing about this affair. Why she blatantly lied & continued lying to the RNZ senior board about the meeting not being planned is difficult to understand. Unless she was going completely against the wishes of the chair and / or board in terms of whatever was said between Curran and her. And thought she’d be found out. Or she was given no option but to resign.

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  April 1, 2018

      One party to the conversation stuck to the script, the other did not.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  April 1, 2018

      On what basis did Curran defend the meeting obviously going behind the RNZ bosses’ backs?

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  April 1, 2018

        Inadvertant error.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  April 1, 2018

          !!??

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  April 1, 2018

            Well, it was all just very high level – a chat to someone with broad experience in numerous roles in PBS media here about all the ideas Clare has for what is needed in public broadcasting and multimedia platforms.

            Clare realised she had made a mistake not including her meeting with Carol in her answer to Melissa Lee’s Written Question, and corrected it immediately. And the PM has already spoken to her about how this is a breach of the rules.

            She realises it was inappropriate and has apologised to the PM. She is sad that Carol had to resign. End of story.

            Reply
            • Until the RNZ management/select committee rendezvous next Thursday. There are rumours that there is more to come out, but that could be just hope or speculation.

            • chrism56

               /  April 1, 2018

              She didn’t correct it immediately. She corrected it when she was found out.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 1, 2018

              Obvious possibility was that CH saw it as a chance to leapfrog her bosses into a bigger role hence her deceptions. Maybe on that basis didn’t tell her bosses beforehand and daren’t admit it later even if nothing transpired. Curran guilty of nothing more than big-noting?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 1, 2018

              Still leaves the question of why Curran concealed the meeting.

            • chrism56

               /  April 1, 2018

              AW – the simplest explanation is that she knew it was against the rules. She didn’t mention it until challenged and had to issue a correction to a written question. . Then we have the coverups. That is why her diary listed it as CH – was it that before editing? Then she claimed it was informal. Then it was just discussing policy.
              The Nixonian issues.

        • I think she probably thought what she was doing was ok, without thinking to check on Cabinet protocols or RNZ protocols. She mentioned that in a democracy meeting people should unrestricted, but has now learned that in power it can have repercussions.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  April 1, 2018

            You could be right. I still forget that though they’ve been MPs for years and should know to check this stuff by now, they’ve not had Cabinet Minister experience in government. Can’t remember if Curran was a Minister in Clark’s administration.

            Reply
            • chrism56

               /  April 1, 2018

              She wasn’t a previous cabinet minister but she knew the rules. Otherwise, why did she have a go at Mr Flavell for doing less than what she did.

  4. Ray

     /  April 1, 2018

    I don’t know about your workplaces Gezza but lying not once but at least twice to your boss is a sackable offence most places. And if those lies mean your boss misinformed an overseeing Parliamentary Committee I don’t think you need to be forced to resign.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  April 1, 2018

      Serious misbehaviour where I worked. The procedure was public apology by the CEO, internal investigation, identification of someone lower down the food chain as the person responsible by any means possible to carry the can, SSC investigation to follow, all of which would be a whitewash, and eventually the manager concerned would be pushed out or into some backwater job until they eventually slithered off somewhere else.

      No immediate sacking of anyone.

      Reply
      • Conspiratoor

         /  April 1, 2018

        Until finally they flush the offender out, that evil ubiquitous bastard called Systemic Failure

        Reply
    • Blazer

       /  April 1, 2018

      if lying was a sackable offence …Parliament would be….empty.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s