On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costs
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
Rich do keep up - this is widely publicised 2 days ago:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11609923
No doubt the NZ taxpayers Union might have got involved otherwise.
Nice of you to acknowledge indirectly that Key has done the decent
thing.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:56:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
Rich do keep up - this is widely publicised 2 days ago:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11609923
No doubt the NZ taxpayers Union might have got involved otherwise.
Nice of you to acknowledge indirectly that Key has done the decent
thing.
Actually the Taxpayers Union did issue a media release:
http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c86359d14575615d6ae8c2b60&id=5932b2e941
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
Rich do keep up - this is widely publicised 2 days ago:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11609923
No doubt the NZ taxpayers Union might have got involved otherwise.
Nice of you to acknowledge indirectly that Key has done the decent
thing.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:56:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
Rich do keep up - this is widely publicised 2 days ago:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11609923
No doubt the NZ taxpayers Union might have got involved otherwise.
Nice of you to acknowledge indirectly that Key has done the decent
thing.
Yes Key did pay the settlement - he tried to get away with it, but
hte publicity changed his mind for him - he really had no option, did
he?
From that article:
The legal costs which Mr Key had incurred so far in the case had
already come out of his leader's budget."
Can you think of a reason why the legal costs should come out of
taxpayer funds? Yes this is one of the funds provided by taxpayers for
use by the leader of each party, but it was not interded that taxpayer
money granted for the puposes of a political party should be used for
the private expenses of the prime minister.
Naturally he is trying to hide how much was spent, and doubtless we
will never know the police costs involved.
Yet I doubthe NZ Taxpayer Union will see thi san a matter of concern -
unless Key eventually says he is paying for it of course, in which
case it will be seen as something he should be congratulated for not
being as venal and money-grabbing as expected. Personal responsibility
from a National politician? - that's for other people . . .unless you
get caught . . .
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:15:45 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:media company paying for a defamation case against a journalist.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:56:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect >>>>>> Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they >>>>>> probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
Rich do keep up - this is widely publicised 2 days ago:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11609923
No doubt the NZ taxpayers Union might have got involved otherwise.
Nice of you to acknowledge indirectly that Key has done the decent
thing.
Yes Key did pay the settlement - he tried to get away with it, but
hte publicity changed his mind for him - he really had no option, did
he?
From that article:
The legal costs which Mr Key had incurred so far in the case had
already come out of his leader's budget."
Can you think of a reason why the legal costs should come out of
taxpayer funds? Yes this is one of the funds provided by taxpayers for
use by the leader of each party, but it was not interded that taxpayer >>money granted for the puposes of a political party should be used for
the private expenses of the prime minister.
Naturally he is trying to hide how much was spent, and doubtless we
will never know the police costs involved.
Yet I doubthe NZ Taxpayer Union will see thi san a matter of concern - >>unless Key eventually says he is paying for it of course, in which
case it will be seen as something he should be congratulated for not
being as venal and money-grabbing as expected. Personal responsibility
from a National politician? - that's for other people . . .unless you
get caught . . .
Rich is crying a river again.
It has been quite normal for MPs to suck of the state tit
since 2001.
Who was in power in 2001 Richy
Should the taxpayer fund MPs' legal bills?
Editorial: MPs should disclose use of public money
Prime Minister John Key said he believed Nick Smith's case - which related to comments he made as Opposition building spokesman - met the necessary
test and both former Speaker Margaret Wilson and present Speaker Lockwood Smith had agreed.
Dr Smith said allowing MPs to use public money was warranted, likening it to a
"The thing that grates with me is that, particularly with the current case, isI've got my house and everything on the line.
"[Media] write lots of stories about MPs taking perks and the like, nobody ever acknowledged the number of MPs who get wiped out as a consequence of >legal costs associated with their work."leader and the Speaker is required.
The November 2001 change giving ordinary MPs help with their legal costs appears to be in response to a defamation case against former Act MP Owen >Jennings who was facing bills of $200,000 after the High Court found earlier that year that he defamed the chairman of the Wool Board.
THE RULES
For ministers:
The Cabinet Manual provides automatic indemnity for cases taken against them as a minister. For actions against them personally, such as defamation,
the Cabinet can approve use of public money if the matter arose from the minister's duties, such as a public speech.
For other members of Parliament:
No provision for their legal costs pre-2001. Since then, they have been allowed reimbursement of expenses to defend legal proceedings taken against >them "in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament". Approval of the party
The money comes out of the party's leader's fund - a sum given to party leaders to run their Parliamentary units and based on the number of MPs the >party has.
THE CASES
Nick Smith: Currently receiving undisclosed level of public funds to defend a defamation case by timber preservatives company Osmose over comments he
made in 2005 when an Opposition MP. Also had his costs reimbursed for defending a defamation claim by David Henderson under the rules for ministers in
1999. No public funds for other cases when not a minister, including fine of $5000 for contempt of court in 2004 over comments about a Family Court
case, and two defamation actions which did not reach court.
Helen Clark: May 2001: Crown paid a $55,000 settlement to John Yelash after Helen Clark wrongly called him a murderer. He was convicted in the 1970s
for manslaughter. Cabinet approved use of taxpayer cash.
Trevor Mallard: As a minister in 2001, the Crown paid legal costs for both sides over comments Mr Mallard made about Rosemary Bradford, wife of Max >Bradford. Cabinet agreed it was in his capacity as minister. Paid own costs when Opposition MP in 1997 defending a defamation suit by then NZ First MP >Tukoroirangi Morgan over Aotearoa TV.
Janet Mackey: Taxpayer covered about one-third of her initial legal expenses defending a defamation suit brought by a Christchurch hotel manager.
Owen Jennings: Racked up estimated $200,000 in bills when courts ruled he defamed a Wool Board official. $50,000 defamation order, plus costs.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:56:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
Rich do keep up - this is widely publicised 2 days ago:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11609923
No doubt the NZ taxpayers Union might have got involved otherwise.
Nice of you to acknowledge indirectly that Key has done the decent
thing.
Yes Key did pay the settlement
- he tried to get away with it, but
hte publicity changed his mind for him - he really had no option, did
he?
From that article:
The legal costs which Mr Key had incurred so far in the case had
already come out of his leader's budget."
Can you think of a reason why the legal costs should come out of
taxpayer funds?
Yes this is one of the funds provided by taxpayers for
use by the leader of each party, but it was not interded that taxpayer
money granted for the puposes of a political party should be used for
the private expenses of the prime minister.
Naturally he is trying to hide how much was spent, and doubtless we
will never know the police costs involved.
Yet I doubthe NZ Taxpayer Union will see thi san a matter of concern -
unless Key eventually says he is paying for it of course, in which
case it will be seen as something he should be congratulated for not
being as venal and money-grabbing as expected. Personal responsibility
from a National politician? - that's for other people . . .unless you
get caught . . .
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 23:54:50 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:15:45 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:56:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costs
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costs
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:56:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
Rich do keep up - this is widely publicised 2 days ago:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11609923
No doubt the NZ taxpayers Union might have got involved otherwise.
Nice of you to acknowledge indirectly that Key has done the decent
thing.
Yes Key did pay the settlement - he tried to get away with it, but
hte publicity changed his mind for him - he really had no option, did
he?
From that article:
The legal costs which Mr Key had incurred so far in the case had
already come out of his leader's budget."
Can you think of a reason why the legal costs should come out of
taxpayer funds? Yes this is one of the funds provided by taxpayers for
use by the leader of each party, but it was not interded that taxpayer
money granted for the puposes of a political party should be used for
the private expenses of the prime minister.
Naturally he is trying to hide how much was spent, and doubtless we
will never know the police costs involved.
Yet I doubthe NZ Taxpayer Union will see thi san a matter of concern -
unless Key eventually says he is paying for it of course, in which
case it will be seen as something he should be congratulated for not
being as venal and money-grabbing as expected. Personal responsibility
from a National politician? - that's for other people . . .unless you
get caught . . .
On 25/03/2016 8:06 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 23:54:50 +1300, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:15:45 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:56:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costs
Well that one is done to death. Must be something else that Key or
National have done today that's triggered your paranoia. What was it that kept you awake all last night?
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:56:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect
Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they
probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
Rich do keep up - this is widely publicised 2 days ago:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11609923
No doubt the NZ taxpayers Union might have got involved otherwise.
Nice of you to acknowledge indirectly that Key has done the decent
thing.
Yes Key did pay the settlement - he tried to get away with it, but
hte publicity changed his mind for him - he really had no option, did
he?
From that article:
The legal costs which Mr Key had incurred so far in the case had
already come out of his leader's budget."
Can you think of a reason why the legal costs should come out of
taxpayer funds? Yes this is one of the funds provided by taxpayers for
use by the leader of each party, but it was not interded that taxpayer
money granted for the puposes of a political party should be used for
the private expenses of the prime minister.
Naturally he is trying to hide how much was spent, and doubtless we
will never know the police costs involved.
Yet I doubt the NZ Taxpayer Union will see this as a matter of concern - >unless Key eventually says he is paying for it of course, in which
case it will be seen as something he should be congratulated for not
being as venal and money-grabbing as expected. Personal responsibility
from a National politician? - that's for other people . . .unless you
get caught . . .
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:15:45 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:56:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:21:19 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:44:10 +1300, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2016 9:30 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/299663/teapot-tapes-pm-pressured-to-reveal-legal-costsParanoia - don't let it get to you.
Now that the pressure is on to know how much was involved, I expect >>>>>> Key to do the decent thing and pay the costs - that way the
Parliamentary Services would be able to say that the net cost was
zero. We domn't know if police costs have also been included - they >>>>>> probably should be as well.
I'm waiting to see what the NZ Taxpayer Union has to say . . .
Rich do keep up - this is widely publicised 2 days ago:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11609923
No doubt the NZ taxpayers Union might have got involved otherwise.
Nice of you to acknowledge indirectly that Key has done the decent
thing.
Yes Key did pay the settlement - he tried to get away with it, but
hte publicity changed his mind for him - he really had no option, did
he?
From that article:
The legal costs which Mr Key had incurred so far in the case had
already come out of his leader's budget."
Can you think of a reason why the legal costs should come out of
taxpayer funds? Yes this is one of the funds provided by taxpayers for
use by the leader of each party, but it was not interded that taxpayer >>money granted for the puposes of a political party should be used for
the private expenses of the prime minister.
Naturally he is trying to hide how much was spent, and doubtless we
will never know the police costs involved.
Yet I doubt the NZ Taxpayer Union will see this as a matter of concern - >>unless Key eventually says he is paying for it of course, in which
case it will be seen as something he should be congratulated for not
being as venal and money-grabbing as expected. Personal responsibility
from a National politician? - that's for other people . . .unless you
get caught . . .
Now we have: http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2016/03/22/john-key-putting-defamation-costs-on-the-public-tab/
from which:
So, where are we now on the Teapot Tape saga? According to Prime
Minister John Key, Key was wearing his " leader of the National Party"
hat when he made his potentially defamatory remarks in November 2011
about freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose.
As such, Key indicated, his own legal costs plus the ' small' amount
paid to Ambrose to settle the defamation case would either be paid for
by the taxpayer - via the 'leaders fund" set aside for legitimate parliamentary business - or if that didn't fit the rules, the National
Party would have to fund raise the money involved. As Key also
signalled in an aside, his legal costs have (so far) been met from
that leaders' fund.
There are a number of issues here. 'Small' is a relative word. The
cost to the taxpayer in the confidential settlement could be ' small'
in relation to the $1.25 million originally being claimed by Ambrose,
and yet still be a five figure sum, or even in the low six figures. We
simply don't know what amount we've just become liable to pay - and we
may never do so, much as the transparency principle ( see below) would
seem to demand full disclosure. Secondly, the Speakers' rules for use
of the fund are here.
Yes, at clause 52 (h) " legal costs" are mentioned as falling within
the ambit of what can be paid for out of the public purse, and clause
57 also mentions that "Expenses incurred to defend legal proceedings
brought against a member in his or her capacity as a member of
Parliament may only be paid for with the approval of the Speaker and
the relevant party leader (if any)." According to Key, some of these
legal costs have already been paid - which means that the Speaker must
have previously green-lit those payments.
If so, that would be surprising - since the rest of the Speakers'
rules place really strict conditions on when such costs - including
legal costs - can be counted as being legitimate parliamentary
business. Key can find some solace in one aspect of the Speakers
Rules. Parts 5c(i) and (ii) for instance, count as valid parliamentary business : "participating in processes related to the formation of a Government; or (ii) participating in party meetings relating to
post-election strategies.." Arguably, both were aspects of the Tea
Party meeting in 2011 between Key and Act Party leader John Banks.
However - and fatally for Key's position - that clause 5(d)(ii) also
says that the following do not count as valid parliamentary business :
(ii) work directly related to the administration or management of a
political party; or (iii) electioneering
Which is what the Tea Party meeting was more about, and what Key
-wearing his hat as leader of the National Party - was actually
engaged in doing. ( He might have had more chance of getting away with
it if he had been wearing the PM's hat.) Yet here's the core problem :
to allow Key to put this defamation case on the public tab, the
Speaker would, in effect, be condoning the use of the leaders'
parliamentary budget as an electioneering slush fund. Clearly, that is
not the intention of these rules. After all, the Speakers Rules also
say ( at part 9) that the use of these funds are to be governed by the application of certain principles - accountability, which places an
onus of 'personal responsibility' on members ; appropriateness,
openness, transparency and cost effectiveness. None of which
characterise the use of taxpayer funds to settle the Ambrose
defamation. Key - or the National Party - have to pay up. None of
these costs should fall on the taxpayer.
____________________
So we do need to know either that Key has now paid the legal expenses,
or alternatively why the Speaker agreed to pay taxpayer funding for
one purpose to the leader of his political party for another purpose,
against the provisions of the law . . .
The article goes on to cover the issue of media coverage and media intimidation by the police . . .
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 17:34:01 |
| Calls: | 2,095 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,142 |
| Messages: | 949,473 |