Maharey vs Plunket
Russell B pointed out that I had ignored the issue which got Maharey so angry at Radio NZ. That is true – I focused on his idiocy in threatening to go to the RNZ Board instead of the BSA.
In terms of the substance of the issue, I can’t see any rational defence for Sean Plunket in asking whether the comparison to Botswana suggested racism. I’d be very annoyed if I was Maharey and would want an apology also. However I wouldn’t threaten to illegally involve the Board and I wouldn’t lose my rag in Parliament over the issue of the Minster threatening illegally to go to the Board.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
April 6th, 2007 at 6:02 am
But it was racist to suggest the Cambridge exam was a colonial relic for countries like Botswana. How else can you look at that remark.
April 6th, 2007 at 7:39 am
yeah sorry David, why on earth else would smarmy reference Botswana. If he actually knew his African history or politics he would know that Botswana is one of the most successful African nations with a good education system. But no, in his attempt to smear the pro-Cambridge people he thought up the worst example he could think of.
that is: If you support the Cambridge system you are a colonial legacy who wants us to have an education system as weak as that of (choose random failed African country here).
There is no other reason for the smear. Shame he felt the need to denigrate African commonwealth countries at all, and more shame for choosing one of the more successful ones.
It was brilliant that Plunket had on the Botswana President’s Education advisor yesterday, who was very proud of the Botswanan system and thought that using Cambridge was a way of benchmarking against the best, as a means to help senior students to get qualifications that would be recognised internationally.
Mahary can be as annoyed as he likes, he stuffed up, he could consider an apology. Oh, hang on, he’s a Labour Cabinet Minister, apologies are for the little people.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:00 am
DPF, on this one you are wrong, wrong, wrong. As the previous two comments attest, it was precisely the right question to ask of a contemptible self styled intellectual who is being shown to have the attitudes of a nineteenth century slave trader and the vocabulary of an NCEA cast off.
Fascinating how you can always go back to John Tamihere’s interview for confirmation of these simple little things.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Maharey wasn’t angry at the racism jibe, he was angry that he’d been caught out being an arrogant and stupid prick. As soon as he mentioned Botswana, he should have known it was a dumb thing to say. But the fact he’s part of a third term government, he probably thinks he can say almost anything (yes, even F you!) and get away with it.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Maybe the absurd delinquent smarmy creature mixed up Botswana with it’s neighbour Zimbabwe. The current NZ marxist matriarchy suggests we would have more in common with the despotic regime devoid of common good and sense. Save the children from these dangerous incompetent utopian fools who think they’re above the law of the land . This bloodless marxist stealth revolution has clouded the judgement of our political representatives and the people are getting irrate and angry .
April 6th, 2007 at 8:33 am
From parliament yesterday:
Katherine Rich: Is the Minister embarrassed that a spokesman for the President of Botswana was moved to contact Radio New Zealand National to put the record straight about his veiled criticism of Botswana’s education system when Botswana is achieving better literacy rate gains than New Zealand, and, when we look at Unesco figures of literacy, Botswana has a youth literacy rate of 94 percent and New Zealand has a blank line?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: When I saw a press statement issued referring to Bill English as the leader of the National Party, I did have doubts about our literacy rates in New Zealand. But on checking I found, in fact, that that was some kind of error, and no doubt was wishful thinking on Mr English’s part. New Zealand has an extremely high literacy rate. Botswana, of course, coming off a lower base, has had bigger gains in literacy—that is not very surprising.
Katherine Rich: When visiting Botswana, did the Minister talk about the nearly 5,000 New Zealand students who were stood down in 2005 for bad language, particularly verbal abuse of staff and students; and does the Minister think that his language in Parliament yesterday makes it any easier for teachers to stop this kind of language being used in schools?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister obviously accepts that the language he used yesterday was inappropriate in the House. I note that if senior secondary school students read D H Lawrence they would certainly come across that word, and if they read Once Were Warriors, they would have difficulty coming across any other word.
…..
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I certainly cannot give an assurance that Mr Sean Plunket did not speak to any National Party MP. I am aware that Mr Plunket applied for the job of chief press officer with the National Party.
….
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When listening to Dr Cullen’s answer on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting, I heard him assert that any Minister threatened by the media could respond in the way that Mr Maharey did yesterday. Connecting that to a note that the Clerk’s Office has sent round to everybody, telling us that Parliament will be televised very, very shortly—in fact, from July—I ask, is it your intention, Madam Speaker, to have, perhaps, a 7-second delay button so that the nation might not be subjected to outbursts such as Mr Maharey gave in the House, apparently quite justifiably, yesterday?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I suggest that if you were to do that, Madam Speaker, you might have something like a 5-minute delay button, so that you could cancel points of order that were out of order from the National Party.
Madam SPEAKER: That was not a valid point of order.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:36 am
I see that Cullen is now covering for Maharey. Cullen must be getting tired of covering for other ministers. Why didn’t Maharey front up yesterday?
April 6th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Maharey is a gutless cry baby and he spent all day yesterday sucking his thumb with a sigmund psych doctor .
April 6th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Maharey didnt front up because he was doing a ‘Don Brash’
April 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Nice name selma, are you saying that Brash and smarmy Maharey creature shared the same big wide couch at the psychiatry clinic ?
April 6th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Ross:
I just had to laugh when Cullen came up with this: I am aware that Mr Plunket applied for the job of chief press officer with the National Party.
And your point, Doctor Cullen? I guess he’s unaware that Kathryn Street, the Prime Minister’s recently promoted chief press secretary, came from Radio New Zealand, where she was the chief political reporter? (And as a sidebar, she’s also the partner of Labour list MP Maryann Street.) Hum…
April 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Maharey is a coward as well for not fronting parliament on Thursday. This is not a person who is a leader. Leaders do not run away they stand and fight or in this case take the music like a man.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
The amusing thing is of course, that by “right wing” standards, Maharey is not a racist, and is at worst guilty of an incautious remark. We (those of the “right”) are being mischevious. However by the standards of the left, or perhaps those “standards” they apply to others, Maharey is not just blatantly racist, but dnagerously, cancerously, so, and he should be scourged from public office on those grounds.
Odd isn’t it, the left defend Maharey whereas such a statement by, say, Don Brash, would have put them into a tooth chattering frenzy of hate filled bile. But them, hypocrisy was always a specialty of the left.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
ross stated *But the fact he’s part of a third term government, he probably thinks he can say almost anything (yes, even F you!) and get away with it.*
Actually he was doing this in his first term. Consider the article he wrote in Cracuum in 2000 where he stated falsely that former student leaders at Waikato had whittled away a million dollars of assets held in trust and his insinuation that they this was illegal.
All false, all demonstrably false as a simple examination of the organizations audited accounts would show.
This guy has been getting away with saying whatever he like for years.
Matt
May 27th, 2007 at 4:36 am
free downloads t mobile ringtones
http://idisk.mac.com/ringtonesforyou/Public/index.html