Lockie on Q&A
March 29th, 2009 at 2:56 pm by David FarrarI missed watching it live, but have now viewed the second segment of Q&A online. The guest was Lockwood Smith (and his fiancee).
The panel discussion afterwards was very interesting. It was Therese Arseneau, Paul Holmes, Ron Mark and Laila Harre. They were all very approving of Lockwood’s decision to try and get Ministers to answer the question, if it is a straight forward primary question.
Laila made an interesting point, about why this may have happened. She said that Lockwood is not personally or politically very close to the National Party Leadership. She contrasted that to Margaret Wilson and Jonathan Hunt who were both extremely close to Clark. In fact we got told how every time she had been in the Speaker’s office, Clark had phoned Hunt while she was there. There is a certain incompatability with being a senior advisor to the PM, and being the Speaker. And we saw that when we had the disgraceful collusion over Harry Duynhoven’s status as an MP.
Lockie I am sure values his own public reputation more than making life too easy for his colleagues. Hence why he has tried to change some things. And ironically I think it actually benefits National also, even though some weaker Ministers may find it hard going. The public see a Government as very arrogant when it refuses to answer even the most simple questions. It loses votes eventually.
What I have found interesting is that Lockie has actually introduced a number of changes, not just redefining the line between addressing and answering the questions. They are:
- Playing “advantage”. This was referred to as a light handed regulatory approach with clear boundaries, but I see it as a rugby analogy where he concentrates more on kepping the game flowing, rather than penalising every technical infringement. Several times I have heard him say something along the lines of giving the Opposition more supplementaries because a Minister went on too long. So rather than pul everyone up, he is just striving for a reasonably fair process.
- The previously referred to moving the boundary between addressing and answering the question
- Is cracking down on points or order that are not points or order. Winston used to be the biggest offender at that – I would say only around 2% of his points or order were legitimate, but Wilson would never pull him up.
- Discouraging tabling of documents just to be able to read out what it is. He can not stop anyone seeking leave to do so, but has tried to shame MPs by pointing out whenever they seek leave that they are abusing the process and leave should only be sought for documents not already available to MPs. And this seems to have had some effect on reducing such tabling requests
- Time – it has been many years since question time took only an hour. Hell Helen called a snap election in 2002 because of a few extra minutes a day of question time. In the last two years it was routinely taking around 100 minutes. It is now a lot closer to 60 again.
TVNZ also has online the transcript of the interview with Judith Collins.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
And about eleventy gajillion other decisions from Lockie’s last two predecessors.
Honestly they were disgraceful, to the point where I personally want to reinstate the Parliamentary practice which gave rise to the tradition whereby the newly elected Speaker is ceremoniously dragged up to the Chair by his former colleagues.
They were both that bad. Their pensions should be discontinued and they should be stripped naked and put in stocks outside Parliament, through Winter, this year.
C’mon John, what’re ya waitin for?
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
This was the first of the Q & A programmes I have watched. I hope they get feedback about content. In a political show I am SO NOT INTERESTED to hear what his fiance thinks of his political performance, where they met etc
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Margaret Wilson in the UK at the moment?
Might be NY in the Fall?
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Check the arrogant left wing bias in the opening question to Judith Collins from editorializing left wing propagandist Guyon Espiner-
“This is a big deal isn’t it, you’re essentially allowing the private sector the ability to deny liberty and to actually profit from people’s crimes, why are you doing this? ”
..and people wonder why there are calls for this disguting Chavez style edifice to be closed down. It is a disgrace that taxpayer money (through public good advertising and program subsidies) is used to fund this stain on the democratic process. There is no way this is a morally acceptable situation.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
yeah..!..and here’s the speaker from that parliament..
..lockies’ heez name..
..eh..?
..and that show was all about him and his sheila..eh..?
..i mean..
..who cares..?
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
What would you rather see Phool?
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
oh..!..maybe some incisive political analysis of the economic/environmental shit that is coming down on us..
..and what we can/should be doing..
y’know..!..boring stuff like that..
i could trawl through my stories over the last week..
..and get more ‘stories’ than you cd poke a stick at..
..instead we get more information on ‘lockies’ life/loves than any person should be forced to endure..
..and a reprise of collins doing her flinty-eyed ‘crusher’ routine..
..and holmes..going on..and on..and bloody on..
..and mainly about lockie and his sheila..
..fuck yeah..!..big bruv..
that’s what’s really important..at this particullar watershed in time..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Clearly the phool drug induced coma is rapidly getting worse. He slipping into full time addictive psychosis.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
The funniest thing I heard (from Therese Arsenau??) was that we now have had a string on two good Speakers of the House in a row.
Lockwood and whooooo?
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Wilson was a horrifically bad Speaker. To the point that fair minded people questioned the value of keeping the role.
It was all part of one of the most dangerously anti-democratic government in New Zealands history.
Imagine what they would have done with another term!!! Or another two! It’s downright scary.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
How did we end up with this stupid Yankee chick Therese Arsenau anyhow?
She arrived from out of the blue toward the end of the last election campaign and seemed desperate to “sell” herself as an independent and neutral political commentator.
She is far from neutral and anyway, why does our media go to her for comment? are we still that insecure in NZ that anybody with a foreign accent is automatically given credibility simply because they do not have a Kiwi accent.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
The funniest part of the whole show is the poke in the eye it gave to those lefties who have long promoted the notion that Lockwood-Smith is a homosexual.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Ah yes, another classic example of lefty hypocrisy.
Question Lockwood’s sexuality yet scream from the rooftops if anybody asks questions of ex dear corrupt leader.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I now know what was missing from the old Agenda. And the reason why it was imperative that a broadcaster of Paul Holmes’s fine calibre be brought in for the new-look show. It was to ensure that someone would ask probing, insightful political questions like –
“Can you just hold up your rock for the camera, darling?”
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
“The funniest part of the whole show is the poke in the eye it gave to those lefties who have long promoted the notion that Lockwood-Smith is a homosexual.”
To be fair it wasn’t just the left….Locky does have an air of mince about him…
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
All 3,000 kg of it, James. He breeds the bloody stuff.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 7:49 am
James…Classic, Adolf… Classic response.
Vote:I thought the show was poor and after habving reread Phil’s random stream of unconsciousness nine or ten times.. I agree with him, it was a poor effort, Holmes looked hungover, Espiner looked his normal oily chipmunk self, Arseneu is a waste of space and the puff piece on Lockwood should have been sponsored by New Idea.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:15 am
The last speaker who played advantage was Kerry Burke. He didn’t coach from the chair or editorialise.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 10:32 am
are you the ‘real’ mallard..?
if so..are you willing to widen the debate/conversation..?
could we start with a brief precis of the reasons that last labour government turned their back on their traditional constuency/raison d’etre ..
..the weakest/poorest..?
why you did nothing to undo the evils of richardson/shipley..in their tearing away of the supports for sole parents etc…?
..over to you..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: Off topic 10 demerits]
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I am completely cynical about the chances that the socialists would ever reciprocate fair and honourable behaviour on the part of their political opponents. Expect a worse speaker than Margaret Wilson next time they get back into power (God forbid…..!).
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 10:55 am
“The last speaker who played advantage was Kerry Burke. He didn’t coach from the chair or editorialise.”
Maybe if Labour hadn’t been so damned awful in parliament for nine years, with the full support of a partisan Speaker, the current MPs wouldnt need to be coached.
You guys dragged house behaviour down, you have no fucking right to complain about remedial measures.
Vote: