Lockwood being tough

May 7th, 2009 at 4:50 pm by David Farrar

Lockwood was pretty tough on the Government today. Made Rodney Hide admit there was no cost estimate for the Auckland re-organisation, told Pansy Wong off for far too long answers and slapped down Jonathan Coleman for not answering a question and just attacking the Opposition spokesperson.

To which I say – keep it up Lockwood. Good job.

Tags: ,

32 Responses to “Lockwood being tough”

  1. big bruv (13,888 comments) says:

    I am not sure how I feel about Lockwood, part of me likes that he is fair and balanced but another part of me wants to see Labour get a dose of their own “Hunt and Wilson”.

    What does make me laugh is the way Labour toss their toys out of the cot when the Lockwood does not hand down a ruling they agree with, they simply cannot deal with an impartial speaker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. trout (939 comments) says:

    When Lockwood stated that he would not insist on questions beginning with a ‘what, how or why’ word he also said that he did not want to be seen as ‘W3′. What did he mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    trout – Lockwood is a former TV quizmaster – he used to host a show where high school teams competed against each other answering questions beginning with who, what or where. It was called W3.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. NX (504 comments) says:

    Over and above my desire to have a John Key (or Don Brash) lead government ……. is good governance. And that is what separates many centre-right voters from the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. anonymouse (715 comments) says:

    Graeme: and I have it on good authority that the aforementioned Dr Coleman did once appear as a contestant on said quizmaster’s show.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Paul Williams (878 comments) says:

    I’m pleased to hear Lockwood’s continuing to insist that Ministers answer direct questions and I like that he’s giving them lattitude when supplementaries are overly political. There’s lots of risks in his approach and both sides will frequently point them out when it is to their advantage, but his objective to improve the scrutiny of the business of government is entirely correct. He’s made a great start to his term as Speaker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. jarbury (464 comments) says:

    He’s doing a pretty good job as speaker I reckon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Inventory2 (10,339 comments) says:

    Well said Paul and jarbury. Smith is showing that the notion of a Speaker who puts the institution of Parliament above party politics is not a quaint thing of the past. We should all be grateful for that. And as a bonus, when he calls “Order” he is at least two octaves lower than his predecessor’s shrieks, which is far easier on the ears :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Great stuff Lockwood. I’ll bet that one sided commie excuse for a speaker Wilson is spinning in her grave.

    Oh that’s right. She’s still living.

    Well, apart from that realisation, its been a pretty good day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Beats the hell out of the white witch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. adamsmith1922 (890 comments) says:

    To my mind Lockwood is proving to be a very good Speaker and infinitely better than Wilson and Hunt. Furthermore he is justifying John Key’s appointment of him as Speaker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Tauhei Notts (1,712 comments) says:

    I thought things would improve once we had a Speaker with two hairy legs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    David … I guess on the plain of goodness and light I can agree with you but one has to wonder if there were to be a change of Government (god forbid) would a Labour Speaker continue in the samer vein?

    Answer … is the Pope a Protestent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    jarbury said: He’s doing a pretty good job as speaker I reckon.

    I agree – Lockwood has far exceeded my expectations (which were not too high after the “small hands and dirty buttholes” comments re immigrants). But I now think he is doing a good job so far as Speaker.

    Unlike Stephen Joyce, who appears to still be in the pocket – (figuratively, not accusing him of corruption – at least yet) – of the road transport lobby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Tuija (218 comments) says:

    Isn’t the most important issue the fact they the minister(Hide) lied ?
    You don’t seem to like lying by ministers on KB why give hide a free pass ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    I thought things would improve once we had a Speaker with two hairy legs.

    How do you know whether Wilson shaves her legs or not? Or Lockwood, for that matter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Funny isn’t it how the lefties seem surprised that Lockwood’s “fair and balanced.”

    Almost as if they were expecting someone as execrable as Hunt and Wilson.

    Newsflash, lefties: we’re the good guys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Yes Rodney’s story has changed since yesterday, although he has admitted to the $500K spent on PR so far. . He is at present racking up costs on the Auckland ratepayers credit card spending money which he will not be accountable for (treasury or auditor general have no authority here), which he cannot provide a measure for.
    The bill setting up the Establishment Board and the funding its staff and operation is to be rushed through, uncosted. Because of the secrecy and haste of the minister, won’t find out how much that is to cost until the bill arrives

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. reid (16,454 comments) says:

    Because of the secrecy and haste of the minister, won’t find out how much that is to cost until the bill arrives

    a) who cares?
    b) if you have one, take your reply to the general thread
    c) who cares?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Paul Williams (878 comments) says:

    Funny isn’t it how the lefties seem surprised that Lockwood’s “fair and balanced.”

    Almost as if they were expecting someone as execrable as Hunt and Wilson.

    Newsflash, lefties: we’re the good guys.

    Only a partisan with little knowledge of parliament would say this. As an aside, I thought Kidd was good too. The concern about Lockwood (from all sides) was that he’d not previously shown any interesting in the mechanics of the House. I can hardly recall him taking a point of order for instance. Speakers need not have encycopedic knowledge of Standing Orders – the Clerks do – but they need to have a view about parliamentary business and I don’t think anyone thought Lockwood did. That said, I’ll happily admit I was wrong. Lockwood’s doing a grand job and I’m grateful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Yes Rodney’s story has changed since yesterday

    Rodney was quite clear that it had not.

    On Wednesday he was asked whether he know how much the Government’s proposal cost? He replied that he did, but was not then asked “how much”?. We found out on Thursday that the answer – had the question actually been asked – would have been $4 million for the Royal Commission report, and nothing for the Government’s proposal, as it was covered within pre-existing budget lines.

    On Thursday he was asked how much the Supercity would cost to implement, and then run annually. He replied that how much it cost annually was up to the people of Auckland and their elected council, and that he did not have an exact cost of the implementation costs, but it would be substantially less than $2 billion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    The desire for revenge is natural bb. Resisting the desire is want seperates good people from bad ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Where is the Regulatory Impact Statement to support the introduction of the first Uber City bill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. lyndon (325 comments) says:

    On Wednesday Rodney was asked “Has he costed the Government’s super-city proposal outlined in Making Auckland Greater: The Government’s decisions on Auckland Governance; if not, why not?””

    His position seems to be that he answered regarding the cost of making the proposal rather than implimenting it. In my opinion (considering context and the detail of the sentence) this is straining the communication value of the language to breaking point and it’s not as clever as he thinks it is.

    Which is also, to my mind, similar to the way he responded when people were trying to nail him down on climate change before the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Where is the Regulatory Impact Statement to support the introduction of the first Uber City bill?

    Attached to the bill, I imagine. As regulatory impact statements tend to be…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    this is straining the communication value of the language to breaking point and it’s not as clever as he thinks it is.

    Nowhere near as clever. He looked very evasive.

    But his story hasn’t changed. He was evasive on Wednesday, and exactly the same sort of evasive on Thursday. On Wednesday, he interpreted Wednesday’s question as meaning the proposal itself, on Thursday he interpreted Wednesday’s question as meaning the proposal itself. He might not be behaving cleverly, but he is behaving consistently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. GJ (329 comments) says:

    Yes I agree with others, Lockwood has pleasently surprised me and is a very good speaker to date.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Right of way is Way of Right (1,122 comments) says:

    As he seems to be doing a very good job of managing parliamentary business, after a few hiccups, and he is definitely making a mark here, would it be too early to refer to this parliament as a Lockwood House?

    (I’ll get my hat and coat!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    If Labour wanted to know about the cost of implementing the Government’s preferred model they should simply ask that question.

    Of course the question is an nonsense as the Government’s preferred model is going before a Select Committee in waves; thus it will on the margins depend on what changes Parliament makes with each of the three Bills. More importantly, the costs will be in large part determined by choices made by the Board of the AGTA (Auckland Governance Transition Agency) and the CEO’s of Local Government in Auckland.

    I guess we should be pleased that after Government Labour has developed a concern for the costs imposed on ratepayers/taxpayers – might have been helpful when they were actually in Government. It will be interesting to see whether they support Hide’s other reform proposals to hold down the costs of central and local government (somehow I doubt it)

    What is much more significant is the fact that Labour seem to be all over the place with regard to reforming the political structure of Auckland.

    They seem to say they want the Royal Commission’s recommendations implemented without deviation. Except at first, not the dedicated Maori Seats, (but later Phil Goff changes his mind on the elected ones but not the appointee) oh and they don’t like the electoral arrangements recommended. They then declare their undying love for the stripped down remnants of 6 of the 7 current LTA’s that the Royal Commission was going to allow to limp on (probably to pacify many of the existing local government Councillors who can see the chance of punting for a slot).

    They then are spooked into offering a referendum under 3rd Schedule of the Local Government Act 2002, despite the fact that the Royal Commission process itself isn’t provided for under the LGA, they could have put the need for a referendum in the terms of reference (they didn’t), the Commission recommended against one and more generally recommended a continuation of the ad hoc (i.e. not provided for under the LGA) reform of Auckland local government (started by Labour itself) through special purpose legislation.

    Really micky mouse. They would actually be better with George Hawkins driving Labour’s response and more importantly constructive input (like Mike Lee and Len Brown)– George at least knows something about Local Government, Twyford can’t even ask a proper Parliamentary question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    is it asking too much of ministers to cost their proposals? Th RC were concerned about the costs, which is why to wanted to keep the structure of the existing councils in place. The fact that the details of the proposal are so secret makes it impossible to evaluate the proposals merits. I don’t understand why we couldn’t do staged transfer of powers as the big bang approach will make Auckland susceptible to large short term expenditure on things like consultancy fees, IT systems and having pay out everyone their long service and leave entitlements
    The Local Government office seem to have no such concerns perhaps because they will not be footing the bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    bchapman:

    You will see the costs associated with the taxpayers direct contribution – but in reality that will only be a small part of it. There are no secrets but rather unknowns at the moment.

    No. The Royal Commission wanted a four year implementation. Its actually not that hard nor does it need that long. And its been talked about since the late 1950’s.

    No. The six local Councils would have saved no money at all as all their money would be given to them as their staff were to be (i.e. no real power but a list of leftover functions some of which make no sence to be done on a subregional basis and no real responsibility for raising their revenue thus no real responsibility). They were way too big to be truely local. Simply a parking place for Councillor pols who can’t step up to the big time. Heavens they were whinging machines in the making. And the poor old Community Boards who for better or for worse ACTUALLY do do local stuff – well they got shot – like they were the real problem in the structure of Auckland local government.

    Actually the new Auckland Council will inherit all the assets, debts and other liabilities of the existing TLA’s and Regional Council. This will include the Staff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Fact is the real cost of the Super City wont be known until its too late. Only in 3 to 5 years will ratepayers be able to compare the before and after

    Sadly IMHO the cost will be a doubling of rates and a halving of services with more than double the cardy wearers running the bloody thng

    IMHO there has been no lucid explanation of the new models objectives and KPIs

    And until you get the objectives and KPIs you have nothing

    All this have been is a $4million piss up against the wall to get rid of 7 bodies.

    I am yet to convinced that all the homewrok has been done

    I am however convinced that I and my fellow ratepayers will be paying big time for the resulting cock up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote