So why all the taxpayer dollars spent in court?

June 13th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The HoS reports:

will allow its well-known and sometimes fractious star Sean Plunket to write a magazine column, despite having battled through the Employment Relations Authority to stop him.

The cash-strapped state broadcaster had won a ruling from the authority, allowing it to ban Plunket from writing the political column while he was on the public payroll.

I’m glad Radio NZ have decided to allow Sean, but at mystified about why they didn’t just say yes in the first place, and avoid all these court battles.

I could understand any reluctance if Sean wanted to spend his weekends hosting talkback on Radio Live. But this was a monthly column in a magazine!

Tags: ,

11 Responses to “So why all the taxpayer dollars spent in court?”

  1. Eddie (288 comments) says:

    He, gasp, might have opined in a centre right fashion instead of the RNZ prescribed centre left fashion, and where would it end then you need to ask yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    Called “going with the flow”
    Left is going, right is getting a few tentative steps on the board. Any good political employee will see the flow and follow the trend. Includes CEO’s and Directors of this and that where our money is wasted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    From the article It is not known how much the radio network paid in legal fees to employment barrister Michael Quigg only to back away from its victory.

    What we DO know is Nick Smith has cost us $209,000.00 due to his inability to check facts before shooting off mouth.

    [DPF: Actually he didn't really cost you a cent. The legal fees were paid for out of the bulk funded budget for National's parliamentary expenses. These budgets are always fully expended, so what it really means is that by paying for the legal fees, they hired one less press secretary or put out fewer publications etc]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sonny Blount (1,777 comments) says:

    What we DO know is Nick Smith has cost us $209,000.00 due to his inability to check facts before shooting off mouth.

    He should be fired. Please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Motion carried.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Paulus (2,602 comments) says:

    Plunket is a right left plonker.

    I would hope that he writes his column, which I shall not read, and gets off Morning Report.

    I know he is only a repeater, but he enjoys denigrating people in his use of language – remember Clare Curran “It’s the Language that Matters”, (and the inflections you put on it.) It’s like body language which can actually tell the opposite of what is being said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. metcalph (1,426 comments) says:

    Perhaps Sean actually behaved nicely for a certain period of time so his bosses gave him a reward for good behavior?

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

    Commies fighting commies. Only pity is they’re using other people’s money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. taranaki (20 comments) says:

    I am mystified why Smith didn’t settle out of court earlier – before we paid $210,000 of his legal bills. Despite how you spin this for your biggest client DPF, that money came out out of the tax payer’s pocket. It’s indefensible, but as you are reaping it big from the same massive tax payer provided slush fund you have a massive personal interest in keeping the good times rolling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    mysterious isnt it, no sooner is there a change of government, than theCEO of radio nz changes his/her position, inexplicable!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. s.russell (1,601 comments) says:

    I expect that it was a matter of principle. If RNZ had given in then every journo and his/her dog would have treated this as a licence to moonlight wherever they liked. The Plunket case could then have been used by THEM as a precedent.
    This way, no one else will dare step out of line.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.