Mallard and Little fold

November 14th, 2012 at 5:14 pm by David Farrar

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports;

Minister action against Labour MPs and has been settled following a hearing in the High Court at Auckland today. …

In a statement today following their meeting, the three parliamentarians said they agreed “the leak of the email Ms Boag sent to the minister and forwarded on her instructions as the responsible minister to the chairman and chief executive of ACC raised an issue of serious public concern, and that Messrs Mallard and Little were entitled to question who was responsible for that leak”.

“The parties continue to differ over whether the comments made by Messrs Mallard and Little respectively on Radio NZ implied the minister falsely assured the House that neither she nor her office was responsible for the leak.

“Messrs Mallard and Little have confirmed to Ms Collins that was not their intention and wish to make that clear publicly that in the event such meaning was taken they regret it.”

In the statement, the three politicians said they would make no further comment.

If Mallard and Little had said that a few months ago they could have saved themselves a lot of money.

Tags: , , , ,

35 Responses to “Mallard and Little fold”

  1. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    Cactus unspins the statement: http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.hk/2012/11/the-settlement-unspun.html

    She says that ‘regret’ is a non-apology, maybe legally she’s right, but this is politics too…

    …implied the minister falsely assured the House that neither she nor her office was responsible for the leak.

    “Messrs Mallard and Little have confirmed to Ms Collins that was not their intention…

    …could be seen as a not particularly honest admission. I’m sure what they actually said then will be analysed against this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Keeping Stock (10,298 comments) says:

    Of course they intended people to take that view; why else would they have said it, but to blacken Collins’ reputation?

    I score it as a points victory to the Crusher.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. calendar girl (1,215 comments) says:

    Looks to me from that joint statement that Ms Collins did as much “folding” as Messrs Mallard and Little.

    And (as I believe that the Minister was paying her own costs) she too would have saved herself a lot of money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. jaba (2,137 comments) says:

    it wouldn’t have cost Trev much at all, I understand he has a concession card like you get at swimming pools

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    No apology, no retraction. They folded how exactly ?

    Draw at best for Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. burt (8,236 comments) says:

    The real pain for Trev & Little is yet to come…. Do the honourable members stand by their statements or are they going to back down when challenged in court like they have in the past …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    ‘calendar girl (804) Says:
    November 14th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
    Looks to me from that joint statement that Ms Collins did as much “folding” as Messrs Mallard and Little.

    And (as I believe that the Minister was paying her own costs) she too would have saved herself a lot of money.”

    She ‘sued’ but didn’t sue, got an ‘apology’ of double meanings.
    Credit to them all though, there was little point going on with it as Judith decided much earlier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Reid (16,290 comments) says:

    If Mallard and Little had said that a few months ago they could have saved themselves a lot of money.

    Yes, the masters make another clever move on the strategic political chessboard.

    I’m quite disappointed in Little. He struggles in politics and he’s smarmy. He’d make a really lousy PM, but I can see him leader after Cunliffe’s run.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. queenstfarmer (772 comments) says:

    Of course there’s no apology – Mallard & Little’s apology would be meaningless – the point is they folded. Small victory to Collins, Mallard & Little still looking stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    She would had an impossible task to show she suffered damage other than hurt feelings which wouldn’t be high value for a politician subject to daily insults from opponents.

    So she would have won the case with a 1 cent award for damages which would not be a great political point-scorer. Hence the double-talk settlement.

    [DPF: Alan, Collins was not seeking damages. She was merely seeking a declaration that she was defamed, and of course then costs.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RF (1,380 comments) says:

    Done and dusted. Crusher came out on top. Another fail for mallard and his union mate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Mark (1,480 comments) says:

    How the hell is this a win for Collins. She folded her position as much as the two clowns from Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Elaycee (4,374 comments) says:

    Game. Set. Match to Crusher.

    Mallard has to retract his stupid and ill-judged comments. Again. Quelle surprise.

    Little proves that he’s not leadership material. Not even for Labour. Says it all, really. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Komata (1,178 comments) says:

    Given that Mr Mallard is known to frequent this site, no doubt we will be hearing his version of the matter in due course. . .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    ‘Mark (889) Says:
    November 14th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
    How the hell is this a win for Collins. She folded her position as much as the two clowns from Labour.’

    More in fact, from the moment she ‘downgraded’ to wanting an apology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    Cactus called it a win for Mallard and Little, she’s probably right.

    Collins didn’t get what she set out for; no two ways round that.

    I’m wondering if she was given the word from on high to pull this as a trial was just going to be a distraction the government didn’t need, going to court always carries the risk of defeat. Juries can be an awkward bunch.

    Plus it just drags the whole ACC thing back into the public eye.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    This is nothing but a big loss for Collins. She wanted the Court to rule that she had been defamed. The Court has made no such ruling. Which of course begs the question: who was behind the leak of Boag’s email? A reasonable person would now say it was probably the Justice Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    I think Judith Collins got what she wanted most – the public largely think that Mallard and Little are bovine scatologists of the highest order.

    They may smirk with their little semantic ‘win’, but the public don’t play semantics. Regret means caught out in their eyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    [DPF: Alan, Collins was not seeking damages. She was merely seeking a declaration that she was defamed, and of course then costs.]

    She got neither that declaration nor an apology. In other words it was a lose-lose for her, and the public will be entitled to think that she was the source of the leak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    and the public will be entitled to think that she was the source of the leak.

    ‘Entitlement’ doesn’t mean anything. Mallard and Little have backed off accusing her of that and they say they never meant to imply she lied when she said she hadn’t leaked.

    The public is entitled to think Mallard and Little were blustering with no evidence,in other words falsely accusing Collins – which Mallard repeated in tweets and on Facebook.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Manolo (13,579 comments) says:

    Further confirmation of the despicable nature of the weasel Little and the thug Mallard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Concentrate (29 comments) says:

    Was she awarded costs? It’s not mentioned so I’ll assume not and I see no declaration of defamation so I don’t see how she got what she was seeking or wanted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > The public is entitled to think Mallard and Little were blustering with no evidence…

    Well, you’d have to have a fanciful imagination and/or be a rabid Tory supporter to think that. If it were true, Collins would have got exactly what she wanted. Instead, she got neither an apology nor vindication. She called it quits before her reputation could be restored. Weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. wreck1080 (3,883 comments) says:

    boring, i wanted this to go to court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Steve (North Shore) (4,546 comments) says:

    Hit and run, Gangboag style

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Keeping Stock (10,298 comments) says:

    From the NZ Herald of 17 May 2012:

    Mr Mallard late yesterday confirmed he was also refusing to cooperate with Ms Collins’ court action.

    “I see no reason to co-operate in what is clearly a vexatious action.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10806430

    If it was a “vexatious action” Trevor, why did you settle?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (8,236 comments) says:

    ross69

    You’re the sort of socialist who would support Malllard swinging his fists inside the house when he can’t control his childish temper then denigrate a “tory” for using harsh language – your opinion is irrelevant !

    Puncher Mallard and double dipper Little have backed down on their big strong position of no fear – get over it !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Did the taxpayer have to pay for Little and Mallard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    Looks like a grand waste of time and money, just to try to prove a point.
    Pointless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    BigFish,

    You are absolutely right – Mallard and Little should have just apologised immediately on being called out. Or better yet, not have levelled the accusations in the first place. I guess their caregivers were just a little too busy at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Mallard and Little should have just apologised immediately on being called out…

    Collins should have been upfront from the very beginning and explained how Boag’s email was leaked. Why did she print a copy of it and who had access to it? Why did she forward it on to others when it was strictly confidential? You know, basic questions which she hasn’t been able to answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    Collins should have been upfront from the very beginning and explained how Boag’s email was leaked.

    Explain something you have no knowledge about. That’s an interesting concept ross69.

    We can see, repeatedly, that you try to practice it, but the vast majority of us appreciate that it isn’t actually possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Elaycee (4,374 comments) says:

    Mallard and Little stated:

    “Messrs Mallard and Little have confirmed to Ms Collins that was not their intention and wish to make that clear publicly that in the event such meaning was taken they regret it.”

    Only a card carrying, myopic leftard could possibly interpret that statement as meaning something other than a backtrack by the Labour bovver boys.

    Collins got what she wanted – despite the bleating and wailing from Mallard and Little, they had to either prove Collins was lying (they couldn’t prove it because she wasn’t) or they had to retract their ill conceived comments (and so they did).

    Sheesh…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Lance (2,635 comments) says:

    @ross69
    So who is a Tory in NZ?

    You prattle out that term most likely as a demeaning term but it reeks of cloth capped knuckle dragging UK unionists who seem enamored with perpetuating the class system.
    Hey ross69… the class system sucks! This is NZ, get over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Jinky (184 comments) says:

    The term Tory comes from an Irish word “toraidhe” meaning outlaw or Irish rebel. this relates to them originally being catholic supporters or jacobites who supported the Stuart monarchy against the roundheads & covenanters before, during and after the British civil War.

    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.