Will it be "high noon" for Sherriff Cunliffe this afternoon as Parliament resumes and the House gets its first opportunity to question him over the Hawke's Bay DHB sacking and related matters? The Herald opines: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10495972
Helen Clark too must be called to account for her extraordinary comments to Paul Holmes yesterday that "I don’t really care what the rights and wrongs of what was going on within the board are" and her unconditional support for Cunliffe.
I would be surprised if there is not an application from National for an urgent debate this afternoon, and stunned if Margaret Wilson found any reason to rule against such a request. David Cunliffe has made a decision to override the democratic rights of local body electors in the Hawkes Bay, and must be called to account for his reasons. Anything less from the Minister, former Health Ministers and the PM will only reinforce the widely held perception that the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Peter Hausmman to the DHB, the awarding of contracts to Peter Hausmann, and the duplicity of the DHB management carry a stench like a fish left in the Hawkes Bay sunshine for too long.
UPDATE: No less than four out of 12 questions in the House today concern Baygate - Key to Clark on confidence in Cunliffe, two from Ryall to Cunliffe, and the last question of the day is from Judith Collins to the Minister for Social Development on contract protocols. Will fur fly?
4 comments:
Your urgent debate came and went. Tremain and Foss added nothing, although Tremain did mention the public meeting venue being "stacked"(Freudian?). Heather Roy, however, had the bombshell regarding Parekura Horomia's loose lips.
Question Time was very good, especially Ryall getting the e-mails tabled. Cunliffe performed well enough to be fair.
Cunliffe did not perform well. He performed so badly re his obvious duplicity with regards to knowledge of the report, that Cullen had to obfuscate his way out of it.
He certainly did not look like someone "running the show", more like ...just running
I thought Ryall's substitution of Noel Ingram's name into the inquiry report was a gem, and it gave him the opportunity to remind the House that Cunliffe was for mothhs the defender of Taito Philip Field, until such time as Helen Clark cut him adrift and called in the boys in blue. And did Cunliffe mislead the House over his insinuations that he knew what would be in the inquiry report on one answer, then on the next denying what he'd just said?
Thanks for the Hansard link under "smoking gun". Still think Cunliffe performed "well enough".
Bill English sounded to have nailed him with his point of order, but on reading the transcript there appears not to be that degree of inconsistency. His first reference to seeing 'who doctored what' was rephrased as 'whose smoking gun was pointed at whom' (neither phrase in ' ' is a direct quote, but highlighted only). Don't think that either of those phrases are inconsistent with his statement of not knowing what was in the report. Almost, but not quite.
In the urgent debate, Heather Roy's remarks about what Parekura Horomia might have said out of turn could catch Cunliffe out, if it can be verified. Now that did sound bad. She seemed very sure about it.
Post a Comment