The revelations that his work via email with donors disclosing cabinet decisions was known by the previous Prime Minister's office is, without question, a scandal.
Chris Hipkins, who must be by now regretting ever agreeing to step into the job in place of the hapless Jacinda Ardern in that gerrymandered deal late last year, claims that although the information on Nash was known by the Prime Minister's office, because of an official information process, somehow the Prime Minister or those close to her were never told.
Really?
A cabinet minister breaking rules, rules that Chris Hipkins very clearly stated was a reason and a reason all on its own for a sacking, was known by the office of Jacinda Ardern and no one who knew thought that telling someone else in that office was a good idea?
Why would they not do that? Are they thick?
Are they thick beyond words?
Or are they so Machiavellian that they owned it all by themselves and thought if they said nothing and the Prime Minister remained untouched and unscathed, they could save her?
Why would knowing something about Stuart Nash be of such importance to the people who knew about it that they would think that saving him was worthwhile?
Is it plausible to ask that in fact the then Prime Minister did know, or her chief of staff did know, and they did nothing?
Knowing what we know about Ardern and her policy around discipline, is it plausible to ask whether they could tuck the info away? Maybe tell Stuart he's an idiot and then hope that no one ever found out?
What we know for a fact is that Nash's activities with donors via email;
1) Breached cabinet rules,
2) Was known by the office of the Prime Minister and,
3) Cost him his job, because the breach all by itself is a sackable offence.
If it was sackable this week, why wasn’t it sackable then?
You'll note the theme of this. There seem many questions but very few answers.
Dare I raise the issue of the most honest, open and transparent Government at this stage?
Or is the hole so deep they’ve dug for themselves that it's become such a farce that it's not even worth the reminder?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings.
Really?
A cabinet minister breaking rules, rules that Chris Hipkins very clearly stated was a reason and a reason all on its own for a sacking, was known by the office of Jacinda Ardern and no one who knew thought that telling someone else in that office was a good idea?
Why would they not do that? Are they thick?
Are they thick beyond words?
Or are they so Machiavellian that they owned it all by themselves and thought if they said nothing and the Prime Minister remained untouched and unscathed, they could save her?
Why would knowing something about Stuart Nash be of such importance to the people who knew about it that they would think that saving him was worthwhile?
Is it plausible to ask that in fact the then Prime Minister did know, or her chief of staff did know, and they did nothing?
Knowing what we know about Ardern and her policy around discipline, is it plausible to ask whether they could tuck the info away? Maybe tell Stuart he's an idiot and then hope that no one ever found out?
What we know for a fact is that Nash's activities with donors via email;
1) Breached cabinet rules,
2) Was known by the office of the Prime Minister and,
3) Cost him his job, because the breach all by itself is a sackable offence.
If it was sackable this week, why wasn’t it sackable then?
You'll note the theme of this. There seem many questions but very few answers.
Dare I raise the issue of the most honest, open and transparent Government at this stage?
Or is the hole so deep they’ve dug for themselves that it's become such a farce that it's not even worth the reminder?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings.
9 comments:
"Known to the PM' s office but the PM was never told"...
a line straight out of a Kafka novel.
The hole is very, very deep and the malignancy of this Ardern government is real.
The sad reality is that they have given New Zealand cancer and the cure is somewhat unknown.
Interesting, when our horse face prime minister stepped down last year a right wing overseas blog site stated that there was a very large scandal on the way, is this it.
It is interesting that someone is leaking this and there must be a motivation. They wanted it seems to take Nash out and there must be a reason for this.
What would the enormity be if it came to light that the brown 15 held information on all the main MPs from all the parties that was so sensitive, and if that is so, where does this leave our democracy, is this the reason that co-gov is moving ahead so fast with no real opposition, how scary is that be possibility?.
Phil - my guess is it was an attempt to move the discussion away from the protest, police and Marama. They will have been holding this since Nash hit the news on his other indiscretions, waiting for an emergency that needs to be taken of the front pages.
Not a Kafka novel... " Jacinda in Wonderland " with so many rabbit holes they'll need light rail to sort the traffic jams out. Kiwialan.
All of the above comments seem reasonable and plausible, but whatever - come the election they'll now have a snowball's chance in hell. How befitting.
Snowballs chance in hell... Hilarious 😂 I remember that line.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.