Rules don’t apply to Key’s ministers

38 comments on “Rules don’t apply to Key’s ministers ”

• Comments are now closed

1. infused 1

   11 November 2009 at 9:38 am

   Shit, you really are scraping from the bottom of the barrel.
   • Bright Red 1.1

     11 November 2009 at 9:51 am

     It was TV One last night wasn’t it?
     • Tigger 1.1.1

       11 November 2009 at 10:14 am

       infused – Hide shouldn’t be endorsing products. It’s his issue, not the Standard’s.
       • Roger Anderson 1.1.1.1

         11 November 2009 at 2:16 pm

         This isn’t exactly the only time Rodney has broken rules in the cabinet manual. And undermining aspects of our government system has the potential to become everyones problem. Rodney is developing a dangerous habit.
2. toad 2

   11 November 2009 at 9:48 am

   What about Double Dipton promoting a TVNZ7 documentary on the economy featuring, um, Double Dipton?

   Or is that party political advertising rather than a “product”?
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     11 November 2009 at 1:29 pm

     It’s probably both.
3. John Dalley 3

   11 November 2009 at 9:55 am

   The trouble with John Key is that he is so relaxed that if he doesn’t what out he will turn into a little pile of jelly wobbling on the floor.
   His relaxed style will be his downfall if he does not watch out.
4. felix 4

   11 November 2009 at 10:05 am

   He’s really the Hank Kingsley of NZ politics, ain’t he?

   Heynow!
   • Adders 4.1

     11 November 2009 at 1:05 pm

     Ha ha! What next for Hide-The-Sausage to endorse? Garden Weasels?
5. Bill 5

   11 November 2009 at 10:15 am

   The reason Hide enjoys smiling a lot has nothing to do with cosmetic dentistry, no. It’s because he’s got an entire National Party working up his arse helping him shovel neo-liberal shit around the show. Question is, does his make Rodney a) a smiling painted puppet of National or b) a gleefully constipated little Napoleon?
6. gitmo 6

   11 November 2009 at 10:24 am

   zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
   • felix 6.1

     11 November 2009 at 10:43 am

     I’ll wake you when we get to the sewer.
     • gitmo 6.1.1

       11 November 2009 at 10:58 am

       Cheers …….. and possibly plop !

       Don’t know whay but all this excitement and bombast over Hone’s pottemail reminds me of this.
7. dave 7

   11 November 2009 at 10:56 am

   That’s not breaking the rules. He didn’t endorse it in any media, He didn’t write it on the website, his dentist did. That’s scraping the barrel really low. Pathetic. Grow up.
   • Bright Red 7.1

     11 November 2009 at 1:07 pm

     ah, It’s signed Rodney Hide and if you watch the TVNZ article, he admits its his words.

     the internet’s a media, btw. you’re soaking in it.
     • dave 7.1.1

       11 November 2009 at 2:54 pm

       where is it signed Rodney Hide?
8. Nick 8

   11 November 2009 at 11:29 am

   Of course it’s barrel scraping. That’s the Left’s strategy. Melbourne is the best example.

   The Left is obsessed with beltway issues. A possible breach of the cabinet manual for a Minister who is not in cabinet.

   Truly and utterly minor and irrelevant.
9. SHG 9

   11 November 2009 at 12:58 pm

   Hide’s a Cabinet Minister now? When did that happen?
   • Bright Red 9.1

     11 November 2009 at 1:09 pm

     he’s bound by the cabinet manual by virtue of being a minister, regardless of whether he’s in cabinet or not. chump.
10. Craig Glen Eden 10

    11 November 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Yes its all irrelevant when those on the political right do it but its the end of civilization if a Labour MP was involved. You guys on the right stand for nothing but grab every thing you can get and chuck it constantly.
    It wouldn’t matter to most of you what was done just as long as your team is in power. Tele ho Tory back slappers.
    • fiskity 10.1

      11 November 2009 at 2:24 pm

      Well that’s all fine and good but what about when..

      It’s all irrelevant when those on the political left do it but it’s the end of civilization if a NACT/Maori MP is involved. You guys on the left stand for nothing but grab every thing you can get and gorge on it constantly.

      It wouldn’t matter to most of you what was done just as long as your team is in power. Pip pip Lefty shirt lifters.
11. Scribe 11

    11 November 2009 at 1:43 pm

    This is the first I’ve seen/heard about this. It seems to me that the rules against endorsing products or services would probably relate to receiving payments or services in kind in exchange for the endorsement. Has that happened in this case? (I genuinely don’t know.)

    EDIT: Checked the manual; it appears the payment for such endorsements is the concern.
    • Bright Red 11.1

      11 November 2009 at 2:33 pm

      no scribe, there’s no mention in the manual that receiving payment is the problem. the language is clear:

      “No Minister should endorse in any media any product or service.”

      It’s not a matter of whether the minister gets anything in return.

      If you disagree, post some evidence from the manual.
      • Pat 11.1.1

        11 November 2009 at 2:35 pm

        MANUAL FIGHT!!!!
      • Scribe 11.1.2

        11 November 2009 at 2:38 pm

        BR (emphasis mine):

        No Minister should endorse in any media any product or service. Ministers may, however, appear in party political advertisements or in non-political advertisements or announcements in the public interest (promoting, for example, water safety), where no fee would be expected or accepted.

        Is dental health in the public interest? 🙂
        • lprent 11.1.2.1

          11 November 2009 at 2:44 pm

          It would be. But that isn’t the case here.

          As Rodney made perfectly clear in his endorsement, it was about appearance and being able to smile. That is about dental vanity, not dental health.
          • Scribe 11.1.2.1.1

            11 November 2009 at 2:59 pm

            The media should be asking (and they may be) when Rodney had this treatment (as a minister or before) and whether Rodney was paid for this endorsement — in money or free services.

            If he didn’t get any personal benefit out of it, I can’t imagine most Kiwis will give a toss — rightly or wrongly.

            Did John Key endorse Vogel’s by giving Helen Clark a loaf? Where do we stop?
        • Pascal's bookie 11.1.2.2

          11 November 2009 at 3:42 pm

          It’s promoting a private business, innit?

          Nice try though 🙂
          • Scribe 11.1.2.2.1

            11 November 2009 at 3:51 pm

            Pb,

            I’m no apologist for Rodney, but I do struggle to see the problem with saying “Hey, I got good service from these guys” if there’s no quid pro quo associated with it.

            I think if Helen Clark had bought hiking equipment from, for argument’s sake, Kathmandu and endorsed their backpacks as nice and waterproof, and she’d been endorsing it without any kickbacks, that would be fine.
            • Pascal's bookie 11.1.2.2.1.1

              11 November 2009 at 3:58 pm

              I see your point, but I guess it’s about appearances, which are important. Kickbacks are pretty hard to find if you do them cleverly I would imagine, so it’s best to just ban the endorsements. Which they did. (Also, what if a citizen uses the service based on the minister’s endorsement and their face falls off or something?)

              Any way, teh rulz is teh rulz. If he doesn’t like them he should get them changed.
            • Bright Red 11.1.2.2.1.2

              11 November 2009 at 4:09 pm

              sigh. It’s not an issue of kickbacks, it’s about unfair commercial advantage for the private company from having a public figure, who is famous because of the public office they hold, endorsing their product.
        • Bright Red 11.1.2.3

          11 November 2009 at 4:07 pm

          scribe, the part you’re reading is in what is called ‘a different sentence’

          The part you are reading that mentions payments says it is OK for ministers to appear in public service stuff or political ads if they don’t take any money.

          That’s completely different from the issue at hand.

          see:

          sentence 1: No Minister should endorse in any media any product or service.

          sentence 2: Ministers may, however, appear in party political advertisements or in non-political advertisements or announcements in the public interest (promoting, for example, water safety), where no fee would be expected or accepted.
12. Scribe 12

    11 November 2009 at 4:03 pm

    See your point, too, Pb. As we know in politics, though, on both sides of the aisle, the rules are only the rules if the ref says they are.
    • Pascal's bookie 12.1

      11 November 2009 at 4:06 pm

      Nah fuck all that relativist post modern bullshit.

      I’m a strict constructionist at the moment.
      • Scribe 12.1.1

        11 November 2009 at 4:36 pm

        Glad to hear it 😀
13. Swampy 13

    11 November 2009 at 9:55 pm

    It’s about the same as the painting, and I don’t remember what standard Clark applied to her self over that.
14. kiwiteen123 14

    11 November 2009 at 10:11 pm

    With all due respect, get over it!
15. Dean 15

    12 November 2009 at 7:49 am

    “Perhaps, although from what I can tell Hide made the endorsement after becoming a minister; he didn’t make it as an MP and forget to withdraw it when he became a minister as he claims.”

    I hate to tell you this, but he had the dental work done and made the recommendation before the last election.

    Excellent fact checking Eddie!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS