1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,040 Speaker 1: In a sign of how ragged some of our democratic 2 00:00:02,080 --> 00:00:03,960 Speaker 1: processes are, the Marray Party are not turning up to 3 00:00:04,000 --> 00:00:06,680 Speaker 1: their Privileges Committee appointment today. Couldn't you see that coming 4 00:00:06,680 --> 00:00:08,440 Speaker 1: a mile away. They've got a laundry list of issues 5 00:00:08,440 --> 00:00:11,160 Speaker 1: they claim haven't been addressed. So what now constitutional law ricks? 6 00:00:11,160 --> 00:00:13,000 Speaker 1: But Graham Edgel is back. Well, this's Grahame, very good 7 00:00:13,000 --> 00:00:13,560 Speaker 1: morning to you. 8 00:00:14,320 --> 00:00:14,840 Speaker 2: Good morning. 9 00:00:14,920 --> 00:00:17,840 Speaker 1: So what now? Because I understand the Privileges Committee can 10 00:00:17,880 --> 00:00:20,040 Speaker 1: basically do anything they want to. The balls in their court, 11 00:00:20,079 --> 00:00:20,400 Speaker 1: isn't it. 12 00:00:21,480 --> 00:00:24,079 Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's there's the hearing. They choose not 13 00:00:24,120 --> 00:00:27,080 Speaker 2: to turn up the Privileges Committee, will I would guess 14 00:00:27,240 --> 00:00:30,960 Speaker 2: make a decision. Yep, this is already they've already made 15 00:00:30,960 --> 00:00:34,040 Speaker 2: an interim decision so that they had one laboring peak. 16 00:00:34,400 --> 00:00:37,559 Speaker 2: Penna Hennerede was involved in the Harker as well. They 17 00:00:37,600 --> 00:00:40,000 Speaker 2: made a finding on his They said it in his 18 00:00:40,120 --> 00:00:43,120 Speaker 2: case it wasn't contempted to parliament, but it was disorderly 19 00:00:43,880 --> 00:00:47,319 Speaker 2: and I think he apologized and so yeah, they can 20 00:00:47,320 --> 00:00:49,520 Speaker 2: make sort of the same recommendation or a slightly different 21 00:00:49,520 --> 00:00:52,560 Speaker 2: different recommendation if they feel it was the behavior was 22 00:00:52,600 --> 00:00:55,120 Speaker 2: slightly different and go from there. 23 00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:57,920 Speaker 1: Where does the sit in terms of seriousness for a 24 00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:02,160 Speaker 1: privileges committee and their reputation going forward? Do you think. 25 00:01:03,840 --> 00:01:06,880 Speaker 2: Not that serious? But you know, sort of the committee 26 00:01:06,959 --> 00:01:09,399 Speaker 2: will just you know, it's the committee is doing what 27 00:01:09,440 --> 00:01:11,920 Speaker 2: it was told to do. You know, speaker has there 28 00:01:11,959 --> 00:01:13,759 Speaker 2: was there are a couple of complaints to the speaker. 29 00:01:13,840 --> 00:01:16,320 Speaker 2: The Speaker referred the issue, and the committee is going 30 00:01:16,360 --> 00:01:19,839 Speaker 2: to make a decision or recommendation. It's not a particularly 31 00:01:19,920 --> 00:01:22,679 Speaker 2: serious breach. I don't think if you remembers, say, for example, 32 00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:25,399 Speaker 2: that the Julian Genta one was probably slightly more serious. 33 00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:30,600 Speaker 2: But you know, she relatively quickly apologized and and that 34 00:01:30,680 --> 00:01:32,440 Speaker 2: was part of the resort. Well you know, they said, 35 00:01:32,440 --> 00:01:35,160 Speaker 2: well she's apologized. Yeah, that was good that we wanted 36 00:01:35,160 --> 00:01:38,360 Speaker 2: and that's what happened. And so it's a similar level maybe, 37 00:01:38,360 --> 00:01:40,200 Speaker 2: but yeah, maybe even slightly less serious. 38 00:01:40,319 --> 00:01:42,880 Speaker 1: Does it go to the wider issue of attitude and 39 00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:45,800 Speaker 1: respect and professionalism and what we may or may not 40 00:01:45,880 --> 00:01:48,680 Speaker 1: expect as punters of our leading institution. 41 00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:55,880 Speaker 2: Maybe. I mean it's sort of like it's the different 42 00:01:55,960 --> 00:01:58,800 Speaker 2: parties involved here are playing to their own audience, I think, 43 00:01:58,960 --> 00:02:00,920 Speaker 2: And it's not sort of it's political matter, not a 44 00:02:00,960 --> 00:02:03,760 Speaker 2: legal matter or anything like that. It's the you know, 45 00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:05,880 Speaker 2: there is some benefit to being the party on the 46 00:02:05,920 --> 00:02:09,519 Speaker 2: outside saying you guys need to change. And I think 47 00:02:09,520 --> 00:02:12,000 Speaker 2: the Marti Party is you know, they're inn opposition, you know, 48 00:02:12,800 --> 00:02:15,280 Speaker 2: quite firm lockstep on the government on passing their bills 49 00:02:15,320 --> 00:02:18,639 Speaker 2: that they all agree to the next two three years, 50 00:02:19,280 --> 00:02:21,120 Speaker 2: Marty Marty is not going to get much of its 51 00:02:21,200 --> 00:02:24,560 Speaker 2: legislation passed and they see some benefit to this, and 52 00:02:24,840 --> 00:02:28,120 Speaker 2: well they're politicians, just like everyone else in Parliament is 53 00:02:28,120 --> 00:02:30,600 Speaker 2: a politician. When they see a political benefit of doing something, 54 00:02:30,639 --> 00:02:33,040 Speaker 2: they're going to do it. Other parties the same. 55 00:02:33,000 --> 00:02:34,880 Speaker 1: Very realistic view. By the way, are you following the 56 00:02:34,880 --> 00:02:36,200 Speaker 1: South Island water case. 57 00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:38,760 Speaker 2: Slightly? Yes? 58 00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:41,920 Speaker 1: Is it worth talking about? I'm trying to follow it, 59 00:02:41,960 --> 00:02:43,960 Speaker 1: but it's going on for a tremendous amount of time 60 00:02:43,960 --> 00:02:46,400 Speaker 1: with a great deal of complexity, and I'm working towards 61 00:02:46,400 --> 00:02:48,440 Speaker 1: the idea that it will probably end up being nothing 62 00:02:48,480 --> 00:02:50,239 Speaker 1: based on the fact that it needs to be done 63 00:02:50,280 --> 00:02:51,880 Speaker 1: by Parliament or am I wrong? 64 00:02:53,120 --> 00:02:56,360 Speaker 2: I mean that would be my guess. You know, the 65 00:02:56,440 --> 00:02:58,320 Speaker 2: time to really talk about that case is when it 66 00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:01,440 Speaker 2: comes out with a decision. To be perfect honest, you know, 67 00:03:01,520 --> 00:03:03,079 Speaker 2: sort of having that sort of thing, you know, and 68 00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:05,600 Speaker 2: at that point, you know there'll probably be an appeal 69 00:03:05,639 --> 00:03:08,200 Speaker 2: whichever side loses, but you'll have a bit of an 70 00:03:08,280 --> 00:03:10,320 Speaker 2: argument and a bit of a discussion to be okay, 71 00:03:10,360 --> 00:03:13,080 Speaker 2: well we've got our court decision. You know, there's probably 72 00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:16,800 Speaker 2: be an appeal, so that'll delay things again whichever side loses. 73 00:03:17,400 --> 00:03:19,359 Speaker 2: But that's the time to really have a discussion rather 74 00:03:19,400 --> 00:03:21,720 Speaker 2: than sort of you're guessing what a judge's got to 75 00:03:21,760 --> 00:03:23,359 Speaker 2: do when he heard from all these lawyers. 76 00:03:23,480 --> 00:03:25,600 Speaker 1: So okay, Graham, I'll get you on at the time. 77 00:03:25,639 --> 00:03:28,560 Speaker 1: Appreciate very much, gram Agel. It's worth following because it 78 00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:31,440 Speaker 1: has the potential as a nightA who's you know, the 79 00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:33,240 Speaker 1: government doesn't run the place we do when it comes 80 00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:36,600 Speaker 1: to water argument, which as I say from my reading 81 00:03:36,640 --> 00:03:39,320 Speaker 1: so far, is going nowhere, but it has the potential 82 00:03:39,640 --> 00:03:40,960 Speaker 1: to go somewhere. 83 00:03:41,360 --> 00:03:44,240 Speaker 2: For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to 84 00:03:44,360 --> 00:03:47,440 Speaker 2: news talks. It'd be from six am weekdays, or follow 85 00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:49,040 Speaker 2: the podcast on iHeartRadio.