Obligations of an MP

[wingrider]

When this whole thing came to light and we were able to disprove many of the statements made by MP's and heads of departments, I started to wonder as to what legal or moral obligations these persons had when releasing these statements to the public.

I feel that what I am about to say may require clarification from someone with a better legal mind than me.

I sought info from the beehive and was reffered to the handbook for MP's setting out their obligations. Statements or publications made available to the public come under the advertising section.

I attach the extract for you to read.

In particular I draw attention to section 2 under PURPOSE. and section 5 under PRESENTATION.

These rules govern both an MP and also heads of Govt Depts.

There is a ruling to state that the ONUS falls on the Minister to ensure that statements are true, factual and not misleading.

Any member can ask a written question of the speaker to have a ruling made on the validity of any statement made either in the house or outside of the house.
The speaker is obligated to act without bias and if he finds that the statements are not factual or are misleading can have the member appear before the priverlages committee.

Whilst a member may be covered by privelage within the house, if the same false statements are made outside he can face litigation. The committee can also rule against a head of department.

I hope this info may be of use to those that are helping us with this.


Also

[MSTRS]

Interesting. One for round 2?

[k2w3]

I'd like to think that Smith and Key and other senior interested parties have already banged up those civil servants responsible for the 'stats' demanding reassurance that they can at least be statistically proven right. You know what they say about stats.

[wingrider]

The lady at the behive i spoke to sorta walked me through the process.

head of department gets info sent to him. He is supposed to check it for accuracy.


he passes it to Minister. He reads it and if any queries sends it back to have validity of claims made verified.

Goes back to minister.

he gives it to Key for final approval before going public.

Did anyone know that Smith has called for a full enquiry as to why Acc heads did not alert him earlier to the fact the they are so far in the shit? ( according to who??)

he has tabled a document in the house to this effect. Wasnt done all that long ago and seems to infer that all of the proposals were put to him at the same time as they told him they were in it.

Given the timeframe I dont see how they could have verified all the facts befor it went public.