Gerry Brownlee offered to resign as Transport Minster today after getting caught out skipping security at Christchurch airport.

Prime Minister John Key says he was “really disappointed” after Gerry Brownlee bypassed airport security this morning, but he has been quick to back him.

Mr Brownlee and two of his staff deliberately bypassed airport security at Christchurch airport this morning. He offered his resignation as Transport Minister, but that was swiftly rejected by the PM.

“Running late for a plane this morning, I took a door that is normally used for an exit at Christchurch airport onto the forecourt … and you’re supposed to go through airport security,” Mr Brownlee told reporters this afternoon.

He said he did not give it any thought, but has now apologised unreservedly for the action.

Mr Brownlee only offered his resignation after he was contacted by Aviation Security.

In defending him John Key has said

“He’s offered his resignation and I’ve decided, on balance, not to accept his resignation. In making that decision, I considered the whole matter very seriously.

“But I had to weigh up all of the tremendous things he’s done in the six years he’s served as a minister.

So let’s have a quick poll, do you think the Prime Minister should have accepted his resignation over this? One thing to think about is if he had of, who would have replaced him and for that the most likely candidate would be his predecessor – Steven Joyce.

Should John Key have accepted Gerry Brownlee's Resignation

Loading ... Loading ...

Note: I think this one could end up a very lopsided poll.

Share this

35 comments

  1. Airport security is largely play acting to make it look like something is being done. My brother came home with 15 swiss army knives for presents in his carry on. He bought them at the airport.

  2. They’re laughing about it at the Nats.

    “Oh look, isn’t he a jolly chappie. Friendly guy, can be a bit absent-minded at times. haha. Vote for us, we’re human beings.” (then signs another decision spending your money on a new unnecessary motorway)

    1. It could be argued that Brownlee is impersonating a responsible, open-minded minister of the Crown.

  3. You could get rid of him, but the National conveyor belt would deliver you a freshly minted arrogant, pro-road replacement immediately.

  4. For not being very good at his job – yes he should resign.
    For thinking the rules don’t apply to him – yes also.

  5. Even though I think he is an awful transport minister, and I wish his resignation had been accepted, I don’t think this really warrants stepping down. It seems like a pretty minor offence to me, sure it may have been arrogant, but no real harm was done.

    1. Remember when Richard Prebble as Minister of Transport, was caught driving a car while reading a newspaper?

  6. He’s going to be attacked if he doesn’t offer his resignation for not doing it and he’s going to get attacked for not meaning it if he does.

    A remarkably stupid thing for a transport minister to do but it’s more useful as a soundbite for Winston/Twyford than as a reason for losing your Warrant.

  7. They promised to cut through red tape. Brownlee is simply leading from the front, like a Light Brigadier.

  8. Weren’t the Nats at Helen Clarke’s throat when she told her driver to drive fast so as not to be late for a plane?

  9. I doubt that offering to resign was Gerry’s idea but it’s a contrast in smart political management with what we’ve seen from others recently. Full credit for that at least.

  10. This is but another example in a long list National MP’s behaving above the law.

  11. An alternative point of view: that in fact, all airline security is hokum in NZ and that we would all be better off without it. Now, before you hack me down – hear me out. Yes, we all dislike Brownlee as he is an overweight, under qualified fool, with far too much power and influence under his belt, but realistically speaking, dont we all hate the bullshit rituals we have to face every time we fly from Auckland to Wellington? The emptying of your pockets of every scrap of small change, the removal of jackets, the scanning of belt buckles, the ridiculous continued confiscation of nail clippers and other gun-induced paranoia brought on by the USA since 2001. Is there really any valid reason why we have to put up with this charade in New Zealand in 2014, other than a fear of fear itself?

    Has there ever been any sign of domestic terrorism (except for that laughable case where a half mad foreign woman tried to hijack an Air New Zealand flight on its way to Invercargil or something, only she was so obese that she got stuck in the aisle and was overpowered?), and is there really any difference between the chance of an aerial terrorist attack in a turboprop (no bag search there) between Auckland and Napier, and a flight on a A320 between Auckland and Wellington where we all, even high-ranking politicians, have to submit to a ritual about hidden weapons, none of which have ever been found. And so, therefore, should we perhaps just say instead: Yes, good on you Brownlee, and we will all do the same thing from now on.

    1. Wouldn’t that be great, Maximus.

      Unfortunately, the far more likely outcome is one rule for me, one rule for you. The exact same thing that made Clark think it was appropriate to ask her driver to travel at 140km/hr. I’m aware that this is not a particularly uncommon action from some (but certainly not all) politicians. Joyce, Kaye and Brownlee are well known for their arrogance toward staff in Parlimentary services.

    2. I kind of agree, but the danger would be that removing security and the surrounding publicity ironically would increase the risk of some nutter trying something. So yes we probably don’t need it, but now we have it we can’t get rid of it.

    3. It’s a nice thing to say, “remove the security theater” BUT, I’m afraid I’ve got to side against here, there is a saying/thing that is said about intelligence services (i.e. CIA/NSA/GCSB/etc) which is basically “You hear about our failures, but you never/hardly hear about our successes”, aviation security is another example of an industry where this applies.

      An American example: How many times do you hear of TSA screw-ups (FYI, the latest is a doozy, apparently District of Columbia isn’t part of the US!), lots right? How many times do you hear of TSA successes? Not many, pretty much only well coordinated press releases many months/years down the line.

      The fact that NZ’s Aviation Security seems to work at the moment isn’t a reason to remove it, nor is it a reason to be complacent, but it’s certain a reason to be thankful that we haven’t gone all out crazy like the TSA and insist that laptops have to be charged and test-booted before flights etc.

  12. What’s the penalty that a regular person would face for intentionally breaching security? Forgetting about the resignation question, given the circumstances he should at least be given the maximum penalty.

      1. If you read Graeme Edgeler’s many tweets on the issue it’s entirely possible that Brownlee hasn’t actually broken the law at all, although the airline and airport staff might have. I’m sure the CAA will get to the bottom of it.

        The Herald’s just made a correction as well, the 2 and 3 are the other way around: $2,000 fine or three months prison.

      2. It was “up to 12 months in prison and a $10,000 fine” in 2011/2012 (per Stuff article mentioned in my earlier comment) when Ben Boyce & co were charged for trying to get through Auckland Airport’s security checkpoint dressed as a pilot. (n.b. 24 month + convictions are the ones that MPs can be kicked out of the Beehive completely over)

        1. There’s many different Civil Aviation offences, and as far as we know Brownlee didn’t lie to anyone about who he was, which was where Ben and the other one went wrong.

          > can be kicked out of the Beehive

          Kicked out of Parliament, you mean? It’s up to the Prime Minister whether he gets kicked out of the Beehive, which only houses the executive branch.

  13. The breach of security is serious but I don’t think he should lose his job over it. What he should lose his job over is trying to cover up a massive cock up by himself and his department. It was only because the media started to snoop around this issue that it became public. It also shows a flaw in his department that really should have been sorted after the Bill and Ben fake pilot situation.

  14. I don’t think he should accept his resignation for ‘security breach’ hence the no. However over the obvious bias and negligence over transport funding allocation decisions, yes.

    However this poll would be very lopsided, and I don’t believe it even shows a true representation of this blogs readers, due to many voting yes purely because of his political performance on transportation rather than the security breach alone.

  15. I have to deal with Aviation Security every day at Heathrow and know the staff very well BUT If I did what The Right “Twat” Brownlee did I would be arrested on the spot by these same people as a terrorist breaking numerous UK, EASA (read EU) and International laws.

    Does not matter if your David Cameron, John Key, Becks, Brownlee, you or me. If he wants to circumvent NZ, CAA, ICAO and IATA security and aviation laws don’t use International/Domestic airports.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *