Agenda
Ha. Helen Clark on Agenda says because of Investigate’s attacks on David Benson-Pope, it made DBP on the defensive with the media which contributed to his downfall on the issue. No end of excuses.
Clark didn’t rule out Benson-Pope could be re-elected to Cabinet in the future.
Clark did say she was disappointed that both her and the SSC were not told all the facts at an earlier stage and even used the term deception. Hugh Logan was (rightly) specifically criticised for concealing information from the SSC.
A lengthy debate on whether Setchell’s relationship meant she should not have got the job. Jenny McManus said she should not have been hired, while Dick Griffin said the civil service should not exclude people on the basis of who they sleep with.
Mike Moore was very funny talking about how adept Helen Clark is at shooting the wounded. When asked how good he was at that, he said he found that the wounded shot back and he should have strangled them at birth 
July 28th, 2007 at 11:43 am
The shit never ends with Labour.
July 28th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Telling the truth from the start was something the media never applied to national when they were in power
Under pressure in Parliament, she revealed that in a private dinner with the head of Saatchi & Saatchi Worldwide, Kevin Roberts, she had discussed how to keep Labour and the Alliance out of Government. This followed her denials that politics were on the menu at all.
But her disclosure about the dinner caused uproar; not only did it contradict a comment moments before that politics had not been discussed, but she had previously given the impression that the meal – held at the home of woman she has told Parliament she has not met – was just a personal get-together of friends.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=2728
2 times she contradicted herself
And all said in parliament too boot!
July 28th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
FFS… in the real world, paranoia is regarded as a serious mental illness; and those who suffer from it should be treated with enormous sympathy – and given all possible help to get treatment – but not enabled and protected from the consequences of their actions.
I also found Jenni McMannus rather amusing – because it would take very little imagination to picture how lethal her reaction would be if someone suggested she was ‘unprofessional’ about her working in very close quarters indeed with her long-time partner, the sadly missed Warren Berryman. I sure hope Jenni and Warren will be (justly) remembered for their work, not their personal relationship.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Good gawd, Selma drags something out that happened almost 10 years ago.
Pathetic.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Selam
“Telling the truth from the start was something the media never applied to national when they were in power”
It’s not about National Selma, it’s about Labour. You know I was just explaining to my 8 year old the other day: “pointing at his older brother shouting he did it to” is not a valid response when caught doing something wrong. He’s only 8 so he needs to learn these things – what is your excuse ?
July 28th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Sewer, if that link was your idea of the media being a giant kennel of tame National bitches. Well, that was so lame it should be taken out behind the barn, shot, and cut up for pet food.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
When you are in government the the scrutiny is greater. Sure it happened 8 years ago.
But would national in government be any better
The evidence speaks for its self- you NEVER find Helen getting into such a mess that jenny did. Was she going to sack herself since she was caught out.
More recently Don ‘couldnt recall’ saying gone by lunchtime!
John key said he got the emails but ‘didnt read them’, Don was even less plausible and his previous knowledge of the Brethren activities didint match up to his denials.
And there is the subject which he has never spoken about, it being taboo apparently
July 28th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
pointing at the opposition shouting they did it to is not justification for the current lack of integrity in the Labour party. What part of “on their own merit” vs “as bad as the others” is not making sense to you?
July 28th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
The blowtorch is ready for Key when he makes the same the same slipups that caught DBP.
careful what you wish for, but history repeats …etc
July 28th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
There is no doubt that Logan was economical with the truth but Rennie should have realised that and pressed harder, it is not rocket science. In the end Logan thought he was protecting his Minister but the opposite is the case. It is better for civil servants adopt a professional attitude to the Minister, as in the long run they help them more. But over arching everything are the lies told by Benson Pope and Helen Clark should have realised that. Yet she keeps this fool in the loop probably to keep him on side but really he lacks the character one expects of someone in a leadership role, and he is 58. Time to leave politics I think.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
The blow torch is burnt out from trying to get DB-P’s whitewash dry in time.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
The next post is about what a modern unionist says , compared to what Jim Know would have said 20 years ago.
So its OK to look back in the past when its Labour and the unions !
Sounds like its an ‘inconvenient truth’ about jenny’s bad hair day
July 28th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Selma
So lets put our cards on the table.
I don’t think that what Benson-Pope did was acceptable. I think he should have been sacked when there were multiple complaints about him perving on 14 year old girls on school camps.
Are you or are you not defending his lies by saying National will be caught the same way?
July 28th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Modern unionist. That’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Benson Pope should be held to the same standard by national that Jenny Shipley was.
You dont agree , lets know why
July 28th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
selma – with jenny shipley (who was incredibly stupid over this) the issue was what was discussed at a social dinner. with bp, it is about the illegal firing of an apolitical public servant. big difference
July 28th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Selma
I thought that is what you were saying. It’s OK for Benson-Pope to lie and cover his misdeeds because Shipley got away with it once.
So really Benson-Pope has been treated much more lightly than Shipley already. How many incidents has Benson-Pope been involved in now? 5? How many times has he been featured in Investigate? According tou your logic he should have only got away with saying the ‘Tennis ball’ incident never happened, then being found out. The allegations for perving on 14 year old girls should have seen him ejected.
Pointing at the opposition shouting they did it to is not justification for the current lack of integrity in the Labour party.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Can we p-lease just ignore Selma. It’s just predicatable sycophantic Clarkist slurping insubstantial bollocks. Her argument is always the same and very, very tired. There are plenty of other lefties who though they are insane are at least interesting in their delusions.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Someone has to wave the cruxifix at the vampires!
July 28th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Selma, I believe Jenny Shipley was held to the same level of accountability as Clark has over Doon gate, Painter Gate and Speed Gate?
I agree that perhaps Shipley should have been made more accountable (I’ll be honest its so long ago I don’t really remember this issue even after reading your linked article) however from what I read it doesn’t appear that Shipley committed any illegal acts like forgery etc.
In regards to as DBP, I find it amazing that you have the guts to try an back this man regardless of what ever party he is from. He has not only lied to Parliment (NZ’s highest court) on numerous occasions now, the is the stench of at best assault or at worse child abuse surrounding him which if it wasn’t for his political masters should have been tested in a court of law.
Like Field Labour is a lot better off without DBP in their cabinet and would be a whole lot better if he wasn’t associated with them at all.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
farra say
“Mike Moore was very funny talking about how adept Helen Clark is at shooting the wounded. When asked how good he was at that, he said he found that the wounded shot back and he should have strangled them at birth “,
what that mean farra, can yous do an article,
campaign hardlies started, and already i scared, next PM John Key
July 28th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
So Selma has delusions of being Buffy as well? Sad…
July 28th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Mr Nobody
I’ll cut to the chase to save a lot of Selma’s salivating.
It’s not about his integrity at all, it’s about numbers in the house. Without him Labour can’t govern.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Burt just two little words should revive you .
Alamein Kopu
July 28th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Another self serving lefty. I see a trend.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Selma
Using Selma logic. The example was set for how a political party should respond to breaches of the law by an MP with Donna Awatere Huata. Pity neither the National or the Labour party can have as much integrity, interesting you also choose a bad example to set the bar for Labour.
How is the Field case comming along, dear leader must be happy that after 18 months of being busy defending him to keep his vote that she can move on to more important things now.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Selma
“you NEVER find Helen getting into such a mess that jenny did.”
Is your memory really that bad? There has never been a politician let alone a prime minister that has been interviewed so often by the police. Once you consider paintergate, doongate, speedgate, spendgate etc etc etc etc etc.
The only reason she is not behind bars right now is because we have such a gutless police force that they would never prosecute her, while they persue her oponents under the most trifling of pretexts.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
bogusnews
Oh come on, other people have committed art fraud, people tell lies about the police every day, everyday people speed on the roads and lots of people cheat on their tax returns.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
So Selma …. tell me this. Why is it that DB-P was booted out of Cabinet for telling lies while his Electorate LEC backed him (last night) 100% as their MP. Might we not reasonably infer a double standard of ethics and accountability applies in your Party?
But thank you to the Dunedin LEC for confirmation that its ok for ordinary Labour MPs to be proven liers. Can just see the billboards at election time.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Selma is a useful canary in the coalmine of Labour’s electoral perception. As a diehard blind loyalist he/she can be counted on for Labour spin on every issue of the day. Citing the Shipley-Saatchi incident is an indication of their desperation. Middle NZ has long forgotten both the detail and political damage of that incident. Labour still chants “the failed policies of the 1990’s” – it worked for a few years and it worked to some extent with Brash as Opp Leader but Key is too new and fresh to be tied to Shipley. The electorate now sheet home any policy failure to Labour after 8 years in power.
Its interesting catching up with people in NZ – apolitical people who normally hardly listen to the news and can barely even register that a Cabinet was sacked oops resigned. What is clear however is the loathing of Clark and the numbers of Labour voters who say “Im not voting for them again”. Perception is everything in politics Selma and your masters are on the wrong side of public perception and they just keep digging the hole deeper.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Oh yes and look what else has been on agenda recently
Tau furthering hsi career by criticising Howard
The Nats will “talk to Maori” about the foreshore and seabed issue “after the election”
And we’re supposed to trust these parties with our vote?
July 28th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Helen: “we stand up as one of the least corrupt and most transparent countries in the world”
– he,he,he, snigger….
July 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
ROSS… It may be that following the meeting of the electorate committee there was an impromptu meeting of the Southern Kinks the composition of both groups being the same….For once I agree with Klark I can’t see how Logan can remain in his position having established the lead for his staff to follow.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Kiwi in America, how the cost of health insurance in the california these days. per family is it up to $15000 per year yet !
David benson Pope would make more decisions in a week than all the national caucus would in a year* thats not counting one nat MP who they all hate and one MP who thinks hes the 50th member of the caucus.
Just look at the flip flop while Key was in hawaii ( nice for some) and had to make all those nat MPs who spoke in favour on the rules on media satire look like idiots by by condradicting him.
If they even though they could run the country when they cant have any policy from one week to the next
July 28th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Recall that Setchwell initially took the attitude “fair cop”, and was inclined to accept the offer of an alternative less sensitive role.
It was not until others decided that there was something in for them that the tune changed. Wellington is full of well-connected and influential PSA PR-hacks who after looking at the polls, have been figuring on some way to protect their nicely paid jobs post-election. And National, always greedy for attention has suckered up the bait, touting the “independent civil service” princile as if they just invented it. Now of course any incoming Nat govt is going to find it very much harder to “re-shuffle” a whole raft of sensitive civil service positions to suit their taste. Oh well what goes around….
And Setchwell will likely find that her gnat boyfriend has done her no favours in the job market at all.
[DPF: Do you have a shred of proof to back up your allegation she was inclined to accept the offer and was influenced not to? You also are deaf or dumb if you are not aware that under National even Labour candidadates have lept their civil service josb]
July 28th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
For a more recent example of a national MP who was convicted by two high court judges on putting improper pressure on one of the parties to a court case AND undermining the court system.
During his trial , the judges chose to believe another person rather than this MP.
Another time another judge chose not to believe the same Mp in a different case, the phrase used was ‘ not a credible witness’.
DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS
You would think he would be thrown out of the national party, but no sometimes seen wandering on the beach talking to the whales
July 28th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Selma points out again that both Labour and National are a disgrace. ACT stands alone as having enough integrity to get rid of members who should not be in parliament.
Party vote ACT !
July 28th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
<i>It is the chief executive’s job to work with any employee around issues of conflict or perceived conflict of interest. It is my understanding that Hugh Logan and Madeleine Setchell did explore options which would have involved the offer to her of an alternative position. That is, Ms Setchell was not dismissed from the Ministry for the Environment. Ultimately, Ms Setchell declined to accept the alternative offered by Mr Logan and an agreement was reached for her to leave the Ministry.</i>
Iain Rennie
Deputy State Services Commissioner
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0707/S00349.htm
Alternatives were “explored”, and the reasons for Setchell’s (sorry for the mis-spelling last post) are not public….but clearly there is room for someone to have influenced her decision here.
I don’t have a convenient link but I DO recall that Setchell was initially reluctant to have this matter exploited as it has been, and in the long run I expect she will realise her initial instincts were right.
I observe also, that for a media savvy type, we have heard remarkably little from Setchell in person.
[DPF: Good God if Setchell had said a word publicly you would attack her for exploiting what happened. She says othing and you attack her for that. Lovely to see so called person of the left helping smear and fuck over a worker who got done over by their boss]
July 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Selma says:
“For a more recent example of a national MP who was convicted by two high court judges on putting improper pressure on one of the parties to a court case AND undermining the court system.
“During his trial , the judges chose to believe another person rather than this MP.
“Another time another judge chose not to believe the same Mp in a different case, the phrase used was ‘ not a credible witness’.
DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS
“You would think he would be thrown out of the national party.”
Maybe, but then BP has not been thrown out of the Labour Party. His local Labour committee has expressed 100% confidence in him. Being a liar is no problem, the Dunedin Labour party says.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Basically Redrag is right.
Setchell decided to jump and take the compo which no doubt came with a non-disclosure clause. She was then talked round to let her story be used for political purposes – thats probably why the concentration has been on misleading rather than the priniciple of independent civil service. But hey thats politics – DBP is guilty of being caught and he had to go – and thank god he has.
But it will make Setchell’s employment prospects in the civil service more difficult – like Rankin before her. I predict a National party job and if failing that the quango or charitable trust feeding trough for her – perhaps the “Pipi foundation of independent public service” directorship for $250K pa.
[DPF: More people who assume things. Setchell has not said a word publicly this entire time. She is unemployed and her professional career in communications my be over. I suspect she hates her name being in the news every day. The fact that absolutely no details of what alternative position she was offered have come to light suggests she has not said a word. Also you just fucking assume there is an NDA. Where the fuck do you get off smearing the true victim in all this off nothing more than assumption. You should be truly ashamed.]
July 28th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
since when have being a liar and being a politician been mutually exclusive abc? Grow up – only being caught is a sin and as Clinton showed you can get away with that sometimes too.
July 29th, 2007 at 5:54 am
How many paid up members of the Labour party are there in Dunedin South?
How many were at the meeting deciding B-P’s future?
The interpretation given is that the people of Dunedin south are happy to keep their MP. Not so. In reality it is a very small group of party acivists not the electorate at large.
However, that is the failing of our system. The spin is that these MP’s somehow represent their electorates. Rubbish, they represent the narrow interests of very small party electorate committee who in turn dance to the tune of the central party apparatus.
I wonder who Mike Williams spoke to at the Dunedin South Labour electorate committee before Friday’s meeting?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Hugh Logan has been misleading the public on Madeleine Setchells position. He has been referring to it as a ’senior management’ position. This is not true at all. There are actually two Communications Manager positions at the Ministry for the Environment – both of which report to a Senior Manager/General Manager (Fiona Morgan) who in turn then reports to the CE. This information is on their website. The Communications Manager position is a third tier position – they have no sign-off ability on anything financial or strategic at all and are only responsible for a certain area of communications – not the whole lot. Madeleine applied for and got one of the Communications Manager positions. However, after being sacked she was then offered the other Communications Manager position. But the other one that she was offered required a completely different type of skill set that what she actually had so she wouldn’t have been able to perform in the role at all – so pointless to take it up. I think Hugh Logan should stop misleading people about the job being a ’senior management’ position. Also worth pointing out is that the job Madeleine first got had nothing to do with the ministry’s sustainability and climate change policy initiatives – a completley seperate group looks after all of this – including the communications side of things. So where on earth is this conflict of interest he is talking about – there is none!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Selma: Ask your friend and mentor Helen:
Why didn’t Police Commissioner Howard Broad investigate complaints of misappropriation of Leader’ Funds, that his predessor Act Police Commissioner Steve Long, had said would be investigated and then didn’t. However his successor carried on with the deception, even to the extent of lying about it.
Why didn’t The Hon Justice Goddard, Police Complaints Authority,early this year make a Media announcement to the effect that a copmplaint of perverting and preventing the course of justice, against the Commissioner and and his Chief Legal Adviser, had been filed.
Why didn’t the Commissioner investigate a complaint lodged against Taito Philip Field, that as a Member of Parliament and a Minister, in the Service of the Crown, he breached the Crimes Act 1961? Police only investigated Field some 6 weeks later because a source , which the Ploice Commissioner won’t reveal, directed a legal opinion into the Ingram QC report, and then instructed him to act. Who was this source.
Selma, Helen and other Members of Parliament and the Media were made aware of this and other matters on 31 July 2006, 12 months ago. They have been briefed since as well as the Media. They cannot claim ignorance of these and other matters.
This misleading by thos in the Service of the Crownis runs parallel to your excellent article above Alice. Helen and others will soon have no where to run and hide, unless the Media continue to protect them?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Frank
Investigating these things is not in the best interest of the Labour party. Do you know that Taito Philip Field is not the only person on this planet to use underpaid immigrants to do work for him and as such he shouldn’t be prosecuted… Oh hang on he said he might stand against Labour – send him to the gallows !
Move on.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Alice: Thanks for a very informative article. In my view, in the light of your revelations, the whole matter is nothing less than a storm in a teacup.
No earth shattering Labour policies on the environment were ever going to come into Madeleine Setchell’s field of operations. It is somewhat poetic justice that DPB put an end to his own political career over such a trivial matter.
However, what you reveal is of much graver importance, because of the principles involved: It brings into question the integrity of the Public Service as a whole. What I perceive at present, is a Gestapo type of procedure pursued in this instance. An action based on the perception of events highly unlikely to eventuate has no justification.
I recall another incident, the results about which Helen trumpets loudly as occasion presents itself. This was Don Brash’s throw away remark, at an informal meeting in America “Gone by lunch time”.
Some little creep of a public servant relayed this remark to his masters
with the subsequent Media frenzy, which ultimately assisted, along with some help from his advisers, to Don’s ultimate resignation?
At that time the impartiality of public servants became a concern and still is. As those in the Service of the Crown they are subject to more of the Crimes Act than the private citizen. They cannot advantage themselves or others to the disadvantage of others.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Politicians who lie and mislead the public and parliament should be held to account no matter which party they are from. Our repsonse to being lied to and misled by those in office should be uniform. How far the consequences should go though does depend on what is being lied about and the seriousness of the issue.
So when some politicians have meetings with other people about how to stay in office and defeat the opposition. While they shouldn’t lie about it its not exactly a surprise or that immoral that they have such meetings.
But MP’s who abuse children and then instead of fessing up then denigrate and heap abuse on their victims, are active members of bondage and discipline groups where they act out their fetishes in a manner disturbingly similar to the same abuse they are accused of inflicting on said children, abuse their power to have the police run debt collecting errands for them and have people they don’t like sacked all the while blaming their staff when caught in each of the afore-mentioned incidents and pleading ignorance, these sorts of things are rather surprising, unnaceptable and immoral and are not the sorts of things we as the public should be very forgiving about in the absence of any fronting up.
So in short Selma, I think you are comparing apples with pears.
[DPF: Note that this post is from Madeleine Flannagan, not Madeleine Setchell. I had someone query this]
July 29th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
DPF, when the information is not and will never be made available all you have is informed guesswork. I am not defending labour or the public servants involved at all. All I an doing is thinking out loud what transpired.
If she had really wanted a job in the public service she could have pleaded with anyone that knew about what happened to keep it quiet, keep the compo and the public service would have bend over backwards to find her another position.
There are three possibilites:
1. She did plead to keep it quiet but National went ahead and used it for political purposes anyway.
2. She, in consultation with others, considered the political capital was worth more than her deminished public service career prospects.
3. The public servants gave her the push and told her that she would get the same treatment anywhere in the public service, so she decided she had nothing to loose by letting her story be used.
this is not an attack on her, who I think has been wronged. But out of curiosity it would be really useful to know the answer.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Madeleine
“Our repsonse to being lied to and misled by those in office should be uniform.”
Perhaps this needs to be clarified for Selma, I’m sure he/she will dig out a case in 1934 where a politician told bold faced lies and nothing happened and being a Labour party supporter this low standard will be used as the measuring stick for uniform treatment.
Perhaps it would be better to say that any politician who’s found to be misleading the parliament or the public should be dealt with in a manner appropriate to their misdeeds – not the same as some other random event which in other forums they complain bitterly about how it was handled.