Some questions?
- Why has Steve Maharey not resigned as MP for Palmerston North, now he can do so without triggering a by-election? Does anyone think you can be Vice-Chancellor and an MP?
- Has NZ First paid back its $158,000 yet?
- Have United Future finished paying back the money it owes to Parliamentary Service?
- Why have NZ First and ACT not yet filed their 2007 donations return, 16 days after the deadline?
- Would Rod Donald have approved of manipulating MMP rules so that Russel Norman becomes an MP (scheduled for end of the month) with less than 30 house sitting days before the election? Is this not just an outrageous rort to allow Russel to use taxpayer funds to travel around the country for the campaign?
- Why would Labour’s website not list a single candidate who has been selected of the election? Is it because that is the only way they can get the taxpayer to fund 100% of it. Should Labour pay me for listing their candidates for them?
- If Winston is back in NZ now, why hasn’t any journalist asked him why they have broken the law by refusing to file their donations return, and why does it need the party leader to file a donations return?
- Has the Crown Law Office yet decided whether a balloon is an election advertisement?
- How big a mistake was it for Dr Cullen to cancel in last year’s budget the tax cuts he promised in 2005?
- How much damage did that conference song on John Key do to Labour? Was it more or less than the global economic slowdown?
UPDATE: For (4) The Electoral Commission has now received and published the ACT and NZ First returns.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: ACT, double dipping, Electoral Finance Act, Labour, Michael Cullen, political donations, Rod Donald, Russel Norman, Steve Maharey, tax cuts, United Future, Winston First
May 16th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Well since we haven’t had a general thread in a while I am going to use this as one
It seems the lefties in Wgtn (where else?) are going to be holding a typical fiddle-while-rome-burns drinkfest shindig next Wednesday at the Southern Cross Bar
http://drinkingliberally.org/subscribe1.html?id=372
So while the economy tanks thanks to their robbing the public purse and sending money to Russia in the name of stopping non-existent climate change, they are going to get drunk and listen to some wanking off by famed pot-smoking terrorist and soon-to-be non-MP (thank christ) Nandor Tanczos
It seems it is open invitation so perhaps a few of us should get down there and *ahem* interject into their discussions?
[DPF: Why go somewhere where you are not welcome. Good on them for organising some drinks]
May 16th, 2008 at 10:26 am
.. and why does the http://www.beehive.govt.nz website show ‘Related Links’ for the Labour Party and the Progressive Party, but no other Parties ?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Oh and to answer some questions (just so I don’t get TOO many demerits for going off-topic, LOL)
Why has Steve Maharey not resigned as MP for Palmerston North, now he can do so without triggering a by-election? Does anyone think you can be Vice-Chancellor and an MP?
Because he might be the only Labour MP who has any anticipation of actually having a job post-November.
Why have NZ First and ACT not yet filed their 2007 donations return, 16 days after the deadline?
With NZ First it’s because the party is Winston and he hasn’t yet told them how much he spent on shandies and asian prostitutes.
With ACT it’s because they are a small party struggling under the burden of too much free-speech crushing legislation. With only one paid staffer, ACT cannot be held to the same standard as bigger parties *ahem* Greens *ahem ahem* Labour.
Would Rod Donald have approved of manipulating MMP rules so that Russel Norman becomes an MP (scheduled for end of the month) with less than 30 house sitting days before the election? Is this not just an outrageous rort to allow Russel to use taxpayer funds to travel around the country for the campaign?
Yes Rod Donald would have approved, because he was a tax-and-spend socialist who was indifferent to democracy as long as he could keep his hands in other people’s pockets.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Still needs a 75% majority vote in Parliament, DPF.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:34 am
is that staffer John Ansell then?
edit: ah, okay.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Ansell works for the ACT campaign, not the party office. The former isn’t responsible for compliance, the latter is
May 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I am quite sure that without any trouble at all, the list of questions could be doubled.
The answers point to double standards, and indicate that corruption is even more rampant in New Zealand than in a Banana Republic
May 16th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Frank, the only thing that separates New Zealand from being a bonafide Banana Republic is the Queen
May 16th, 2008 at 10:42 am
DPF said …manipulating MMP rules so that Russel Norman becomes an MP (scheduled for end of the month) with less than 30 house sitting days before the election
Who says anything this is going to happen DPF? I mean who says it with some evidence, rather than just philu-type speculation?
[DPF: Toad - Until it happens there is ipso facto no evidence it will happen. But if there was no grand plan in place for it to happen, why doesn't Nandor just confirm he will stay until the election. I mean he was elected to Parliament for the full three year term and there is no reason he should resign between elections. I am sure every other List MP in Parliament is happy to state they will not resign before the election. Why won't Nandor]
May 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am
PushmePullyou, that’s a fairly sour attitude – “The hated lefties are gathering, let’s shut them down!” Imagine the hue and cry if a leftie suggested something similar for the predominantly right-wing blogger’s drinks in Wellington or Auckland – “the hated Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is assembling, why don’t we go and shout at them!” Excellent…
MrHappy
May 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am
1. I suspect Steve Maharey does indeed think that. Labour needs his vote.
2. No – and they won’t.
3. No – they need any money they have for electioneering.
4. Because they are arrogant. Both should be held to account.
5. If it helped the ‘green’ cause he most likely would have been tempted. He would have had the balls to resist however.
6. Yes.
7. Maybe they are sick of being yelled at when ask questions that Winston does not want to answer.
8. Apparently not.
9. Big mistake
10. Much damage. But not as much as the pain in the pocketbook.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:46 am
MrHappy, I would welcome the appearance of any lefty at a centre-right pub gathering – they would quickly either be shamed into leaving or perhaps see the light and join some right thinking (and incidentally nicer to hang out with) people… it is never to late to change your mind after all.
The left claims to be all about free speech, but they quickly change their mind when somebody who doesn’t support their anti-christian, anti-male and anti-patriotic agenda tries to exercise it. Witness the EFB
May 16th, 2008 at 10:54 am
‘anti-patriotic’? As in, Obama for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel? I always thought Bush wasn’t patriotic because his was so small. Or is that your way of saying ‘lefties are dicks!’?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am
“Would Rod Donald have approved of manipulating MMP rules so that Russel Norman becomes an MP (scheduled for end of the month) ….”
Of course, he would’ve.
Donald, disguised as a greenie, was a staunch socialist and would have approved of any measures to advance the cause of socialism.
The fact he’s now been beatified by the Luddites and fellow travellers of the left doesn’t affect my opinion.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am
How much corruption is occuring in central and local government in NZ?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Manolo, in case you haven’t noticed, the only ones invoking the memories of Rod Donald are those who’re opposed to the Greens.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Anti-patriotic as in destroying half our defense force and turning the other half into a ‘peacekeeping force’ designed to enact policies guided by the French, Russian and Chinese vetoes at the UN
Anti-patriotic as in creating two different standards of citizenship
Anti-patriotic as in encouraging a declining Kiwi birthrate and substituting for it by bringing in immigrants from foreign cultures with corrosive values and encouraging them not to assimilate
Anti-patriotic as in telling the Western Samoan government that New Zealand committed genocide
I could go on but I think you get the picture
May 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am
ACT has filed its return. I’d appreciate a correction to Q 4!
May 16th, 2008 at 11:00 am
PushmePullyou – your suppositions are a little arrogant don’t you think? First of all, that should a ‘lefty’ not come to agree with a right-winger, they would then be ’shamed into leaving,’ and that ‘right-thinking’ people are nicer to hang out with.
Certainly on the last point, if the blogosphere is any yardstick, the ‘nicer’ nature of right-thinking folks would immediately be proved false. Luckily, however, out here in the real world we see that generally people’s personalities are not governed by their political leanings. Attempting to project a persona on someone based on their political beliefs is pretty childish in my opinion.
MrHappy
May 16th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Mr Happy, you are right. I was thinking that when confronted with some logical arguments about their dangerous beliefs, there are only two responses for leftists – flight in shame to find somewhere where the intellectual climate is less rigorous and thus more to their liking, or changing their minds. I have of course forgotten the third response, incoherent rage, typified by accusations of others being ‘rich pricks’ and the like. This is much more common on the internet, where said leftist does not have to insult hard-working kiwis to their faces, but it does exist in the real world. Still, anybody who comes to a social gathering only to abuse people is going to be ignored and not have a very good time. So, as I say again, if any leftist wants to come and argue with me and my mates, bring it on. I’m not so precious about my political beliefs I have to live in an eggshell and accuse others of ‘crashing’ if they try and tell me I’m wrong.
As for right wingers being nicer, well it follows logically. Leftism is based on the belief that an elite few have the right to live off the sweat and toil of others, while we on the right are motivated by the belief that people should get by on their own based on their leadership, hard work and innovative thinking. Now who would you rather have a few pints with? The latter, who are willing to live and let live, or the former, who want to tell people how to live their lives and then be paid for the privilege by the very people they’re flogging?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:08 am
1. Double dipping
2. You have to be joking and it is typical of the media in this country to focus on irrelevancies and gutter journalism. I will not be answering any more pathetic questions on this matter.
3. No. They have no money. (Owen Glenn where are you??)
4. NZ First does not have to comply with the law and this is a media beat up, irrelevant and gutter journalism. ACT has no excuse.
5. I doubt it. Probably not that keen to be used from beyond the grave to keep his Party in line either but that’s politics.
6. Self explanatory. Taxpayer is paying for it and they don’t want to lose the funding. Good luck collecting your account.
7. Any such questions would be typical of the media in this country, irrelevant and gutter journalism. (Re Party leader – recall the simply mathematical equation: Winston=NZ First, NZ First = Winston therefore Winston must approve everything – especially book cooking, erm, accounts)
8. No, the wind has really gone out of that issue.
9. Pretty big. The bigger mistake was to promise tax cuts and then call WFF tax relief. Actually he would have been better off promising nothing rather than the chewing gum tax relief. Just remember that if he promises anything this time look grateful or he will cancel it.
10. Quite a bit. Fiddling whilst Rome burns seems a fit analogy. The Labour pre-occupation with Key might appeal to their core supporters but is doing nothing to convince mainstream (are we still allowed to use that word) NZ to vote for them.
Friday joke:
I opened the door this morning and a 6 foot beetle swore at me and punched me in the head.
…
Apparently there is a nasty bug going around.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Well thanks for clarifying pushmepullu…’genocide’ though? It was never in HC’s apology speech…
May 16th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Would Rod Donald have approved of Nandor staying on theParliament merely to be a three-term retiring MP, and able to claim all the associated entitlements?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:14 am
pushmepullu – well said! Dime’s a big fan
May 16th, 2008 at 11:14 am
“Anti-patriotic as in encouraging a declining Kiwi birthrate and substituting for it by bringing in immigrants from foreign cultures with corrosive values and encouraging them not to assimilate”
I’d like to know what you mean by corrosive values?
Also, I’d like to point you in the direction of an Oscar Wilde quote (though him being a gay leftie I’m sure is easily discountable for you) when he said “Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious”.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:17 am
“Does anyone think you can be Vice-Chancellor and an MP?”
Of course smarmy Maharey can do what he likes when he likes. I remember him writing to me as the Minister of Social Underdevelopment stating I should get over my hunches about child abuse. Police detectives seem to differ with your opinion you wayward cretin.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:19 am
So David, you’re not a patriot? You don’t care about New Zealand?
By corrosive values I mean restricting freedom of speech, making women be veiled and not drive, non-democracy, religious fundamentalism… again, just a taste but I think you get my point.
Stephen, not that exact word, but she ‘admitted’ that the New Zealand government wiped out large numbers of Samoans. There’s a word for that, and it’s not my fault of Helen’s so reflexively namby-pambyish she can’t say what she means even when she’s using a script written to suck up to some other country
May 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
1 why bother when you can be equally ineffective in two jobs and get two salaries
2 Do you seriously expect them to?
3 see 2 above
4 see 2 above
5 He will be spinning in his eco friendly cardboard coffin. One of the few politicians that actually was genuine
6 They don’t know what breaches their evil vindictive law so they don’t take chances with it.
7 Show me a journalist that is worthy of the term.
8 Yesterdays news
9 Compared with many others he and his cohorts have made, not that big especially as the list of cockups is very long
10 See 9 above
Q11 Do they actually care? No they know they are in charge and the rules only apply to others.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:23 am
“Would Rod Donald have approved of manipulating MMP rules so that Russel Norman becomes an MP”
Dunno- probably have been out voted anyway- the myth of the watermelon’s being a party of integrity and principle has been dead and buried for some time now.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am
pushmepullu, if that’s not what she said then don’t say that she said it, you tricky person!
May 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
OK fine, I modify my statement to ‘mass murder’
May 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
“So David, you’re not a patriot? You don’t care about New Zealand?”
I think you’re asking two different questions here sir. I’m not a nationalist no.
“By corrosive values I mean restricting freedom of speech, making women be veiled and not drive, non-democracy, religious fundamentalism”
You mean extremist Islam? You’re saying that this Government encourages extremists into NZ who do these things. Can’t say I see a lot of Burqa wearing ladies on the streets. Of course this might be because their husbands have not let them out of the house.
Seems odd to me that a democratically elected government who you claim as pro-woman would encourage misogynists into the country doesn’t it?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Act and NZ First have now both apparently filed returns
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0805/S00237.htm
NZ First = $0
May 16th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Machine gunning peaceful protestors an’ all that. Her speech didn’t say mass murder either! All your other examples may be legitimate but this one is looking like a real stretch.
Good last point David c…
May 16th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Answer to # 5. Would you rather Russell uses the money for travel in an election campaign, or Nandor getting a phat 3 term MP’s pension, for waiting out three terms in Parliament? Which would be a bigger on going cost to you?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:35 am
You see Stephen is doing us all a great service here. He can’t deny that Helen did indeed insult all the honest New Zealand soldiers, police and administrators who through love of their country served in Samoa, so he just quibbles about the exact wording, like a corrupt lawyer exploiting a legal technicality to get a child rapist back out on the streets. Stephen, you are very instructive, so thank you.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
“Answer to # 5. Would you rather Russell uses the money for travel in an election campaign, or Nandor getting a phat 3 term MP’s pension, for waiting out three terms in Parliament? Which would be a bigger on going cost to you?”
I’d rather they all just vapourized themselves, or found some other ‘environmentally friendly’ way to get the fuck out of our lives (and wallets).
May 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
She apologised for the NZ administration police shooting a bunch of protesting samoans in the back, what’s the problem with that? I don’t think she insulted anyone.
You’ll also know that ‘genocide’ is quite a strong word, so one probably shouldn’t go throwing it around willy-nilly.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:46 am
What a hoot! No-one has donated anything to NZ First!!!!!
May 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
There is no longer a three term MP’s pension.
They got rid of that quite some time ago. Now it’s just a subsidized pension scheme like any other employer might have.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
That’s what’s been declared. Are they honest? Let the voters decide.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
If there was ANY time to donate big money to NZ First, it was when it legal to do so anonymously! ha!
May 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am
It seems somehow incredible that NZ First has reported no donations over $10K and yet they managed to scrape up the funds to offer to Starship et al.
Is no-one responsible for auditing these returns?
Rhetorical question, natch.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
SO ACT were 3 weeks late after 3 months grace period to file ONE SINGLE DONATION.
I smell a rat, the money has gone to another entity which will try to sneak it in later
May 16th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
ghost-who-spanks-himself-in-public
I suspect it won’t be an issue once Labour pass retrospective validating legislation and let all parties who broke the law have a get out of jail card.
Move on! Others were doing it too! It’s confusing! It’s the way it’s always been done!
What other excuse will you happily accept from Labour but not tolerate from any other party?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I too am confused about Winston First’s nil declaration. Didn’t Dail Jones, NZF Past-President, say at the time of their supposed $155k ‘donation’ that $90K had mysterously appeared in their bank account ‘like mana from heaven’.
So I guess I’m not the only one that’s ‘confused’. How about …
Winston
Dail
NZF Bankers
NZF Auditors
The Electoral Commission
and most of all, Joe Public
explaination required!!!!!! (but I’m not holding my breath)
May 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
NZ First has stated that the delay was due to “auditing” – what auditing does a nil return require????
May 16th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Another question- why is the Dominion-Post doctoring photographs which could cause embarrasment?
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/05/good-look-for-police.html
May 16th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Question(s) 11 – Since all of the above questions are not only of genuine interest but also of vital import to our democracy, why is it that the only place they are being asked repeatedly (as opposed to asked once and then dropped in favour of stories about prostitute newsreaders) is on a blog?
Isn’t it time NZ had an MSM outlet which actually served the public with robust investigative journalism rather than simply cut newsroom costs to improve its balance sheet?
So when will some of the people who claim to be unhappy with the way the media operates put their (considerable) money where their mouths are and invest in increasing the diversity of NZ’s media?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Rex said:
Question(s) 11 – Since all of the above questions are not only of genuine interest but also of vital import to our democracy, why is it that the only place they are being asked repeatedly (as opposed to asked once and then dropped in favour of stories about prostitute newsreaders) is on a blog?
Ouch. Harsh but fair.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
*who* is unhappy with the way the media operates? Didn’t think it was the rich guys. I was under the impression that the ‘considerable’ money was currently invested in the mainstream media. Thus presumably they would have invested in some diversity/investigative reporting if they thought it would make them some money…?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Investigative reporting is a substantial cost on any newspaper, TV or radio proprietor, stephen. It’s cheaper to cut-and-paste crap on Angelina and Brad’s twins than to maintain a stable of journalists who’re only expected to write when they have something important to impart.
I got out of journalism when newspapers started telling their journalists that they were expected to supply x column centimetres a day. “Never mind the quality, feel the width” as they say.
I’m sure many here will claim that it’s capitalism in action and the fact that the decimation of newsroom numbers brings a few extra cents on the annual shareholders’ dividend (and a handy raise to the directors’ fees) is to be heralded (if you’ll pardon the pun). But I hold this quaint old fashioned view that the media has another duty – to it’s readership / listenership / viewership. And – to a greater or lesser degree – that duty has been sacrificed at the altar of “cost control”.
My challenge is to those people (mainly of the Right, though that’s not to say I entirely agree with their critique) with wealth who moan that the media is “too liberal” or “too left wing”. To them I say: do something about it. Establish more media. Invest in staff. Let those staff publish what they find, without proprietorial influence or interference.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Rex, I figured that was your angle (Good to see that you’ve expanded on it now though), and I agree with the tone of your first three paragraphs (who wouldn’t). It seems you aren’t actually suggesting setting up an explicitly ‘right wing’ publication (one might say that we have the NBR already), but simply one that does more digging? Not sure how you can say ”do something about it” (‘bias’) but then talk about publishing what they find without proprietorial influence – would seem to conflict a bit. Doing something about it would seem to be an invitation for counter-bias.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Brad and Angelina have twins?
May 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
stephen says:
Could be, stephen. And that might appeal more to the people to whom my challenge is addressed, I guess. But if they truly believe much of our media is biased toward a leftist perspective, then maybe there’s one or two brave enough to establish a media outlet with an editor and staff who’d “publish and be damned” no matter whose agenda was favoured by the facts they uncovered, and – most importantly, in my view – prepared to fund the time and manpower needed to produce investigative pieces.
I happen not to believe there’s significant bias among journalists (though I’d grant they’re usually more liberal than a sample of the average population), but having worked in it during a time of change, when staff numbers were being slashed, I do believe there’s now so much pressure on too few people working under unreasonable cost constraints that journalism can’t possibly flourish. And I’m tired of hearing this attributed to “left wing bias” by people who have it in their power to create and fund media that needn’t struggle under those sorts of constraints – but don’t.
edit:
First time caller: They are about to. You clearly need to buy your quality NZ journalism fresh from the dairy, not wait for it to show up in your proctologist’s waiting room six months later
May 16th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
The only problem I see with this is that anybody who did this would just get hung out and dried as a non-caring, own agenda pushing right winger. All you need to do is look at the sort of vitriolic statements that come from some of the left learning commentors on this blog to see why you wouldn’t want your name attributed to a publication like that. What I seem to have noticed over the last decade is that more and more “rich pricks” like to pretend to be every day joes, no Ferraris, no Porsches, modest house and no way of really telling how much they earn because being in the limelight or being obvious is a good way to get noticed for what seem to be the wrong reasons these days.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Right wing commentators seem to be equally capable of unreasonable vitriol, as I’m sure you’ve noticed. I agree with Rex.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
No 1. Give Steve a break how can he resign from been a MP when he’s superglued to the public tit, the mans a socialist and socialists don’t do their own money thing well.