Advice for Chris
May 5th, 2009 at 2:16 pm by David FarrarChris, Chris, Chris, Chris
Did you notice everyone laughing at you today in the House?
That is because you referred to people as political hacks, when you yourself were a political hack for three Ministers. It’s like Paris Hilton calling someone a slut.
Even worse, you chose as your targets a former Deputy State Services Commissioner and two former Treasury Secretaries. So we had someone ehose entire life has been a student politician and a partisan Ministerial staffer, calling political hacks three of the most senior state sevants we have had who have 100 years experience between them.
Do you now understand why everyone was laughing? Not only is it like Paris Hilton calling someone a slut. It is like Paris Hilton calling Mother Theresa a slut.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
That’s good, what with NZ Sign Language being one of the three official languages of New Zealand.
I’ll add – well done to Mitre 10 Dream Home for those live season finales where they’ve added a sign-language interpreter. It’s a fucking awful show, but well done for that.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Today and tomorrow between 2pm and 6pm only.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
it’s NZ sign language week
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
“Today and tomorrow between 2pm and 6pm only.”
Thank god for that!
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“Just noticed – Parliament TV is displaying a sign language interpreter in the top right corner. Nice.”
Cost benefit analysis please
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
It’s bloody annoying.
Keeps distracting me and sometimes it’s even covering up the face of the person speaking.
Glad it’s only for two days.
If they’re going to do it permenantly, have it as an optional second stream on the website.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I note that Trev is back to his bullying best, might be time for an anti violence refresher course.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Anyone else wishing that the interpreter would give a big wank sign and a huge eye roll when Labour are speaking?
I’d pay money to see that….
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I had no idea that the signal for Darren Hughes in sign language is hysterical laughter.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Is it just me or does that idiot Chris Hipkins look like a young Ron Howard (Richie Cunningham from Happy Days)
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
??? Why the change from a pretty supportive post about Sign Language to this?
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Is it just me or does that idiot Chris Hipkins look like a young Ron Howard (Richie Cunningham from Happy Days)”
You are right …he does.He looks like an escapee from a sperm bank…
Do you think his Mum knows he off wagging in Parliment on a school day?
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
“??? Why the change from a pretty supportive post about Sign Language to this?”
Thats how the Kiwiblog crew roll boyeee!
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Thats how the Kiwiblog crew roll boyeee!”
James – given that you’ve just accused Chris Hipkins of looking like a school boy, using slightly more mature language would do your own image a favour…
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I have no idea how this post ended up replacing the one about Parliament website and sign language. Very weird.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Does anyone have the text from the old post, so I can repost it? It has really disappeared from my system.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
If I can just preempt some of your more colourful friends, it’s a pinko fascist commie lesbian Obama conspiracy to rule the internets in order to shut down global warming denial. And sign language apparently.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
David, Hipkins has uncovered what appears to be a compromise of the statutory independence of Chief Executives. When a similar issue presented last parliamentary term, you were highly exercised by it. Hipkins release asks Ministers how this razor gang’s funded and how it came to be – I’d've thought they were pretty important issues for a government that claimed it’d cut back-office bureaucrats. Ragging him for calling this secretive and apparently unaccountable (unaccounted) group of overseers “hacks” misses the point a little…
[DPF: Paul - Hipkins had people in hysterics. Even the Speaker tried to give him guidance on less inflammatory language. But not once but twice he called them political hacks - the job he has held for most of his adult life. It was a spectacular backfire and did his credibility no good. My blog post here is blunt but friendly advice.
If he had asked a sensible question such as "As the purchase advisors are accountable to the Minister, not the CEO, would it not be more proper to fund them from Ministerial Services, he would not have been laughed at. But really it was awful. You can't have some 30 year old political hack calling a former Deputy State Services Commissioner a political hack. It really is like the Paris Hilton analogy. I am sure his wiser colleagues will advise him how to do better next time]
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I’d moot that its less an accusation as it is a blatantly obvious factual observation.
Bruv, you’re obviously not from up the coast then. Seriously, he looks even more like a muppet in person.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“Ragging him for calling this secretive and apparently unaccountable (unaccounted) group of overseers “hacks” misses the point a little…”
Then he missed the point calling them political hacks. Live by the sword…
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“James – given that you’ve just accused Chris Hipkins of looking like a school boy, using slightly more mature language would do your own image a favour…”
Hey Red…you were right….lets smash this blokes teeth in and hang him from that lamppost!
NOt1tocommentoften….shift over a bit and make some room for your proctoligist eh?
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Hipkins did look like a schoolboy, one taking a cainning after being sent to the vice principal’s office.
Anyone see his incompetent encore performance on the student loan repayment bill? He got slapped down there as well.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Yes DPF, he’s a prize tit.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
did anyone see the sign language guy give his translation when the last speaker referred to Parekura Horomia by name?
Vote:I thought his cheeks were going to burst
May 5th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I’m glad you’re recognising that this is a valid concern, DPF!
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
There are only two official languages sign and maori! !
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I’m still unsure why “hack” is misapplied? What should they be referred to as?
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
and methinks u guys are getting a bit upset – I agree with david if funded from Ministerial Services they would be harder to argue with.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
By the way, congratulations on the Education portfolio role, Trevor!
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Trevor Mallard
So English is not an official language ?
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
burt – not with Trevor in charge of Education, it would seem!
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Talk about a tempest in a thimble.
Andrew Geddis points to the following very fine document on his blog
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/publicfinance/pit/pit-ch5.pdf
It includes the following:
“Purchase Advisers
Ministers may decide to use purchase advisers, who may be staff or external consultants, to obtain advice independent of the department supplying the outputs. Departments often take the role of purchase advisers where a Minister is purchasing outputs from a Crown entity or other non-departmental supplier.
Purchase advisers can advise on value for money in output purchase and assist Vote
Ministers to purchase outputs that are consistent with Government strategy. Ministers
may delegate to their purchase advisers negotiation of some of the detail of the purchase agreement.”
According to the Hon Bill English such purchase advisors have been an option for Ministers since 1993. It would appear that after receiving Treasury advice he as submitted a list of suitable contactors and specified a fixed rate for the contract. The Ministers can then indicate their preferences to the Department who then contract one of the advisors from among the Ministerial preferences to assist the Minister to meet his or obligations as the other party to the purchasing agreement with the Department.
I cannot see the probity or accountability issue.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I2
I guess the Mallard approach would be to tattoo “NCEA” on his knuckles and punch the qualification into the students. Some need a few more lessons than others.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Hey Trevor, is Chris Hipkins still tying your ties for you?
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
So the proven bully boy of labour is back on the front bench eh!
A sure sign of desperation.
I can only advise the govt’ front bench to cover up when trev is in a bullying and angry state of mind, which is most of the time. spittle carries disease.
The anger management course doesn’t appear to have worked, I would ask for my money back trev.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I guess the Mallard approach would be to tattoo “NCEA” on his knuckles and punch the qualification into the students. Some need a few more lessons than others.
Classic burt, if I could hit the positive karma button more than once I would, you made me fall off my chair ya bastard.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Chris Diack,
Thanks for adding that factual information to the debate. Very interesting – a friend of mine mentioned that there’d be some discussion of the ‘purchase advisor’ concept in the 1990s but couldn’t recall where – it must have been the Treasury document from 1996 that you linked to.
Pity you didn’t also link to Andrew Geddis’ thoughtful post where you found the link. I note that he is not as sanguine as you are after looking at the Treasury report:
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/purchase-advisers-new-dogs-or-old-tricks
Once again, it sounds like an Auditor-General investigation to look at the issue and work out an appropriate approach ‘going forward’ would be very worthwhile.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Re languages. Trevor is correct:
Source is here
Get that… English is a de facto official lanugaue. What an absolute disgrace!
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
David Choat’s beaten me to the point, Chris’s very selectively quoted from Geddis’s article which is critical of this latest application of old provisions.
Which brings us full circle as Hipkins has revealed National Ministers to be indulging in a practice that will politicise the very public service they so worried for only months ago. Hackery seems an apt term to me. Perhaps another explanation is that these new Ministers feel unprepared for the difficult job of governing and being accountable for their decisions and need the support of experienced advisers, this then leaves us only to wonder why so little faith in Treasury? Surely Treasury’s Vote Managers are still providing seperate and independent advice to the Minister of Finance ahead of the budget?
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Trev
“and methinks u guys are getting a bit upset ”
That’s a bit rich coming from you, I thought you were going to blow a valve in the house today given the way you were tossing your toys out of the pram.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I didn’t quote from Geddis because he misrepresented what seems to be occurring. He does concede that the contactors are unlikely on a usual understanding to be employees for the State Sector Act – Labour’s basic charge which appears to be wrong.
Here is what is happening.
English as Minister of Finance provided a list of approved contractors. The list appears to be drawn up with Treasury advice that establishes that the contractors are up to task and sets a standard rate for the contract.
The Minister (as purchaser) then identifies a couple of his or her preferred contractors from the list and the Department (as supplier) contracts from among those preferences to provide the Minister with the necessary expertise.
It would be odd for the department to be on both sides of the contract.
What is truly alarming is that it appears Labour used political advisors for this specialist task – people by and large not up to the job.
That might explain why the state sector is so bloated.
If contracting is at the core of the relationship between Minister (as purchaser) and the Department (as provider) then clearly many Labour Ministers did not take their obligations seriously enough to get high powered external advice before signing these contracts they used flunkies in their offices or maybe midlevel secondees from Treasury (but how often is unknown).
Clearly Labour boosters here don’t like Ministers acting professionally. And we know they don’t like the Government reigning in out of control public spending.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Remember Chris Hipkins singlehandedly won Rimutaka by taking the Labour majority from 8000 to 800. Star for the future, that one!
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
David, David, David, David
Let us not forget, you yourself are a political hack also.
Now if a political hack’s comments about a bunch of possible political hacks (well, honorable and noble civil servants, rather than garden variety labour union toadie political servants, National party line toeing of course not being the defining factor, no never) holds little water, then I do not see what water is held by a political hacks comments on a political hacks comments about a bunch of possible political hacks! yikes!
And you mock condescending tone is ever so cute, I bet redbaiter himself will be jacking off to it, possibly even this very minute.
[DPF: 20 demerits for the jacking off comment]
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Trevor & getstaffed:
someone should tell Ruth Dyson then:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz+sign+language+be+third+official+language
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
The term “official language” is only used in the context of the right use use the language in Court proceedings. The term also has significance in the context of international arbitration proceedings and international custody issues. The statutes designating sign language and Maori as official languages clearly refer to the consequences of the designation. English has always been an official language of NZ. It did not need special statutory recognition of the fact.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
racer. judging by the demerits you continue to receive you obviously don’t know the ‘time and place’ difference in making a comment that will have a audience laughing with you, or at you.
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Mike E, who cares! The main thing is he beat Ron Mark therefore ensuring Labour lost the election. So his win was really a loss. Could you imagine this twerp in government!
Vote:May 5th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
paris doesn’t do
Vote:one night stands – if she be slut
dave be uber-slut
May 6th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Hipkeins doesn’t know a life away from the mooching of others. He was a student association hack for a long time, eventually getting to sup at the trough provided by Labour for a bit longer and now by virtue of hanging round looking desperate for a job he turns a safe Labour seat into a marginal one.
Purely for being the biggest hack in Parliament. My advice for Ritchie Cunningham/Hipkins… SIT ON IT.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:04 am
At the risk of puncturing a few illusions, Hipkins won Rimutaka with a small majority but against the tide. Robertson too. Lets suspend judgment for a few years and assess both of them in terms of the majority they achieve next time.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Ahhh “against the tide”, I like that Paul. That’s quite brilliant dodging. The electorate profile for Rimutaka is:
“Swain was the clear winner on every election night from 1996 to 2005; the inclusion of the working-class areas of Hutt City help make Rimutaka faithful to the Labour Party
This is a Labour seat, coming from the solidly Labour old Upper Hutt-based seats of Heretaunga with Stokes Valley, Taita and a large section of Naenae from the defunct Eastern Hutt seats.
Eastern Hutt had been held by Labour’s Paul Swain since 1987 – hardly times when Labour was the party de-jour. 1990 saw Labour smashed and yet Paul always kept it nice and red.
The tide may have been against Labour throughout the country, but Chipkins has turned it into what is no longer a given. Wellington Central could have gone either way so I will suspend belief about Robertson until the next election
Now Paul, do you want in on this? You can be Potsy to Hipkins Cunningham
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 5:21 am
Am I the only one who questioned Potsy’s sexuality? As a young person he confused me with his boyish good looks and slavish devotion to Fonzie.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Oh I see, then you didn’t assault Tau Henare, you were just making the sign for Fuck you?
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Potsy did spend a lot of alone time with Ralph “mouth”… I wonder apart from the obvious if the nickname meant anything else?
Either way, there isn’t a Fonzie in this Labour gang….not even close.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Chris Diack,
I think we’re going around in circles a bit on this issue, and are unlikely to agree. Nonetheless, thanks for indirectly pointing us towards Andrew Geddis’s points on this issue (even though you allege he ‘misrepresents’ it – that’s a bit harsh isn’t it? Seems to imply intent.)
Personally, I feel more certain of my concerns knowing that this law professor has similar reservations – and even DPF seems to feel they are valid to some extent.
Once again, I hope the Office of the Auditor-General will investigate and provide guidelines about this issue.
PS I will add that I think your point that “It would be odd for the department to be on both sides of the contract” is a bit of a red herring. There’s no reason why they couldn’t be working for the Treasury, as I’ve said before, if they really are intended to operate as politically-neutral technical advisors, rather than as political operatives.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Clint, how can I resist? Hipkins is a new and young first term MP who had almost no profile before the Rimutaka selection and was the surprise winner of the nomination. Rimutaka is a Labour seat but a replacing a retiring MP is always a tough ask and does affect a majority. My point is that Hipkins should be judged after this term. My prediction is that his initial successes will be sustained and his majority will, like his position in Caucus, improve. Incidentally, I understand Robertson’s majority was very similar to Hobb’s when she first won the seat.
That’s flak Diack. Geddis is clear that this is an odd arrangement and it seems Ministers knew it to be which is why it was obscured. This is a razor gang. It’s unusual because it’s not made up of senior Ministers but then that’s a reflection of their relative inexperience. What’s also odd is the apparently poor view of Treasury you also ascribe to the government.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
David Choat:
I don’t imply any intent to misrepresent what is occurring on Geddis’ part – you raise that not I. This sort of thing is a tactic of the Left – one is seeing it with how the Left are characterising the approved list of potential contactors who can act as purchase advisers. The attack is about them as individuals somehow they are partisan political and therefore fair game.
It was really a statement about the fact that we know more.
I was really making the point the Bill English has released more information of what has been occurring that suggests that these purchase advisors are not political hacks or political advisers and that more importantly, there is no inappropriate pressure, illegality, nor are they novel and there has been Treasury input into the drawing up of the list, the terms and conditions of the contracting and finally that they appear to be contractually bound not to be able to advise more spending or the employing more staff.
It’s clear that all the contactors are vastly experienced in the public sector at senior levels. They offer an expertise that is not widely available in the public sector, and where it is, its very senior managers who already have their plate full in what is a more challenging time than any for the last decade.
I am frankly surprised at the turn around in the fortunes of Treasury (who were the source of all evil and had to by counter balanced by the creation of MSD) among the political Left – what has changed: the Left or Treasury?
I should however be grateful that by urging Treasury contracting of these purchase advisers you are explicitly conceding that they are not offering political advice since Treasury isn’t in the political advice business.
As to why individual Departments who are being scrutinised should contract these purchase advisers and not Treasury, I would have thought that Treasury has had significant input already into the drawing up of the contractual offer by these big spending Departments (and we know they have had input into list and terms and conditions of the contacting). Thus what the purchase advisers offer is one more pair of fresh very experienced eyes. But more importantly, it really incentivises the Department to do its very best work and same with Treasury, and so ensuring that there is little for the contracted adviser to find. CEO’s should be able to boast this.
Finally, what really concerns me is the utter short-sightedness of Labour which is perhaps explained by the fact that this campaign is led by a very young freshman MP (whose major claim to fame seems to be that he himself was a political flunky in Ministerial offices).
For there will be a Labour led Government at some time in the future, and more likely than not, times will be tighter than those experienced by the previous Labour led Government. I like the idea that those new Ministers many of whom will have limited experience in Government can access this sort of expertise quickly if they so desire it to assist them in their contracting with their Departments.
Paul Williams:
Heavens I won’t even bother trying to respond – you are not even in the ball park mate.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
So you meant to say ‘misinterpret’ rather than ‘misrepresent’? Fine.
The reason I mentioned employment through the Treasury would be to normalise their appointment and confirm their status as politically-neutral technical advisors, thereby precluding them being asked to provide party-political or off-the-record advice. It would also tend to ensure that they were covered by the OIA etc.
As for the future, I’m yet to be convinced about the efficacy of this role (time will tell), but my main concern is that they be employed and funded through an accountable and transparent process. That might make it easier to evaluate their efficacy too!
I’m not quite sure why you’re so opposed to that. Do you at least concede that an OAG investigation would clarify things usefully?
And I suspect the reason why Chris Hipkins is the one raising this issue is because he is Internal Affairs Spokesperson, as Paul has already pointed out.
Vote:May 6th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Chris, you’ve got an insiders view of the ballpark? It’s not obvious.
Although the points made by David Choat and I are about administrative arrangements, they go to the independence of agencies from Ministers. My point, elaborated by David Choat, is that the arrangements for this group of contractors is odd and the obfuscation of Ministers has only amplified disquiet. Your contributions have been an attempt to find a reason why Ministers would not simply bring these people onto MinServices books. Frankly, the more elaborate your explanations, the more silly they sound.
Vote: