Labour’s smoking gun
November 10th, 2010 at 11:38 am by David FarrarGo read the article by Derek Cheng at the Herald, and then tell me if I have it wrong in concluding that Labour’s big issue is that Pansy Wong stated her occupation as “Minister of NZ Govt” rather than “Member of Parliament”.
Wow that will bring the Government down for sure. The quality of Pete Hodgson’s scandals seem to be declining rapidly and they were never that great to start with.
Tags: Pansy Wong, Pete Hodgson
November 10th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Is Pete Hodgson still alive?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:42 am
IV
Vote:Brain dead but apparently mobile.
November 10th, 2010 at 11:45 am
She should have listed her occupation as an MP because she witnessed the document in April 2008, and National didn’t win the election until November 2008 – she wasn’t going to be a minister for another few months. Does that mean the contract was possibly post-dated? Does that then make it invalid?
Vote:Aside from that, I have no issue with her listing her occupation as a minister of the crown – that’s her current occupation.
November 10th, 2010 at 11:47 am
You know it’s feeble when there isn’t even an echo in the chamber over at the Stranded.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:52 am
It seems the signature in question is on a deed of variation signed in Jan this year, not the original April ’08 document.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:52 am
@ gazzmaniac; using that logic then, the deal was done BEFORE she became a Minister, therefore the issue of conflict of interest (which is what Labour was trying to imply yesterday before Lockwood Smith slapped them down) irrelevant. She wasn’t a Minister when the deal was done.
Big non-issue, as one would expect of Hodgson.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:59 am
He’s not known as Inspector Clouseau for nothing.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I’m amazed that Hodgson is still allowed to speak in the house. He’s just *that* embarrassing.
Anyway, she signed as a witness – doesn’t that simply mean “I certify that these people signed this”?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Is there any legitamate reason why she is a minister at all, aside from the fact that she appears incapable of answering a question in the house to the point where Lockwood gave up after 3 attempts and just moved onto the next question, cringeworthy if someone has a link from yesterday.
Vote:Why on earth do we have a ministry of womens affairs anyway, 15 million a year for exactly what ?
November 10th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
A damp squib.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Here you go, Pongo:
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
James Stephenson – if that’s the case then it’s a non issue
Vote:I2 – if she listed her occupation as something it’s not, it’s still an issue regardless of whether she’s a minister. If what James said is true and it’s a recent variation then it’s not an issue anyway.
November 10th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
“Is Pete Hodgson still alive?” – I can’t confirm or deny that, but he’s been spotted in several B movies recently.
Vote:His resume includes Survival of the Dead (2009) and Night of the Living Dead: Reanimated (2010)
I hear he’s also up for a bigger role in the upcoming Condition Dead 3D (due for release 2011)
November 10th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
If this is the quality of “scandal” that Labour sees the need to put on the Government, they are in even worse shape than I imagined.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Brain dead but mobile: a ZOMBIE. now that explains why he looks like he does.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Labour are desperate.
Last night in the house D Parker was speaking in support of the Gov Gen Bill.
In conclusion he questioned why in view of the Paul Henry insult to the GG ,J Key was not in the House in support. FFS!
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Pete(r) Hodgson is a sad pathetic creature.
Vote:Gollum like really.
Perhaps he is auditioning
November 10th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
It is about as inconsequential as someone saying he remembers the opening of a McDonalds’restaurant when he was one.
And nowhere near as bad as lying on your CV. Or claiming a candidate lives in an electorate when she doesn’t.
The double standards exhibited here are breath taking,
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
The one thing I’ve always hated about this blog is the level of National party apologetics. Another recent example of this is the post attacking the Labour candidate for Mana and linking to the article disregarding to the fact that John Key had misrepresented the National candidate’s credentials. Pansy should have signed in her capacity as an MP so as to avoid any potential implication that this was a government transaction.
Disclaimer: I am an ACT supporter so am not a left-wing troll.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
“The double standards exhibited here are breath taking,” clearly not breath taking enough. You should hang around at the Stranded Maggie, a full blown cardiac arrest awaits you there.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Government transactions usually involve the government as a party. It is quite apparent on the face of the document whether a transaction is a government transaction or not.
The identity of a witness does not give any credence to the document other than to establish that it was properly signed by a party. If for example, a judge witnesses somebody’s signature on a document, does that automatically create the impression that it is a court order? If a doctor witnesses a document, is that proof that the doctor is certifying that the person signing was mentally capable of signing the document?
An attestation clause is really quite simplistic. It identifies that a party to the contract signed the contract in the presence of a witness. Anybody involved with the transaction is fully aware of that. A witness does not read a document. All the witness does is verify the signature of a party. This is typical of Hodgson. He produces a raft of accusations without any factual basis with a view to alleging male fides of some description or another.
Vote:I do not know of anybody who has endorsed lying on a CV or lying about residency. English got bad publicity for his claim (despite exoneration by the Speaker) on both sides of the political spectrum. It was not a good look, a fact appreciated by most.
I have difficulty seeing with the double standards are. Hodgson consistently makes accusations. None of them have proved justified. He keeps doing it.
November 10th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Bloody “edit” facility won’t stand still.
“….difficulty seeing where the double standards are…………….”
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
The one thing I’ve always hated about this blog is the level of National party apologetics.
Most comments on this post are about criticising Labour’s latest “attack”, not apologising for National.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Hodgson’s complaint seems to be that the minister told the truth in stating her exact position, his party don’t like hearing or speaking the truth. I think Pansy is one of the smartest wittiest members in the house though I agree her ministry is a total waste of money and resources. She would be far better placed within the Trade portfolio where her personality and abilities would benefit the nation.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
@backster 1:53 pm
If Pansy is that smart, why does she continually obfuscate and stumble when answering questions in the House, giving the impression that she either doesn’t know the answer or doesn’t want to give it?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Seems pretty straightforward to me. The article even says it all in words:
Hardly an attempt to “bring down the government”. I think DPF is suffering from having nearly as slow a news day as Pete Hodgson…
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Pansy looked very very average in the house yesterday – I though nash the younger shredded her….
Russell norman, bless him, had a field day when coleman read the wrong intro to a Bill he was leading!! he read for 10 mins! – Stress leave time Mr Coleman.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Mrs. Wong is not precisely a shining star in the House.
She should know better what and how to sign. She should stop giving the Labour muppets excuses to go on the attack, which however false they are, always make it to the newspapers.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
This is a bigger scandal than H-Fee even!!! Labour need to pack their president and a team of MPs off to China to uncover any other documents that Wong might have attested to. This is too important to wait till tomorrow… they should be on a flight this afternoon!
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
“She should know better what and how to sign. She should stop giving the Labour muppets excuses to go on the attack, which however false they are, always make it to the newspapers”
Vote:She witnessed a signature on a contract between private companies. She was probably the most convenient person around at the time. So what? She was a minister of the crown at the time! The document has become public because someone leaked a lawyers letter — probably to Hodgson — for the sole purpose of mischief making. The question is, what sort of mischief making? This is not a case of Labour going on the attack. It is a case of Hodgson making a complete dick of himself yet again.
November 10th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Poor old Creepy pete – muckraker in search of a scandal. It is such a shame for him that all the juiciest scandals – like Benson-Pope and Philip Field – involved his own team.
Vote:And these are the people who mimic Pansy Wong’s accent when she speaks in the House. She is an able woman who rarely gets a fair go because of her ethnicity.
November 10th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Courage Wolf, you need to understand how Kiwiblog works. This is a National Party blog largely populated by people who adore the National Party and consider it is not capable of ever being wrong.
So the great god Farrar spends his day surfing the net looking for anything even vaguely anti left. Sometimes it is a quiet day and GGF scrapes the bottom of the barrel.
GGF then writes his blog. Occasionally he is amusing, sometimes he writes well, but most of the time it is just the same old diatribe written over and over again. Only the characters change.
Then out from under their rocks come the usual suspects, right on cue. Most of them are incapable of saying anything positive or intelligent, mostly they largely ignore the topic and just indulge in anti left rhetoric. Anyone who opposes them can expected to be villified, with childish personal insults often sprinkled with obscenities,. frequently spelled wrong.
And that’s it. See it for what it is and Kiwiblog can be quite fun.
[DPF: Oh you are so funny in your deluded world. I'd say John Key gets more nasty things said about him on this blog, than almost any other blog in NZ. And personally it is a very rare week when I don't blog my disagreement with something National has done]
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Maggie So why would you bother making such a pompous post? You know we Tories will just treat it with our usual derision.
Vote:Lighten up a bit.
November 10th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
DPF is open about his connections, and does criticise National – although unsurprisingly digs at Labour more. For all that this blog is remarkably open about what is allowed to be said, and what criticisms are allowed – there is virtually no censorship of criticisms, just the occasional rap for tone of posts, or abuse of DPF.
It looks nothing like “a National Party Blog” – it more closely resembles an Act Party blog at times, it is used by (and allowed to be used by) various political operatives. And pro Labour posters are as free to express here as pro any-other-party posters.
You’re correct, there is a lot of anti-left rhetoric and abuse, but little if any of that sounds like it comes from National adorers.
National has at least as much criticism directed at it here as Labour does. As DPF suggests, because of Kiwiblog’s popularity it probably tolerates and broadcasts more National and Key criticism than any other blog.
In short, you don’t seem to have any idea what goes down on this blog – or if you do you’re trying to push a futile message.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Pongo:
toad:
k.jones :
Manolo:
Well I’ll say it instead of asking rhetorical questions. We the taxpayers are saddled with this bumbling incoherent, out-of-her-depth incompetent and several like her on both sides of the House (Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and Ashraf Choudhary ring any bells?) simply becasue they were cynically chosen by their respective party leaderships to win votes from respective minorities.
They would not win a competitive seat and so are either shoehorned into a safe seat or given a List ranking out of all proportion to their abilities, over the heads of more deserving candidates – people who would provide the taxpayer with a better return on their salaries and perks.
Wong faced Act’s Kenneth Wang in Botany at the last election. When he asked people for their electorate vote by making the point that Wang was so well protected on the National List she couldn’t fail to be an MP, Wong filed a complaint.
Wong ended up with 2,000 less personal votes than party votes; Wang got almost four times the personal vote that Act got in party votes but of course the voters weren’t able to see past the blue ribbon in which National swathed Wong and she won.
Now Kenneth Wang doesn’t look like a canddiate whose views I’d embrace – there’s a little too much parrotting of “three strikes” and “zero tolerance” in his campaign materials for my liking – but I know who’d have made a better MP. And it isn’t the tongue-tied Mrs Wong.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Maggie “Then out from under their rocks come the usual suspects, right on cue. Most of them are incapable of saying anything positive or intelligent, mostly they largely ignore the topic…”
Hey look you at least got that bit right!
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Well said. Thank you, Rex.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Maggie.
At least here a person can state their opinion freely, unlike Red Alert where anything deemed to be outside the self appointed norms is “moderated”.
Back to the matter in hand.
Pansy Wong, in witnessing a document, was asked to disclose her occupation. She wrote down her job title. That’s it.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Pansy is only being picked on because she’s Asian, if she were gay she would be immune to persecution (or at least she would think she was).
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
My bigger question is why anybody would think a hovercraft business in NZ was a good idea.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
I haven’t been here long, but I am struggling to recall Farrar criticising the National Party. But maybe I need to stick around a bit longer. Happy to do that, I feel so welcome.
PG, don’t you think saying: “National has at least as much criticism directed at it here as Labour does” is just a slight exaggeration?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Toad
“why does she continually obfuscate and stumble when answering questions in the House”
I take it you have never listened to that idiot Locke ask a question in the house?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Maggie – if you think this blog is so bad why do you read it?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Maggie – there was a pro Len post today – OK, it’s not criticising National but it is sticking up for someone on the other side of politics. There was also a piss take of the Libertarians today, and yesterday DPF suggested it would be a good idea to consult the Labour party with regards to electoral reform, despite the unilateral changes the Clark government made.
That’s just what’s visible on the front page. The blog is right leaning (and therefore leaning towards National and ACT), and nobody disputes that. But David is known for criticising government actions when he disagrees with them – one example off the top of my head is the Keep it 18 campaign.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
I doubt it’s an exaggeration. Because it’s a blog with National connections with no censorship many posters find it a good place to target criticism at National. Lefties and far lefties and far righties and disillusioned centries and unaffiliated all have the freedom to criticise National here, and they do.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
If you’re talking about the comment threads, then it is probably true. Redbaiter on his own used to account for a fair proportion of the comments, and I don’t recall any that were positive about National. Of course, that probably isn’t what you had in mind, since his criticism was that they weren’t rabidly right wing enough, but it is still accurate.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Wow Maggie, you must live a sheltered life if you think this blog is bad.
Vote:The reason why Labour gets a hard time on this blog, is that most of the comments are bagging stupid ideas. Frankly Labour are full of stupid ideas and they get the lions share of the criticisms.
November 11th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Brian, Labour gets a hard time on this blog because it is a National Party blog. Fair enough. and I agree that those of us who do not think the National Party is perfect are given a fair go.
But if you look through some of the postings, you will see that many people are here only to bag Labour and do it on virtually every topic. Most of their contributions are totally mindless, repetitive and boring.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Maggie – it isn’t a “National Party blog” in the sense that Red Alert is a Labour party blog. But it’s very true that the owner is active in the National party.
Whilst I’ll agree that there are plenty who are on here just to bleat about Labour – you can usually find them by their poor spelling (Liaboure being a favourite) – I’d argue that many of your comments are similar. You are unremittingly negative about the National party, and manage to turn any comment into a diatribe about evil National. I don’t think I can recall a single time you’ve had a positive thing to say about the National government. Given that about 95% of the policies followed by both National and Labour are identical, it seems unlikely that the 5% that are different are really evidence of baby eating monsters.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Paul, I am negative about National because there is so much to be negative about. Someone has to balance the scales around here a bit.
For mine, I prefer Labour as the lesser of two evils. Also as a party of reform, not the status quo. There are similarities, but also many points of difference: education, privatisation, tax, welfare, industrial relations – adds up to a lot more than 5%,
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4337061/PM-tackles-Pansy-Wong-affair
Government Minister Pansy Wong has been stood down over revelations about her use of taxpayer-funded travel.
Prime Minster John Key, who is in Japan, is expected to make an announcement soon.
A spokeswoman confirmed Key would “announce he has taken action” against Wong.
Key’s office confirmed last night that it was investigating Wong’s use of her travel perk after it was revealed she and her husband Sammy last year travelled to China, where he did a business deal that later turned sour.
Documents from the January 2009 trip show Wong signed herself as a witness to the deal.
The investigation followed questions by Fairfax when Wong confirmed she travelled there on her 90 per cent taxpayer subsidy, which is not allowed to be used for private business trips.
Parliament’s rules expressly forbid MPs from using their taxpayer-funded travel subsidy for private business dealings.
Vote: