Guest Post: David Parker on What’s going on in Epsom

October 22nd, 2011 at 10:17 am by David Farrar

This is a guest post from Labour MP and Candidate :

What’s going on in Epsom?

The latest NBR poll for the Epsom electorate highlights problems for both National and Act.

My vote is up from 4.3% in the prior Herald poll to 17% in this latest one. Who wouldn’t be pleased with that 400% increase or the fact that at 17 % I am closing in on John Banks on 24%?

But the reality is that National’s Paul Goldsmith at 37% is well ahead, despite effectively saying “vote for Banks”. It is obvious that the Epsom voters are reluctant to be told how to vote, as shown by John Banks only mustering a quarter of the votes in the bluest electorate in the land.

I am not surprised. From my campaigning in Epsom, it is absolutely clear the Act Party is seen as an embarrassment by the vast majority.

If there is a surprise for me in Epsom, it is that so few people knew that John Banks tripled Auckland City Council’s debt during his last three years as Mayor. This recent history is very damaging for Key as well as Banks, given their repeated assertions that they are fiscally responsible and Labour is profligate.

The reality that Banks was “borrow and spend” will get through. I am telling everyone! Every letter box in Epsom will get this message.

Each step John Key takes to do a deal with Act’s borrow-and-hope-Banks and the-ends-justify-the-means-Brash undermines the image he has crafted for himself. He knows this erodes his political capital, but obviously thinks he needs Act.

The economic creds of John Key have been tarnished by his misrepresentations about the Standard and Poors downgrade statements.

Further, this has caused a renewed willingness to accept that Labour under Michael Cullen ran substantial surpluses and reduced government debt, which Key and Brash opposed. There is a widening acceptance that Labour was fiscally responsible at a time when the USA, the UK and most of Europe were not.

So the fact that Key is willing to do a deal in Epsom with Banks allows Labour to highlight these truths, which then causes voters to consider that, notwithstanding all of National’s spin, it is National’s deficit.

The Epsom platform enables us to remind voters of these facts, and contrast our plan to grow the export economy (substantial changes to tax, savings and monetary policy without selling our power companies) with National’s lack of an adequate plan.

All this at a time when so many are concerned that the world is changing fast, yet National and Act are stuck in a Chicago School of Economics time warp on the side of the bankers who were part of the problem and who are symbolic of the 1% who the 99% are protesting about.

Just as John Key’s image as a non-politician is undermined by what is happening in Epsom, so are National’s attacks on Labour.

The reality is that Banks’ very public record is there to haunt Key and Banks. The man who claims Muldoon as his hero has the worst economic record of any Mayor, ever, in the entire history of New Zealand.

While the last Labour government ran budget surpluses and reduced government debt, this is what John Banks did to Auckland:

Auckland City Council debt more than trebled in his last 3 years as Mayor!
2007          2008         2009                31/10/2010
$135m      $322m      $499m             $738 million !!!!!!!!

This was all pre amalgamation, and resulted in three credit downgrades for the council from Standard and Poors (from AA+ to AA-).

The Act spin that debt increased because the old Auckland City was borrowing for the new City is untrue. (That extra $416m of borrowing in the 2010 year took Auckland City Council debt to $1,155m at the time of amalgamation, but is excluded from the above figures.)

So John Banks certainly does not stand for fiscal responsibility.

The problems for National and Act go further.

I can attest from my campaigning in Epsom that voters still remember voting in the perk buster Rodney Hide, only for him to be busted for his use of perks.

They still remember the hypocrisy of the Act party opposing name suppression and favouring tougher sentences, and then finding out that David Garrett had name suppression and a discharge without conviction for stealing a baby’s identity and passport fraud.  Some are also aware Act knew this when they took a large donation from the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust and made Garrett Act’s law and order spokesperson.

It should be no surprise to anyone that no-one is sure what Act stands for. Liberals or conservatives?  Populist or principled? Take your pick.

The Epsom voters also regularly say to me that they can’t understand why Act has been taken over by Don Brash and John Banks, both of whom are past their use by date. That this is a widespread view was confirmed in the latest NBR poll where only 14% of those polled thought the change to Acts leadership had improved things while over 40% said it had made things worse and 30% said that there was no change to what was an already dire situation.

More people than you might expect also remember that Banks left National when last in Parliament with a reputation more sullied than Rodney Hide’s. Banks was kicked out of Cabinet by National. He then refused to sit on any select committee and while drawing a full salary as an MP took a paid job as a talkback host for Radio Pacific.

For all of these reasons the people of Epsom are very reluctant to hold their noses and vote for Banks.

I thought that Jon Johansson’s comment on Q&A last weekend was interesting. He made the point that Act is now polling at lower levels than at the last election. Voting for Banks in Epsom may in itself be a wasted vote (those unintended puns can’t be avoided given Brash’s proclamations). The problem for Act is that even if Banks did win Epsom, he is likely to bring in only himself and perhaps Brash to Parliament. Any extra votes gathered between now and the election would come off National. Not only will National want them for themselves, but Act still won’t make 5% and voters won’t want to risk wasting their party vote either. 

With Act polling low, an Epsom win is unlikely to bring a substantial voting wedge to prop up National.  Add to that this latest NBR poll showing Act is much less likely to get Epsom this time compared with last (and thus their party votes would be lost), and Act should be nervous.

The motivation for Epsom voters to throw their votes to Banks is undermined for so many reasons.

All in all, the Epsom election is proving useful to Labour and is allowing us to highlight issues National would much prefer had less profile.

The result will be more party votes and more electorate votes for Labour – inside and outside of Epsom. Thank you John, John and Don.

David Parker – Labour Candidate for Epsom -22 October 2011

I am happy to run guest posts from other (significant) Epsom candidates, of course.

UPDATE: In his guest post Mr Parker states that at the last election ACT took a large donation from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. This appears to be a false statement. All donations over $10,000 are required to be disclosed to the Electoral Commission, and none was. The ACT Party Treasuer and Secretary both say no donation of any amount was ever received, and the Sensible Sentencing Trust has said it never made any donation. In the absence of any proof from Mr Parker, I conclude the statement is wrong.

UPDATE2: David Parker has asked me to add the following on:

Garth McVicar has today (25 October) said that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has not made donations of money to any political party, including Act. It appears from his statement that the only gift the Trust itself made to Act was David Garrett. What donations, if any, came from members of the so-called Sensible Sentencing Trust to Mr Garrett or Act  I do not know.

 

Tags: ,

115 Responses to “Guest Post: David Parker on What’s going on in Epsom”

  1. niggly (830 comments) says:

    Can we have the real reasons why ACC debt grew over 3 years than simply Parker’s self-serving rhetoric?

    And apart from Parker attacking ACT and National above, what exactly is Parker’s and Labour’s message? What do they actually have to offer the voters of Epsom … because it is not clear.

    “I am happy to run guest posts from other (significant) Epsom candidates, of course.”

    If other candidates follow the same formula as Parker above, the voters of Epsom won’t be any wiser ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nick K (1,243 comments) says:

    Some are also aware Act knew this when they took a large donation from the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust and made Garrett Act’s law and order spokesperson.

    This is a lie. I was Party Secretary at this time and was responsible for submitting the party’s donation returns. There was never a donation from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. This lie is perpetuated by Labour consistently as if to say ACT sold that #5 slot of David Garrett to the SST. It is a barefaced lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    Can you sue Parker for defamation? Labour consistently tell lies and rewrite history for the their own ends. I wonder if Parker told the good people of Epsom of Labour’s planned rich prick tax rate for ‘high’ income earners?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    Typical Labour lies.

    When given the opportunity to explain themselves, the first option is always to lie. You see this in Mallard and now you see it with Parker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. niggly (830 comments) says:

    Jeez, just re-read Parker’s diatribe. From someone supposedly intelligent Parker’s diatribe is nothing more than attack-politics, mistruths, lies and smears. Sounds like the Sistahood have him nicely under control … good Parker, down Parker, Sit Parker, now Beg for your bone, good boy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    300%, David P, not 400%, if you think about it. Of course your inability to do maths is the least of the problems you’d be inflicting on the country if you and your captured colleagues get near power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Parker (and Labour) better have plenty of money. I have been advised that I have no reputation left and therefore people can effectively say what they like about me with impunity.

    McVicar on the other hand is one of the most well regarded men in New Zealand. I confirm Nick’s statement that to the best of my knowledge niether SST nor McVicar has EVER given ANY political party a cent, Including ACT. The approach to have me stand for ACT came from Rodney Hide – not McVicar – after the latter said he would not stand for any political party, and Rodney asked if there was anyone else in the organization who knew his onions on law and order issues and could make a speech.

    And Parker, I thought you were one of the decent ones. You are as bad or worse than the rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. niggly (830 comments) says:

    Well Ben, at least Parker has admitted he is very happy to be coming third!

    Sums up the current PC-Labour brigade, not every one can be a winner and that is perfectly ok!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Parker says:- “But the reality is that National’s Paul Goldsmith at 37% is well ahead, despite effectively saying “vote for Banks”.

    This is beautiful. John Banks is so despised that people are even voting for a guy who says, “don’t vote for me!”

    Might have stumbled onto a new and powerful campaigning strategy.

    ACT’s only chance is to DUMP BANKS NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

    Or is that illegal? Can Brash still run in Tamaki? Can ACT demote Banks off the party list?

    Tune in next weeks to find out if ACT has one last throw of the dice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    “Yet National and Act are stuck in a Chicago School of Economics time warp…”

    Whereas Labour are stuck in a 1970s timewarp.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    David why do you not tell us all your real reason for being anti Banks? That is because he a along with many people with families oppose the militant homosexual agenda.

    If Key wants to get rid of ACT he could easily do so if he wanted to. Key realises that while National could most likely govern this time without ACT it will be different in 2014.

    You obsession with promoting so called gay right seems more important to you than trying to insure a centre right government in 2014.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    “I thought that Jon Johansson’s comment on Q&A last weekend was interesting.”

    Of course you do David Parker – he’s another troughing pinko like you. Otago, Dunedin, Epsom… Where will this carpet-bagger go next time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. George Patton (349 comments) says:

    My understanding is that a fair chunk of Auckland City debt ($350 million) in the last year was attributable to borrowing on behalf of other councils in the lead up to the supercity merger. This was because Auckland City had a superior credit rating, and therefore could borrow more cheaply.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/auckland-city-council/news/article.cfm?o_id=13&objectid=10633684

    If that’s the case, then David Parker has shown himself to be an uninformed idiot, or a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    “Further, this has caused a renewed willingness to accept that Labour under Michael Cullen ran substantial surpluses and reduced government debt, which Key and Brash opposed. There is a widening acceptance that Labour was fiscally responsible at a time when the USA, the UK and most of Europe were not.”

    Fuck me! Either Parker is being a deceptive snake, or he’s economically and historically bereft.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Anyway, off to get a coffee and to bask in New Zealand Labour’s irrelevance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    c’mon..!..how can act eating itself and having an epic-fail…not be amusing/fun..?

    ..’barking-banks’ and ‘the dong’ are the funniest double-act in town..

    ..a new odd couple…

    ..’triple-debt-banks’ and ‘bubble-builder-dong’…

    ..doing the death-waltz…

    ..as the curtain slowly drops on act…

    ..and parker is correct in saying the epsom campaign has been good for labour..

    ..enabling him to highlight the economic-fails/illiteracies of these two babbling fools..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. George Patton (349 comments) says:

    I also understand that the borrowing was going to be even higher still under the ten year plan that was imagined by Dick Hubbard and the Labour council that ran auckland before Banks was Mayor the second time around. Still, I don’t imagine Parker would be thanking Banks for cutting back on the spending that Hubbard, Hucker and the Labour Party planned for Auckland.

    Shades of irony, when you think of what Labour is proposing to do with the nation’s finances at a central govt level in 2011.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    east wellington..that is a fact..

    ..don’t you remember nact mewling on the sidelines as cullen did that..?

    ..crying for tax-cuts..and calling him a .meanie’..?

    ..(ring any bells…?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Scott Chris says:

    “This is beautiful. John Banks is so despised that people are even voting for a guy who says, “don’t vote for me!”

    And what does this say about Parker who, in spite of all this, trails at 17%?
    Labour is so despised that people are even voting for Banks and a guy who says, “don’t vote for me!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. niggly (830 comments) says:

    Parker needs new backers … the sistahood’s formula of attack, lie, smear, ignore inconvenient truths and re-write history has been shot to pieces by Kiwibloggers enjoying their morning coffee and popcorn. Which pales into insignificance when the astute voters of Epsom kick his ass come Nov 26!

    DPF needs to allow other Labour Candidates their 5 minutes of fame on Kiwiblog – this is fun disecting them!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Polling at 17% means that Parker won’t capture the Labour leadership post election, and will have to once again rely heavily on his high list placing.
    Brash’s political naivety in dumping Rodney Hide will mean the demise of ACT in Epsom and also in the exit from NZ politics of the ACT Party. Recently Allan Gibbs generously donated $50k to ACT which regretfully for him will be money down the drain.
    What now for ACT?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Bloody hell.

    Trying to read some of these posts is like trying to decipher morse code written by someone suffering from tourettes.

    … eh? ..?) / , . , . epic fail .. eh?

    … — …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird says:- “David why do you not tell us all your real reason for being anti Banks?”

    I can’t speak for Farrar obviously, but the numbers can’t be that wrong, so even if you like and respect John Banks, he is anathema to social liberals who, judging by my emotional response to him, find his haughty and dogmatic mindset infuriating.

    He’s an Albatross around ACT’s neck.

    Time to Chuck the Bird.

    [DPF: Chuck's question was aimed I presume at David Parker, not me. I am not anti Banks. If I lived in Epsom I would vote for him]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    WTB get out of philu free card.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Other Andy says:- “And what does this say about Parker who, in spite of all this, trails at 17%?”

    My guess is that 10 of those seventeen points are core labour. The other 7 points are social liberals and affluent greens who are put off by the likes of Catherine Delahunty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    David Parker. The name sounds familiar…

    Not exactly someone I’d want to handle my company tax returns. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Inventory2 (10,339 comments) says:

    Why the hell has Parker stood in an electorate that he has no chance of winning. Since MMP became a blight on the landscape, the only list-only leader of either National or Labour has been Don Brash. Parker lost the Otago seat to Jacqui Dean in 2005, and lost again by a far wider margin in 2008. Surely being a three-time loser will do nothing for his leadership aspirations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. niggly (830 comments) says:

    “Not exactly someone I’d want to handle my company tax returns. :)”

    Yeah, Parker’s lame forged letter outed in Wishart’s book was a classic!

    Parker’s backers are so amateur!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Inventory2 (10,339 comments) says:

    They still remember the hypocrisy of the Act party opposing name suppression and favouring tougher sentences, and then finding out that David Garrett had name suppression and a discharge without conviction for stealing a baby’s identity and passport fraud. Some are also aware Act knew this when they took a large donation from the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust and made Garrett Act’s law and order spokesperson.

    David Parker needs to understand that people also still remember the hypocrisy of the Labour Party over Phillip Field. Whilst he was a Labour MP and Minister, he was only ever guilty of being helpful and working hard. As soon as there was a suggestion made that he might leave Labour, and on a grand day such as Helen Clark’s Address to the Nation he became persona non grata, but even after the High Court found him to be corrupt and jailed him, the most anyone got from Labour was an acknowledgement of the verdict. Parker is entirely the wrong person to be accusing any other party of hypocrisy. I am sure that many of Field’s former colleagues believe that his only crime was being caught.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    @niggly – if David Parker holds the view that someone’s past is relevant, he should actually air his own.

    Not all of which is pretty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Inventory2 (10,339 comments) says:

    Quite so Elaycee; I certainly wouldn’t enter into a business partnership with Parker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Come on parker…tell us why you never sued Wishart for his accusations against you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    David committed fraud many years before he became an MP.

    Helen Clark committed fraud while an MP. The only reason she was not charged is she managed to arrange a friendly Commissioner of Police by leaking false information about the former one – Peter Dunne.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird: “…by leaking false information about the former one – Peter Dunne.”

    Surely you mean Peter Doone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    The examination of Parker’s practices in the past when (if ) he ever ascends to the leadership is going to be fun…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    Key will give Banksie the nod and NACT will just grease in on 26th November.

    Alternative is a Liarbour/Watermelon/Murri/ Hone abortion.

    Don’t be arrogant JK.

    You will need more than UF to win the treasury benches (despite Pete Georges best efforts :) )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. George Patton (349 comments) says:

    What do we make of the ethics of a man who steals the partner of a stroke victim (incapable of moving much or even talking), then puts her up for a nice taxpayer funded job in Auckland where they can be close together?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Farrar says:- “I am not anti Banks. If I lived in Epsom I would vote for him”

    I have difficulty understanding why, judging by what I perceive to be your libertarian stance on social issues.
    Presumably you are simply making do with what you have been presented with.

    Banks was a crazy choice for ACT as far as I can see, borne out by his contradiction of his party leader on the decriminalization issue.

    And you would endorse a party that is this fractious and divided?

    A vote for ACT is a wasted vote that could have gone to National. ACT are gone-burgers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    The latest polls in Epsom confirm that the demented Water Woman looks like winning the same levels of support she received in her previous assaults on the NZ electoral scene (esp Botany / Howick Ward).

    Whilst the leading candidate is polling around 40%, the WW is so low that she has been included as… “Others.”

    And the collective support for ‘Others’ is 0.2%. Yup – one fifth of one percent.

    But at least she won’t have to worry about looking for apartments in Wellington!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    She can board at my place Elaycee, in my pigpen, as long as she brings some barbed wire to keep the lice in. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    I thought David Parker had promise now I am not so sure. He does not seem that quick on the uptake.

    Questions for Oral Answer
    6. Local Authorities—Financial Reporting

    [Volume:676;Page:21409]

    6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by his statement “We require councils from the next election onwards to put out a financial report in plain English. … I think if we had had that reporting procedure some years back, we might not have got ourselves into some trouble with councils”, in light of the increase in the gross debt of the Auckland City Council during the mayoralty of John Banks?

    Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) : Yes, I do.

    Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that under John Banks, rating increases for the Auckland City Council were held at falsely low levels by the greatest-ever increase in debt—

    Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This line of questioning really does cause us, I think, to reflect on your most recent ruling, because there is clearly no point in asking this Minister what he thinks about a mayor’s policy; he has no responsibility for that. If the other question was blatantly trying to get into political point-making, there could be no better example than what we are being given by David Parker at the present time. The question should not be allowed to stand.

    Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

    Mr SPEAKER: I will hear briefly from the Hon David Parker.

    Hon David Parker: He has not heard the full extent of my question, and it plainly does have ministerial responsibility.

    Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker has heard sufficient, and the Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for the actions of the Auckland mayor. He has no responsibility whatsoever. The member will recollect that some actual thought went into the primary question to try to get it in order, and I ask the member, likewise, to try to make sure his supplementary questions are in order.

    Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With due respect, I know what it is in the end of this question, and you do not. I find it extraordinary that you are ruling out a question from a senior member, who has taken some time to construct a question that goes to ministerial responsibility, before you have heard it.

    Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly not going to remove the question from the member. I ask him to repeat his question, but to please make sure it is in order.

    Hon David Parker: Is he reinforced in the concern that lay behind his statement given the reality that in New Zealand’s largest city council, Auckland City Council, rates were held at falsely low levels by increasing council debt by the greatest amount ever in New Zealand’s history, from $322 million at 30 June 2008, to $1,149 million at 30 June 2010—an increase of over a billion dollars in 2 years under John Banks?

    Hon RODNEY HIDE: No, funnily enough, and the reason is that ahead of the reforms, Treasury functions across the various councils in Auckland were amalgamated, and Auckland City Council took on that role. So it borrowed $416 million, which it then on-lent to other councils, saving them considerable money because we had just one council. The Auckland City Council also borrowed another $215 million on behalf of Metro Water, which the council then on-lent. If that is netted out, we will find that the trend for debt in the Auckland City Council is exactly as predicted. In fact, Auckland City Council, in taking on that function ahead of the amalgamation, saved Auckland ratepayers some considerable money.

    Hon David Parker: Does the Minister still hold with his other statement that councils “take on debt largely without the awareness of ratepayers. They can actually delay the … consequences of that debt for some years, and we are now having to deal with some councils that are being forced to put up rates.”, and does he enjoy the irony as much as I do that the worst-ever borrower in the history of local government is now the intended lifesaver for ACT and John Key is telling National voters to vote for him?

    Hon RODNEY HIDE: I do stand by that statement. But, actually, as I said—and the member may not have heard my answer—in the case of Auckland City Council, they were borrowing on behalf of all of Auckland and actually lent the money on, again saving the cost of the additional borrowing for those councils. I would have thought that was a good thing and, in fact, a far-sighted move by mayor John Banks.

    Hon David Parker: Has the Minister considered allowing councils to fund deficits, like the one created by John Banks, with a tax on cannabis, in keeping with the latest puff of genius from the ACT Party?

    Hon RODNEY HIDE: Unfortunately, it is impossible to answer that question without repeating myself, and that shows us the danger of a member preparing his questions ahead of hearing the answers and actually getting caught out with questions that do not bear any resemblance to the Auckland City Council’s final accounts, which showed us that what that member is saying is not true.

    Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a document showing that the Auckland City Council’s debt—

    Mr SPEAKER: The source of the document?

    Hon David Parker: A concerned ratepayer, drawn from the Auckland City accounts. [Interruption]

    Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard.

    Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table that document showing council debt increasing from $322 million to $1,149 million over that 2 year period, not all of which is—

    Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document from a concerned ratepayer. Is there any objection? There is objection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. backster (2,171 comments) says:

    UMR polls seem to me to invariably throw up strange even unbelievable results. Govt Departments seem to use them to provide overwhelming evidence at odds with what otherwise seems to be the Public Mood. Why the NBR should commission them evades me but I am sure they provided the result the NBR wanted whether it was a true result or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Nick K wrote

    | Some are also aware Act knew this when they took a large donation from the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust and made
    | Garrett Act’s law and order spokesperson.

    This is a lie. I was Party Secretary at this time and was responsible for submitting the party’s donation returns. There was never a donation from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. This lie is perpetuated by Labour consistently as if to say ACT sold that #5 slot of David Garrett to the SST. It is a barefaced lie.

    I can confirm that from the other side – the Trust cannot and does not make large donations – it does not have that sort of money, and never has. The Trust can accept large donations however :-)

    David Parker has outright lied here.

    This has now also made my mind up as an Epsom electorate voter, I will now be voting for Banks, even though I dont really like him all that much and would prefer Paul Goldsmith given the choice. I will get Paul in Parliament anyway as he has a high list placing (deservedly so too as he is good). I hope we wont get Parker, he has demonstrated himself to be untrustworthy – and in the here and now, too, not 20-odd years ago.

    Regards
    Peter J
    webmaster http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    “She can board at my place Elaycee, in my pigpen, as long as she brings some barbed wire to keep the lice in. ”

    Eww. You not planning on using the pen again, then? :P

    BTW – the NBR poll was 400 persons and ‘others’ gained 0.2% support. That equates to ONE vote across the 400 polled. And as ‘others’ is a consolidation, that one vote might actually have been for someone else!

    So your kind offer of accommodation may not be required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Positan (390 comments) says:

    Parker’s pretended confidence is very much self-undermined by the pamphlets smearing and vilifying John Banks, which were prepared and distributed by Labour’s lackeys attempting to pretend they originated elsewhere.

    I too, used to think that Parker was one of Labour’s better members – however, he’s no shown he’s as loathsome and contempt-deserving as the rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nick K (1,243 comments) says:

    Thank you Peter J & David Garrett for having some spine and telling the truth. Parker is no better than the other Labour liars. I’m still waiting for Trevor Mallard to repeat his parliamentary remarks about me leaking confidential security documents to some blogger, outside of parliament. That too is/was a barefaced lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. DJP6-25 (1,387 comments) says:

    NICK K 10:28 am. Do you really expect anything but lies from a socialist party? My rule of thumb is if they’re a socialist of any kind, and their mouth is open, they’re lying.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Zutroy Abadolov (80 comments) says:

    “This is a love song for John and Leisha’s mother….
    Thanks to Parker, there’s not going to be another……”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10716817

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Given Nick Kearny and Peter J’s posts DPF I think it’s your moral responsibility as blogmaster to make a post pointing this out for readers who don’t go through the comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    ben “300%, David P, not 400%, if you think about it. Of course your inability to do maths is the least of the problems you’d be inflicting on the country if you and your captured colleagues get near power.”

    Here is another doosy

    Hon David Parker: Is he reinforced in the concern that lay behind his statement given the reality that in New Zealand’s largest city council, Auckland City Council, rates were held at falsely low levels by increasing council debt by the greatest amount ever in New Zealand’s history, from $322 million at 30 June 2008, to $1,149 million at 30 June 2010—an increase of over a billion dollars in 2 years under John Banks?

    And this guy wants to run the country!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf “Given Nick Kearny and Peter J’s posts DPF I think it’s your moral responsibility as blogmaster to make a post pointing this out for readers who don’t go through the comments.”

    Frankly I was surprised that readers made it through the original post. TLDR for me! Comments picked out the necessary parts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Nick K: I do hope you will sue if Mallard is ever stupid enough to repeat this comments outside of parliamentary privilege….the weasels are very brave when they are in the House…..

    If McVicar does not sue over this claim by Parker – “buying” a seat in the House is an offence – I will be very disappointed…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Viking2 (11,470 comments) says:

    I have a saying that I often use about tenants. It goes like this.

    “If they are breathing, they are lying.”

    Clearly tenants and Labour people are born in the same tent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. laworder (292 comments) says:

    I do believe that Parker should be asked to “put up or shut up” – i.e. either provide proof of his statements or categorically withdraw and apologise to all parties concerned. And that applies even more to the other matter that Nick K has raised.

    In all honesty Parker’s lie about the Trust’s donation I actually find kind of amusing, knowing full well that the Trust runs on the smell of an oily rag (all bar one of its staff are volunteers, and the one that isnt is paid minimum wage IIRC). If the Trust actually had real money to chuck around we wouldn’t be donating it to political parties anyway. ;-)

    I suspect this arises from the fact that the Trust does wield some real power because of its core membership and what they have gone through, plus the fact that we have been able to get access to media, and have a few friends in reasonably high places etc. This gives those not in the know an impression of wealth and influence that does not exist in reality.

    Let me make an analogy – Just because I might be seen riding around in a Rolls Royce Phantom doesnt make me a millionaire. The real owner, the one with the wealth, may just have taken pity upon me :-)

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. jaba (2,141 comments) says:

    DPF .. I think that giving Parker such an opportunity is fantastic of you. May I ask that you give such an opportunity to the following as well:
    Winny, Delahunty, Sepuloni, Moroney, Fenton, Chucky and Silent T
    I see Philu is back .. I wonder if Phil is related to bObby Guyton

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Peter J: You have – pretty much – hit the nail on the head. The Labourites simply cannot accept that SST is such a large organization and that it has real influence – all without backing by millionaires and corrupt practices. They just dont understand it.

    I realised this when we were hearing submissions on the three strikes Bill. After one session in Auckland at which perhaps half a dozen submitters identified their connection with SST, the unlovely Carmel Sepuloni said something like “I think this committee must have met all the members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust by now.” From memory we heard a total of a couple of hundred odd submitters in person. As you and I know, that represents a very small fraction of SST membership.

    Therein lies their anger and bewilderment. A grassroots organization, led by a farmer with little education, run on the smell of an oily rag, has real influence and is listened to in the halls of power – and all without the kind of dirty behaviour the socialists assume is necessary to wield any real influence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    Bobby Guyton is a semi intelligent fellow jabba, can’t possibly be related to Magpie. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    “John Banks is so despised that people are even voting for a guy who says, “don’t vote for me”

    lol

    Maybe the punters of Epsom are getting sick of being used like a hooker’s douche sponge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Parker said ….”My vote is up from 4.3% in the prior Herald poll to 17% in this latest one”.

    Is Mr Parker carpetbagger expecting us to be impressed?

    An alternative take might be … Parker fails to lift Labour vote.

    2008 Labour 20.1%. 2011 Labour 17%. Parker achieves a 4% drop in support.

    His statement would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.

    .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    John Banks got more votes for Mayor in Epsom than Len so I doubt he is that despised!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. niggly (830 comments) says:

    “This is a love song for John and Leisha’s mother….
    Thanks to Parker, there’s not going to be another……”

    Woah, thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten that Parker hooked up with Chris Knox’s missus.

    Chris Knox, the legendary Toy Love post-punk and Flying Nun records personality, no doubt as left leaning as a muso gets, reduced to not being able to communicate after his stroke.

    Which for Parker’s sake, is probably quite fortunate, as otherwise I’d imagine Chris would be penning the ultimate diss-song against Parker and it would be rocketing up the charts for all and sundry to hear by now …

    (Back in the day he probably would have bottled him)!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    thedavincimode says:- “Maybe the punters of Epsom are getting sick of being used like a hooker’s douche sponge.”

    I think you are bang on in that assessment. I think it speaks well for the National voters of Epsom that they have the integrity to vote with their hearts and not their heads.

    Some conservative values are okay I guess (he says grudgingly)
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________
    Anthony says:- “John Banks got more votes for Mayor in Epsom than Len so I doubt he is that despised!”

    Or that Len Brown is even more despised in Epsom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    “I was Party Secretary at this time and was responsible for submitting the party’s donation returns. There was never a donation from the Sensible Sentencing Trust.”

    How much does the SST take in donations each year and what does it spend this money on? The SST doesn’t produce any financial statements, so unfortunately we cannot verfiy the accuracy of the above statement. That’s a shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. V (719 comments) says:

    Further, this has caused a renewed willingness to accept that Labour under Michael Cullen ran substantial surpluses and reduced government debt, which Key and Brash opposed. There is a widening acceptance that Labour was fiscally responsible at a time when the USA, the UK and most of Europe were not.

    Please tell me you are joking. Why did private debt increase the way it did in the early 2000’s?
    Nothing to do with the Clarke-Cullen taxathon I suppose?

    Not to mention the deleveraging cycle now engulfing western countries and subsequent belt-tightening by consumers has revealed the ‘prosperity’ and increased taxation revenue from the early 2000’s to be as fraudulent as a Labour party electoral expenses return.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Ross: Another anonymous dickhead…I have no idea whether SST files financials or not,…but ACT certainly does… and even an accounting idiot like me knows if ACT doesnt have a credit from SST or McVicar that’s a fairly good indication that there WAS no donation….but I guess you are one of the clowns who just can’t believe an organisation led by a farmer can have tens of thousands of members (that’s as close as you are going to get) and actually influence things….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    David

    Thanks for your articulate reply. In other words you cannot shed any light on my questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    God it must burn Ross!! An organisation led by a Hawkes Bay farmer which has WAAAY more influence than anything you clowns have ever set up! To quote Dr Smith: ” Oh, the pain…the pain….”

    How’s the Hobson Trust (an organisation that believes in community sentences, just not next door to them) doing these days? Set up explicitly to counter SST….disappeared without trace….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Bogusnews (474 comments) says:

    David Parker is an absolute joke. So he thinks the perception of NZ’ers of Labour is that they were “fiscally responsible?” That Cullen paid off a lot of debt?

    The facts are that Cullen paid off approx 7 Bil of debt (during a time of unprecedented economic expansion) in comparison to National paying off 22 Bil during the tough 1990 – 1999 era. So Labour paid off a third when they had nearly twice the GDP.

    And as far as being fiscally responsible they were a joke. Labour increased govt expenditure (from memory) by 42% or another $16Bil a year and we had nothing to show for it. They increased health expenditure from 7 bil to just under 13bil while at the same time doubled the waiting list from 100,000 to 180,000 (as at the end of 2006, don’t know how much worse it had become at the end of their disastrous reign.)

    Once again Labour shows they are NOT to be trusted. I reached the conclusion that with those guys I would believe nothing they said and only half what they put in writing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    garrett..if there are ‘tens of thousands’ in that sst-cult…(snigger/snort..!..)

    ..where were they all on that day after that craig-person poured a half a mill into promoting that demo/march of all demo/marches..

    ..remember..?..a march in support of the beliefs of those ‘tens of thousands’ you claim..?

    ..and where on the day..the media/laughing onlookers/police outnumbered the marchers…?

    ..i know..because i was one of those ‘laughing onlookers’/’media’…

    ..where were those ‘tens of thousands’ of sst-culters on that fateful day..?..mmm..?

    ..b.t.w..you don’t have a pattern of lying/distorting the truth..have you…?

    ..’tens of thousands’ in yr wildest dreams…eh..?

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nick K (1,243 comments) says:

    “I was Party Secretary at this time and was responsible for submitting the party’s donation returns. There was never a donation from the Sensible Sentencing Trust.”

    How much does the SST take in donations each year and what does it spend this money on? The SST doesn’t produce any financial statements, so unfortunately we cannot verfiy the accuracy of the above statement. That’s a shame.

    What? *shakes head*

    You can verify the accuracy of the above statement in a number of ways. One, I sign a declaration that the donations return is correct. Two, the Electoral Commission website contains the donation returns and you can go and have a look. Three, I have told you the Act Party did not receive any donations from the SST, and one of the SST’s committee members has come on here and confirmed it.

    What more do you want, Ross?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    DPF – David Parker is a ‘significant’ candidate? errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    Nick K,

    I thought my questions were straight-forward. How much does the SST take in donations each year and what does it spend this money on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Clint Heine (1,570 comments) says:

    ross – why would Nick know anything about the finances (or lack of) at the SST?

    Of course only a complete idiot would actually think that ACT would accept funding in exchange for a list spot. You wanting to stake your reputation on maintaining this line of questioning Ross? That is also a straight forward question that I am happy to hear your answer…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. big bruv (13,887 comments) says:

    Why on earth would DPF let a lying piece of shit like Parker have access to his website to post such blatant lies.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    Clint

    Your comprehension skills aren’t what they might be. I didn’t ask Nick to answer the questions. I said they were straight-forward. And I repeated them from above. They must be more difficult to answer than I imagined. Looks like I might have to do my own research.

    “Of course only a complete idiot would actually think that ACT would accept funding in exchange for a list spot.”

    Only a complete idiot would steal a dead baby’s identity, use to obtain a passport, and think it was a great lark.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “Only a complete idiot would steal a dead baby’s identity, use to obtain a passport, and think it was a great lark.”

    Only a complete idiot would sign a painting she did not paint to try and attract a few extra votes.

    I am sure their are plenty others who could point to other examples of Clark and other Labour MPs doing some pretty dodgy thing some of them criminal like Darren Hughes who Labour has defended.

    BTW Ross why do you not use your full name so everyone can see what idiots many Labour supporters are?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    Peter J said “I can confirm that from the other side – the Trust cannot and does not make large donations – it does not have that sort of money, and never has.” It is not clear what Peter J’s position is with respect to the Trust but he is wrong.

    http://charities.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/docs/registration-decisions/declined-applications/the-sensible-sentencing-group-trust.pdf

    The SST has informed the Charities Commission:

    “The Sensible Sentencing Trust is a nonprofit unincorporated association and as such is not a legal entity; it has no bank account or financial transactions. All goods and services such as maintaining the website are done on a voluntary basis and paid for by the personnel responsible for that particular operation. The spokesperson, Garth McVicar, is not paid and the Sensible Sentencing Trust has no paid employees. Accordingly there are no financial statements…[it] does not require or have an office.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3867650/Charity-rejection-splits-Sensible-Sentencing-Trust

    The Trust collects $200,000 – $250,000 in donations each year. Contrary to Peter J’s assertion, the SST does have “that kind of money”. What it does with it is another matter. But it doesn’t spend any money on office space or its employees, who are volunteers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > Only a complete idiot would sign a painting she did not paint to try and attract a few extra votes.

    …or attract a few extra dollars seeing as the proceeds were going to charity. But it’s interesting that you compare that conduct with stealing a dead baby’s identity and using that identity to obtain a passport. I guess we should be grateful you didn’t compare Helen Clark to Hitler. lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Crikey, anyone notice the elephant in the room here.

    Goldsmith 37%

    Banks 24%

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    “Only a complete idiot would steal a dead baby’s identity, use to obtain a passport, and think it was a great lark.”

    Only a complete idiot would sign a painting she did not paint to try and attract a few extra votes.”

    Points of difference:
    1. The imposter acknowledged being a complete idiot. The forger asserted she did nothing wrong.
    2. The imposter did it for a lark and there is no evidence or suggestion of any material gain.
    3. The forger knew that her signature would be promoted, dishonestly, to misrepresent the identify of the painter for the sole purpose of inducing people to part with their money.

    The difference is between a clown who didn’t think of the consequences and the hurt to the parents, (the faux outrage of posters such as Ross doesn’t count) on the one hand and the machiavellian approach of someone prepared to use dishonest means for her own ends.

    Didnt she also legalise theft of taxpayers’ money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    Nookin,

    It’s interesting that you, too, try to defend David Garreett’s actions. You say there was no material gain. I wasn’t aware there was any material gain in the other case, but maybe you have evidence to the contrary.

    This is what the dead boy’s sister said about Garrett’s actions:

    “The deeply cruel, shameful and malicious manner in acquiring such details is akin to literally stealing from the grave and has caused deep distress for the entire family, especially for my elderly mother, to be subjected to further trauma and pain in the memory of her beloved infant son and our darling little brother’s name.”

    If you’d like to provide evidence of the PM’s actions causing similar distress, that would be appreciated.

    Garrett apparently asked to keep his identity secret to “maintain his reputation”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Ross – do you honestly think that Act would have sold a list spot for 200 grand? Would ANY political party?

    As to where the 200-250 grand is spent, here is a crude breakdown;
    Expenses for the unpaid volunteers (of whom there are quite a few). Nothing unreasonable about that – you can hardly expect people who are working for you for nothing to also pay expenses out of their own pocket (although a few do that) – about 30-40,000 I think

    Airfares for various people around the country – there are about 100 core volunteers actively involved in the Trust, and they are flown to Napier or the annual conference on average once a year. I have been flown to Napier once this year at a cost of about 450 return, and assuming that its the same for most of the other volunteers, thats about 40,000 a year. The conference this year is up in Auckland so I’ll be getting myself there, but assume most of the other 100-150 attendees will be flown. So that makes about another 40-50,000 conservatively

    Garth’s own travel expenses – he travels by air quite a bit, plus also there is the running expenses for the trust car, its a ten year old Hyundai – about another 30,000

    Advertising I know has been a significant expense in the past, I dont know how much we have spent this year, not much I dont think, but I know that its been 50-100 grand in past years – we ran a short TV campaign a few years back, dont know what that cost. We have run radio campaigns and some fairly large newspaper ads

    There is the Napier office, but thats under the aegis of the charitable arm mentioned in the PDF you posted.

    If you like I can talk to the office and see if I can get you a more precise breakdown

    I can tell you authoritatively that the website costs the Trust nothing – its paid for out of my overtime :-)

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    ross: What were you doing 27 years ago? Alive were you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..If you’d like to provide evidence of the PM’s actions causing similar distress, that would be appreciated…”

    ..um..!..the underclass he vowed/promised to help….?

    ..that has just got larger/conditions-worse…?

    ..under his/nact ‘care’..

    ..(as just one example..?..)

    or would you like to hear from some of the mothers of those afghanis we have slaughtered/handed over for torture..?

    ..i am sure they would be able to show you some ‘distress’…eh..?

    ..d’ya want/need more…?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Duh – I completely forgot to add in the cost of running the annual Victims Conference itself – thats about another 80 grand, including venue hire catering and accomodation for 100 or so people for two nights. This year I will have to accomodated as its on Waiheke so driving to/from isnt really an option, but I will be able to get there and back via ferry and Link bus

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Clint Heine wrote

    Of course only a complete idiot would actually think that ACT would accept funding in exchange for a list spot. You wanting to stake your reputation on maintaining this line of questioning Ross? That is also a straight forward question that I am happy to hear your answer…

    I would also like an answer to this

    As Clint says, only a complete idiot would actually think that ANY party, not just ACT, would accept funding in exchange for a list spot. I know ACT wouldnt. I also know the Greens wouldnt. Mana wouldnt. I dont think even Labour would, although I doubt moral compunctions play much part in this, more just the absolute certainty that they’d get caught, as would any party that tried to play that game.

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Ross
    Have you got evidence of malice? Where is it. I don’t defend Garret. What he did was a stupid prank and he was rightfully brought to account.
    PM’s actions:
    1. Loss of trust
    2. Reprehensible example of leadership.
    3. Sets the tone for endemic dishonesty.

    Two wit:
    1. Hanging your drivers out to dry while pretending that you hadn’t noticed get from B to A in a fraction of the time it took to get from A to B.
    2. Passing legislation to legitimise theft (despite being warned in advance that it was unlawful)
    3. Giving whole hearted support to a scoundrel who was lying to the public, to her and to Parliament so she could cling to power.
    4. Giving wholehearted support to an MP subsequently convicted of corruption and even going to the extent of undermining an inquiry by giving the commissioner toothless powers of investigation.

    Garret was kicked in the ass and deservedly so. Clark and her government of troughers destroyed confidence in the integrity of government and even now won’t acknowledge doing anything wrong.
    I did not defend Garret. I put what he did in perspective within the framework that you presented. Long term, Clark’s leadership caused more damage than Garret’s ever could – and I take into account the anguish to the family of the dead child. Hers was an insidious undermining of the trust that is fundamental to good government. I note however that to you as a labour supporter, such notions are unimportant because the end always justifies the means.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    *So the fact that Key is willing to do a deal in Epsom with Banks.*

    What about Labour trying to deals with the Independent Rusty Kane in New Plymouth not to stand to help their candidate Andrew Little’s chances.

    Surely it’s a case of the Labour pot calling the National kettle black.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “Surely it’s a case of the Labour pot calling the National kettle black.”

    That is nothing to what will happen if Labour can make peace with the Maori Party. The Maori Party will be telling its members to give their electorate vote to the Maori Party candidate but party vote Labour – for a price of course.

    I cannot understand why Key cannot see this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Philu @ 9.24

    ” ..um..!..the underclass he vowed/promised to help….?”

    Unless there is a freudian slip in your post, Phil, you are 3 years out of touch. We were not talking about Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    from memory..didn’t boscowan give hefty contributions…and receive a high list place…?

    there is a widespread perception/understanding of that quid pro quo/dot-joining…..

    ..so claims that the sst-cult bought garrets’ seat for him came as no real surprise to most of us..

    ..it just seemed par for the act-course…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    nookin..my bad..(but my assessment of the hurt/pain caused by key stands..)

    ..but really…are you still all engrossed by trivialites like painter-gate..?…still..?

    it is fucken 2011…eh…?

    ..you rightwingers are about to be engulfed by a popular revolt…

    ..that will blow yr scams out of the water..

    ..and you have yr heads down some hole..

    ..arguing the entrails of the clark-regime..?

    ..(hey..!..heads-up..!..as far as those ‘hurting’ is concerned..there is little difference between clark and key..

    ..they have been studiously ignored by both..

    ..and it all feels pretty much the same to them..eh..?)

    ..and while you have yr heads down that hole..

    ..watch out that popular revolt dosen’t sneak up you..

    ..and bite you in the arse…

    ..eh..?..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    It wold be nice to bury the entrails of the clark years, phil. Unfortunately the labour party hasn’t learned the lesson and the deceit, disregard for the law and sense of entitlement continues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Boscowan got a high list place becuase he was a good candidate. Its a shame he’s leaving

    When is this “popular revolt” going to happen then?

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    What Nookin @ 10.38am said. ross people like you make me sick. philu please fuck off again, your comments are tedious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > Ross – do you honestly think that Act would have sold a list spot for 200 grand? Would ANY political party?

    No, I doubt it would cost that much. The main point is that the SST can indeed afford to donate money if it so chooses, which is not the impression you gave in your first answer. You indicated the Trust was run on the smell of an oily rag. The truth is somewhat different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Ross, you( and Parker) are the one making an accusation of corruption
    It is now up to you to be forthcoming with actual proof

    If you seriously think that a list seat could be bought for the sort of money the Trust has, then you need to provide actual tangible proof of that.

    200-250 grand by the way is not a large budget for an organisation the size of the Trust – but thats not the point I wish to argue here. And I do know that the Trust does not make donations of any size to any political party – it is against our policy which is to be apolitical

    You or someone needs to provide proof of your accusation, or else withdraw it

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    well one thing you can count on lawnorder…

    ..is that the repressive/reactionary crap you cult-clowns have peddled so successfully will be overturned..

    ..on the grounds of logic/economics/basic-humanity…

    ..your pendulum has swung as far as it can go…

    ..gravity is about to kick in…

    ..and hey…if we all want a good laugh..

    ..were you at that craig/sst-cult demo/march of all demo/marches..?

    ..up queen st that time..?

    …were you one of that handful..?

    ..let me guess..

    ..you were the one with the silly/funny hat..?

    ..the clown..?

    ..i was one of the onlookers..eh..?

    ..pissing myself stupid at a numbnuts rightwinger pissing away a half a mill..

    ..and getting a turnout on the day of a handful..

    ..brilliant it was..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    yr ‘tens of thousands’ of members that garret claims you have…must have been a bit busy on the day..eh..?

    face it..that was yr one public showing…(all the rest is just piss and wind..)

    ..and it was an epic no-show…

    ..whaddayagot..?

    ..a successful lock-em up! p.r-campaign..

    ..and sweet fuck all else..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    hysterical-fools crying ‘wolf!’…

    you’ve cried it once too often..eh..?

    ..you are now a caricature/a joke..

    ..but seriously..i can’t help smiling when i recall that march…eh..?

    ..a half a mill..eh..?

    ..whereas me..you remember that anti-ge march…?

    ..that big sucker that thundered up queen st that day…

    ..and caused clark to u-turn..?

    …that was my idea..eh..?

    ..arrived at/suggested at the end of a big leftie/green-hui on the subject..at the green party offices in anzac ave..

    ..(those there will remember..)

    ..after multiple ideas were aired..i argued for the big march..(to sustained applause from most present..

    (keith locke/norman/delahunty argued against my idea..locke wanted rolling demos at supermarkets..)

    .and then when i won that argument..(applause..)

    ..they then argued with me over the timing of the march…

    ..locke wanted it at ‘the usual time’…5 pm on a fri-nite..

    ..i made an impassioned argument on behalf of tired/pissed off/inconvenienced commuters/workers..

    ..and argued for saturday…at ‘high noon’…

    …i also won that argument on the applause of the packed room..

    ..now that was a demo..you little sst-culter you..

    ..the cost..?

    ..nothing/zip/nada..

    ..the result..?

    ..a govt u-turn..

    ..eat yr heart out..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    ..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > Ross, you( and Parker) are the one making an accusation of corruption.

    Peter, I haven’t made any accusations of corruption, but I note that you called Parker a liar and said that the SST didn’t have the sort of money to make donations to political parties. That now turns out to be false – the Trust receives up to a quarter of a million dollars each year. Rather than get defensive, why don’t you simply list details of your expenditre and the amounts and the amounts donated to the Trust. I would’ve thought that transparency was the answer. I do find it strnage, however, that members (all supposedly volunteers) are flying around the country at not inconsiderable expense. I was under the impression – wrongly it transpires – that what was donated to the Turst went to the victims of crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    “And I do know that the Trust does not make donations of any size to any political party – it is against our policy which is to be apolitical..”

    I wish I could believe that but I can’t. So Garth McVicar isn’t politically motivated at all and had absolutely no role in David Garrett seeking to become an MP with ACT?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “I wish I could believe that but I can’t.”

    Stop telling lies Ross. You do not want to believe anything good about the SST. You are just just making allegations based on what that barefaced liar David Parker has said about ACT and SST.

    “Some are also aware Act knew this when they took a large donation from the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust and made Garrett Act’s law and order spokesperson.”

    The about statement by David Parker, Labour MP is a lie and that makes him a liar. I use my real name. Let us see if Parker sues me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and you are telling us the sst-cult pisses away all the money/donations to help ‘victims of crime’ it gets..

    ..on ‘expenses’..?

    ..whoar..!..eh..?

    ..flying cult-members around the country..?..hotels..?

    ..and a quarter of a mill..?..eh..?

    ..what a good wheeze/dodge/scam…eh..?

    ..quite a reasonably sized pie to carve-up/share out..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Ross, the Trust does not make donations of any size to any political party. Yes, we could afford to make a (relatively small) donation, but we do not, because it is against our policy.

    If you believe otherwise, it is up to you to provide proof of that

    We categorically do not make donations in order to “purchase” a list seat, which is what David Parker stated as Chuck pointed out. I also notice that Parker has not been forthcoming with any proof, and nor has anyone else.

    I also do not believe that ANY party in NZ would supply list places to an organisation or individual in return for a donation, even one in the high six figures or more. Again, if you believe otherwise, it is up to you to provide proof. I have made this easier for you by widening the scope to include all the parties with a real chance of getting into Parliament, not just ACT.

    As for Garth’s role in David Garretts selection, it was as follows; ACT asked Garth if he would stand for them on their list. He said no, as he has no desire to go into politics. They then asked if he knew of anyone involved with the Trust who would be interested in standing, and David Garrett was one of those suggested. Rodney Hide then approached David (and maybe other, I dont know) and he was selected. That was the end of Garth’s involvement. This is all a matter of public record.

    Should David have gone public with his past when he was standing? Yes, he should. Should Rodney and maybe Garth done so? Yes. That was a bad judgement call, no arguing that. That is all I have to say about that.

    If you want a detailed account of Trust expenditure, I will see if I can get that for you from the Head Office. As for details of donees, I will see what I can do, but can tell you that the bulk of it comes from the membership and is therefore a large number of small quantities rather than a few large donations

    The vast bulk of the volunteers ARE victims of crime – in fact I am one of the rare exceptions in that respect in the Trust. And it is not unusual for a nationwide non-profit to spend money flying people around and on accomodation. I suggest comparisons with other similar sized national non-profits if they’ll supply you with the figures.

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    and who are symbolic of the 1% who the 99% are protesting about.

    So David Parker and Labour are aligning themselves with those Occupy Wall Street (and other places) fuckwits.
    They have really lost it now. What arrogance to presume 99% of prople are hard core socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    no emmess..the 99% represent those who are being screwed by the 1%..

    ..nobody is claiming those 99% are socialists..it is a matter of basic fairness/equity..

    ..and the neo-lib/rightwing advances of the last twenty-plus years..has put things seriously out of whack..

    ..and this is what the 99% are now recognising..

    ..our equality-chasms need to be closed…the other way lies social unrest/dystopia…

    (and btw.. goffs’ recipie for ending poverty…first $5,000 tax free…introduced in stages over three years..

    ..amounts to $6 a fucken week…and is a total fucken joke..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. laworder (292 comments) says:

    David Garrett wrote

    How’s the Hobson Trust (an organisation that believes in community sentences, just not next door to them) doing these days? Set up explicitly to counter SST….disappeared without trace….

    Sad to say, not quite true if what you were referring to is the Robson-Hanan Trust – that morphed into Rethinking Crime and Punishment, which I note had an income last year of 181 thousand almost all of which came from grants. I wonder if any of that was public money?

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Clint Heine (1,570 comments) says:

    “ross” – I note that you didn’t answer my question. Thanks for establishing you are making it all up.

    You should lay off the comspiracy theories at your age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. big bruv (13,887 comments) says:

    “(and btw.. goffs’ recipie for ending poverty…first $5,000 tax free…introduced in stages over three years..

    ..amounts to $6 a fucken week…and is a total fucken joke..)”

    That is still $6 a week more than you deserve Phool.

    Done anything about getting a job yet?, check the link below, there are 736 minimum wage jobs advertised on trade me this morning, how about you get off your drug fucked arse and apply for one of them.

    http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/CategoryAttributeSearchResults.aspx?search=1&mcat=5000-&sidebar=1&selected141=&140=1&141=&154=&153=&142=&144=-1&144=30000&sidebarSearch_keypresses=0&sidebarSearch_suggested=0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Clint Heine (1,570 comments) says:

    Thank goodness I wasn’t holding my breath for “ross” eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    What’s that second update from Parker? It’s certainly not an apology for defaming the SST or Garret or McVicar.

    Does he think he’s being smart? Does he think he’s “technically correct”?

    He’s neither. He’s a tool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Rat (383 comments) says:

    I live in Epsom Electorate

    I think I will move, the choices are really fucked.

    We Have a National Party Candidate who doesnt want anyone to vote for him.

    We have the Legalise dope party whos leader smells worse than David Garret and the candidates eyes move independantly of one another.

    We have the Labour Party guy, why ?, I dunno.

    Why bother ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. 3-coil (1,220 comments) says:

    rouppe – what Parker meant by the late addition is “…I do not know (what the hell I’m saying, some truth/some lies – if you can sort the facts from my bullshit, good on ya)”

    But you remain correct: Parker is a tool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Rat wrote

    I live in Epsom Electorate

    I think I will move, the choices are really fucked.

    As a fellow Epsom resident I sympathise. I dont like Banks much but will probably vote for him mainly in order to piss off the people that dont want me to… will not take any great pleasure in it though. I wish the positions were reversed – Goldsmith standing for Act etc, as I prefer him by far, but strategically it makes no sense to vote for him as a National candidate as he will certainly come in on their list anyway.

    Certainly Parker has eliminated himself

    Gawd what a lovely set of choices. Not

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote