Robertson wrong

May 7th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

For Labour to gain traction with their claims, they essentially have to prove two things, and connect them up. They need to show that has had some sort of preferential treatment compared to other milk exporters, and that this is due to the involvement of Government Ministers.

I thought yesterday that they may have established the first. Grant Robertson claimed:

There is further evidence ’ assistance of Oravida resulted in her husband’s company getting its milk into China, Labour MP Grant Robertson says.

“Documents show that Oravida had its milk shipment accepted by Chinese border control in December, while milk from the same supplier exported by a different company was rejected.

“Oravida’s fresh milk supplier Green Valley Dairies also supplies the same two litre bottles to Guangzhou Ruima Food Limited, simply with a different label.

“However, Guangzhou Ruima Food’s fresh milk shipment in December was rejected by China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ).

I found this significant, as if true would suggest preferential treatment. But alas I made the mistake of thinking Labour actually were telling the truth.

Pete George has blogged a transcript from Radio NZ:

Green Valley’s general manager Corrie Den Haring refutes what Labour says.

Corrie Den Haring: It is not the same two litre bottles just simply with a different label. First of all Ruimi Food’s was taking what’s called enriched milk. They were taking flavoured milk, particularly strawberry and chocolate milks as well as standard white milk in various bottled formats.

Oravida at that stage were simply taking two litre milk with their label on it.

Some products going to Ruimi Foods in Guangzhou were blocked, and that was through extra testing that was done, namely the strawberryv chocolate and calcium milks that actually took longer than the shelf life of the product.

Mary Wilson: The milk shipment that was rejected was rejected because the testing process took so long that milk was off by the time it got through the process.

Corrie Den Haring: That’s correct, so that the shelf life of the milk only effectively has ten days once it’s in China. Some of these testing took I think up to eight days and if any product has less than I think thirty percent or fifty percent of it’s available shelf life then it’s rejected at border, and that is recorded by the Chinese border inspectorate as being a failure.

Mary Wilson: Why wasn’t Oravida’s milk then subject to the same testing over the same time frame?

Corrie Den Haring: Because they were testing for different, partly for different issues, so in and around the flavoured milks there was a question mark around some of the flavourings and some of the potential colourings, whether they actually met a fresh milk specification, and also in the calcium they were checking the levels of calcium within the milk which obviously take a lot longer time period than the standard testing being carried out.

Mary Wilson: But some of that testing surely should have applied to Oravida’s milk?

Corrie Den Haring: They weren’t taking any of the flavoured milks or any of the calcium milks, they were taking the standard fresh milk which simply have a micro-biological testing programme attached to them.

Mary Wilson: So you’re saying this is merely a technical issue, it has got nothing to do with favouritism?

Corrie Den Haring:I’m not aware of any favouritism and I don’t see any evidence from the position that Green Valley has in supplying product that the same level of orders were coming through, the same demand was coming through.

The same level of, one could argue,  frustration in and around some of the testing regimes that were being implemented at that stage, and we saw no difference between the two businesses.

So it is not the same milk, with just a different label.

Labour over-hyped the House yesterday. They went around boasting before question time how awesome they were going to be, and destroy the Government. They should remember the old maxim about setting expectations. The result was yesterday proved to be a bit of a fizzer.

Tags: , ,

108 Responses to “Robertson wrong”

  1. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    In other words shooting blanks

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Labour should be ashamed of themselves.

    How about some policy ideas.

    This beltway issue is just shite.

    If Judith had done something wrong, she would be gone like Maurice.

    As for GR – cant wait til he comes unstuck. Unfortunately hes part of the gay elite and so entrenched in labour he will have a publicly funded job for life somewhere.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    But I thought National Radio was a seething hotbed of socialists determined to undermine the Government at all costs? How could it be that they are doing some actual journalism? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Monty (978 comments) says:

    Or in other words. Grant Robertson was deliberately lying and misleading the public with mis truths and incorrect information. If that is the case then grant is as much of a lying scumbag as trevor mallard.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 37 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. virtualmark (1,523 comments) says:

    I can understand Labour banging away on this day after day … simply because I don’t think they have anything else worth saying to anyone.

    But I’m interested to see how long the mainstream media can maintain the hype and enthusiasm. There’s been lots of breathless reporting about … just what exactly??? A bit of smoke. No fire. No proof of Oravida receiving preferential treatment due to Collin’s involvement.

    And now Labour’s reduced to resorting to outright lies and smears.

    If I ran a serious newsroom I’d be sternly questioning my gallery reporters about whether there’s really anything in this, and whether I should be starting to distance myself a little from Labour’s tilt at windmills in case it’s all about to collapse and my market reputation gets dented from having tied myself to a dead end story.

    Interesting to see Guyon Espiner brush aside Grant Robertson’s latest attempt to push this Oravida story, and instead pin him down on what he thought about David Cunliffe’s secret donors. When even Red Radio isn’t interested in your latest attempt to give CPR to a dying scandal then that should be a clear signal the game is coming to an end.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tvb (4,421 comments) says:

    He was not comparing apples with apples. But then does Robertson care. They overhyped things yesterday. Judith Collins did not provide them with the entertainment they were seeking yesterday. She was basically dead pan and flat and they fell over. It just shows they were playing Judith Collins like a big shark and she finally got it and was deadly dull.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Collins was still wrong. She lied to the house by implying the meeting was a last minute thing with no prior planning – the paper work supports that her ‘implications’ were wrong. She has been arrogant and factious – it is still only a matter of time before she drags the government down.

    Robertson maybe wrong about his claims (no surprises there) but that doesn’t make Judith Collins right either. Trying to excuse her attitude and arrogance by Robertson’s stuff up is just more of the same shyte – making all parties as pathetic as each other.

    Oh to have just one MP with a bit of integrity – what a mess.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 34 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    Yes, here is another small MSM story looking at Labour in a different light. Maybe some journalists are actually starting to think for themselves.

    https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/23294205/cabinet-club-criticism-could-hurt-labour/

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (890 comments) says:

    I am hoping the gutless National MPs led by a naked Emperor finally grow some balls and shred Labour to pieces with this information. Labour is getting away with lies and incorrect information. Each of the major TV stations have their own resident communists who will not report this. National is too timid, gutless and full of cowards to take Labour heads on and expose these kind of blatant lies. Only bloggers like DPF and Whale Oil keep bringing the facts. I have not seen this information on any of the communist newspapers either.

    Basically this means Robertson lied in the house and the gutless National won’t do a damn about this. I have had enough of National’s reluctance to defend itself. Pathetic bunch of losers.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Manolo (13,767 comments) says:

    Anyone would have to agree with Sir Cullen’s. Why the fear and timidity from Labour Lite?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Robertson lied in the house

    Yeah, there’s a lot of that going on in the house at the moment – lying by omission especially.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    Labour keep banging on about Oravida for the same reason they kept banging on about the GCSB, they are trapped in their own left wing Wellington beltway echo chamber cheered on by the mainstream media who are aghast at Labour’s continuous amateur hour under Cunliffe. Even their much vaunted VCR policy is tits – they won’t reveal its estimated affect, keep adding exemptions to render it meaningless and won’t fess up to its negative impact on the working poor who rent – surely a key demographic for Labour.

    They bragged that they will have Collins on the ropes and only succeeded to showing their desperation to keep the story alive by resorting to lies, smears and innuendos. Espiner skewered Robertson good and proper this morning on just the Mallard smear and the Cunliffe secret donors without hitting him up on his lie about the preferential milk shipment story.

    Do Labour really think that Joe Sixpack swinging voter is going to tick Labour because Judith Collins’ story about her private dinner wasn’t quite right the first time she told it? I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. radvad (765 comments) says:

    Totally agree with Sir Cullen. National need to stop playing nice and go for the jugular this afternoon. Robertson and Mallard both lied to the House. Memo to Key WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    You are all wrong its not about milk its about scampi go to Oravidas web site and look up the news items you will see that just about each and every entry mentions a NZ politician.

    the reality is that Peter Goodfellow’s Sanford has partnered Oravida .

    Any good magician will tell you that the secret of the trick is the distraction. the milk is the distraction this is really about Oravida and Sandford and profits for the national party president.

    http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/2014/05/06/nationals-multiple-connections-with-oravida-is-it-all-about-scampi/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Bill Ted (93 comments) says:

    Glad you posted on this DPF – I don’t really care that Robertson made a play on this, that’s what politicians do. In Opposition you can get away with it. The bigger problem is that our media lack the integrity and intellectual capability to do basic fact checking – particulary TV news. Radio NZ made the effort to follow-up, but no one else. That’s a signficant black mark against the gallery. Unfortunately it’s not an exception, it’s the norm. They only care about hyperbolic headlines, not facts. Idiots, the lot of them.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Than (473 comments) says:

    I wonder if Labour might be over-egging their attacks on Collins. They’ve effectively stressed her until she lashed out and had to go on leave, so they run the risk that Collins may start to look sympathetic. Even those voters who think the Oravida dinner looks suspicious may start to think Labour’s attacks are unreasonable hounding.

    But as virtualmark said, they don’t have anything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. s.russell (1,642 comments) says:

    Collins’ guilt is perfectly clear: she ATE DINNER! Disgusting! Corrupt! Vile! Don’t you realise that there are some people out there who cannot afford dinner!

    And not only did she eat dinner, she ate dinner WITH A CAPITALIST! A vile stinking filthy capitalist! An oppressor of the working class! One of those treacherous “businesspeople” who make profits by exploiting people’s demand for goods and services!

    And if that isn’t enough to make you vomit, consider this: she said that those capitalists were FRIENDS! FRIENDS WITH A CAPITALIST! Inconceivable! Crucifixion is too good for her! Her behaviour is the uttermost perversion of decency! She should resign at once.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    they don’t have anything else.

    Egg counting has often proved to be a tenuous occupation. ;-)

    Remember, if someone can be bought with a dinner – they are always going to be open to better offers.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    Judith
    I’m beginning to wonder if you actually read David’s post. For this issue to have real traction, Labour has to show a smoking gun – a definitive benefit to Oravida. Robertson and Mallard put 2 and 2 together and got 6 and just made s**t up – its what happens when the facts on the ground don’t fit the narrative. Both just assumed a lazy, Labour friendly meda would keep all attention on Collins. When Red Radio nail you for your over egging and hypocrisy you know you are barking up the wrong tree. The GM of Green Valley Dairies just blew Robertson’s ‘new revelations’ out of the water. Oravida never got any special border deal – snap! When pressed on Mallard’s made up directors fees, Labour mumble “approximation” revealing themselves as the two bit hacks they are.

    We all know how effective these gotcha tactics proved to be over the GCSB. Labour is squandering precious Parliamentary Questions, media oxygen and political capital on an issue that generates a big yawn outside of the incestuous reporting of the Press Gallery and the chattering classes in Wellington.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    We wonder why China is being difficult about our imports of milk and meat. Do you think they might read our papers and think they are being treated as ignorant, venal, corrupt, star struck, criminal foreigners? Do you think they might even start to think being friends with us, a tiny country with no influence in the world, is just too much trouble? Are they getting sick of being insulted and patronised?
    The Chinese people I know here and in China are friendly, loyal, family minded, humorous, hardworking and well educated. Not the picture Labour, the Greens and Winston First try to paint in their hatred of our biggest trading partner.
    We are going to pay a heavy price for our dreadful attitude to wealthy Chinese who want to invest here.
    The Opposition’s racism sickens me, especially as it is driven by political ambition.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    Judith

    Re: ‘Remember, if someone can be bought with a dinner – they are always going to be open to better offers’.

    You mean, like a corporate box at Sky City, donations from some ‘quiet’ friends, a soliciting of ‘donations’ from a ‘dwelling’ in Coatesville, and perhaps some money from the ‘orses (amongst others, there are, sadly, lots and lots more)…

    Just checking that those are what you are referring-to.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    Its not just about dinner it is about the promotion of Oravida.

    She has facilitated the promotion of Oravida to the Chinese officials and the NZ ambassador

    She asked for the directors to be invited to the New Zealand Community Lunch- page 38 http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Minister-Collins-Visit.pdf
    I have passed your message on to the Minister’s office and the Ministry of Justice. The Minister has requested the following people also be invited:
    Mr Stone Shi
    Chairman, Oravida Limited
    Ms Julia Xu
    Managing Director, Oravida Limited

    page 36 shows the exclusivity of the lunch 15-20 people .. great introduction great promotion
    Sunday 20 October
    1330- Lunch with key members of the New Zealand community at Opera restaurant in Park View Green, for
    around 12- 15 people. Park View Green is an architecturally stunning, state of the art example of a Chinese
    high-end retail and leisure space that incorporates a top of the range boutique supermarket with a good
    number of New Zealand products. Either immediately before, or following the lunch, the Ambassador could
    give the Minister a short tour of t he complex.

    She had lunch and dinner with them and then went out of her way to visit the factory ( see Oravida invitation ) How many companies could extend an invitation to a minister 10 days before departure and get a visit ???? http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Oravida-invitation.pdf

    She was invited on the 9th and it was confirmed on the 10th wow if we the voters would be so lucky to get a response like that (see page 60 http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Minister-of-Justice-call-on-Orivida-Office.pdf)

    It was noted by her staff on the 10th that this ” will add considerable drive time to the Minister’s programme.” it was not on her way

    She asked for Bios on these directors when she knew them very well and obviously the Bios were to promote these persons to others. page 65 . It is of note that Julia Xu worked in Deutsche bank and the bankers trust. I wonder if she knew john Key who was the chairman of the bankers trust.

    What is so wrong about this is that the whole thing was handled by Collins without disclosing that the company was one her husband was a director of ( she was reaping the benefits of any promotion she did through her husbands company income)

    Collins had opened the Oravida offices in Auckland .. she met with these people three times in three days twice in Beijing once in Shanghai.

    she was shamelessly promoting her husbands company. Public office for private pecuniary gain .. this is corruption are we going to condone it ????

    What is the minister of justice doing inspecting a milk factory in any case ?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    I do hope Ms Collins brings a formal complaint to the Speaker concerning Robertson’s lying to the house on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Akld Commercial Lawyer (165 comments) says:

    Its like the Placemakers ad – no surprises there (that there is little more than hot air to the latest, startling, claims).

    From the viewpoint of someone working with exporters, it is a complicated, detail-heavy and still rather fluid series of events to deal with the regulatory changes affecting dairy exports. However, nothing worthwhile was ever easy and there is more work here yet to tidy things up.

    And from where I sit the Chinese bureaucrats and trading counterparties, are far too intelligent and pragmatic to pay any attention to Winston et al.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ kiwi in america (2,354 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    No, that is your definition of what the problem is – my definition is different, and concerns the behaviour of Ms Collins and her arrogance regarding the matter – and especially her behaviour in which she publicly revealed a private conversation with a member of the electorate – I believe all aspects need to be addressed, not just one part of them.

    I also believe that someone would have to be stupid to believe that Oravida did not benefit from their relationship with National – and until we know who the official was that attended that dinner – the truth will not be known, however, the longer National hides that information, the more suspicion (rightfully) arises. If they won’t tell, why won’t they tell?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “If they won’t tell, why won’t they tell?”
    Exactly!! Why won’t Cun’liffe tell us who his secret donors were? Who does Cun’liffe owe favours to?

    The longer he hides this information, the more suspicion (rightfully) arises.

    The country wants to know…Who is paying for access to the LOO?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Do Labour really think that Joe Sixpack swinging voter is going to tick Labour because Judith Collins’ story about her private dinner wasn’t quite right the first time she told it?

    They haven’t given a crap about Joe Sixpack in years.

    Their policies are now targeted at Comrade Rangi Moonbeam.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    anticorruptionnz
    You make essentially the same scurrilous accusation as Mallard made in the House. I sometimes wonder if those on the left have any clue as to the difference between a professional outside director and one that is an owner of a company.

    The Companies Office website reveals:
    Collins’ husband David Wong-Tung is one of three directors of Oravida Ltd and Oravida NZ Ltd. He also a director of Oravida Wine Ltd and Oravida Property Ltd both wholly owned by Oravida Ltd.

    Oravida NZ Ltd is also 100% owned by Oravida Ltd which in turn is 100% owned by Kauri NZ Investment Ltd (KNZI).
    KNZI has a single director Stone Shi who is also a Director of Oravida.

    99.8% of the shares in KNZI are owned by Kauri NZ Trustee Ltd. KNZT has a Deyi Shi as sole Director with 100% of its shares owned by Gilligan Shepherd Nominees Ltd (GSN)

    GSN is 100% owned jointly by a Gregory Rathburn and a Bruce Shepherd who are directors with a Richard Ashby. This is clearly a nominee company run by Oravida’s accountants – a very common arrangement.

    This trail of ownership confirms that Wong-Tung has no beneficial ownership in Oravida and the driving force behind all these companies appear to be the Shi (I’m guessing here) brothers.

    Wong-Tung’s directors fees as an outside director is likely to be a set annual remuneration figure negotiated annually by the Board. The Board of any company is controlled by its shareholders and so Wong-Tung, having no beneficial ownership of any of the parent companies controlling the Oravida companies he is a director of, will have no control over the decision as to the amount of his directors fees apart from the decision to accept an invitation to be and remain a director.

    Thus his remuneration as a director of the four Oravida companies is likely to be fixed and is paid irrespective of the performance of the company. In companies I have owned or been a director of, we never linked the directors fees of an outside director to company performance as that sort of performance based remuneration was targeted at the General Manager or Managing Director who heads a company and is responsible for the day to day profitable operation of a company. There is no financial benefit over and above the fixed directors fees that Wang-Tung would get in any event that can be proven to arise from this dinner. It is just a massive beat up by the left desperate to somehow get runs on the board and dent National’s popularity.

    Oh and in your single feeble post about secret trusts on your blog, I see no demands made for David Cunliffe to disclose his secret donors. If you are so serious about transparency then why not call for Cunliffe to be as transparent as you ask Judith Collins to be.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    anticorruptionnz

    “Collins had opened the Oravida offices in Auckland .. she met with these people three times in three days twice in Beijing once in Shanghai.’

    So what !!! Helen Clarke open Cunliffe’s wife’s new law practice offices. Nothing wrong with that,either . Politicians open new factories , buildings, offices all the time. They also visit factories of all sorts –its called out and about with public/voters to see the real world outside the beltway.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fentex (974 comments) says:

    For Labour to gain traction with their Oravida claims, they essentially have to prove two things, and connect them up. They need to show that Oravida has had some sort of preferential treatment compared to other milk exporters, and that this is due to the involvement of Government Ministers.

    Only for claims about corrupt quid pro quo dealing.

    As for Collins lying to New Zealand in parliament that seems proven, and if she won’t resign should be dismissed as a minister.

    If on top of that a case can be made she traded influence for party donations, which I think prima facie evidence exists for (her apparent dealing on behalf of Oravida that she attempted to obscure and subsequent donations arriving) then it would be a case for the police to investigate for criminal corrupt practice, though I don’t think sufficient evidence to interest them has been presented yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. jude (6 comments) says:

    Thank you Kiwi In America for that response to anticorruptionnz. I am sick to death of the MSM in this country claiming Judith Collin’s husband ‘owns’ the company. He does not.
    It would be great if your comment was emailed to Whale oil as they too have a very wide readership!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Corrie Den Haring: It is not the same two litre bottles just simply with a different label. First of all Ruimi Food’s was taking what’s called enriched milk. They were taking flavoured milk, particularly strawberry and chocolate milks as well as standard white milk in various bottled formats.

    So some of it was the same as Oravida’s standard white milk. What about that?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Thus his remuneration as a director of the four Oravida companies is likely to be fixed and is paid irrespective of the performance of the company.

    In other words you don’t know.

    In companies I have owned or been a director of, we never linked the directors fees of an outside director to company performance as that sort of performance based remuneration was targeted at the General Manager or Managing Director who heads a company and is responsible for the day to day profitable operation of a company.

    See, any idiot can be a company director, just like any idiot can be a cabinet minister under this government (Parata; Bennett), although at least the latter two can write well.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kowtow (8,469 comments) says:

    Kimble,Moonbeam?

    I’d a thunk they were directed toward Comrade Rangi Rainbow.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    jude (4 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    Really? Would you like to post an example or a link where it has promoted that Judith Collin’s husband owns the company? Every single report I’ve seen they have stated he is a director?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    None are so blind as those who will not see

    there is nothing wrong with her opening the new premises of the company of which her husband is a director.

    But the trip to China was paid by the tax payer. It was an official visit for the minister of justice . So could some one please explain why she was visiting Oravida ? the fact that she opened the company shows that she was familiar with the company so why should she then ask for a briefing on it, that should be pillow talk for her and her tax payer funded staff should not have been left to get the information she already knew.

    the reason she wanted the information was so as to promote the company which is not her role.

    I merely marveled at the invitation on the 9th October for her visit on the 20th and the apparent preferential treatment her husbands co directors were receiving.

    It may have been prudent of her to have disclosed openly that this company was under her husbands directorship.

    As to the remuneration which her husbands receives is total speculation, but hey he probably got the job because he was married to a minister , its all about advertising and the benefit to the company -strategy.

    If you look at the long list of struck off companies that David Wong Tung has been director of it certainly doesn’t inspire confidence in his ability to run a company and it is clear that he was not recruited for his directorship skills , he was a cop after all.

    Its about playing the game, Collins promoted the company her husband was director of . ( there is nothing in the companies act which differentiates and owner director and non owner director )

    I have been questioning corruption for 8 years , I have questioned why the minister of justice does not have a means of delivering justice ( she says our courts are courts of law not justice ) I cant get near her for an appointment yet milk which is not associated with justice gets all the attention in China.. go figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Judith

    I have seen references to Oravida as Collins’ husband’s company. I have not saved the links and have put them down to ignorance, laziness or a singular inability to say things as they really are. Fortunately, most reports now stress that he is a director.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Keeping Stock (10,339 comments) says:

    SCS said

    Basically this means Robertson lied in the house and the gutless National won’t do a damn about this. I have had enough of National’s reluctance to defend itself. Pathetic bunch of losers.

    You will have enjoyed this then SCS:

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Keeping Stock (10,339 comments) says:

    And this one:

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RJL (146 comments) says:

    DPF: They need to show that Oravida has had some sort of preferential treatment compared to other milk exporters, and that this is due to the involvement of Government Ministers.

    Next time we want the goal posts moved to a more convenient location, I’m sure that we will ask you.

    The OIA of MFAT records shows that Collins lied to parliament.

    Collins has breached the Cabient Manual by creating the perception of a conflict of interest, and failing to manage that potential conflict in a transparent manner.

    These are both sacking offences.

    Whether Collins/Oravida has actually taken advantage of that conflict of interest is a separate issue. All the evidence suggests that Oravida has; as that was clearly Oravida’s intent.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    This is just a losing bunch of envious good-for-nothing unwanted fairies who have nothing, are nothing, and will never be anything . . . like this mikenmilk, or whatever his pathetic pseudonym is. They have, and will, live lives on benefits, too tired to get a job, let alone take on a business.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson (2,348 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Corrie Den Haring: It is not the same two litre bottles just simply with a different label. First of all Ruimi Food’s was taking what’s called enriched milk. They were taking flavoured milk, particularly strawberry and chocolate milks as well as standard white milk in various bottled formats.

    So some of it was the same as Oravida’s standard white milk. What about that?

    Oh shit Sherlock, you selectively quoted Corrie Den Haring and missed the answer to your own question

    Oravida at that stage were simply taking two litre milk with their label on it.

    Some products going to Ruimi Foods in Guangzhou were blocked, and that was through extra testing that was done, namely the strawberryv chocolate and calcium milks that actually took longer than the shelf life of the product.

    There is no evidence to suggest that Ruimi’s standard white milk was blocked, other than what was manufactured in the frantic wee minds of Labour MP’s and their bum-licker sycophants.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    Yeh RJL nicely said

    dont know where the any one said that David Wong Tung owned the company , being a director of the company makes the company his responsibility of a director is to act in the best interest of a company .. getting your wife the minister to promote the company is in the best interest of the company.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    anticorruptnz
    Oh dear – showing your ignorance again. Where to start.

    Helen Clark’s visit to the opening of Karen Price’s office was also paid for by the taxpayer – they paid for the Crown Limo to take her there and for the DPS protection throughout her visit. But of course that’s OK to you because of the L after Clark’s name.

    There is not a shred of evidence that Oravida has benefitted from Collins visit – the GM of the dairy company supplying milk to Oravida and its competitors described in detail why the one shipment got through and the other didn’t and put paid to Robertson’s lies on this matter.

    There is a huge difference between an non owner director and one who does own the company. You seem to have no real grasp of how this works in the real world. An owner director controls the company because it is the SHAREHOLDERS who appoint directors. Tung cannot appoint or dismiss himself neither has he any say in the amount of his remuneration. The shareholders decide the remuneration paid to outside directors. Mr Shi, via the holding companies that he controls, is the owner director and could sack Tung at will and replace him with someone else. Outside directors bring a variety of skills to the table – skills that only the owners can assess and value. But to assume each type of director has equal power shows your ignorance of the operation of small tightly owned private companies.

    You also clearly know nothing about company formation and dissolution. The number of struck off companies that a person has been a director of bears zero resemblance to the success of those companies. Some companies are formed to hold a trading name and the company never traded for a variety reasons – perhaps Mr Tung moved on to something else. I have formed about 4 companies in such a manner only to allow them to be struck off because I moved on to other opportunities and no longer wished to hold the name. Other companies are wound up for a variety of reasons in what are called voluntary liquidations – sometimes for tax reasons assets held by one company are more beneficially owned in a new or different entity and once moved, the remaining company is merely a shell to be voluntarily liquidated. Likewise investment property owning LAQCs – many people I know formed these to own a single property only to abandon them once the tax pass through benefits were removed when National came to power. Only a tiny fraction of struck off companies have been struck off due to business failure as you erroneously allege.

    If you have been decrying corruption for 8 years, where were you when the Labour Party used tax payers funds illegally to fund their own electioneering pledge card and then tried to retrospectively change the law to make it ‘legal’? Where were you when Phillip Taito Field got his illegal immigrant constituents residency in exchange for financial favours like working on his properties or did you just parrot the Labour Party line of the day that he was just trying to help his constituents? And where are you on the issue of David Cunliffe decrying the use of secret trusts by National all the while using one himself to fund his leadership campaign and still refuses to disclose who the donors are? Or are you as we all suspect just a partisan hack disguising yourself as a crusader for transparency.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    anticorruptionnz

    ” But the trip to China was paid by the tax payer ”

    I bet Helen Clark did not pay for her trip to Auckland to open the new law office. ( nothing wrong with that either –she was probably on other official work in Auckland at the time)

    All those other office , factory , building etc. openings done by MPs would also be paid for by tax payers both in term of time and travel expenses.

    PS. Oravita is a NZ company

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    Seen this Kiwibloggers? :)

    http://metromag.co.nz/current-affairs/the-queen-is-dead/

    Steve Braunias revisits his Judith Collins story in Metro.

    How come I missed it? I interviewed Minister of Justice Judith Collins twice, both times about an hour, and she was very open, very happy to talk about her childhood, her character, her life. I interviewed her sister. I interviewed close friends and colleagues, also Don Brash, a few press gallery chooks, and Radio Live rooster Duncan Garner. Two “senior aides” in government stepped out of the shadows to disclose how Collins is viewed by caucus, and then stepped back into the gloom whence they came. Various others offered various insights.

    But when I wrote my 4000-word profile of Collins for the latest Metro, I missed what has become painfully apparent in the past few days – that she’s gone kind of crazy.

    I looked at her face when she shot her mouth off to Sabin and saw someone unstable, someone on the verge of a kind of nervous collapse.
    Her bizarre and self-destructive rant to TV3’s Brooke Sabin in the weekend has led to Prime Minister John Key instructing her to take stress leave. The pressure from the Oravida scandal finally got to her.

    I looked at her face when she shot her mouth off to Sabin and saw someone unstable, someone on the verge of a kind of nervous collapse. She blinked rapidly, her mouth twitched, her words came out in a tumble, as though she were daring herself to keep on going, to match the speed and urgency of her beating heart.

    ………………………..”

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    Penny
    When are you going to pay your rates?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Um, Penny, you know in those videos of you at the occupy thingy… your rapid blinking, twitchy mouth, tumbling words, as though you were daring yourself to keep going, oh and the crying … I think you need to see someone about that stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    How long a holiday is Collins getting? Will it be long enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    Hey I can show you many NZ companies which are owned by a Caymen Island trust and have a director in Cyprus .

    Go back into the history of Oravida Nz Limited and you will find that it was set up by Xing HONG Rm 1-1101 No 500 Yi Li Road (sth), Changning District, Shanghai, China , and Terry LEE
    Flat 2, 15 King Edward Avenue, Epsom, Auckland, 1023 , New Zealand

    all you need for a NZ company is for one to be set up in NZ and suddenly it has as much right as a person born here

    I dealt with Fresh prepared limited, director Sanjay Patel & liquidator Bahubhai Patel Neither existed.. shows how farcical our company registration is.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    When people cant attack an issue they attack the person keep it up Kiwi in America and Rightnow you are showing your true colours total bullies .

    @mikenmild she has probably caught something off Wendy Brandon , better to be ill than to be sacked. again strategy

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    Who else has got in OIA’s to Judith Collins asking THESE questions?

    “Please provide the information which explains why your ‘Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill’, has STILL not been presented to Parliament.”

    (New Zealand has STILL not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), and can’t until our domestic anti-corruption legislative framework is in place.

    Minister of Justice Judith Collins promised “… I have announced a package of legislative reforms that will allow New Zealand to ratify UNCAC. the reforms will be progressed as part of an Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill which I intend to introduce into Parliament later in 2013.”

    It’s now MAY 2014, and Minister of Justice Judith Collins has yet to introduce her ‘Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill’ into the House.

    So – is Judith Collins a competent and effective Minister of Justice?

    In my considered opinion – NO – Judith Collins is a CORRUPT disgrace and should have been sacked weeks ago.

    Why hasn’t NZ Prime Minister John Key sacked Judith Collins as Minister of Justice?

    Because, in my considered opinion, he too is a CORRUPT disgrace, and cannot hold his Ministers accountable to the ‘highest ethical standards’, when he doesn’t follow them himself.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    5 May 2014

    ‘Open Letter’ /OIA request to Minister for Justice Judith Collins :

    “Why has New Zealand STILL not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)?”

    Dear ‘Minister’,

    Please be reminded that according to the 2013 Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception Index’, New Zealand, (along with Denmark) is ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world.

    http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

    However, New Zealand is still one of a handful of countries which has STILL not ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).

    (UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)

    http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/Publications/Convention/08-50026_E.pdf

    (Signatories to the UN Convention Against Corruption

    https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html

    ____________________________________________________________

    In a letter to Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ), dated 7 August 2013, you stated:

    “New Zealand ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption

    Thank you for your correspondence of 31 May 2013 to myself, Hon Murray McCully, and Hon Tim Groser regarding New Zealand’s ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

    Like you, I also believe that ratifying UNCAC would be advantageous. Ratification of the Convention is important to ensure New Zealand retains its international reputation for transparency, integrity, and trustworthiness, which can have flow-on economic benefits for the country.

    It is for these reasons that I have announced a package of legislative reforms that will allow New Zealand to ratify UNCAC. the reforms will be progressed as part of an Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill which I intend to introduce into Parliament later in 2013.

    As you may be aware, it is the policy of the New Zealand Government that binding treaty actions such as ratification is not taken until New Zealand’s domestic law is compliant with the treaty obligations. As you state in your letter, only minor amendments are necessary to bring New Zealand into compliance with the UNCAC obligations.

    The Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill will contain the required amendments. After the Bill is passed and the changes are enacted, officials will promptly take steps to deposit New Zealand’s instrument of ratification of UNCAC.

    Yours sincerely,

    Hon Judith Collins
    Minister of Justice.”

    NZ Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill

    http://www.transparency.org.nz/docs/2013/Hon-Judith-Collins-Minister-of-Justice-Letter-to-TINZ.pdf

    Please be reminded of your press release of 18 October 2013:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1310/S00301/bill-supports-zero-tolerance-for-organised-crime.htm

    Bill supports zero-tolerance for organised crime

    Friday, 18 October 2013, 10:03 am
    Press Release: New Zealand Government
    Hon Judith Collins

    Minister of Justice

    18 October 2013 Media Statement

    Bill supports zero-tolerance for organised crime

    Justice Minister Judith Collins says the Government’s comprehensive approach to fighting all forms of organised crime will help safeguard New Zealand’s economy, international reputation and public safety.

    This month a number of international bodies are evaluating New Zealand’s compliance with international standards related to financial crimes – including the OECD, which will report on New Zealand’s compliance with an international convention to combat bribery of foreign public officials.

    “I welcome the release of these reports.

    This Government takes all forms of organised crime and corruption very seriously,” Ms Collins says.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.3news.co.nz/New-laws-to-fight-organised-crime/tabid/1607/articleID/317781/Default.aspx
    New laws to fight organised crime
    Friday 18 Oct 2013 10:33a.m.

    The Government will bring in a bill before the end of the year to strengthen laws against money laundering, identity theft, human trafficking and corruption.
    Justice Minister Judith Collins says she intends to have a comprehensive set of laws in place to fight all forms of organised crime.
    “It’s important to consider bribery and corruption within the big picture of organised crime, which undermines public safety, national security, economic development and good governance,” she said today.
    “This bill will help ensure New Zealand maintains its reputation as a responsible international citizen and that our domestic law enforcement agencies have the tolls they need to fight all forms of organised crime.”
    _______________________________________________

    Unfortunately, it is now May 2014, and your Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill, has STILL not been presented to Parliament:

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/?Criteria.Keyword=Organised+Crime+and+Anti-Corruption+Legislation+Bill%2C&Criteria.Timeframe=&Criteria.Parliament=-1&Criteria.DocumentType=&Criteria.Status=&Search=Go

    Legislation
    Bills
    This section lists bills before the House and its committees, and provides access to more detailed information about each one. You will also find the schedule of divided bills and progress of legislationhere. To find out more about bills before select committees, see the committee business summary.

    Close Bills search
    Keyword

    Date

    Parliament

    Document type

    Status

    No documents were found
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST:

    Please provide the information which explains why your ‘Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill’, has STILL not been presented to Parliament.

    Yours sincerely,
    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    Penny, are you going to be writing to Metiria Turei and advise her to sell her Comvita shares ( declared in her list of ‘interests”) ? Comvita sell product to Oravita just like Sandford’s sell some of their scampi to them as you noted in your rave on GD earlier.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kea (12,837 comments) says:

    This would not even be news compared with the epic corruption under Clark. She retrospectively changed laws to legalise her criminal activities and tampered with the NZ constitution to hamper a religious minority supporting a party of their choice. Other highlights included art forgery for a pecuniary advantage.

    Where was the lefty gutter press outrage then ? Collins biggest problem is she is a red blooded woman who actually likes men. This offends the left greatly.

    I do not like Collins much personally, but she is a saint compared to where we have come from !

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I seem to remember all of those issues being extensively covered by the press, Kea. Perhaps you were still too young to read the newspapers back then.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    errrr….. ‘Right Now’ I was being physically assaulted by Police at the time – perhaps you need to look a little closer at the video?

    But – all good!

    Ended up being one of the two successful Appellants in the Occupy Auckland vs Auckland Council Appeal :)

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    anticorruptionnz
    I attacked your erroneous contentions and factual inaccuracies – none of which you have been able to rebut.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Keeping Stock (10,339 comments) says:

    Hey Penny; you do realise that Braunias writes piss-takes, don’t you?

    Doh ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Bad__Cat (140 comments) says:

    Thanks, Keeping Stock, for those two clips. They were priceless! I admit to feeling a little pissed at the treatment being ladled out to Judith Collins by the MSM and labour/greens/nzfirst.

    The clips cheered me up no end.

    JK was in great form, and the sad thing is that the MSM will never publish them, so Joe Lunchbox will never see the sheer hypocrisy of Cunliffe and Norman.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kea (12,837 comments) says:

    milky, by press you mean Pravda ? There was no free press under the Klarken beast. This has not changed since she went to the UN. The European press could not believe how controlling she was and the demands made of them.

    Sorry to reveal the truth about your revered leader of the communist party.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    thank you kiwi in America

    so if my statements are in accurate could you please provide the evidence as to why it is so , it would appear that I have referred to factual documents , its easy to stand back and yell crap so please put your evidence where your mouth is tell me why my statements are wrong and provide the evidence to support your view . I am very happy to admit that I am wrong if some one shows me why .

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    I’ve done that in my posts Grace – you’ve made a number of assertions that are just plain inaccurate and I’ve pointed them out.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    “Ended up being one of the two successful Appellants in the Occupy Auckland vs Auckland Council Appeal ”

    Now Penny, that is not altogether true and you know it.

    The primary argument that you advanced was that the bylaw was ultra vires (contrary to BORA) and that no injunction should have issued. You lost that. The court found that the injunction against you was justified.

    You personally argued that the Council was motivated by bad faith because you had different political views. This argument was rejected out of hand.

    The appeal was allowed because the injunction went further than was necessary and sought to restrain unknown people at an unknown time in different circumstances. The court discharged the injunction and made a conscious decision not to reframe the injunction because everybody had left and it would serve no purpose. In blunt terms, you lost. The unforeseeable transgressor won and you wasted the court’s time with your argument over political motivation.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    @ kiwi in America sorry see your opinion dont see the facts

    besides Davids name is Wong-Tung

    As a fraud investigator I know more about companies than you think and I see many dodgy ones .People use them as a means of evading their legal obligations to tax etc just like they do phantom trusts.

    I believe in truth and transparency. Had Collins admitted that she was visiting the company her husband was director of it would have been a different issue .

    For your information I have been cleaned out due to corruption. You could also ask why the issue of a fictional Law enforcement authority is not considered noteworthy. FYI this was a labour initiative, but apparently National have condoned it as much as labour did.

    NZ the country where you can even write legislation for your own business plan then use a fraudulent document to get law enforcement powers for an organisation which does not exist. then give it an appearance of existence by using council premises and resources to derive an income for yourself.

    We need to ratify the UN convention against corruption but first we have to clean up our act .. starting with Collins.

    I have done my share of exposing corruption and paid the price so if these other events worry you why dont you blow the whistle.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. stigie (1,183 comments) says:

    Penny, i to saw that video, there was no abuse by the police, thought they treated you with complete respect.

    Most of the country wouldnt after seeing that debacle !~

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    A nation’s leader should act in a manner that commands respect. Despite who voted him in power, he should show respect for all New Zealanders. He should be a person that our young can look up to, and see dignity, maturity and respectability. When there is comment to be made, he should do so in a manner that also shows respect to the objects of his criticism.

    We expect from him more than we do from others, and we do that because he is out leader, a senior statesman, a person that represents us all.

    Can any of you honestly say that the person you see on the clips from Parliament today, show any signs of that sort of person?

    Key’s performance was disgraceful, considering his position.

    Yes, labours taunts needed answering but for our leader to be witnessed screaming, taunting, and acting like a giggly school girl, calling people sunshine, and laughing at his own harsh taunts with a smug look of a playground thug, is pathetic. What a shocking example of leadership.

    So Collins has had a health scare – with her experience she should have taken leave to sort her issues out – that is what is expected of a senior politician, – the wisdom to make sensible decisions. So now we are all expected to overlook her acts of deceit and say all is forgiven because she was ‘sick’ (but didn’t tell anyone)? I have never seen Collins give any slack to anyone else with such troubles – I sincerely hope she applies some of the same personal standards to herself, and doesn’t expect special treatment either.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. RF (1,397 comments) says:

    Christ.. Some of these anti Govt posts are boring. Build a bridge and get over it……. Watching Grant “Chubby Bum” on TV during the last few days. How come a sweet wee thing can be such an ill informed tosser.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Duxton (651 comments) says:

    @ anticorruption at 3.58pm:

    “….I cant get near her for an appointment….”

    Maybe that’s because you are a fecking nutcase.

    Bugger off, and talk to someone who cares.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. spanish_tudor (80 comments) says:

    Ross12 (965 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 4:45 pm
    anticorruptionnz

    ” But the trip to China was paid by the tax payer ”

    I bet Helen Clark did not pay for her trip to Auckland to open the new law office. ( nothing wrong with that either –she was probably on other official work in Auckland at the time)

    What official work – as Head of the UNDP – would Clark have here? NZ has no need of her and her ‘Programme’?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    errrr. ….. anonymous /gutless NINCOMPOOP I think most folk with more than 2 brain cells to rub together would see that the decision of High Court Judge Ellis to discharge the injunction would be seen as a victory???

    Did you perhaps miss this?

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/occupy-auckland-protesters-win-appeal-against-eviction-ruling-5361876

    Read the decision for yourself (if you are able?)

    (Meant of course in a caring way :)

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/?p=113

    Summary

    [84] In summary, I consider that:

    (a) The clauses of Bylaw 20 at issue in this case prima facie interfere with the rights contained in ss 14, 16 and 17 of NZBORA and cannot be given an interpretation that is consistent with those rights in their“fullest sense”; and

    (b) On balance, and having regard to the guidelines contained in cl 20.6as to the grant of event permits, cl 20.6.1(a) (which in general terms provides that an event permit must be obtained before undertaking an organised protest in a public place) constitutes a justified limit on those rights in terms of NZBORA s 5; and

    (c) The fact that the restrictions in cl 20.6.1(a) constitute a justified limit on the relevant NZBORA rights obviates the need to consider whether the other clauses of the Bylaw can also be justified; but

    (d) The general terms of the injunction sought and obtained also gofurther than was necessary in the circumstances and, insofar as theinjunction purports to restrain future breaches by the protestors of the Bylaw, it cannot be justified under NZBORA s 5.

    [85] The appeal is therefore allowed to the extent of my conclusion in [82]( d)above. Counsel (including the counsel for the Attorney-General, if he wishes) are tofile memoranda as to the terms of any consequential orders required. In particular, I
    wish counsel to address whether the injunction can simply now be quashed (in light of the fact that the occupation had ceased some 1 0 months before the hearing of this appeal) or whether it should be varied in accordance with the conclusions I have reached.

    Rebecca Ellis J
    _________________________________________________________________________________

    The injunction was subsequently ‘quashed’.

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. doggone7 (801 comments) says:

    Adolf Fiinkensein: “I do hope Ms Collins brings a formal complaint to the Speaker concerning Robertson’s lying to the house on this issue.”

    She won’t. As Confucius said just after a private dinner, “Anyone who lies in Parliament should not complain about someone else lying.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    I think the fact Oravida paid a big donation to the national party just after their products cleared customs means handsup Justice minister to me

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. freemark (580 comments) says:

    God, there are 3 hypocritical, hysterical & quite mental women droning on in this thread. They appear very envious of successful National Politicians. Maybe they should get off the Internet and back to the kitchen or bedroom or wherever we don’t have to lisgten to their pathetic bleating. Some of their hag fags should join them.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Pete George (23,560 comments) says:

    martinh – how often do you think Oravida products clear border control in China?

    According to Corrie Den Haring the effective shelf life of milk product once it reaches China is about ten days and if it has less than 30% or 50% shelf life left it is automatically recorded as a failure. Some of the testing was taking up to eight days. Work that out.

    I very much doubt milk companies had only one shipment to China last year. I suspect that if they make a donation there’s a fairly good chance a shipment will have cleared border control soon before or after.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    This article doesnt say if the milk held up was only the flavoured type.
    Why wouldnt they of cleared the standard milk and just held on to the flavoured for further testing

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Pete
    Im not sure how many shipments, but why would they go and put a big picture of that cleared december shipment on their website? Seems to me like that was the first, or first major one that got in and then came the National party donation.

    Also i dont know if i can take Corries explanation as well informed. I mean whats his actual answer 30% or 50 %, how long does the milk go off- about ten days or how many more days then ten days. How long is the testing too Corrie- up to 8 days so how often is it done in say 5days? So work that out Pete- that shipment could quite easily of being done and cleared within the parameters mentioned by Corrie, but it didnt, i suspect it didnt as it didnt have Oravida on its label.

    I expect better of you and DPF

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “Why wouldnt they of cleared the standard milk and just held on to the flavoured for further testing”

    Exactly, and Corrie Den Haring even said “Some products going to Ruimi Foods in Guangzhou were blocked” – which implies that other products weren’t blocked.

    “Also i dont know if i can take Corries explanation as well informed. ”

    Probably because you’ve only read of his explanation as reported in the media. Have you contacted him and asked him for a detailed explanation? It seems pretty obvious that if anyone here is not well informed it would have to be you.

    Do you ever search for information independently of what you’ve been drip-fed, or do you prefer to whine until someone else finds the facts and serves them to you all nicely presented with a sprig of parsley and a tomato wedge?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Right Now
    I havent contacted Corrie, im responding to what Pete and DPF are saying he said. Id be surprised if both of them have got it wrong , but i will find the article and listen to it myself.
    If this is what hes said then i would have to say he is very poorly informed since he can only provide an answer of say 30 – 50% as that is very unspecific and as such gives o weighting to him coming on the radio to provide a rebuttal

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. double d (225 comments) says:

    Judith. Your hatred of Key is really sad. Personalising politics is just plain sad. Assess based on what you see and hear – not what you feel.
    Also getting very bitter and nasty about Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    RightNow
    As expected i checked what Corrie has said and Pete George has accurately provided the transcript, so what more can i say, the guy is not well informed and did not inform the listeneers with anything that showed this was not favouritism.
    As i said his figures are very inaccurate and dont do any sort of justice as a proper rebuttal.

    Also you mention that some products got through, dont you think that Corrie would of made mention if it was standard milk that had got through?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    RIghtNow
    “Do you ever search for information independently of what you’ve been drip-fed, or do you prefer to whine until someone else finds the facts and serves them to you all nicely presented with a sprig of parsley and a tomato wedge?”
    Is that the best you have got, to try and throw scatty girly quotes at me instead of arguing the points i had raised that his figures are very inaccurate and thus do not provide any sound evidence for his rebuttal. He makes a mockery of himself

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    RightNow’s not big on analysis.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    martinh: “instead of arguing the points i had raised … ”

    And yet you haven’t argued any of the points I had raised.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    @mikey, whatever your civil service job is I would presume by now you have been promoted to your level of incompetence. All you ever post here is lukewarm half digested baby food, I’ll make a point to call you out on it more often.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Penny.

    I appreciate that you are not accustomed to rational debate and that you much prefer the logically fallacious tactic of personal abuse and vilification. Perhaps you could bear with me for a few minutes and answer some relatively straightforward questions.

    1. Was it the main thrust of the appellant’s argument that the bylaw was contrary to BORA and was therefore ultra vires? A simple answer (yes or no) should suffice.

    2. Is it not a fact that the court found that the bylaw was a justifiable restraint on the rights sought to be preserved by the Bill of Rights Act? I will give you a clue. Read the passage that you quoted above.

    3. Did the court find that the appeal should be allowed solely on the basis that it sought to restrain events that had not happened and may not happen and that an appropriate injunction should be restricted to dealing with the occupation as it existed at the time? Again, I will give you another clue. Read the paragraphs just before the ones that you have quoted (i.e. the paragraphs that you very selectively omitted from your post above).

    4. When the injunction was eventually discharged, is it not a fact that the occupation had terminated, there was no longer an issue and there was no point in reframing the injunction as I said in my earlier post? I will give you yet another clue. Read the passage that you have quoted above.

    5. Did you try to argue that the Council was motivated by bad faith and that it was picking on you because you were a political activist? Did you attempt to produce evidence to that effect (despite not having put it to the main council witness that the Council was politically motivated)?

    6. Is it not true that the court chided you for failing to put the main thrust of your case to the council witness and unfairly prevented the Council from answering the allegation from the witness box and completely rejected your allegation of improper motive?

    Can you point to a single statement that I made in my earlier post that is incorrect?

    Whether you won or not is a matter of opinion. You will obviously take the view that because the injunction was discharged, you won. I take a different view.

    If you return to that reserve and set up camp again, the council knows that it will be able to get an injunction and it will be able to have you removed.

    The Court has clearly define the parameters and has held that the bylaw is lawful and can be enforced by injunctive relief. The only reason why the injunction was discharged and not reframed is that you had vacated.

    You won on a technicality. It was a pyrrhic victory. However, in substance, you lost. The Council was justified in passing the bylaw. The Council was justified in seeking an injunction. An injunction, properly framed, was found to be an appropriate remedy. Your allegation that there was a malicious or political motivation was dismissed out of hand.

    In my view, the victory was hollow. You can abuse me uphill and down dale to your hearts content. The reality of the decision is that there will not be another similar occupation of the reserve and you know it. .

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    RightNow
    I responded to all your ones at 8.26.
    Are there other things you are needing put right too? What time was the post?
    I answered Pete Georges too and he is seemingly convinced by the answer

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    martinh, clearly you need someone to take you by the hand and walk you step by step through analysis (see that mikey, I’m helping our poor enfeebled friend with some analysis) of Corrie Den Haring’s statement:

    Corrie Den Haring: It is not the same two litre bottles just simply with a different label. First of all Ruimi Food’s was taking what’s called enriched milk. They were taking flavoured milk, particularly strawberry and chocolate milks as well as standard white milk in various bottled formats.

    Oravida at that stage were simply taking two litre milk with their label on it.

    Some products going to Ruimi Foods in Guangzhou were blocked, and that was through extra testing that was done, namely the strawberryv chocolate and calcium milks that actually took longer than the shelf life of the product.

    So martinh you might actually have some insight here as to how to take the meaning of this statement, but on evidence to date we’ll just take it for granted that you don’t. What Corrie has said here is that some of Ruimi’s products were blocked. Now you might be under the impression that when Corrie said some, he really meant all, but I can assure you from my analysis (there you go mikey, more analysis) of the way Corrie conducts himself in an interview that he has chosen his words to mean what he says, which may be a bit foreign to you martinh because you seem to have this comprehension difficulty (or you’re just mentally lazy). Now if some of the products were blocked because “extra testing that was done”, “namely the strawberryv chocolate and calcium milks” then it would logically follow (and again here I’m drawing on my amazing powers of analysis to understand the English language as used so adeptly by Corrie Den Haring) that some of Ruimi’s products were not blocked and that what was not blocked was products other than the strawberry, chocolate and calcium milks… which would be (drawing on my university education in argument and analysis) STANDARD WHITE MILK!

    So from that logical process we can conclude that Corrie was saying (clearly to those of us who speak English as a first language) that Ruimi’s standard white milk was not blocked as alleged.

    And there you have it my imbeciles, the walk-through for dummies. Any questions that I can’t answer with “harden the fuck up”?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Rightnow
    Corries whole reason for coming on Radio was to say that Oravida had had no favouritism. You say that reading between the lines of what Corrie says means that their standard milk got through.
    Dont you think if that was the case then Corrie would of said that straight out as that would of nailed his argument home. however he dioesnt say that, he leaves that open to interpretation to make it seem as though that could be the case. It could be any other type of product that got through.

    If it was the case he would of said so, so put up or shut up Corrie, dont give me more inaccuracies too like 30 or 50 % or ten days or so 8 days or less.

    See Rightnow- as ive argued none of what Corrie says is accurate factual information and just leads to people reading their own interpretations into it. Until Corrie informs us properly with facts that are accurate and not open to wide interpretation then what he said was i think a useless rebuttal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Rightnow
    Until Corrie says that the standard milk was not blocked from Ruimi then the issue still stands.
    He can name ones which were blocked so he should surely of named standard milk if it wasnt blocked.

    Also Corries level of demand isnt exact as for example the flavoured milk got blocked so was that supply of milk demanded from his firm, does Oravida supply flavoured milk? i dont think so!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    So how have you sought to clarify this to settle it in your mind martinh? Because I’ve read the transcript and come to the clear conclusion I laid out previously. You seem to be getting tripped up by him not saying it simply enough for you to reach a conclusion, in which case I exhort you to seek to clarify what he said. But this is where I get annoyed with you, you make out that it’s someone else who is inaccurate or hasn’t clearly stated their case, and then it turns out that it is your comprehension at fault.

    “Until Corrie says that the standard milk was not blocked from Ruimi then the issue still stands.”
    Only in your head mate. The rest of us aren’t going to wait for you to catch up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Rightnow
    Ive listened to enough politicians to know when something is not clearly stated to not expect what you thought they were meaning to be correct.
    And yes i know hes not a politican but its made me sceptical of others too.
    All im saying is that the fact he doesnt come out and say that directly makes me believe what he says as much as i would of anything said from Graham Douglas or Cunliffe.
    None of what corrie says says to me that the standard milk was cleared, you are making assumptions…
    Assumptions- the mother of all fuckups

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Rightnow
    Ps it was a poor job by the interviewer to not clarify.
    Maybe DPF can email Corrie and get the proof that you think Corrie has. Or ring up Ruimi and get the customs documents

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “None of what corrie says says to me that the standard milk was cleared”
    Meh – I don’t think your understanding is of great import.

    “you are making assumptions…” uh yeah, the assumption that when Corrie said some he actually meant some. You’ve clearly assumed that when he said some he really meant all. English can be an extremely complex language, but that bit was quite simple. Put a bit of effort into it, you might get the hang of it.

    “Maybe DPF can email Corrie and get the proof that you think Corrie has. Or ring up Ruimi and get the customs documents”
    Maybe you could do that since you’re the one taking exception. Like I said before, stop expecting people to present you with the facts all nicely presented with a sprig of parsley and a tomato wedge?
    You’ve worked out how to comment on a blog, it’s not really such a big step to search out someone’s email address and send them an email.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Rightnow
    Im not assuming that at all.
    Im just assuming that when he says some products got through that that could mean or not mean any of Ruimis products.
    See he didnt name that it was the standard milk, you are the one who has made assumptions and thats because Corrie is ambiguous..

    Why dont you ask Corrie, show me and the group how good you are at it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Rightnow.
    If you can get documents that show that Ruimi was getting standard milk through then i will agree with you and pete and DPF that there is no issue here, Until then i think that Corrie is just being ambiguous to support his customer supplying China.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    martinh, you seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives enough of a fuck to do your research for you. The matter is not being pursued in the house by Labour (as you would know if you had watched today’s house proceedings) and I consider it resolved. Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.

    Although I do agree with you that it was a poor job by the interviewer not to seek clarification, but I suspect she was afraid she wouldn’t like the answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Nostalgia-NZ (5,202 comments) says:

    Nookin has spent a lot of time explaining Penny’s appeal. I guess it is interesting for him to point out why it is a victory for Penny for some reasons but not others. A sort of you win but you don’t win. I’m glad that is all sorted out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Nostalgia-NZ (5,202 comments) says:

    ‘In my view, the victory was hollow. You can abuse me uphill and down dale to your hearts content. The reality of the decision is that there will not be another similar occupation of the reserve and you know it. .’

    I like this bit, nothing like rounding things off by explaining to people what they know. Mind reading is becoming particularly popular, in fact is reaching 17th Century levels. Way to go with the bonfires.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    Kea, could you tell me please: Which newspapers, magazines, radio or TV form the “lefty gutter press”?

    I await your response with great interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Pete George (23,560 comments) says:

    @martinh: “I answered Pete Georges too and he is seemingly convinced by the answer”

    That’s a nonsense assumption. Me not responding should not convince you of anything other than I had not responded. I have only just read your answers and I’m far from convinced by them, especially when you make assumptions like this.

    “Corries whole reason for coming on Radio was to say that Oravida had had no favouritism. “:

    Another assumption I presume. How do you know this? Isn’t it possible that Radio NZ thought he would be someone who would know something about it and approached him for an interview?

    If his “whole reason for coming on Radio was to say that Oravida had had no favouritism” why didn’t he say this much sooner in the interview and emphasise it much more? He wouldn’t have known how long the interview would have gone for, especially if he is aware of Mary Wilson’s abruptness.

    Corrie wasn’t able to give detailed answers to everything, there is never time for that in a short interview.

    You have chosen to criticise Corrie for not having precise details on everything – you quibbled over one minor uncertainty which made no difference to the bulk of what was being discussed.

    “Maybe DPF can email Corrie and get the proof that you think Corrie has. Or ring up Ruimi and get the customs documents”

    Shouldn’t Grant Robertson have got the proof and known precisely all the details he was making accusations about? It seems obvious he didn’t and he was making up an accusation based on very little detail.

    Isn’t Robertson the one who should be criticised here? He is the one who should have got proof before putting out an accusation in a media release.

    I put this information to Robertson on several occasions yesterday and he chose to not respond. He hasn’t contested any details and as far as I’m aware he hasn’t said any more about this accusation.

    Nothing on Twitter.
    No more media releases.
    Nothing in Question Time in Parliament on Tuesday or Wednesday when Labour were throwing everything they had at Collins and Key.
    I haven’t seen anything in news reports (I’ve just searched).

    The most likely conclusions are that Robertson either made a poorly researched accusation, or he deliberately made an accusation he knew to be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Pete
    Yep i agree poor work by Robertson, not surprised by that with what comes out of Labour lately.
    Im just not convinced that standard milk to Ruimi was cleared from Corries response.
    Yes i quibble over details, but thats where the devil is as that detail showed flavoured milk could of being cleared within the wide varying paraneters Corrie gave.
    Corrie would of being made aware of what the questioning was about before he came on. He just doesnt have a thorough grasp of this subject in my opinion.
    I dont think Roberston researched this properly and jumped the gun but that doesnt mean they are wrong, theres just not enough precise facts for me to decide that.
    So im just arguing sitting on the fence over it until i see proof either way. If Corrie had said Ruimis standard milk got through no problems then that would of done it for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Pete
    My conclusion is If Robertson put out deliberately misleading info then he should be mocked out of his breaucratic lifelong career, my assumption at present is he wouldnt be quite that perverse and it was just poor research

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Pete George (23,560 comments) says:

    martinh – my guess is that after Collins showed extreme vulnerability in the weekend Labour rushed into trying to stick the dagger in, and failed to do their research properly. Hence it all fizzled on Tuesday with Mallard in particular flailing in his eagerness/desperation to score a big hit.

    The result is it took the heat off Collins rather than applying more pressure.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Pete
    Yeah and Cunliffe gave that Mallard a promotion. The same git who was caught being shifty scalping tickets even though he borought in the anti scalping law.

    I really hope the latest Roy Morgan poll isnt right

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Pete
    Anyhow thanks for the post, shows me that Labour party has not got good research going on, i dont agree with their kiwisaver plan as i belive thats not researched properly too

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. lilman (959 comments) says:

    Penny, pay up now please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    PG, I saw what that idiot did over at the Standard.
    Robust debate, eh?

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