Kiwiblog

Chris Hipkins just doesn’t learn and continues to misrepresent. He blogged today:

My post yesterday on John Key’s non-answer to some of my written parliamentary questions certainly got the Key apologists worked up. When Key does finally front up with the answers I’ll post the info here and people can then judge whether they were fair questions to ask.

The Key apologists seem to have forgotten that National MPs used to routinely ask tricky questions of the then Labour government. One of their favourites was to ask about staff Christmas parties and presents. Most government departments do some sort of end of year function for their staff, so National’s questions were basically intended to find examples of where they’d gone a bit over the top so that they could shout from the rooftops about “waste”.

This is a red herring. I have not once said the Opposition should not ask questions. It is an important right. But responsibilities go with rights. And you look like a whining wally when you file 4,000 questions in one day, and then complain they are not all answered within the five day target.

Incidentally I am told staff in the Office of the Clerk were forced to work until 11 pm to get all the 4,000 questions asked by Labour MPs onto the website. This would not have happened if they were organised or considerate enough to lodge them over a period of time.

Chris again fails to mention he and his colleagues have asked almost as many questions to the Minister of Ministerial Services in two weeks, than Helen Clark had over three years. And he commits further truth abuses.

Interestingly, they aren’t so keen to answer now that the shoe is on the other foot. I asked a written question of each Minister that’s almost identical to one Brownlee, McCully etc used to ask and they have all come back with the same answer: “The question the member asks relates to an operational matter which is the responsibility of the Chief Executive.”

Interesting to note that when Labour was the government and National was the opposition the questions were OK, but now that National is in government they seem to think a lower standard of accountability should apply.

Chris must think people are stupid and/or do not know how to do searches of the PQ database.

Searching the 2005-2008 Government for the phrase “responsibility of the Chief Executive” finds Ministers used it 745 times. So when Chris tries to lie that there is some “lower standard of accountability” he is being a prize hypocrite.

For those who like percentages, the 2005 to 2008 Labour Government used that response to 1.4% of questions. The National led Government has used it 162 times, which is 0.7% of questions. So Labour used that response twice as often as National.

But it gets worse when you look at the Prime Ministers. John Key has not used that response once, for the 739 questions he has had (all portfolios).

Helen Clark got asked only 569 questions over three years (around one quarter of the number asked of Key per annum) and used the phrase Chris Hipkins complains about on 25 occassions, which is 4.4% of the time.

At this point I must mention that before he became an MP, Chris Hipkins worked in Helen Clark’s office. He in fact probably wrote or approved the very answers that he is now complaining about.

How lucky we are not in Parliament, so people can use the H word.

Now again to keep it simple, here are the percentages for parties and PMs in using the “responsibility of the Chief Executive” dodge:

1. Helen Clark 4.4%
2. Labour 1.4%
3. National 0.7%
4. John Key 0.0%

I do so hope Chris carries on whining like this. It is such fun pointing out the facts.

Tags: Chris Hipkins, Parliament, PQs

Labour MP Chris Hipkins blogs:

On the 8th of December I lodged a number of Written Parliamentary Questions to John Key in his capacity as Minister Reponsible for Ministerial Services. They all involved spending on services provided to ministers (eg. self-drive cars, VIP cars, ministerial housing etc). I had assumed that given the “Double Dipton” debacle they’d be keen to be seen as open and transparent.

So far John Key has replied to all of them with the same answer: “I am unable to provide the member with the information requested in the timeframe available. I will provide the member with the answer as soon as possible.”

All of the questions were lodged on the 8th of December, so he’s already had several weeks. In almost all cases there are examples of similar questions having been asked of Helen Clark in the past. I’m sure John Key isn’t going to argue that he should be subject to a lower standard of accountability than his predecessor, so I’ll look forward to getting his answers before he takes off for his holiday in Hawaii.

A snide wee post from Chris where he laves out certain key information. And we won’t even touch on his assertion that a period of 12 days is “several weeks” except to comment this proves the case for national standards in numeracy.

Now the first big omission from Chris is how many questions Helen Clark got as Minister of Ministerial Services. Over an entire three year term from 2005 to 2008, she got 150 – an average of one a week.

And how many have Chris and his mates submitted in just December 2009? 128!!!!

I am all for Ministers answering parliamentary questions – they are important. But frankly you look like a wally if you file 128 questions in the weeks before Xmas (and during a time when the PM is known to be overseas) and then complain that you don’t get replies promptly.

Also important to note is that many of the questions are not ones seeking just one item of information – ie something one staffer can do in under an hour. Some examples are:

How much office or administation area was leased by Departments, Ministries or Crown Entities for which they are responsible in the 2008/09 year listed by department/ministry/crown entity, building name, total area leased and rental cost?

How many days sick leave was taken by staff in each of the Departments, Ministries or Crown entities for which they are responsible for each month in 2009?

What was the total cost to date of petrol for ministerial self-drive cars received by their minister on or after 19 November 2008 and how does that figure break down by month?

Just imagine the scores and scores of hours it will take to compile that sort of information for 128 questions.

Now I am a firm defender of the right for the Opposition to ask these questions and gain the info. But frankly they should not expect to get 128 replies within a couple of weeks and have only themselves to blame for not asking earlier, or spreading them out more evenly.

Again remember, Chris and his colleagues have almost asked more in two weeks than Helen Clark got in three years for this portfolio – a piece of information he forgot to mention in his little snideness.

Tags: Chris Hipkins, Parliament, PQs

We have a $10 billion deficit, and Labour still wants to spend even more. And Chris Hipkins details the priorities:

I visited a Day Skipper course for people who were interested in boating. Now this does fit the definition of a hobby course, but it’s actually providing a valuable public service. Which would you rather see the taxpayer subsidising, a cheap course or more search and rescue operations when amateur boaties get themselves into trouble?

My visits to a floral arranging course, a stained glass window course and a Spanish course all reinforced the tremendous social value night classes bring to the wider community.

I’m speechless. Floral arranging. Stained glass windows. Spanish. How to be a day skipper. This is what Labour wants to borrow and tax more money from workers for.

Chris did also mention a painter doing an excel course. While that is laudable, there is a sensible business imperative for people in business to take such courses regardless of taxpayer subsidies.

I continue to be staggered at the judgement of Labour MPs who highlight stained glass window courses and floral arranging courses as part of their campaign. I almost wish there was an election in a few weeks, just so one could have creative fun doing TV ads showing what Labour’s priorities are. Hell given time over summer, maybe we can shoot our own ads.

Hat Tip: Gooner at No Minister

Tags: Adult Community Education, Chris Hipkins, government spending, Labour

This is from today’s Herald. The only small problem is that that they have run a photo of Chris Hipkins in the place of Grant Robertson, and they really are not twins!

Maybe Grant needs to pop around the gallery a photo of himself to help with future identification.

As a public service for Grant, Kiwiblog is pleased to run this photo of him, so people do not confuse him with Chris Hipkins in future.

Tags: Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson

My general stance on OIA requests and PQs is that Ministers should look to comply in a timely manner with their obligations. Yes they can be annoying fishing expeditions, but that is the price of an open Government.

So I have had some sympathy for Chris Hipkins inability to get answers out of Richard Worth.

However upon reading that Chris has filed a massive 1,500 questions already, and how braod they are, my sympathies are starting to lean back. I’m not advocating MPs should have a limit on how many they can ask, but the broadness of Hipkins’ request is very very wide. Tracy Watkins has details:

8530 (2008) Question: Chris Hipkins to the Minister of Internal Affairs (10 Dec 2008): What are the dates and titles of all reports, briefings and submissions he has received from the Department of Internal Affairs since 19 November 2008?

8532 (2008) Question: Chris Hipkins to the Minister of Internal Affairs (10 Dec 2008): Which stakeholder groups has he met with since becoming Minister for Internal Affairs and on what date did he meet them?

8533 (2008) Question: Chris Hipkins to the Minister of Internal Affairs (10 Dec 2008): Has he received any reports, briefings or submissions from any department, ministry or agency other than the Department of Internal Affairs since he became Minister, if so, what are the dates and titles of those reports?

8751 (2008): Chris Hipkins to the Minister of Internal Affairs (15 Dec 2008): What official engagements has the Minister had to date as Minister of Internal Affairs; for each, when did they occur, and what was the purpose?

Maybe National did this also, but asking every Minister for the details of every report, every meeting, and every engagement is getting close to abusive.

Now don’t get me wrong – National also did fishing expeditions – but normally more targeted ones in my memory. Stuff like “How many staff have credit cards and how much was charged to them in the last year”. This would then allow the MP to do a press release which would often get picked up.

Other questions I recall are “How many communications staffers does each agency have”. This then leads to a PR saying the Government has 872 spin doctors or whatever the amount is.

Personally if I was Chris, I would try asking more specific questions to Dr Worth, and seeing if he then got more helpful answers.

At the end of the day though an MP does have the right to ask these questions, and should get helpful answers, where practical. But as Tracy says there is a cost:

It might pay to remind MPs, however, that taxpayers are bearing the costs of this little game of cat and mouse – and the costs involved are by no means tiny.

MPs will often lodge dozens of questions, one to every minister, requiring information that, in some cases, can date back years. The man hours involved are staggering. Reams of bureaucrats have been employed throughout the public service in recent years whose jobs mostly involve responding to PQs.

My recommendation to Ministers is to do what Max Bradford did in the 1990s. Answer all questions submitted, but include in the answer the estimated cost of answering the question. And keep a running total so at the end of the year the taxpayers can find out how much money each MP has cost through PQs. That would provide an incentive to be more targeted with your requests.

Tags: Chris Hipkins, PQs

Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris

Did you notice everyone laughing at you today in the House?

That is because you referred to people as political hacks, when you yourself were a political hack for three Ministers. It’s like Paris Hilton calling someone a slut.

Even worse, you chose as your targets a former Deputy State Services Commissioner and two former Treasury Secretaries. So we had someone ehose entire life has been a student politician and a partisan Ministerial staffer, calling political hacks three of the most senior state sevants we have had who have 100 years experience between them.

Do you now understand why everyone was laughing? Not only is it like Paris Hilton calling someone a slut. It is like Paris Hilton calling Mother Theresa a slut.

Tags: Chris Hipkins

I had to laugh at this story in the Herald that has, of all people, Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins complaining about Ministerial purchase advisors.

Grant and Chris were both highly partisan ministerial staffers for a number of Labour Ministers, including the PM. Now nothing wrong with that – I was once upon a time also. But not the people I would then choose to act outraged over Ministerial purchase advisors.

The purchase advisors are not even that political. And they are not new – I recall some in the 1990s. What they are about, is every year the Minister signs a huge purchase agreement with their Department. The Departments authors and writes it. It is a bloody good idea for the Minister to have an independent advisor who can look for feather bedding etc. These people probably save the taxpayer huge amounts of money. They are not generally full-time staffers (like Robertson and Hipkins were) but they are contracted to do a specific job. They don’t even have an office in the Beehive.

Bill explains well the good these people do:

Mr English said the purchase advisers were experienced in the public sector and been most helpful to new ministers in showing them how the system worked – “which levers to pull, what the tricks are, and what the bureaucratic jargon means”.

“We did need some objective advice because the public service had been used to getting whatever it wanted and big increases in spending every year,” he said. “The benefits would be shown through in the Budget where he had been able to make significant savings. We have had to make a pretty sudden change to respond to the economic conditions and the ministers and the purchase advisers have done a very good job.”

I suspect each advisor pays for his or her salary 20 times over. Of course Labour would hate that – they are finding and cutting the waste they left behind.

Tags: Bill English, Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson, Labour, Ministerial Staff

The Herald profiles Labour MPs Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins plus National’s Jonathan Young.

Jacinda notes her Morrinsville roots:

She calls Morrinsville home – “a place that keeps me grounded”.

When she was asked if she was “a radical” because of her post as president of the International Union of Socialist Youth, she would reply: “I am from Morrinsville. Where I come from, a radical is someone who chooses to drive a Toyota over a Ford or Holden.”

Instead, she was a “social democrat. I believe what I believe, strongly – human rights, equality, social justice, the importance of community – and I do believe New Zealand has a role to play in promoting and defending these principles abroad.”

Chris is noted as:

Grew up in the Hutt Valley. The 80s economic reforms and stockmarket crash were pivotal in shaping his politics.

As Chris was nine years old when the stockmarket crashed, he must have been quite the economic prodigy.

Jonathan Young first visited Parliament at age seven:

Son of Venn Young, National MP for Egmont/Waitotara 1966-1990. Can remember coming to Parliament as a 7-year-old and meeting Prime Minister Keith Holyoake, and seeing the shoeshine stools in the men’s toilets (they are still there today) today, and the silver butter knives, bread rolls and fish in Bellamy’s.

I hope teh Herald keep up the profiles.

Tags: Chris Hipkins, Jacinda Ardern, Jonathan Young

Whanganui had a 3% lead in the party vote in 2005, and this expanded out to 22% in 2008. And the 3,500 majority for Borrows goes to 6,000.

Rangitikei sees a 25% lead in the party vote and Simon Power moves his majority from 9,000 to 11,000.

Tukituki has an 18% lead in the party vote, and a 2,600 majority for Craig Foss gets a boost thanks to Labour’s sacking of the local District Health Board to over 7,000.

Palmerston North has been held by Labour since 1978. The party vote was narrowly won by National but Labour’s Iain Lees-Galloway held off Malcolm Plimmer by 1,000 votes.

Wairarapa has National 17% ahead on the party vote. And John Hayes turns the seat safe with a 2,900 majority converting to 6,300 in 2008.

Otaki was a huge battle. I’ve door knocked Otaki in the past and it is not natural National territory in the Horowhenua parts. So winning the party vote by 8% is good for National after trailling by 3% last time. Darren Hughes put up a huge fight to protect his sub 400 majority but Nathan Guy grabbed the seat by almost 1,500.

In Wellington, Labour does a lot better starting with Mana. Labour remains 6% ahead on the party vote but reduced from 18% in 2005. Winnie Laban’s 6,800 majority shrinks only slightly to 5.300.

Rimutaka was the last hope for NZ First. Labour won the party vote there in 2005 by 11% and in 2008 by 0.3%. On the electorate vote just as narrow with Labour’s Chris Hipkins pipping Richard Whiteside by 600 votes. Ron Mark got a credible 5,000 votes but stll trailed by 7,000.

Hutt South is home to Wainuiomata and Trevor Mallard. Trevor delivered a party vote margin for Labour of 4% and a 3,600 majority for himself. In 2005 the party vote margin was 14% and the personal majority 6,600 so some movement there.

Rongotai is now the home of the Labour Deputy Leader. But even before her ascension, Rongotai gave Labour a massive 11% margin on the party vote – 43% to 32% for National. And her personal 13,000 majority in 2005 was only slightly dented to just under 8,000. If that is her low tide mark, she’ll be happy.

Wellington Central saw in 2005 a party vote for National of just 33%, Labour 43% and Greens around 16%. In 2008 it was National 36%, Labour 34% and Greens around 20%. Marian Hobbs had a 5,800 majority and Stephen Franks cut that to 1,500 against new MP Grant Robertson with some Green party votes giving Robertson their electorate vote to keep Franks out.

Ohariu was assumed by almost everyone to be safe as houses for Peter Dunne. But it got close this time. First on the party vote, National beat Labour 43% to 40% in 2005. This time it was 47% to 33%. On the candidate vote Peter Dunne dropped from 45% to 33% making him vulnerable. National’s Katrina Shanks lifted her vote from 21% to 26% and Labour’s Charles Chauvel from 26% to 30%. The Greens candidate got 7% of the vote and may have ironically saved the seat for Dunne.

Tags: Annette King, Charles Chauvel, Chester Borrows, Chris Hipkins, Craig Foss, Darren Hughes, Election 2008, Grant Robertson, Hutt South, Iain Lees-Galloway, John Hayes, Katrina Shanks, Malcolm Plimmer, Mana, Marian Hobbs, Nathan Guy, Ohariu, Otaki, Palmerston North, Peter Dunne, Rangitikei, Richard Whiteside, Rimutaka, Ron Mark, Rongotai, Simon Power, Stephen Franks, Trevor Mallard, Tukituki, Wairarapa, Wellington Central, Whanganui, Winnie Laban

Every columnist is talking Peters, so I’ll take them all together. First of all Bill Ralston:

Meanwhile, that same morning, Winston was somewhere in Auckland in his ministerial limousine going stratospheric. For a man who has spent weeks dodging questions from the “meerkat” media he did something extraordinary. He rang Radio New Zealand and thundered he would convince Clark to keep him and “she will know these allegations are vile, malevolent, evil and wrong”.

This is again hypocrisy of the highest degree. When National was investigated by the SFO in 2002, for a cheque which passed through a trust account, Peters got up in Parliament and alleged a former Party President had stolen money from the party, and took a “cut” to bail out his company. Now that is a vile, malevolent, evil allegation if I have heard one.So naturally Trevor Mallard also jumped on the bandwagon and repeated it. There was no one at all in the media or public suggesting such a thing – the possibility was invented by Peters and Mallard.

While all Peters has to do at this stage is explain why donations intended for his party are not recorded as having reached it. The $25,000 donation from Bob Jones should have been declared either under his own name, or under the name of the Spencer Trust.

So far the participants he has identified in this “vile conspiracy” against him include me, the NZ Herald, the Dominion Post, TVNZ, TV3, Radio NZ, the Radio Network, the SFO, Act, National, and big business (except for those big businessmen who have funded him).

Hey don’t forget us bloggers. I want to be part of the conspiracy! Is there a joining fee?

Deborah Coddington has a novel definition of the moral high ground:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs could easily have sashayed offshore to some vitally important meeting, and left the Prime Minister to stave off the attacks.

Which she does admirably, I must say, shrugging away the poke, poke, poke from John Key, claiming the moral high ground by conceding a conflict of evidence given to the Privileges Committee by Owen Glenn and Peters.

So admitting that she knew for six months Peters was lying, and admitting it just before Owen Glenn is about to reveal you knew, is claiming the moral high ground? Well I choose the moral low ground then.

Coddington also suggests a deal with Labout to give Rimutaka to NZ First:

But they’ve overlooked a new development. Ron Mark is standing in Rimutaka, Paul Swain’s old electorate.

After Winston, Mark is NZ First’s best-known MP, and has a large following. He’s NZ First through and through – tough on crime, anti-foreign investment, against sale of state assets, working-class hero, bad boy made good. He’s also a bloody nice guy and with a careful campaign, and has a good chance of taking that seat.

Was this pre-arranged all along? It’s just too cute for Labour to stand a young unknown with no prospect of winning in such a safe Labour seat.

I am not sure Labour regard a member of Clark’s personal staff as a no hoper with no chance of winning. And I am also unsure how calling someone a paedophile under parliamentary privilege sits with being a bloody nice guy.

Kerre Woodham opines:

In all cases, Peters has held up his hands and protested, like Sergeant Schultz, that he knows nothing. Bob Jones said Winston asked for some dosh at a party; Winston says that’s not what he remembers.

Owen Glenn says Winston rang him and asked him for a donation towards his fighting fund; Winston says that is not his recollection. At all times, Winston plays the victim card.

Actually Peters is now more like Colonel Klink with Helen Clark better suited for the role of “I know nothing” Schulz, as it turns out she knew all along.

I used to think the world of Winston, but it’s been a long time since I found him principled or amusing. His posturing that New Zealand First is the only party not to sully its hands with trust funds and big money donations can be seen for what it is – bullshit.

And yet it was all so unnecessary. If Peters had been honest and upfront from day one, who would have cared?

Since 1996, NZ First has declared almost no major donors. Doing so would harm their PR crafted image of being anti big business, when the truth is they were majorly funded by big business.

Finally we have the Herald on Sunday editorial:

Regardless of the outcome of the SFO investigation, Peters will remain a man in a political mire of his own creation. The allegations in Parliament by Act leader Rodney Hide that NZ First was paid by Simunovich Fisheries in return for Peters’ backing off claims that the allocation of scampi quota was corrupt have been around for so long that a high-level independent inquiry is called for. But on the matter of the donation by expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn, which is still being investigated by Parliament’s Privileges Committee, Peters continues to be evasive and pedantic. Glenn may have shown himself to be unreliable as to the details of times and places but he did give $100,000 and described it in an email as given “to NZ First”. If Peters did not know that on the day that the email first surfaced, he should have taken steps to discover and divulge all the facts immediately. Instead, he said everyone else was mistaken or a liar.

The HoS overlooks the fact that at a minimum Peters knew Glenn thought he had donated back in February 2008, when Clark told him so.

National leader John Key, plainly sensing that public patience is exhausted, made a bold move this week in saying that Peters would not be a cabinet minister in a National-led Government – by extension ruling out NZ First as a coalition partner.

This is less a challenge to Peters than it is to Prime Minister Helen Clark who, whatever she might say about the need to be fair, has known about the Glenn allegation for six months. In giving Peters enough rope to hang himself, she may have put herself in the noose as well.

Deservedly.

This week, the suggestion emerged that Ron Mark may stand as NZ First’s candidate in Rimutaka. A victory there could get the party two, or even three MPs – one of them the leader. Were Labour to connive at that, urging tactical voting to allow a NZ First victory in the hope of getting the numbers to form a coalition, Clark would confirm the suspicion she is now quite properly under: that she will turn a blind eye to Peters’ shenanigans to hold on to power.

The Rimutaka candidate, Chris Hipkins, works for Clark. Is it possible Clark will instruct him to endorse Ron Mark if they get desperate to ensure Winston’s survival?

She must match Key’s boldness by cutting Peters adrift and naming the election day. A campaign that consigns NZ First and its leader to the pages of history will allow the country to focus on important issues.

More importantly, it will treat Peters’ childish attention-seeking with the derision it deserves.

That would be nice. More likely is Clark will put Peters back into his portfolios as soon as she can.

Tags: Bill Ralston, Chris Hipkins, Deborah Coddington, Helen Clark, HoS, Kerre Woodham, Rimutaka, Ron Mark, Winston First