Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Hansards’

Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?! (part rua)

22 February 2013 10 comments

.

key's credibility takes a hit

.

Continued from: Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?!

From comments he made in Parliament, two day ago (20 February 2013),

20 February

John Key said:

It is pretty straightforward. Skycity, after it decided it would be prepared to enter an expression of interest process to have a larger convention centre, went off to its architects. Its architects designed such a thing, realised they needed more land, worked out who owned the land, and approached Television New Zealand…

[…]

I cannot speak for the Television New Zealand board, but I am finding it reasonably hard to believe that Television New Zealand entered a commercial agreement with Skycity to sell land that it owned, and it did so without its board knowing. If that happened, then maybe its board process needs to be improved, and maybe the mixed-ownership model would work for it…

Source*

Caught out fabricating facts over the Skycity and TVNZ non-land-deal, Dear Leader Key is backing away faster than an Aston Marton at top speed. The NZ Herald reports,

A spokesman for Mr Key said: The Prime Minister is happy to accept the assurances from TVNZ this morning that no approach has been made”.

Source

A “spokesman”?

Key tells a fib in the House.

Then get a Party functionary to front when he is caught out?

Not a good look for Mr Key.

At least now the media – both msm and bloggers – will be  scrutinising Key’s comments, even closer than before,  for the slightest hint of distortion or outright lie.

Such as Key claiming that he had been “vindicated” by the Auditor-General’s report. That was a distortion of  the Auditor-General’s findings.

As Toby Manhire, writing for ‘the Listener‘ said, the Auditor-General’s report on  Key’s Skycity dealings was anything but a ‘vindication’,

.

1. “We found a range of deficiencies in the advice provided and steps taken leading up to [the] decision.”

2. “Although decisions were made on the merits of the different proposals, we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even handed.”

3. “By the time it was expected that SkyCity would put a firm proposal to the Government for support, officials should have been working to understand and advise on the procedural obligations and principles that would need to govern the next steps. We found no evidence that officials were doing so at this stage.”

4. “The meetings and discussion between the Government representatives and SkyCity were materially different in quantity and kind from those between the Government and the other parties that responded.”

5. “SkyCity was treated very differently from the other parties that responded and the evaluation process effectively moved into a different phase with one party. In our view, the steps that were taken were not consistent with good practice principles of transparency and fairness.”

6. “Overall, we regard the EOI [expressions of interest] process in stage two as having been poorly planned and executed. Insufficient attention was given to planning and management of the process as a whole, so that risks were not adequately addressed and managed.”

7. “We did not see any evidence of formal discussions or decisions on the evaluation process and criteria, or mapping out of the basic options for what might happen next, or advice to Ministers on how the process would be managed and their involvement in it. We do not regard this as adequate for a project of this potential scale, complexity, and risk.”

8. “We have concluded that the preparation for the EOI process and the EOI document, fell short of good practice in a number of respects.”

9. “In our view, the result was that one potential submitter had a clearer understanding of the actual position on a critical issue – that the Government did not want to fund any capital costs – than any other potential submitters … We accept that it is unlikely that this flaw made a material difference to the outcome. However, we have spent some time discussing it because we regard it as symptomatic of the lack of attention to procedural risks, and therefore to the fairness and credibility of the process.”

10. “We are unable to comment on the value of any contribution the Government might make as part of any eventual agreement with SkyCity, because negotiations have not yet been concluded.”

.

Source

Sprung, again.

He is on notice; keep telling porkies and he’ll be sprung each time. A few more incidents like this, and the wide-spread public perception of Dear Leader will be one of someone not to be trusted.

This is something the public already suspected in November 2011, just prior to the election,

.

John Key - Safe hands, forked tongue

Source

.

*

.

* Note

Hansards can be “corrected” by MPs and Ministers. The comments quoted above were taken from Hansards at 5.20pm on 21 February, prior to any “amendments” being made. (see previous blogpost:  Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?!)

Previous related blogposts

Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?!

National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2

Sources

Fairfax media: John Key: Safe hands, forked tongue? (10 Nov 2011)

NZ Listener: The SkyCity convention centre deal: 10 quotes from the Auditor-General report (19 Feb 2013)

NZ Herald: Sky City report ‘deeply disturbing’ (20 Feb 2013)

NZ Herald: SkyCity: Key retreats from TVNZ land deal statements (21 Feb 2013)

.

.

= fs =

Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?!

21 February 2013 6 comments

.

lying-politician-copyright3

.

Oh dear, it seems that Dear Leader has been caught out (again) being creative with facts. According to Hansards, on 20 February, Key told the House,

.

Hansard debates - john key - skycity 20 feb 2013

Source*

.

Slight problem though… None of it was true.

TVNZ has come out, effectively  rubbishing Key’s comments on any supposed land sale to Skycity,

.

PM forced to back down over TVNZ claim

Source

.

To put this into a time-linear context,

20 February

John Key said:

“It is pretty straightforward. Skycity, after it decided it would be prepared to enter an expression of interest process to have a larger convention centre, went off to its architects. Its architects designed such a thing, realised they needed more land, worked out who owned the land, and approached Television New Zealand…

[…]

I cannot speak for the Television New Zealand board, but I am finding it reasonably hard to believe that Television New Zealand entered a commercial agreement with Skycity to sell land that it owned, and it did so without its board knowing. If that happened, then maybe its board process needs to be improved, and maybe the mixed-ownership model would work for it…”

21 February

TVNZ chief executive Kevin Kendrick said:

“I’ve only been involved since May of last year, but we’ve seen the speculation in the media same as everybody else and so we’ve acknowledged that is a topic that’s live. We’ve yet to have any approaches from SkyCity about the land.”

Which means that Dear Leader either made it up; or one of his Advisors has mis-led him; or he’s talking about some Skycity-TVNZ deal from a Parallel Universe Earth.

At any rate, it kind of reminds me of this incident,  from October 2011,

.

S&P contradicts Key downgrade claim

Source

.

.

That’s quite a dodgy rep that Dear Leader is developing…

Continued at: Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?! (part rua)

.

*

.

* Note

Hansards can be “corrected” by MPs and Ministers. The screen capture above was taken at 5.20pm on 21 February, prior to any “amendments” being made.

Additional

NZ Herald: Sky City report ‘deeply disturbing’ (20 Feb 2013)

.

.

= fs =

Dear Leader says…

.

Frank Macskasy Blog Frankly Speaking

.

Questions to Ministers

Recession—Prime Minister’s Statements

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that by early 2010 New Zealand will be coming out of the recession “reasonably aggressively”?

 Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes, I stand by my full quote from March 2009, which is: “… I think by the end of 2009 early 2010 this time next year we’ll be starting to come out of that and I think starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively. I’m more optimistic about 2011 than 2010 but nevertheless I think 2010 will be positive.” Those statements have proved to be absolutely, entirely, 100 percent correct.

.

Full Story

.

Full Story

.

Frank Macskasy Blog Frankly Speaking

.

Hon Phil Goff: When looking at the blowout in the Government’s deficit of $2.5 billion over the last 6 months, how much of that deficit can be accounted for by tax cuts for the wealthy, which it is now shown that he is effectively borrowing in order to pay for?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: None.

.

Full Story

.

Hon Phil Goff: Two years into his Government does he take responsibility for the economic results that came out today, which were much worse than Treasury estimated 6 months ago, or will he continue to blame everybody else for his failure?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I cannot take responsibility for a global financial crisis, although Michael Cullen once blamed me for it. I cannot take responsibility for an earthquake. I can take responsibility for doing something about leaky homes—the previous Government did absolutely nothing for homeowners—and I can take responsibility for New Zealand having the best tax switch it has had in 25 years.

.

Frank Macskasy Blog Frankly Speaking

Full Story

.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister of Finance seen figures released today showing that retail sales slumped by 2.5 percent after the GST increase to 15 percent in October, which went with rising prices, falling real wages, and higher unemployment; if so, how are those outcomes a sign of the economic step change that the Prime Minister promised?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I agree that the flat consumption is in sharp contrast to the record of the previous Government, when from about 2004 onwards the export sector was driven into the ground and New Zealanders went on a debt-funded spending binge. We make no apology for the fact that our policies are designed to turn that round by encouraging savings and exports. An increase in GST and an increase in the effective tax rate on housing will help us to avoid the same kind of binge occurring again.

.

Source

.

7. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: In light of his statement of 9 February 2010 that “I worry that there are signs of an emerging underclass in New Zealand”, what action has his Government taken to reduce the number of children living in poverty since that statement?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : The Government believes that paid employment is the best way out of poverty for children and families. This year we have been working hard to create jobs and grow family incomes by strengthening the New Zealand economy, and repairing the damage done by a global recession and 9 sad years of a Labour Government. We have continued to run substantial deficits to fund social services that support children and families, including those in vital areas such as education and health, and to fund income support payments, like Working for Families.

.

Full Story

.

Full Story

.

Frank Macskasy Blog Frankly Speaking

Full Story

.

Hon Annette King: Did he say to a delegation of Church leaders whom he met in late November to discuss the future of welfare in New Zealand: “If we cancelled welfare to 330,000 people currently on welfare, how many would starve to death? Bugger all.”; if so, does he stand by that stupid comment?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no recollection of the comment. What I do have a recollection of—

No doubt we can take John Key at his word?

Of course we can.

.

Reference

Parliamentary Hansards 14 December 2010

Other Blogposts

Pundit:  Lies, damned lies, and National party spin-doctoring

.

.

= fs =

Nanny State, Daddy State, poor state?

20 October 2011 1 comment

.

Full Story

.

National intends to sign up all workers?

Isn’t that… compulsion?

Isn’t that… “Nanny Statism“?

Isn’t that what National complained so bitterly about in 2008, promising to undo the dreaded tentacles of Nanny State?!

Well, let’s see…

.

Source

.

Source

.

Source

.

Perhaps I’m being unfair on National.  Calling them hypocrites on “Nanny Statism” may be unwarranted.  After all, National voted against the Repeal of Section 59 (“anti-smacking legislation), right? They voted against the Green Party initiative, right?

The legislation also carries an amendment agreed earlier by Prime Minister Helen Clark and National leader John Key that says the police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence is considered to be inconsequential.”  Source

Oh, no! National did vote for the Repeal of Section 59!!

It seems apparent that the term “Nanny State” was nothing more than a very clever election “bogey”, designed to paint Labour as some kind of authoritarian Party that loves to do nothing but micro-manage our lives.  It was a clever ploy, and it certainly played it’s part in helping to defeat Labour in 2008.

But as with the banning of using cellphones whilst driving or launching a “Food in Schools” programme, National is not averse to legislation to enforce “social-engineering” policy.

Their change-of-heart in regards to Kiwisaver may be viewed as  a further step into so-called “Nanny State” heartland. But, like other changes to the way in which we organise our society and manage our economy, it is a necessity which we cannot do without.

Some folk may jump up and down and whinge till the cows come home, that compulsory enrollment is a violation of their right to exercise choice; that it is not necessary; etc, etc.

Well, newsflash, my dear fellow Kiwis – it is necessary, and it is long overdue. The spend-up we’ve been having has been financed through massive borrowings from overseas – and the credit agencies have taken notice of our borrow & spend habits.

.

Source

.

Much of our debt is private debt – fuelling our housing bubble – and based on other peoples’  savings. Very little of it goes into the productive sector. In effect, the property speculation is based on borrowed money.

And the party, people, is rapidly coming to an end.

Kiwisaver will do for New Zealand what Australia’s compulsory super-scheme did for that country:  save.

Australia has amassed savings of over $1 trillion dollars,

After more than a decade of compulsory contributions, Australian workers have over $1.28 trillion in superannuation assets. Australians now have more money invested in managed funds per capita than any other economy.” Source

It is little wonder that Australia is a wealthier society than New Zealand. Their superannuation savings scheme – compulsory since 1992 – has meant that Australians do not rely on foreign capital to the same extent that we do, here in NZ.

By contrast, New Zealanders voted away a compulsory savings scheme in 1975, when we voted for Robert Muldoon and his National Government. His (in)famous “Dancing Cossacks” election ad was sufficient to “spook”  us – as was a certain measure of self-interest. We simply didn’t want to save for our future if we could get away with it. And Muldoon was only too happy to be elected into power and oblige us.

The current National Government – a different creature from the one in the 1970s – understands the sheer necessity to wean us off foreign borrowings. That is why they  belatedly support Kiwisaver after initially condemning it when they were in Opposition.

However,  it seems that Key and English haven’t quite got the stomach and cojones to make Kiwisaver compulsory, as in Australia. They will be offering an “opt out” clause to voters.

I guess they don’t want to be devoured by that mythical beast they created, the dreaded Nanny State.

Daddy State will have to do.

.

Additional information

Dancing Cossacks anti Labour party political TV ad

Superannuation in Australia

.

.