Archive
Mark Mitchell – Flights of fancy?!
.
.
Former Defence Minister; failed National Party leader aspirant; one-time mercenary-for-hire, and current (for the moment) National defence spokesman, Mark Mitchell, may have opened a 44-gallon drum-of-worms with his assertion that Coalition Defence Minister, Ron Mark, has been “using the Air Force as a personal taxi service“.
Mitchell kept repeating a common meme;
“This is an incredibly inappropriate use of Defence resources, and I am sure the public would be interested to know why the Minister is opting to use already stretched Defence assets rather than the Ministerial Crown Cars that are available to him.”
And;
“Mr Mark has even used an NH90 to travel from Masterton to Waiouru and back in the same day – a three hour trip each way by car.
Why did he not save the taxpayer the cost and the NZDF the time and use a much cheaper Crown car instead? It’s happening so regularly locals are asking questions about it.”
Ron Mark refuted Mitchell’s undocumented claims, stating;
“Each of the flights was taken to an official engagement.
[…]
“I wish to emphasise that none of these flights was for personal use. Please note that on a number of these flights I have been accompanied by NZDF officials, MPs from other parties, and/or media representatives. If at any point the Defence Force advises me that such travel is inappropriate or outside policy then I would naturally comply.”
Minister Ron Mark replied;
“What I will do is run a benchmark across all use of military aircraft over the last 10 years, and I’m already receiving messages that actually there’s some interesting stuff in there.
Let’s put it out in the media, and let’s hope Mr Mitchell isn’t embarrassed.”
Ron mark was correct. There appears to be solid evidence that ministers from the previous National-led government have indeed used Air Force helicopters as their own private taxi service.
The Prime Minister, his MPs and ministers – including the leaders of ACT and United Future – have travelled to Tolaga Bay for the tangi of Parekura Horomia.
[…]
Today was the final day of the tangi – John Key flew in on one of the Defence Force’s new $100 million helicopters, with ministers in tow.
A screenshot image showed one of Key’s ministers – former ACT-leader John Banks – alighting from said $100 million helicopter;
.
.
The same helicopter contained former Dear Leader John Key and “his MPs and ministers – including the leaders of ACT and United Future”.
Fairfax media reported at the time;
Key arrived by helicopter at the Tolaga Bay Area School and was welcomed onto Hauiti Marae with 15 Government MPs and the Speaker of the house David Carter.
National MPs seem to be acutely susceptible to shooting themselves in their own foot (in Mitchell’s case, as an ex-mercenary, that may be the literal truth).
Simon Bridges, Michael Woodhouse, Bill English, Steven Joyce, Judith Collins, and others, have all attempted to fling mud at Coalition ministers – only to have the fan blow it straight back into their own faces.
National’s members of parliament have apparently forgotten a simple, salient fact: after nine years in government they each have plenty of skeletons in their own closets. Every time they point an accusatory finger at a Coalition minister – those same National MPs will be held to account for their own shortcomings, mistakes, abuses of ministerial power, and downright incompetance.
As I pointed out in November last year;
It may be the National Opposition that is held to account.
Meanwhile, we award National MP Mark Mitchell with this dubious distinction:
.
Well done, champ. Hope the bullet-hole in your foot heels soon.
.
Postscript
Latest info on former National politicians using RNZAF aircraft as a personal “Uber” service;
While the V8 Supercars were screaming around the streets of Hamilton, it was helicopters – such as one ferrying the Prime Minister – that were revving up residents.
[…]
The three helicopters hovering above Hamilton skies were unrelated to the event – a police helicopter on a pursuit, a Defence Force helicopter transporting Prime Minister John Key and his son to and from Auckland and a random helicopter passing over.
The Prime Minister was criticised by some at the time for using the air force Iriquois to transport him from Waikato Stadium back to Auckland in time for a swanky Royal Auckland Golf Club dinner on April 16.
Hat-tip: “Roy“.
.
.
.
References
Fairfax media: Dear Mark Mitchell – New Zealand deserves answers, not insults, on war for profit
Mediaworks: Ron Mark refutes claims he made personal use of military aircraft
NewstalkZB: Defence Minister Ron Mark accused of using the Air Force as taxi service
TVNZ: Defence Minister Ron Mark defends using military aircraft to get to and from home
Mediaworks: PM arrives on eve of funeral
Fairfax media: Thousands gather for Horomia’s tangi
Fairfax media: Helicopters too noisy?
Additional
Mediaworks: Pansy Wong’s political future in jeopardy
Other Blogs
My Thinks: Severe and extreme outrage expressed over Ron Mark’s use of a helicopter
The Daily Blog: National’s Anti-Aircraft Fire At Ron Mark Proves To Be Blanks
Previous related blogposts
11 May: End of the Week Bouquets, Brickbats, & Epic Fails
So who’s a “conspiracy theorist” now?!
National’s Ohariu candidate admits contact by Simon Lusk
National MP Mark Mitchell and his breath-taking display of arrogance
Key on Banks; Staunch, stupid, or stuck?
But will he remember this helicopter flight in one year’s time?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 18 March 2018.
.
.
= fs =
John Banks – A Tale of Two Cheques
.
.
On Radio NZ’s Morning Report, on 20 May, John Banks admitted to Guyon Espiner that he had requested a donation from Kim Dotcom for his mayoral campaign in the 2010 local body elections;
@ 4:42 –
Espiner: “You got five donations of $25,000, all were
recorded as anonymous. How did Kim Dotcom know to
split his donation into two lots of twentyfive thousand
dollars?“
Banks fudged the question and repeated that he had been exonerated under the Electoral Act.
With constant probing and deft dismissal of Banks’ obfuscation, Espiner persisted until he got a truthful response from Banks;
@ 5:56
Espiner: “Did you ask Kim Dotcom for money?”
Banks: “Yes. And that is the evidence. You should have
a look at the evidence.”
So three questions remain;
- Why did Kim Dotcom split his $50,000 donation into two lots of $25,000?
- Why was Kim Dotcom’s two donations recorded as “anonymous”, when the name “Megastuff” was clearly imprinted on his cheques?
- Who were the other three $25,000 anonymous cheques from? Were they all from one donor, splitting his/her $75,000 donation into three lots to avoid requirements to name benefactors?
Plus, there are other matters of Banks “forgetting” that he had met Kim Dotcom; forgetting that he had asked for a donation; forgetting taking a helicopter ride to his Coatesville mansion, etc.
Banks referred several times that the Court of Appeal had vindicated him and his wife;
“I have been completely exonerated.” (@ 2:05)
No such thing has occurred. His case was dismissed on a technicality. The evidence – including any new evidence – was never put before a jury to determine.
I submit to the reader that judicial “vindication” by technicality is no vindication at all.
Banks’ claim to innocence should be regarded as a mere “technicality”, at best.
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Morning Report – Banks calls for Solicitor-General to stand aside (alt. link) (audio)
NZ Herald: Dotcom’s secret donation to Banks
NZ Herald: Banks’ donations – ‘I know nothing’
NZ Herald: Banks scandal – Lost in the memory banks
Other blogs
No Right Turn: Acquitted
Pundit: If you want people to believe you are honest, then it’s best not to file false donation returns
The Standard: John Banks; Conviction Quashed
Previous related blogposts
John Banks: condition deteriorating
John Banks – escaping justice (Part Rua)
John Banks – escaping justice (Part Toru)
From the Pot-Kettle-Black files: John Banks (1997)
John Banks, ACT, and miscellaneous laws
Graham McCready to John Banks – an Open Letter
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 May 2015.
.
.
= fs =
I do not condone this…
.
.
I won’t spend too much time on this – it’s not worthy of attention except from the Courts.
I’ll state the obvious that I am no fan of right wing politics; neo-liberalism; the ACT Party, or John Banks’ beliefs. We are diametrically opposed in our world-view.
I will say, though, that throwing a bucket of manure at another person is not a political statement. It is a lazy, inane, brainless way to make a point. Any buffoon with barely two inter-connecting neurons can do it.
A real, effective, political statement may be more time-consuming but is one that ultimately gets people thinking. The only thought that crossed my mind about Sam Bracanov’s behaviour is “silly old bugger”.
Trying to justify his assault by saying,
“I’m not guilty. I protect New Zealand people not to behave like sheep.”
– is a limp joke.
All that Sam Bracanov has achieved is garner sympathy for John Banks and make left-wing activists look like nutters.
No thanks.
That is not how New Zealanders – Left or Right or Up or Down – should be doing politics.
Grow up, Sam.
.
References
NZ Herald: Banks’ mudslinger: ‘I did it, but I’m not guilty’
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
The Boundless Arrogance of the Right
.
.
As at 5pm on Friday, 13 June, John Banks resigned from Parliament.
In retrospect… As per usual, those on the Right appear unable to accept that they too must uphold the laws of the land.
Michelle Boag (Fmr National Party president)
The verdict in the John Banks trial will send a “chill up the spine” of every political candidate, says former National Party president Michelle Boag.
Boag, who was an adviser to Banks during the failed 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign, said although Banks had been found guilty, he had done just the same as “every political candidate who has put in a donation form”.
“So the court has found John Banks guilty. Three observations. First, I have known John Banks for 30 years and have not found him to be anything other than an honest man. Second, it is a huge tragedy for a man who has overcome great personal difficulties; served with distinction as a Member of Parliament, as a Minister, and as the mayor of Auckland; and helped to raise three Russian orphans.
But third, when I contrast what John Banks was found by the court to have done with what Helen Clark’s Labour Party did in 2005 – without the slightest attempt by the Police to call her to account – the offence of which he has been found guilty is utterly trivial.
In 2005, the Labour Party spent Parliamentary funding to the extent of more than three-quarters of a million dollars on explicit electioneering, despite having been warned against doing so by both the Auditor General and the Chief Electoral Officer just weeks before the election. Yes, they eventually repaid that money, but only under strong protest. And of course by that the time the election was won.
And what they could not undo, and were never held to account for, was grossly overspending the legal limit on spending in that election. The Police, in a disgracefully biased decision, decided not to prosecute, despite the Labour Party’s own auditors finding that the Party had unambiguously breached the legal spending limit if spending on their infamous “pledge card” was election spending. And did anybody who saw that “pledge card” think it was NOT part of Labour’s election campaign?
Whatever John Banks did in trying to raise money to finance his mayoral campaign in 2010 did not affect the outcome of that election. By contrast, Labour’s illegal behaviour almost certainly did affect the result of the 2005 election.”
Gerry Brownlee (Leader of the House, National Minister)
Found guilty – but “not convicted”. Ethics 101, according to Gerry Brownlee.
Ironically, Kim Dotcom has not been found guilty of any crime in New Zealand and yet the Nats wants him extradited to the United States. As in, potentially goneburger to a US jail.
David Farrar (Blogger, National Party apparatchik)
“…Banks was wrong to break the law, but Labour’s law breaches in 2005 were much more significant and did have an impact on the election result.”
Based on Farrar’s bizarro-world “logic”, burglars should not be prosecuted because home invasion robberies “were much more significant and did have an impact” on home-owners?!
John Key (Fmr money trader, current Prime Minister)
“It’s not for me to critique the ruling by Justice Wylie it would be quite inappropriate of me to do that…but if you ask me at a personal level whether my experience of John Banks is an honest person then the answer is yes.”
John Key (again)
“In the end, Mr Banks may appeal, I don’t know the details of that but in my experience of dealing with him over the period of time that he’s been both the leader of the Act Party and in Parliament and in my previous dealings with him, I’ve always found him to be very honest.”
So honest that he (a) was tried in a Court of law, (b) was found guilty, and (c) has resigned.
Is this what Key meant when he said on 17 November 2008;
“I expect high standards from my ministers. If they don’t meet the standards I set, then obviously I will take action if necessary.”
John Key (and again)
First Key said he was not in a position to offer any advice to Banks;
“It’s not for me to offer a view on that. In the end he is the leader of another political party. I can’t offer him advice any more than I could offer David Cunliffe advice on whether he should resign.”
Then he decided to give advice – to David Cunliffe;
Asked about Cunliffe’s claims that the Government was being propped up by a “corrupt” politician, Key said Cunliffe should rule out working with the Internet Party.
“I’m not going to be lectured by David Cunliffe. If he was the man of principle he says he is, he’d be ruling out the Internet Party and Kim Dotcom who’s before the court and is a convicted fraudster, but he’s not going to do that. Most people will see it for what it is, which is politics.”
Point of interest; John Key appears to be out-of-the-loop and several months behind-the times. John Banks was not the “leader of another political party“. The current leader of ACT is Jamie Whyte.
(Right-wing NZ Herald columnist)
“…Graham McCready, the convicted tax fraudster and the man who brought the private prosecution against Banks after the police declined to lay charges, is an odd creature.
The charms of Kim Dotcom have never been apparent to me and they didn’t become any more obvious in this case.”
Richard Prebble (Fmr Labour and ACT Party MP)
Act Party campaign director Richard Prebble, said the verdict was in conflict with the attitude towards campaign donations that he’d encountered during his years in parliament.
“I’ve looked at MPs’ declarations – which are only for $20,000 – and a third of MPs, under this ruling, should be out of parliament. I’ve seen declarations that are total fictions.”
Prebble said the loose approach to the rules revealed “the nonsense of the thing”. He said when he started his career in local body politics, he wasn’t required to fill in electoral donation forms, “and I’m not sure why you have to now.
“It’s just part of the political correctness of New Zealand, and all we do is catch people out with paperwork.”
Prebble said while the nominal reason for requiring electoral donation returns might be to prevent the impression of undue influence by political funders, “the real reason is to intimidate people to stop them giving money to your political opponents.
So Prebble has “seen declarations that are total fictions” – but done nothing about them?! Is this how a former ACT Leader and MP upholds the law? By turning a blind eye to it being broken? Very civic minded, I don’t think.
As for the electoral law on donation returns being “ just part of the political correctness of New Zealand, and all we do is catch people out with paperwork” – so some laws exist merely to inconvenience us? Perhaps quite a few others who are currently “guests of Her Majesty” thought along the same lines.
John Thompson (ACT Party president )
“We believe that he can carry on in doing his constituency work … It would be more pleasant if there was a different verdict, yes.”
Well… yes. I’m sure it would be more pleasant. So would world peace and an end to hunger, disease, pollution…
However, let’s work with what we’ve got, eh, John?
My thoughts (as a Left wing blogger)
Those on the Right of the political spectrum probably believe that Banks’ actions were minor. They point the finger at alleged wrongdoing by Labour or other parties on the Left. They may even believe that the trial and guilty verdict was unnecessary.
Meanwhile, on the Left, the belief (unsurprisingly) is diametrically opposite; the crime of electoral fraud is not minor; pointing to alleged wrongdoing by Left-wing parties is a vain attempt at deflection to distract public attention; and the guilty verdict was necessary.
Everyone has missed the point.
The trial was very much necessary. (The verdict was, I submit, secondary.)
Either the law on Electoral Returns is a law to be enforced, or it should be repealed and left up to individual parties and candidates to make voluntary disclosures. But it cannot be left to stand and be observed in a half-hearted, cavalier fashion.
Otherwise, every member of Parliament runs the risk of being prosecuted by the Police or a well-motivated member of the public, sometime in the future. In other words, this was a “wake up call” to every elected representative, whether in a local body or Parliament.
It will be a very, very foolish politician – whether from the Left or Right – who takes a punt at fudging their Electoral Return from now on.
Because, in the final analysis, no Right or Left wing party activist, supporter, voter, or blogger, wants one of their own to be dragged through the Courts, embarrassing themselves and their Party. Whether Left or Right, we want our own people to be ‘squeaky clean’.
The wake-up call has been sounded for both sides of the political spectrum.
Let’s hope it was heard..
.
References
Fairfax media: F*** off, says under-pressure Banks
Facebook: Don Brash
TVNZ News: John Banks could be thrown political lifeline
Kiwiblog: Brash on Banks
ODT: Banks gets to stay in Parliament
NZ Herald: Top ministers in Key’s Cabinet focused on economy
NZ Herald: Shame sticks to both sides of this episode
Fairfax media: PM ducks Banks questions
NZ Herald: Bryce Edwards – The John Banks guilty verdict
Other blogs
Gordon Campbell on the John Banks verdict
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 14 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor – Dom Post editorial off into LaLaLand…
.
.
Today’s (9 June 2014) editorial in the ‘Dominion Post‘ was an interesting take on the John Banks Affair and National’s cynical exploitation of MMP’s “coat tailing” provision;
.
Editorial: Discredited flaw still being exploited
Last updated 05:00 09/06/2014
Every electoral system has flaws which politicians exploit. The coat-tailing provision of MMP is now utterly discredited, but it survives because it serves powerful political interests – especially the National Party’s. The clause should be abolished, but no National-led government will do so.
Labour promises to quickly abolish the clause, which allows a party with just one electorate seat to avoid the 5 per cent parliamentary threshold, if it gains power. There is already a paradox here. Labour might have to rely on the votes of the Mana-Internet Party to do so. But Mana-Internet will get into Parliament only via the coat-tailing clause. Nobody believes it will get 5 per cent of the vote.
The case for abolishing coat-tailing is overwhelming, and was made by the Electoral Commission in 2012. That inquiry grew out of John Key’s promise to “kick the tyres” of MMP, but his government ignored the recommendations. The reason is quite simple: coat-tailing helps the National Party. The Government’s refusal to take any notice of the inquiry was naked realpolitik and a supremely cynical act.
National’s coat-tailing deals with ACT in Epsom have left an especially sour taste in voters’ mouths. Key’s “tea-party” with the-then ACT leader John Banks before the 2011 election was widely recognised as a stunt.
The politicians invited the media to their meeting and then shut them out of the coffee-house while they had their “secret” and entirely meaningless chat. It added insult to injury that Key complained to the police after a journalist taped their conversation.
National and ACT had done similar self-serving deals in Epsom before, and showed just how unfair coat-tailing can be. In the 2008 election ACT got 3.65 per cent of the vote but won five seats in the House thanks to coat-tailing. New Zealand First, by contrast, got slightly more than 4 per cent of the vote but no seats in the House, because it won no electorate. This was mad, but highly convenient to the two right-wing parties.
Coat-tailing, in fact, has kept the dying and discredited ACT party alive. It delivered John Banks a seat in the House, and this week Banks stood disgraced when found guilty in the High Court of knowingly filing a false electoral return. Key, whose self-serving deal with Banks has hurt his own credibility, has even persisted in defending Banks’ “honesty” since the verdict. Now, of course, the Left is doing its own tawdry coat-tailing deal in Te Tai Tokerau. Without Hone Harawira’s electorate seat, Internet-Mana would go nowhere.
Hard-nosed strategists such as Internet Party leader Laila Harre argue that this is “taking back MMP”, as though this kind of thing was a blow for people power instead of the cynical politicking that it really is.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, no matter what power-hungry politicians might think. The Government should abolish the coat-tailing clause, along with its associated overhang provision, and drop the 5 per cent threshold to 4 per cent. However, it won’t happen while National is in power.
– The Dominion Post
.
Note the highlighted sentence; ” Now, of course, the Left is doing its own tawdry coat-tailing deal in Te Tai Tokerau. Without Hone Harawira’s electorate seat, Internet-Mana would go nowhere“.
That statement demanded a response…
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor DATE: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:45 +1200 TO: "Dominion Post" <letters@dompost.co.nz>
.
The editor Dominion Post . Your editorial on National's exploitation of MMP's 'coat-tailing' provision was insightful until this jarring statement ruined it; "Now, of course, the Left is doing its own tawdry coat-tailing deal in Te Tai Tokerau. Without Hone Harawira's electorate seat, Internet-Mana would go nowhere." (9 June) What "tawdry coat-tailing deal" might that be? Because every indication is that not only will Labour refuse to engage in any deal-making, but MPs Chris Hipkins, Kelvin Davis, Stuart Nash, et al, have been vociferously attacking the Internet-Mana Party on social media. If any such "deal" exists, someone forgot to tell those Labour MPs. However, if even Labour and Mana-Internet came to an Epsom-like arrangement - so what? Those are the rules that this government has decreed and must be played. Anyone playing by some other mythical "principled" rules will sit saint-like on the Opposition benches whilst National gerrymanders the system. Suggesting otherwise creates an unlevel playing field that benefits one, at the expense of others, and is untenable. If it's good enough for National to arrange deals in Epsom, Ohariu, and soon with the Conservative Party, then it should be good enough for everyone. No one takes a knife to a gunfight unless they are dead-set on losing. -Frank Macskasy [address and phone number supplied]
.
References
Dominion Post: Editorial – Discredited flaw still being exploited
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Graham McCready to John Banks – an Open Letter
This has to be the most compassionate thing I’ve read in a long, long time…
.
TO John Banks Copy the Rest of New Zealand
Dear John,
I can understand the situation you find yourself in having been in the same situation myself.
From this personal experience I can tell you that you are at serious risk of receiving a jail term of about 18-months.
His Honour has given you the opportunity to qualify for Home Detention.
The term is likely to be about six months.
He is NOT going to consider a discharge without conviction.
That is a delusional fantasy.
If David Jones QC continues to suggest the possibility my advice is to sack him and file a complaint with the Law Society on the basis of gross incompetence.See my attached missive on the process.
If you get home detention your overseas travel will suffer minimal disruption.
Any jail term of one year or more and the Inter Islander Ferry may be about your limit.How then do you ensure you stay out of jail?
Accept responsibility for your actions.
Immediately as part of acceptance resign from Parliament.
Do not dance on the head of a pin before the Probation Officer on the difference between “Found Guilty of an Indictable Criminal Offence” and “A Conviction being entered”.
On Monday YOU contact the Probation Service.
Do not let your clown of a lawyer do it or wait for a Probation Officer to phone you.COOPERATE with them. BE VERY HUMBLE
Tell them you have royally screwed up and that you are unconditionally guilty.
Do a press conference and make an unreserved apology to the People of New Zealand for your conduct.
Back that up by a huge donation to low decile schools.
Do not say which ones or how much.
That will not get you off but it will be spiritually upliftingTell them you will not be appealing the verdict.
DO NOT ATTACK OTHER PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE.
Assure the Probation Officer that you will comply with all instructions and conditions of Home Detention no matter how tedious. And they will be tedious.
Treat the Probation Officer with respect.
Do not make racial or serious remarks.
You may find your Probation Officer is a young female Criminology Grad less than half you age.The Probation Service will need to approve your apartment for Home Detention.
From my experience it is probably not suitable.
The reason is that a Probation Officer or Security Guard cannot walk up to the front door 24-hours a day because of the building security.
Tomorrow rent a VERY MODEST house with walk up to the front door.
Talk to the Probation Service about this.Finally welcome to the Human Race.
We are not bad people who will become good, just human beings who do good and bad things at various times of our lives.This too will pass.
Wishing you all the health, happiness and success I enjoy for myself one day at a time.
Kindest Regards
Graham Mc Cready
.
[Re-printed verbatim.]
[Acknowledgement: Penny Bright]
Well said, Graham.
.
.
= fs =
A little warning regarding Charter Schools…
.
.
The thing about Charter Schools – which was one of John Bank’s “legacies” before he ended up in Court cleaning his ears – is that teaching staff do not have to be registered. Despite official advice from the Ministry of Education, which stated,
“The overall potential for a negative impact on students’ education from teachers who do not meet the minimum standards for the profession is high,” the statement said. “Teacher registration is one of the most influential levers in raising teacher quality across the profession in both state and private schools.”
Amidst fears of people with unknown histories; dubious qualifications; and other unknown unpleasantries, ending up in Charter School classrooms, our Dear Leader John Key seemed… relaxed by it all;
“But I don’t think we should be hung up by any one particular angle. There will always be a push back by the teachers union that will be fearful of that, but as I say if you look at the history of New Zealand schools we have had plenty of people who have been teaching our youngsters who haven’t been registered qualified teachers. If those partnership schools don’t succeed the Government will be just as quick to close them down as we have been to establish them.”
Key has said he would not be bothered if his children were taught by unregistered teachers. Not bloody likely – Key’s offspring were taught in the most expensive private schools money could buy. No chance of Key’s offspring rubbing shoulders with middle class kids in State schools or working class kids in Charter Schools – the Key Clan could afford The Best.
So what of Charter schools? Despite the mealy-mouthed reassurances from the likes of Key, Parata, and Banks – a simple reality remains; they will be employing unregistered teachers. Which leaves us with a situation like this, as reported by Radio NZ on 27 May;
.
.
Coming soon to a Charter School near you: a teacher who has been sacked from his job and de-registered. But there is nothing to stop this man from being -re-hired by a Charter School.
Nothing.
- Un-registered, he is no longer listed with the Teacher’s Council. (Unless the Council maintains a separate Black List of de-registered teachers and is readily available to education institutions?)
- He has not been charged or found guilty of any offence, according to the story above – so any Charter School conducting a police background check will come up with nothing.
- The man’s identity has not been released, so even a simple Google search will come up with nothing.
- All he needs to do is remove the last school he worked at (from which he was sacked), and he effectively has a “clean” C.V.
The policy of allowing unregistered teachers is a ticking time-bomb, and this blogger can already see tomorrow’s headlines; “Unregistered teacher at XYZ Charter School molests pupils“.
There will be the usual ‘noises’ of “improving procedures and protocols” being made. But without registration, the pupils of Charter Schools will be vulnerable to predator-“teachers” who fancy a 12 year old boy or girlfriend.
In effect, Parata and Banks – with the blessing of Dear Leader – have handed paedophiles their next victims on a tax-payer funded plate.
As usual, it is the most vulnerable in our society who will be paying for National/ACT’s shonkey, ideologically-half-baked policies.
We have been warned.
.
References
Fairfax media: Ministry advised against unregistered charter teachers
TVNZ News: Key – Don’t worry about unqualified teachers
NZ Herald: Ministers’ kids skip big classes
Radio NZ: Pupil praised, teacher deregistered
Previous related blogposts
Privatisation of our schools?!
Charter Schools – Another lie from John Banks!
From around the world
Salon: Education reform’s central myths
allthingslearning: Can a teacher “create” LEARNing THAT LASTS?
BBC: Academies told they can hire unqualified teachers
New Statesman: The American revolution in English schools
Huffington Post: In Support of the Whole Child
Other Blogs
No Right Turn: Charter schools are bad schools
Local Bodies: NZ Charter Schools Defined
The Standard: Incoherent education policy
The Standard: Robber’s charter
The Daily Blog: Does it get any more rich than this?
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 May 2014.
.
.
= fs =
National, on Law and Order
.
.
Back in 2008 and 2011, National was very, very BIG on the usual “law and order”, thrashing the issue in a way that only right-wing/conservative political parties can, when in high-gear, election-mode. One of their 2011 election billboards (see above) specifically pointed to National’s “strong on crime” stance.
On 27 May 2007, John Key said,
“I want to make one thing clear. I don’t make excuses for criminal behaviour because I believe every individual is responsible for their actions and must be held accountable for them.”
Key added,
“Don’t just think, though, that the responsibility for rejecting criminal behaviour falls solely on the police. Ordinary New Zealanders, politicians and government agencies have an important role to play…
Unfortunately, most of National’s media-driven focus appears to be on the more visible forms of crime involving violence, or ‘populist’ issues such as “boy racers“, car-crushing, and welfare fraud.
You are more likely to be on National’s ‘hit list’ for demonstrating “tough on crime” if you commit “crimes against a person“, rather than law-breaking by business; the financially successful; or coalition-partner politicians. An example is National’s pre-occupation with welfare fraud;
“Welfare fraud of any kind is unacceptable. It takes money away from the people who need it and undermines confidence in our welfare system.” – John Key
Welfare “fraud” is worth an estimated $23 million – but pales in comparison against tax fraud of $7.4 billion;
Dr Lisa Marriott, a Senior Lecturer in the School of Accounting and Commercial Law, is investigating the differences in prosecution outcomes for the two offences, both of which, she says, involve money, are premeditated and have the same victims—the Government and society.
“One is not giving what you should and the other is taking what you shouldn’t.”
Her analysis of court data on the most serious offending from 2008–2011 shows that 22 percent of people found guilty of tax offences received a custodial sentence while 60 percent of benefit fraudsters were imprisoned.
National’s rhetoric and track record appears to be less enthusiastic to up-hold the law when it come to the Well Off, rather than Working-class Offenders.
Recent examples further highlight National’s soft-on-crime approach to commercial and politically-motivated offences.
Strike 1. John Banks
Perhaps the most notorious and public of National’s selective approach to enforcing law and order – their refusal to prosecute then-ACT-leader, John Banks, for allegedly making false electoral returns after the 2010 mayoral election in Auckland.
The revelations that followed Grant Robertson’s accusations in Parliament led to a media-storm and police investigation where John Banks was formally questioned by Police in a three-hour long interview.
In July 2012, Police decided not to prosecute John Banks citing “lack of evidence”, and a strange reference to a “stature of limitations”, to lay charges.
John Key’s response?
- He refused to sack John Banks from his ministerial roles and eventually re-engaged him to various portfolios
- He refused to read the police report
In refusing to read the police report, Key said,
“I haven’t read that police report and I’m not going to because I don’t need to … It’s not my job to do a forensic analysis. What I can tell you is, the law doesn’t work.”
In a further feat of sophistry and mental gymnastics, Key added,
“The test is whether they enjoy my confidence, and if a minister tells me, ‘This is my position and this is what I’ve done’, I accept their word in good faith unless it’s proven otherwise.”
On 16 October 2013, retired accountant, Graham McCready, launched a private prosecution against John Banks and the matter headed to Court. Subsequently, Crown Law took over the prosecution case.
After prevarications and failings by the Police, the Prime Minister, Crown Law, and the “establishment” in general, it took one lone citizen to start the wheels of justice rolling.
Evidently allegations of corruption by a senior politician did not merit this government’s attention. Especially when the Prime Minister “accepts their word in good faith”.
Strike 2. Easter Trading
Despite the law being quite explicit, each year various retail outlets flout the law by trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Gardening centres seem to be one of the worst recidivist offenders, despite the fact that out of four days in Easter they need only be closed on one: Good Friday.
With repeat, pre-planned, determined offending, the fine of $1,000 appears to be a “business cost” that retailers will wear, in their pursuit for profit.
Imagine if a burglar or car-converter not only planned repeat offending, but advertised it on nationwide media, and expected only a small fine if caught?!
This year, it appears that in some areas the risk of a fine was not even present;
.
.
.
.
.
Dear Leader’s response? Does John Key demand to know why labour inspectors were not doing their job? Does he demand to know who “tipped” off Wanaka traders? Does he reassert that the law will be upheld until such time as it is changed in Parliament?
No, he does not say any of those things.
Key demonstrates his “tough on crime” response by blaming the law itself;
“The problem you’ve got is it’s always been a conscience vote and it’s been a combination of the unions asserting its influence on probably the left of politics and joined by those who have strong religious beliefs. In my view, the law doesn’t work very well and it should be overhauled.”
On MSN News, Key stated;
“There’s only one way to resolve it and that’s not to encourage people to break the law but build a parliamentary majority for change.”
That is indeed correct. Turning a blind eye on illegal activity not only throws the law into disrepute – but makes Parliament itself irrelevant. It suggests that the governing Party can determine what the law is, without proper Parliamentary oversight. In some parts of the world, this is known as a One Party state.
A previous National Party Prime Minister – Robert Muldoon – did precisely this, after winning the 1975 General Election. He advised employers to cease making deductions for the compulsory superannuation fund before Parliament had had the chance to repeal the law.
If National wants to repeal or amend the Holidays Act, it should do so honestly and present it’s case to Parliament. Let there be open public debate so that the public can present it’s submissions to Parliament.
But it is too gutless to do so, and has taken the easier option; ignoring the law altogether.
Who was responsible for directing labour inspectors not to visit Wanaka?
Did it have ministerial approval?
And why isn’t the government investigating who issued the directive?
By ignoring this issue, National is law-making by law-breaking.
Strike 3. Worksafe
Without doubt, according to Worksafe NZ, the three deadliest occupations in this country are agriculture (112 fatalities, 2008-13) , construction (61), and forestry (35). Manufacturing and Transport/Postal/Warehousing came fourth-equal at 25 fatalities from 2008 to 2013. (If it hadn’t been for the Pike River disaster in 2010, which killed 29 men, mining would be one of the safest occupations.)
Added to the grim death toll are the hundreds of work-related injuries in the forestry sector.
Worksafe NZ has been tasked with improving our appalling safety record when it comes to deaths and injuries. As outlined on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website;
The Government has established WorkSafe New Zealand (WorkSafe NZ), a stand-alone Crown agent with its own governance board, as part of its reform of the New Zealand workplace health and safety system.
WorkSafe NZ began on 16 December 2013 when the health and safety functions of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment transferred to the new agency.
The creation of a stand-alone health and safety regulatory agency was a key recommendation of both the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety.
WorkSafe NZ signals a new era. With a single-minded focus on workplace health and safety issues, the agency provides a single point of accountability and seeks to play a leadership role in improving New Zealand’s health and safety performance.
Worksafe NZ’s role ranges from “providing guidance and information on workplace health and safety to duty holders and to the community” to “monitoring and enforcing compliance with the primary workplace health and safety legislation“. A full description of their functions is given on their website.
As Worksafe NZ’s own website chart clearly shows, the number of workplace deaths in the forestry industry has been steadily increasing since 2007;
.
.
So even as forestry deaths and injuries have been steadily rising, OSH/Worksafe NZ prosecutions have not kept pace, as the data shows;
Number of Initiated Prosecutions in Forestry
(2009 to 2013)
| Year* | Forestry |
| 2009 | 4 |
| 2010 | 3 |
| 2011 | 2 |
| 2012 | 4 |
| 2013 | 4 |
| Total | 17 |
Source: WorkSafe NZ (emailed)
*Based on the prosecution initiated date. (No figures readily available for 2008).
A Radio NZ, Nine to Noon interview on 24 April, which included forestry-worker widow, Maryanne Butler-Finlay; CTU President, Helen Kelly; and Worksafe NZ General Manager of Health and Safety Operations, Ona de Rooy yielded some interesting insights.
Helen Kelly accused Minister of Labour, Simon Bridges of slowing progress of the passing of the Health and Safety Bill, and actively interfering and restricting the terms of a Worksafe NZ review of safety practices in the forestry industry. She said,
“We know the minister has restricted right down what they’re allowed to look at. They’re not looking at fatigue. They’re not looking at weather. They’re not looking at hours of work. Simon Bridges has said, ‘no, wait for the review’.”
Bridges response on Radio NZ’s Morning Report, on 28 April, did nothing to allay fears that he was taking the side of forestry operators and doing everything within his power to stymie reform of the industry, and resist implementation of a stricter safety regime.
When Morning Report’s Susie Ferguson pressed Bridges on when the Health and Safety Reform Bill would be passed into law, his response was derisory and dismissive,
“We can’t simply, ah, because Helen Kelly sez so, do something in two days.
... But I don’t think it’s a position where we can simply snap our fingers and change systemic, ah, ah, deep problems overnight. Indeed it would be entirely wrong for us to do that.”
Yet, National was quite capable of changing industrial laws in precisely two days when it came to the so-called “Hobbit Law”. That’s when Warner Bros snapped their corporate fingers.
The Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill/Act ( aka “The Hobbit Law”) was introduced, passed, and enacted by National on 29 October 2010. It was passed in just 48 hours.
There is no reason on Earth why this government could not re-regulate the forestry industry and pass the Health and Safety Reform Bill within a week, if it chose to do so. National simply chooses not to do so, and the lack of prosecutions – despite rising number of deaths – indicates that this government has other interests in mind than workplace safety and the lives of New Zealand workers.
There is big money to be made from forestry. On 13 January 2013, Statistics NZ reported;
In 2012 we exported $4.5 billion of forestry products, compared with $1.9 billion in 1992. They continue to be our third-largest goods export, after dairy and meat.
More specifically germane to the issue of safety in the forestry industry, as Statistics NZ reported;
The value of log exports more than tripled between 1992 and 2012 – from $443 million to $1.6 billion. Since 2008, the value has grown sharply – increasing 22 percent a year on average.
“This rise was due mainly to the volume of log exports tripling. Prices have increased by a smaller 16 percent,” Mr Pike said.
The increased export of logs to China has been a major contributor to the greater value of our log exports. In 1992 we sold only $59 million worth of logs to China. This was up to slightly more than $1 billion by 2012, making China our top market for logs – surpassing both Korea and Japan.
“New Zealand is now the third-largest exporter of logs in the world, after Russia and the United States. In 2012 we supplied 8 percent of the total value of the world’s export logs,” Mr Pike said.
It could be argued that this government is desperate for economic growth of any kind, at any cost. The growing export of a raw commodity such as unprocessed, non-value-added, logs is better than no growth at all.
By refusing to regulate the industry – or at least insist on prosecuting malfeasant employers – shows a willingness by this government to tolerate some casualties along the way. Thirtyfive deaths is “collateral damage” in National’s obsessive determination to beat the recession; create economic growth; and balance the books by 2014/15.
There is much at stake if National fails. The National Party’s (unearned) reputation for “sound economic management” would be seriously damaged if the economy failed to ‘fire’ at a time when the global economy appears to be emerging from the recent global financial crisis recession.
Which is why, it seems, that Simon Bridges is luke-warm at re-regulating the forestry industry or even passing a piece of safety legislation that would probably prevent many more deaths.
So why is Worksafe NZ not prosecuting employers whose staff are being killed in our forests?
As with the secret instructions issued to labour inspectors not to visit law-breaking Wanaka retailers over Easter – has someone from a Minister’s office quietly whispered into the ears of Worksafe NZ to adopt and maintain a “softly, softly” approach to forestry contractors?
On 22 April, General manager of health and safety operations at Worksafe NZ, Ona De Rooy, said,
“WorkSafe NZ is focused on trying to prevent harm occurring by working with the industry and workers to improve safety and reduce the rate of serious incidents,”
Which is fine. But Worksafe NZ is also tasked with prosecuting employers who break basic safety rules. Once prevention has failed, prosecution must follow – or else where is the sanction for those who willfully break the law?
Has the word been issued from On High, not to apply the law to employers in the timber industry?
The reason would be abundantly simple: prosecuting would be bad for business.
Out.
It has been said that in matters of business (subsidies, tax-breaks, or special “deals” for Rio Tinto, Warner Bros, China Southern Airlines, SkyCity, charter schools, etc), National adopts a “flexible” and pragmatic approach.
The same, it seems, can be said of their approach to law and order issues. When it comes to enforcing the law, this government can be… flexible.
“I want to make one thing clear. I don’t make excuses for criminal behaviour because I believe every individual is responsible for their actions and must be held accountable for them.” – John Key, 27 May 2007
.
.
References
John Key: National – Tough on Crime
NZ Herald: National, Act to get tough on violent crime
NZ Herald: Editorial – Car crushing an undignified stunt
National Party: Law and Order – Building a safer New Zealand
Fairfax media: Another welfare shake-up likely, Bennett says
National Party: Making Welfare Work
Victoria University: Courts more lenient on white collar criminals
TV3: Banks accused of failing to declare donation
Fairfax media: PM refuses to sack John Banks
TV3: PM won’t read John Banks police report
NZ Herald: PM reaffirms support for John Banks
Radio NZ: John Banks resigns as minister
NZ Herald: Crown Law to take over John Banks prosecution
MoBIE/Dept of Labour: Shop opening hours
NZ Herald: Wanaka Easter traders knew inspectors would be absent
Southland Times: Wanaka Easter traders escape prosecution
TV3: PM favours Easter trading law change
Newstalk ZB: Wanaka businesses escape Easter trading laws action
Radio NZ: PM favours Easter trading change
MSN News: Easter trading laws should go: Key
Worksafe NZ: Summary of fatalities 2007-2013
Worksafe NZ: Forestry statistics 2008-2013
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: Establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand
Radio NZ: High rate of deaths in the forestry industry (audio)
Radio NZ: Minister of Labour responds to criticism (audio)
Parliament: Health and Safety Reform Bill
Fairfax media: Controversial Hobbit law passes
Statistics NZ: Logs to China drive our forestry export growth
NZCity: CTU takes forestry companies to court
Previous related blogposts
Nats ‘Get Tough on Crime’ – NZ First alleges theft of favourite policy!
John Banks – escaping justice (Part Rua)
Easter Trading – A “victimless crime”?
Why Garden Centres LOVE public holidays!
Purchasing “justice” on the New Zealand open market
John Key’s track record on raising wages – 1. The “Hobbit Law”
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 April 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Focus on Politics for 7 March 2014
.
– Focus on Politics –
.
– Friday 7 March 2014 –
.
– Demelza Leslie –
.
A weekly analysis of significant political issues.
Friday after 6:30pm and Saturday at 5:10pm
After being officially appointed as the new ACT leader, Jamie Whyte is now being heralded as the saviour of the party that’s struggling to even register in political polls.
.
.
Click to listen: Focus on Politics for 7 March 2014 ( 16′ 37″ )
- ACT,
- Jamie Whyte,
- RMA,
- Three Strikes Law,
- Epsom,
- John Banks
.
.
.
= fs =
Some thoughts on the Plain Packaging Bill…
.
.
The good news: Tariana Turia’s Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill has passed the first Reading in Parliament and is headed to a Select Committee where the public can make submissions.
Fantastic news!
This is another step in the elimination of this ghastly, toxic product from our society.
The not-so-good news: our spineless Prime Minister wants to put the Bill “on hold”, until a court case between the Australian government and tobacco giant, Philip Morris, is settled in an Australian court. He said,
“I don’t really see the point in us finally passing the legislation until we see exactly what happens in the Australian court case. We have a slightly different system, but there might just be some learnings and if there are learnings out of that, it would be sensible to potentially incorporate those in either our legislation or avoid some significant costs.”
Aside from the question whether or not “Learnings” is a real word, one hopes that our corporate-cultured, money-trading, deal-broking, multi-millionaire Prime Minister is not getting ‘cold feet’ on this issue.
Too many people are dying for John Key to succumb to pressure from big tobacco.
The bad news is that only one man voted against this Bill – John “Nothing-to-fear-nothing-to-hide” Banks”. In explanation, he said,
“No one dislikes smoking more than me”. But he was against the state seizing property rights without compensation.
Banks added.
“It’s an interesting exercise in futility. If the government was serious it would double the price of tobacco over the next five years… all we’re doing is introducing a bill so we feel good.”
So saving peoples’ lives by doing everything possible to slowly eliminate this destructive product … is an “exercise in futility”?
Funny thing…
He was only too happy to front on the steps of Parliament on 30 July 2013, supporting the banning of testing synthetic “highs” on animals;
.
“I say no to farming animals in China and India for the purposes of drug testing. I say no to putting animals at the alter of drug dealers and importing for the purpose of recreational drugs…”
…I say to my Parliament colleagues testing fun drugs on animals is obscene.It is obscene in a country that prides itself on animal welfare and animal ethics. Britain banned testing; Britain banned testing of fun drugs on animals in 1997. The EU has banned the testing of cosmetrics of on that beautiful rabbit down there some years ago.
… If we want to be leaders; if we want to be leaders in the safety of fun drugs in this country, if it’s necessary to have these mind-changing chemicals, then test them on the idiots that want to take them, because there’s hundreds that want to do it. There are hundreds and hundreds of idiots up and and down the country that will willingly take fun drugs to test their toxicity.
…And I say to my Parliamentary colleagues, don’t test them on animals at all!”
.
What a strange, twisted mind that opposes a simple plain packaging on a product that kills 4,300 to 4,600 people per year – whilst demanding at the same time that animals are saved from the horrors of drug-testing.
When did the lives of people become less important than the lives of animals, or the “rights” of multi-national corporations to market addictive, toxic products?
It’s a shame John Banks doesn’t care for his fellow human beings as much as he does for bunnies, puppies, and Big Tobacco.
As for John Key – grow a spine, mate.
.
*
.
References
Daily Mail Online: Cigarette giant Philip Morris sues Australian government for billions over plain packaging law
Radio NZ: Plain packaging bill passes first hurdle
NZ Herald: Most MPs set to back plain-package smokes
Smokefree Coalition: The health effects of smoking
Previous related blogpost
Nationwide rally condemns animal testing for party-drugs (part rua)
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 12 February 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Focus on Politics for 14 February 2014
.
– Focus on Politics –
.
– Friday 14 February 2014 –
.
– Chris Bramwell –
.
A weekly analysis of significant political issues.
Friday after 6:30pm and Saturday at 5:10pm
Legislation to introduce plain packaging of tobacco products passed its first reading in Parliament this week with almost unanimous support.
Listen to John Banks’ prioritising the right of Big Tobacco company’s “intellectual property rights” over the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.
.
.
Click to listen: Focus on Politics for 14 February 2014 ( 16′ 07″ )
.
.
.
= fs =
John on John…
.
.
“He has had a long and distinguished career in central and local government, and I believe him to be a thoroughly honest guy.” – John Key, 4 December 2013
Source: Banks `thoroughly honest guy’, Key says
An endorsement from John Key – who himself has been caught out on numerous occassions beings “loose” with the truth – is hardly something to put on your CV.
.
.
= fs =
Bring in the clowns…
This has to be seen to be believed. I was trying to figure out who was the bigger clown – Banks or Craig.
Then I realised a simple truth…
.
(click on image)
.
They’re both clowns.
The Right must be very proud?!
.
*
.
References
TV3: In-fighting kicks off among National’s partners
.
.
= fs =
Nationwide rally condemns animal testing for party-drugs (part rua)
.
Continued from: Nationwide rally condemns animal testing for party-drugs (part tahi)
.
Image courtesy of HUHANZ
.
NZ, Wellington, 30 July – Thousands of animal rights campaigners, animal lovers, and other people who oppose testing party drugs and synthetic cannabis on animals protested against the Psychoactive Substances Bill on Tuesday 30 July.
TV3’s news crew filming the protesters;
.
.
“I don’t want to die for someone to get high” – a good point. And one that National ministers and Peter Dunne seem unwilling to address;
.
.
Ok, this is right off the Cuteness Scale factor;
.
.
(But animal testing on these party pills is still wrong, regardless of cuteness or not.)
The legalise-cannabis lobby were represented by this gentleman;
.
.
It has been said that real cannabis is actually safer (in adults) than the synthetic stuff. Plus it’s been “consumer-tested” for hundreds (thousands) of years. So wouldn’t it make more sense to de-criminalise the natural stuff and ban the synthetic variety?
Or is that too much common sense for politicians to handle?
About half an hour later, the procession moved off,
.
.
The procession, at the northern end of Wellington’s Cuba Mall – on the right;
.
.
… and on the left, waiting to set off across Dixon Street;
.
.
And the marchers – four-legged as well as two – were off;
.
.
After a brisk march through Wellington’s CBD, the rally ended up in Parliament’s grounds beneath the stature of Richard Seddon;
.
.
Rally Organiser and HUHA founder, Carolyn Press-McKenzie, addressed the rally, surrounded by MPs and media crews;
.
.
Epsom MP, John Banks, was the first MP to address the rally;
.
.
In a somewhat fervant speech, Banks said,
“I say no to farming animals in China and India for the purposes of drug testing. I say no to putting animals at the alter of drug dealers and importing for the purpose of recreational drugs…”
…I say to my Parliament colleagues testing fun drugs on animals is obscene.It is obscene in a country that prides itself on animal welfare and animal ethics. Britain banned testing; Britain banned testing of fun drugs on animals in 1997. The EU has banned the testing of cosmetrics of on that beautiful rabbit down there some years ago.
… If we want to be leaders; if we want to be leaders in the safety of fun drugs in this country, if it’s necessary to have these mind-changing chemicals, then test them on the idiots that want to take them, because there’s hundreds that want to do it. There are hundreds and hundreds of idiots up and and down the country that will willingly take fun drugs to test their toxicity.
…And I say to my Parliamentary colleagues, don’t test them on animals at all!”
He looked pleased at the crowd’s response, obviously enjoying the cheers to his speech. (He probably hasn’t received such cheers and applause since he sat down to a nice cuppa tea with the Prime Minister, in November 2011.)
Green MP, Mojo Mathers, was next to address the rally;
.
.
“I am angry! I am angry that animals are going to have to suffer. I am angry that animals are going to have to die, for the sake of a legal high. I am angry because the government has not been listening! The government is ignoring public opinion! It ignoring your conscience. Because the the general public has a conscience! The general public cares. The general public does not want to see animals suffering in this way!
The government has ignored the hundreds of people who have put in a huge amount of time and energy to provide detailed information [and] submissions on the Bill, on the issue of animal testing. And what happened? The Select Committee said “no we won’t hear you”! That was wrong! The information these people have in their submissions is directly relevant to the issues of the Bill. Because what that information showed was that there are alternatives to animal testing. And that we care about our young people. We can’t use these alternatives [background noise] for safety.
The Government ignored the 64,000 people who signed the petition in one month.And this government voted against my amendment that would have ruled out these awful tests. That is apalling and I am angry about that. I am angry that the government covered it’s ears and hands over it’s eyes and refused to look at the evidence of alternative tests and refused to rule out animal. testing of party pills.”
Mojo said,
“And we have to keep up the pressure!”
And I intend to keep up the pressure in Parliament. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is another opportunity to keep up the pressure and I will be asking for Party Pill testing on animals to be ruled out of this Bill.”
She added,
“What you have done here by coming out en masse today is that you’ve shown this government that you are not going to forget this issue.”
Mojo’s speech received an enthisiatic response from protesters and organisers alike;
.
.
Labour MP, Iain Lees-Galloway, also took an opportunity to speak to the rally;
.
.
“I sat on the Health Committee when we considered to the Psychoactive Substances Bill. And I want to tell you about how the National Party completely refused to listen to any of the discussion around animal welfare.
When we received all the submissions; we received all those hundreds of submissions saying that people wanted to come to the Select Commitee and talk about animal welfare and wanted to make your voices heard and make the animal’s voices heard, in front of us, the people who are making the decisions about the Bill…
…The Select Committee had to eventually to have a vote about whether or not we would hear those submissions. And the vote actually went five/five. There’s five National Party members on the Select Committee. They voted against hearing your submissions.
The other five members are from Labour, The Greens, and New Zealand First and we voted in favour of hearing your submissions.”
Ian Lees Galloway said that the motion to hear submissions was lost, in favour of the status quo. He said,
“That was a decision by the National Party and I think it’s a real shame [cheering drowned out speaker] that the National Party is not interested in giving you your democratic right to be heard by Parliament. We have a wonderful transparent system in New Zealand where everybody has the right to be heard about whatever piece of legislation we are putting through Parliament. And you had your democratic right taken away from you by the National Party.
So I want you to know that the Labour Party voted in favour of Mojo’s amendement. We did not want to see animal testing… for party pills. And I agree with Mojo’s recommendation to you, which is that we have the Animal Welfare Bill coming up next. That is the opportunity to have your voice heard again. Make sure the National Party understands that you want to be heard about this and that you want to get in front of the Select Committee that is considering the Animal Welfare Bill, because you have a democratic right to be heard and Labour will support you all the way on that.”
Inexplicably, as Carolyn Press-McKenzie pointed out, no National Ministers, nor Peter Dunne, appeared to present their case to the rally. Perhaps their courage deserted them on this day.
Never mind, I’m sure that there will be many in Mr Dunne’s elecorate who, next year at election time, will be only too happy to attend public meetings and ask Mr Dunne a few pertinent questions.
Politicians can run and hide – but eventually they have to surface, to seek our votes again.
We can wait, Mr Dunne, Mr Key, et al.
Expect us.
.
.
Near the conclusion of the rally, Ms Press-McKenzie handed new evidence for alternative testing to John Banks, and asked him to present it to the Prime Minister.
Banks accepted the documents and acknowledged that the submission would be passed on to John Key.
.
.
Grumpy cat is not happy. Politicians would do well not to annoy Grumpy cat;
.
.
One hopes that National listens to public concerns on this issue. Because it seems that their Focus Group polling is not delivering the message that, generally, the public are disgusted with the notion of testing synthetic highs on animals, so that a small minority can enjoy a moment of chemically-induced pleasure.
There is more than a hint of disquiet on this issue – for many it is quite obscene.
So never mind the morality of this issue – evidently morality doesn’t factor with National MPs.
Let’s talk votes then. How many votes can possibly be in this issue for the Nats?
Bugger all, I suspect.
It could be said that National “gone soft on drugs and animal welfare”. How will that play out with animal lovers at the next election, I wonder?
Not very well, I think.
.
“Emo”, the bunny
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 August 2013.
Links
Helping You Help Animals (facebook)
Helping You Help Animals (Website)
SAFE (website)
References
Parliament: Psychoactive Substances Bill
Parliament: Psychoactive Substances Bill – Related Documents
Green Party: Psychoactive Substances Bill could have been great
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Helping You Help Animals is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
Nationwide rally condemns animal testing for party-drugs (part tahi)
.
Image courtesy of HUHANZ
.
NZ, Wellington, 30 July – Thousands of animal rights campaigners, animal lovers, and other people who oppose testing party drugs and synthetic cannabis on animals protested against the Psychoactive Substances Bill on Tuesday 30 July.
The weather was beautiful – warm, sunny, and an almost cloudless sky. Aside from a wintery nip in shadowed areas, it was like a fine spring or summer day. Proof, perhaps, that the deity of your choice is a keen animal lover.
In Wellington,around 500 people assembled at Cuba Mall’s landmark bucket fountain;
.
.
They were armed with placards expressing their views, and with determined certainty that animal testing was morally, ethically, and humanly just plain wrong;
.
.
When animals can’t speak for themselves, their human companions must – and do – speak for them;
.
.
There was a consistent message through the placards and people’s comments; if you want to take party pills and synthetic cannabis, accept responsibility for their dangerous properties – but don’t test them on animals. Our pleasure is not to be had at the sake of innocent creatures;
.
.
Indeed, their lives are in our hands – which in itself says a lot about ourselves that we have such power of life and death over other species;
.
.
This placard asks a very good question;
.
.
TV3’s film crew interviewing some of the protesters;
.
.
As a side note, there was good coverage by both TV1 and TV3 News on the nationwide rallies. Indeed, the reporting was better and fairer than the anti-spy Bill rallies held on Saturday 27 July.
More of our furry companions at the rally;
.
.
These were ordinary New Zealanders expressing their opposition to animal testing – not “politically-motivated” activists. Something that National ministers should take into consideration when looking at this Bill;
.
.
“We want our voices heard” – but is National listening? Or has their arrogance made them deaf to the concerns of New Zealanders?
National should remember – these people vote;
.
.
Can any National Minister answer this question;
.
.
The next placard shames the government. Hopefully though, the protester meant “Don’t Vote [for National]“. Not voting at all is not resistance – it is surrender;
.
.
Engaged in street theatre. Note “Cosmic” in the background. “Cosmic” is a known retailer of party pills/synthetic cannabis;
.
.
Just before mid-day today (31 July), I phoned Mark Carswell, owner of the “Cosmic”-chain, to ask his views on the animal-rights rallies held around the country.
When asked to comment, Mark’s responded;
“I’ve been way on holiday mate, so I’ve just sat down on my desk again and I’m just getting…I’m just actually finding out what’s going on, but at this stage I’ve no comment.”
Let’s hope Mark finds out what is going on soon.
People like this lady will be very keen to know Mark’s position on this problem;
.
.
And the lives of animals like these will be at risk;
.
.
SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation) were visibly present at the rally;
.
.
SAFE Executive Director, Hans Kriek,has said,
It is obvious to most of us that torturing animals to death for the sake of unnecessary recreational drugs is completely unethical.
Animals should not suffer just because drug manufacturers want to get rich by getting people high.
There are plenty of non-animal tests available that can determine the safety of party drugs, so leaving the door open to (possibly cheaper) animal testing methods is deplorable.
It is hard to believe that animal tests could provide reliable results anyway. Testing a psychoactive drug on a rat or dog for a few weeks or even months is hardly going to prove that it is safe for a human who may take the drug for many years.
How many people will suffer brain damage in the future in the mistaken belief that the drugs they use are safe because they have been tested on animals?
Source: Kapiti Independent – Hans Kriek Writes
The following image, showing Key holding a cute kitten, is a well-known image on the ‘net. This protester has created a whole new meaning to it;
.
.
Sometimes, political photo-ops can end up in unforeseen situations. I’d say this one has bitten our Smile & Wave Prime Minister on his $50 million dollar backside.
Continued at: Nationwide rally condemns animal testing for party-drugs (part rua)
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 August 2013.
Links
Helping You Help Animals (facebook)
Helping You Help Animals (Website)
SAFE (website)
References
Parliament: Psychoactive Substances Bill
Parliament: Psychoactive Substances Bill – Related Documents
Green Party: Psychoactive Substances Bill could have been great
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Helping You Help Animals is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
Beware of unstable government!
.
.
In case anyone has missed it, Dear Leader and his Ministers have been consistantly spreading the message, warning us about the potential perils of a Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) coalition government.
.
“ Only National can provide a strong stable Government that keeps debt down and delivers on jobs. The alternative is big spending, big borrowing, and huge uncertainty. Any way you look at it – a Labour-led Government would owe our future.” – Steven Joyce, 22 November 2011
.
“If anyone thinks Labour and the Greens are going to deliver stable government, they’d better think again.” – John Key, 19 July 2012
.
“ The sharemarket value of Contact Energy, Trust Power and Infratil shares alone fell by more than NZ$300 million yesterday afternoon. That value was taken out of the pockets of hard-working KiwiSavers, the New Zealand Super Fund and small shareholders across New Zealand. If Labour and the Greens could do that in just a few hours, imagine what they would do if they ever got near being in government.” – Steven Joyce, 19 April 2013
.
“There is not going to be a difference between centre left and centre right; it’s going to be a Labour government dominated by the Greens.
This would be the issue of 2014 and voters needed to be aware of the differences.
All of those differences between Labour and the Greens will need to be reconciled by Election Day.
If there is to be no Transmission Gully if a Labour/Green’s Government gets in then we need to understand that; they won’t be able to fudge that.” – John Key, May, 2013
.
“ Normally, elections are fought between the centre left and the centre right. That is not what’s going to take place next year. David Shearer has cut his cloth and it is wrapped around Russel Norman … that now becomes an election between the centre right and the far left.” – John Key, 28 May 2013
.
Well, we’ve seen “unstability” since November 2011.
One of National’s coalition Ministers was investigated by the Police for electoral fraud, and is now before the courts facing a private prosecution, charged with filing a false electoral return.
Another coalition Minister has just resigned his portfolios after allegations that he leaked document(s) to a journalist.
And National’s other coalition partner, the Maori Party, seems unsure how many co-leaders it has;
.
.
I think from now on, Key and his ministerial cronies may lie low a bit and keep comments of “unstable government” to themselves.
Instability? We’re seeing it now, in spades.
This blogger is picking an early general election – this year.
After that, this country can settle down to a coalition government of stability. One that doesn’t include Key, Banks, Dunne, et al.
About bloody time.
.
.
*
.
References
National.co.nz: Labour plus Greens equals billions more debt (22 November 2011 )
Dominion Post: Key’s game is ripping into Greens (19 July 2012)
Interest.co.nz: National’s Steven Joyce dismisses Labour-Greens power policy as ‘bumper sticker politics at its most destructive’ (19 April 2013)
FW: Key fires warning shot over ‘green-dominated’ labour (May, 2013)
ODT: And so it begins (28 May 2013)
.
.
= fs =
John Banks; a sexist pig as well as soon-to-be-ex-MP
This requires no further commentary,
.
.
Well, except this. Banks witters on about our kids needing a “world class education”.
It’s a shame he never learned simple lessons to do with common courtesy.
.
.
= fs =
Brain fades and balls ups
.
.
On 20 March, Key made this curious remark, regarding Shearer’s stuff-up over his undeclared New York bank account,
“You don’t get cut any slack from the Labour Party when you say (you’ve made) a mistake but when they make one they don’t want anyone to have a look at it.”
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – IRD knew of Shearer account, but not Parliament
There are two points of interest regarding that remark,
1. “…but when they make one they don’t want anyone to have a look at it.”
Not true.
As Vernon Small wrote in the Dominion Post on 21 March,
He was right to front-foot it by doing the rounds of the press gallery to disclose his blunder and face the music. It would have played must worse if he had left it until the next register of pecuniary interests was published.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax media – Shearer’s bank blunder threatens chances
Yet again this is another prime example of Key willfully mis-representing facts to suit his own purpose. His ability to “bend the truth” is unparalled by any other Prime Minister, whether Labour or National.
Shearer actually fronted to journalists and made a candid admission of his stuff-up.
When is the last time Key or Banks did the same?
2. ” You don’t get cut any slack from the Labour Party when you say (you’ve made) a mistake…”
Why should Labour (or any other Party) “cut any slack” for the National-led government?
Did National “cut any slack” for Labour when Helen Clark was Prime Minister? No, the Nats were relentless in their disparagement of Labour. In fact, they were often quite brutal,
.
Acknowledgement: Scoop – Showers latest target of Labour’s nanny state
.
Acknowledgement: Scoop – National launches its Food in Schools programme
.
(Note: National never proceeded with it’s “Food in Schools” programme, and the policy was quietly dropped soon after they were elected into power in November 2008. see: Govt guarded on free school meals)
And this little ‘beauty’ in abusing Labour, in this January 2008 speech by John Key,
” Under Helen Clark and Labour, our country has become a story of lost opportunities.
Despite inheriting the tail wind of a strong global economy, Helen Clark has failed to use that momentum to make significant improvement in areas of real importance to New Zealanders. She has squandered your economic inheritance by failing to build stronger foundations for the future.
Tomorrow, Helen Clark will tell us what she thinks about the state of our nation. In all likelihood, she’ll remind us how good she thinks we’ve got it, how grateful she thinks we should be to Labour, and why we need her for another three years.
Well, I’ve got a challenge for the Prime Minister. Before she asks for another three years, why doesn’t she answer the questions Kiwis are really asking, like:
- Why, after eight years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world?
- Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger?
- Why, under Labour, do we only get a tax cut in election year, when we really needed it years ago?
- Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof?
- Why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?
- Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills?
- Why, when Labour claim they aspire to be carbon-neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate?
- Why hasn’t the health system improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it?
- Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?
Those are the questions on which this election will be fought.
Helen Clark thinks she can hoodwink Kiwi voters into giving her another three years to answer these questions. Well, I say she’s had nine years, she’s had her chance and she’s wasted it. The truth is that as time has gone on, Labour has concentrated more and more on its own survival and less and less on the issues that matter to the people who put them there.”
Acknowledgement: National Party – 2008: A Fresh Start for New Zealand
So when Key whinges about the Labour Party not cutting him “any slack”, Key might consider that he gave as well as he got when he was in Opposition.
That is the role of Opposition – to criticise, challenge, and question. The alternative would be a quick trip down the road to join the club of authoritarian regimes.
By the way… how is John Key’s list of criticisms that he levelled against the Labour Government on 29 January 2008,
- Why, after eight years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world?
- Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger?
- Why, under Labour, do we only get a tax cut in election year, when we really needed it years ago?
- Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof?
- Why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?
- Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills?
- Why, when Labour claim they aspire to be carbon-neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate?
- Why hasn’t the health system improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it?
- Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?
Except for interest rates (which is not controlled by governments – which Dear Leader should have known), none of John Key’s list above has improved in any measurable manner.
He’s probably forgotten it by now.
.
Disclosure
This blogger is not a member of the Labour Party, nor has any preference in who leads that Party.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 23 March 2013.
.
.
= fs =
But will he remember this helicopter flight in one year’s time?
.
John Banks, alighting from a RNZAF NH90 helicopter, to his way to Parekura Horomia’s tangi,
.
Acknowledgment: TV3 – PM arrives on eve of funeral
.
.
= fs =
The unmitigated audacity of John Key and John Banks
.
This is how a politician owns up to a mistake,
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ
.
Then there are politicians who continually blames others or claim to “forget”, when it’s obvious they are lying.
John Key’s talent for blaming others for his own stuff-ups is fast becoming becoming legendary,
.
.
Key’s habitual finger-pointing currently extends to blaming Solid Energy’s debt crisis on it’s Board; management; coal prices; global financial crisis, and uncle Tom Cobbly. He takes no responsibility for his own Ministers demanding higher debt gearing levels and dividend payouts which helped plunge Solid Energy into a financial hole,
He’s [John Key] blaming the previous Labour Government, including former state owned enterprises minister Trevor Mallard who encouraged the company to expand in 2007, and citing a Cabinet paper supporting that stance.
“They can’t wash their hands of the fact that from 2003 on, they were intimately involved with the plans that that company had,” Mr Key said.
Acknowledgement: TV3
It was put to the PM that Solid Energy seemed to have been working with a “pretty high-risk” strategy. He responded by saying that all of these things were operational matters — he added that “if National’s to blame, then so’s Labour”. He said that the management and the board are responsible for the balance-sheet.
Acknowledgement: Scoop.co.nz
Board at fault for Solid Energy debt, not Govt – Key
Mr Key denied the Government was responsible for the company’s woes, despite encouraging the board to take on debt in 2009 and expecting it to pay a dividend.
They made some investments in core assets and those didn’t work out either, and the coal price collapsed.
Acknowledgement: MSN News
So everyone was to blame for Solid Energy’s collapse – except National which has been in power for four years and bled the company dry with demands for high dividends.
Then there are times in politics that politicians make utterances that are breath-taking in unmitigated audacity,
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ
.
This is one such instance – John Banks, whose memory was so “bad” that he forgot his close relationship with a rather large German multi-millionaire; a helicopter flight to one of the biggest mansions in New Zealand; and who forgot $50,000 cheques for donations for his electoral campaign.
.
John Banks says he never lied about internet billionaire Kim Dotcom’s $50,000 donation to his 2010 mayoral campaign but says he erred in not answering questions about the affair more openly.
But Mr Banks denied misleading the public about the donations and events around them, including a helicopter ride to Dotcom’s mansion which he has said he cannot remember.
“I didn’t lie. There’s no reason to believe that I lied. I simply couldn’t recall.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald
.
For someone with “nothing to hide” ACT leader and former Auckland mayor John Banks is doing an awfully good job of creating the impression there are some things he would rather keep to himself.
He has refused to confirm he solicited a donation from internet billionaire Kim Dotcom for his 2010 mayoral campaign and refused to confirm he asked that the $50,000 donation be split into two $25,000 payments.
He has also said he does not remember who donated money to his mayoral campaign, does not remember discussing money with Dotcom and his staff and, till yesterday, could not remember flying to Dotcom’s Coatesville mansion in Dotcom’s helicopter.
Either Mr Banks is suffering from the early onset of Alzheimer’s or he thinks honest answers to the questions raised by the revelation that Dotcom was an undisclosed donor to his campaign will reflect poorly on him.
Acknowledgement: Dominion Post – Editorial: Bad memory or poor judgment?
John Key and John Banks are now attempting to compare David Shearer’s omission for declaring his New York-based bank account.
Key said,
“People make mistakes. I make mistakes and when I do, I try and tell people I’ve made them. It’s just that you don’t get cut any slack from the Labour Party when you say you’ve made a mistake, but when they make one they don’t want anyone to have a look at it.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Key weighs in on Shearer’s $50,000 ‘oversight’
And John “I-can’t-recall” Banks added his own 2 cents worth,
“Shearer is on record as saying those who suffer from a memory lapse aren’t fit to hold office. Shearer’s hypocrisy is staggering.”
Acknowledgement: IBID
Except for one thing – and here’s the rub:
David Shearer himself disclosed and admitted his own mistake,
“Frankly I was horrified that I’d overlooked it and I moved straight away to correct it. When I myself found that (bank account) error I made the move to correct it, I didn’t wait for anybody else to find it.”
Acknowledgement: IBID
It is one thing to stuff up; come clean; apologise; and not try to blame others.
It is entirely another matter when one continually blames others for his mistakes or has such problems recalling events that they become a laughing stock.
Perhaps Mr Key and Mr Banks should take a lesson from David Shearer’s book; own your mistakes; don’t blame others; and don’t make facile excuses.
It’s not politicians who make mistakes, that the public loathes. It’s when they try to avoid responsibility for their errors.
Especially when Key and Banks demand responsibility from the rest of us,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
.
.
.
= fs =
Penny Bright Goes To Parliament
.
.
Wellington, NZ, 31 January 2012 – Activist and Mayoral candidate, Penny Bright went to Parliament, to attend to unfinished business.
MP for Epsom, John Banks may have escaped prosecution for not properly declaring campaign donations in the 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign (see previous related blogpost: John Banks – escaping justice (Part Toru), et al), by a legal technicality – but self-declared anti-corruption campaigner, Penny Bright has other ideas.
Ms Bright is one of several people engaged in citizens’ actions to bring John Banks to justice. Another person, Graham McCready, a retired accountant, has launched a private prosecution against Banks (see: Judge calls Banks to court over donations).
On 31 January, Ms Bright arrived on the grounds of Parliament. She was scheduled to appear before Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Committee at 11.15am. (See copy of submission here: Justice and Electoral Committee Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) – Submission by Penny Bright)
Ms Bright had spare time and wanted to make her cause more widely known to the public. She set about preparing to raise banners, in front of the statue of the former, late, Premier Richard John Seddon.
Her activities came to the almost immediate attention of a Parliamentary security guard,
.
.
There was discussion between the guard and Ms Bright,
.
.
Ms Bright explained her intentions to the Guard. Ms Bright then related her conversation with the Guard to this blogger that if she went ahead with her “mini-protest”, she could (would?) be trespassed from Parliament’s grounds for 24 hours – thereby threatening her scheduled appearance before the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.
I found this to be utterly extraordinary. Ms Bright had done nothing illegal. It was inconceivable that a single woman by herself could pose a “clear and present” danger to the Western hegemonic military-industrial complex.
I attempted to elicit an answer from the Guard on this issue, but he became reluctant to state the position clearly, on record, regarding Ms Bright’s rights to hold a peaceful protest on Parliament’s grounds. The Guard moved away and Ms Bright packed up her gear,
.
.
Ms Bright quietly said to me,
“We can come back later.“
.
At the Select Committee hearing, the Committee chairperson, Tim Macindoe, welcomed Ms Bright and reminded her of New Zealand’s defamation laws.
Supported by local body Wellington activist Maria Van Der Meel, from Wellington loves Manners Mall , Ms Bright stated her case,
.
.
Ms Bright advised the Select Committee that under current rules, copies of financial electorate returns (donations, expenditure, etc) were not available to the public except by viewing the documents at the local Electoral office where they are stored (in this case, Auckland). The rules dictate that citizens may take notes from the returns – but are not allowed to photocopy, photographe, scan, or take any other form of facsimile copy.
Some members of Parliament sitting around the table seemed unaware of this fact. [Blogger’s Note: When I tried to obtain a copy of John Banks’ 2010 mayoral-campaign electoral returns, my request was turned down. I would have to travel to Auckland; physically visit the Office during opening hours; and view the hard-copy. I could take notes, but otherwise not record them electronically. This seems an untenable situation in a suppodsedly otherwise open democracy. – Frank] Committee member Jackie Blue questioned if returns could not be requested under the Official Information Act.
Ms Bright explained that Graham McCready has taken a private prosecution out against John Banks and that his case requires Banks’ electoral returns as evidence for his case. The Police were able to able to obtain a copy for their investigation into John Banks’ returns – and questioned why this was denied to members of the public?
Ms Bright stated that the finding of the Police that John Banks could effectively delegate the compiling of his candidate’s election expenses and donations, and sign this ‘declaration’ without first personally double-checking this information for accuracy – defied belief.
Ms Bright produced a copy of her signed declaration as a fellow 2010 Auckland Council Mayoral candidate, and asked if any members of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, (who would have had to sign similar candidate’s declaration), had delegated the responsibility for the accuracy of this information to someone else?
Ms Bright stated that, in her considered opinion, all electoral returns should be scanned and made publicly available online.
On a related issue, Ms Bright was critical of the fact that some candidates [Blogger’s note: this has been amended and names removed] claimed to be independents – yet were members of political parties. She questioned how candidates could be deemed “independent” whilst openly members of political parties.
To which Tim Macindoe responded that whilst he might stand as a candidate in a local body election, he would not necessarily be representing the National Party, and nor would he require or request an endosement.
Ms Bright responded that not everyone in the community might be aware of a candidate’s Party affiliations and using the “independent” label could be mis-leading. She said her personal philosophy was “presume nothing”.
Ms Bright raised the issue that New Zealand is internationally well-regarded and first-equal with Denmark and Finland for a lack of corruption in New Zealand (see: Corruption Perceptions Index 2012). She said that recent events in this country suggested that we no longer merited our standing in the international community for top ranking in lack of corruption.
However, Ms Bright pointed out a number of areas where New Zealand lacked a domestic legislative framework for genuine transparency,
- lobbying – there currently being no ‘Register of Lobbyists’, or ‘Code of Conduct for Lobbyists’,
- and ‘State Capture’ – where vested interests gained influence at ‘policy’ level, prior to legislation being passed.
On the issue of civil servants and political figures leaving the public service and entering the private sector (eg; consultancy-work) – Ms Bright denounced the practice of the “revolving door”, and recommended a “quarantine period”.
A policy of ‘post-separation employment’ could deny sensitive information from being used for personal gain.
It was also pointed out that, at Local Government level, there was no mandatory requirement for a ‘Register of Interests’ for elected representatives (unlike central government MPs).
Ms Bright also criticised some local bodies for not revealing details of consultants and contactors they used. Ms Bright said this constituted a lack of transparency and said she had a right to know who was being paid from the public purse, ie; the names of consultants and private contractors; scope; terms, and value of these contracts (see: Call for end to council secrecy, Super-city plan for mortgagee sales).
The committee had been discussing, with previous submitters, the nature of donations to candidates standing for local bodies. The committee asked Ms Bright where she stood on the issue.
Ms Bright took a minute or so to consider the question.
She replied,
“I don’t believe in anonymous donations. Anonymous means we don’t know what’s going on and if anyone is in someone’s pocket.”
Committee member, NZ First MP, Denis O’Rourke, asked,
“Do you believe all donations should be recorded?”
Ms Bright replied that $10 or $20 donations need not have their donors publicly recorded, but that a threshold should be established,
“Maybe set at $500?”
She pointed out that both John Banks and Len Brown had recorded some donations as “anonymous”.
Committee member, Katrina Shanks asked whether this would affect people donating to causes and shouldn’t they be allowed to do so as of right?
Ms Bright replied that this issue could be difficult. It might be seen that there was a difference between privacy and private donations to a cause and transparency for funding candidates in public elections.
After fifteen minutes, the Chair thanked Ms Bright for her submission and presentation to the Committee. Ms Bright thanked the committee, and she and Ms Van Der Meel left the Committee Room.
The two women returned to Parliament’s forecourt and proceed to unfurl the banners that Ms Bright had wanted to use earlier in the day.
A passing member of the public (woman in white dress) voiced her support for their cause and consented to being photographed with the pair,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And then to the Supreme Court in Lambton Quay, where Ms Bright “flew the flag” against the theft/sale of the people’s assets,
.
.
The banners caught the attention of the tail-end of the “Super Sevens” parade that was moving through Lambton Quay at the same time. One of the security guards took Ms Bright’s banners in good humour,
.
.
Whether or not one agrees with Ms Bright’s beliefs and philosophy – no one can deny her dedication to causes she feels strongly about. By anyone’s definition, two protest actions and an appearance at a Select Committee is undeniably dedication.
[Amended: 3 February 2013]
.
*
.
References
Parliament: Justice and Electoral Select Committee members
Additional contributed material
Penny Bright
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
* Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
* Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
* At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
* Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
Nick Smith
.
.
Whether or not Nick Smith “returns” to a Ministerial post is, in my mind, a distraction.
1. With ministers like corrupt liar, John Banks, in cabinet, Nick Smith could be viewed as a “breath of fresh air”.
2. This entire government is rotten to the core and is driving this country backward with short-term, ineffectual, rightwing policies. “Boot camps”, anyone?
3. After four years, are we any better off?
.
*
.
Previous related blogpost
Regret at dumping compulsory super – only 37 years too late
Johnny’s Report Card – National Standards Assessment y/e 2012 – environment
As predicted: National abandons climate-change responsibilities
National ditches environmental policies
.
.
= fs =
John Banks, ACT, and miscellaneous laws
.
.
ACT is very, very BIG on law and order.
In fact, they often refer themselves as the “law and order” Party.
Their website is unequivocal about ACT’s hard-line, no-compromise, approach to Law and Order,
.
.
ACT even refers to the “broken windows” concept; attacking crime at the beginning when “criminal activity is significantly less likely to escalate when caught and punished early “.
ACT even has a “One Law for All” policy,
.
.
Their “One Law for All” refers to Maori – but one assumes that ACT intends this policy to apply equally, to all people living in this country.
Right?
Well… maybe not,
.
.
One law for all, huh? That apparently demands a Tui.
However, Banks’ lawyer, QC David Jones stated that,
‘‘Mr Banks will comply with any lawful direction of the court to attend the court as required.’’
Well, that’s jolly big of him.
This case will be a test; are our elected representatives – especially those in positions of ministerial power – bound by the same laws that the rest of us mere mortals are?
After all, “criminal activity is significantly less likely to escalate when caught and punished early “.
Let’s wait, watch, and find out…
.
.
= fs =
From the Pot-Kettle-Black files: John Banks (1997)
Retrieved from my files, this little item from the Otago Daily Times in March 1997,
.
.
I wonder what Bolger might have to say to Mr Banks now? Perhaps they could arrange a chat over a cuppa tea in a cafe in Epsom…
.
.
= fs =
John “I can’t recall” Banks, on MMP…
.
.
The Electoral Commission’s final report on reviewing the MMP electoral system was tabled today in Parliament.
The four main changes to the system are,
- Lowering the party threshold from 5% to 4%
- Abolishing the one electorate seat threshold, which allows other MPs to enter Parliament on the “coat-tails” of a candidate who have won an Electorate Seat
- Abolishing the provision for overhang seats
- That Parliament consider fixing the percentage ratio of electorate to seats at 60:40
This blogger supported the first two options (neutral on the last two). Not because ACT could have gained extra MPs if Banks had won just a few thousand more Party List votes – but because the electorate seat threshold was being openly rorted by John Key and John Banks.
It is that rule which benefits small Parties – which while not crossing the 5% (or 4%) threshold – can still gain extra MPs in Parliament. Because an Electorate win gives that Party a “dispensation” from the 5%/4% Threshold.
The entire country witnessed the farce of the infamous “cuppa tea” meeting, last year, between Banks and Key at the Urban Cafe, in Epsom,
.
.
It was an unedifying spectacle and public disquiet over the workings of MMP threatened the very existence of proportional representation in New Zealand.
However, National-cum-ACT MP, John Banks, appears to have taken exception to the Electoral Commission’s second option; abolishing the one electorate seat threshold. Indeed, he was a very, very unhappy chappy.
Banks was reported today saying,
“Voting systems benefit from infrequent change. Voters will not have any confidence in the electoral system if it can be continually tinkered with.”
See: MMP review recommends lower party threshold
That’s interesting.
Banks is worried that making changes to an electoral system, despite over-whelming support through public submissions, somehow threatens public “confidence in the electoral system “?!
That is a very noble sentiment.
In which case, one wonders how ACT could support the repeal of “31 redundant acts of parliament and 206 unnecessary regulations“?!
One would think that changing the law 31 times and removing 206 pieces of regulation might threaten public “confidence in the Parliamentary law-making system “?!
Or, implement the following radical policies, from ACT’s on-line manifesto,
• Push the next government to reduce wasteful spending. In 2005, Labour was spending 29 per cent of the national income. Today, the same figure is 35 per cent. ACT would push the next government to return spending to the level it was at in 2005 by repealing the “election bribe” spending of the past two elections with a view toward getting the top personal tax rate down to 25% and the company tax rate to 12.5%;
• Push the next government to lock in lower taxes by passing ACT’s Spending Cap Bill into law. The Bill would require government spending to increase only by the level of inflation and population growth. By reducing government spending and taxes, it would increase the rewards for wealth creation;• Push the next government to pass ACT’s Regulatory Standards Bill. The Bill would test all new regulations for unnecessary red tape, making it easier to do business;• Sell state assets such as power generation companies; the overwhelming evidence is that such valuable assets produce more wealth when managed privately;• Allow more mining when the economic benefits outweigh the environmental costs.
See: Ibid
It’s paradoxical that ACT supports a complete radical make-over of our social, legal, and economic systems – and thinks nothing of it.
But when the Electoral Commission wants to implement a few changes to MMP, old Banksie is suddenly worried that “voters will not have any confidence in the electoral system if it can be continually tinkered with“??’
But even stranger is this report, from AUT University’s publication, “Te Waha Nui”, last year,
” But Banks himself would rather the MMP meal ticket be scrapped completely.
“I favour the STV system (Single Transferable Vote),” Banks says.
He declined to explain what elements of the MMP system he disliked, or why he felt STV was a more attractive option. “
See: John Banks backs STV over MMP
So John Banks thinks making four amendments to MMP will damage voter “confidence in the electoral system” . But changing from MMP to STV – two radically different electoral systems – is perfectly ok?
Cutting to the chase.
This has nothing to do with damaging voter “confidence in the electoral system“.
We all know this.
John Banks’ only concerns in this matter is John Banks. Or more to the point, getting John Banks back into Parliament in 2012, preferably with a couple of extra ACT cronies.
Banks knows that the “coat tailing” effect of the Electoral Threshold is the reason for Epsom voters to support him. Vote for Banks and as long as ACT’s Party Vote is over 1.2%, you get two ACT MPs for the price of one.
But take away the Electorate threshold and the “coat tail” effect, and voting for Banks gets you – one ACT MP; John Banks. Unless ACT reaches the new 4% Party threashold (about as likely as me spontaneously combusting), ACT get’s no extra MPs.
In which case there is no point in any more cosy “arrangements” between ACT and National, and Epsom voters will simply drop back to their default-setting to voting for their own National Party candidate.
Banks would have to win Epsom on his own ‘merits’. *cough, cough*
Fat chance.
Epsomites have had a gutsful of this mendacious, memory-challenged, clown, and want to see the back of him as much as the rest of the country.
We all know that Banks is utterly self-serving when it comes to politics.
Does he have to keep proving it to us with bare-faced lies about “voters will not have any confidence in the electoral system if it can be continually tinkered with “?”
We know he’s lying.
Stop reminding us.
.
*
.
Previous related blogposts
Some thoughts on MMP (13 December 2011)
John Banks: condition deteriorating (14 August 2012)
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 