Archive

Posts Tagged ‘lies’

Housing Minister Paula Bennett continues National’s spin on rundown State Houses

18 June 2015 1 comment

Another broken promise from National…

.

National Party - 2014 election - social housing policy - Housing NZ

.

On 12 June, Social Housing Minister, Paula Bennet was interviewed on Radio NZ’s ‘Nine to Noon‘ programme. Kathryn Ryan asked why there were so many  thousands of State houses in desperate need on maintenance.

In the interview, Bennett claimed that money was not a problem in Housing NZ’s maintenance programme;

@ 4.29

“What I will say is that it’s not a money problem. So there is enough money there for us to get that stock up. It is a big programme of work that is constantly ongoing…

[…]

…So it’s not a matter of neglect.”

And again @ 5.41

“Which is really my point. So we’re saying it’s not actually about the money. The money is there to be spent for maintenance.”

Bennett’s statements were a parroting of  Bill English’s previous claim, made on 5 June  on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report‘, who also denied  money was the core problem of run-down Housing NZ properties;

“They’ve done a very large scale programme – insulated every house that it can, which is 48,000 houses over the last four or five years.

It’s got to deal with the same limitations of process as everybody else, it’s got to get consents, it’s got to find a workforce, but it’s not short of money to do the job.”

Bennett and English have both blamed lack of tradesmen and other spurious excuses for rundown houses.

But according to Housing NZ, the reason for our run-down State housing stock is very much a matter of lack of money, as I pointed out to Kathryn Ryan in an email I sent to her during her interview with Bennett;
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Nine To Noon RNZ <ninetonoon@radionz.co.nz>
date: Fri, Jun 12, 2015
subject: Paula Bennet on Housing maintenance funding
.

Kia ora Kathryn,Paula Bennett’s assertion that Housing NZ has plenty of funds for maintenance is at variance with this statement from Housing NZ’s 2013/14 Annual Report;

.

The responsive repairs programme, which includes work on vacant properties, is dependent on demand, which was higher than expected in 2013/14. Consequently, the budget was overspent due to higher volumes of work orders. The average cost per work order was also higher as a result of more comprehensive repairs and upgrades being carried out on vacant properties. To mitigate this overspend, we deliberately reduced the planned maintenance programme, which decreased the percentage of maintenance spend on planned activity. [p28]

Furthermore, on page 36 of the 2013/14 Annual Report, Repairs and Maintenance is given as $220 million for the period.This is $1 billion less than the $1.2 billion quoted by Bill English to TVNZ’s Corin Dann on 24 March, this year.

.

Either Bennett is ignorant, or she is spinning.

.

Either way, not a good look.

.

-Frank Macskasy

Ms Ryan read out my email, on air, subsequent to the interview.

Hopefully, the media will pick up on what is obviously a gross distortion from National’s spin doctors. By asserting that  there is no lack of money available, this shifts responsibility from  government to blaming others for lack of maintenance.

It also deflects attention from the fact that National has used Housing NZ as a cash cow by demanding dividends, in a futile attempt by Bill English to balance the government books and post a surplus (which he has also failed at spectacularly), as this ‘Dominion Post‘ editorial highlighted;

This year the Government expects to get $220m in tax and dividends from the corporation. It wants profits as well as social services. And it is also in thrall to its ideology of semi-privatisation.

Housing NZ was explicit in it’s 2013/14 Annual Report;

The responsive repairs programme, which includes work on vacant properties, is dependent on demand, which was higher than expected in 2013/14. Consequently, the budget was overspent due to higher volumes of work orders. The average cost per work order was also higher as a result of more comprehensive repairs and upgrades being carried out on vacant properties. To mitigate this overspend, we deliberately reduced the planned maintenance programme, which decreased the percentage of maintenance spend on planned activity. [p28]

It is up to the media to challenge Ministers when they make assertions that are patently untrue.

.

.

.

References

Radio NZ: The state of state housing

Radio NZ: The state of state housing (audio) (alt. link)

Radio NZ: State housing criticism valid, says English

Government Minister sees history repeat – responsible for death

.

.

.

CGw9SZjUgAA0Shw.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 13 June 2015.

.

.

= fs =

Are Cameron Slater and Judith Collins bare-faced liars?

8 September 2014 5 comments

.

Deasd Whale -whaleoil

.

Cameron Slater and Judith Collins are both bare-faced liars.

Both of them.

Liars.

Here is why…

In the latest revelations, information disclosed by Rawshark/Whaledump to the NZ Herald alleges in further leaked sensitive information from   disgraced former Justice Minister, Judith Collins, to far-right psychopath and National Party blogger;

Former police minister Judith Collins is depicted in alleged social media conversations discussing the leak of evidence in a high profile case to blogger Cameron Slater, according to new information from the hacker Rawshark.

The alleged evidence was a video connected to the controversial Urewera raids that showed those arrested in an unfavourable light after charges against them were dropped, according to comments attributed to Slater.

The emergence of conversations between Ms Collins and Slater has sparked claims from both parties that the hacker has given the Herald manufactured forgeries.

When Herald reporter David Fisher inquired further, Collins replied;

Ms Collins said she had “no record” of “Facebook conversations” after the Herald sent her material supplied by Rawshark. “I believe you have forged documents. You are likely to have been taken in by a criminal. I am now considering lodging a complaint to police regarding what I believe to be forgeries.”

To which Fisher asked with perfect reasonableness;

When asked why she referred to Facebook when the Herald never said where the transcripts came from, she said it was the only social media outlet she used other than Twitter.

In the same report, Cameron Slater ‘tweeted';

“Latest smear is false, I have never had FB conversations with @judithcollinsmp.”

Collins also stated, via Twitter;

“I have no record of any FB [Facebook] conversations with Whale Oil. Cam Slater has advised that he had no FB conversations with me. Forgeries?”

Really?!

REALLY?!?!

Let’s check the evidence, shall we?

Claim: that Facebook and Twitter are the only social media outlet she uses other than Twitter.

Truth: Collins Collins does indeed use emails, as she candidly admitted on 14 August;

“I’m just not going to go into the details because the fact is I’m perfectly entitled to send emails to a close friend of mine, and I’m absolutely entitled to be as gossipy and friendly in those as I want.”

– so her insistence she uses only Facebook or Twitter is false. A lie.
Claim: that Slater has never has Facebook conversations with Judith Collins.
Truth:  On page 45 of Nicky Hager’s exposé, “Dirty Politics“, he wrote;

“They talked often by phone, and in the evenings  and weekends they chatted via Facebook. In work hours Collins e-mailed him directly from her sixth-floor Beehive office.”

The entire chapter 4, “The Crusher and the attack dog“, is devoted to many Facebook conversations between Collins and Slater.

Interestingly, on page 144 in the ‘End Notes’ section of “Dirty Politics”, Nicky Hager refers to footnote #6, Chapter 4, as;
“6. Judith Collins, Facebook messaging to Cameron Slater, 27 August 2011. Collins’s Facebook  messaging is recorded under the name ‘Facebook User’, presumably for fear of her words reaching the public, but there is no doubt it is her.”
It appears that Collins has attempted to hide her Facebook tracks by using a general pseudonym – hence why she seems confident that she has  “no record of any FB [Facebook] conversations with Whale Oil. Cam Slater has advised that he had no FB conversations with me.”And why did Slater state I have never had FB conversations with @judithcollinsmp”. Not ‘Judith Collins” – but instead  “@judithcollinsmp”.
Hair-splitting much, Mr Slater?
It appears that Slater and Collins are being pathetic in their attempt to be ‘cute’, by differentiating who-spoke-with-who – as Key did recently when he insisted that then SIS director Warren Tucker spoke with “Key’s Office” instead of “Key directly”;
8 August 2011:
What happened is Warren Tucker didn’t come to me, he went to his legal adviser and his legal advisers told him this is the process they have to follow and when he was going through that process it was at that point he told me he’d release it because he has to tell me that under the no-surprises doctrine,” – John Key,  post-Cabinet press conference.
22 August 2014:
In the context of that video, ‘me’ meant my office,” John Key, media briefing

Splitting hairs. National Party style. Cute.

Conclusion

It is simply not remotely credible that Collins and Slater did not converse via Facebook. As Collins admitted on 2 September, “Facebook […] was the only social media outlet [I] used other than Twitter”.

Liars. Both of them.

 

.

.

.

smells like media bullshit

.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that Judith Collins’ and John Key’s media strategists have given them new lines to use in public;

Judith Collins;

“You are likely to have been taken in by a criminal.”

John Key;

“At the end of the day, I don’t know whom this criminal has been hacking.”

” I don’t know what’s real and what’s not. It’s not my job to prove that.”

“The responsibility is on the criminal to demonstrate that they are actually real or not,” says Mr Key.

Expect those phrases (or variations thereof) to be repeated like Key’s latest mantra.

It is another indication how desperate National is to discredit Rawshark/Whaledump.

There must be something truly awful in the works if the Nats are expending so much effort to smear an anonymous leaker.

The propaganda mill has just be churned into over-drive.
John Key – another liar.
*** Updates ***
3 September

The latest statement from whaledump/Rawshark;

“They think they can get away with it because they deleted the original Facebook account that Collins was using, so it doesn’t have her name on it. That’s stupid.”

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11318332

Interesting to note that the Herald’s David Fisher is covering this story and Jared Savage is being kept well away from it.

.


 

References

NZ Herald:  New leak claim hits Judith Collins

TV3: Hacker – Slater, Collins Facebook messages authentic

RadioLive: AUDIO – Judith Collins on her chapter in “Dirty Politics”

Fairfax media: Key’s ‘position correct’ on SIS briefing

 

 


 

.

john key is scared of your vote

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 September 2014

.

.

= fs =

 

Budget 2014 – What deceits lie in this document?

.

Putting voters to sleep through the budget

.

Looking through the on-line Budget document on Treasury’s website, I happened to notice something… peculiar.

The following page is entitled  Responsibly managing the Government’s finances and is part of Finance Minister Bill English’s summary. As such, it is a political document and not a Treasury report.

.

1. Responsibly managing the Government's finances

.

Note the five graphs on this page. Notice anything about them?

Any… inconsistencies?

Let me “lump” them together, so they can be better compared;

.

1. Responsibly managing the Government's finances - graphs isolated

.

Note the starting dates on each graph. They differ in nearly each case;

  1. 2012/13
  2. 2006/07
  3. 2009/2010
  4. 2004
  5. 2004

At first glance, there appears no reason for the difference start-dates of each graph.

That is, until you look at what each graph represents.

Graphs number 2, 4, and five show the previous Labour government in an unfavourable fiscal light.

#2: Shows “Core Crown Revenue” falling from 2006, and “Core Crown Expenses” rising from around the same time.

#4: Shows “Budget Operating Allowances” much higher under Labour – highlighted by the use of red and blue column lines – than National. The 2008 red-bar is erroneous.

#5: Shows “90 Day Interest Rates” higher under Labour than National – again highlighted by the use of red and blue graph lines.

Meanwhile, graphs 1 and 3 show National in a more positive position;

#1: Shows  “Total Crown operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL)” starting from 2012/13, and reducing. There is no prior context depicted for any previous years. The overall impression is a favourable one to the viewer.

#3: Shows “Net Core Crown Debt” rising from 2009; peaking at 2013/14; and dropping thereafter. Again, there is no prior context depicted for any previous years.

If we replace the mis-leading charts with more accurate representations, the picture is unsurprisingly different. A verticle red line on the right hand, accurate graph, pinpoints where Bill English’s graph (on the left) starts.

1. Total Crown operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL)

.

Bill English's misleading version on left; More accurate version on right.

Bill English’s misleading version on left; More accurate version on right.

.

The more accurate  version on the right gives a more complete picture of successive government’s Total Crown operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL), and put’s National’s record in context.

2. Core Crown revenue and expenses

.

    Bill English's misleading version on left; More accurate version on right.

Bill English’s misleading version on left; More accurate version on right.

 

.

The more accurate  version on the right gives a more complete picture of successive government’s Core Crown revenue and expenses, and put’s National’s record in context.

This next one is a personal favourite of mine, and National/ACT supporters hate it with a passion.

3. Net core Crown debt

.

Bill English's misleading version on left; More accurate version on right.

Bill English’s misleading version on left; More accurate version on right.

.

The more accurate version on the right gives a more complete picture of successive government’s Net core crown debt, and put’s National’s record in context. It also happens to highlight Labour’s track record in reducing the country’s sovereign debt – something that jars with Right Wing historical revisionism that attempts to depict Labour as an incompetent fiscal manager.

4. Budget operating allowances

.

1. Responsibly managing the Government's finances - Budget operating allowances corrected version

Bill English’s misleading version on left; More accurate version on right.

 

.

Whilst English’s graph (on the left) has a start point in 2004, it is highly inaccurate. Note the red bar for 2008, showing Labour having a Budget operating allowance of around $7 billion. This is false. As the blue bar on the graph on the right shows, the Budget operating allowance for 2008 was just under $2.5 billion – one third of what English’s chart depicts.

Note: the chart on the right, with the blue bars is taken from Budget 2013 – Bill English’s own document from last year. The correct data (blue graph) is supported by a 2010  Treasury working-paper,  Fiscal Institutions in New Zealand and the Question of a Spending Cap.

Either the red bar for 2008 is an error – or a deliberate attempt to further portray the previous Labour government in a bad light. Considering that three out five graphs appear to have been selectively presented, the possibility that the 2008 red-bar was deliberately fudged cannot be excluded.

5. 90-day interest rates

.

 

Bill English's misleading version on left; More accurate version on right.

Bill English’s misleading version on left; More accurate version on right.

.

English writes that “Future Budget allowances are set at sustainable levels… [graph inserted] ...which is helping to take pressure off interest rates“.

Actually, the reason that the OCR and 90 Day Rates are currently at a historic low has little to do with “future budget allowances“. The Reserve Bank does not set current OCR/90 Day Bill Rates against “futurebudget allowances.

Indeed, the RBNZ dropped the OCR to 2.5% in April 2009, the following year from recession hitting our economy.

There is next to no reason for English to have included the 90 Day Interest Rate in his Budget document, except to attempt to take credit for historically low interest rates that were the result of a global financial crisis and not because of any actions his government took in 2007/08.

Not unless he, John Key, and the rest of the National caucus were sitting in Board Rooms across Wall Street?

Not unless he, John Key, and the rest of the National Party were in government a full year before the 2008 general election?

And not unless Bill English also wants to also claim responsibility for high interest rates in the 1990s, when the National Party governed under the leadership of Jim Bolger, with finance ministers Ruth Richardson and Bill Birch? When interest rates peaked at over 15% in 1990 and were consistently high throughout the 1990s.

Unsurprisingly, this is one graph that did not find it’s way into Bill English’s 2014 Budget document;

.

mortgage interest rates since 1990

.

As for Budget 2014 – I suspect it is a document that will soon reveal more hidden surprises for us all.

.


 

References

NZ Treasury: Budget 2014 – 1. Responsibly managing the Government’s finances

NZ Treasury: Operating Balance (2002-2011)

NZ Treasury: Core Crown revenue and expenses (2000-2014)

NZ Treasury: Net core Crown debt (2002-2012)

NZ Treasury: Operating Allowances

NZ Treasury: Fiscal Institutions in New Zealand and the Question of a Spending Cap

Reserve Bank NZ: 90-day rate

Reserve Bank NZ: Mortgage interest rates — since 1990

 


 

.

Norm Kirk

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 May 2014.

.

.

= fs =

Letter to the Editor: When is privacy not privacy?

.

old-paper-with-quill-pen-vector_34-14879.

SIS

.

When we break the law, the police come calling.

When National does it, they just change the law.

That’s how it’s done in New Zealand, circa 21st Century…

.

 

.

FROM: "f.macskasy"
SUBJECT: Letters to the editor
DATE: Thu, 08 May 2014 11:32:27 +1200
TO: Listener  <letters@listener.co.nz>

.

The Editor
The Listner


.

John Key’s government passed legislation last year which
now legalises GCSB spying on New Zealanders, albeit with a
“warrant” and with Prime Ministerial “over-sight”.
Key says we now have legal protection to protect our
privacy.

Of course, that did not stop the GCSB from breaking the old
law, and spying on eightyeight New Zealanders. That’s
despite the old law being quite specific in it’s
prohibition on domestic spying;

Section 14 of the original Government Communications
Security Bureau Act 2003 was quite specific

“Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor
a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or
take any action for the purpose of intercepting the
communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation
or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a
permanent resident.”

Which made a mockery of John Key’s mis-leading assertion
on  9 April last year;

“In addition, the Act governing the GCSB is not fit for
purpose and probably never has been. It was not until this
review was undertaken that the extent of this inadequacy was
known…”

Law-breaking and lies – the hallmark of National’s
behaviour on this issue.

But the supreme irony here?

John Key has allowed the GCSB to spy on New Zealanders or to
receive data on New Zealanders gathered by overseas spy
agencies - thereby circumventing the amended law.

But health-service providers are not allowed to share
information with family members, where necessary, because of
“privacy concerns”.

Monty Python couldn’t have scripted this farce any better.

-Frank Macskasy
[name & phone number supplied]

.

 

.


 

References

Radio NZ: Hear more of Ian Fletcher on Morning Report  (audio)

Dominion Post:   Spy boss denies mass surveillance

John Key.co.nz: PM releases report into GCSB compliance

Legislation.co.nz: Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003


 

.

SIS GCSB John Key spying police_state surveillance

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

The Mendacities of Mr Key #3: tax cuts

2 March 2014 3 comments

.

john key lying

.

3. Tax cuts

Background

19 May 2008

In the bitterly contested lead-up to the 2008 general election, National promised three tax cuts, to be spread over three years.

These were prompted by the nine consecutive Budget surpluses that Labour’s Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, had posted between 2000 and 2008. The public perceived that the government had too much of our money and demanded tax cuts.

Cullen resisted, as his main priority was continuing to pay down billions in debt that Labour had inherited in late 1990s.

.

.

Key  and  National Party strategists heard the insistent  calls for tax cuts, and duly obliged – even though by November 2008, the global financial crisis had plunged the world into a recession, with only Australia and China escaping the worst effects.

In May 2008, Key promised voters tax cuts ‘‘North of $50‘‘.

April 2009

On 1 April 2009, National delivered the first of two rounds of tax cuts (a third round had been scrapped, as by then the recession had blown a hole in the government’s revenue).

This is what the 2009 tax cuts delivered.

.

tax-cuts-april-2009

.

Anyone earning under $40,000 received nothing. Not even close to “north of $50″.

October 2010

The following year, the second round of tax cuts was implemented,

.

Tax rates October 2010

.

Susie Nordqvist wrote in the Herald on 20 May 2010,

* Average income household – $24.71c per week better off

* Average wage worker – $15.91c per week better off

* Couple receiving New Zealand superannuation – $10.77c per week better off

* Professional property investor with 25 properties – $288.18c per week worse off

* Couple saving for their first home – $40.38c per week better off

* Domestic purposes beneficiary – $2.45c per week better off

* Minimum wage worker – $6.36c per week better off

* Student – $2.66c per week better off

* Business owner structuring income to claim for Working for Families – $153.03c per week worse off.

As the reader can easily determine, very few in the above group were receiving “north of $50″. When the rise in GST was taken into account, the actual real cut in  taxes for average workers’ and families was reduced even further.

The only tax bracket that received a tax cut “north of $50″ were those earning around $80,000 or more. Such as government ministers. And John Key.

When you factor in the rise in GST from 12.5%  to 15% – even fewer got the much promised “north of $50″, except the wealthiest.

.

Key defends tax cuts for wealthy

.

Conclusions:

  1. Key had no choice but to cancel the third round of tax cuts (scheduled for 2011), and to reduce the amount on offer. The GFC and recession were biting into our economy so badly, that National was borrowing $450 million a week by the end of 2009. Adding the 2010 tax cuts into the mix eventually left this country with a $60 billion fiscal hole.
  2. Key knew that the tax cuts were unaffordable during the 2008 election campaign. The world was deeply mired in the global financial crisis and recessionary effects were beginning to hit economies around the world. To pursue the promised tax cuts was the height of irresponsibility.
  3. Key bought the election with unaffordable promises.
  4. Our debt will have to be re-paid. (Foreign creditors insist.)

Beware of politicians bearing promises and gifts. We will be the ones paying for it.

Charge: broken promise/deflection/half-truth/hypocrisy/outright lie/mis-information?

Verdict:  Outright Lie, Broken Promise

 

.

*

.

References

NZ Herald: Cullen – Tax cuts but strict conditions

Trading Economics:  New Zealand Government Debt To GDP

Dominion Post: Nats set for $50 tax cut trump

Otago Daily Times: Key says donate tax cuts to charity

NZ Herald: Budget 2010: What the tax cuts mean for you

NZ herald: Key defends tax cuts for wealthy

Parliament:  Tax System Changes—Impact on Operating Balance

Otago Daily Times: Government now borrowing $450 million a week – claim

Radio NZ:  English confirms national debt set to rise

Previous related blogposts

Labour: the Economic Record 2000 – 2008

The Mendacities of Mr Key #2: Secret Sources

.

*

.

Vote these traitors out

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen

.

.

= fs =

The Mendacities of Mr Key #2: Secret Sources

24 February 2014 1 comment

.

key's credibility takes a hit

.

In an on-going series, we will look at the half-truths; mis-representations; omissions; and outright lies, told by Dear Leader John Key.

2. Secret Sources

Background

On 4 October 2011, John Key made this astounding statement in the Debating Chamber,

When Standard & Poor’s were giving a meeting in New Zealand about a month ago, what they did say was there was about a 30% chance we would be downgraded – that’s what happens when you’re on negative outlook. They did go on to say though, if there was a change of government, that downgrade would be much more likely.”

The comment was made under Parliamentary privilege.

Five days later, on 10 October, Key “explained” that the comments had come to him in an email, from an un-named “friend”. He duly released the text,

.

.

When Standard and Poors heard Key’s comment, they were none too pleased.  Standard and Poor’s sovereign rating analyst, Kyran Curry, who attended the Auckland meeting that the “email” referred to, replied,

“In Auckland last month, I might have talked about the importance of the Government maintaining a strong fiscal position in the medium term but I would never have touched on individual parties. It is something we just don’t do. We don’t rate political parties. We rate Governments.”

Key fronted to a media conference and was grilled by journalists,

.

.

His body language, tone of voice, and other minute clues all indicate he was being less than honest. I leave it to the reader to reach their own conclusion how honest Dear Leader was.

In my opinion, John Key lied and the email was subsequently fabricated.

Nearly two and a half years later, and Key is embroiled in yet another “secret sources” mess;

On 12 February, Key disclosed that Winston Peters had met with Kim Dotcom, at his mansion in Coatsville, three times. Peters accused Key of using the GCSB/SIS to spy on him, saying,

“What’s his informant, who is he? … This is is a surveillance matter and I want to know more about it.”

Key responded the same day,

“I heard from an individual who’s a person who’s got nothing to do with National Party, nothing to do with any government agency. The person told me it was three. I was pretty sure they’d be right – because they often are – and guess what, they were.”

On the 13th of February, Key stated,

“I can absolutely categorically tell you it’s got nothing to do with an official agency. From time to time people see things and from time to time people tell me.”

Key added,

“Contrary to what [Peters] might want to believe, I can read. A member of the public, for want of a better term rang me up and said what was the case. I assumed it was right. I said it, it turned out to be right. I didn’t think it was that controversial, to be honest.”

So did a member of the public” phone Key and inform him that Peters had visited Kim Dotcom? Or did Key “read” about it somewhere?

When questioned by the media, Slater told the Herald,

“If the Prime Minister says I’m a source, I guess I must have been.”

Which kind of makes Key’s earlier assertion that he “heard from an individual who’s a person who’s got nothing to do with National Party” a complete lie. As we all know, Slater is closely connecxted to the National Party; his father (John Slater) is an ex-President of the National Party; and Slater is probably a paid up member of the National Party.

Unless it is Slater who is lying (which is equally plausible as he has a reputation  for telling lies)? Otherwise, if Slater is telling the truth, then he has landed Key in it.

One of them is lying.

Take your pick.

Conclusions:

Key had not been forthcoming either on the Standard and Poors “email” or on where he got the tip-off that Winston Peters had visited Kim Dotcom.

What is equally disturbing is that Key is willing to use private information to smear a political opponant. Not since Paula Bennet released information on Natasha Fuller and Jennifer Johnston, has a politician willfully invaded another person’s privacy.

Whatever one may think of Winston Peters – and I am no fan of his – Peters deserves his privacy like anyone else.

Charge: broken promise/deflection/half-truth/hypocrisy/outright lie/mis-information?

Verdict: Mis-information, (probable) outright lie

 

.

*

.

References

NZ Parliament: Credit Rating Downgrade—Effect on Economy

TV3: Key accused of lying in Parliament over downgrade

Previous related blogposts

Nick Smith

Politicians never tell fibs

The Mendacities of Mr Key #1: The GCSB Bill

.

*

.

1504434_636268686433547_1633036652_o

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 February 2014.

.

.

= fs =

The Mendacities of Mr Key #1: The GCSB Bill

23 February 2014 2 comments

.

I lied  get over it!

.

In an on-going series, we will look at the half-truths; mis-representations; omissions; and outright lies, told by Dear Leader John Key.

1. The GCSB Bill

Background

Last year, upon revelations that the GCSB had illegally spied on 88 New Zealand citizens, Key  legitamised that law-breaking by passing the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill into law.

The official governmdent narrative was that the GCSB law was badly flawed; vague; and confusing.

Either in ignorance, or another of his pathetic lies, John Key maintained this fiction,

In addition, the Act governing the GCSB is not fit for purpose and probably never has been.  It was not until this review was undertaken that the extent of this inadequacy was known

[…]

The advice we have recently received from the Solicitor-General is that there are difficulties interpreting the legislation and there is a risk some longstanding practices of providing assistance to other agencies would not be found to be lawful.

[…]

It is absolutely critical the GCSB has a clear legal framework to operate within.”

Acknowledgement:  John Key – PM releases report into GCSB compliance

The proposition that the  2003 GCSB Act was “ not fit for purpose and probably never has been” is not supported by reality. In fact, the law was  crystal clear with it’s wording and intent. Section 14 of said Act stated with unambiguous clarity;

14Interceptions not to target domestic communications
  • Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

Source: legislation.govt.nz – Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003

Conclusions:

  1. John Key wilfully mis-led the country, and in this blogger’s opinion, lied about the effectiveness of the law.
  2. The actual purpose of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill was to legalise the GCSB’s illegal spying activities.
  3. Not only did the Amendment head off potential court action, but it legitamised ongoing spying on all New Zealanders, despite the original intentions of the Act  that this would never happen.

Charge: broken promise/deflection/half-truth/hypocrisy/outright lie/mis-information?

Verdict: outright lie.

 

 

.

*

.

References

NZ Legislation: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill

Newstalk ZB: Govt data casts doubt on PM’s job comments

TV3: Key accused of spreading TPPA ‘mistruths’

NZ Herald: Toby Manhire – Chameleon Key delivers a masterstroke

Fairfax media:  Demystifying the GCSB bill: Spies and lies

Previous related blogposts

The real reason for the GCSB Bill

The GCSB Act – Tracy Watkins gets it right

The GCSB Act – some history…

The GCSB – when plain english simply won’t do

The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?

A proposed Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) agenda – part tahi

.

*

.

John Key is really hoping that dudes like me don't vote

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 February 2014.

.

.

= fs =

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,054 other followers