Archive
National whines about Cullen’s appointment – they should know about cronyism
.
.
When it comes to a repulsive cocktail of double standards, self-interest, and hypocrisy, National is the party that just keeps on giving…
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>
date: 25 November 2017
subject: Letters to the editor.
The editor
The Listener.
On 23 November, the Coalition government fulfilled another of it’s election pledges. Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced that Michael Cullen would head the planned Taxation Working Group to look into issues surrounding a fairer taxation system.
National’s political strategist and former minister, Steven Joyce responded with a predictable jerk-of-the-knee;
“Sir Michael is many things but a politically independent voice on taxation policy he is not. Let’s face it, he was Labour’s last Finance Minister and one of the key coalition negotiators for the Labour Party.”
Joyce’s reprehensible swipe at Cullen’s appointment was hypocritical for two reasons.
Firstly, it was National that appointed Cullen as deputy chairman of NZ Post in April 2009. By November 2010, then SOE Minister, Simon Power, had promoted Cullen to Chair of NZ Post, saying;
“I look forward to working with Dr Cullen to develop NZ Post’s strategy to accommodate declining mail volumes and a challenging financial environment.”
Secondly, when it comes to cronyism, National is hard to beat. Just some of their political appointees include Jackie Blue, Wyatt Creech, Mervyn English, Sir Wira Gardiner, Catherine Isaac, Judy Kirk, Richard Long, Wayne Mapp, Stephen McElrea, Jim McLay, Belinda Milnes, Ravi Musuku, Brian Neeson, Kerry Prendergast, , Katherine Rich, Jenny Shipley, Ken Shirley, Roger Sowry, and Penny Webster.
One of National’s worst instances of cronyism was the hugely wasteful, so-called “Rules Reduction Taskforce“, which produced it’s “loopy rules report”. Half the “Taskforce”, appointed by Paula Bennett in 2014, consisted of former National MPs such as Tau Henare, John Carter, and former party candidates Mark Thomas and Ian Tulloch. They were each paid $500 a day.
Eventually the “Taskforce” reported that many of the contentious bureaucratic regulations did not exist in reality. They were urban myths.
Thank you Steven Joyce for reminding us how National excels at cronyism.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
Further on the issue of the so-called “Rules Reduction Taskforce”, Green Party MP, Julie-Anne Genter, said at the time;
“We’re getting to that point where the National government is losing all perspective or sense of touch with reality – when they think it’s okay to pay their former MPs or candidates and donors to undertake what’s ostensibly some sort of taskforce work, it’s really just an exercise in PR and spin.”
That little exercise cost taxpayers a cool $750,000.
Around the same time, the Wanganui Chronicle reported that community NGOs were suffering badly, with several such as Relationships Aotearoa and the YWCA, closing entirely;
.
.
Fellow blogger, Curwen Rolinson, was also less than impressed at Joyce’s naked hypocrisy, pointing out on Facebook;
But hold on just a moment. I’ve literally lost count of the number of consultative bodies and even straight-up *Inquiries* that the National Party *quite pointedly* staffed the chairing of with their own people, flunkies, and other such questionable appointments.
I mean, as an example of this – their placing of John Shewan at the head of the group convened to look into slash “dispel” the perception of New Zealand as a tax-haven, for instance, was quite directly a case of placing a fox in charge of a hen-house [Shewan’s private sector activities including quite a spate of tax-“consultancy” and linkages to a series of potentially dodgy international firms in this regard].
Or, worse, the series of appointments of [now Dame – guess why she got the gong, eh?] Paula Rebstock to head Inquiries into everything from Peter Dunne’s ‘alleged’ leaking of materials around the GCSB’s illegal conduct through to the ‘Leask’ affair concerning MFAT information being anonymously passed to the Labour Party.
Curwen continued to strip away National’s faux outrage;
Further, if I recall correctly, the previous National Government’s “2025 Taskforce” on pensions and the like was convened to be *chaired by* none other than arch-neoliberal [and former National Party Leader] Don Brash. I don’t seem to recall the National Party raising any issue with “politically tied” appointments to policy working-group style arrangements THEN…?
What’s different about Cullen on the Tax Working Group, I wonder…?
But when it came to cronyism mixed with commercial self interest, Judith Collins’ involvement in the Oravida milk company scandal was hard to top, as political commentator, Bryce Edwards put bluntly;
Justice Minister Judith Collins has revealed she had a dinner with the head of Oravida and a senior Chinese government official while in China last year and admits she was wrong not to disclose the dinner last week. Mrs Collins has been under pressure to explain her dealings with the milk company Oravida, where her husband is a director;
Perceptions of corruption, cronyism and conflicts of interest can be incredibly damaging to any government, and National will be very wary of a narrative developing that this administration is infected with political sleaze.
Nothing makes a government look more tired, out-of-touch, and arrogant than scandals that suggest governing politicians are ethically compromised and governing in the interests of the powerful rather than the public.
Judith Collins’ milk endorsement scandal is beginning to have a serious impact on the Government’s reputation. But unfortunately for National, there are a number of similar stories dogging it at the moment, and they all come on the back of previous allegations of cronyism related to the scandals over John Banks as well as the SkyCity convention centre procurement process.
The scandal over Judith Collins and her allegedly favourable treatment of the milk company that her husband helps run has allowed National’s opponents to make some strong attacks on the character of, not only the Minister of Justice, but the whole National administration
By August 2014, the allegations of sleaze, corruption, conflicts of interest became over-whelmingly and Collins was forced to step down from her ministerial roles.
There were many other instances of cronyism revealed during National’s nine years in office. Several resulted in ministerial resignations.
If the appointment of a former Finance Minister to a working group focused on Finance issues (ie, taxation) is the worst that National can throw at the new Coalition government – then it is lobbing damp squibs.
Considering National’s own recent murky history, the issue of cronyism is one where it might be wiser to keep a very, very, very low profile.
.
Appendix
A roll call of some of National’s cronies – ex-members of Parliament appointed to various government bodies, organisations, NGOs, working groups, etc;
This list is not complete.
.
.
.
References
Fairfax media: Sir Michael Cullen to head tax working group, GST changes possible
NZ Herald: Cullen leaves politics for NZ Post role
NZ Herald: Cullen to replace Bolger at NZ Post
Fairfax media: Cullen appointed NZ Post chairman
Radio NZ: National accused of cronyism over ‘loopy rules’ report
Wanganui Chronicle: Concern over lack of funding for NGOs
Facebook: Curwen Ares Rolinson – 24 November 2017
NZ Herald: Bryce Edwards – The National Government is looking sleazy
Radio NZ: Collins resigns after ‘smear campaign’
Frankly Speaking: Cronywatch
Additional
Radio NZ: National accused of cronyism over ‘loopy rules’ report
NZ Herald: Bryce Edwards – The National Government is looking sleazy
Other Blogs
AmeriNZ Blog: Is John Key’s government corrupt?
The Standard: Cabinet Club
Previous related blogposts
The Fletcher Affair – a warning for Labour
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 26 November 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Judith Collins owes an explanation to voters
.
.
National’s narrative continues
.
The National Party is continuing with it’s strategy to question and undermine the legitimacy of the Labour-Green-NZFirst coalition government.
On 24 October,on Radio NZ’s Morning Report, Bill English questioned whether or not Labour had a mandate to govern;
“ The voters at large probably expected that if you got 44 and a half percent of the vote, you were some part of the government or the big part of it.
[…]
…How to hold to account a government that’s been put together in an unusual way.
[…]
Just remember this is a prime minister who’s the first one in a hundred years who lost the popular vote and lost it by quite a bit.
… It didn’t win the vote.
[…]
…when an election is lost, a larger party captured the direction New Zealand wanted to go in.
On further questioning, English was forced to concede that Labour had a mandate;
I accept that, absolutely… It’s a legitimate result…
Well, I’ve been saying all year that the… all the other parties put together can beat you on the day. And that’s what happened on Thursday. So that’s MMP. That’s how it works.”
On the 10th of November, Judith Collins took up the narrative, questioning whether or not Peters had been conducting coalition negotiations in good faith;
.
.
Collins complained that because Winston Peters had filed legal action against several National MPs and their staff, that this constituted “bad faith” bargaining;
“ At the time, we were very much convinced on our side there were genuine negotiations going on. But I’ve got to say, it’s not looking like it was quite so genuine anymore.”
She further demanded an explanation from the NZ First leader;
“ I think Winston Peters should really explain himself to the public because there were a lot of voters who were disappointed in his decision. I think New Zealanders are owed an explanation. Was he being genuine, or was it just a play?”
Now this is richly ironic on several levels.
.
Bargaining in good faith
.
Firstly, I am reminded of National’s legislative changes to workplace collective bargaining in 2014. As MoBIE reported at the time, “good faith bargaining” was watered down to the extent that “the duty of good faith does not require collective agreement to be concluded“;
Before the law change, parties bargaining for a collective agreement were required to conclude that agreement unless there was genuine reason not to. The change means that a collective agreement does not have to be concluded, however parties must still deal with each other in good faith.
The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2014 came into effect on 6 March 2015 and passed provisions in the Bill that “providing that the duty of good faith does not require parties to reach a collective agreement“.
So providing that employers could show they “acted in good faith“, there was no onus on them to conclude bargaining to achieve a collective agreement.
Sound familiar?
It should. It’s what Judith “Crusher” Collins has complained about;
“ At the time, we were very much convinced on our side there were genuine negotiations going on. But I’ve got to say, it’s not looking like it was quite so genuine anymore.”
The richest irony of all; National complaining that bargaining to establish a “collective agreement” for a National-NZFirst Coalition was not conducted in good faith.
“Good faith bargaining” and the “National Party” – not words we usually associate together in the same sentence.
My heart bleeds.
.
New Zealanders owed an explanation?!
.
Collins was engaging in some loud, toy-tossing whining when she demanded “I think Winston Peters should really explain himself to the public because there were a lot of voters who were disappointed in his decision. I think New Zealanders are owed an explanation”.
While we’re about who is owed explanations by whom, let’s re-cap on some matters that arose in the last nine years of National’s governance – and remain outstanding ;
2009 – Paula Bennett releases personal details relating to two solo-mothers, after they challenged the Minister’s decision to cease the Training Incentive Allowance (which Bennett herself used to gain a free tertiary education);
.
.
Not only did Bennett not apologise for misusing personal information for political point-scoring – she hinted she would do it again;
“ …it would depend on the circumstances.”
Paula Bennett: New Zealanders are owed an explanation.
2013 & 2014 – Judith Collins was revealed to have close connections with Oravida, which her husband was also a director of. Collins;
- opened Oravida’s new Auckland headquarters in October 2013
- whilst on a tax-payer funded trip to China, Collins had a private dinner-function with Oravida bosses and an un-named senior Chinese border official
- on the same tax-payer funded trip to China, Collins “stopped by” Oravida’s Shanghai offices “on the way to the airport” – despite Oravida’s offices being thirty kilometres in the opposite direction
- prior to Collins’ dinner at Oravida’s Shanghai offices, Oravida sought assistance from the NZ Government on Chinese border control problems
- received donations totalling $86,000 for the National Party coffers
- received thousands of dollars of donations from other Oravida-linked sources
The perception of a severe conflict of interest where Collins may have mis-used her Ministerial position to further Oravida’s interests remain unanswered.
Judith Collins: New Zealanders are owed an explanation.
2014 – Judith Collins (again) was uncovered sharing information – including personal information, leaks, and gossip – with far-right blogger, Cameron Slater.
In his book ‘Dirty Politics‘, investigative journalist Nicky Hager Mediaworks outlined how Collins had;
- … discussed details of the Bronwyn Pullar ACC case with Mr Slater and she may have been behind the leak;
- … fed Mr Slater a constant stream of gossip, for example, anecdotes about Labour MP Trevor Mallard making a fool of himself;
- … may have been involved in a prisoner transfer requested by Mr Slater, while she was Corrections Minister;
- … emailed Mr Slater the name of a ministerial services staff member who he went on to attack on his blog.
Collins was also accused of running a vendetta against then Serious Fraud Office Director, Adam Feeley, and working with Slater to destroy the SFO boss’s career.
In 15 August 2014, then-Dear Leader Key refused categorically to sack or even investigate Collins for alleged mis-use of ministerial power;
.
.
Two weeks later, she was gone-burger. Collins had “resigned”;
.
.
(Unsurprisingly, Collins was later “cleared” of allegations that “she was working with Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater to get rid of former Serious Fraud Office boss Adam Feeley”. Evidently, despite several fifteen minute telephone calls between Slater and Collins, Justice Lester Chisholm insisted that the “Whaleoil” blogger had ” over-embellished” when he sent emails saying Collins was “gunning for Feeley”. Yeah, right.)
Yet, questions still persist surrounding Collins’ dealings with Cameron Slater and people she allegedly tried to destroy.
Judith Collins: New Zealanders are owed an explanation.
.
Conclusion
.
It is unquestionably the role of the Parliamentary Opposition to question the government and hold it to account. Along with the media (as flawed as it sometimes is), a strong Opposition is a necessary function of a healthy democracy.
But having someone like Judith Collins, who has so many unanswered questions hanging over her, demanding accountability undermines the effectiveness of the Opposition.
Collins’ time has come and gone. She should resign from Parliament altogether and let her place be taken by someone untainted by dubious associations; questionable conflicts of interest; and allegations of mis-use of ministerial power.
Other MPs have resigned for less.
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Bill English faces first caucus since defeat (alt.link)(audio)
Mediaworks: Winston Peters ‘not genuine’ in coalition talks – Judith Collins
Mediaworks: Winston Peters takes legal action against National Party over leak ‘plot’
MoBIE: Law changes to collective bargaining
MoBIE: Amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000 (March 2015)
NZ Herald: Bennett gets tough with outspoken solo mums
Dominion Post: Minister defends releasing private details
Fairfax media: Bennett won’t rule out releasing beneficiary details
Mediaworks: Timeline – Judith Collins and Oravida
Mediaworks: Key won’t investigate Collins claims
Mediaworks: Judith Collins cleared of colluding with Whale Oil blogger Slater
Fairfax media: How did Key mislead Parliament?
Other Blogs
The Paepae: The Judith Collins Chisholm inquiry – Who was actually on trial?
The Standard: Collective bargaining? Yeah right
Previous related blogposts
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Toru)
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
Hon. Paula Bennett, Minister of Hypocrisy
“Dirty Politics” and The Teflon Man
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign… (Iwa)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 November 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Judith Collins – the Gift that keeps Giving to the Opposition?
. 
.
From a news report;
Ms Collins resigned before the election after being accused of working with the Whale Oil blog after emails were released suggesting she was “gunning” for former director of the Serious Fraud Office, Adam Feeley, when she was the minister in charge of the SFO.
A report by former High Court judge Lester Chisholm into her actions will be released this week, with some media reporting that it is expected to clear her name.
After the Old Boys’ Network swarmed around now-disgraced CERA boss, and sexual-harrasser, Roger Sutton, with support and to downplay the seriousness of his behaviour – this blogger predicts the following outcome of the investigation into Judith Collins.
- She will be fully exonerated.
- The Prime Minister will say he had faith in her all along. (He has already intimated this, “If Judith is cleared that’s great – that would be my expectation“.)
- Bundles of flowers will be sent to her office (note to florists in Parliamentary precinct: stock up).
- Cameron Slater will claim full vindication and become even more obnoxious and unpredictable in his behaviour (if that were at all possible).
- Critics of this increasingly authoritarian government will think twice before speaking out.
- Collins will be restored as a Minister within twelve months, more vengeful, and more dangerous than ever.
- This government will become more emboldened than ever to pursue vindictive retribution against critics.
The report from Chisholm will most likely be a total whitewash.
No one should expect accountability from this government. They will see “accountability” as weakness, and a third-term government cannot afford to show any hint of weakness.
After all, New Zealanders love ‘strong’ governments. Even Muldoon’s increasingly erratic administration might not have been voted out had it not been for Bob Jones’ NZ Party, which split the right-wing vote in 1984. The under-current from a significant portion of the population that holds irrational, conservative views should never be under-estimated.
It will be a mistake for Key to restore Collins as a Minister. But the pressure from her National party cronies will become irresistible, and Key will have no choice but to eventually yield.
It will not be a decision that comes easily to our esteemed PM. Key is fully aware that Collins’ arrogance – like a certain ex-MP with a ‘don’t-you-know-who-I-am‘ attitude – inevitably draws trouble to herself. The Oravida-China fiasco, where Collins used a tax-payer funded trip to promote her husband’s milk company in Beijing, made unwelcome headlines for the National Party for weeks.
Collins escaped that scandal only by the skin of her teeth, when the Opposition and Media onslaught ran out of steam.
Next up, Collins’ bizarre personal attack on one of the media’s most inoffensive Parliamentary journalists, Katie Bradford, where the Minister made outrageous allegations of impropriety.
Collins eventually had to retract and apologise – no doubt after an increasingly irritated PM put the hard word on his errant Minister.
Not content to keep her head down, Collins pursued a secret political relationship with far-right blogger and convicted criminal, Cameron Slater, which, when uncovered in Nicky Hager’s expose, ‘Dirty Politics‘, was the straw that finally broke the ministerial camel’s back. On 30 August she ‘resigned’ her portfolios.
This scandal could easily have triggered an early election had she held fast and refused to step down. History might have been different had Key gone to polls three weeks before the Nats were ready, and under Collins-inspired storm-clouds.
A TVNZ-Colmar Brunton poll, released the day before Collins stood down, gave an unequivocal result to the simple question: should Collins resign? 61% of respondents said yes; 26% said no, and 13% had no opinion. (That 26% corresponds roughly to National’s core tribal-electoral support, as demonstrated at the 2002 general election.)
A day later, she obliged.
Five days after her ‘resignation’, a Fairfax media-Ipsos poll reported a massive 3.4% jump for National. No doubt National-aligned pollster, David Farrar, had already known that National would re-bound with Collins gone. His own internal polling would have shown this.
But here comes the ‘kicker’. On 5 September, on the same day as the Fairfax-Ipsos poll was made public, a NZ Herald-DigiPoll, showed another conclusive result for the National Party. The majority stated categorically that they had had enough of the increasingly troublesome, ‘accident’-prone, Member for Papakura.
Asked if Key should give Collins any Ministerial role in a third term National government, 51.6% responded with “give her no ministerial role”. (25.5% responded with giving her a less senior role than she had; and only 12.6% agreed she “should keep the Justice portfolio or a similarly senior role”.)
Those results clearly illustrate the divisive nature of Judith Collins if she is in a position of authority.
Key would do well to remember these facts, even when/if the Chisholm Inquiry exonerates her.
On the other hand, a revitalised Parliamentary Labour Opposition probably relishes the prospect of a politically “rehabilitated” Collins appointed to a Ministerial role once again.
One can only imagine what new cluster-f**k is awaiting in the wings with this woman.
.
References
NZ News: Collins report may clear way for return
NZ Herald: Rennie made ‘miscalculation’ in allowing Sutton press conference – PM
Dominion Post: No Cabinet return for Judith Collins
TV3 News: ‘Do you know who I am?’ – Aaron Gilmore
NZ Herald: I’m the victim of a smear campaign: Judith Collins resigns
TVNZ: Collins says sorry to TVNZ reporter after allegation
TVNZ: Voters want Judith Collins to stand down, poll reveals
Wikipedia: 2002 General Election
Fairfax media: National soars without Collins – poll
Previous related blogposts
Letter to the Editor: Judith Collins
Judith Collins – Minister of Talking Crap
Judith Collins – Hypocrite of the Week
Are Cameron Slater and Judith Collins bare-faced liars?
Additional related blogpost
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 November 2014, at around 8am.
.
.
= fs =
The slow disintegration of a government; 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5…
.
.
Where does one start…?
¶ Growing numbers of injuries and fatalities in various industries, caused by health and safety de-regulation in the early 1990s, by a previous National government?
¶ National passing legislation last year, increasing the powers of the surveillance state by enabling legislation for the GCSB to spy on all New Zealanders?
¶ Permitting dangerous drilling practices in our deep coastal waters?
¶ Hekia Parata on education?
¶ The gutting and collapse of Solid Energy?
¶ John Banks/Kim Dotcom/SkyCity/dodgy donations?
¶ Peter Dunne’s unmitigated mess over “legal highs”?
¶ Maurice Williamson’s attempt to influence/query a police investigation surrounding a wealthy immigrant?
¶ National’s unhealthy relationship with immigrants; big business; and corporate donors-for-favours?
¶ Corporate cronyism for aluminium smelters, film companies, et al?
¶ Judith Collins’ lies over her dinner at Oravida and a mysterious, un-named Chinese official?
Let’s start with the last, and most recent; Judith Collins.
It appears that there are three serious grounds for which John Key has no choice but to dismiss Collins from her ministerial rolls;
1.
Collins lied
On 5 March, Collins stated that she went to the Oravida offices;
“To actually have a cup of tea on the way to the airport“.
On 18 March, Collins repeated this statement in Parliament;
“I was being driven around and I was assured by the ambassador that we could pop into Oravida on the way to the airport, or else I could have gone to the airport and I could have sat in the lounge for an extra long time.”
But this excuse was shown to be demonstrably false when then Labour’s Grant Robertson revealed in Parliament;
“Is she aware that Oravida’s headquarters are 30km in the opposite direction from where her hotel and business meetings were held and not on the way to Pudong airport at all?”
2.
The meeting at Oravida – a company where Judith Collins’s husband is a Director – and the subsequent dinner with a Chinese official, was not a “business meeting” said Judith Collins.
However, subsequent to the non-business dinner, Oravida acquired a quarantine clearance from the Chinese government, and Oravida made a $30,000 donation to National, days later.
But more critical, as revealed on Polity, is an email dated 23 October 2013, which clearly refers to Collins’ meeting at Oravida;
Purpose / objective
To increase the profile of a successful importer and distributor of New Zealand products into China
The email is reproduced here in it’s entirety (courtesy from Polity);
.
.
That email clinches Collins’ guilt. It is the “smoking gun” that proves Collins’ intent for visiting her husband’s business. The words are there in black and white; To increase the profile of a successful importer and distributor of New Zealand products into China.
This was the same breach of Cabinet rules that caused National Cabinet Minister, Pansy Wong, to resign,
.
.
Mrs Wong resigned as a Cabinet minister last month after it was revealed her husband Sammy could have conducted private business while on a taxpayer-subsidised overseas trip.
Rules around the perk which pays up to 90 per cent of MPs’ and their spouses international travel, prohibit any private business activities during trips funded by it.
A Parliamentary Services inquiry ordered by Speaker Lockwood Smith cleared Mrs Wong and her husband of any serious misuse of taxpayer-funded travel perks.
The report by former public servant Hugh McPhail found the Wongs breached rules on use of the perk just once by conducting private business during a trip to China in 2008.
.
The case against Judith Collins is clear-cut;
1. She lied.
2. She refuses to take responsibility.
3. It is clear that her trip to Oravida’s offices and factory were indeed business-related.
Her position as Minister is no longer tenable. She must go.
.
*
.
Postscript #1
This is the woman who recently took joy at exhibiting an “Iron Lady” affectation by making personal attacks on a fellow Parliamentarian;
.
.
Dear Leader John Key has given Collins “time out”, lamely explaining,
“She’ll be back by the Budget but I think she should take four or five days. We work in a stressful environment. There’s no question that Judith made some inappropriate comments and over-reached…”
To which, I reply quoting Ms Collins herself, when she attacked Metiria Turei;
“…Oh my goodness isn’t she a sensitive little sausage.”
Karma. In spades.
Postscript #2
Judith Collin’s vindictive attack on journalist Katie Bradford (for which Collins has since apologised) is not the first instance of critics of this government coming under attack by either politicians, or those connected with the government;
July, 2009
Natasha Fuller & Jennifer Johnston, solo-mothers
Personal WINZ details released to the media by Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, to discredit both women after they criticised National for canning the Training Incentive Allowance (which Bennett herself used to pay her way through University).
May, 2011
Jon Stephenson, journalist
John Key derides Stephenson’s research into NZ activities in Afghanistan: “I’ve got no reason for NZDF to be lying, and I’ve found [Stephenson] myself personally not to be credible.”September, 2011
Nicky Hager, writer, researcher
John Key dismisses Hager’s book, on CIA involvement in NZ military activities in Afghanistan: “I don’t have time to read fiction,” quipped the Prime Minister, adding that the book contained “no smoking gun”, just supposition, which, “makes it business as normal for Nicky Hager”. (Despite the book having 1300 footnotes to referencing documentation.)October, 2011
Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, broadcaster, blogger
Criticised John Key on Radio NZ. Subsequently banned/ “uninvited” from returning to Radio NZ as a panellist for the Afternoons with Jim Mora segment.November, 2011
Robyn Malcolm, actor
Criticises the John Key led National government for it’s failures at a Green Party campaign launch, and is, in turn, vilified by the ‘NZ Herald’, and by one-time National Party aspiring-candidate, Cameron Brewer.November, 2011
Bradley Ambrose, journalist/photographer
Investigated by police after complaint laid by the Prime Minister, over the “Teapot Tape” affair. Ambrose investigated and interviewed by Police. Media office raided. Property seized. Eventually, no charges laid. Government considered seeking costs of $13,669.45 from Ambrose – but eventually decided not to.March 2012
ACC Claimant, Bronwyn’s Pullar’s personal details are leaked to the media and to a right wing blogger, who has been given her full files, emails, etc. ACC Minister, Judith Collins, and her office are implicated.
November 2012
Dr Mike Joy, environmentalist, scientist, academic. Attacked by both John Key and right wing “media relations/publicist”, Mark Unsworth, for daring to tell the public the truth about New Zealand’s polluted waterways. On 21 November, Unsworth sent a vicious email to Dr Joy that showed the state of mind of Unsworth to be bordering on unhinged.
March, 2013
Annette Sykes, lawyer, activist, President of Mana Party
When Annette Sykes criticised the appointment of sportswoman Susan Devoy to the role of Race Relations Commissioner, Minister Judith Collins responded with “Annette Sykes is a stupid person”. That’s how National views critics.
May, 2014
Katie Bradford, Parliamentary Press Gallery, and TV1 journalist. Judith Collins makes allegations to a TV3 journalist, that Ms Bradford asked the Minister to intervene on behalf of her (Bradford’s) husband to join the police force. This is refuted by Ms Bradford as untrue. Collins later apologises.
.
References
TV3: Collins says Oravida visit not conflict of interest
Parliament: Justice, Minister—Statements
Fairfax media: MFAT briefing requested before Oravida dinner
Otago Daily Times: Peters reveals details of tea tape
TV3: Judith Collins takes swing at Press Gallery journalist
TVNZ: Judith Collins to take time off amid Oravida storm
NZ Herald: Oravida gave another $30,000 to National
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 May 2014.
.
.
= fs =
A Query to the Taxpayers Union – ***UP DATE ***
.
.
Further to an earlier blogpost where I emailed Jordan Williams, at the Taxpayers Union, regarding Judith Collins’ taxpayer-funded trip to China, where she visited a milk importer (Oravida) of which her husband is the sole Director…
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Judith Collins DATE: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:39:48 +1300 TO: "Taxpayers Union" <tipline@taxpayers.org.nz>.
Kia ora, I am aware that your Union recently condemned the cost incurred by Green MP, Ms Mojo Mathers, in a trip she made to Masterton to participate in a radio interview on disabilities. Accordingly, will you be investigating and commenting on the trip made by National MP and Minister, Judith Collins, for her recent taxpayer-funded trip to China? Ms Collins' portfolios include Minister for Ethnic Affairs; Minister of Justice; and Minister for ACC. It is unclear what purpose was served by a trip to China as none of her portfolios relate directly to foreign affairs or trade. Will you also be investigating and commenting on the conflict of interest posed by her visit to Orivida - a Chinese company of which her husband is a Director? This appears to be little more than a tax-payer funded 'junket' and I await your response to this in the light of your critical stance taken regarding Ms Mathers' trip to Masterton. Regards, -Frank Macskasy
.
Mr Williams, from the so-called Taxpayers Union, responded on the same day;
.
.
Several commentators on my previous blogpost suggested that blogs are a part of the media (or “new media”) and that Mr Williams should, accordingly, be responding to my query as if the NZ Herald had contacted him for a comment.
I took note of the suggestions and wrote back to Mr Williams,
.
FROM: "f.macskasy"
SUBJECT: Re: Judith Collins
DATE: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:37:51 +1300
TO: "Jordan Williams" <jordan@taxpayers.org.nz>
.
Kia ora Jordan!
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my query, and in
such a timely fashion. That was greatly appreciated.
Regarding your point on the Mojo Mathers issue; I understand
that you stated you did not initiate contact with the
Herald, and that you responded to their query.
As you may be aware, I blog on various issues, including
covering public activities such as Select Committee
hearings; protests; etc.
I am therefore part of the so-called "new media" of citizen
journalists/bloggers, as your colleague, Cameron Slater also
maintains.
Accordingly, I seek a response from you, on behalf of the
Taxpayers Union, on National MP and Minister, Judith
Collins' recent taxpayer-funded trip to China.
It is unclear what purpose was served by a trip to China as
none of her portfolios relate directly to foreign affairs
or trade. Ms Collins' portfolios include Minister for
Ethnic Affairs; Minister of Justice; and Minister for ACC.
Considering that none of her portfolios relate to foreign
affairs or trade, was this trip necessary? What purpose did
it serve, and for who?
What is the Taxpayers Union's response on the
perceived/actual conflict of interest posed by her visit to
Orivida - a Chinese company of which her husband is a
Director?
Does the Taxpayers Union view Collins' trip as little more
than a tax-payer funded 'junket'?
Does the Taxpayers Union consider the $36,000 spent by
Collins on this trip "value for money"?
I look forward to the Taxpayers Union's statement on this
issue.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
As at 11.59PM, on 18 March, I have received no further correspondence from Mr Williams, nor from any other representative of the Taxpayers Union. Not even a simple acknowledgement of having received my 16 March email.
It is interesting to note the circumstances surrounding this issue.
I emailed the Taxpayers Union because it had commented – and roundly condemned – Mojo Mathers’ flight from Christchurch to Masterton, to attend a radio interview on the issue of disabilities.
On 2 March, Jordan Williams made this statement on the resulting furore surrounding his remarks on Ms Mathers’ travel;
.
This morning there has been some criticism of my comments in a story on the Herald website about a trip Mojo Mathers took to Masterton from Christchurch apparently just for a short interview on a community radio station.
For clarification:
- The Taxpayers’ Union did not seek media attention on this story. There is no associated press release. The Herald called yesterday evening asking for comment, as happens often.
- The Taxpayers’ Union operate 24 hour media line for comment on taxpayer issues. Yesterday’s call came through to me and I was asked whether it was value for money for an MP to fly 800km for a radio interview on a small community station. I said it was not value for money when the interview could have been done on Skype as well as the comments that are quoted in the story.
- I’ve made no comment about Ms Mathers disability. In fact, if the travel was necessary I would not criticise the spending. But answering questions posed by the Herald, on matter which as far as I know are completely unrelated to her disability, is legitimate.
- Accusations that I (or the Union) sought to go after Mathers are ridiculous. To repeat, we were asked for comment by the Herald who were running the story. The comments would have been the same whoever the MP.
- Accusations that the Taxpayers’ Union are partisan are also silly. I am proud that the Union has gone after National MPs and the current government for expenses, wasteful expenditure and corporate welfare. Seehttp://info.scoop.co.nz/New_Zealand_Taxpayers’_Union
On reflection, I wonder why an MP from a party that prides itself for having a low environmental footprint choose to fly to a radio interview that could have been done on Skype. Perhaps Ms Mathers had other engagements in Masterton. If so, that was not the information provided to me at the time by the Herald reporter.
Jordan Williams.
Note Mr Williams’ statement;
Accusations that the Taxpayers’ Union are partisan are also silly. I am proud that the Union has gone after National MPs and the current government for expenses, wasteful expenditure and corporate welfare
Aside from a handful of press releases aimed at National Minister, Steven Joyce, most of the Taxpayers Unions public comments seemed to target Auckland mayor Len Brown; government departments (whilst not mentioning their Ministers); and strangely, the Labour Party – which is not even in government.
The Taxpayers Union has not commented on Judith Collins’ trip to China, despite there being glaring questions which demand to be asked. Questions such as why a Minister of Justice/Ethnic Affairs/ACC felt the need to spend $36,000 of taxpayers’ money on a junket overseas.
Mr Williams has not deigned to respond to my queries with a comment.
Yet, he was only too happy to launch into a savage excoriation of Green MP, Mojo Mathers, for spending an estimated $500 to speak on an issue that was actually her portfolio – and which, because of her disability, is a matter she is intimately familiar to speak on.
One can only assume that Mr Williams does not wish to be drawn into this issue. The reason is quite apparent.
Jordan Williams is closely connected to the likes of David Farrar, Cameron Slater, and Simon Lusk – all of whom are hard-Right National/ACT supporters and apparatchiks.
Right-wing blogger, David Farrar, is one of the Board members of the Taxpayers Union. His ‘bio‘, however, mentions nothing about his close links to the National Party,
“David is a well known political blogger and commentator. David also owns and manages the specialist polling agency Curia Market Research and has an active involvement in Internet issues. He is an experienced political campaigner and former parliamentary staffer.
“I helped form the New Zealand Taxpayers Union because I believe that New Zealand needs a lobby group to stand up for the rights of taxpayers and ratepayers, and fight against those who treat them as a never ending source of funds”.”
David Farrar’s Disclosure Statement on Kiwiblog;
“Since I joined Young Nationals in 1986, I have been affiliated to, and a member of, the National Party. I do not regard National as always right, but it is the party which I believe gives me the greatest opportunity to achieve the New Zealand I want.
As a volunteer, I established National’s initial Internet presence in 1996 and have held various roles in the party up until 2005. I have three times been a temporary contractor to National HQ, helping out with the campaign in 1999, and also between staff appointments – in 2004 and 2007 for a total of ten months.”
Other Board Members are;
John Bishop; businessman; columnist for the right-leaning NBR; and authored a “puff piece” on National’s Deputy Leader, Bill English; Constituency Services Manager, ACT Parliamentary Office, April 2000 – August 2002, “developing relationships with key target groups and organising events”.
Gabrielle O’Brien; businesswoman; National Party office holder, 2000-2009.
Jordan McCluskey; University student; member of the Young Nationals.
Jono (Jonathan) Brown; Administrator/Accounts Clerk at the Apostolic Equippers [Church] Wellington, which, amongst other conservative policies, opposed the marriage equality Bill.
None of this is mentioned even in passing on the Taxpayers Union ‘Who We Are‘ page.
By now, it should be patently obvious that the Taxpayers Union is little more than a thinly-disguised, right-wing, front organisation for the National Party.
In which case, it would be “counter-productive” of the Taxpayers Union to be criticising Judith Collins’ trip to China. It would be a case of attacking one of their own.
.
*
.
References
Taxpayers Union: A question of value for taxpayer money
TV1: Key puts Collins on warning, opposition calls for sacking
Fairfax Media: Anti-MMP plan leaked
Taxpayers Union: Who we are
Kiwiblog: Disclosure Statement
Finda.co.nz: John Bishop Communicator
Johnbishop.co.nz: Bill English – Minister of Infrastructure
Advisoryboards.co.nz: Curriculum Vitae: John Bishop – Advisory Boards NZ
LinkedIn: Gabrielle O’Brien
LinkedIn: Jordan McCluskey
LinkedIn: Jonathan [“Jono”] Brown
Newswire.co.nz: ‘Not up to church to dictate on gay marriage’
See Also
NZ Herald: John Drinnan – High-risk PR strategy flies
Sciblogs: Jesus heals — but not cancer! [Equippers Church]
Previous related blogposts
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
A Query to the Taxpayers Union
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 March 2014.
.
.
= fs =
A Query to the Taxpayers Union
.
.
A comment by Sally Randell, on The Daily Blog, raised this interesting point;
Why was Judith Collins in China anyway?
She is justice Minister, not trade minister.
Cheers, coz I can’t find it via google
Which is intriguing. Ms Randell is quite correct; Collins has no portfolios that would necessitate an expensive tax-payer funded trip – complete with a coterie of staffers – to travel thousand of kilometres to China. Airline fares. Plus hotel accomodation. Plus meals.
This would have cost thousands of taxpayer’s dollars.
How many hungry children; endangered species protection; or hip operations could this money have paid for?
Accordingly, I wrote to the Taxpayers Union on this matter;
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Judith Collins DATE: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:39:48 +1300 TO: "Taxpayers Union" <tipline@taxpayers.org.nz>.
Kia ora, I am aware that your Union recently condemned the cost incurred by Green MP, Ms Mojo Mathers, in a trip she made to Masterton to participate in a radio interview on disabilities. Accordingly, will you be investigating and commenting on the trip made by National MP and Minister, Judith Collins, for her recent taxpayer-funded trip to China? Ms Collins' portfolios include Minister for Ethnic Affairs; Minister of Justice; and Minister for ACC. It is unclear what purpose was served by a trip to China as none of her portfolios relate directly to foreign affairs or trade. Will you also be investigating and commenting on the conflict of interest posed by her visit to Orivida - a Chinese company of which her husband is a Director? This appears to be little more than a tax-payer funded 'junket' and I await your response to this in the light of your critical stance taken regarding Ms Mathers' trip to Masterton. Regards, -Frank Macskasy.
Ms Mathers’ trip cost taxpayers an estimated $500-$600.
Collins’ junket reportedly cost us $36,000.
It’ll be interesting if Jordan Williams lays into Judith Collins with the same gusto he did with Green MP, Mojo Mathers.
What are my chances?!
.
*** Up date ***
.
Evidently my “chances” weren’t too flash.
This was Jordan Williams’ response to my query to him;
.
.
Hi Frank,
We commented on Mojo as a result of the Herald calling us and
asking for such. Of course we will do the same if asked.
Regards
Jordan Williams
Executive Director | New Zealand Taxpayers' Union Inc.
.
So… I take it from Mr Williams’ reply that we will not be hearing from the Taxpayers’ Union unless the media asks them to comment? And if the media doesn’t make any requests for comment – we’ll never hear from them at all, ever again?
I do believe Jordan Williams has just demonstrated – with crystal clarity – the pro-National partisanship of his “Taxpayers Union”.
.
*
.
References
TV1 News: Key puts Collins on warning, opposition calls for sacking
Related
The Daily Blog – Chris Trotter: Dispelling The Negatives: Judith Collins refuses to cry over spilt milk
Previous related blogposts
“It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash”
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 13 March 2014.
.
.
= fs =
National’s fund-raising at Antoine’s – was GST paid?
.
.
On TV3’s The Nation, Key steadfastly refused to make public the names of donors to various fund-raising events (or pay back) at Antoine’s restaurant in Parnell, Auckland.
Instead of using a Trust, where the names of donors are kept hidden, in this case Antoine’s Restaurant – whose owner is a well-known National Party supporter, Tony Astle – was the “bag man” who took the money; banked it; and then passed it on to the National Party as a donation. These donations were recorded with the Electoral Commission for 2010*and 2011*.
However – and here’s an interesting questing question that few (if any) have asked; was GST paid by Mr Astle on any of the monies ($60,000 and $105,000) received in payment for the meals?
A donation made directly to a political Party does not incur GST. But Inland Revenue (IRD) is quite clear of what constitutes a donation;
A donation is an unconditional gift only if the giver receives nothing in return.
But these monies were received from people attending the dinner and who paid for their meals accordingly. They received a ‘goods’ and ‘service’ in return for payment.
It is no longer an “unconditional gift”.
So those meals should have incurred GST.
(What Mr Astle then does with those monies, excluding GST, is his business, and he subsequently gifted it to the National Party as a donation.)
Accordingly, I have made an inquiry with Inland Revenue on this matter;
.
Information about a business
| Business or trade name: | Antoine’s Restaurant | |
| Business IRD/GST number: | Not provided | |
| Address – business: | Street: 333 Parnell Road | |
| Suburb, city or town: Parnell, Auckland | ||
| Phone number: | (09) 379 8756 | |
| Mobile number: | Not provided | |
| Description of the business: | restaurant | |
| Provide your detailed information: |
Kia ora Mr Taxman, It has recently been revealed in the media that Antoine’s Restaurant in Parnell, Auckland, hosted a series of fund-raising dinners on behalf of the National Party. One dinner event, in 2010, was attended by 21 people, where each person paid $5,000 to participate in the meal. The restaurant collected $105,000 from attendees. Another event, in 2010, a sum of $60,000 was paid to the restaurant for a similar event. Considering that the monies paid was for a meal; paid to Antoine’s directly; this appears to have been a good and service provided to paying members of the public. Was GST paid on these transactions? Regards, -Frank Macskasy |
|
.
You’ve successfully submitted your information.
Your information was received on Sunday, 9 March 2014 2:24:30 PM NZDT. This form is now completed.
Your reference number is: 208194.
It remains to be seen if Mr Astle paid GST on payments received for those meals. If 21 people paid $5,000 each, that comes to $105,000.
GST on that sum (in 2010), at 12.5%, would have amounted to $13,125.
Yet, the Donations Return for 2010 clearly shows that the full amount of $105,000 was transferred from Antoine’s/Astle to the National Party. No deduction has been made for GST.
.
*
.
* Interesting Note:
The 2011 Party Donations Return for National also includes two payment by Oravida;
.
.
This is the same Oravida that National Minister, Judith Collins, recently visited in China – and of which her husband is a Director. Other donors on this Return also have links to Oravida.
The 2010 National_Party_donations Return also included a donation by one, Susan Chou, who is also connected to Oravida,
.
.
When it comes to ‘tricky’ – National excels with undisputed mastery of Big Time Tricky.
.
*
.
References
TV3: Key not talking about fundraising dinner
NBR: Key under fire for Antoine’s donations
Electoral Commission: New Zealand National Party donations 2011.pdf
Electoral Commission: National_Party_donations_2010.pdf
IRD: Business income tax
TVNZ: Judith Collins defiant amid claims of conflict of interest
Previous related blogposts
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
Other blogs
No Right Turn: “Out of the blue”
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 March 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor: An idea regarding a new(ish) flag
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letters to the editor DATE: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:42:43 +1300 TO: "NZ Herald" <letters@herald.co.nz>.
The Editor NZ Herald . John Key suggests that the black and white silver fern should be our new flag. I have a better idea. Why not sell the rights to re-brand our flag? That would work in well with National's corporatisation of New Zealand quite nicely. Perhaps Oravida could be persuaded to sponsor our flag by incorporating their company logo on it? That would tie in quite nicely with Judith Collins' passionate desire to promote our milk internationally, via her husband's company. The tragic thing is that some hardcore National/ACT supporters would probably think this was a great idea. It is not. -Frank Macskasy (address & phone number supplied)
.
*
.
References
NZ Herald: Should the silver fern be NZ’s new flag?
.
*
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Focus on Politics for 14 March 2014
.
– Focus on Politics –
.
– Friday 14 March 2014 –
.
– Brent Edwards –
.
A weekly analysis of significant political issues.
Friday after 6:30pm and Saturday at 5:10pm
This week the Prime Minister announced the election date and his plan for a referendum on the New Zealand flag. Meanwhile, Judith Collins got a roasting in the media over perceptions of conflict of interest, and from the Prime Minister in withholding information from him.
.
.
Click to listen: Focus on Politics for 7 March 2014 ( 15′ 30″ )
- NZ flag
- Judith Collins
- Oravida
- Chief of Staff Wayne Eagleson
- Cabinet Office
- conflicts of interest
- David Cunliffe
- trusts
.
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 10 March 2014
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 10 March 2014 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
Party machinations, intrigue and trust in politics are among the topics for exploration.
.
.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams (23′ 13″ )
- David Cunliffe, trusts, State-funding political parties
- Antoines, Tony Astle
- Winston Peters, Owen Glenn
- Judith Collins, Oravida, next National Party leader
- polls
.
= fs =
User Pays: the eventual conclusion
|
|
Superman, for hire? Not quite right, is it…
Of course, we rightly view such a scene with aversion. Some things, we just don’t expect to see with a price levied.
|
= 1 =
|
Our British cuzzies recently discovered this on Monday, when it was discovered that the governing UK Conservative Party’s top fundraiser Peter Cruddas, had been selling access to senior British government MPs and Ministers. The full story is worth reprinting,
|
“ In a sting operation, ‘The Sunday Times’ secretly videotaped fundraiser Peter Cruddas discussing donations. The film showed him telling undercover reporters: “200 grand ($317,000), 250 is premier league … it’ll be awesome for your business.”
If donors met Cameron, Cruddas claimed in the recording, “within that room, everything is confidential and you will be able to ask him practically any question that you want.”
‘We will listen to you’
He suggested they could even influence party policy, saying: “If you are unhappy about something, we will listen to you and we will put it into the policy committee at (the prime minister’s official residence).”Cameron responded by saying Cruddas’ actions had been “completely unacceptable.” Cruddas, a millionaire, resigned within hours of the report.
Cruddas made the remarks to two journalists he thought were international financiers and who were accompanied by a lobbyist.
“Because we depend on donors so much we have to be careful” to show “you cannot buy access,” he said according to The Sunday Times. But, he told the undercover reporters, if you donate “you could well be at a private house having a private dinner with George Osborne, David Cameron, William Hague, the chairman around the table.”
Osborne, the cabinet minister in charge of economic and financial matters, and Foreign Minister William Hague are both members of Cameron’s center-right Conservative Party, which leads the governing coalition alongside the Liberal Democrats.
Embarrassing
The funding issue is embarrassing for Cameron, who promised before coming to power in May 2010 to curb corporate lobbying, saying it was the “next big scandal waiting to happen.”Following the report, Cameron admitted he had used his official home at 10 Downing Street to host dinners for Conservative donors.
The scandal threatened to undo Cameron’s efforts to shake off his party’s image of being too close to the interests of business and the rich as Britain undergoes an austerity program to cut its budget deficit.
“This is not the way that we raise money in the Conservative party, it should not have happened,” said Cameron. “I will make sure that there is a proper party inquiry to make sure this can’t happen again.”
While there were also tax cuts for lower earners, the government’s recent budget went down badly with many Britons, giving the impression the government was looking after the wealthy and cared little for those suffering rising unemployment and falling incomes as the economy struggles to recover from recession.
Previous attempts to reform the political funding system have foundered on the Conservatives’ reluctance to cap donations from wealthy individuals and the opposition Labour Party’s desire to avoid limits on contributions from unions. ”
Msnbc.com’s F. Brinley Bruton and Reuters contributed to this report.
Acknowledgement for source: MSNBC World News
|
By the next day, Britain’s Prime Minister and Leader of the UK Conservative Party, David Cameron, admitted what ‘The Sunday Times’ had uncovered,
|
|
The article further states,
“ Of a dozen couples or individuals who dined with Cameron, including eight who were at a post-election celebration in July 2010, six were financiers, including three hedge fund managers, and two were property magnates. Two run manufacturing firms.
The Chequers list included the names of party treasurers as well as the millionaire property developer David Rowland and Lebanese businessman Fares Fares...
… As other parties offer supporters and donors access to meetings and debates with leaders and senior officials, the Conservatives have a system for encouraging political and financial support. Their Web site offers a hierarchy of “Donors Clubs” where minimum levels of donation give increasing degrees of contact with party officials and representatives.
For the 50,000-pound ($80,000) annual membership of the “premier supporter group” – The Leader’s Group – “members are invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, … lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches”. “
Cameron was at pains to reassure British voters that,
“We are more transparent than any government and any prime minister have ever been. We behaved properly.
“What Cruddas was doing was totally unacceptable.”
We have a saying here in New Zealand for that kind of statement,
|
|
Of course, such things don’t happen here in New Zealand. Our own National Government does not do “favours” for cash donations to the Party…
|
= 2 =
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Electoral Commission webpage, “Returns of party donations exceeding $30,000“,
|
|
From the Electoral Commission webpage, “Returns of party donations exceeding $20,000“,
|
|
Those are the facts, as presented from various sources.
I invite you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions, regarding the individuals; companies; their donations and their links to National.
(Note: The Electoral Commission webpage on returns of party donations includes donations to Labour, ACT, The Greens, and NZ First.)
|
|
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 