#ChangeBrazil

Labour beware?

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Here is some free advice for Labour. Leave the persecution of Peter Dunne to Winston Peters to handle.

The hounding of United Future's sole MP is fast resembling an old-fashioned witch-hunt.

A witch-hunt? Clearly John Armstrong has lost the plot. The issue here is that Peter Dunne continuing to receive public money for a deregistered political party is bringing the House into disrepute. Any MP who actually has morals should be outraged!

There is no reasonable excuse for flouting the rules and allowing Dunne to keep receiving $122,000 per year of taxpayers money he's no longer entitled to.

But instead of criticizing David Carter for his entirely unacceptable decision, Armstrong is focusing attention on the response to the Speakers stupidity... Talk about biased journalism.

The rationale for Peters' pursuit of Dunne is obvious - the weakening of National's grip on power by forcing out the MP whose vote gives National a majority without having to rely on the Maori Party.

Of course there are politics being played here, but it's not the only reason for Winston Peters pursuing Dunne about the leaked Kitteridge report (PDF) and being outraged about the Speakers cronyism. I believe the overriding motivation here is that Winston Peters is an old school politician who believes in accountability.

Holding officials to account is an important function and in my opinion, parliament is in need of more watchdogs that will stand up for what's right. The reason Dunne looks so worried is because Winston won't let this matter rest, nor should he.

But the means are beginning to sully the ends. Yesterday's chaotic scenes in Parliament - which included Trevor Mallard's walkout along with the subsequent exit in similar protest of NZ First's full complement of MPs - was the result of fury with Speaker David Carter's decision to allow Dunne to keep the extra taxpayer-provided funding that he gets as the leader of a parliamentary party even though that party currently does not have the requisite 500 fully paid-up members needed to qualify.

The boycotting of parliament is an effective way to get the story some attention... Otherwise the mainstream media would likely disregard reporting such events and the public would be none the wiser about corruption at the highest levels.

Strangely, Armstrong seems to be tolerating the corruption while also recognising that it's wrong.

Sure, Carter might have got it wrong in allowing Dunne to keep the money. Equally, the Speaker might be seen as only being fair in giving Dunne a "reasonable opportunity" to put the matter right. Whatever, it all fails to add up to the sort of constitutional outrage which supposedly justified senior Labour MPs shouting "corruption".

I very much doubt there would be an equal amount of public opinion in favour of the Speaker giving Dunne an opportunity to sort his affairs out. Most reasonable minded New Zealanders would be just as aghast at David Carters' corrupt decision as the opposition if they were aware of the rules.

The Speaker is clearly ignoring Standing Orders, which state:

Every political party registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993, and in whose interest a member was elected at the preceding general election or at any subsequent by-election, is entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes.

United Future is no longer a registered political party under Part 4 of the Electoral Act (PDF), and therefore Dunne is not entitled to continue receiving the extra $122,000 in funding per year. There is no grace period under the law between being deregistered and losing the perks.

Obviously Dunne should also lose some of his speaking rights in Parliament and membership on certain committees, which being a leader previously granted him. Anything less is a travesty.

But instead of recognising that this is the main issue, Armstrong is clasping straws:

The net result is that Labour looks like it is very much party to Peters' campaign to force Dunne out.

I really don't see a problem with Labour and NZ First agreeing on this matter... Besides, Dunne can remain in parliament as an independent. However if it's found that he leaked the Kitteridge report, the bouffant should go.

There should be no place in the House of Representatives for politicians who actively flout the rules and are only there to feather their own nest. Thankfully Armstrong seems to agree with this point of view.

Peters has already done enough to put Dunne's standing as an MP in question if the inquiry being conducted by former senior public servant David Henry finds that Dunne was the likely source of the leak of the highly sensitive Kitteridge report on the Government Communication Security Bureau to the media.

In my opinion, there's no harm to Peters' credibility in keeping these issues the focus of attention. What is apparent though is that Armstrong simply doesn't like the NZ First leader for some reason and is letting his blinkered opinion in this instance impede his journalism.

There is another telling reason for Labour to keep its distance from Peters. Would Labour be complaining about the Speaker's ruling were the political boot on the other foot and Labour needed Dunne's support?

Of course not. The public can spot such hypocrisy from miles away. And it does not like it.

Clearly Armstrong doesn't have a firm grip on public opinion and is simply making shit up. The boot would simply not be on the other foot, because any speaker from the opposition's ranks would never make such an obviously incorrect and corrupt decision.

Tim Groser - Asshole of the Week

Today, Stuff reported:

New Zealand' trade minister Tim Groser's bid to head the World Trade Organisation appears to have failed.

No real surprises there then... This is the same idiot who misled the House of Representatives last year by claiming New Zealand’s net emissions had decreased under a National government... In my opinion he's just another right wing liar!

Groser was a wild card entry for the job but despite being seen as an unlikely victor the Government has thrown tens of thousands of dollars supporting his bid. In recent months he has travelled overseas extensively lobbying for support.

The trade minister hit headlines last week when it emerged that he racked up travel expenses of almost $260,000 in the first three months of the year - nearly $3000 a day - as he lobbied for the WTO top job.

His spending was more than that of Foreign Minister Murray McCully ($130,000) and Prime Minister John Key ($100,000) combined.

Nearly $260,000 spent on trying to secure an overseas job for a National hack... What on earth for? Did Groser perhaps get wind of Nationals slide in the polls that don't look likely to improve and is simply the first rat to try and jump ship? Whatever the reason, it's a complete waste of taxpayer money.

But what makes this all the more reprehensible is that Groser has a history of wasting public money on his own self gratification... In 2010 he ran up a minibar bill of $466 during the Copenhagen Climate Change conference and charged at least $1469 against taxpayer-funded credit cards for alcohol purchases including five bottles of whisky worth $92 each. More recently he was found to have spent $33,494 on airfares for himself and an "aide" to fly from Kuala Lumpur to France and back to New Zealand again.

But despite that alcohol fuelled jet set lifestyle at taxpayer's expense, Key endorsed Groser for a job he assuredly wouldn't get:

Given Tim Groser’s experience in trade, and the blend of both technical and political skills he brings to the table, I believe he is well-placed to advance the complex and challenging issues facing the WTO. The organisation has a vital part to play in the global economy recovery.

What a load of rubbish! Groser obviously didn't have the support required, and so this was and is a total waste of public money. What Key should have been asking himself is how exactly will spending nearly $260,000 on trying to secure Tim Groser a job as Director-General of the WTO benefit New Zealand? The answer is it wouldn't be of any benefit to those footing the bill... The only benefited was for Tim Groser himself.

This excessive waste of money is unacceptable, especially at a time when National continues to justify cuts left right and centre because of tight fiscal constraints, economic uncertainty I might add that was brought about by Nationals tax cuts for the rich... I mean where the fuck do these tories get off?

Tim Groser is an asshole, of that there can be no doubt.

Devoy train crash

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Seventy-six per cent of responses gathered by TV3's The Vote on Wednesday night agreed with the proposition that New Zealand was racist.

The result prompted newly appointed Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy to say New Zealanders should feel "ashamed that they perceive themselves as a racist country".

"It's staggering. I think it just highlights the issues we are facing."

What on earth is Susan Devoy on about? Clearly people shouldn't feel ashamed for correctly perceiving the entrenched and widespread racism that plagues New Zealand... Instead, the racists should feel ashamed for causing that perception.

Devoy's statement was entirely inadequate when it's clearly not the perception of racism that's the problem; it's the racism itself.

This really gets to the crux of the matter, in that the Human Rights Commission more often than not determines cases of racial discrimination in favour of the racists. It's not enough for a perception of racism to exist for the commission to act, even if that perception is based on reality. It's also not enough to show that there has been unfair treatment that can only be explained by racial discrimination. There has to be hard irrefutable evidence of discrimination based on racism, and even then the commission often fails to uphold its mandate.

The way the Human Rights Commission determines whether racial discrimination has occurred is in my opinion flawed, and this is allowing racism to flourish like a toxic weed. Take for example the number of complaints that were recently upheld by the commission concerning media releases, only three since 2007.

Now put that in contrast with the almost weekly racially discriminatory releases from some of our main media outlets, and it's pretty easy to see why 76% of respondents believe New Zealand is a racist country. The commission entirely fails to act to curb that entrenched and widespread promotion of racism through our mainstream media.

Being that having racism so often published will justify in the bigots mind their discriminatory ways, the Human Rights Commission should be far more proactive in trying to reduce the promotion and dissemination of racist attitudes that infect our media outlets.

Couple these unaddressed issues with Susan Devoy's latest woeful public appearance described as a "train crash in slow motion" and it's pretty obvious that the Human Rights Commission won't help to reduce racism with Devoy at the helm, which is perhaps why she was appointed in the first place.

At first I thought Judith Collins making the unqualified Devoy head of the HRC was judged too harshly, and she should be given time to rise to the challenge. She has now proven herself beyond all doubt to be entirely incompetent... She should resign.

Ian Fletcher must resign

On the back of revelations that the appointment of Ian Fletcher by his mate John Key to the Government Communications Security Bureau was anything but above board comes information that makes his remaining in that position untenable!

Today, The Dominion Post reported:

The Government's beleaguered intelligence agency may have unlawfully spied on 85 people, a top-secret review reveals.

The report, ordered after the Kim Dotcom fiasco, contains extensive criticism of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB).

The revelations are contained in the report prepared by Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Kitteridge, and seen by The Dominion Post.

It was handed to Prime Minister John Key last month but has yet to be made public.

It's not a good look that John Key has sat on this report for a month and in my opinion he should have been up front about the additional illegal spying.

The revelations confirm that the illegal spying was far broader than the Dotcom case - involving up to 85 people and cases dating back nearly a decade.

The GCSB is clearly a rogue organisation that needs reigning in... But unfortunately John Key has shown no inclination to do so.

The report's criticism will heap more pressure on Mr Key, who as prime minister oversees the bureau.

GCSB director Ian Fletcher said in February that his agency did not illegally spy on anyone else on behalf of law enforcement agencies. But the Kitteridge report contradicts this - questioning the lawfulness of GCSB surveillance involving 85 New Zealanders.

Unless Ian FLetcher was unaware of the further illegal spying, which is unlikely, he's most assuredly lied! But it's a lot worse than that, because Fletcher has actively tried to hoodwink the public, with the NZ Herald reporting in February:

GCSB Director Ian Fletcher referred three other cases "where there were potential issues" to Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Paul Neazor.

"The Inspector General has reviewed all cases put before him and has concluded that we were not in breach of our legislation," Mr Fletcher said in a statement this afternoon.

"It has been a very thorough process in which we provided an audit, responded to queries from the Inspector General and made available classified material in a secure environment."

It appears that Fletcher has referred three cases to the Inspector General knowing that there was no problem with them, while not referring the 85 other additional cases of illegal spying that he must have been aware of.

That impropriety should ensure he's forced to resign or is dismissed... But considering Fletcher was personally chosen by his mate John Key to head the GCSB, that's unlikely to occur.

Clearly the delay in disclosing the Cabinet Secretary's report was to give National enough time to come up with a game plan, and we can expect a concerted effort from right wing propagandists to try and deflect any flack away from Key.

As the Minister who's meant to oversee the GCSB, John Key is ultimately responsible as well. Let's hope there's at least a little bit of accountability this time round, but given the Prime Minister and this governments track record, I'm not counting on it.

Citizen A with Jacinda Ardern & Chris Trotter

Keys unconvincing lies

Today, Stuff reported:

Prime Minister John Key says he simply forgot - but critics have accused him of "lying by omission" and "misleading the public" over the appointment of spy boss Ian Fletcher.

The Dominion Post revealed yesterday that Mr Key shoulder-tapped family friend Mr Fletcher for the job to head the Government Communications Security Bureau in a phone call.

Last week, John Key said that he had no association with Ian Fletcher... He did however admit to there being a relationship between their mothers and being schoolboy friends with Ian Fletchers brother, who he childishly claimed is more intelligent than Labour's deputy leader Grant Robertson.

At the time Key also said that he played no role whatsoever in Ian Fletchers recruitment and his appointment as the new boss of the GCSB was processed normally by the State Services Commission.

Despite these claims, yesterday we found out the Prime Minister personally phoned Ian Fletcher to see if he was interested in the high level position. Key also had a number of "business breakfasts and a lunch," with the new spy boss prior to his appointment that he conveniently forgot about when questioned in parliament.

But to make matters worse, Key had a meeting with State Services Commissioner Ian Rennie in which the Prime Minister said Ian Fletcher was appropriate for the position. He therefore clearly influenced the outcome of the appointment process.

His intervention came when Mr Rennie rejected the shortlist, prepared by recruitment consultants. Mr Key said he and Mr Rennie then had a "brainstorming" session in which two names were floated - Mr Fletcher and that of another candidate.

How can John Key have such a monumental brainfade about a "brainstorming" session to choose the new boss of the GCSB? It is also concerning that the four other people shortlisted for the appointment were dismissed around the same time Key called Ian Fletcher to see if he was interested in the position, with the excuse being that they weren't somehow appropriate... However that unsubstantiated claim has been strongly disputed.

So, the question is whether Key put any pressure on Iain Rennie to dismiss the four other applicants who were shortlisted in favour of the prime ministers family friend? This seems to be the case, especially when you consider that at least one of the other applicants was infinitely more qualified and appropriate for the position than Ian Fletcher, who has proven himself to be totally incompetent.

March 27, in Parliament when asked by Labour MP Grant Robertson what role he played. "His appointment was made by the state services commissioner . . . "

March 27, asked what part he played in the appointment: "Only that the state services commissioner came to me with the recommendation. That's normal."

March 28: "I didn't undertake the recruitment, that was fully done by the State Services Commission."

April 2, in response to questions: "[I] rang Mr Fletcher and said that if he was interested in the position of director, GCSB, he would need to go through a process and should call Maarten Wevers."

April 3rd: "Iain Rennie, State Services Commissioner recommended him to me . . . I rang [Mr Fletcher] and said ‘Look, you know, you might be interested." Asked again who first suggested Mr Fletcher: "Iain Rennie put it to me." Pressed to clarify, he said: "I would have mentioned it to him, I'm sure," and then: "I'm sure I probably would have."

Either Key cannot remember three separate meetings with Ian Fletcher and personally phoning him about the position as well as forgetting about what was discussed at a meeting with State Services Commissioner Ian Rennie or he's a complete liar... Either way, John Key is not suitable to be the Prime minister of New Zealand.

Dishonest John

Last week, Stuff reported:

Green MP Steffan Browning says the links are deeper than Key has admitted, levelling accusations of "nepotism".

Key hit back angrily in Christchurch today, saying the attacks were "totally unfounded criticism and pretty low rent".

He said he made it "absolutely crystal clear" to State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie that he knew Fletcher. The GCSB boss returned from overseas to take up the post at the foreign spy bureau early last year.

"The board and the panel knew. I didn't undertake the recruitment, that was fully done by the State Services Commission, so you really have to say, in a small country like New Zealand ... would the criteria be that no-one could get hired because I might know them?," Key said.

Key accused Browning of lying. "It’s actually not true the things that Stefan Browning's been saying. And he needs to pull his head in."

However today it was reported:

Fletcher, head of the secretive Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), was not short-listed for the job at the Government's foreign spy agency - but applied after a phone call from Key.

But if that wasn't bad enough...

The short list, drawn up by a recruitment company, was rejected by State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie.

Rennie said in a statement last night he advised the prime minister that in his judgement "none of the potential shortlist was likely to operate at the required level and therefore should not be considered by the panel. The prime minister accepted that advice."

Key then contacted Fletcher, who was subsequently the only candidate interviewed.

There's no doubt that this is cronyism at its worst. Not only did Key lie about being directly involved in Ian Fletcher's recruitment and appointment, he made those false claims in parliament meaning that he's once again misled the house of representatives.

Of course with such a feckless speaker of the house in the form of David Carter, nothing will be done about the disrespect Key has shown the house, or veritably the disrespect he's shown all New Zealanders for that matter.

In the face of such continued abuse of position, it's dumbfounding that Key is still popular... Surely the public doesn't accept being continuously lied to by what should be considered a devious and dishonest prime minister?

There comes a time when such inconsistencies cannot be explained away by a biased media or any "mystical" teflon John coating, and we must instead question the accuracy of the polls... Most people don't like liars, it's as simple as that.

David Carter - Asshole of the Week

Today, the Speaker of the House, David Carter, made a complete fool of himself by allowing the Prime Minister to personally insult another member of parliament with relative impunity.

This continues the incorrect and biased nature of Carter's oversight whereby parliamentary proceedings, especially in question time, have become a complete farce.

Carter has now ruled against standing orders on many occasions to allow National MPs to continue treating important questions from the opposition as a joke.

Here's today's abhorrent display:

Grant Robertson: What role if any did he play in recommending the appointment of Ian Fletcher to GCSB?

John Key: Mr. Speaker his appointment was made by the State Services Commissioner but if the member is trying to ah make some other allegation yes I knew Ian Fletcher, I went to school with his brother. His brother was way brighter than Grant Robertson, I tell you what.

David Carter: And that answer does not assist the order of the house.

Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker, six times yesterday you ruled against the Prime Minister for making comments which were out of order, at least. Mr Speaker earlier when the Right Honourable Winston Peters made an out of order comment he was required to withdraw. You have never done that to the Prime Minister, and I just want to know if it's going to be even both ways?

David Carter: Speaking to the point of order the Right Honourable John Key.

John Key: I can't be expected to withdraw that Grant Robertson isn't as bright as Alister Fletcher he's not.

The house then fell into a shambles whereby the speaker fumbled along stumbling over words and contradicting himself on numerous occasions. The idiot then proceeded to kick Trevor Mallard and Chris Hipkins out, who were both rightly indignant about David Carter's ineptitude.

Throughout the furore, John Key wasn't required to properly answer Grant Robertson's question, which judging by the Prime Ministers response clearly hit the spot. It's pretty obvious to all and sundry that John Key did know about the GCSB's illegal spying, and like Bill English has tried to cover it up.

In my opinion, the PM would've likely been informed about GCSB's criminal activity at one of several briefings with Ian Fletcher prior to it becoming public knowledge. They subsequently lied about the extent of Keys knowledge in order to save face. Trying to protect brand Key appears to be more important than adhering to any type of ethical standards.

Again, the Speaker of the House who is meant to be impartial in such matters, has allowed the Prime Minister to weasel his way out of a direct line of questioning concerning his portfolio, the brevity of which John Key and his fellow ministers have shown complete disregard for.

Here's the video:

Shameful! It's pretty self evident as to why David Carter has won this week's Asshole Award... He's an entirely ineffective, incompetent and biased speaker who allows government MPs to bring the house into disrepute through disrespectful answers, if he requires them to give any answer at all.

Under David Carter's so-called stewardship there's no accountability for the numerous instances of government incompetence and questionable conduct... In fact I've seen more decorum in a school playground.

EQC privacy breach disinformation

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

The insurance advocate who was sent details on 83,000 claimants in the Earthquake Commission privacy breach says the document contained detailed information on the expected number of settlements and the estimated cost of the claims.

Clearly EQC grossly underestimated the size of the privacy breach... I wonder why?

EQC announced yesterday that every Canterbury resident who had made a home repair claim after the quakes had their privacy breached last week.

It is believed to be one of the largest privacy breaches by a government agency in the country's history.

The information was mistakenly sent to former EQC employee Bryan Staples, the chief executive of insurance resolution company Earthquake Services, who is in regular contact with the commission.

An insurance advocate who used to work for EQC? Something smells very fishy.

EQC chief executive Ian Simpson yesterday said it was initially thought the information of 9700 people was emailed in error.

But the scale of the breach ballooned to more than eight times that size after it was realised that if filters within the spreadsheet were manipulated, all the claims could be seen.

Actually it was one of the four people who viewed the spreadsheet when it was opened by Bryan Staples that made the discovery. They subsequently informed Labour's earthquake spokesperson, Lianne Dalziel about the extent of the privacy breach, who properly informed EQC, the media and the responsible ministers office.

If EQC or Gerry Brownlee's office didn't comprehend the email they were sent about the privacy breach or couldn't read the spreadsheet properly they're entirely incompetent. But it's more likely that they tried to down play the issue by providing false information to save face.

Once again it's a question of gross incompetence or lies from a government department.

Yesterday, 3 News reported:

The bungle was not identified by EQC's own investigations; instead they were tipped off by Labour's earthquake spokesperson Lianne Dalziel who was called by one of the four people who saw the document.

Ms Dalziel says she informed EQC on Sunday and now claims they tried to deny the actual figure was nearly seven times worse than they thought.

"The truth is no one at EQC or the minister’s office checked the email thoroughly enough.

So, we're expected to believe that EQC didn't know the extent of the privacy breach despite them having it available in the form of the spreadsheet and being sent an email detailing exactly what was leaked? Unbelievable!

Yesterday, the Herald reported:

Key plays down issue

Prime Minister John Key has played down the extent of a privacy breach by the Earthquake Commission in which the information of 83,000 claimants was leaked.

Mr Key said he was disappointed but breaches were expected to some extent in all government departments and agencies.

You can expect a few small accidental privacy breaches, but the sheer size and scope of privacy breaches under this National government points to incompetency, complacency or corruption at the highest levels.

"For the sheer volume of information that's dealt with the number of breaches are relatively small or decreasing.

What a load of rot! There's more breaches since National came to power than ever before... From the WINZ Kiosks security flaw that the government knew of and did nothing about for over a year to the ACC privacy breach that contained the sensitive information of thousands of claimants, John Keys government has categorically proven its ineptitude!

"EQC has been dealing with huge amounts of information and hundreds of thousands of client contacts in the last few years and have had one breach."

One breach? I think that's highly unlikely. But even if it's true, playing down what is likely the largest ever privacy breach by a government agency is not acceptable. You would expect the Prime Minister to treat such a huge breach of privacy with the gravitas it deserves.

In my opinion, the main problem is that lots of public servants were sacked or replaced with people who support National. These people weren't more qualified or competent than those they replaced, and that degradation of the public service through cronyism has led to widespread problems.

Privacy breaches are just one result of Nationals mismanagement... There are many many more.

John Banks - Asshole of the Week

There's been a number of nominations for Asshole of the Week this week, from Judith Collins appointing Susan Devoy as Race Relations Commissioner and then calling Annette Sykes a stupid person for her justified criticism of that appointment to the Solid Energy debacle which highlighted Nationals incompetence, particularly by the idiot Bill English who tried to once again blame his mismanagement on Labour.

Then there was Rodney Hide proposing a slave trade of unemployed people in yet another blatant attempt to gain support by bashing some beneficiaries. However, what really takes the cake this week is yet another conflict of interest by the ever-corrupt "leader" of the Act Party John Banks.

On Wednesday, the NZ Herald reported:

Associate Education Minister John Banks had shares in Australian company Talent2 at the same time he sat on a Cabinet committee that received progress updates on a planned rollout of Talent2's Novopay payroll system before it was launched.

Mr Banks is a Minister outside of Cabinet, but is on the Cabinet Committee on State Sector Reform and Expenditure Control (SEC).

Between January and May last year SEC received key documents relating to a planned rollout of Novopay and a backup.

The question here is whether John Banks had any influence on the decision-making process concerning Novopay and the roll out of an inferior payroll system while he was set to personally gain.

The conflict of interest occurred when John Banks became Associate Minister of Education, while holding shares in a company that is a major contractor with the government.

In my opinion, the waft of corruption from John Banks over this issue has become overpowering.

On Friday, the Herald also reported:

Act leader John Bank's office has produced Cabinet Committee papers in a bid to prove that he did not take part in any meetings concerning Novopay while he was a shareholder in Novopay's parent company Talent2.

Mr Banks has previously stated that he had declared the potential conflict of interest, and had not seen any briefing papers or taken part in any meetings or discussions about Novopay before he sold his shares on May 28, last year.

Here's the relevant Register of Pecuniary Interests (PDF):

Hon John BANKS (ACT, Epsom) 1 Company directorships and controlling interests

Talent2 International Limited (ABN 19 000 737 744) (shareholder as Trustee for The Pukenui Family Trust) – Talent management solutions in HR advisory, payroll, learning and recruitment across the Asia Pacific region

So, apparently Banks divested himself of the shares at the end of May last year... However there was six months for him to have influenced the decision making process as Associate Minister while holding those shares and who's to say that he didn't influence the government previous to him becoming an MP?

The question in my mind of whether there was undue influence has been answered... Why else would National sign off and continue with such a flawed system if it wasn't for the benefit of one of their own? After all, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours is still entrenched philosophy within the old boys club.

Coupled with previous examples of corruption, that clear conflict of interest makes John Banks Asshole of the Week... He's certifiably not fit to be an MP.

Mr Corruption can't talk

It was somewhat amusing to see the totally discredited John Banks get so steamed up about David Shearer's brain fade concerning an overseas bank account. The Act "leader" certainly didn't do himself any favours by trying to compare Shearer's forgetfulness to his far more numerous and egregious instances of corruption. In fact he looked downright ridiculous!

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

But the MP for Epsom, also known as the Act Party caucus, appeared to mistake the Prime Minister's remark for an endorsement of Banks' statements. He had shown an uncharacteristic distaste for the public spotlight since about the time that John Key was refusing to read the police report on donations to Banks's failed Auckland mayoral campaign. But look at him now, springing up like some great gurning Jack-in-the-box. Here, at last, was a chance to exact revenge on the cretins who gave him such a hard time last year.

Whether or not Key had empowered his teapot confidant to let rip I do not know. But it was a gift for Shearer. What better way to make his foolishness look trifling? By explicitly comparing Shearer's brain fade with his own over the Dotcom donation scandal, Banks was inviting us to recall that ugly episode, replete with allegations of impropriety. Not so in Shearer's case.

It invites us to revisit, too, the means by which Banks ended up back in Parliament, those unsightly tea stains that just won't wash out. We're invited to mull again this week's slap on the wrist given to Banks by the Ombudsman for withholding information about charter schools. To recall that the planned charter schools, which Act apparently insisted on, themselves will not be subject to the Official Information Act. And then, on top of all that, come fresh questions about whether he held shares in Novopay operator Talent2 while sitting on a committee that received updates on the school payment payroll system's progress. This is hardly a man that can boast of an exemplary commitment to disclosure and transparency.

Toby Manhire is spot on here... There's no comparison between Shearer forgetting to register his bank account and Banks' numerous instances of outright corruption, and the Actoid pontificating about Shearer's oversight just makes him look foolish!

But where I diverge from the status quo is that in my opinion Shearer admitting that he has an overseas bank account shouldn't dull Labours ability to hold the government to account.

There is no question that Shearer should have registered his pecuniary interest, and that him not doing so looks bad, but if we say that such things mean the government is somehow absolved from their numerous instances of corruption, we're saying that democracy has failed and we accept that failure... We're saying that two wrongs make those wrongs right, when each instance should instead be judged on its own demerits.

I've lost count of how many demerit points John Banks has, but it's safe to say that he has more than enough.

Petrobras not welcome in New Zealand

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Prime Minister John Key says he will raise the possibility of Brazilian energy company Petrobras returning to New Zealand when he meets the country's President, Dilma Rousseff, today.

Shouldn't Key be asking New Zealanders first?

Mr Key said he wanted to encourage Petrobras to return to New Zealand after it gave up its exploration permits, including the Raukumara Basin, last year. Mr Key said Petrobras had given up many of its other speculative ventures internationally at the same time.

It's true that Petrobras was in financial trouble and had to pull out of other potentially less profitable investments in other countries... But it's also true that there was substantial pressure from activists to inhibit Petrobras from exploiting the East Coast of New Zealand. That was more likely to have made Petrobras forgo their permits.

"We will certainly say to the President that we think New Zealand is a good place for Petrobras to be involved and that they are welcome in New Zealand if they want to come. They've given back their licence, but that shouldn't deter them in the future."

If there was any real cost associated with acquiring exploration permits, that would be a deterrent. Increased funding to ensure that exploration and drilling is undertaken safely and that when accidents occur, there's adequate safeguards in place would also be a good idea. Unfortunately New Zealand is currently ill equipped to deal with even a moderately sized oil spill.

He ruled out offering any incentives for such a move.

Except for the usual incentives of course like prolonged tax holidays and having the initial surveying expenses all paid for by the government. In fact the public extensively subsidizes the oil and gas industry to the tune of millions of dollars per year.

It has been shown that for the same investment into clean tech, we could create at least twice as many jobs... That fact alone makes companies like Petrobras, one of the world's worst polluters, unwelcome in New Zealand.

Once again the Prime Minister isn't speaking on behalf of all Kiwis.

Hekia Parata - Asshole of the Week

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Education Minister Hekia Parata has been blasted for calling it "karma" that staff in her own ministry had not been paid, as she faced more controversy on her first day back.

Ms Parata, who survived a Cabinet reshuffle last week, was asked on her way into Parliament yesterday if she had been briefed on Education Ministry staff not being paid today,

"Yeah, karma eh," she replied.

This is no bloody joke! People are going without an income, which can have serious consequences especially for those on tight budgets. How exactly does Parata think teacher's are maintaining themselves, servicing bills and paying rent when there's no consistency with their incomes?

Novapay is an indictment on just how inept the National government under John Key's "leadership" has become. Not only did National Minister's ignore advise that Novopay wasn't up to scratch in the first place, they've been entirely remiss in fixing the problem, a problem they've known about for a very long time.

The Public Service Association national secretary, Brenda Pilott, slammed Ms Parata for her response, saying ministry staff had worked hard to try to solve Novopay issues.

"The minister should not be making such flippant remarks about ministry staff which, at the same time, seem to make light of the whole Novopay debacle," Ms Pilott said.


"The fact is there are many ministry staff who have been working very hard to try and pick up the pieces and help fix the Novopay problems.

"For their minister to then turn around and joke about the fact they themselves haven't been paid is pretty unacceptable.

"What would be real karma is for Hekia Parata not to be paid."

I bet Parata would jump into action if it was her considerable pay packet that was being messed with.

As Minister of Education, Parata is directly responsible for the continued incompetence in regard to the Novopay debacle. She should do the right thing and resign forthwith, because her flippancy and continued blundering clearly displays a lack of concern, a lack of concern because she obviously doesn't give a damn.

Despite the Novopay Governance Board member, Leanne Gibson, promising over a month ago that Novopay would be sorted in two weeks time, the extensive problems don't look likely to be fixed under the current administration anytime soon.

So for her continued mismanagement, incompetence and now obvious disregard, Hekia Parata wins this week's asshole award. 2014 is too long to wait for the opportunity to vote her out.

More action needed on youth unemployment

It's not often that I agree with anything Fran O’Sullivan writes, let alone on her advice concerning government policy for youth unemployment... But her article in the NZ Herald today is a step in the right direction.

If I have one New Year's wish it is that John Key returns from his Hawaiian summer holiday brimming with enough determination to challenge the nation's employers - and himself - to tackle youth unemployment.

It is truly bizarre that the number of unfilled skilled jobs is increasing at the same time as we have record youth unemployment and many graduates find themselves working in jobs that don't pay them enough to get on top of student debt and have enough over to save for their futures.

Of course Fran O’Sullivan is talking in code here... What she's actually doing is trying to lead people down the path of more state interference and a harsher regime of government repression particularly for young people. That's what the first job summit was all about, and it gained National momentum that they're desperate to find again.

There is no escaping the fact that O’Sullivan wants National to appear to be doing something about youth unemployment with another economic summit, when all they've actually done so far is make a lot of promises and failed deliver. We don't need another job summit from National; we need action and policy changes that will work to reduce youth unemployment... However I suspect a change in government will need to happen before anything improves.

O’Sullivan is being particularly insincere when she says Key might come back from holiday with all the right solutions, when National has been continuously displaying a complete lack of proper governance and no solutions at all to remedy the social and financial issues the country faces. They're an ideas free zone, and nothing is likely to change in that respect.

The fact of the matter is that National won't give up their gravy train and will simply continue to blame youth for the problems they face. Unemployment is just one issue amongst many and with things getting harder under the neoliberal agenda, youth are getting tougher and less likely to follow the rules.

This dynamic was factored into the right wings plan whereby they've built many more jail cells than is currently required. Things are going to get tougher, particularly for those who resist the fascism that's endemic within National's ideology. Despite that fact, O’Sullivan does her best to sugar coat the problem with some subtle get tough on youth and blame the victim propaganda.

Many have been brought up on a "follow your dream" diet only to find out too late that just following dreams doesn't always result in a job. An injection of realism is long overdue.

But that's no reason for the nation's leaders to shrug their collective shoulders and do nothing about the jobs deficit.

Key could start by cancelling the top personal tax break and "reinvesting" the hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise have gone into Bill English's Treasury coffers into a massive state-backed scheme to train young people in the skills needed for today's workforce.

Key could do that but he won't... There's too much riding on National placating the baby boomers, who make up the majority of voters. National hopes to maintain power by ensuring their tax free havens and tax breaks for their support base remain in place.

I hope that I'm wrong, but Key won't put what's best for the country ahead of Nationals potential re-election. They will of course roll out some bribes closer to the election, but this won't include incentives for people who don't have much of a political voice. That will mean the youth will continue to be ignored by the current ageist government, and the relevant negative statistics will continue to worsen.

But the Prime Minister needs to be bold and courageous.

There are big gaps in the New Zealand workforce, many of which should be filled from within - not simply by bringing in more immigrants because this country's leaders still will not comprehensively tackle the necessity to invest in skills training. Or because talented New Zealanders and those "workers" with some get-up-and-go have done just that, because New Zealand pay rates are too low. Or because they don't have the necessary skills for the jobs on offer.

I hate to agree with O’Sullivan here, being that she's a National party propagandist, but having youth sitting around doing nothing while the government spends millions on setting up immigrants to tackle the workload is a lose lose situation.

The social disintegration from creating an underclass with little hope for a brighter future apart from winning Lotto is one of the reasons New Zealand has one of the highest rates of youth suicide in the world. Experts have pinpointed the gap between rich and poor as being of particular detriment to a developed society, and New Zealand under a National government has excelled at creating more inequality than ever before.

The neoliberal agenda has and continues to cause untold misery for many Kiwi families... It's therefore well past time that National woke up to their numerous failings and put what's best for the country ahead of their own selfish agendas.

Brian Edwards excuses for cronyism

Yesterday, The Nation reported:

Well the irony is that Clare Curran said more or less exactly that herself while saying you know you had to be suspicious of this. I mean you just have to live with all this. This is the reality of government appointed boards. Ah! If you're going to have government appointed boards, the people on them are going to support your particular government.

Perhaps it was the pervasive right wing stench of Duncan Garner that was clouding his thoughts, or perhaps he is truly that deluded.

What Brian Edwards is talking about here is cronyism. Make no bones about it, Edwards is making the excuse that because governments decide, there shouldn't be any proper process to ensure the right person for the job is appointed, and that making biased decisions based on political association is somehow acceptable.

In my opinion, appointments to important positions should always be made for reasons of ability and experience, and not because of who the applicant knows... Conflicts of interest should always be avoided.

Personally, I find the fact that Edwards is making excuses for National's cronyism astounding! Being that he's meant to be one of the left wings most ardent supporters and is an experienced commentator, he should know better. The left wing, especially the Greens, have ardently railed against cronyism. That's one of the reasons I support them, and not National.

Saying that it's always been this way is not a good enough reason to just accept the status quo and allow the degradation of the public service through appointing people to prominent positions solely on the basis of who they know. In fact the independence of certain organisations is of paramount importance to a functional democracy that is working in the best interest of all New Zealanders, not just a select few.

The people running organisations that hold great sway over the public should be entirely independent of governmental interference, and if that requires a change in how the system is currently being operated, then so be it. In fact conflicts of interest are currently legislated against, all that is really required is enforcement of those laws... Laws, as it so happens, that Brian Edwards seems to disagree with. My respect for him and what he says has therefore been seriously downgraded.

Edwards goes on to imply that it's OK if the incoming government sacks all the public service employees who support the other team. This is wrong on so many levels it's not funny, not least because of the additional cost to the taxpayer of swapping a huge sector of the public workforce every few years just because of their political associations.

But perhaps an even more disturbing aspect to Brian Edwards' purely right wing sentiments expressed on The Nation yesterday is that he totally misrepresented what Clare Curran wrote:

But this is our state broadcaster.

Media independent of political interference is a critical cornerstone of a functioning democracy. I contend we have crossed a line in the last four years. This is a deeply important issue.

No Right Turn reports:

Cronyism is bad enough; cronyism in this sort of position is intolerable. Appointments to state broadcasters should be independent and apolitical. Anything less is simply inviting abuse.

I couldn't agree more. This is not an isolated incident of cronyism by National, with appointments being made left right and centre by the right wing for no better reason than they support the current government, or worse yet are related to various National ministers in some way. National's rampant cronyism gives weight to the saying; it's not what you know, it's who you know. It might be a bit harsh to say that Edwards is conforming because he wants a slice of that corrupt pie. But what other reason is there?

I really do hope he contemplates this issue a bit more, and comes to the realization that cronyism within government appointments is not acceptable on any level. It would be sad to see somebody who is perhaps New Zealands most experienced and well-respected left wing journalist get sucked into accepting something that is so clearly detrimental to New Zealand, and our democracy.

Failing to address unaffordable housing

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

The Government is to place a six-month time limit on councils processing consents for medium-size projects including housing developments as part of its push to make homes affordable.

It is also looking to councils to free up more land for building and has announced an inquiry into the building industry to identify barriers to improving housing affordability.

The measures announced this afternoon by Finance Minister Bill English are the Government's response to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into housing affordability.

Typical National ploy... Announce policy that has the appearance of being advantageous but will in reality make the problem worse. Giving housing property investors and developers even more ways of cutting corners to maximize their profits while claiming this will help make housing more affordable is pretty damn conceited if you ask me.

Its over-investment because of tax-breaks that's the main factor in driving up house prices, not a lack of places to build. National and their Productivity Commission have entirely failed to address this issue. The problem has got so bad that New Zealand's housing estate is now being used as a tax-haven by foreigners. Still the government shows absolutely no concern or willingness to remedy the problem.

Home Affordability: The Government's Four Key Aims:

* Increasing land supply - this will include more greenfields and brownfields developments and allow further densification of cities, where appropriate.

* Reducing delays and costs of RMA processes associated with housing - this includes introducing a six-month time limit on council processing of medium-sized consents.

* Improving the timely provision of infrastructure to support new housing - this will include considering new ways to co-ordinate and manage infrastructure for subdivisions.

* Improving productivity in the construction sector.

Did the rightwing not learn anything from the leaky building debacle that resulted from widespread deregulation? The main player who benefitted from that was Fletcher Building because they supplied most of the defective materials. I guess their lobbyists have been working overtime again to ensure more deregulation... And once again, when the problems surface, they will likely not be held to account.

In my opinion, affordable housing should be a human right for everybody, and in a country like New Zealand there should be an overabundance of healthy homes for people to live in. The fact that over half of the countries houses are not maintained properly and are grossly overpriced is perhaps the governments biggest failure.

Without the current lot of diplomatic scoundrels showing any gumption to address the real issues concerning unaffordable housing, we should expect the amount of Kiwi families who own the house they live in to continue to decline. I guess that brighter future John Key talked about doesn't apply to the New Zealanders who are forced to indefinitely rent the house they live in.

Nationals cronyism at epidemic levels

Today, 3 News reported:

Former Cabinet minister Nick Smith is under scrutiny again - this time over allegations about fees given to an environment consultant friend.

The former Environment Minister approved $180,000 in taxpayer money last year to pay for the new Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust, set up to help resolve a dispute between farmers and environmentalists over projects in the Mackenzie Basin and Waitaki Valley.

The trust, which initially received $100,000, almost ran out of money in November before releasing its findings.

Its application to the Environment Ministry for a further $200,000 was declined earlier this year, but Dr Smith granted the trust a further $80,000, documents released to Fairfax under the Official Information Act reveal.

Mackenzie District Council and Waitaki District Council each put up $5000, while Environment Canterbury contributed $10,000.

More than half of the total funding went to environmental consultants, including $88,010 to policy think-tank the Ecologic Foundation, which is headed by Dr Smith's friend Guy Salmon, a former National Party candidate with ties to the party's environmental wing, the BlueGreens.

The documents show a series of two-day meetings cost about $25,000 per event, with Mr Salmon receiving about $18,000 per meeting.

The article goes on to quote John Key, who is dismissive of the revelations. The reason for his nonchalance is because cronyism is widespread within National ranks, and this is but one example of how the rightwing generally operates.

Being that Nick Smith went against the Ministry for the Environment's decision and granted further funding to his mates in the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust, surely there can be no return to a cabinet position for the corrupt MP?

Such practices are entirely unacceptable, especially in these tough economic times.