Labour voted that Winston Peters did nothing wrong when he consistently lobbied on behalf his then friend Owen Glenn to be made Honorary Consul to Monaco, without revealing that Glenn had paid $100,000 of Winston’s legal costs.

Yet Labour now say that Nick Smith writing a letter on behalf of a friend testifying to her health before an accident, is terrible, and there must be an inquiry.

Don’t get me wrong. My position all along is that Nick Smith was wrong to write that letter. And doing so on letterhead even worse.

But let’s just remember the huge hypocrisy of Labour and Winston here. Winston actively lobbied and pressured MFAT and Helen Clark of behalf of Owen Glenn, in his role as Foreign Affairs Minister. And never disclosing that Glenn’s ties to him. This all went to Privileges Committee, and despite a abundance of evidence, Labour voted against the Privileges Committee report. This act of tolerance of corruption was so sickening not even Labour poodle Jim Anderton could bring himself to vote against – he abstained.

And we won’t even mention their months of defence of Taito Philip Field, claiming all he was guilty of was working too hard for his constituents.

Again this is not a defence of Nick Smith. This is just pointing out the hypocrisy from Labour and Winston. Maybe someone could ask some of the Labour MPs who voted against the Privileges Committee report why it is bad for the ACC Minister to write a reference for a friend for ACC, yet fine for the Foreign Affairs Minister to lobby for a diplomatic position on behalf of a friend who paid $100,000 of his legal bills.

Tags: hypocrisy, Labour, Nick Smith, Winston First

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says John Key should also be referred to police over his hosting of a radio show, not just RadioLive. …

I’m staggered that Stuff have not reported on the hypocrisy of that statement by Peters.

You see in 2008, the Electoral Commission referred NewstalkZB to the Police, for a prohibited election programme. And what was that election programme? It was an talkback programme hosted by Winston Peters (and another one by Shane Jones).

So Winston in 2008, did exactly what the PM did in 2011.

Unless Winston is being a total hypocrite (which of course he is), one can only conclude that he thinks he should have been referred to the Police in 2008, not just NewstalkZB.

Unlike Key, who did not talk about politics, Peters said during his talkback hosting:

We don’t mind who you vote for in your first vote, but buy yourself some insurance and give New Zealand First your party vote, your second vote

The Electoral Commission concluded in 2008:

the talkback programmes hosted by Winston Peters MP and Shane Jones MP, and broadcast on NewsTalk ZB, were broadcast in circumstances amounting to the commission of offences for the purposes of section 80 of the Broadcasting Act 1989

So let’s not hold our breath waiting for Winston to demand that he also be referred to the Police. Hopefully though the media will at least mention the gross hypocrisy.

Tags: hypocrisy, Winston First

On Thursday I blogged my amusement at Labour criticising National for the fact it uses a template for its candidate announcements. Trevor Mallard had said:

Labour’s campaign chair Trevor Mallard said any ”fill in the blanks” type press statements were ”subject to ridicule”.

”It’s a sign of both laziness and also disrespects the electorate on the part of the candidate,” Mallard said.

Now my memory failed me. The correct reaction shouldn’t have been amusement but outrage at Trevor’s hypocrisy. Why?

Well I forgot how Labour set up a Government Communications Unit, also known as the Burns Unit. It consisted of five taxpayer funded press secretaries, and do you know what its job was? To produce hundreds and thousands of press releases for local newspapers, candidates and MPs. They’d take one standard press release, and stick in local data and send it to the local media. It was exactly what Trevor Mallard is now labelling as disrespecting the electorate. The difference is National has one staff member at Party HQ doing candidate releases, and Labour had a taxpayer funded unit of five full-time press secretaries dedicated to these “fill in the blanks” type press statements.

Again the hypocrisy is amazing.

Maybe Trevor forgot that Labour had their own taxpayer funded fill in the blanks press release factory. I doubt it though as the former head of the unit is now a Labour MP.

Tags: Burns Unit, hypocrisy, Labour

NZPA report:

Tens of thousands are expected at a national memorial service next Friday to mark the “terrible loss of life” in the Christchurch earthquake, with Cantabrians to get the day off to attend.

Prime Minister John Key this afternoon announced the service would be held at North Hagley Park in Christchurch on March 18. …

The Government would introduce legislation to make the date a one-off provincial public holiday in Canterbury so local people could attend if they wished.

Mr Key said Cabinet had considered a nationwide public holiday, but decided a provincial holiday better reflected what was needed.

I think a nationwide public holiday would have been un-necessary, even though many NZers will want to watch the service, they’ll do so in their workplaces. I like having it as a holiday in Canterbury though.

Labour leader Phil Goff said he had spoken with Mr Key about the proposed memorial service.

“I believe it’s totally appropriate to have a commemoration of the very large number of people who have lost their lives. This is an awful event and it’s one that we must treat with respect and we must acknowledge,” Mr Goff said.

“I’m not persuaded, however, that a day’s holiday is the best way of doing that.

“I’ve talked to people in Christchurch and they’ve said ‘we’ve got a huge job ahead of us, we’ll be flat out, how’s it going to help us if the rest of the country’s having a day off?’ and I think that that is right.”

The hypocrisy is staggering. First of all Goff is wrong – the rest of the country isn’t having a day off. Only people in Canterbury.

But it is the Labour Party that has been demanding for some months that the Government urgently amend the Holidays Act so people get an extra two day’s holiday this year because Waitangi Day is on a weekend and we have the 1 in 90 year occurence (next happens in 2095) of Easter Monday falling on ANZAC Day.

So Labour after spending months demanding two extra days holiday for the entire country this year, now are against having a provincial holiday to mourn our biggest ever natural disaster.

Do they even think about the word consistency?

Tags: earthquake, hypocrisy, Phil Goff, public holidays

Just when I thought their collective amnesia and rewriting of history could not get worse, Phil Goff hits a new record.

Here is the NZPA story:

Prime Minister John Key should stop protecting former minister Pansy Wong and sack her after she misused MPs travel perks, Labour leader Phil Goff says. …

“She is aware of when she broke the rules and how often she broke the rules. It doesn’t need a speaker’s inquiry to confirm that.” …

“I just remember the constant attention that was given to Chris Carter. No excuses for Carter. I never made any. Excuses are being made for Wong,” he said.

“Other MPs have been prosecuted criminally for doing what she has done. She is still there as an MP, she ought not to be.”

When asked about leniency for former Labour Minister Taito Phillip Field, who is in jail for misusing his position, Mr Goff said that case needed to be determined in court.

“He was prosecuted. He was booted out of the Labour Party and I say there is enough evidence that the same should happen to Pansy Wong.”

So Phil Goff is demanding Pansy be booted out of Parliament without even any sort of report or inquiry. Further down we will look at Labour’s record on this, but let us put things in perspective. Pansy claimed a perk she should not have. For doing so she was immediately sacked from Cabinet.

Numerous Ministers in the last Government had the taxpayer pay for things, which they were not entitled to. We paid for Shane Jones’ porn, amongst other things. None of those former Ministers have quit Parliament over it. Even Chris Carter was merely demoted from the front bench to the second bench. That was in fact a pathetic punishment.

But let us look at our friend Taito Philip Field. Did Labour sack him without even waiting for an inquiry? No, they did not. Here is what they did.

1. Refuse to sack him when allegations arose before election
2. Refuse to have an inquiry before the election
3. Defend Field as being only guilty of helping his constituents
4. After election announce an inquiry with no powers
5. When inquiry finally reports (six months later – and Goff is complaining about a two week wait) it details dozens of abuses, lies and the like from Field.
6. Amazingly Labour still defends Field, with Cullen saying he is only guilty of working harder for his constituents than National MPs
7. Also Clark holds out the possibility that Field could return to the Ministry, despite the abuses listed in the report.
8. And Labour at no stage move to evict Field from caucus for his criminal behaviour and multiple abuses. They only kicked him out when he publicly mused that he could stand for another party, if not re-selected.

So Goff’s hypocrisy is simply staggering. In Government they defended a corrupt MP, even after a damning report highlighted his abuses. In Opposition, they are demanding Pansy be sacked from Parliament without even waiting for any sort of report.

Let me be clear – if the report by the Parliamentary Service concludes criminal behaviour has been involved, then the Police should prosecute. Even if no criminal behaviour is involved, what emerges from the report may be serious enough that Pansy is not re-selected as a candidate, or even is expelled from Caucus. But those decisions can not be made without knowing the facts.

Tags: hypocrisy, Pansy Wong, Phil Goff, Taito Philip Field

Fuck they are getting more desperate. The latest in the Dom Post:

Labour is set to ratchet up the debate over sales of land to foreign investors, with figures showing the equivalent of 122 rugby fields of Kiwi farmland are approved for sale to foreign investors each day.

I assume that a rugby field is around equal to a hectare. So NZ has around 27  million rugby fields to sell. Over a year (assuming working days) that is 30 hectares sold, or around 0.1% of total land.

Over a decade, that would be a massive 1% sold. Oh fuck, how the hell would we cope with only the remaining 99%?

Even worse, by the year 3000 all the land may be gone. Well, only if you ignore that those overseas purchasers also sell their land eventually – sometimes back to NZ owners.

And in the past five years, 219 of the 222 applications lodged for a foreign purchase have been approved.

“Let’s send a clear message: We welcome your investment, but there are some things we don’t want your investment in and land is one of those,” Labour leader Phil Goff said.

Past five years? Hmmn. Who was in Government for most of that time? In fact who was the Minister in charge of promoting foreign investment into New Zealand? One Phil Goff?

Is there anything he will not turn his back on, in a desperate bid for relevance? Does he actually have a single core belief?

Labour sold NZ land at the rate of almost 300 rugby fields a working day – at three times the rate of sales under National.

So when exactly did Phil Goff decide this was wrong? When he was out there as Trade Minister encouraging foreign purchases of land?

Can he point to some memos he wrote as a Minister, pleading with his colleagues to clamp down on land sales?

Some 158,588 hectares was approved for sale – equivalent to about 591ha a week or 122 rugby fields every day since July 2005.

Of that 160,000 hectares Phil sold 130,000 of it, and National has sold just 30,000. Actually the land owners sold it, so talking about the Governments that approved it.

Also under Labour, Canadian pop star Shania Twain was allowed to buy 24,731 hectares of high country near Wanaka. Mr Goff admitted he was uncomfortable with the 2005 sale to Twain, although it had included many conditions and some sweeteners for the country

Really – prove it? Where are your memos and file notes, expressing your discomfort and arguing against it?

Tags: foreign investment, hypocrisy, Labour, Phil Goff

What did Phil Goff say yesterday about National’s changes to policy on foreign ownership of land:

Labour leader Phil Goff said it was a half-hearted effort that did practically nothing.

“It will do nothing to discourage the increasing foreign ownership of New Zealand land.”

Now I wonder how much actual land has been sold under National. According to Maurice Williamson it is 31,000 hectares or 310 square kms. That is an average of around 20,000 hectares a year.

And how much land was sold under Labour to foreign owners?

Over nine years, you would expect it be 180,000 hectares, if at the same rate.  In fact it was a massive 650,000 hectares!!!

Now personally I think it is a good thing Labour allowed NZ land owners to sell their land to the highest bidder, rather than be forced to accept lower bids.

But the hypocrisy is just staggering.

In a profile on new UK Labour Leader Ed Milliband, The Independent said:

He is soft, cuddly and panders to every oppositional instinct in the party. There has been no position taken by the Labour Government of which he was a member that he was not prepared to trash if he thought Labour members would like it.

Is that not a perfect description of Phil Goff?

• One of the architects of GST campaigning against it
• One of the architects of our inflation focused monetary policy campaigning against it
• One of the Ministers who reaped $3b in profits from state power companies at a time of massive surpluses, now campaigning for them to be lower despite the record deficits
• One of the Ministers who refused time after time to reduce the blood alcohol limit, not campaigning for it to lower
• One of the Ministers who sold 650,000 hectares of land to foreigners, campaigning against 30,000 hectares of sales.

Someone should compile a fuller list of these. Feel free to add others to the comments.

Tags: foreign investment, hypocrisy, Phil Goff

I seriously laugh out loud everytime I see Labour calling for the Government to reduce dividends from energy SOEs. They’re at it again:

Labour leader Phil Goff said there had been price gouging and state dividends were too high. He said Labour’s version of the ETS – which would have involved price rises double National’s – would have come with compensation for the worst affected. But Mr Key and State-Owned Enterprises Minister Simon Power said the Government would not change its dividend policy.

Useful reminder that Labour’s policy was to double the cost of the ETS on power and fuel users. This adds to their record of power prices going up 64% in their last seven years of office.

But back to dividends from power SOEs. Labour took a staggering $3.1 billion in dividends during a period of record surpluses.

Now when the Crown’s books face massive deficits, and we are borrowing $230 million a week, Labour thinks these dividends should be reduced.

Tags: hypocrisy, Labour, power prices

Some wonderful quotes from Hansard. First we have the General Debate of 24 Feb 1988:

From 1 April 1988 the rate of company tax will decrease from 48 percent to 28 percent, and that will create an environment in which enterprises can succeed—both New Zealand enterprises and those that are attracted from overseas. That, too, is the path to future sustainable growth.

So cutting the company tax rate to 28% in 1988 was the path to future sustainable growth, yet something he condemns today.

Then we have the Appropriation Bill (No 3) second reading on 10 November 1988:

Let us consider the Government’s track record. It has introduced a new taxation system that is closing off the loopholes that in the past made paying tax a voluntary exercise for many companies and some individuals. The top marginal tax rate was 66c in the dollar when the Government took office, but it is now half that level—33c in the dollar.

And reducing the top tax rate to 33% and closing off loopholes was also laudable according to Phil.

And finally the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No 2) on 18 August 1988:

Taxation has gone from 48c and 30c in the dollar to 33c and 24c in the dollar. That reduction allows New Zealanders to keep more of their own money.

And an endorsement of dropping the top tax rate to 33% so NZers get to keep more of their own money.

Now to some degree all politicians will have made statements earlier in their careers, which they later change their mind on. However they tend to be fairly minor issues, not something as core as whether reducing the top tax rates is laudable or deplorable.  And these are not statements from when Phil was a Young Labour member, but as a Minister of the Crown.

Now in the budget debate the PM had a great time pointing out the massive hypocrisy in having the Opposition Leader condemn almost everything he had previously praised. And this is quite legitimate – it is not some sort of personal attack – it is highlighting changed policy positions. He then went on to talk about the budget itself.

Now Phil himself, and Annette, took Key’s speech in pretty good humour and were smiling at parts of it. They know that is what it is about. However the same can’t be said of some of the delicate wee flowers in his caucus who within seconds were whining on Twitter.

First Clare Curran complains:

Key starts his speech with a cheap shot. So Prime Ministerial!

That was in response to Key’s opening line that Shane Jones was really happy with Phil’s speech. Good God.

Then Clare complains further:

He’s a comedian. Does he take this country seriously! It’s embarrassing

So the PM is monstering you in the House pointing out (with considerable humour) that everything Phil Goff said is contradicted by what Phil previously said and your response is to complain he is being too funny.

But not just Clare. Iain Lees-Galloway joined in:

John Key thinks he’s on stage. What an embarrasment of a Prime Minister!

Personally I would be embarrassed to be tweeting such whines.

The trifecta was completed by Jacinda Ardern complaining:

hard to tell if this is a budget speech the PM is giving or a pep rally/stand up routine. yet to mention the actual budget.

I’m sorry guys, but it is such a bad look to be whining that your opponent’s leader is doing too good a job of winding his own troops up. Especially when your own leader’s speech was somewhere between awful and really awful (Goff generally has been much better in the house this year but his budget speech was just all over the place).

Finally Clare Curran declares:

Worst budget speech ever

People can watch the video and decide for themselves.

Tags: Budget, Clare Curran, hypocrisy, Iain Lees-Galloway, Jacinda Ardern, John Key, Phil Goff, tax

This is George Rekers. He a leading US anti-gay activist who is one of the founders of the Family Research Council and a director of NARTH – the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, which teaches men how not to be attracted to men. He has testified in court that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that homosexuality is a sin.

This is Lucien. He is a male prostitute, or a rent boy, and as you can see is available on rentboy.com. Lucien is 20 and claims to ave an eight inch uncut cock. I am no expert on these things, but understand most rent boys claim this size. Anyway back to the main story.

The Miami New Times reports that Mr Rekers and Lucien have just returned from a 10 day vacation in Europe. They were photographed arriving back in Miami together.

Now I know you are all assuming the worst, but there is an innocent explanation for all this. No Mr Rekers is not a hypocrite of the highest order. He did not spend ten days sinning with Lucien. He had a perfectly good explanation for their holiday together.

Rekers recently had back surgery and needed someone to help him with lifting his luggage!!!

I think there is a Tui billboard looking for a home.

Tags: George Rekers, homosexuality, hypocrisy, United States

Quoting a release from Gerry Brownlee:

Labour’s hypocrisy over mining has been laid bare, says Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee, after new figures released by Crown Minerals today showed Labour approved more than 200 permits for mining on the Conservation Estate.

“This from the party that launched a campaign yesterday saying it was explicitly opposed to mining conservation areas – not just Schedule Four land, but conservation land full stop,” Mr Brownlee said.

Labour’s pledge of opposition to mining on conservation land is similar to their ax the tax campaign.

200 permits in just nine years!

“But if that wasn’t enough, we also have the release today of information that Labour approved a mining consent on land considered special enough to warrant Schedule Four status, the very behaviour Phil Goff has been decrying as unthinkable.

“It turns out Labour approved a permit in 2006 for mining gold, garnets and other gemstones on 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park.

And they mined national parks.

“The information shows Labour were happy for mining to take place on 21,961 hectares of land, meanwhile the government is seeking approval to release a mere 7,058 hectares of Schedule Four land, of which as little as 500 hectares might be mined,” Mr Brownlee said.

My view is that mining applications should be decided on a case by case basis – as both Labour and National have done in the past. Economic benefits need to be weighed up against conservation value for each site.

Figures released by Crown Minerals [attached] show 218 permits were approved under a Labour government for mining inside Department of Conservation land between December 1999 and October 2008.

That is an average of one permit every fortnight was issued under Labour for mining on conservation land. I repeat one permit every fortnight.

Tags: hypocrisy, Labour, mining

The media had a field day reporting and condemning the travel subsidy for MPs. For weeks on end we had story after story. But there was one story the media forgot to cover. It was the one about their massive travel subsidy to attend CHOGM in Trinidad and Tobago.

You see seven journalists flew to this lovely resort location on the PMs RNZAF aircraft. APN had one person attend, Fairfax one person, TVNZ and TV3 had two each and Getty Images also had one person. And they only had to pay $100 each.

Now if these media companies had to pay themselves to send their journalists, it would costs at least $4,000 economy to get there (including stop over). So this is a 97.5% subsidy for their travel costs. Or a savings of around $27,000 for the owners of those media companies.

If it is reprehensible that MPs get a 10% to 90% travel subsidy, then where has been the media outrage at this 97.5% travel subsidy?

What if a blogger decided he would like to attend a CHOGM in Trinidad and Tobago and got a lift over there with the PM for $100? Would that suddenly become a media story? You bet it would.

Now I am not saying that the media should not be allowed to travel on board the RNZAF plane if there is capacity. I’m not even saying that there shouldn’t be some cost saving for them (mind you 97.5% seems extreme). I am saying that it would be nice if they were as transparent about their own travel subsidies, as they were over those of the MPs.

Tags: hypocrisy, Media, MPs expenses

Some Left-wing bloggers such as No Right Turn and Labour MP Grant Robertson are crying foul over the government’s use of urgency and getting stuck into Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee.

Now Labour are being rather hypocritical here, and I will explain the different sorts of urgency. In essence there are four version of urgency. They are

1. Extraordinary urgency. This is incredibly rare and can only happen if the Speaker consents to it. It tends to be used for tax bills only, and means the House sits without pause (except meal breaks) until the bills covered by the extraordinary urgency are passed.
2. Urgency to pass a bill through multiple stages. This is when the House goes into urgency (which means longer sitting houses) to pass a bill through all stages, without referring it to a select committee. This is generally quite undesirable as bypassing select committee both robs the public of a chance to submit, but also means drafting flaws are less likely to be corrected.
3. Normal urgency. This extends the sitting hours of the House, and effectively cancels question time, but bills do not generally go through more than one stage at a time.
4. Urgency with question time.This is when the Government goes into urgency to extend the sitting hours, but modifies it so the House can still have question time every day. This reflects the importance of the Opposition being able to hold the Government to account through question time.

Now a lot of people don’t realise that the House normally sits for relatively few hours each week. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays it sits from 2 until 6pm, then 7.30pm until 10pm. On Thursday it sits from 2pm until 6pm.

That’s 17.5 hours. That sounds like quite a bit of time for the government to pass bills. But remember that Question Time happens each day between 2pm and 3.15-3.30. On Wednesdays there is a general debate between 3.30 and 4.30. And every second Wednesday is a members’ day, when the government can’t advance government business.

All this means that in a normal week, the government gets only around 12-13 hours (depending on how long Question Time lasts) to pass Bills. Every second week it gets only 7.5 hours! I won’t even get started on urgent debates (granted by the speaker), motions of condolence, etc, all of which take more time. Overall it tends to mean less than 10 hours a week on average to actually pass laws.

Urgency means that the House extend its sitting times. From the day after the motion is moved (so Wednesday if moved on a Tuesday) the House sits from 9 am to midnight, which is 13 hours a day excluding meal breaks.

In theory the House could sit until midnight Saturday, which would be 58.5 hours. In reality normally the House still rises on a Thursday, so the extra time gained is Wednesday and Thursday mornings plus Thursday evening.

This is what the government has been doing lately – just extending the hours on Wednesday and Thursday.

The problem of lack of time to pass Bills is not one that has just affected this government. That is why Labour is being totally hypocritical over the use of urgency. Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins in particular know better given they were advisors to the last government. Dr Cullen regularly put the House into urgency between 1999 and 2008 and a helpful reader has done the numbers for me.

In the 1999-2002 Parliament, Labour took urgency 22 times and extraordinary urgency twice. 23 bills passed their 3rd reading under urgency. Indeed in Labour’s first year in office, they took urgency ten times.

In the 2002-2005 Parliament, Labour took urgency nineteen times and a massive 78 Bills passed their 3rd reading under urgency!

In the 2005-2008 Parliament, Labour took urgency ten times and 48 bills passed their 3rd reading under urgency.

Urgency was often moved in October, November, and December of each year under Labour, as the end of the year approached. That’s what this government appears to be doing as well. It’s nothing to do with poor House management – it’s simply extending sitting hours in the traditional pre-Xmas period.

The other thing that I want to stress is that urgency normally  means question time is not held, how ever National has consistently arranged urgency so that question time is still taken, ensuring Ministers remain accountable to the House. This was very rare under Labour.

I expect as the Parliamentary term goes on the use of urgency will decline a bit. Further down the track the government might like to take a look at the sitting hours and practices of the House. Should the House sit regularly on Thursday night for example? Is there potential to have the House sitting regularlyin the morning even while select committees are considering Bills?

Personally I would change Standing Orders also, to reflect the different types of urgency. I personally would not call merely extending the sitting hours “urgency” if question time (and members day) is retained. I would also look at whether the Speaker’s permission might be needed for urgency which is used to bypass select committee, to make it harder for Governments to do so.

Tags: Grant Robertson, hypocrisy, Standing Orders, urgency

The Press reported:

Labour yesterday called on the Government to stop taking big profits from the electricity state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

“The Government could do this today, with the instant result of lower electricity prices for hard-working Kiwi families and better security of supply from renewable energy,” Labour energy spokesman Charles Chauvel said.

The Government should tell electricity SOEs to cut dividend payments and invest the money in renewable generation that could flatten power price rises, he said.

I have previously blogged on the hypocrisy of Labour preaching lower profits, after it banked $3.1 billion in dividends from energy companies during their term of Government.

A Ministry of Economic Development energy outlook released this week says wholesale power prices are likely to rise by 40 per cent over the next 20 years.

That is much less than the near-50 per cent rise in some residential tariffs over the past five years.

40% over 20 years sounds a lot better than 50% over five years!

But is this standard hypocrisy, or even worse hypocrisy than normal? Because before Charles become an MP, he was a Director of Meridian Energy.

In fact Charles was Deputy Chairman of Meridian Energy in 2005. And what was the company’s net profit after tax in 2005/06? It was $857 million.

Yes in 2005/06 Meridian had an EBIT of $1.03b on gross revenue of $2.22b. Now some of this was from a one off sale, but that money could have been used to lower power prices, as Charles now claims should be done.

Now maybe in 2005/06 the Government was short of money, and didn’t think it could manage with a lower dividend and profit. So what as the deficit in 2005/06? Oh no – it wasn’t a deficit. It was a whopping $11.5b surplus.

So where was Charles in 2005 demanding Meridian pay a smaller dividend, when the Government had an $11.5 billion surplus? Oh he was writing the cheques out.

And now in 2009, when the Government is running a deficit of $7.2b (over 11 months), Charles and Labour cry out to make Meridian less profitable as he says a dividend of $294 millions is far too high.

I am going to enjoy repeating posts like this, everytime Labour call for reduced profits from Energy SOEs.

Tags: Charles Chauvel, hypocrisy, Meridian Energy

Chris Carter is competing with his Leader for hypocrisy. Earlier today, I quoted Phil Goff arguing against mining on the conservation estate, and pointed out the Pike River Mine on DOC land was approved in 2004 by the former Labour Government.

Now today, we have Chris Carter blogging, and he says:

The DOC estate – some 30% of New Zealand’s land area – not only brings millions of tourists to this country, but also ensures that all Kiwis have access to quality outdoor pursuits, and that we are world leaders in protecting our unique biodiversity. …

So much for Mr Key and the National Party being ambitious for New Zealand!  I guess they’re being ambitious for the fishing industry, the mining industry, …

Now for those who don’t know, Chris Carter was the Conservation Minister who approved the Pike River Mine in 2004. He approved it over the objections of his own department who told him not to.

Now I think Carter made the right decision in 2004. But as he tries to portray himself as the protector of conservation lands against the mining industry, it is worth reminding people of those inconvenient facts that they hope we will forget.

Tags: Chris Carter, hypocrisy

Really Phil Goff needs to stop opposing everything that happened under Labour, just because National may do them also.

First we had him attacking a tertiary funding cap that his Government put in place in 2007.

Now we have him saying:

Labour leader Phil Goff said mining conservation land went against the 100% Pure New Zealand brand

The Pike River mine is on conservation land, adjacent to and in the Paparoa National Park. It was approved by the Government in 2004. And who was Government then?

So once again Phil attacks the Government for merely thinking about doing something that happened under his Government.

This is not the way to build up credibility.

Tags: conservation, DOC, hypocrisy, mining, Phil Goff

The Waikato Times reported:

At a time when unemployment is rising, Waikato University will next year be turning away people because of restrictions on student numbers, according to Labour Party leader Phil Goff.

Sounds awful doesn’t it. Then later on you read:

In 2007, the Tertiary Education Commission capped equivalent fulltime students at tertiary institutions until 2010.

Oh 2007. Wait, wait, who was the Government in 2007? No, no don’t tell me – let me guess.

Tags: hypocrisy, Phil Goff, tertiary education

Going back to the Rankin appointment, I can’t help but highlight this:

Green MP Sue Bradford said National was subverting the commission through political appointments, and accused it of sabotage.

Oh yes we can’t have political appointments to the Families Commission. I was thinking just that the other day as I sat in the Backbencher watching the former Chief Family Commissioner yell abuse and heckle National MPs, thinking this is what his job as a Labour List MP is about.

Pleased to see the Press has amended their story and deleted references to Rankin’s family.

Tags: Christine Rankin, Families Commission, Greens, hypocrisy, The Press

Kiwibank has spent millions of dollars on its nationalistic, almost xenophobic, campaign against Australia and Australian owned banks.

So I had to laugh when I read in the ODT that Kiwibank is using an Australian-based call centre.

Tags: hypocrisy

I’ve been looking back through what Labour said when they established the NZ Super Fund in 2000, and it is gold. Their protests about the Government moving to reduce the level of contributions into the fund are hypocrisy of the highest order.  Let me quote from Dr Cullen’s Q&A when he launched it:

How will the government pre-fund future New Zealand Superannuation costs if there are insufficient surpluses?

The government will make contributions to the Fund from available surpluses. Where these are insufficient for making the required contribution a reduced contribution would be made.

John Key and Bill English are doing exactly what Michael Cullen said would happen. Not only do we have an insufficient surplus – we have a decade of deficits.

This also shows up those morons who argue the Fund is not funded out of surpluses, but is just like any other competing area of expenditure. In Labour’s own words:

The government will make contributions to the Fund from available surpluses.

And further:

What level of surpluses will the government need to run to pre-fund future NZS costs?

The actual contribution will be determined by the size of available surpluses. Future governments may, however, decide to make contributions at the required rate even when surpluses are less than this rate.

Once again a clear statement that the contributions are determined by the size of the surplus. And while they have indicated that yeah if the surplus drops a wee bit, you might have a slightly higher contribution than the surplus – there is absolutely no suggestion that if you are running a $6 billion deficit you’ll put in a $2 billion contribution.

Labour’s hypocrisy on this could almost enter the Guinness Book of Records.

But wait there is more:

What are the benefits of setting up a fund versus paying off debt?

We are balancing two fiscal priorities in paying down debt and pre-funding superannuation. It is important to keep government debt low and we have set out long-term objectives for debt that will ensure that it remains low. However, we believe we can achieve these debt objectives and smooth the costs of superannuation at the same time.

So the fund was linked to keeping debt low. Debt is now projected to increase by around $80 billion or so. It is set to treble in less than a decade.

Debate is now over.

Tags: hypocrisy, Labour, NZ Super Fund

Oh this is almost priceless hypocrisy. John Key is being criticised for daring to have a holiday from Xmas Eve until middle of this week. How dare he spend time with his wife and children. But even better is look at who is making the criticism:

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark, on holiday in Europe, criticised the Government for taking a “laissez-faire” approach to the economic crisis.

“The rest of the world is aware there’s an economic crisis on, they are aware there’s a huge international crisis in Gaza, and the New Zealand government is on holiday,” she said.

“At the end of the day, when you’re elected, you don’t have a 100 per cent holiday.”

Okay, get this. They quote Helen Clark, from her holiday in Europe, criticising John Key for being on holiday. Seriously – how pathetic is that.

Even worse, is to have Clark talk about how when you are elected, you can’t have a 100% holiday. Is this the same Helen Clark who when PM had her holiday arrangements in such secrecy that not only did the media not know where she was, neither did her own staff, with one exception?

Tags: Helen Clark, hypocrisy, John Key

I’ve all along said the Fees Maxima policy was stupid. Now look who is campaigning to get rid of it? The man who introduced them – Steve Maharey.

But, he says, individual policies should change over time, and one on which he will campaign is the fee maxima.

“When I put that policy in place, it was for three years. It’s now five years and it urgently needs to be changed.

I say get rid of it for all universities except Massey

Tags: hypocrisy, Steve Maharey, tertiary fees

NZUSA is quoted in The Press:

The rise in compulsory add-on fees at tertiary institutions is under fire from the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations.

Hmmn, compulsory add-on fees – such as oh all those compulsory student association fees that NZUSA fights so hard to defend.

I’m sure what NZUSA meant is they’re against rises in compulsory add-on fees, except those done by student associations.

Tags: hypocrisy, NZUSA

From Winston’s blog:

One of the biggest problems we have in New Zealand is that we judge the morality of larceny in accordance with the scale of it. Low socio-economic individuals who find themselves on the wrong side of the law are dealt with more harshly than those who take tens of millions in shonky deals and set up family trusts to hide their assets. In fact, in some cases, the unscrupulous rich are held up as role models of our society. These people have the cheek to hold themselves up as true pillars of the community, when they are really part of the rotten foundations.

Setting up trusts to hide your assets. Disgraceful indeed thunders Winston.

Hat Tip: Roar Prawn

Tags: hypocrisy, Winston First

Helen Clark is misleading people by saying it is up to the Privileges Committee to work out the conflict between what Owen Glenn says, and what Winston Peters say.

It is not, and I predict the Committee will not. It is because the facts which are in dispute between Glenn and Peters are not material to the issue of privilege. They are very material to issues of lying and hypocrisy, but not material to the specific issue of privilege before the committee.

The issue before the Committee is whether or not the Register of Interests declaration by Peters is correct or not. Peters has asserted it was correct, as the donation was to Brian Henry, not Peters. Owen Glenn agrees with him on this point – the donation went to Henry to pay for legal fees.

The area where they disagree is whether or not Peters knew of the donation and whether or not he solicited the donation. Now these are irelevant to the issue of privilege, if the donation is deemed something which doesn’t constitute a gift or payment of a debt.

So Helen Clark’s insistence that it is for the Privileges Committee to resolve the conflicting evidence, is wrong and misleading. The conflict of evidence relates to whether or not Peters is a liar and hypocrite, not whether his MPs Return was accurate.

Winston Peters has stated that he only knew Owen Glenn had given money to Brian Henry when Henry told him in July 2008. Owen Glenn has said Peters solicited the money in 2005, knew of the donation, and thanked him for the donation in 2006 or 2007. There is no way to resolve those statements. It is impossible. The Privileges Committee can not do so, and it is not their job to do so.

Helen Clark sacked Lianne Dalziel for lying. She sacked David Benson-Pope for lying. It is the PM’s job to sack Ministers if they lie. But in this case she refuses to take any action. She could have resolved this months ago but is playing the same corrupt game she played with Taito Philip Field – trying to pass the buck to a body which is not empowered to discover the truth – because it is not an issue of privilege – it is an issue of lying and hypocrisy.

Tags: Helen Clark, hypocrisy, liars, Owen Glenn, Privileges Committee, Winston First