$100,000 for 10 hours work

40 comments on “$100,000 for 10 hours work ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jim McDonald 1

   10 December 2009 at 6:40 pm

   Are these manifestations of new double dipping standards of the John Key Government?
   Perhaps the PM was quite Relaxed that question time was running without him in the chamber and Comfortably having Fresh coffee while Ambitiously checking out whether the opposition was Productively doing their job in monitoring his whereabouts.

   Wottalaff!
2. bobo 2

   10 December 2009 at 7:05 pm

   Yeah, ask Arnie for tips on being Gov of a bankrupted state California.. class
   Why do Key and Wodney act like such pathetic autograph seeking tourists all the time.

   Key wants to get back early from Copenhagen for a Fleetwood mac concert and the Herald says Kiwis shouldn’t be so petty for not buying our PM a personal jet??? Am I going mad?
3. tc 3

   10 December 2009 at 7:24 pm

   That’d be an interesting graph…..$/Hr of productive effort.

   Overall Hide would be way behind Johnny Clown as he gets through alot of grunt work to get Auckland Inc. underway.

   Mr Relaxed and Comfortables rate would be way ahead of them all……the others at least attend to be marked off the roll……however the class clown has better things to do.
4. Jenny 4

   10 December 2009 at 8:43 pm

   One law for rich white Mofos, a different one for anti-establishment rebels.

   Going by this double standard –

   Mofo Rodney could ride a motor bike completely naked around the floor of parliament and it would be OK with the establishment.
   • felix 4.1

     10 December 2009 at 8:54 pm

     eww boobs on bikes.
     • outofbed 4.1.1

       10 December 2009 at 8:58 pm

       eww boobs on bikes.
       Triumph make bras as well don’t they?
5. Santi 5

   10 December 2009 at 8:53 pm

   Hide’s credibility is shot. As political leader he is finished, kaputt, finito.

   Rodney turned out to be another big liar like the rest of his Labour and National colleagues, after all.
6. lukas 6

   10 December 2009 at 9:08 pm

   Marty, Hide did not personally get $100K for this like you imply in the post.

   Have you mentioned the amounts that he paid back?

   Why bother really?

   Nearly as bad as your polar bear post.
   • Marty G 6.1

     10 December 2009 at 9:15 pm

     I didn’t imply he personally got the money. That was the cost to us of his ten hours of meetings.

     Fair enough, I should mention what a fine fellow he is for paying back some of the money, under pressure and after having played the ‘I don’t get to see my girlfriend unless I’m taking her on round the world flights at your cost’ card. Yeah, top guy.

     pathetic, lukas. You’re so in love you refuse to acknowledge his faults. It’s sad.
     • lukas 6.1.1

       10 December 2009 at 9:29 pm

       Not at all Marty, I am happy to have a go at Rodney for hypocrisy and have in the past.

       Perhaps he should have played the gay card like carter?

       You’re blinded by your hate for the man.
       • infused 6.1.1.1

         10 December 2009 at 9:36 pm

         Couldn’t agree more.
         • Marty G 6.1.1.1.1

           10 December 2009 at 9:45 pm

           infused. are you going to defend your hero or are you going to have a cry about it?

           I don’t hate Hide. I hate the tosser stealing our money.

           The fact you don’t says something.
           • infused 6.1.1.1.1.1

             11 December 2009 at 12:21 am

             I’m not defending him at all.
       • Marty G 6.1.1.2

         10 December 2009 at 9:43 pm

         That’s all you’ve got – the “they did it too” play?

         Hide shouldn’t have played any card. Neither should Carter. You’re trying to defend Hide. It’s sad and it’s hypocritical.
         • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.2.1

           10 December 2009 at 9:47 pm

           I don’t remember Carter playing the perk buster card.
         • lukas 6.1.1.2.2

           10 December 2009 at 10:06 pm

           not at all… Marty, I am happy to criticize the cost for the trip. Implying that Hide got paid 100K for the work is just wrong though.

           I am not trying to defend Hide at all, just helping you with accuracy and balance… seems you are lacking both in your recent posts.
           • Lanthanide 6.1.1.2.2.1

             10 December 2009 at 10:33 pm

             Actually it explicitly says “(not including the salaries of Hide and the two officials who went with him)”, making it clear that the $100k that is being talked about is *not* the salary or money that was paid to Hide himself.

             Reading comprehension for the win!
           • roger nome 6.1.1.2.2.2

             11 December 2009 at 9:25 am

             awww – looks like lukas is ready to throw his credibility on the fire as well, all in defense of some odious hypocrite. His commitment to Rodney is touching isn’t it?
   • Pascal's bookie 6.2

     10 December 2009 at 9:20 pm

     Where does he imply that? I read it as implying the cost of those meetings came to that figure.

     Also, it might pay for Hide to actually check in advance that he will be able to meet with the people he tells the PM he’s off to meet. 🙂

     edit:snap
7. Jared 7

   10 December 2009 at 9:25 pm

   Im not going to defend him. Lest he be judged by his actions, and his actions speak for themselves. The so called perk buster is the queen of perks.
   • travellerev 7.1

     11 December 2009 at 5:53 am

     You see Jared,

     There is a pervasive pattern of corrupt behavior amongst our political leaders. Housing, cars, travel costs and a PM who is easy with it all. (Hell, he’s got more important things to do such as attending a Fleetwood mac concert)

     No consequences for corrupt behavior and no transparency are classic enabling factors for corrupt behavior from our leaders.
8. Jenny 8

   10 December 2009 at 11:05 pm

   Or, how about the Jerk of Perks.
9. Jenny 9

   10 December 2009 at 11:11 pm

   The queen of perks?, More like the queen of jerks; instead of being the perk buster Rodney has become the perk jester.
   • Jim McDonald 9.1

     10 December 2009 at 11:26 pm

     Hey, speaking of jesters … I thought a certain member of the Government’s front bench was dressed in yellow motley today when I watched Question Time. Wondered whether it was subliminal harlequin or subconsciously expressing something.
     • Jenny 9.1.1

       11 December 2009 at 7:02 am

       King of the canarys.
       • Jim McDonald 9.1.1.1

         11 December 2009 at 7:38 am

         Actually, re yellow motley – I was referring to the Minister of Education (sorry, not changing the subject but was responding to jesters in the House)
10. Rodel 10

    11 December 2009 at 12:55 am

    Al Capone genuinely thought he was a benefactor to the human race too.
11. SHG 11

    11 December 2009 at 2:02 am

    Would you be having this conversation if Hide wasn’t gay? HUH?
    • travellerev 11.1

      11 December 2009 at 5:53 am

      Eh?
    • snoozer 11.2

      11 December 2009 at 10:42 am

      “if Hide wasn’t gay”

      you mean he is? are the stories true? Not that it’s relevant.

      Or are you just a bit dumb and did you mean “if he was gay”? And what are you saying then, that we shouldn’t criticise Hide because Chris Carter didn’t get criticised after playing the gay card? Because he sure as hell did get criticised- http://www.thestandard.org.nz/chris-carter-you-dick/
12. Jenny 12

    11 December 2009 at 7:23 am

    An International Man of Mystery?

    Though he more resembles Dr Evil. It seems that Rodney Hide is an International Man of Mystery.

    Up to 80 percent of the substantive report into his international meetings are to remain top secret.

    Who knew?
    • Bored 12.1

      11 December 2009 at 10:25 am

      Actually Hide is not a mystery at all, he is merely a lying cheating bastard.
13. lukas 13

    11 December 2009 at 10:32 am

    Marty, quick question… did you read the article in Stuff that you linked to?
    • snnozer 13.1

      11 December 2009 at 10:37 am

      lukas. quick question, does rodney hide in a bathing suit turn you on a bit?

      [lprent: Starting to get very close to flame starter bounds. I’d strongly suggest that you don’t continue down this line. ]
      • lukas 13.1.1

        11 December 2009 at 10:39 am

        snnozer, absolutely.

        Did you read the article snnozer?
        • snoozer 13.1.1.1

          11 December 2009 at 10:44 am

          yup. what’s you’re point?

          Still trying to find some way to defend you’re hero with his snout in the trough?
          • lukas 13.1.1.1.1

            11 December 2009 at 10:49 am

            not at all. just trying to help Marty with his accuracy.

            Rodney Hide spent around 10 hours on Auckland governance, three and a half hours on regulatory reform, four and a half hours on ACT party policy, one hour in media interviews, and seven and a half hours having breakfast and lunch with his tour party who accompanied him on the trip,” Williams said.

            But why mention the other ten or so hours?
            • snoozer 13.1.1.1.1.1

              11 December 2009 at 10:58 am

              um. I’m guessing because four and a half were on ACT party policy, which is not ministerial business, one was on media interviews, and three and a half were on regulatory refrom – when this trip was supposedly a fact-finding operation for the supercity. (although, I’m yet to hear of any facts he found)

              But, lukas. If it makes you happy, just consider it $100,000 for 15 hours ministerial work, instead. that’s a much better deal, eh?
14. lukas 14

    11 December 2009 at 11:09 am

    actually snoozer, yes.

    Marty said it was 100K for 10 hours which is 10K an hour.

    The truth is somewhat different. Marty is 90% out on his figures!
    • felix 14.1

      11 December 2009 at 11:45 am

      Hang on, are you miffed that Marty didn’t include 7.5 hours of eating and drinking as “work”?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS