Breaking English

Written By: - Date published: 3:50 pm, September 17th, 2009 - 41 comments
Categories: bill english, national/act government, parliamentary spending - Tags:

Bill English is not holding up well to the persistent questions put to him in Parliament about shuffling around his financial appearance to rort the taxpayer by claiming $1000 a week in housing allowances.

Today, Bill English was stuttering his way through questions put to him by Pete Hodgson. And English again refused to publicly release details that would clear up whether or not he had a pecuniary interest or controlling interest in the Endeavour Trust – the supposed landlord to whom English’s $1000 Ministerial allowance was being paid.

Jim Anderton also questioned today what documentation English provided to the Speaker to prove Dipton was his primary place of residence, as the Auditor-General determined in 2002 he must in order to receive the allowance in the first place. (I wrote about the AG’s report earlier here)

The only way this can be all cleared up is if English releases both the financial information of the trust, and the information he provided to the Speaker to prove his primary place of residence.

It’s time for Bill English to come clean.

41 comments on “Breaking English ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. snoozer 1
    17 September 2009 at 4:28 pm

    This really is all coming apart for English. His only response is that he’s not taking any more than non-Wellington MPs, which is not the point. The point is he is a Wellington-based MP, so entitled to nothing for living in his own house.

    Hodgson tabled some interesting docs on the rules that Key had signed off on claiming these allowances… looks pretty clear that English doesn’t meet them.

    Old grinny better watch he doesn’t get pulled into the hole English is digging for himself.

  2. Eric C. 2
    17 September 2009 at 5:15 pm

    I’m getting sick of hearing Bill English whine on and on and on about how he is no different and how he paid the money back.

    Get real. If any of us had misappropriated $40,000 from our employer and got caught, you can be sure that at best we’d be out of a job and at worst we’d be locked up for a few years.

    Returning the money might keep your employer from calling the cops, but it wouldn’t save your job.

    What rule book is John Key using?

    • burt 2.1
      17 September 2009 at 5:50 pm

      I’m getting sick of hearing Bill English whine on and on and on about how he is no different and how he paid the money back.

      I got sick of that over the stolen tax payers money as well. I got told dozens of times to shut up but it didn’t stop me protesting much to the dismay of the lovers of self serving govt at the time.

      Don’t be put off – you may get the final hammer when National validate English’s activities because it is expedient – but don’t let that stop you. A principle is a principle and you stand your ground. Don’t let the partisan hacks grind you down.

      • Eric C. 2.1.1
        17 September 2009 at 7:01 pm

        You mean the money that Bill English stole from the taxpayer and was validated by John Key and Lockwood Smith?

        • burt 2.1.1.1
          17 September 2009 at 7:05 pm

          Any tax payers money stolen where MP’s are not held accountable is a disgrace. Well that’s the way I see it. So yes – that money was a disgrace as well.

          If English has crossed the line here he should be prosecuted – I’m not holding my breath that National will hold him accountable though.

    • burt 2.2
      17 September 2009 at 5:53 pm

      Returning the money might keep your employer from calling the cops, but it wouldn’t save your job.

      Precedent says you are wrong here – sadly.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.3
      17 September 2009 at 7:50 pm

      What rule book is John Key using?

      First it must be noted that there are two sets of rules, 1 set for the rulers (Politicians, bankers, business people etc) and 1 set of rules for everyone else. The first set of rules always supports whatever the rulers say no matter what they actually say. The second set of rules is to keep everyone else in their place which is serving the rulers in whatever capacity the rulers deign to allow them to.
      Machiavellian Dictatorship 101, para 1, page 1

      • burt 2.3.1
        17 September 2009 at 8:53 pm

        lprent

        The first set of rules always supports whatever the rulers say no matter what they actually say….

        You know how this winds me up….. You reading this rOb ???????

        • r0b 2.3.1.1
          17 September 2009 at 11:08 pm

          Hey Burt – I know a good game we could play – we could compare the number of times I’ve been critical of Labour with the number of times you’ve been critical of ACT.

          It’s my game so you move first. Links to all of your comments critical of ACT please…

          • BLiP 2.3.1.1.1
            18 September 2009 at 1:54 pm

            Hey r0b – I’ve got a good game – lets see how many duplicate posts we can find on different sites – we could call it “burt burps”. Its my game so I’ll start:

            here and here.

            [lprent: I’m almost tempted to call that cruel and unusual persecution. However it is all in the public domain. Here I was thinking that he created unique content here. *sigh* ]

            • burt 2.3.1.1.1.1
              18 September 2009 at 2:16 pm

              lprent

              I wrote the comment here and though it would be good to put it on kb as well. Guess that makes me a messenger worth shooting as far as BliP is concerend. Guess BLiP likes parliament setting their rules as they go as well or he wouldn’t be taking a shot at me.

            • BLiP 2.3.1.1.1.2
              18 September 2009 at 2:50 pm

              Its Friday – get a beer down ya, for goodness sake. Not a Lion, though, that once iconic New Zealand company is now 100% Pure Japanese. Thanks Doug Meyers.

        • burt 2.3.1.2
          18 September 2009 at 12:51 pm

          rOb

          You are a waste of oxygen, really you are.

          I think you are the only person I will ever meet who will openly say that stealing tax payers money is OK when Labour do it. You should be completely ashamed of yourself. I’m not palying any game where you call the rules as long as you defend your team changing the rules when it is expedient. Admit Labour were corrupt and ‘somebody’ should have stood in the dock for theft and I’ll consider playing your game. Till then –F-Off.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.2.1
            18 September 2009 at 1:26 pm

            Nobody should have burt. The rules had been in play for 10+ years and everybody had been using the same interpretation. Every political party in government during that time spent taxpayer money on similar expenditures in the understanding that it was legal. Then the AG turned round and said, no, that’s not the correct interpretation, this is thereby retrospectively making all that spending illegal. If the AGs interpretation had been done when the rules had first been passed and then all those parties were found to be spending it contrary to that interpretation then people should have stood in the dock.

          • burt 2.3.1.2.2
            18 September 2009 at 1:37 pm

            Parliament make the rules and courts test if rules have been breached… Well that is how it works in a democracy…

            see: The first set of rules always supports whatever the rulers say no matter what they actually say .

            So you think parliament should be allowed to say they didn’t break rules as well – guess English is fine then according to how you and rOb.

          • lprent 2.3.1.2.3
            18 September 2009 at 2:31 pm

            Bullshit. I suspect most of us hold exactly the same views as r0b, and he has been exactly consistent on the issue. Your attitude on the other-hand seems to be incredibly selective. It seems to want to focus on exactly one election – 2005, and one party Labour.

            Using your interpretation, then ALL parties after 1993 should have been charged. They were working on the same opinions of what the legislation meant. The Auditor General in 2005 had a different interpretation to previous ones who’d looked at exactly the same data and didn’t have a problem with it.

            Tell you what, lets run a test case. Lets put Act in court from their clear violations using the AG’s interpretation and see what happens? I suspect that the court would actually overturn the AG.

          • burt 2.3.1.2.4
            18 September 2009 at 2:36 pm

            Using your interpretation, then ALL parties after 1993 should have been charged.

            Well yes and no. No every driver is charged when one is caught speeding. But at a concept level yes all parties who were identified as having possibly breached the law should have been charged.

            Now about putting ACT in court – excellent idea. If the court overturns the AG then so be it – that is why the courts are called the judiciary they judge

            Likewise if Labour (and other parties) had stood in court and been cleared then this would have been over.

            Nice to know that you think anyone in parliament who we would rather not see charged should not be charged though makes life real easy eh.

          • burt 2.3.1.2.5
            18 September 2009 at 2:38 pm

            Oh, and that “most of us”… I suspect most National party people think English is in the clear as well – so is that making English in the clear ??? KiwiBlog would say he is and so would most of the people who comment there – so he must be right ?

  3. ConorJoe 3
    17 September 2009 at 5:31 pm

    A question much like all of them:
    If all is sweet in the English marriage, and all is sweet in their professional lives, Why would a husband and partner remove themselves from a pecuniary interest thus?
    We all can grasp the notion of pre-nups but post-nups?
    Can I merrily conclude that the English marriage is a sham and only maintained for appearances?

    [lprent: I’m aware that you’re probably just tormenting the wingnuts after their shameless and disgraceful behavior on Helen’s marriage for the last 25 odd years. Don’t do it anyway. I class torturing dumb animals as something I’ll pass to rocky to handle. That will probably result in you learning more than you want to know about the treatment of animals. So to save you from that……
    Go away and come back in 2 weeks. ]

    • burt 3.1
      17 September 2009 at 5:51 pm

      Not the first time that sort of accusation would be leveled at a politician – be careful not to get banned here at the standard for suggesting it.

      • mike 3.1.1
        17 September 2009 at 7:28 pm

        Your not implying that heather and helen were not a real couple are you burt? slippery slope there buddy

        [lprent: If only you had proof, but since Peter and Helen are a happily married couple who bicker over the TV remote, there isn’t…. This is just bullshit story left over from the 1981 election in Mt Albert. It also fits inside my criteria for banning.
        Bye Mike. Come back in 2 weeks. ]

      • burt 3.1.2
        17 September 2009 at 7:30 pm

        I’m not going there mike…

        [lprent: You have restored my faith in age generating wisdom. ]

    • George D 3.2
      17 September 2009 at 7:20 pm

      I find speculation and gossip about the private lives of politicians quite distasteful. Unless it is influencing their politics, (say his wife’s position on reproductive health, for a conceivable example) it really isn’t any of our business. Unless his marital status changes officially, it remains a private issue.

      I was surprised to find out he lives in Wellington. Five years ago I saw him and the family in a supermarket in Southland. Things change, though, and I don’t blame him – it’s the chicanery and coverup that is the problem.

  4. pentwig 4
    17 September 2009 at 6:09 pm

    Eddie

    You seem suffer from the same malady as Annette King.

    On my television Hon. Bill English did not stutter his way through question time today.

    Perhaps you need a better aerial to improve your reception.

    • gobsmacked 4.1
      17 September 2009 at 7:58 pm

      Last night Bill English rang journalists from TVNZ and TV3 and attacked them for their continued coverage of this story, using some very blunt language.

      That certainly sounds like a man under pressure. He’s lucky most of the media have kindly (timidly) drawn a veil over his outburst.

      But as we know, bullying of the media by senior National Party figures often works.

  5. jabba 5
    17 September 2009 at 8:53 pm

    is Bill English the MP for some Southern state or not? If yes then that MUST be his prime residential area or he can’t be their MP.
    As Deputy Leader and Finance Minister PLUS having a shit load of kids would suggest he needs to spend a huge amount of time in Wellington otherwise you lot are basically saying a person who lives in some little town in the Sth Is can’t be a major minister in Govt unless they are a list MP.
    Jim Anderton of all people wants an investigation .. HULLO Mr rorter.
    As far as the Nats being bullies hahahahahahahahahahah .. Clarks death stare and calling JC a creep springs to mind

    [lprent: He was. Jumping her with that interview was appalling. Deserved everything that she did to him. ]

    • burt 5.1
      17 September 2009 at 8:57 pm

      jabba

      Ask Jolly Jim about using the parliament franking machine to send out campaign material for his wife’s council campaign and also her using his self drive ministeral car with campaign signage on it – he paid it back too (after he was caught) but he didn’t loose his job. He (Jolly Jim) hasn’t a leg to stand on here.

    • gobsmacked 5.2
      17 September 2009 at 9:00 pm

      Jabba, are you 12?

      Too much nonsense, too little time, but this will do for starters:

      “that MUST be his prime residential area or he can\’t be their MP.”

      Clearly you have no idea about our MPs. Where does John Key live? Or Phil Goff?

      Get at least a basic grasp of facts before you embarrass yourself further, please.

    • burt 5.3
      17 September 2009 at 9:07 pm

      jabba

      Did you read what I was saying about Jolly Jim or not ?

      I was responding to “Jim Anderton of all people wants an investigation .. HULLO Mr rorter.”

      With some more history of how self serving Jolly Jim is… HULLO…..

    • Draco T Bastard 5.4
      17 September 2009 at 9:17 pm

      If yes then that MUST be his prime residential area or he can\’t be their MP.

      He, his wife and children live in Wellington and have done so for several years. He’s listed his main address as Dipton though.

      As Deputy Leader and Finance Minister PLUS having a shit load of kids would suggest he needs to spend a huge amount of time in Wellington

      As a minister he spends a great deal of time in Wellington. This is catered for in the rules if he lives outside of Wellington. Blinglish doesn’t.
      What does his having kids got to do with him spending a lot of time in Wellington?

  6. lukas 6
    17 September 2009 at 9:06 pm

    Why should we pay for any accommodation for list MP’s? I understand it for electorate MP’s living outside of Wellington and for some high ranking Ministers, but surely not for back bench list MP’s.

    If you or I were to apply for a job in Wellington whilst living in Auckland, we would be expected in due course to have our own accommodation in Wellington sorted… surely the same standard should apply to our MP’s?

    • burt 6.1
      17 September 2009 at 9:08 pm

      I agree 100%. But then you and I don’t get to make the rules for the companies that hire us…. MP’s are a law unto themselves – It’s twisted isn’t it.

      • lukas 6.1.1
        17 September 2009 at 9:23 pm

        it sucks… having said that, I hired myself so only have myself to blame 😀

        Seriously though, is there a good reason why a back bench MP of any Party should have accommodation paid for them in Welly? they knew when they put their name on the list that it would require them to be in Wellington…

        • Maynard J 6.1.1.1
          17 September 2009 at 10:50 pm

          No one should financially suffer when representing us in a democracy. No one should feel they cannot run for office because of the costs involved.

          I understand your point, but it can be easy to lose sight of what is important and fundamental to the system.

  7. jabba 7
    17 September 2009 at 9:33 pm

    if I’m 12 Gobsmacked then I would be 11 years older than you. You must have been born just after the election and didn’t live through the the last 4-5 years of Clarks Hitler rule .. how many gates did she have?
    She became the rudest most abnoxious so called leader this country has had since Mulldoon .. grow up son and get your head out of your arse.
    I see English and the Indian guy in trouble and they should be checked out. I dislike bad behaviour from all parties and am not a one eyed prat like you seem to be.
    Cool Burt, no problems

  8. BLiP 8
    18 September 2009 at 8:03 am

    New Zealand is in the grips of an economic depression. The National Ltd government is telling us all to tighten our belts, shredding the public service, setting up state assets for privatisation, and has commenced a vigourous campaign to bash the unions and strangle any hopes workers might have for a wage increase. Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance is rorting the expenses system and a request for an official investigation has been made to the Auditor General.

    And where is this story in the New Zealand Fox News Herald? Buried at the bottom of the “politic’s” page 6 beneeath a story about CYFS and with the headline: “English fails to shake of Opposition attack dogs”.

    Poor Blinglish – beseiged by a pack of dogs. My heart bleeds.

Links to post