Driven to corruption

43 comments on “Driven to corruption ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Idiot/Savant 1

   9 December 2009 at 1:39 pm

   So, going to report them to the police for contravention of statute?
   • snoozer 1.1

     9 December 2009 at 1:43 pm

     Surely you’re already on to it i/s 🙂

     Looks like Hodgson has more on the issue this question time.
2. Nick 2

   9 December 2009 at 1:54 pm

   Wow! Six times the word “corrupt” or “corruption” is used in this post. If you get to eight it might just come true!
   • Ron 2.1

     9 December 2009 at 7:15 pm

     Funny anyone should dis the Left for using “corrupt” given the last election campaign
   • Homo Domesticus 2.2

     10 December 2009 at 3:22 pm

     If it is not corruption what is it?

     Clearly you do not know the meaning of the word ‘corruption’.Friend, let me educate you.

     Corruption: Lack of integrity or honesty (especially susceptibility to bribery); use of a position of trust for dishonest gain

     The latter perfectly describes Bill English. This minister has zero integrity and should be tossed out of Parliament and tried for corruption;
3. Idiot/Savant 3

   9 December 2009 at 1:54 pm

   Surely you’re already on to it i/s

   Nope. I don’t talk to the police.
4. Craig Glen Eden 4

   9 December 2009 at 2:08 pm

   Yes Nick, thats what its called when you take money thats not rightfully yours.

   In the National Party you probably call it bonuses, perks, or stuff on side that we expect in office.

   White collar criminals are all the same they just think they are entitled to have what ever they like. No different to the common thief just living in different digs.
   • Noko 4.1

     10 December 2009 at 4:02 am

     There is a difference to the common thief, quite an important distinction.

     The common thief knows what s/he is doing is wrong, but is (usually) driven to it by poverty or lack of empowerment to get out of the poverty cycle. The common thief will face jail time if caught.

     The white-collar criminal really believes they deserve the money they are stealing from people, steal thousands of times more than an thief will ever steal and affect far more lives but will face nought but a slap on the wrist.
5. Tim Ellis 5

   9 December 2009 at 2:28 pm

   I wonder if Mrs King or Mr Mallard had self drive cars in Wellington?

   Seems like it was a bit of a stupid rule to have in place for Ministers not to be able to use their cars where they spent most of their time, and force them to use crown limos instead.
   • snoozer 5.1

     9 December 2009 at 2:32 pm

     Tim. Their electorates are in Wellington, of course they had their self-drives there. In their electorates. Don’t be silly.
     • Tim Ellis 5.1.1

       9 December 2009 at 2:34 pm

       Some of the ten listed are also based in Wellington snoozer.

       As I said, it was a stupid rule in the first place, forcing Ministers to use crown limos instead of self drive cars.
       • Pascal's bookie 5.1.1.1

         9 December 2009 at 4:03 pm

         It’s assumes they’ll be spending a fair bit of time at their primary place of residence Tim.
   • toad 5.2

     9 December 2009 at 2:35 pm

     The primary place of residence for King and Mallard is Wellington, so that is where their self-drive cars should have been based under the rules in force when they were Ministers.

     Just as English’s should have been in Dipton to get him from his home to Invercargill airport before Key changed the rules.
6. Scribe 6

   9 December 2009 at 2:32 pm

   [As I said on another thread]

   Brownlee summed it up succinctly — this issue has “bugger all relevance’.

   I would have thought that if ministers were entitled to a self-drive car, they should be able to choose where that car is based.

   To label this corruption is incredibly desperate, Eddie.
   • toad 6.1

     9 December 2009 at 2:40 pm

     They are now. The point is, they were not until Key changed the rule. English broke the rule. I happen to agree that it was a silly rule that should have been changed, but that doesn’t make picking up taxpayer funding for something the rules don’t permit any less than corruption.
   • gitmo 6.2

     9 December 2009 at 2:42 pm

     If they didn’t have these cars wouldn’t they be using those crown beemers instead ?

     Can’t see what the fuss is about.
     • Tim Ellis 6.2.1

       9 December 2009 at 2:46 pm

       That’s right, gitmo.

       I wonder what’s more expensive. A minister driving themselves around, or taking a chauffeur-driven beemer.

       It clearly wasn’t the tightly enforced practice for ministers in the last government to only have their vehicles in their primary place of residence. Mr Peters’ ministerial car was reported to have been in Auckland for several months after he ceased to be a Minister. Still I suppose it’s a case of Labour good, National bad.
       • snoozer 6.2.1.1

         9 December 2009 at 2:50 pm

         ignorant, Tim. Just ignorant. read my comment below. Key’s rule change cost money, it didn’t save any.
     • snoozer 6.2.2

       9 December 2009 at 2:46 pm

       “In a letter, David Oughton, chairman of the Remuneration Authority, which sets MPs’ salaries, said the change “may be of significant benefit to some members”.

       A Ministerial Services staff member said in an email that it would lead to little savings on the costs of chauffeur-driven ministerial travel in Wellington.” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10614125

       So there is a cost and no real savings.
       • Tim Ellis 6.2.2.1

         9 December 2009 at 2:54 pm

         snoozer, I think you need to understand the difference between “a benefit to some members” and a cost.
         • snoozer 6.2.2.1.1

           9 December 2009 at 3:04 pm

           Where do you think that benefit comes from, Tim? Thin air?

           It comes from having their self-drive where they really live, in wellington, rather than where they pretend to live, in their electorate, for accommodation benefit purposes.

           Having the cars in Wellington means they can drive it more = more cost to the taxpayer, pretending their primary residence is elsewhere and getting the out of town allowance = cost to taxpayer.

           I thought you were on the side of taxpayers, tim?
           • Tim Ellis 6.2.2.1.1.1

             9 December 2009 at 3:12 pm

             snoozer, please explain how it is an extra cost to the taxpayer for Mr Power to drive his self drive car from palmerston north to wellington each week and back again, rather than have a ministerial limousine take him on this journey. Please explain how it is more costly for a minister to use a self drive car in wellington on any journey that they would otherwise be entitled to use a crown limousine.
             • snoozer …

               9 December 2009 at 3:18 pm

               I don’t have to explain. The head of the Remuneration Authority said it was the case that breaking the rules was of significant value to ministers.

               We can either accept that what he said is true, or all be little Timmy’s burying our head in the sand or up Key’s arse.
             • Tim Ellis …

               9 December 2009 at 3:30 pm

               snoozer, yes or no. Did the chairman of the remuneration authority say that this rule change would result in extra costs to the taxpayer?
             • Lanthanide …

               9 December 2009 at 3:52 pm

               Presumably a crown limo can only be used while on government business, eg getting from one meeting to another.

               Whereas a self-drive car sounds like it would sit in the minister’s driveway, much like a company car, and could be used to take the missus out to dinner or the kids down to the beach for an ice-cream, all on the taxpayers dime.

               Much like a company car, it means that the minister doesn’t have to own their own private car, instead they can sell their own private car and use the one provided by the government. That is clearly a net benefit to the minister.
             • snoozer …

               9 December 2009 at 4:06 pm

               clearly he did Tim.

               like Lanthanide says, this rule change allows wellington based ministers who claim a primary residence elsewhere to use their taxpayer funded car in place of a car they own themselves.

               The taxpayer ends up paying for the petrol, maintainance etc that the minsiter would otherwise pay out of pocket.

               I note that Key refused to table the advice he was given on the cost of self drive cars in Parliament today, that says something.
             • Tim Ellis …

               9 December 2009 at 4:17 pm

               Where did the chairman of the remuneration authority say that snoozer? Or are you making it up?
   • snoozer 6.3

     9 December 2009 at 2:44 pm

     oh scribe, you old bunny, you should read the post:

     “In answering questions on this latest issue in Parliament yesterday, Gerry Brownlee essentially admitted the corruption but claimed that the fact the government is (incompetently) working on bigger issues justifies petty corruption.”
     • Scribe 6.3.1

       9 December 2009 at 5:53 pm

       snoozer,

       Sorry if I don’t take the posts on the standard as necessarily reflective of the truth — they often aren’t.

       Just had a look at Hansard and I noticed that Darren Hughes raised a point of order in the House after Gerry Brownlee said “bugger”, as in “bugger-all relevance”.

       Made me think of Steve Maharey…
7. IrishBill 7

   9 December 2009 at 3:33 pm

   I liked the way the Nat’s immediately reverted to (untrue) smear by attacking Dyson. Dirty old misdirection is always a sure sign they’ve been caught out.
8. travellerev 8

   9 December 2009 at 3:42 pm

   I can imagine the conversation somewhere in the upper echelons of the beehive in the aftermath of Bill DD English and Rodney Hide’s girlfriend humping adventures while on Holiday in Hawaii on taxpayers money

   BE and RH, “Pfuh that was close.”
   BE,”Yeah I thought I could pack my bags and go back to dreary old Dipton, the missus all but threatened me with staying in W. while I buggered of.”
   RH,” Tell me about it, I haven’t had a bit of leg over since I had to say no to some of shall we say the more extravagant wishes of my darling. She must think I’m made of money or something.”
   BE and RH, We’ll at least we sorted that eh?
   JK,” What do you mean sorted that? It cost me an arm and a leg toe get some talking points from C$T. Anyway we have to get to the next urgency meeting and as I have given my chauffeur a day of I have to take the self drive.”
   BE and RH,” Yeah me too.”

   Silence
   All three,”Euurm.”

   JK,” Ah, no worries we’ll just change the law eh.

   Embezzlement: the act of dishonestly appropriating or secreting assets, usually financial in nature, by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted.
   Our tax money and the ministers. Sounds like Embezzlement to me.

   Rort: a term used in Australia and New Zealand.[1] It is commonly related to politics, or, more generally, a financial impropriety, particularly relating to a government program.

   Bill DD English and Rodney Hide and let’s not forget Mrs Lee.

   Political corruption: the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain.

   Changing the law to legitimize previously illegitimate behavior most definitely sounds like political corruption to me and since they can do so without any repercussion it comes even more close to what corruption mean in Latin:

   corrumpere: to destroy and
   rumpere: when used as an adverb literally means “utterly broken”

   This is an interesting read about what causes or rather allows corruption.

   So no, Timmie no need for desperation there. The case is clear.
   • Tim Ellis 8.1

     9 December 2009 at 3:45 pm

     You’re all class ev.
     • travellerev 8.1.1

       9 December 2009 at 3:46 pm

       I know Timmie, I know. LOL.

       Definitely a hell of a lot more that the National top dogs mate.
9. Tim Ellis 9

   9 December 2009 at 4:18 pm

   Eddie, could you please point out which part of the Civil List Act makes this action illegal? It’s not a very big law so it won’t be hard for you to find.
10. JD 10

    9 December 2009 at 4:33 pm

    Rules smulz.

    Maybe National can just introduce retrospective legislation thereby legitimizing such ‘corruption’. Certain posters here were wholehartedly in favour of such laws when Labour enacted them so if they opposed such a move in this this case then a word beginning with H could be applied to their views.
    • Bright Red 10.1

      9 December 2009 at 4:40 pm

      So, just to confirm, you’re condemning National ministers breaking the rules, eh?

      Because to not do so would be hypocritical
11. Rich 11

    9 December 2009 at 7:59 pm

    It’s interesting that English and other National MPs seem to minimise the time spent in their rural electorates as much as possible. Because, let’s face it, the electors of Brainrot Flats and Waikekamukau would elect a three legged possum if it stood under a National ticket, right? So going to see them is a poor use of time, especially when it’s the frozen south.

    (I guess the Maori seats help this in the North Island. Northland and East Coast would be a lot less safe for the Nats if many people there weren’t on the Maori roll. But that’s something for Maori to consider).
    • partisan hack 11.1

      9 December 2009 at 8:19 pm

      Yes quite so it’s a bit like little polynesia in South Auckland, let’s face it, the electors of Mangere and Manurewa would elect a family pack of KFC if it stood under a Labour ticket, right? So going to see them is a poor use of time, especially when it’s free dinners at Bellamys.
      • felix 11.1.1

        9 December 2009 at 9:07 pm

        “Little Polynesia”? It’s part of Polynesia ffs. It’s the biggest city in Polynesia you dim-witted racist freak.

        That’s like calling New York “Little America” or London “Little Europe”.
12. Jared 12

    10 December 2009 at 1:00 am

    Don’t we have bigger issues to deal with than petty bullshit like where a car is based?
    • travellerev 12.1

      10 December 2009 at 5:07 am

      Pointing out corruption of leaders? I don’t think that is petty Jared.
      • Jared 12.1.1

        10 December 2009 at 11:54 am

        There is corruption and then there is just nit picking. We aren’t talking Phillip Field scale here, we are talking about Ministers who are allowed to base their self drive vehicles in Wellington for convenience to avoid using crown chauffeured vehicles. And yes, I do think this argument is petty, there are more important things we should be focusing on than minor speed bumps like this.
13. travellerev 13

    10 December 2009 at 3:41 pm

    It’s not just the one thing we’re talking here Jared and the fact that there are no consequences that makes this far worse than the Fielding affair. (And no I didn’t vote Labor nor am I a Labor fan).

    And the fact that they think that retrospective legislation makes it all right.

    Captcha: rid. I like

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS