Nick Smith’s dirty dealing

Written By: - Date published: 9:33 am, September 18th, 2009 - 8 comments
Categories: climate change, labour, maori party, national - Tags: ,

Labour’s Charles Chauvel has released the paper records of Labour’s attempts to agree a bi-partisan ETS with National.

In total, Labour presented three draft MOUs detailing possible agreements, each moving towards what they believed to be National’s position. Additionally, there was a letter from Phil Goff to John Key a month ago that clearly laid out National and Labour’s positions, the reasons behind Labour’s position, and how agreement could be reached.

nicfiredNational’s responses to Labour are weeks or months in coming when they come at all. Key simply didn’t deign to reply. Nick Smith whinged on, in each of three letters, about how he didn’t get a reply to a letter back in 2005. At no time did Smith actually set out National’s position. Indeed, Smith denied that the statement of National’s position Labour obtained from a Nat staffer was correct. Of course, it turned out to be exactly what National has now come up with.

It looks like Smith is the problem. He never had any intention of trying to create a deal. he was just stringing Labour along.

No wonder Chauvel said “Negotiations with Nick Smith were (pause) I’m not sure now we had any discussions in good faith.”

On a similar note, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the Nats have screwed the Maori Party once more.

poor old pitaFirst, the Maori Party defended selling out the environment by saying that benefits would be increased to protect low-income people from the ETS’s costs. Nope. Then Paula Bennett revealed the Nats are just promising the CPI adjustment that happens every year.

Next, Pita Sharples announced that there will be an additional subsidy for insulating 2,000 Maori homes. Nope. Gerry Brownlee said there’s nothing additional to the existing insulation programme.

Now, where did the Maori Party get this false understandings of National’s intentions? Why, from the man they made the ETS deal with – Nick Smith.

lprent: I’ve posted on this habit before – Nick Smith lying with numbers.

8 comments on “Nick Smith’s dirty dealing ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BLiP 1
    18 September 2009 at 9:42 am

    Bewildered old man mugged again

    Pure gold . . . R O T F L M A O !

    Another Friday off to a good start – cheers Marty G

  2. mickysavage 2
    18 September 2009 at 10:21 am

    Very interesting reading.

    Dare I say it but it looks like Nick lied when he said that Labour did not get back to him in time so he therefore went for the deal with the Maori Party?

    They had a meeting scheduled four days after the Nat-MP deal was announced. How underhand is that? Why would there be a deadline before the date of the next meeting.

    Smith better be careful his nose does not grow.

    Link is at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0909/S00209.htm

  3. tc 3
    18 September 2009 at 10:27 am

    The maori party’s a disgrace to the land and people they were supposedly created to protect and serve, as Global warming will impact their culture more than any other as a people of the land.
    Yet Labour continues to leave them alone as if it’s some sacred cow who can’t be touched……ETS passed because of them it’s as simple as that and NACT did what it was always going to do.
    Smith was never going to deal with Labour…the belief he was shows how once again an inability to play hardball makes Goff etc look gullible.
    How about the Labour maori MP’s doing their job and take on their fellow maoris like a certain Shane Jones and prove he’s worthy of his exalted status.
    Can’t see labour returning in 2011 with such a powderpuff approach not to mention the likes of King and Mallard still scaring the kiddies.

  4. Mike 4
    18 September 2009 at 11:22 am

    Not surprising. I happen to know Nick Smith made an agreement with Ross Wilson not to announce his removal from the Chair of ACC until after the next cabinet meeting (which was the following week) and then promptly leaked it to the media the next day.

    Smith is a slimy lying fucker. It’s that simple.

  5. Anthony Karinski 5
    18 September 2009 at 12:26 pm

    What’s wrong with the Maori Party? Why on earth are they a willing doormat for the Nats. Is Turia so blinded by hatred for Labour that she happily cries “yes Massa Key” to whatever?

    What a disgrace the party has become to Maori, their interests and mana. shame as they have such great potential. Maybe things will be better when Turia and Sharples depart after the next election – that is if there is any Maori party left then…

  6. graham 6
    18 September 2009 at 2:33 pm

    cant you lefties see the problem with labour releasing these papers its short term gain but any other party including the greens now know that any private talks with labour will be released if they get upset with the outcome .did the greens release papers every time labour shaffed them by going to winston ?

    • Maynard J 6.1
      18 September 2009 at 3:34 pm

      graham, I know you are absurdly one eyed (among other absurdities), so I will explain.

      National accused Labour of lying. National said that Labour were not communicating with them, and National said that labour missed the deadline, missed their chance. You would obviously believe that without question, because you did not even consider that these documents contradict that, but that’s an aside.

      If Labour let those accusations lie, then they would lose out – other parteis would believe Labour to be a poor partner at negotiation, and the public would believe labour were acting in bad faith.. Labour have proved that Nick Smith is a lying little bugger, and that National are rotten to the core when it comes to these sorts of things.

      The Greens example has zero relevance. Can I ask – do you honestly believe that those are equivalent scenarios? Can I also ask what kind of torturous thought process went on in your mind to come up with such a vapid and absurd comparison?

    • Ari 6.2
      18 September 2009 at 8:46 pm

      *blink*

      So if someone contradicts the facts of what actually happened, nobody should release the evidence, because then the liar might stop dealing with us in bad faith?

      You have a strange philosophy. Usually when someone is deceptive we view the breakdown in negotiations as their fault. 😉