NRT: Brownlee’s excuse

Written By: - Date published: 11:23 am, August 10th, 2011 - 27 comments
Categories: disaster, Gerry Brownlee, same old national, scoundrels - Tags:

The Herald has asked Gerry Brownlee about his misleading Cabinet to argue for an inflated rate of pay for National Party crony Jenny Shipley and other members of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel. His excuse?

Mr Brownlee said he did not consider asking if they would do the job for the lower fee.“I didn’t think it was appropriate to go to eminently qualified people and say, ‘Look, will you do this extremely important job on the cheap?’.”

He admitted the wording in the documents could have been better by saying that a higher fee was justified, given the specialised work.

Firstly, I don’t think many ordinary New Zealanders would think that a mere $270 – $415 a day was “on the cheap”. But secondly, that’s a grossly misleading way of putting it. Brownlee wouldn’t have been asking these people for a discount; instead he would have been asking them to work for the standard rate, as set out in the government fee framework. That rate already recognises the importance of the job, the level of public exposure, and the need for specialist knowledge – all the factors Brownlee is appealing to. And as it notes, you need a “compelling case” to justify departing from it. Brownlee didn’t make that case. In fact, he didn’t even try. Instead, he just asserted that his nominees wouldn’t work unless paid extraordinary amounts of money, and relied on his Cabinet colleagues to take him at his word. That would be dubious enough in ordinary circumstances, but where one of the people involved is a party crony, it looks like outright corruption.

—————————————————————————–

The bit that got me was Brownlee’s excuse that “Exceptional times require exceptional measures. This is the largest natural disaster New Zealand has ever faced.”

I mean when the government is crying poverty as its reason not to  pay people replacement cost of red-zone houses and won’t give victims’ families legal help at the Royal Commission, surely the ‘exceptional measure’ would be paying them less or not at all, which the chair of the Panel said he would have been happy with.

– Eddie

27 comments on “NRT: Brownlee’s excuse ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. marsman 1
    10 August 2011 at 11:59 am

    Shipley ’eminently qualified?

  2. Craig Glen Eden 2
    10 August 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Look clearly you just don’t understand this is how a Tories world works, the sense of entitlement does not stop at ones self it goes for your mates as well.

    I just wish he would extend his generosity to all the other hard working highly skilled kindergarten teachers as well!

  3. mik e 3
    10 August 2011 at 6:49 pm

    No Golden hand shakes needed here ,just a couple of nudges and wink oh and of course being a member of Nationals elite seals the deal, so if you want to get ahead in this country join the National party and grovel your way up the ladder and you’ll want for nothing!Just keep telling lies and breaking promises ,and character assassinate or back stab any internal opponents.And you will get to the top.Don’t forget to smile and wave!

  4. vto 4
    10 August 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Brownlee ““I didn’t think it was appropriate to go to eminently qualified people and say, ‘Look, will you do this extremely important job on the cheap?’.”

    F##king rude and ignorant dickhead.

    The most important job in Christchurch has been pumping out and repairing the sewer system, amongst many others. What about doubling their pay rate you hypocritical twat?

    Lording types are really not that important.

    Why the difference in approach Brownlee? Come on, explain. Why the difference in approach?,

    Go on Brownlee, follow your arrogant all-powerful solo dumb brainwaves through to a point of credibility. Bloody hell, you really are quite a way short of a useful wisdom.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      10 August 2011 at 11:16 pm

      Lording types are really not that important.

      Bingo!

      The administrative types pay should be determined by those who create/own the wealth. In this case, the people of NZ. It most definitely should not be determined by the administrative types themselves.

  5. fabregas4 5
    10 August 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Contrast this with the Farmy Army and the Student Groups who actually worked their backsides off for …. nothing!

  6. davidc 6
    10 August 2011 at 10:23 pm

    So Dame Jenny Shipley, ex PM of NZ, who is far more qualified for this role than say another ex PM like Helen Clark would be, should work for $270 a day when ex Cops are getting $1000 a day for doing insurance assessments?

    This thread should be on Red Alert its spinning that hard.

    • felix 6.1
      10 August 2011 at 10:35 pm

      That’s a whole different argument. The point is Gerry lied.

      Oh right, now I see why you want to have a different argument. Silly me.

    • vto 6.2
      11 August 2011 at 8:05 am

      I see the point as being more about the divide that is going on in society, and so ably demonstrated in England right now with the riots.

      The ruling classes are enriching themselves and at the same time claiming cuts need to be made to the rest of us. This just enrages people. Just like the bank and finance company bailouts.

      And this is EXACTLY what Brownlee has done here. And he doesn’t even recognise it. Try leading from the top Brownlee – on this particular issue for a start. Go on. Lead from the top. ha ha ha ha ha, what a joke.

      edit: this is a pure example of the presumptions held by the upper echelons that they are worth $xxx. They seem to have this inbuilt fantasyland idea that they are worth a multiple of multiples more than the man working on the sewer. Brownlee’s decision and action on this exemplifies this. The ruling classes are the ones who need to be cut down to size.

  7. davidc 7
    10 August 2011 at 10:42 pm

    Want to show me a quote of this lie? Because I have read what has been provided and I cant find a lie. I can find an opinion tho…

    “I do not believe that the proposed nominees will undertake the role for fees within the ranges established in the Cabinet Fees Framework”

    Is this what your talking about?

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      10 August 2011 at 10:49 pm

      Asshole

      He said that they WILL NOT undertake the role

      It was not an opinion; he stated a fact. One which has been shown to be a LIE. We have been over this already.

      davidc = Time Waster

      To add insult to injury, having appointed these people with no proper process, Brownlee then decided to pay them at triple the normal rate [PDF], on the basis that “it will not be possible to secure their services under the current fees range”. No effort appears to have been made to find candidates who would do the work within the government’s budget. This was agreed to by State Services Minister Tony Ryall [PDF].

      http://thestandard.org.nz/brownlees-dirty-little-deal/

    • felix 7.2
      10 August 2011 at 10:57 pm

      No, this one: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B6Pi1w-D4ydLZTg1ZWU2YWYtNWJhMi00MDc1LTgwMGUtNWU0ZTVjOWFjY2Iy&hl=en_US

      it will not be possible to secure their services under the current fees range

      Turns out that was a lie and he hadn’t spoken to them about money at all. One of them said the money wasn’t even a consideration for him.

      But you knew that already.

      “davidc = Time Waster”

      True dat. He’s got a new name but he’s no new troll. Like the way he shortens words like “tho” to give the impression of a new writing style? Pretty transparent.

      • davidc 7.2.1
        10 August 2011 at 11:05 pm

        What do you mean by a new name? I have never posted here under anything but this.

        [lprent: Agreed (since you implicitly asked). I can’t see you ever posting under anything different. ]

        • felix 7.2.1.1
          10 August 2011 at 11:09 pm

          Fuck off troll.

          • davidc 7.2.1.1.1
            10 August 2011 at 11:14 pm

            Please back your comment up with some fact. Please. I am asking nicely.

            Its actually the 2nd time you have falsely acused me of this.

            • felix 7.2.1.1.1.1
              10 August 2011 at 11:30 pm

              If I did, you were using another name.

              Notice how quickly davidc diverted the discussion away from Gerry’s lie?

              Cute.

              • davidc …
                10 August 2011 at 11:34 pm

                ok.

                get fucked you total lying cunt.

                you have steamed bullshit at me without any basis in fact.

                IF moderation on this blog is half fair it will ban you.

                [lprent: We don’t ban people for being nasty or barbed to others – commentators really have to just develop a thick skin if they weren’t issued with one at birth.

                There is an exception (of course) and that is post authors. Unlike commentators we really really need them. After all if they aren’t writing then the moderators would have to. So comments attacking them personally (attacking their ideas is ok) tends to locate the shortcut to purgatory.

                Outside of authors, we moderate for behaviors that are disruptive of the flow of debate and are dead boring for non-participants (like moderators) to read. And of course we will moderate for things that tend to cause the site to get sued (and you should really read the judgement in Lange vs Atkinson before commenting on that in this context).

                However, getting successfully needled by felix (and others like him*) is not something that we moderate for unless it looks like descending into boring flame. You just need to either cultivate a thicker skin and/or a better line in rebuttals. Appealing for moderator help because you cannot defend yourself or your ideas is more likely to earn you a scatological rebuttal like this than any resolution you’d prefer.

                * like myself outside of moderator mode ]

                • felix …
                  10 August 2011 at 11:48 pm

                  What for exactly?

                  I note that you still haven’t returned to the topic at hand. You asked for quotes to show Gerry’s lie and you were provided them.

                  And suddenly you’re keen to talk about anything but.

                  • davidc …
                    11 August 2011 at 7:59 am

                    You called me out and said I had posted under another name, called me a troll you hurt my poor thin skinned feelings. Diddums to me.

                    you said..

                    ” “davidc = Time Waster”

                    True dat. He’s got a new name but he’s no new troll. Like the way he shortens words like “tho” to give the impression of a new writing style? Pretty transparent.”

                    So if someone knows something about lying Mr Felix I think its you, and I would think if you need to lie to bring some power to your argument, its a damp squib to start with huh?

                    Have a nivce day.

                    • felix …
                      11 August 2011 at 8:07 am

                      Jolly good, not really bothered what you have to say about me. You’re just a name on a blog after all.

                      I am however interested in what you have to say about Gerry and his lying.

                      Remember that? You were real keen on discussing it last night. What happened, davey? Cat got your tongue?

        • davidc 7.2.1.2
          11 August 2011 at 8:04 am

          Thanks Lynn, I didnt think I had let the voices in my head express themselves on here. Yet.

      • Colonial Viper 7.2.2
        10 August 2011 at 11:06 pm

        I’m starting to understand quite well why the youths in the UK are resorting to things other than clever discussion and debate to make themselves visible to British society.

    • KJT 7.3
      11 August 2011 at 2:05 am

      Thanks to the RWNJ who reminded us of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

      http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,2340,en_2649_201185_36371174_1_1_1_1,00.html

      As applied to those who make fortunes in derivatives without actually having read a whole book.

      Or those who apply economic voodoo despite overwhelming evidence it does not work.

      Those who think Brownlee and the National party caucus are anything else but dangerous buffoons, picked for their ignorant and unthinking adherence to the party line.

      Who keep telling us they EARN lots of money despite being, too demonstrably, thick to actually, earn it!