One chance to clean up politics

Written By: - Date published: 8:04 am, September 12th, 2014 - 72 comments
Categories: accountability, Ethics - Tags: , ,

If we, the electorate, reward dirty politics by re-electing a National government, we will be validating the most vile tactics this country has seen since Muldoon. We will be saying that it’s OK to misuse government information, manipulate the OIA process, run political “hits”, dig for dirt, and embrace the most hateful of propaganda tools. We will be accepting an all too cosy relationship between attack politics and a too-often complicit media. We will be encouraging the bottom-feeders of the business world to adpot the same tactics. We will, in short, be giving up on decency.

Please vote for a left wing party: Labour, The Greens, or Internet/Mana. If you can’t bring yourself to do that, then at least please don’t vote for National. We’ve got one chance to clean up politics. I hope we take it.

72 comments on “One chance to clean up politics ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Phat Psycho Hen Joky 1
    12 September 2014 at 8:35 am

    Dirty politics and state broadcaster: If you want to clean up politics you have to clean up the news

    Ever listen to the state news and hear how things are overplayed,scripted, timed and used to frame?

    08:00 Sound bite from Guyon for advertising RNZ news at 8:00

    Are the greens ready to ditch labour

    08:04
    Sound bite from greens mentioning they want to go with labour (no mention of ditching). No interview, no questions asked are you ready to ditch labour…. just nothing…. Just left hanging

    No dirty politics here, move on, the news has not been compromised

    • Lanthanide 1.1
      12 September 2014 at 9:10 am

      “08:04
      Sound bite from greens mentioning they want to go with labour (no mention of ditching). No interview, no questions asked are you ready to ditch labour…. just nothing…. Just left hanging”

      You obviously missed the lengthy interview with Russel Norman on the subject that was around 7:15am.

  2. CnrJoe 2
    12 September 2014 at 8:36 am

    this will play out over years, would it be so bad to have Key have to slop around in parliament with all of these questions and facts and allegations and the corruption. Would be fascinating to watch question time after question time. imo

  3. just saying 3
    12 September 2014 at 8:42 am

    It would help if there was an agreed committment amongst the parties of the left to institute a comprehensive, impartial review of all the matters raised, and to implement substantial changes as recommended.

    It would be tempting for the opposition to be reluctant to put an end to the current perfunctory form of democracy, since it also allows them to operate with immense power but little-or-no accountablility to the people when their own bums are on the government benches.

    Let’s have an action plan. No more meaningless soundbites to score points. A committment to action.

    • Bill 3.1
      12 September 2014 at 2:13 pm

      for the opposition to be reluctant to put an end to (…) since it also allows them to operate with immense power

      Well, not really. The msm will continue to produce ‘news’, for our consumption, where the pre-production parameters are determined by the same right wing ‘dirty politics’ brigade as now.

      The only change coming in terms of effect is that under a Labour/Green government, they will be broadly anti-government instead of broadly pro-government. And so, suddenly, much of the msm will be demanding explanations and insisting on accountability – even where none is warranted.

      • just saying 3.1.1
        12 September 2014 at 2:45 pm

        I was thinking more specifically of the use of the spy agencies police etc. for political and/or personal purposes, appointing cronies to powerful and influential positions, allowing the wealthy to buy influence through political donations and funding political campaigns, foisting supporter-candidates onto electorates (and bringing other kinds of undue influence to bear on that supposedly democratic process), refusing to fund a truly independent public broadcaster (and manipulating what little we have with the control of the purse strings),…. that kind of thing.

  4. Phat Psycho Hen Joky 4
    12 September 2014 at 8:53 am

    Example of dirty politics?

    SYSTEMS, PROCESSES, CONSTANT IMPROVEMENT and the BIG LIE THAT STATE SCHOOLS ARE BAD and CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE GOOD.

    Basically you can improve your processes, systems, people capability etc, state schools are not STUCK, yet National and Act are making out that they can’t possible change. They imprint on people that teachers are bad, privatization is good. Also, think about this, all the processes and system (IP if you like) will be given for free to the charter schools. The framing is that state schools are bad (old news), charter schools are good.

    Charter Schools have been covered recently on RNZ. It seemed like a big advert for charter schools with little questioning on either side of the argument except for providing sound bites from either side.

    They did not ask the following questions

    1. Why can’t the state (JKs Government) develop schools with the same supposed flexibility as charter schools i.e. Lets assume (and be overly generous as the evidence shows charter schools typically don’t work well) for the sake of argument charter schools are more efficient, successful. Why is it that suddenly JKs Government incapable of taking lessons learned from best practice and injecting them into state school best practice? In other words systems, processes, constant improvement are always possible, yet for some reason the state just cant handl it.

    2. Why is it that John Key and his cohort of “competent managers” cannot manage the improvement of schools to be more flexible and adaptive Yet JK and his friends can manage complex multi-million dollar businesses? Whys is there this competency disconnect.

    3. Even though state standards have to be followed i.e. Charter and state schools have to follow the rule book, what is the fundamental difference between the two.
    4. Is it not strange that all the best practice education processes and systems developed by the state will be hovered up for free by charter schools, repackaged and sold back to us?

    5. Why is it that you paint all teachers as being inflexible and left leaning and incapable of taking on positive change.

    6. Also why is it that all the years of experience and good achievements by state schools are never mentioned

    7. Why is it there seems to be a raced based component to charter schools, is National trying to buy votes?

    8. No questions asking the pay scale of the “managers” of these charter schools and what the “profit” take is.

    Note recently on RNZ Guyon essentially discounted the fact that research in the United States shows that charter schools are not performing (i.e. lets ignore the research, this is NZ). He didn’t ask enough very intelligent questions (yet he is very intelligent).
    Also in one interview, guess what, one of the charter schools workers is a former ACT member (only mentioned after a listener phoned it in).

    Now with the introduction of more charter schools its packaged by Heka as being business as usual!

    Is there anything wrong with looking at the education system with another pair of eyes no, no there is not but why couldn’t you just implement lessons learned, proc

    Are charter schools just a case of

    No Consultant Left Behind?

    Just like the big 4 consulting companies, they don’t want Government to be efficient or competent, have good processes and systems, that would mean they would miss out on the big fees and insider knowledge.

    What is more chilling, is no one is asking these questions on RNZ, TVNZ, Hearld etc etc….

    • Tautoko Viper 4.1
      12 September 2014 at 9:33 am

      Well said, PPHJ. Nats show little respect to teachers. Nats will not look at evidence-based information that counters their ideology.

    • ropata 4.2
      12 September 2014 at 10:23 am

      Good post. Privatisation of education and health are the next big ticket items for the Inter-National™ Party©®. To do that they have to undermine public schools and teachers.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/campbell-reasons-why-we-cant-afford-another-national-government/#comment-885287

      • KJT 4.2.1
        12 September 2014 at 10:27 am

        http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/the-real-aims-of-nationals-education.html
        “When you see that the goal is to commercialise public education, regardless of education quality, and entrench the privileged, wealthy “class”, the seeming ineptitude and incompetence in “improving” “education” from National and ACT, makes sense”.

        • ropata 4.2.1.1
          12 September 2014 at 10:41 am

          These slithering snakes make Muldoon look like a fairly decent chap.

          • Rodel 4.2.1.1.1
            12 September 2014 at 11:25 am

            Phat Psycho Hen Joky
            Some years ago there was a state ‘school’ in Christchurch called Purchase House.
            It took in 20 or more suspended and expelled secondary students, (those that could no longer be managed in ordinary schools), had 2 trained highly skilled teachers and an assistant with visiting psychologists and dsw social workers.
            It was very successful and gradually reintegrated the students into schools.

            There is no need to hand such students over to untrained private businesses selected by ACT’s Isaacs and her ilk.

            The state system is far more effective efficient and professional if given the resources.

    • Gosman 4.3
      12 September 2014 at 11:51 am

      If you make State Schools as independent and self directing as Charter Schools can be you would have my support.

      • Local Kiwi 4.3.1
        13 September 2014 at 8:21 am

        Goose step man, heil goosman,,

        Send you to the school of corrections would be a good start sello carpetbagger.

      • Local Kiwi 4.3.2
        13 September 2014 at 8:21 am

        Goose step man, heil goosman,,

        Send you to the school of corrections would be a good start sellout – carpetbagger.

  5. tc 5
    12 September 2014 at 8:54 am

    Only 2 ticks for Labour cleans up politics, you can’t be sure the greens will not prop up a nat gov’t so it’s not worth risking.

    • Lanthanide 5.1
      12 September 2014 at 9:11 am

      You really think The Greens would opt to work with National instead of Labour?

      The only situation where that would happen, is if the Greens could not form a government that included Labour.

      In which case, I’d rather have the Greens propping up National, than the Conservatives.

      • weka 5.1.1
        12 September 2014 at 10:30 am

        The GP won’t prop up National. They’ve said so.

        • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1
          12 September 2014 at 10:53 am

          Actually Russel Norman said it is “highly unlikely”, that’s not the same thing as “no”.

          • tc 5.1.1.1.1
            12 September 2014 at 11:25 am

            Precisely when it was a categorical ‘no’ not so long ago.

            Norman would do well to look at what happened to Peter Garrett when he chose to sit at the big table it’s what the marketing folk call damaging your brand by association.

    • Enough is Enough 5.2
      12 September 2014 at 10:04 am

      You are a moron if you think the Greens will support a National Government.

      Unlike Labour, the Greens have truly progressive policies that National would never consider, and vice versa.

      Only a party vote for the Green will ensure that a Labour lead government does not pander to Parker/Business interests.

    • Macro 5.3
      12 September 2014 at 11:54 am

      FFS you have NO idea!
      If you can’t say anything sensible – and yours tc is a completely ridiculous suggestion (I know that the Greens will NEVER prop up a Nat government such as it is now) then hold your tongue!.
      MOUs e.g. home insulation programmes, solar energy programmes etc, as suggested by Russell on MR this morning, to achieve Green Policy is quite a different thing to propping up a government -if you can’t get your head around that – then again hold your tongue!

    • outofbed 5.4
      12 September 2014 at 12:30 pm

      You can be sure
      The Leadership of the Greens would need a mandate from the membership to do that and I can assure you they wouldn’t get it

    • BLiP 5.5
      12 September 2014 at 1:00 pm

      ‘

      What are you doing repeating that National Ltd™ dirty politics meme in here? Give it a rest. If John Key does manage to finagle the election, there’s gains to be made in several Green Party policy areas. You can, for example, thank the Greens for holding their nose and getting so many homes insulated. Never mind the fact that when it comes to other significant portfolios its just a difficult dealing with Labour as it is with the other crew. Two votes Green . . . do it for Aotearoa.

  6. Enough is Enough 6
    12 September 2014 at 8:55 am

    Yeah Good Call.

    It seems though from the trend lines that the voters deserting National aren’t coming over to us. They are pouring into the wacky Conservatives and Winston. That gives Key options that didn’t exist a month ago.

    We have to spread the word that a vote for the Conservatives or NZF is a vote for National and their dirty politics.

  7. cogito 7
    12 September 2014 at 9:02 am

    Politics certainly needs to be cleaned up, and the only way to do this is to remove those who engage in corruption, lies and filth wherever they happen to be irrespective of party or allegiance.

    Right now Key is the #1 culprit. Team Key = Team Lies = Team Corruption = Team Dirty Politics.

    Key has to go for the clean up to start.

  8. One Anonymous Bloke 8
    12 September 2014 at 9:38 am

    I think this a false binary, R0b. For one thing, winning the election won’t stop ratfuckers going about their business, because the culture that supports them won’t change.

    That’s a long-term ethics project that the National Party and its criminal associates will do their best to destroy.

  9. adam 9
    12 September 2014 at 9:42 am

    Anthony I think you’re doing Muldoon a disservice putting him with this lot. I’m serious, yes Muldoon was rude, abrupt, rough, and a knucklehead. Yes he was cynical and used 1981 Springbok tour to win an election, but and here is the but. He was open about it, he was that likable rogue. He recognised his mistakes (also his perceived greatness) and he was trying to work for all New Zealand – he did not run a government for a selected few. Muldoon may have been a bit of a dictator, but I’d rather him anyday -than these far right wing ideologues.

    • Sable 9.1
      12 September 2014 at 9:50 am

      I agree with some of what you say. Muldoon was no prince but at least he was loyal to this country and its people which is more than can be said for the current mob in National and Labour….I’d elect him over Keys and Cunliffe….

      • Ennui 9.1.1
        12 September 2014 at 10:00 am

        And he had a sense of humour, cant imagine Jokey Hen in the Rocky Horror!

        • Barfly 9.1.1.1
          12 September 2014 at 10:12 am

          Yup he had a great sense of humour

          “It was appropriate the Australian team was wearing yellow”

          re the underarm bowling 🙂

        • karol 9.1.1.2
          12 September 2014 at 10:16 am

          When everyone else takes a step to the left, Key will be saying “let’s just step back a minute”

          • adam 9.1.1.2.1
            12 September 2014 at 10:21 am

            Thanks Karol, I’m still laughing.

          • Tautoko Viper 9.1.1.2.2
            12 September 2014 at 10:40 am

            Tt’s just a jump to the left
            Let’s get away from the right
            With the help of your vote
            We can win the big fight
            Another term of National
            Will drive me insane
            Let’s have a fair land again

            • North 9.1.1.2.2.1
              12 September 2014 at 12:22 pm

              Very good TViper – The ShonKey Horror Show. Saw Muldoon in the role of Narrator at His Majesty’s all those years ago. Pathos was real at the sight of him. Sodden, rejected by his own, ill, and gasping for relevance. As much as he was loathsome he paled against the filth of Key and the present mob.

            • Zolan 9.1.1.2.2.2
              12 September 2014 at 12:37 pm

              Nice 🙂 . Campaign-worthy writing too.

              • Tautoko Viper …
                12 September 2014 at 1:53 pm

                Blush. Another bit of doggerel

                We don’t need to have corruption
                We don’t need no Whale Oil crap
                No more dark ops from PM’s office
                Time for Ede to face the rap
                Hey , now, it’s time, for Ede to face the rap
                All in all he’s just another prick in Key’s wall
                All in all there is the big prick who’s yet to fall

    • KJT 9.2
      12 September 2014 at 10:33 am

      Muldoon did have a vision and ambition for New Zealand and cared about New Zealanders.

      I think Muldoon, Holyoake and many other conservatives, of the past would be horrified at the current sell-out of New Zealand by their party.

      I know a few tribal National voters who are leaving because they are disgusted with the current parties corruption, arrogance and cynicism.
      I strongly suspect that applies to a few ex National MP’s recently, because they would not go with the programme, they have been either edged out (smeared) or resigned.

      • tc 9.2.1
        12 September 2014 at 11:21 am

        Yes at least Rob understood infrastructure and the need to build it and would be unimpressed the 2 nat govt’s since his been incrementally flogging it off.

        The nat MP’s edged out are making way for more JLR’s and Bridges clones who can read a script, chant the slogans and do as they are told.

        The chance of any independent thought/action and actual electorate representation, unless it aligns with the backers objectives, is well on the way out under the hollowmen.

      • DS 9.2.2
        12 September 2014 at 2:22 pm

        Holyoake, and Muldoon, yes. Not Sid Holland though (the PM Key has most in common with).

        • adam 9.2.2.1
          12 September 2014 at 8:43 pm

          I’d agree with that DS. Like Slippery Sid, Key is always out of the country – do bugger all PM.

    • Thinker 9.3
      13 September 2014 at 7:15 am

      I was too young to really know Muldoon’s style. He was just someone you saw on the news a lot. And laughed with, in a schoolboy sort of way, when he made tv reporters squirm. So I wasn’t going to put in a response.

      But, since others have, I will.

      My understanding of Muldoon is that he was hard and didn’t always play by the rules. But it seems to me he generally fought in the open, and if you think about his politics, I think he wanted the best for New Zealand, not to sell it to multinationals.

      I don’t think he would approve of sneaky, “Dirty Politics”, in the way Hager portrays it.

      If you watch films like “Someone Else’s Country” and “In A Land Of Plenty” you might form the opinion I did that Muldoon was trying to stop the onset of the kiwi brand of neoliberalism in this country, but unfortunately, I think he did it by resisting any structural change at all. And some kind of structural change was required, which is where he went wrong.

      When I read the opening lines, I, too, thought it was a bit unfair to drop Muldoon in with the likes of this kind of politics.

  10. weka 10
    12 September 2014 at 10:26 am

    “Please vote for a left wing party: Labour, The Greens, or Internet/Mana. If you can’t bring yourself to do that, then at least please don’t vote for National. We’ve got one chance to clean up politics. I hope we take it.”

    This is a good message to get out there. For the National voters who can’t bring themselves to vote National because of Slatergate, and won’t vote left, just abstain.

    • KJT 10.1
      12 September 2014 at 10:37 am

      That is what is happening for Labour voters. They do not want to vote for raising the retirement age and gifting even more of our wages to the finance system, (privatising super) and they have heard nothing about Greens or IM apart from media spin, which leaves them little alternative but to abstain, or vote for Winston, as many I know are doing.

      • weka 10.1.1
        12 September 2014 at 10:41 am

        hmm, that’s bad.

      • Enough is Enough 10.1.2
        12 September 2014 at 11:00 am

        Yes

        There is too much influence from Parker maintaining neoliberal policies.

        There is an alternative though. Green primarily or Mana.

        • Macro 10.1.2.1
          12 September 2014 at 12:02 pm

          Parker is having far too much influence with his neo-liberal attitude. And while there is a “human” face, the economic myth is still getting in the way.
          He clearly has no conception of the reality that is facing us with climate change. He is almost in the Tim Grocer camp there. Labour has 30 pages of Climate policy waffle. It won’t work, because he still allows 50% of crap international credits. Basically it is a policy devised by Labour to go back to where they were in 2007! Ridiculous!

      • blue leopard 10.1.3
        12 September 2014 at 12:05 pm

        It is not sufficient to simply say ‘there is no alternative’ other than to abstain from voting and believe media spin for the people who don’t want the retirement age to be increased.

        There is an alternative course of action and that is to check out the policies of Greens and Internet Mana.

        They are easily found and there are plenty of internet cafes around this country for those who don’t have a computer at home.

        People believing that abstaining is the only choice they have can’t be terribly worried by the type of issues being raised in the post of this thread. If people on the left are still considering not voting after all that has been revealed to them this really is part of the problem.

        I would have thought Anthony Robins is trying to address just this type of lethargic thinking from the outset, by writing the post.

        • KJT 10.1.3.1
          12 September 2014 at 12:46 pm

          Not lethargic, just lack of faith since Labours sell-out after 84

          Not everyone wants to spend hours on the internet. Most have a real life.

          • blue leopard 10.1.3.1.1
            12 September 2014 at 1:00 pm

            …a real life that will eventually be adversely affected strongly if a government like the one we have now keeps getting supported – directly supported or by default, by not voting.

            It is lethargic. It could only be put down to a lack of faith if Labour was the only option.

            Labour’s retirement age raising has out clauses for those who can’t continue to work too – and many other improvements for the elderly, things that would be discovered if one checked out their website:

            https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/senior_citizens_policy.pdf

            So the Labour policies are not as bad as people are assuming. There are also two other parties that can be voted for aswell, in order to get this government, and their corrupt tactics, voted out.

            https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/income-support-policy

            • Anne 10.1.3.1.1.2
              12 September 2014 at 3:31 pm

              Labour’s retirement age raising has out clauses for those who can’t continue to work too – and many other improvements for the elderly,

              True blue leopard but the sheeple have fallen for the subliminal messaging – Labour spells end to super at 65. We have to wait two more years to get it. That’s not fair. Don’t vote Labour.

              Simple for them to understand. They don’t have to think. Its been done for them. It was always going to happen and Labour should have known it.

              • blue leopard …
                12 September 2014 at 4:07 pm

                +1 Yes, they should have known it.

                The extremely common knowledge that the ratio of old to young is increasing – that there are more old people in relation to young – could also have informed them that there were more older voters than young.

                Putting out a policy that was unlikely to be supported by older people wasn’t the cleverest thing to do.

                😯

                It would be interesting to know how many people are receiving the superannuation and working full time between the ages of 65 and 67. It may not seem quite so ‘unfair’ if it turned out that many people are still working at that age and receiving support from the government. (I don’t know whether they are or not, which is why it would be interesting to find out the data on it)

  11. Phat Psycho Hen Joky 11
    12 September 2014 at 10:37 am

    Lanthanide, you raised a fair point:

    “You obviously missed the lengthy interview with Russel Norman on the subject that was around 7:15am.”

    Yes I did, bu, think of this, for people tunning in around the same time as I did, all they would have heard was…

    “08:00 Sound bite from Guyon for advertising RNZ news at 8:00
    Are the greens ready to ditch labour”

    No balance in that statement…..

    Also what are the listener stats at 7:00am V 8:00

    Yeah, I’m being a dick and splitting hairs, clutching at slippery bald rats, but still……. timing, format is everything

    So take the recent debates on TV
    Debate 1 scheduled same time as all blacks (500K watched the ABs)
    Debate 2 streamed live, not on the radio
    Debate 3 Later programming slot, many people have tunned out

    Top it of we have Hoskins and Henry now seen to be fair and balanced….Of course there is Campbell. In terms of timing as well, from what I have heard “anecdotal” is that they gave more time to JK than DC to ask questions.

    I just wuv Nuuu Zulaand its so awsum.

    • weka 11.1
      12 September 2014 at 10:43 am

      So phone, email or tweet the RNZ news team and ask them why they are running that headline when Norman just ruled it out.

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/about/contact

    • blue leopard 11.2
      12 September 2014 at 11:43 am

      I don’t think Lanth’s point was fair.

      It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that there are likely to be more people hearing the short sound bites than the longer interview at 7.15 in the morning.

      Also, a short sound bite is more easily/likely – retained.

      This is bad faith reporting on behalf of our supposed information sources. TV News is even worse.

      We need decent information to make decent choices and sound bites like the one you previously mentioned are, quite simply, deceptive misinformation.

      Thanks for pointing this out Phat Psycho Hen Joky

    • Macro 11.3
      12 September 2014 at 12:14 pm

      Nicola Wright’s “News summaries on the hour and half hour have to be the least accurate reporting in my opinion. Regularly I hear an interview, and then a few minutes later Nicola comes on with a sound bite that completely misrepresents the entire context and thrust of what the interviewed was attempting to say. Sometimes it is so extreme that I doubt whether I, and she, have been listening to the same interview!
      The other factor I find very irritating and quite biased is the practice of always completing a statement of Policy by the Left, with a sound bite from the either Key Or Joyce or whoever, ridiculing it. No analysis, no attempt to determine the reality of the situation. Just end with a “Yeah! Nah! its a stupid idea!” That’s Balance?
      Radio New Zealand needs a thorough-going shake up! And as for TV1! a mucking out is well overdue.

      • North 11.3.1
        12 September 2014 at 1:01 pm

        Macro @ 11.3 – your post immediately alerts – I’ve heard this unreflective soundbite carry-on so often I can only conclude that it’s wilful. ‘News’ springing from a ‘can-only-be’ editorial base.

        The further point you make, the wheeling on of Key at al to dismiss unchallenged – exemplified by the common media framing of Key as some sort of higher, objective authority. Given its frequency that too must be wilful editorial. It’s timely that the seminal of Corkery’s “puffed up little shit” is being voiced about the dishonesty of many in the media.

        Come to think of it……what is Mora’s Panel other than an editorial for the Right ? By and large.

  12. Penny Bright 12
    12 September 2014 at 10:40 am

    In order to help get rid of this corrupt John Key led National Government – I’m going to ‘hold my nose’ and PARTY vote Labour.

    I was an undecided voter, but have now made up my mind, on the basis that to clean out the corruption and ‘dirty and despicable’ politics emanating from the uncontrolled ‘Office of the Prime Minister’ – we need to get rid of the Bank of America shareholder Prime Minister John Key to which this ‘Office’ attaches.

    This is a pragmatic decision.

    There are Labour policies which I support – but a number I do not.

    However – in order to dump National – Labour needs the numbers.

    If other undecided voters choose to do what I intend to – PARTY vote Labour – then we’ll clean out this dirty and despicable corrupt National Government.

    Then work on setting up the legislative framework to prevent corruption, ‘white collar’ crime and corporate welfare.

    Penny Bright

  13. greywarbler 13
    12 September 2014 at 10:44 am

    Slogan for our times.
    The National Party – New Zealand’s leading political party in the demonstration and tactics of – corruption, arrogance and cynicism.

    • blue leopard 13.1
      12 September 2014 at 11:47 am

      Considering all right wing parties are not condemning the actions of National – far from it, they and are prepared to support them get into parliament again, without any stipulations that this issue is addressed, I would say the same thing about the entire right wing culture of our country at present.

  14. Phat Psycho Hen Joky 14
    12 September 2014 at 10:51 am

    Dirty Politics in education is here to stay

    Tautoko Viper 4.1
    12 September 2014 at 9:33 am
    Nats will not look at evidence-based information that counters their ideology.

    and

    ropata 4.2
    To do that they have to undermine public schools and teachers.

    Just follow the money to the honey pot that is PPP and free market.

    You might like this article, just cut and paste NZ for UK

    The Education Foundation also hosted a meeting of twenty-five education reform lobby groups in Washington, part-funded by the British government. Again, the purpose was to learn lessons from their US colleagues on how to secure system reform and introduce more ‘innovation’ to schools. It included some familiar names in the US privatisation / reform lobby: Democrats for Education Reform, StudentsFirst and the Foundation for Excellence in Education.

    http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/lobbying/item/5670-england-s-education-reformers-who-are-they

    Right now, the Nats are sending in there special commandos to soften up the education system, once that is done the overseas corporations will take over.

    We are in The Grey Zone

  15. dave 15
    12 September 2014 at 1:09 pm

    Key and his goons have to go criminals have no place running the country

  16. Penny Bright 16
    12 September 2014 at 3:30 pm

    FYI

    12 September 2014

    Cheryl Gwyn
    Inspector-General
    Intelligence and Security

    ‘OPEN LETTER’

    Dear Inspector-General,

    This is a formal request for you to please ensure that your current “in-depth and robust inquiry” into claims Security Intelligence Service (SIS) information was used for political purposes covers the underpinning role of the Office of the Prime Minister.
    (if it does not already do so).

    My full name is Penelope Mary Bright.

    DISCLOSURE: I am currently standing as an Independent candidate in the Helensville electorate.

    BACKGROUND:

    In 1981 I was publicly named in Prime Minister Robert Muldoon’s famous SIS list as a ‘subversive’ arising from my role in organising opposition to the Springbok Tour.

    I have never been able to get a copy of my SIS file, although I have not been a member of any politically active party for over 30 years, and have no history of violent offending.

    I was also unable to get it confirmed or denied whether I was one of the 88 New Zealanders upon whom the GCSB unlawfully spied.

    My ‘submission’ made directly to Prime Minister John Key on the GCSB Bill, is available here: (11 minutes)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQgLJixhB4A

    Since 2000 – I have chosen to work full time as a self-funded ‘anti-privatisation’ and latterly ‘anti-corruption Public Watchdog’.

    During that time, I have now attended four significant international anti-corruption conferences, met the experts, read the material, and put my mind to the New Zealand corruption ‘reality’.

    2009 Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference
    2010 Attendee Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference
    2013 Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference
    2014 Attendee: G20 Anti-Corruption Conference

    Here is the link to the ACTION PLAN against ‘white collar’ crime, corruption and corporate welfare, which I have developed:

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ANTI-CORRUPTION-WHITE-COLLAR-CRIME-CORPORATE-WELFARE-ACTION-PLAN-Ak-Mayoral-campaign-19-July-2013-2.pdf

    This ‘ACTION PLAN’ is a far cry from New Zealand’s ‘perceived’ status as ‘the least corrupt country in the world’ (currently shared with Denmark, according to Transparency International’s 2013 ‘Corruption Perception Index’)

    http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results

    (This ‘perceived’ status being based upon the subjective opinions of anonymous businesspeople.)

    having just turned 60 years of age, I have a wide range of life experience.
    I have never attended University, but am a qualified Tradesperon with Advanced Trade in Sheetmetal Engineering, was NZ’s first Certified Board for Inspectorate Personnel (CBIP) ticketed woman Welding Inspector, and was for 9 years a Welding Tutor at Manukau Institute of Technology.

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz/qualifications/

    My work experience includes having been a Quality Assurance Co-ordinator at a stainless steel fabrication plant, which has given me a good grasp of ‘process’ and planning.

    So – why I’m writing to you is to express my strongest concerns about the apparent total failure of quality assurance systems and processes at the highest levels of the New Zealand Government, in particular, the Office of the Prime Minister, which appears to be completely ‘out of control’.

    According to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) website, the roles of the DPMC and Office of the Prime Minister, are supposed to be quite different and ‘totally separate’.

    http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc

    Issues that arise across the full range of government business

    DPMC provides a continuous flow of advice to the Prime Minister on major and daily issues, along with oversight of wider government activity and access to information and assessments. DPMC also works directly with Ministers on specific issues. The Deputy Prime Minister plays a lead role on behalf of the Prime Minister over a number of the government’s policy programmes and DPMC supports him on some of these matters from time to time.

    DPMC works with central agencies to draw together departments in support of the Government’s priorities, to focus agencies on providing options for action, to ensure implementation of agreed programmes and policies, to drive for enhanced agency performance, and to deal effectively with issues which affect the nation. DPMC also provides the secretariat support for decision making by the Cabinet and its committees.

    Administrative support to the Prime Minister
    This includes preparation of replies to Parliamentary questions, and dealing with Official Information Act requests and other correspondence.

    A totally separate body, the Office of the Prime Minister, also advises the Prime Minister: it is the primary point of responsibility for managing political issues and relationships with other political parties and for providing administrative and media support.

    ____________________________________________________________

    In brief, as I understand it, the Prime Minister has two roles, one as the Leader of the New Zealand Government, and the other as the Leader of ‘party political’ National Party.

    In his role as Leader of the New Zealand Government, the Prime Minister has the DPMC, to provide top level, impartial, apolitical advice on a range of matters, including those related to security.

    http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/

    ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT
    About the Department
    The Role of DPMC
    The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) serves the Executive (the Governor-General, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet) through the provision of high quality impartial advice and support services…

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    The Office of the Prime Minister, the role of which is apparently not covered by statute or regulation, is deeply ‘politically partisan / party political’, to help cover the Prime Minister as Leader of the National Party.

    It is my considered opinion, that it is fundamentally wrong for the politically partisan ‘Office of the Prime Minister’ to have dealings with the SIS, at any time.

    In my considered opinion, if the SIS is in direct contact with the ‘party political’ Office of the Prime Minister – then the role of the SIS has become ‘politicised’ – end of story.

    In my opinion, for whatever reason, clear lines of demarcation between the roles of the DPMC and Office of the Prime Minister are effectively non-existent.

    Not only is the role of the Office of the Prime Minister not subject to statute or regulation, it also lacks procedures and protocols, as is clearly stated in the attached OIA reply from Wayne Eagleson, Chief of Staff of the Office of the Prime Minister.

    (Why anyone from the Office of the Prime Minister, including the Chief of Staff Wayne Eagleson is answering Official Information Act requests, is also a real matter of concern, as it is NOT his job, as i understand it.)

    I am not sure whether your ‘terms of reference’ into the current inquiry which I understand you launched at your own initiative, extend to covering the role of the Office of the Prime Minister, but in my considered opinion, if they don’t – they should, because therein lies this apparently deep-seated problem.

    Which is – in my considered opinion – that the Office of the Prime Minister is completely out of control.

    If the role of the Office of the Prime Minister is not set by statute or regulation – then that needs to change – URGENTLY.

    FYI, following is a ‘MEDIA ALERT’ which I sent out yesterday on this matter:
    ________________________________________________________

    11 September 2014

    MEDIA ALERT!

    Is the politically partisan Office of the Prime Minister actually ‘out of control’?

    YES according to this OIA reply, received today 11 September 2014, by Prime Minister John Key’s Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson: (attached)

    3) Copies of the ‘procedure’ or ‘protocol(s)’ to be followed by all staff attached to or employed by the Office of the Prime Minister.

    There are no specific procedures or protocols to be followed by Ministerial office staff.

    4) A copy of the organisational ‘flow chart’ (or the like) which shows the clear reporting framework to be followed by all staff in your Office of the Prime Minister.

    There is no organisational chart for this Office and, accordingly, this part of your request is formally declined under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act “that the document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or cannot be found”.

    5) A copy of the budget for your Office of the Prime Minister, with a clear breakdown of monies paid by whom, for what, on an annual basis from 2008 – 2014.

    There is no separate budget for the Office of the Prime Minister.
    The Department of Internal Affairs has a budget for all Ministerial offices as a whole, but not for individual offices.

    However, I can confirm that all staff in this Office report to me as the Chief of Staff for both the Office of the Prime Minister and the Office of the Leader of the Parliamentary National Party.
    __________________________________________________________

    As some one who has never been able to get a copy of my SIS file, and could not get it ‘confirmed or denied’ that I was one of the 88 New Zealanders upon whom the GCSB unlawfully spied upon, I am REALLY concerned with the revelations contained within this OIA reply.

    Is anybody else?

    If not – why not?

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

  17. Jack the Rat 17
    12 September 2014 at 7:08 pm

    Very dangerous people we have in power here in NZ, are they really interested in the lives and well being of your average New Zealander.

  18. Jack the Rat 18
    12 September 2014 at 7:08 pm

    Very dangerous people we have in power here in NZ, are they really interested in the lives and well being of your average New Zealander.

  19. Local Kiwi 19
    13 September 2014 at 10:36 pm

    Jack the rat, Yes read here, John Key meets with Nazis and keeps this from NZ?
    “Very Very dangerous people we have in power here in NZ”
    Why didn’t PM tell NZ he was into Bilderberg?
    List of Bilderberg participants 4
    New Zealand
    • John Key (2011-2012), Prime Minister of New Zealand

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg

    This a Nazi founded organisation.
    Creator and chairman of the Bilderbergers was a card carrying member of Hitler’s SS and repeatedly lied when asked if he was a Nazi party member as a student (separate page all about Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands)

    No Bilderberg meeting agenda has ever been made public. “It is the epitome of low-profile dark ops, a shadow government hidden in a doorway.” According to critics and close observers, it’s agenda is to weaken all world leadership but their own. It is also, according to a U.S. law called the Logan Act, [15] illegal:

    http://twochurchesonly.com/supmat/03/most_influential/bilderberg_group/list_of_bilderberg_attendees.pdf

    http://bilderberg.org/bildhist.htm

    Creator and chairman of the Bilderbergers was a card carrying member of Hitler’s SS and repeatedly lied when asked if he was a Nazi party member as a student (separate page all about Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands)
    This photograph was taken at the first Bilderberg meeting at Prince Bernhard’s Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland in 1954. Hugh Gaitskell is in the far corner of the room looking rather sceptical and you can just see him scratching his chin.
    Another more limited photo of the same room which includes chairman Prince Bernhard is here