Open mike 09/11/2012

48 comments on “Open mike 09/11/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   9 November 2012 at 6:19 am

   “The best is yet to come”

   Barack Hussein Obama Victory Speech Tuesday 11/6/12

   Hardly ever has any president made such a grand eloquent promise, at the start of any inauguration.

   Significant words. That if made lightly will come to haunt this President’s final administration like an albatross around it’s neck.

   But if fullfilled will elevate Obama into the ranks of one of the greats.

   In his victory speech Obama also talked, (09:32 – 10:15), of an America “that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet”.

   This must mean that he has in mind a concrete course of action to remove that threat.

   When someone says, ‘the best is yet to come’, it usually means that they have a plan and a course of action in mind.

   Hopefully we will know what shape that plan will take within the coming ‘First Hundred Days’ of this renewed administration, when newly elected presidents traditionally release their new policy initiatives.

   Let us hope that Obama will release his plan to achieve his promise made to the American people; “That the best is yet to come” within the coming days.

   After all the crunch is rapidly approaching.

   That crunch is the approaching January deadline agreed to by the previous Bush administration to abolish the “deficit trigger”, a promise to undo the more than $500 billion in automatic tax increases for the wealthy that are due to automatically click in to place in January to prevent a deficit in government accounts. ie the money necessary to pay for social programs like environmental protection, healthcare, pensions, veterans benefits, etc. The two deadlines, the approaching deficit and the approaching promise to cancel the automatic tax increases on the rich, are in imminent collision. One or the other has to give.

   If it is the former that has to give way, this will be huge slap in the face for Obama supporters.

   An earlier attempted bipartisan approach by Obama to congress asking them to vote for $1 of every $2.50 in tax cuts instead, was roundly rejected by the Republican dominated congress who demanded the full tax rebate for their backers.

   Due to the intransigence of the Republicans – to break the deadlock, the President may have to use emergency executive powers to over rule them.

   No doubt he will receive a severe right wing backlash for doing so.

   An indication of which way Obama may go was given in an Obama election pamphlet entitled, “A Plan for Jobs & Middle-Class Security.” which promised that a second Obama administration would hire more teachers, promote manufacturing and raise taxes on the wealthy as “The New Economic Patriotism”

   If a country that can spend tens of $billions on war, or to bail out Wall Street bankers and financiers, decided to spend similar amounts on the necessary technologies to address climate change the effects could be immense. Not only would it address the climate it would be a huge stimulus to the real economy of manufacturing and jobs. Effectively killing two birds with one stone.
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     9 November 2012 at 7:57 pm

     If a country that can spend tens of $billions on war, or to bail out Wall Street bankers and financiers,

     well…when Iraq and Afghanistan wars were at top volume, billions were being spent a week…
     • Jenny 1.1.1

       9 November 2012 at 10:18 pm

       You are right of course CV. I meant to write hundreds of $billions.
   • Jenny 1.2

     9 November 2012 at 10:30 pm

     The fight heats up.

     Will the Democrats cave under the pressure?

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/7924297/Closing-the-gap-before-the-cliff

     Equity traders threaten the Whitehouse:

     What I am afraid of it is going to take a dive, a disruptive dive by equity prices in order to prompt Washington into, into coming up with a solution that is acceptable both politically and economically.

     John Lansky</b of Moodies Capital Markets

     The Republican dominated Congress declares class war:

     In a garbled and rather vague address, a strained looking John Bainer, the Republican House leader, attacked any tax hikes on the rich saying it would be better to "grow the economy". (Though he doesn't say how this should be done).

     That theory, known as trickle-down economics and dating to the era of President Ronald Reagan, holds that cutting taxes will vastly increase the size of the and profit pie, thereby producing more revenue even at lower tax rates.income

     AP reporter Stephen Hurst clarifies John Bainer’s argument.

     And though the Democrats dominate in the Senate, The Republican Senators announce that they will be as obstructive as possible:

     As the Leader of the Senate minority, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell signalled a readiness at continued obstruction if the Democrats and the president don’t capitulate.

     AP reporter Stephen Hurst

     Despite these determined rear guard attacks from the Republicans and the financiers of Wall Street. So far, the Democrats still seem to be holding their ground:

     “There was a message sent to us by the American people based on the campaign. And that is, people making all this money have to contribute a little bit more.

     And all the exit polling, all the polling we’ve done, the vast majority of the American people support that, including rich people.

     Harry Reid Democrat Senate Majority Leader

     In the face of those challenges, Obama had told Americans on Election Day that he had never been more optimistic.

     ‘‘The best is yet to come,’’ he said at his victory rally in Chicago, ticking off his legislative goals of reforming the tax system, working to ease climate change and overhauling the nation’s immigration laws.

     Mitt Romney who led a campaign based on division and winner take all arrogance. In an act of cynical hypocrisy, is now calling on the Democrats to work with the Republicans to cut social spending:

     ‘‘At a time like this, we can’t risk partisan bickering,’’ Romney said, after a campaign filled with it.

     ‘‘Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people’s work.’’

     You just know that Romney, this multi billionaire financier would not be this magnanimous in victory.
2. Red Rosa 2

   9 November 2012 at 6:43 am

   Canterbury still looking like Fiji

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/7926305/Axing-election-abuse-of-human-rights-watchdog

   But until the Central Plains and Hurunui irrigation schemes, and the extra Waitaki water take, are rammed through, don’t expect any change.

   http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/
   • vto 2.1

     9 November 2012 at 8:59 am

     .
     David Carter refused to comment.

     Arsehole. He should take his family money and shove it up his arse. Unwelcome.
   • weka 2.2

     9 November 2012 at 10:15 am

     Permanent link http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/stealing-our-water.html
     • Ianmc 2.2.1

       9 November 2012 at 10:34 am

       Yesterday at the Select Committee Environment and Local Body Meeting, the chief man at the Human Rights Mr Rutherford gave a burst that the stripping of democratic Rights was an affront to all that wars ghad been fought to preserve. Nick Smith got very angry and defensive. Wonder why. All NZ should be called to arms to condemn this antidemocratic travesty of ECan.
       • vto 2.2.1.1

         9 November 2012 at 11:04 am

         Yes I caught that.

         Nick Smith needs to wake up and open his beady eyes.

         Same with David Carter. I am sure both of them would never in their wildest dreams (……) imagine they have acted in the exact same manner as the third world tin-pot dictators that we all spit on.

         pitoooey
   • millsy 2.3

     9 November 2012 at 10:32 am

     Irrigation schemes should be publicly owned IMO, and metered, with revenue/profit going straight into cleaning up our rivers.

     That’s what happens in the USA, and to a lesser extent, Australia.

     We seem to let the private sector run the irrigation schemes, and pocket the profits and the water.
3. Dr Terry 3

   9 November 2012 at 7:27 am

   Jenny – While I go along with most of what you say, I think I ought to caution against Utopian thinking concerning the United States of America (in which I have lived, worked and studied over many years). A President, of course, has nothing like the unlimited power and influence many people think he possesses. We have heard all Obama’s skilled oratory (rhetoric, even hyperbole) before. The country ended up with more murderous drones than ever, posing threats to world peace and harmony also as ever (e.g. by imperialism – in the Pacific?) On the other hand, America is a generous country that treats foreigners rather well, a country of astounding extremes (for better and for worse).

   In American politics you do not have much choice, for all the overwhelming cost of elections. There is not effective Left, the choice is between a Party leaning well towards the Right and another Party also leaning to the Right, but considerably less so (demonstrating compassion through policies that are not discriminatory). Times might be tough at present, but still materialism and marked patriotism are firmly in place throughout America.

   “The best is yet to come”, proclaims Obama. Does this imply furtherance of the rather self-indulgent “American Dream”? Are these words comparable to another political leader who promised his country “a brighter future”? (Suddenly up to 7.3% unemployment, which thus far is receiving some remarkably mild reactions, a few even hinting that it is not too bad news, and that we are doing better, after all, than some other countries (which makes it alright!) “The best is yet to come” – we will have to wait a bit for Obama to unpack that prediction.
   • marsman 3.1

     9 November 2012 at 8:56 am

     Dr Terry. Mitt Romney also promised ‘a brighter future’ but the American public wisely rejected him. Unfortunately our very own Mitt is having a ball destroying our country.
   • Vicky32 3.2

     9 November 2012 at 9:05 pm

     The country ended up with more murderous drones than ever, posing threats to world peace and harmony also as ever (e.g. by imperialism – in the Pacific?)

     Exactly my worry about Obama…
4. marsman 4

   9 November 2012 at 9:20 am

   Yet another truck has crashed.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7927518/Molasses-tanker-crashes

   That makes three truck crashes in two days. Should there be an investigation into the trucking industry?
   • RedLogix 4.1

     9 November 2012 at 9:26 am

     Another driver probably half-asleep in the early hours of the morning.

     This was predicted. Nats blocked any action as usual. Workers are disposable.

     http://www.dogandlemon.com/articles/sleep-death

     http://www.labour.org.nz/portfolios/transport-safety?page=2
   • Bill 4.2

     9 November 2012 at 9:35 am

     Remember the TV3 newspiece not so long ago (18 months back?) that scoffed at and ridiculed the idea of maximum driving hours for truckies ? The story focussed on a company dealing in agricultural product that was getting slapped with a wet bus ticket for basically ignoring the regulation. Much hilarity from drivers and an apparent inability on the part of the reporters to grasp the seriousness of the matter.
   • millsy 4.3

     9 November 2012 at 10:13 am

     Doesnt help that our railway system is being run down slowly.

     Being wise enough to realise that selling it as a going concern is a no go, they are going to break it up and flog it off bit by bit by bit.
5. Bill 5

   9 November 2012 at 9:29 am

   How the fuck does the British PM ( as headlined in both the guardian and the independent) figure that the current focus on paedophilia (healthy or unhealthy as it might be) in the UK is a ‘gay with-hunt’??? He’s just given the green light for people to view gays as potential paedophiles, no? And meanwhile, the so-called liberal press of the UK has underscored and endorsed the prejudice by giving the tosh uncritical headline prominance. Fucking unbelievable.
   • rosy 5.1

     9 November 2012 at 9:34 am

     That, Bill, was exactly what I thought. The media and public were focusing on paedophiles – not sexual preference between consenting adults. Cameron just switched the emphasis to gay men to get himself out of a bind.
   • Te Reo Putake 5.2

     9 November 2012 at 9:44 am

     At the risk of being all contrarian, I thought Cameron handled the ambush pretty well. The UK has a history of conflating gay with paedophilia and at least one newspaper a few years ago printed the names and addresses of people innacurately accused of crimes against kids on that basis*. Innocent people were assaulted as a result. I think you’ll find that some of the names being bandied about in the UK as kiddy fiddlers are indeed gay, so Cameron will have been answering in that context.
      
     * can’t recall the paper, but I think it was Rebekah Brooks who ran the name and shame campaign. Again, without bothering to search, I recall that a podiatrist was also attacked, because the word sounds like paedophile.

     edit: News of the World et al, circa 2000
     • rosy 5.2.1

       9 November 2012 at 9:52 am

       Yes, it was Rebekah Brooks and yes, paedohilia and paediatrician were confused because of the hype.

       Yes, Cameron was ambushed, but he handled it badly imo – he should have just said internet speculation is just speculation. He aimed to deflect rather than quash speculation.

       And yes “I think you’ll find that some of the names being bandied about in the UK as kiddy fiddlers are indeed gay” might be true, but just as true (numerically more so) is – I think you’ll find that some of the names being bandied about in the UK as sexually abusing children* are indeed straight (including the one this all started with – Jimmy Savile).

       * kiddy fiddlers although a common term sounds like a game to me.
     • Bill 5.2.2

       9 November 2012 at 10:02 am

       Thanks for the vid lnk. Yes. Cameron was robust. But why say (paraphrasing) ‘particularily gay people’? Is that his own prejudice? And why oh why oh why do the broadsheets give prominence (and therefor a degree of legitimacy) to that claim or concern in a way that can only reinforce existing prejudice?

       Wouldn’t it have been healthier to have questioned that bit of Cameron’s response and laid the prejudice bare for the tosh that it is? Further, shouldn’t it be expected from so-called intelligent jouornalistic outputs?

       edit. And it was a list naming Tory mp’s. Not a list naming gays.
       • Te Reo Putake 5.2.2.1

         9 November 2012 at 10:46 am

         edit. And it was a list naming Tory mp’s. Not a list naming gays.
          
         Not mutually exclusive, Bill!
          
         It’s likely that Cameron knows the names and equally likely, given his response, that some may be gay. I got the impression that Cameron was trying to do the decent thing in that interview, which is a fluffy breakfast show, not, say, Hardtalk. Can you imagine Key defending gays against unwarranted attack? No, me neither. If it was me in his place, I would have been tempted to point out to Philip Schofield that as a former TV children’s entertainer in the 80’s and nineties, there might be people speculating about his tendencies, too. But, then, I’m a bit of a bastard!
         • Bill 5.2.2.1.1

           9 November 2012 at 11:01 am

           I didn’t say the two are mutually exclusive. But the list focussed on political allegience/office – or public figures/profiles – not sexual orientation. So he could/should have defended politicians. Or specifically Tory politicians – or whatever. But his mention of gays was in no way defending them (they weren’t being questioned or attacked or focussed on up until that point). And what his pronouncement has done is to place them in the crosshairs. It’s fucked up.
         • Vicky32 5.2.2.1.2

           11 November 2012 at 3:00 pm

           edit. And it was a list naming Tory mp’s. Not a list naming gays.

           What I have heard on the radio this morning, is, that heads have rolled – that is, the allegation against a Tory MP was false, and so the editor of Newsnight has fallen on his sword.
           Interesting!
       • Uturn 5.2.2.2

         9 November 2012 at 10:49 am

         On the upside, you and me know why and how to tell the difference and we aren’t the only people of our type in the world. If our collective perspective prefers an over-reliance on numbers, statistics and generalisation, to turn a specific sample of “some homosexuals abused children” and conflate it to become “most child abusers are homosexuals” then we can use the same method to say:

         “Our current political rhetoric utilises generalisations to create the fear of opposite” and then “Politicians are manipulative and untrustworthy”.

         In our everyday life though, it’s up to us to know our responsibility to face the individual circumstance before us, not the prejudice in our minds. Otherwise we aren’t thinking and living our lives, we’re remembering what we’ve been told and we might as well be robots or cardboard cut-outs. The person next door, who co-incidentally may be gay, should be extended the same respect and privacy we think we deserve if we’re hetro. They might be thinking, “I’ll just keep an eye on that hetro, I know how unbalanced they get round people like me.”. They might just be living their life, like nosey hetros should learn to do.

         If this was the case, newspapers and the proclamations of the manipulative would become like the distant farts of a far off mud pit, while real people, dealing in real realtionships, got on with their lives.
   • muzza 5.3

     9 November 2012 at 2:45 pm

     Bill can appreciate what you are sayingm but lets not miss the major point here which is something that I have mentioned previously.

     There are very dark forces at work, and those forces use “the establishment”, and are part of “the establishment” , to abuse, and systematically cover up this type of behaviour.

     This is only the latest example that what is said about those who ‘run the world’ , is backed up by the same response at the Catholic Church.
6. joe90 6

   9 November 2012 at 9:58 am

   British arms exports to repressive gulf state regimes visualised.
7. vto 7

   9 November 2012 at 11:00 am

   ha ha ha ha ha ha this has to be the funniest attempt at credibility in a while …….

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7927838/Industry-backs-Todd-fracking-report
   • weka 7.1

     9 November 2012 at 11:45 am

     “Major players in the oil and gas industry have spoken in support of a report saying the industry will become unprofitable if fracking is banned.”
      
     Well duh. Peak oil is as much about economics as the other. Eventually even with fracking, the industry will become unprofitable. By then we will have ruined the environment even more, just when we need a clean environment the most.
     • PlanetOrphan 7.1.1

       9 November 2012 at 11:55 am

       This is from WikiPedia …

       “impacts, including contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the health effects of these.[6] For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or even banning it”

       Surface contamination = Liquification.

       Anyone care too investigate the connection in Canterbury?

       “A proppant is a material that will keep a induced hydraulic fracture open, during or following a fracturing treatment”

       “Radioactive tracer isotopes are sometimes included in the hydrofracturing fluid”
8. millsy 8

   9 November 2012 at 11:18 am

   Chris Trotter quite rightly suggests that the Fifth Labour Government is as much to blame for Pike River as anyone else

   From 1999 to 2008 Labour didn’t lift a finger to undo National’s H and S reforms – there was a hell of the lot of other things it never really did as well.

   A lot of people on this blog think that Helen Clark’s government was the best ever, while over at Kiwiblog the rednecks entertain us with a delusional view that this country was like Bolshevik Russia in the 1920’s.

   It wasant really all that left wing.

   If you want a real left wing progressive government in New Zealand — look at Norman Kirk and Bill Rowling’s short lived government, even if Roger Douglas was in cabinet — back then he came up with some pretty progressive stuff (though I guess he was on a shorter leash back then).
   • kiwicommie 8.1

     9 November 2012 at 11:26 am

     “From 1999 to 2008 Labour didn’t lift a finger to undo National’s H and S reforms – there was a hell of the lot of other things it never really did as well.”

     Most of the true ‘left’ if you can all it that is voting Green, while the rest remain in Labour trying to get the last of the 80s bunch out of the party.
   • PlanetOrphan 8.2

     9 November 2012 at 11:29 am

     You can argue historical issues for ever millsy.

     The real issue is the “Real Time” governance of this country and it’s spineless implementation.

     The “Left” would not have been spineless, simple fact.
     Because they have “Ground” too stand on and would’ve pressured Pike River real time about it’s workplace standards and procedures.

     Even when the opposition calls the Gnats’ on it they reply with delusional obfuscated PR spin.

     It’s unbelievable too me that anyone over the age of 10 would think John Key a trustworthy person, and this rest of the Gnats’ are even worse, through subservience and gutlessness they are killing New Zealanders’ with impunity and a smile M8!.
     • karol 8.2.1

       9 November 2012 at 11:54 am

       Well, Trotter’s post/article also ends on a hopeful note, looking to the future:
        

       Following the Royal Commission Report’s release, Labour leader, David Shearer, was asked if he thought the deregulatory pendulum had swung too far. Mr Shearer responded by saying that “the government needs to be much more hands on than it has been”.

       It is to be hoped that these words reflect a genuine change of heart on Labour’s part, and that the next time they’re in office, Labour politicians will not hesitate to prevent the private sector’s “drive for production” (and profits) from pushing workers’ rights to effective workplace protection off the agenda.

       Although Trotter’s final sentence is one last kick at Labour for its past record.
       • prism 8.2.1.1

         9 November 2012 at 1:55 pm

         Perhaps Labour being more hands on would happen if we got some real tradesmen, semi-skilled workers, and mature women with family raising as well as paid workforce experience to those standing for Labour representation. Real hands-on people, not just higher educated, computer finger-clicking geniuses and lawyers good with words and understandings of the analogous nuts and bolts the state uses to keep us under control.
         • Colonial Viper 8.2.1.1.1

           9 November 2012 at 2:24 pm

           prism.

           A non-university qualified hands-on working labourer like Savage would have no hope of being allowed to lead todays Labour Party. That’s a fact.
   • Draco T Bastard 8.3

     9 November 2012 at 4:44 pm

     Actual Link
9. Jackal 9

   9 November 2012 at 1:19 pm

   National guilty of ecocide

   What National obviously fail to understand is that the cost of reducing GHG emissions, which is a required expense to reduce the effects of anthropomorphic climate change, might not be cheap… But the cost of failing to act will be even more expensive…
   • weka 9.1

     9 November 2012 at 4:57 pm

     John Key, if he thinks about it at all, no doubt imagines that his grandchildren will live in ecodome, gated communities in Hawaii. The plebs can live on the scorched earth.
10. prism 10

    9 November 2012 at 1:47 pm

    I noticed that Cameron connected paedophiles with gays. As far as I know heterosexuals can be quite as perverted in that direction as any other sexual persuasion. And incest can occur within apparently ‘normal’ families. And mothers can sometimes be compliant and silent about this because doing something destroys the marriage, family and home and apparent wellbeing and respect in the community etc. So the child, usually daughter, is abandoned to their own sad initiation into sex and twisted adulthood. All very dark and destructive to the human soul and a young person’s sense of self-worth.

    Gays going about their gay lives in a way that follows personal integrity deserve better than being conflated with those perversions of love that lead to incest and other sick obssessions.
11. karol 11

    9 November 2012 at 2:53 pm

    THAT interview in the Listener is now available online.  What’s so wrong with a politician being smart, and aware of his media image?  Does John Key not manipulate his media appearances even more than Cunliffe?
     
    After all the bluster by right wingers, and English in parliament, the actual Espiner interview doesn’t live up to that hype.  It looks like a lot of framing by Espiner to make Cunliffe look bad. 
     
    The important issues to me are what political policies, and strategies Cunliffe will pursue.  The inteview highlights the main ones.
     

    Cunliffe believes a new epoch is now upon us and that the left will no longer play second fiddle to the right as it has these past three decades. “The left of politics had to really adapt. You got Clinton’s Democrats. You got Blair’s Third Way, which to some extent had to accommodate and triangulate on triumphal markets and the Washington Consensus, and then the great crash of ’08-’09 happened and I reckon – we reckon – that that changes things again,” he says. “That gives not only the necessity but the freedom for us to ask big questions about do those policy settings, pre-crash, fit our people well for the future? And the answer in many cases is no.”

    Rightly or wrongly, Cunliffe believes that the faction against him in caucus, is unhappy with his desire for change.  And he reckons his opponents have learnt from Garner’s leaks.  We shall see.
12. Dave Kennedy (bsprout) 12

    9 November 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Is National really the farmer’s friend?
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/federated-farmers-and-professor.html
13. Dv 13

    9 November 2012 at 7:15 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7929764/Government-turns-its-back-on-Kyoto-commitment

    By Tim Grosser appropriately titled the Minister for Climate Change.
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      9 November 2012 at 7:49 pm

      OH FFS

      NZ’s reputation turned to mud
      • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1

        9 November 2012 at 7:57 pm

        That’s generally what happens under Nationals governance.

        ”We are on track to achieving our target – indeed we are forecasting a projected surplus of 23.1 million tonnes, ” he said.

        That would be like the returning to surplus 2014/15 promise achieved by cutting taxes for the rich.
14. Penny Bright 14

    9 November 2012 at 8:59 pm

    BROADENING THE DEBATE ABOUT ‘POST-SEPARATION EMPLOYMENT’
    (THE ‘REVOLVING DOOR’)

    The latest from Cronywatch… http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/crony-watch-2/

    This ‘revolving door’ is another form of GRAND CORRUPTION which is endemic in New Zealand.

    There should be a ‘quarantine’ period of 18 months / 2 years from the time politicians and senior staff leave the public service to when they take up employment in the private sector in an area where they could be seen to be using their contacts etc…..

    eg: Former Minister of Justice and Commerce – Simon Power – going straight from Parliament to head the Westpac private bank. In Australia – both at Commonwealth and State Government level – that would be illegal.

    The term is ‘post-separation employment’.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5767710/Simon-Power-to-head-Westpac-Private-Bank

    Simon Power to head Westpac Private Bank
    Last updated 14:20 11/10/2011

    MOVING ON: Justice Minister Simon Power will take over as head of Westpac Private Bank.

    Cabinet minister Simon Power will be taking over as the head of Westpac Private Bank, it was announced today.

    The Rangitikei MP, 41, has been a National MP for 12 years and was tipped as the next party leader until his shock decision to stand down at the November general election.

    Power said he felt he was young enough to have a second career.

    Today, it was announced the commerce and justice minister would head Westpac Private Bank, a subsidiary of Westpac which deals with premium personal customers.
    ……………..
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    NEW SOUTH WALES INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION (ICAC)

    http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/preventing-corruption/knowing-your-risks/post-separation-employment/4301

    Post-separation employment

    Post-separation employment is the situation where a public official leaves the public sector and obtains employment in the private sector. The principle underlying the management of post-separation employment is the need to ensure that public sector decisions are made only on their merits and not compromised by extraneous considerations or personal interests.
    The Department of Premier and Cabinet Personnel Handbook refers to this issue in Section 8-12:

    Employees should not use their position to obtain opportunities for future employment. They should not allow themselves or their work to be influenced by plans for, or offers of, employment outside the department.

    The type of employment which may be cause for concern is that which bears a close or sensitive relationship with the person’s former position as a public official. Examples might be regulators who go to work in an industry they formerly regulated, an adviser or chief executive who resigns from the public service to work in the private sector in the area of his or her former expertise, or a former government minister who obtains work as a political lobbyist.

    The risk of corruption is higher if the post-separation work involves contact with the former department, colleagues, or staff of the former public official. For the most part former public officials have no restrictions imposed on the type of employment they can obtain after they leave the public sector, and many post-separation employment problems only emerge after the public official has left public sector employment.

    Corrupt conduct related to the post-separation employment of a public official can occur either before or after the official leaves public employment.

    Corruption risks

    A risk assessment of the management of post-separation employment is likely to identify some or all of the following corruption risks:

    A current public official using their position to obtain an advantage for their future employment.

    A former public official attempting to influence former colleagues to make decisions that favour their new employment or private business.

    A former public official establishing their own business in the same field as the public agency and approaching the agency’s clients for business, using confidential information gained from the agency.

    A former public official becoming a lobbyist for a private organisation or specialist group and trying to gain confidential information or favourable treatment from former colleagues.

    A current public official stealing information, intellectual property, or other resources to develop their own business and/or to enhance employment prospects with other agencies and organisations.
    ________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
    • kiwicommie 14.1

      9 November 2012 at 9:13 pm

      There is corruption in New Zealand politics that is pretty much under the radar, but keep in mind that such corruption is not illegal; the Roger Douglas crowd did a lot of things we would consider corrupt but it was not illegal. At the end of the day governments can act with impunity in New Zealand.

      We do not have a solid constitutional document (even the Treaty of Waitangi could be removed if a government was determined enough) nor acts that cannot be easily overturned with a simple majority vote. Truth be told, a politician can do whatever he/she likes so long as he is on side with the government in power and doesn’t do what is termed ‘illegal’.

      Until New Zealand gets an anti-corruption commission and makes conflicts of interests a punishable offense in law for politicians, we can’t do anything about it beyond exposing such in the media; but as it is not illegal, again it would result in no action.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS