Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
10:30 am, March 25th, 2009 - 13 comments
Categories: blogs, Parliament -
Tags: alliterative titles, content thiefing, hypocrisy
No, wait, they didn’t. Idiot/Savant from No Right Turn explains:
Back in 2006, the (then-Labour) government passed the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill, which retrospectively validated Parliamentary Services expenditure in the wake of a nonsensical, retrospective reinterpretation by the Auditor-General. The rabids in the sewer (and some supposedly outside it) preached revolution.
Today, the (now-National) government introduced the Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill, which among other things retrospectively validates various items of unapproved, unappropriated expenditure.
Will we see the same outpouring of outrage from the sewer, or will they finally admit that such retrospective validations are standard procedure and happen almost every year? Hmmm, I wonder…
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
I guess I would be a rightie by your definition and don’t agree with any retrospective legislation by any government. Both parties do it far too often for my liking.
So you diasgree with Cullen, and think that the Herald should have paid that tax?
By the way – there is no shame in quoting NRT extensively. He is one of the sharpest knives in the drawer, and frequently does the work paid and trained journalists SHOULD be doing.
I think I’ll put him up for a knighthood. I know he’ll turn it down, but the post he will do about it will be worth reading.
I’d add my support to that, FWIW.
Have to be Sir I/S, for Services to Truth and Insightful Thinking…
I’d agree. Where I turn to fond ouy the interesting details
fond ouy?
Are you channeling Steve?
Crikey, at this rate we’re going to have to pay I/S a syndication fee.
In an ideal world, this sort of thing would be unconstitutional. Of course, to do that you’d have to convince parliament to vote to take away their ability to cover their own asses, which is unlikely to happen.
Jeez, none of them even bother showing up to comment.
And poor old burt’s banned, so I’ll have to do this for him I suppose: retrospective validation!
That’s how he would’ve wanted it I think.
I was hoping someone would invite burt to write a guess post on the topic.
That’s an excellent idea. Standardistas, can you email burt and invite him back for a guest post? It’s his mastermind specialty subject.
Or you could just wait ’til his ban’s up and get him to write it retrospectively…
The reason there is a difference in reaction is that the Right were able to alert the public of an $800,000 misappropriation by Labour prior to the 2006 retrospective legislation. The non-issue this year is because the Left have failled to publicise a similarly large denomination misappropriation on the part of National. Perhaps National didn’t misappropriate that much.
Great question: Will we see the same outpouring of outrage from the sewer, or will they finally admit that such retrospective validations are standard procedure and happen almost every year? I suspect there will extreme responses from those on the extreme ends of political spectrum. Thanks for the post.