They eat their own

Written By: - Date published: 2:18 pm, March 28th, 2012 - 96 comments
Categories: ACC, national - Tags: , , , ,

ACC denies leaking Bronwyn Pullar’s name. It’s not credible that they would act so high risk and so politically. Boag and Pullar clearly didn’t leak it. So, that leaves Collins and her office. Collins denied leaking the email to the media … but leaves a fair bit of wiggle room, doesn’t it? The tipline is, as they say, running hot – and the name on everyone’s lips is Lusk.

To understand why Collins would give Pullar’s name to Simon Lusk for passing on to the Herald, you need to understand some internal National Party dynamics.

The next National leader will be chosen this term or immediately after the next election. So the jockeying is starting now.

There are several groups of National MPs and money-men that will play a part in the post-Key leadership contest. Among them are Joyce and his allies, Boag and her people (she got Key into Parliament and many junior Nats owe their jobs to her for that), there’s the still powerful brat pack, and Collins’ team.

Collins has built up a little cadre of junior Nat MPs thanks to the efforts of Simon Lusk who runs campaigns (several new National MPs thanked him in their maiden speeches) and, with the help of Cameron Slater, also fixes nomination races by running smear campaigns against rivals of Collins’ proteges. Slater, or more likely it was Lusk ghost-writing, laid this strategy out in the open last year – $10,000 will buy you Lusk/Slater spin on your National Party nomination race. And you saw their handy work in Botany and Rodney, amongst other races. Lusk/Slater/Collins’ tactics are disliked by many in the party, particularly Boag’s faction. So, an opportunity to hurt Boag was always going to appeal to Collins.

The word is that Boag sent the now famous email to Collins with the understanding that it would be kept confidential and not passed to ACC. Sources say that, seeing her chance, Collins not only gave the email to ACC but to Lusk. Slater, or Lusk ghostwriting, almost immediately jumped into the then nascent ACC leak calling for prosecutions although Pullar’s name was not yet in the public arena. Lusk gave the Boag email to Fisher at the Herald, and that’s how Pullar’s name and Boag’s role as her support person became public (you’ll remember in that first article Boag seemed particularly incensed that the email had gotten out – now you know why). Fran O’Sullivan, who also strongly backed Lusk’s Brash coup of ACT, jumped on board with an unusually personal attack on Boag – count her in Collins’ camp too.

Now, we’re told that Collins didn’t mean for the leak to end in Nick Smith’s resignation. Her target was Boag. Smith’s resignation was just gravy. No sooner had he fallen on his sword than Slater/Lusk was promoting Collins’ acolytes Upston and Lotu-Iiga as replacements.

Unfortunately for Collins, Slater has a tendency to turn everything he touches to shit, and his contributions to this affair are one reason why our tip-line has been overflowing with details of how Collins attempted to screw over Boag with the email about Pullar and accidentally took out Smith as well.

The knives are sharpening for Collins over this. She’s a known backstabber but, in taking out the well-liked and experienced Smith as collateral damage in her jockeying for the leadership post-Key she has gone too far. The brat pack is out to get her along the Joyce and Boag factions. Even Nats who don’t know, until now, exactly how Collins leaked and to whom will tell you the obvious – the leak can only have come from her office.

The question now is whether Key acts, or looks weak.

96 comments on “They eat their own ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. burt 1
    28 March 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Now the PM steps in and says; I’m the PM and by definition I can’t leak. – Debate.

    • Blighty 1.1
      28 March 2012 at 2:54 pm

      so, you’re arguing that Collins can’t have leaked Pullar’s information by definition but you’re conceding she gave her name to Lusk?

      • burt 1.1.1
        28 March 2012 at 2:58 pm

        I’m doing noting of the sort, that’s absolutely putting words in my mouth. Lets hope lprent’s not angry today he hates that sort of shit.

        I’m proposing what if the PM says the business of government is whatever government say it is and that he might have been to relaxed in a conversation with media…. but being the PM he can’t leak…

        How the hell did you get to where you got to ?

        [lprent: Diversion on a diversion. Should I just bump the whole thread to OpenMike as being off topic? Nah… Blighty brought it back on topic. You deal with it. 😈

        I have to say that Blighty offers a pretty good explanation (1.1.1.1) about how he got from the post through your unacknowledged quote to his comment. His extrapolation makes about as much sense as your comment did in the context of the post.

        And he did ask if that was what you meant? ]

        • Blighty 1.1.1.1
          28 March 2012 at 3:08 pm

          I’m just trying to take what you’re saying and, you know, apply it to the subject in front of us, which is a leak from Collins’ office.

          You’re quoting Clark who said she couldn’t leak – I’m not sure precisely what she was talking about because the only google hits are Nats talking about it.

          So, naturally, you seem to be wanting to extend the logic of what Clark said to be that no minister can ever leak.

          So you’re saying ‘yes, Collins gave the info to Lusk but that’s not a leak because Clark said ministers can’t leak, nah, nah, nah’

          That’s the only way I can interpret what you’ve said in relation to the topic of the post.

          • Anita 1.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2012 at 7:55 pm

            Blighty,

            This is a good explanation of that quote by Clark.

            The only problem is that I can’t relate it to the topic at hand :-/

        • Inventory2 1.1.1.2
          28 March 2012 at 3:16 pm

          No Burt; lprent only hates it when RWNJ’s put words in people’s mouths…

          [lprent: I look at it whenever I see someone complain or if people do it to an author (the latter is part of the general defence of the site).

          Of course it doesn’t pay to cry wolf too often because that would be wasting my time. If it is unjustified and happens too often then I get irritated. Becomes a matter of luck about how irritated I am at the time. ]

          • insider 1.1.1.2.1
            28 March 2012 at 3:42 pm

            or make accusations without any evidence to back it up. But a post stacked with unreferenced innuendo? GO FOR IT!

            • Dean 1.1.1.2.1.1
              28 March 2012 at 4:02 pm

              it’s not our blog though, is it? We’re guests here. When your mate invites you over, do you demand to be able to sleep with your mate’s wife in his bed?

              • Lanthanide …
                28 March 2012 at 4:48 pm

                That’s not really the right analogy, Dean.

                It’s more like, your mate invites you over to their house because they’re having a party. Once you turn up, they’re polite to everyone who is wearing red clothes, and impolite and rude to everyone who is wearing blue clothes. But the invitation never stated anything about the dress code.

                • lprent …
                  28 March 2012 at 5:39 pm

                  We make no promises about being fair in the sense that most of the blue tinged would view how the rules should operate. This is a very labour movement site. Read the about again.

                  The correct analogy would be that we run a meeting where the rules of behaviour are roughly set in advance and where most of the participants it was intended for are unionists and/or from the left. They have all worked under those limits in the past, tend to work effectively within them, and will cooperate within them while still having a lively argument.

                  Then some people ignorant of the ways of the left and most cooperative techniques amble in with a bit of a grudge and try to run the meeting their way because they can’t see why anyone else should limit what they want to do. But they all have a different way and are just loud and mostly dumb.

                  Needless to say trying to set their own rules doesn’t work too well with the organisers and the chairman starts getting the worst of the idiots ejected until the majority of the people it was intended for can have a say rather than having egotists shouting them down.

                  In other words it isn’t a public party with anyone invited. We don’t mind anyone being here provided they don’t get in the way of the people we set it up for originally. But it means you live with our standards of behaviour because we don’t intend to live with a standard of behaviour of the loudest and most ignorant.

                  Which is why the right sites tend to be different from the left sites. Gotcha of course is probably the most extreme example of that lack of ability to cooperate, and offhand I know of only only one vaguely multi-author right site around (and it has a leavening of lefties there to make it work). Many of the left sites are cooperatives.

                  • Pete George …
                    28 March 2012 at 8:22 pm

                    People also amble in to have a bit of a look and a bit of a debate and get dumped on be a cooperative of commenters who’s aim often seems to be just to harrass people they choose to dislike off the blog. That behaviour appears to be supported at times by the moderators.

                    Yep, it’s your blog, do as you please. Obviously the aim is not to attract as many new commenters as possible with diverse views. It can only be guessed what the various aims are but some seem quite obvious.

                    • vto …
                      28 March 2012 at 8:47 pm

                      Bloody hell you whinge a lot Pete George. When I first came here I pissed off loads of people. They ranted and abused me back and especially honed in becuase they thought I was a white middle class male, who come in for the most abuse – but after a bit of time and an adjustment of behaviour to suit this particular all-night party the ambience isn’t too bad and debates can be had. But you had better have decent arguments to support your position (I can give you some guidance there if you like)

                      But Pete, recently all you do is complain about being abused. You aint abused mate, you are just mildly harassed and in fact I suspect that harassment comes from your arguments and points generally being pretty weak rather than any desire for pure abuse. Sure, your points are your opinion and everyone is entitled to one but I’ll let you in on a secret – not all opinions are equal. Some people’s opinions are pretty crap, being based on knees and jerks and dinner table research and no long term thought.

                      So stop whingeing and put your arguments forward.

                    • felix …
                      28 March 2012 at 9:00 pm

                      And some people amble in with the apparent aim of disrupting discussion from behind a veneer of politeness.

                      Easy to spot, they ask a lot of questions but never, ever answer any.

                      And when they’re exposed they say “Goodness, is that the time? Really must be off” and disappear to start a new line of questioning on another thread.

                    • Pete George …
                      28 March 2012 at 9:05 pm

                      vto – I’ve got no argument with you having a big whinge about whinging.

                      There’s a lot of whinging here don’t you think? Many of the posts are whinges about Key and/or National. And for some variety a whinge about Collins or Brownlee. Or whover the resign of the day is.

                      But now you’ve got that whinge off your chest maybe you could put a good positive argument forward, and show everyone how to break the whinge cycle. Just remember to have those decent arguments ready.

                    • Pete George …
                      28 March 2012 at 9:08 pm

                      felix – you’re presenting yourself as a good example of what you’re talking about?

                    • felix …
                      28 March 2012 at 9:11 pm

                      Oh good, you’re back.

                      The questions from this morning are still waiting, as are the ones from yesterday.

                      Do let me know when you get around to addressing them. I can link to them (again) if you like.

                    • vto …
                      28 March 2012 at 9:11 pm

                      ha ha, good one. I was really getting at your victim mentality.

                      And here is a positive thing – a positive move for the entire nation of four million people would be if its governing lot listened to its people and did what they want around asset sales. That would be an entirely positive thing – if a government, any recent government will do, actually listened to its people. As for the arguments in support – see al recent threads and posts on the subject. I am still waiting for somebody to explain the benefits of selling. out.

                    • Pete George …
                      28 March 2012 at 9:37 pm

                      felix, said “Easy to spot, they ask a lot of questions”.

                      Just before launching into his question thing. Very funny.

                    • felix …
                      28 March 2012 at 10:28 pm

                      Yes that’s very funny Pete.

                      So have you responded yet? Particularly I refer to the ones where you got caught out making incredibly stupid statements about Sue Bradford and then ran away.

                      Much like you did the day before with your incredibly stupid statements about hypocrisy.

                      Or is that all in the past now, no longer relevant in your liquid, plastic, labile world?

                    • Pete George …
                      29 March 2012 at 6:33 am

                      Bradford claimed “which will force sole parents with babies as young as one year out to work.” I think that’s dishonest or ignorant misrepresentation of the aims of the act. And commenters claiming that “we all know” what National are really going to do is pathetic.

                      You don’t like being called on your hypiocrisy, do you. Get over it.

                      You said (below):

                      Of course you don’t like it, they’re on your team. Your nasty, dirty, toxic team.

                      They are not my team. I comment here independently. You are displaying your toxicity, not mine. Whay should I bother checking back where you may have left questions? I think your comments and questions, and manner of addressing, them will be judged by those who read them. Some may think you are a local hit squad. I’d bet others will see you as incessantly hissy too.

                • higherstandard …
                  28 March 2012 at 6:17 pm

                  That’s very good Lath, very good indeed.

                  I’d pretty much given up on this blog lately and after the bitch fest about Cameron Slater et al yesterday – but the occasional gem from the likes of yourself makes it worthwhile visiting now and again.

                  • RedLogix …
                    28 March 2012 at 7:05 pm

                    As a moderator what I really want is an environment where interesting conversations and debates can take place. If you’re bringing something of value to the table you can get away with quite robust debate…and your track record counts. But you have to understand that inherently I judge these things from a left-wing perspective and that isn’t ever going to change.

                    Reading and understanding the Policy will keep things on track most of the time, but then again there are a bunch of tired old tricks we’ve seen over and again that people use to derail a debate when they’ve run out of ideas…. and eventually one of the mods will act to discourage them.

                • felix …
                  28 March 2012 at 6:40 pm

                  Oh fuck, Lanth! He’d nearly given up!

  2. Carol 2
    28 March 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Mallard asked Collins, in suplementary questions today, if she gave the email to Lusk or discussed the contents with Lusk (can’t remember the exact questions, but Lusk was named). Collins said “no” to both questions.

  3. insider 3
    28 March 2012 at 3:12 pm

    “the word” no doubt came from Trevor Mallard… It was of course sheer coincidence Trevor brought up Lusk’s name in QT today a short time after you posted.

    • lprent 3.1
      28 March 2012 at 5:44 pm

      Could also be that is what the rumour mill in Wellington has been rife with for days. Hell I’ve heard it in Auckland and I’m not connected with the beltway at all.

  4. Inventory2 4
    28 March 2012 at 3:15 pm

    Just because Trevor Mallard alleges it, it doesn’t make it so. Mr Mallard seems to have a rather unnatural fixation on Mr Lusk.

    Anyway; shouldn’t you have waited until AFTER Trevor’s speech in the General Debate, which he has yet to make? Otherwise it just looks like in insider hatchet job.

    PS: Lalit Modi 🙂

    • Carol 4.1
      28 March 2012 at 3:26 pm

      Well, right now, in the general debate, Robertson has been talking about Lusk’s role.

  5. Ross 5
    28 March 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Judith Collins apparently printed out a copy of the email. So now we know what happened. Collins printed the email and by some rmearkable coincidence, the Herald reporter broke into Collins’ office in the hope of finding something juicy and happened upon the printed email!

    http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8442683/acc-minister-printed-leaked-email

    • ianmac 5.1
      28 March 2012 at 3:32 pm

      She said repeatedly that she did not pass on the email to the Media.
      But was she asked did she pass on a printed copy?
      No. So her denial was about emails not paper copies. Tricky eh?

  6. Pascal's bookie 6
    28 March 2012 at 3:19 pm

    loling at the iTwins. Wellie is a small town, if Trevor’s heard stuff, lot’s of people have heard it.

    Anyways http://bit.ly/HiPIQC

    Privacy commissioner wants to do forensics on the computers. What fun.

    • insider 6.1
      28 March 2012 at 3:38 pm

      It is small and it wouldn’t be a surprise if it was talking to itself

    • Ross 6.2
      28 March 2012 at 3:39 pm

      I’m not sure forensics on the computers is going to achieve much. Collins isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer but I don’t think she’d be that stupid. Besides, she printed off details of the email and God knows who had access to those details.

      • Pascal's bookie 6.2.1
        28 March 2012 at 4:03 pm

        More will be learnt from looking than from not though.

        The commissioner could find out whether or not someone did something really stupid. Or it could be found that no-one Collins sent it to in ACC printed it out, or forwarded it, or copied it.

  7. mickysavage 7
    28 March 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Last night’s debate was fascinating because of the appearance of the dynamic duo Slater and Cactus.  One gets the feeling that Slater is on the receiving end of some fairly severe responses from friends of the brat pack.

    National is starting to implode.  This is great fun to watch. 

    • deuto 7.1
      28 March 2012 at 3:42 pm

      +1 on both points. Re last night’s debate, it was intriguing to see the slithering and sliding, and the answers to your questions particularly once Lusk’s name arose. The dots are starting to join up.

      Wonder whether Key will come back instead of enjoying his holiday in Paris?

      • taxicab 7.1.1
        28 March 2012 at 3:53 pm

        Shonkey Gonkey is now going to grace us with his presence next week . The question is whether the chicken shit will dare to be present during question time . Clearly the vultures are circling . No doubt the now slightly postponed holiday with the family in Europe will be to discuss the exit strategy to Hawaii .

        • deuto 7.1.1.1
          28 March 2012 at 3:58 pm

          I had been wondering whether the exit strategy was on the agenda well before the events of the last week and today! Ever hopeful but the alternatives are not looking great!

      • Jim Nald 7.1.2
        28 March 2012 at 3:55 pm

        Key must have been a great supporter of Monday-ising some of our holidays seeing how enthusiastically he is holiday-ising the odd few minutes he should be putting into turning up in the House for parliamentary question time?

    • Pete George 7.2
      28 March 2012 at 3:53 pm

      I don’t think it’s “great fun to watch”.

      Parliament is supposd to be the cream of democracy running the country. I think it’s very sad to see how so many keep trying to push as many others onto the track as possible in the hope they will cause a train wreck. Too bad about the good of the country/

      It’s a real shame when the dirty deeds of politics take precedence (and sadly pride of place for some) over decent governance.

      • felix 7.2.1
        28 March 2012 at 4:01 pm

        Of course you don’t like it, they’re on your team. Your nasty, dirty, toxic team.

        The more of you that push each other onto the tracks, the better.

        • Pete George 7.2.1.1
          28 March 2012 at 4:15 pm

          I don’t like it when whoever does it to whom. I didn’t like the overhyped furores when they happened to Labour either. I’ve had more arguments about speeeding and painting than I’ve had arguments with you.

          “Your nasty, dirty, toxic team.” That”s a nasty dirty comment. Part of the whole toxic mess our politics sometimes descends to. It’s disgraceful really.

          And it’s this sort of disgraceful behaviour that turns many people of participating in politics. So we keep ending up with our highest offices overwhelmed by political thuggery.

          It’s like a baying crowd watching someone getting kicked to death in an alleyway. Our ‘civilised’ society is often far from civilised.

          • Rich 7.2.1.1.1
            28 March 2012 at 4:21 pm

            Politics would be better if a few MPs had ideals rather than just being willing to join any government that lets them have an associate minister warrant (with associated limo and free air travel).

            Like the MP for deluded outer Wellington suburbia, for instance.

          • felix 7.2.1.1.2
            28 March 2012 at 4:24 pm

            Ah that’s right, the “Calling me nasty is very nasty of you” gambit.

            You never did get around to answering those questions the other day, did you? (‘Goodness is that the time? I really must be off!’)

            Fancy a crack at them now? http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-27032012/comment-page-1/#comment-451585

            Take your time.

          • alex 7.2.1.1.3
            28 March 2012 at 5:32 pm

            I think you should try and see the opportunity in this PG. National is imploding, which means people who vote for good hair will move away from Key and instead go for someone with the best hair of all…

          • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.1.4
            28 March 2012 at 7:23 pm

            It’s like a baying crowd watching someone getting kicked to death in an alleyway. Our ‘civilised’ society is often far from civilised.

            LOL

            PG is all for civilised government, civilised politics and civil politicians!!!

            PG can you point to a time that actually happened? Nixon’s day? Napolean’s day? Caesar’s day?

          • RedLogix 7.2.1.1.5
            28 March 2012 at 7:33 pm

            I actually agree with your basic sentiment PG. This kind of politics doesn’t appeal anymore to me than it does you.

            Yet if National was running a principled and ethical government they would either not have gotten into this mess in the first place, OR in the event someone had fallen short of the standard… they would come clean and step down until an investigation and natural justice had taken its course.

            Failing that the Opposition has little recourse than to put the heat on… and sadly that gets ugly.

            • Pete George 7.2.1.1.5.1
              28 March 2012 at 8:04 pm

              And I agree with what you’re saying here too. The two large parties are the biggest culprits both in government and in opposition. The standard of parliament (and MP behaviour) is pitiful at times, and that’s what really annoys a lot of people outside political circles.

              But just despairing and letting the cycle continue isn’t going to change anything. Politicians themselves are going to do little to change bad habits and bad practices. Some would like to – I’ve had a reasonable amount of respect for the intentions of Clark, Key and now Shearer, but as Shearer is finding out now, criticisng “Gotcha” is virtually ignored even by his own.

              The only way of pressuring them for change is from outside politics, by threatening them with vote losses. The challenge there is nudging enough people out of apathy to make a difference. Many of the wider public deal with politicians like they deal with the weather, they moan plenty about them but don’t do anything to stop being dumped on.

              But it’s worth exploring ways to change. I know I’ll change few minds here, that’s not the main purpose of being here, it’s to learn what we’re dealing with.

      • muzza 7.2.2
        28 March 2012 at 4:10 pm

        “I don’t think it’s “great fun to watch”. – Of course it’s not for you Pete, you are part of the sytem, albeit only a fluffer. The system is broken, and this is what we all pay for curently. As long as those in the system do not server their country, this is the inevitable result!

        “Parliament is supposd to be the cream of democracy running the country. I think it’s very sad to see how so many keep trying to push as many others onto the track as possible in the hope they will cause a train wreck. Too bad about the good of the country” – You really are deluded, was that a lame attempt to fluff your boss? Look at the state of those who crave the control of others, they are pushed into the postions they are in, and do not deserve to be there. Until NZ’ers redress this, then it can only decline further, and that is a very ugly thought!

        “It’s a real shame when the dirty deeds of politics take precedence (and sadly pride of place for some) over decent governance.” – Is it time for an afternoon nap Pete, as that comment was of a tired old man, who has just realised his career in political fluffing has amounted to nothing more than a reality check!

        • Pete George 7.2.2.1
          28 March 2012 at 8:13 pm

          I’m not part of the system, and I’m not in it to fluff. It was never going to be a quick and easy thing to achieve any change in.

          I often get flak because I’m prepared to challenge status quo thinking in various forums. I’m from outside the system. People who feel they have long earned their status on ther inside tend to resent new voices.

          That’s one reason Shearer was not readily accepted as Labour leader. If he’s strong enough to not get dragged down into business as usual he could yet make a real difference.

          We don’t need a new system, we just need to change attitudes about how to best use the system, from within and from the outside.

          If half the time and effort that went into negative politics was turned to positive, we would have major change for the better (of the country and it’s people) – and still leave plenty of space for robust contests.

      • Pascal's bookie 7.2.3
        28 March 2012 at 4:13 pm

        Parliament is supposd to be the cream of democracy running the country.

        sez who?

        • Pete George 7.2.3.1
          28 March 2012 at 4:17 pm

          If we want a decent democracy and a decent country.

          • Pascal's bookie 7.2.3.1.1
            28 March 2012 at 4:24 pm

            So when and where has such a decent democracy and country existed?

            Who gets to decide who the cream is?

            Sounds more like romantic idealised notions of aristocracy than democracy to me.

          • Dean 7.2.3.1.2
            28 March 2012 at 4:34 pm

            In a decent country, Peter Dunne wouldn’t supply the crucial vote to give the government a one-seat majority to sell state assets against the wishes of the vast majority of New Zealanders.

            In a decent country.

          • newsense 7.2.3.1.3
            28 March 2012 at 6:05 pm

            should be out campaigning harder and leaving the wasting our lives on blogs to the fools then Pete

          • Jackal 7.2.3.1.4
            28 March 2012 at 7:07 pm

            It’s about accountability.

            Pointing out the disgusting manoeuvres undertaken by Nact MP’s and their lackeys is required to ensure accountability, and highlighting cases where the rules are breached must occur to ensure a viable political system. Any damage to the political system is entirely the fault of those abusing our democracy for their own ends.

            If you truly believe in a decent democracy Pete George, you would not support the current government who have proven themselves unworthy of their positions. It’s obvious that they don’t have the best interest of our country and it’s people as a priority. They are in fact self serving narcissistic back stabbing capitalist running dogs… creaming our so-called democracy for their own benefit.

            National have no comprehension of what morals, honour and accountability stand for… it’s a vague notion that does not register in their befuddled and bigoted minds. To quote Nick Smith, they should do us all a favour by throwing themselves under a train.

            Muzza is absolutely correct when he/she says New Zealander’s must address the problem… and presently the National led government is the problem.

  8. Jim Nald 8
    28 March 2012 at 3:49 pm

    “The question now is whether Key acts, or looks weak.”

    How about ….. John attempts a sideshow with new buffoonery.

    Quickly covering his shrug and scowl with a quick smile, he announces he has assembled a new karaoke cabinet for Question Time and a new anthem for his government …..

    Split Nats

    singing*

    Six months in a leaKey boat

    *dissonant or off-Key, of course

    🙂

  9. the pink postman 9
    28 March 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Great stuff Micky S. Marvelous to see Tories wriggling like the worms they are. Do you think they are going to last three years . Mind you the money bags in Aotearoa will be demanding that this closes down , but it could be too late now.Lets watch with pleasure .

  10. the pink postman 10
    28 March 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Great stuff Micky S. Marvelous to see Tories wriggling like the worms they are. Do you think they are going to last three years . Mind you the money bags in Aotearoa will be demanding that this closes down , but it could be too late now.Lets watch with pleasure .

  11. aerobubble 11
    28 March 2012 at 4:02 pm

    MSD, with the help of benefitaries, can provide the taxpayer savings by given over their personal information and accepting money to amelirate the poverty goals of tax payers. This saves billions in blight, ghettos, diseases, social and physical. And as we are seeing the leaks of benefitaries and ACC clients information, that government cannot be trusted with the information, either in using to end poverty or in stopping others who should not be privy to information gathered by MSD. Think for a moment that citizens have the right to withdraw from welfare and the effect if many were to, are we not already seeing false and misleading who have failed to track and understand the numbers now migranting overseas. Given that in order for the economy to grow a price on personal information is essential, and National are protecting the open theft of information leaking to clouds that they undervalue.
    Sicken would the word used by a free democracy, when given tax payers demand that poverty, social ills are removed, only then to find that lowlifes National ministers grandstand over the money as if those accepting it were giving nothing in return. Accepting money for the service of allowing government to collect information, and spending it properly as is the wish of taxpayers to allievate their poverty, is no different than witnesses in court, or juries, told they should ignore the benefit they get from the small pittence they receive, as they are bludgers?
    The good civic order of our society is paid for by even the unpaid citizen on a benefit who routinely live lawful lives and help the state keep disease, keep crime down, keep communities civil, and this is even before the unpaided work they do just by passing on true information to government and accepting a pittiful benefit 40%? of the weekly wage. It may well help MSD remembering that they need citizens to show up at their offices, or they would not have a jobs and would have to work far hard and bridging trust with poor communities (as can be seen in third world countries who riot, who make no go areas, where fecaes fester on the side of the road is not a one off happy camper event but common practice).

    bennett say she values benefitaries, they can work, but does she really value their contribution, how can she when she gets it so wrong.

    • Hami Shearlie 11.1
      28 March 2012 at 10:28 pm

      Peseta Sam Lotu Iiga(known in our house as Sam Ligature LOL) used the word “burden” today in Parliament in reference to beneficiaries. Really? What should we call the recipients of taxpayers money for the South Canterbury Finance payout? What should we call visitors who use our hospitals and don’t pay? Why are beneficiaries labelled as a burden? What about retired MP’s who move into jobs provided by their parliamentary cronies and on top get superannuation generously contributed to by the taxpayer with taxpayer funded flights for their vacation every year? Doug Graham, remember how he crowed about taking it all from the taxpayer? Who is really the burden here? Every person with a child at school or uni, every person who has entered a hospital or doctors clinic, all are beneficiaries of taxpayer dollars being spent on them! People on super cost much more than beneficiaries so why are they exempt from being called a “burden” on society? What about all the voluntary work done by beneficiaries? And why are women told they shouldn’t “breed” while on the DPB (Maggie Barry today in Parliament). Doesn’t a man usually have to be involved in some way too? The fathers are often invisible and so escape the wrath! At least the mothers are actually looking after their children.

      • North 11.1.1
        28 March 2012 at 11:48 pm

        Hami Shearlie…….is that truly what Maggie Marigold said today……..bennies shouldn’t be breeding ?

        What a dirty minded thing she is………this fascination with the damp, cheap duveted, polyester sheeted bedrooms of South Auckland (not being Clevedon) ?

        No more puke-making I guess than her response to the question….”Maggie……why are you standing for Parliament ?”

        “Well (patronising smile to the little TV hack), I believe I have something to offer…….”.

        Right………a nothing-arse self promoter planted in whatever Auckland based minister’s BMW on the way to Wellington Airport round 4.30 most Fridays. “Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah…….”

        God Save Us From Jolly Gal Wannabees Turned Vicious For The Dear Leader !

  12. bad12 12
    28 March 2012 at 4:14 pm

    Smith went spilling crocodile tears in resignation over His wee indiscretions as Minister, We dare say that should Slippery Key force Crusher Collins to walk it, the plank that is, Collins will go spilling the blood of the present Government as She does,

    Slippery resides in damned if He does and damned if He dont land with what to do about Her so He wont, its as sure as hell though that the Slippery one aint exactly got a lot of confidence in His Minister if He has to ask Her twice if She has taken to peeing outside of the tent,

    The damage done though either from action or inaction should have Slippery digging in the closet for His best New York bankers suit to send off for a good dry cleaning…

  13. Carol 13
    28 March 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Whoa! Go, Andrew (Little)!

    The video from today’s general debate to look for when it comes online! A tour de force on the shabby little government we now have got and all the stench coming from the ACC issue… and all the questions it raises.

    • Puddleglum 13.2
      28 March 2012 at 7:16 pm

      Yes, that was very impressive.

      Andrew Little had a clarity of purpose and grasp of the ethical dimensions. No qualifications or ambivalence in the rhetoric – reminded me of Rodney Hide’s speech on the surveillance bill (was it?).

      The real scandal, as he identified, was that these internecine machinations of National Party personnel and ‘apparatchiks’ will inevitably be interfering with the work of ACC – certainly at upper management levels. 

      • Hami Shearlie 13.2.1
        28 March 2012 at 10:11 pm

        Hekia would no doubt think that an “apparatchik” is a young woman terribly interested in fashion! And people actually suggested she could be the Nats next leader if Collins implodes? I lolled long and loud when I read that!

        • Colonial Viper 13.2.1.1
          29 March 2012 at 12:14 am

          Hekia is plenty smart; it won’t do to underestimate her or her supporters.

          • Hami Shearlie 13.2.1.1.1
            29 March 2012 at 11:12 am

            Agreed CV, smart and really shallow – a female Key perhaps! No substance there, but able to blind everyone with the overwhitened teeth perhaps?

  14. Rich 14
    28 March 2012 at 4:23 pm

    The amount of infighting in National, you’d think they got some coaching from Labour. Maybe at one of their little inter-party discussion groups…

  15. starlight 15
    28 March 2012 at 4:35 pm

    The 53.000 that have left nz for a ‘brighter future’ obviously not contained in bennetts figures,
    is bennett saying none of those were on some sort of benefit,she claims that approx 6000 or
    so have gone off the unemployment benefit and into work,when she excitedly says in parliament that she is working hard to get them into work,no ms bennett,they have gone to aussie for a ‘brighter future’because national are taking ‘a brighter future’ for themselves.
    The rat traps are poised and waiting for the acc debacle to head in their direction,the rats
    will scatter in all directions but the odds are there will be some that will be caught.
    If there was a large container for the paper work associated with the rorts,the lies,the
    corruption,the back room deals,the sweet heart deals,then that container would surely
    sink in no time at all.
    The privacy review,which i predicted would happen,will curtail and suppress freedom
    of speech in nz,that will be a guarantee,in the light of the tea pot tapes.
    The only hope for democracy in nz is if all the rats are trapped in the rat trap.

  16. ianmac 16
    28 March 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Hasn’t a recent Act meant that journalists can be forced to disclose their sources? Ironic or what!

  17. Treetop 17
    28 March 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Collins would not of been aware of Smith breaching the cabinet manual as I doubt Boag raised Smith in the email to Collins. When Smith being connected to Pullar was discovered by Key, Key seemed to dismiss Smith breaching cabinet rules as he did not even stand him down.

    Whoever leaked the email did not realise that Smith would be collateral damage. ACC would have known that Smith breached the cabinet manual, so I do not think that ACC was the source of breaching Pullars privacy regarding Boags email.

  18. Reagan Cline 18
    28 March 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Aerobubble, have I understood you correctly ? Beneficiaries contribute by helping “maintain good civic order of our society”, by enabling others to work in paid jobs in the MSD and by forming a group of people in poverty that can make available to Government information useful in formulating policies that aim to alleviate that poverty ?
    Do you think beneficiaries in New Zealand would be better off without benefits (forget for the moment the MSD employees and Government information gatherers) ?
    If beneficiaries thought they would be better off without a benefit, they would surely, as you suggest, not accept the benefit. But what alternative do they have at the moment ?
    It boils down to your getting a paying job to cover your expenses or you go on a benefit.
    The New Zealand Labour Party needs to put forward a programme that will provide adequately payed jobs for all, tell people about it and ask to be voted in at the next election.

    • aerobubble 18.1
      29 March 2012 at 10:17 am

      Basically its historical, poverty was understood to be a blight, ghettos, disease vectors that began in incubated weaken poor immune systems would lay waste to the gentified. Governments in order to save money from the collateral damage (that we can still see in third world countries) realized that businesses would actually do better if there were more customers, bureaucrats would get jobs, as Adam Smith pointed out the poor still made choices, with more more making choices (because they have a benefit) they would contribute to the growth of a free market and diminish the effects of the class system. As we move into the information age, and the needs of capialists to exchange value, the value of information becomes more pronounced, and needs to be protected, like any property right needs to be before a free market can be produced. Now its note worthy that benefitaries have worked, and the welfare system rewards them with lowered risk when they are laid off, they don’t lose their homes, they can use the time to retrain, and as we enter the information economy we need to have much more flexibility between up time and down time, so employees even in work can access benefits to help them retrain, My point is that the myopic view of welfare, that benefitaries contribute nothing, despite them having had jobs and paid for others to be on welfare, despite having saved and pay taxes while getting a benefit thus cross subsiding those who spent all their savings, a tsunami of denial of facts about citizens who happen to find their circumstances at odds with the sanctimonious sainted louses of the right wing looking to tax employees by removing a safety net and increase the pressure to lower wages. As we are all told we should be raise medium wages.

      So to sum up, its a fraud on us when the lousy government declare benefitaries are no good, in fact they provide a wealth of information to government that government could be using to prevent many of the social malaise caused by poverty. But its easier to kick the weak than to kick the managers of society into actively creating jobs, into actively sacking unnecessarily employment of middle class social parasitical managers. As we all know people who can make a living peeling off the souls and spirits of benefitaries love the National party, and why would they, attacks on the weakest in society by some formally who were weak. Look everyone and anyone can become ministers of the crown and millionarie PM, yes, we all can. No, fact is we don’t live in a Randian utopia, when the super human minister can be replayed easily, there is no essential super human ability to fawn over.

      We need an honest debate, we need Ministers with morals and ethics who realize that beatup on on the weakest in society actually is a personal risk, they start to justified leaking information about the poor worthless scum all bludgers to a man and solo mum. Well we know how that turns out, the thugs are investugated by the privacy commissioner and have to say sorry, even fall on their swords and lose their job. So actually, if politicians stop taking the low road, they might actually not look like such shallow arses.

      We need to give citizens the wealth from their own information, and shifting for example the information into the giant database of Google is the opposite of good governance. How are we to trade information when we give it away. Like that gold mine who pay no royaleties.

      As for the notion that jobs just appear without the consent of a lawful civic populace, that’s just absurd, we cannot produce a free market without socialists pushing for a level playing field, history shows this, when we didn’t have socialists we have class stratification and royals. Only when the monopolies of the church, and landed gentry were removed did we get efficiency gains. So it follows that we have to be vigilent less we reintroduce a invisible aristocracy, as we fail to tax the rich, who use their wealth to push politicians to kick the poorest and pander to the lowest commonness.

      yes we need jobs and its as easy as lowering working hours, and taxing the vast wealth of NZ properly. We have such a high currency because we’ve sold our productive core to foriegn absent landlords and are being turned into a serf class in our own land, by our own governemtn.

  19. Tamati 19
    28 March 2012 at 10:21 pm

    Phew, what a nightmare!

    As a mere part-time political geek the ACC-Smith-Pullar-Boag-Collins-Lusk-Joyce scandal is getting a little too hot to handle!

    Too many names, too many accusations, too many denials!

    Would someone on the know, perhaps on Standard editorial like to to produce a flow diagram of sorts? Just like a simple mind map showing who is in bed with who, and who is accusing who of what. Too many names for a single article, if it was done graphically it might be easier for the average person to understand.

    We also need to come up with an appropriate portmanteau to refer to this case. Something snappy that the media can pick up, and obviously ending in gate.

    Any suggestions?

    Boagate? Natagate?

  20. bad12 20
    28 March 2012 at 11:58 pm

    It would appear that the Herald on Sunday gained its information on Fullar from a well known political commentator with connections on high with various factions from within the Party,

    We know who garnered the 30 pieces of silver from the destruction of the former Minister,s career, and, just what the hell that particular individual was masquerading as a fully functioning Minister of the Crown future anthropologists will likely have much to ponder over, us mere mortals however can but breathe a sigh of relief and have a quiet laugh at the demise (for the moment at least) of something that we seen as a reasonably ugly blight upon our political landscape,

    We tho digress,Collins in the House today gave emphatic answers of NO to any and all questions over Her involvement in the contents of Boag,s email finding its way into the hands of the Herald on Sunday,

    Perhaps Trev and others asking the questions of Crusher havnt quite got the tangent quite on target, it might be more profitable to ask the ”latest” ACC Minister if the 1 hard copy She apparently had cause to make of this email didnt happen to find itself climbing the tiers of power to the 9th floor,

    Crusher didnt make that 1 hard copy for no reason,in fact into who,s sticky wee paws that copy of that email was passed from where we sit would give every appearance of having as a next stop the sticky wee fingers of a well known political commentator with connections on high with various factions of the Party…

    • Carol 20.1
      29 March 2012 at 6:56 am

      Though it now looks like Collins could be off the hook:

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6655745/ACC-worker-re-viewed-leaked-Smith-letter

      The letter that led to Nick Smith’s Cabinet resignation was repeatedly viewed by an ACC case worker a week before it was leaked to media – and three times on the day before it first appeared in a newspaper.

      The ACC staffer who reread the letter was previously Bronwyn Pullar’s case manager.

      The case manager – Jo Parker-Dennis – was taken off Ms Pullar’s case six months ago, at Ms Pullar’s request, after clashes over how her compensation claim was being handled.

      • Pascal's bookie 20.1.1
        29 March 2012 at 7:46 am

        not the same letter I think. that’s the email to ACC from Pullar with Smith’s letter attached.

        Collins is suspected of leaking the Boag letter

        • Carol 20.1.1.1
          29 March 2012 at 8:27 am

          Thanks. Though if I’m confused between the letters, it is good spin to the wider population.

  21. North 21
    29 March 2012 at 12:14 am

    In default of something better (and giving Nick Smith due credit), how about “Lettergate” ?

    Prescient of “Litigate” perhaps ?

    I’m talking excitedly of Wellington District Court Criminal List here of course. Not your dry as civil suit. Which one of those hubristic mongrels wouldn’t richly deserve it ?

    Talking excitement I’m dying to see JuhnKey eventually front up in the House. What are the odds he mincingly shuffles in wrapped in a kimono he picked up in Seoul ?

    The master Crosby Textor distraction plan…….

  22. james 111 22
    29 March 2012 at 8:18 am

    Even I have to admit if some thing smells as bad as this.Normally there is some shite hanging round some where. Collins may have hung herself it doesnt add up that she would not have known who it was who released the emails

  23. KATY 23
    29 March 2012 at 9:30 am

    This link from Tv3 yesterday.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/ACC-Minister-printed-leaked-email/tabid/1607/articleID/248388/Default.aspx

    In particular,

    However Ms Collins’ office revealed today to RadioLive that she had printed a copy of the email.

    Asked repeatedly to confirm whether she printed the email, Ms Collins refused to answer questions, saying: “Look, I’ve made it very clear that there was no leak from my office on this matter.

    “There has been an email, the email was copied in my office when we came back into the office because we were in recess when it [was received],” she said.

    Ms Collins would not elaborate on what she meant by “copied”.

    She said the Privacy Commission inquiry, to be carried out by former Australian Federal Privacy Commissioner Malcolm Crompton, may involve the forensic examination of computers.

    So, we have collins office saying that she (Collins) printed a copy of the email but we also have Collins refusing to confirm or deny that it was printed, but admitting that it was copied in her office.
    The thing is though a printed copy would be mutch more difficult to trace than a electronic one and stop a computer forensic examination dead in its tracks.