Written By:
all_your_base - Date published:
10:16 am, June 3rd, 2009 - 1 comment
Categories: john key, national -
Tags: transparency, worth
Strange isn’t it that Key can support transparency yesterday but not today.
Political expediency at its worst.
well done that blogger – I’d been hoping one of the week’s lead stories so far might surface here..
from your link:—
To some extent the “british scandal” is media mojoed (Daily Telegraph not least, aka advantaging tories, of which in enzed NACT would hold sympathies etc and so perhaps hope for political advantage in like disclosures)..
Tis, however, the “pressure from voters around the world” to which this comment is addressed..
Received this day a full-on coverage of which the following clip illustrates..(my emphasis)
To which I’d ask that insofar transparent ‘expenses’ declarations and disclosures by politicians be made known to the Parliament and voting public of New Zealand, do not settle for less than detail of who sees whom and wherever in the manner of their likely business and expenses.
Oh yes, I heard (RNZ) a minister in the government this morning say that one-to-one contact/communication would be going too far in disclosure terms. Which, given the nature of this business, amounts to a singular admission.
But should it, why can’t others – whether minister, committeed, appointee, or not – be enabled make their own case as opposed one presumed rule for all.
Affiliations, too. As the above story makes patently clear lobbyists can hold multi-positions and interests. As can MPs.
And looking at the NZH’s list of expenes a bunch of loopholes look possible..