Worse than I imagined

98 comments on “Worse than I imagined ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ian 1

   15 November 2010 at 8:36 pm

   I reckon all the Nact MP’s are laughing at Key behind his back knowing that losing their jobs by being sacked is next to impossible.
2. Joachim's 2

   15 November 2010 at 9:25 pm

   Key is about to be stir fried, Wong is merely providing the sauce. And Hodgson is the chef. Bon apetite NAT lovers, Labour is going to make a meal out of 2011.
3. mickysavage 3

   15 November 2010 at 9:32 pm

   I wonder if this means that Melissa Lee will survive? She is the only one left that the Nats can use to fill in the female asian token position of the caucus.

   BTW this is really bad and so stupid.

   Key has to demand Wong’s immediate resignation from Parliament.

   Looks like we have another by election coming up.

   Labour’s candidate for Botany is Koro Taua. He is a good guy and deserves support.
   • Eddie 3.1

     15 November 2010 at 9:52 pm

     Melissa Lee… jeez the talent coming through the Nats’ ranks is really inspiring eh?

     Bakshi, Gilmore, Calder, Lotu-Iiga, King, Lee, Adams, Hayes, Bennett 2, Goudie, Dean, Hutchison, Macindoe, Peachy, Auchinvole, Shanks, McClay, Upston, Quinn, Young, etc.

     they’re going to have serious problems in coming terms as their number of MPs falls, competent seniors retire, and that lot take up space preventing better people coming through.
   • Ari 3.2

     15 November 2010 at 10:53 pm

     I’m torn between hoping he does demand her resignation, (or simply fire her) for the sake of our democracy, and hoping he doesn’t so that he’s less likely to be re-elected as PM.
4. burt 4

   15 November 2010 at 11:04 pm

   This is going to get interesting.
   • felix 4.1

     15 November 2010 at 11:12 pm

     Got some popcorn?
5. Irascible 5

   16 November 2010 at 3:00 am

   Pansy should be gone by tomorrow lunchtime if Key had any gumption as a credible leader of a Political Party. If the NACT screams for Field & Carter are an indication of what they expect a leader to do then Key MUST be seen to be living up to his crosby-textor reputation as the velvet hand in the iron glove.
   A very early general election in the offing??? In the meantime support for Koro would be welcomed.
   • burt 5.1

     16 November 2010 at 7:56 am

     You mention Taito Field. Is that because we haven’t had an inquiry with very narrow terms taking 9 months which exonerated Pansy… This National govt have certainly lifted the bar back off the ground where Labour left it. It sounds like she should be charged but precedent tells me that it won’t be in the public interest unless she threatens to stand as an independent.

     We wait, it should be interesting.
     • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1

       16 November 2010 at 8:32 am

       The language Key is using suggests you are right, Burt. He’s sticking to the line that it his her husband who has broken the rules. He’s repeated that over and over again in the last couple of days, while saying Wong is right to keep schtumm. I presume that he has Sammy Wong’s agreement to do that, in an effort to keep Pansy Wong in parliament and out of jail.

       Just a guess, but the legal situation may be that Sammy can claim that he genuinely thought he had the right to book flights through his wife’s office and avoid a conviction, while his ‘confession’ lets Pansy of the hook as well, as she will say she was unaware that Sammy was breaching the rules. Key is hoping that time, silence and her husband’s loyalty will avoid a messy end to Wong’s career.
       • pollywog 5.1.1.1

         16 November 2010 at 9:04 am

         yeah, and i bet Bronagh has no idea what’s in the ‘blind trust’ either or that if shes a trustee, doesn’t get reports to leave lying round the house for John to read before he realises what they are…

         …pull the other one, Key needs to show Wong the highway and kick her ass to the kerb but not before she’s paid back every cent of her husbands ‘misunderstanding’
       • Armchair Critic 5.1.1.2

         16 November 2010 at 9:34 am

         …as she will say she was unaware that Sammy was breaching the rules…
         That won’t work. She signed a document as a witness, so she can’t claim she was unaware that business was being conducted. Nor can she claim that she was not aware of the rules around the entitlement. Mr Hodgson has asked Mr Key questions about the matters of business being conducted and about awareness of the rules in the Cabinet Manual and the answers, as I recall, haven’t left much wiggle room.
         Mr Hodgson appears to have stitched up Mr Key and Mrs Wong very effectively. Hence the diversions about stopping the perk, and the unwillingness to talk much.
6. Bazar 6

   16 November 2010 at 3:21 am

   “This goes beyond a few bad eggs or innocent mistakes. This is a culture of National MPs abusing their power and pocketing our money.”

   In the recent history, even the full history of NZ parliament, no labour or green MP has EVER abused their perks for personal gains or profit….

   Oh.. wait.

   Well obviously national and Act MPs are morally inferior because of the reduced transparcy they have campained and implemented since coming to power…
   Oh wait…

   Well i’m sure the opposition could do it better, we could even have Winston manage the perks, since his background is spotless when it comes to finances.
   • Lanthanide 6.1

     16 November 2010 at 8:15 am

     “Well obviously national and Act MPs are morally inferior because of the reduced transparcy they have campained and implemented since coming to power”

     So, how about Richard Worth eh? What was he fired for, again?
   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     16 November 2010 at 10:54 am

     Actually, if you’d been keeping up with NRT’s OIA research, you’d realise that NACT have reduced transparency – quite a bit in fact.
     • Bazar 6.2.1

       16 November 2010 at 1:49 pm

       Well i just took a look through that NRT search’s first 2 pages.

       Nothing about national REDUCING transparency.
       Only about stats about OIA requests, and the law commission looking at proposing changes.

       How you can say that nact have reduced based on that is silly. The law commission isn’t nact, and unless nact implement what they propose, it has nothing to do with them.

       As for the spreadsheet showing low performance rates, two things.
       First its been taken in a very quesitonable way, with very questionable results.

       “This is the crudest of performance data. It does not look at the quality of responses, or take any account of the size or complexity of requests. It looks only at timeliness.”

       So that isn’t about transparancy, its about responsiveness.
       And even if it *was* about transparacy, to say its gotten worse under national, you’d need to perform the same test under labour’s rule.

       How those OIA requests were filed is unknown. But it doesn’t look methodical.

       Ultimatly the only thing i’m going to say is that its of no surprise to see that the goverment isn’t perfect with OIA. But then i said goverment, not national. I suspect it was as bad or worse under labour.
   • the pink postman 6.3

     16 November 2010 at 2:32 pm

     One does not have to delve very deeply to find these greedy Tories have only one interest,their idol Mammon . Well maybe two squeezing the workers .
     So when one has a good look at the Wong scandal what do we find but “cut the benefits ” Shipley and her shadowy husband Burton. As well know Independent (UK) journalist Jasmim Brown has said ”What a greedy lot”.
7. tc 7

   16 November 2010 at 6:26 am

   Bazar’s right “Well i’m sure the opposition could do it better…” as Clark proved she had the measure of her ministers and stood down and/or disciplined those who crossed the line whereas with sideshow john it’s ‘aw shucks new zild’s lucky to have such hardworking MP’s like mine.’

   Trouble is shonkey they ain’t working for us but themselves and their backers…..but at least they’re consistent so there’s a positive for ya johnny boy.

   BTW when’s that outstanding and hardworking Bennett due back to abuse due process just like always.
   • Jilly Bee 7.1

     16 November 2010 at 10:04 am

     National Party signs have sprung up all over Henderson with the ‘Proud to be a Westie’ [finger down throat time] line and picture of herself advertising a constituents’ clinic on Friday 26th November. Yawn! But maybe their polling is telling them something!
     • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1

       16 November 2010 at 11:23 am

       have they got a parliamentary crest on ’em?
8. Red Rosa 8

   16 November 2010 at 6:41 am

   More yet to be revealed?

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4347685/Ex-PM-Shipley-has-link-to-Wongs
9. Marty G 9

   16 November 2010 at 6:49 am

   here’s a surprise, Tracy Watkins running Key’s line:

   “it took only the downfall of a good MP and otherwise good woman, Pansy Wong.” to get the need of the travl perk.

   yeah, poor innocent pansy wong couldn’t understand the difference between holidaying and business. It’s all the perk’s fault.

   don’t worry Tracy, there’ll be another press job in Key’s office up for grabs some time.
   • Tigger 9.1

     16 November 2010 at 7:55 am

     Ha ha, ‘otherwise good woman’ as in – ‘he stole money from pensioners but otherwise he was a good man’ or ‘he beats his wife but otherwise he’s a good man’. Honestly, Watkins, this is pathetic. We know Pansy Wong isn’t Hitler FFS. And how will Watkins cope once Wong has to resign from Parliament? ‘Oh she was a good woman despite defrauding the taxpayer for years’.
   • Jim Nald 9.2

     16 November 2010 at 5:11 pm

     Watkins writes – good MP and otherwise good woman, Pansy
     Amstrong reports John Key had a good APEC
     Blind trusts are good at keeping things unseen
     Warner Bros had a good deal
     Bill English is good at making claims
     Gerry is good at managing Chch earthquake clean-up
     McCully is good at putting together RWC 2011
     Tolly is good at stirring schools and parents
     Bennett is good at coming down on beneficiaries
     Colllins is good at talking tough
     Lockwood is good at rolling back travel perks

     Care to add to the good list?
10. Irascible 10

    16 November 2010 at 7:34 am

    How much more worse can the Wong saga get?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4347685/Ex-PM-Shipley-has-link-to-Wongs
11. vto 11

    16 November 2010 at 7:42 am

    It is because many National Party politicians chase business deals at the same time as being in Parliament. It is ingrained. They do business as much as politics. Think Creech and Key and their dairy interests. Think Jenny Shipley and all her business dealings etc.

    It feels like it is all about to spill open. Creech and Carter making decisions about agriculture when they have vested interests, for example. Not good.

    Put it all out in the open for the public to see how intertwined National is with business.

    It is wrong and smelly. And about to soak them in their own stench I hope.
    • Lanthanide 11.1

      16 November 2010 at 8:18 am

      Unfortunately there is a sector of the NZ public that likes National *because* of those business dealings. You know, all that crap about “running businesses well, so they must be able to run the country too”.
      • Lazy Susan 11.1.1

        16 November 2010 at 8:24 am

        Yeah, running businesses well such as Shipley’s premium recruitment business Momentum.
        • Joe Bloggs 11.1.1.1

          16 November 2010 at 8:48 am

          I would hardly call Momentum Shipley’s premium recruitment business.

          1. the company is not a high end executive search consultant – it’s mainstream

          2. Shipley owns less than half of one percent of the business.

          I also see in Pete Hodgson’s press release that he admits he doesn’t know Whether the companies hold a separate lease or share any services, or indeed are trading

          … which is a million miles from Eddie’s tasteless insinuations about meth labs
          • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1.1

            16 November 2010 at 8:57 am

            the company is not a high end executive search consultant – it’s mainstream

            You mean like hiring virtually all execs for the new Auckland MegaCity CCO’s? Momentum may have hired their PA’s as well but that hardly makes them ‘mainstream’, does it?
            • Joe Bloggs 11.1.1.1.1.1

              16 November 2010 at 12:25 pm

              crap – they’re the largest recruiter in NZ in terms of job placements – that alone makes them mainstream. You don’t get that way by limiting yourself to a minor tributary of the top 2% of job placements.

              As for the 20,000 shares Shipley owns – that won’t go far in a shareholders meeting when there are nearly 5million shares around the table.
          • Richard 11.1.1.1.2

            16 November 2010 at 8:59 am

            I also see in Pete Hodgson’s press release that he admits he doesn’t know “Whether the companies hold a separate lease or share any services, or indeed are trading”

            Wake up mate.

            That’s a press release.

            A press release is no evidence of what Hodgson does or does not know. If Hodgson is asking a question in a press release, he either already knows the answer, and / or he knows that the process of others trying to find an answer is going to be problematic for National.
            • Zorr 11.1.1.1.2.1

              16 November 2010 at 12:23 pm

              Whereas when Jonkey makes a press release it is treated as gospel truth…

              Double standard much

              capcha: lies
              • Richard …

                16 November 2010 at 12:27 pm

                I certainly don’t treat anything in a press release by John Key as being gospel truth.

                Do you?
              • felix …

                16 November 2010 at 2:41 pm

                Zorr, I think that’s a misreading of Richard’s comment. It’s a reply to Joe Bloggs who seems to think that Hodgson’s release is an admission of a lack of info.
      • vto 11.1.2

        16 November 2010 at 9:00 am

        Yes, well they generally do run businesses well (?) and it does give them an understanding of the business environment which is often lacking in other parties.

        But it is the mixing of the politics and business which is no good. There must be a clear break between the two and it must be public viewing.

        So simple to do. So hard to give up.
        • Richard 11.1.2.1

          16 November 2010 at 9:10 am

          Yes, well they generally do run businesses well (?) and it does give them an understanding of the business environment which is often lacking in other parties.

          That’s arguable, but as far as goes it certainly seems plausible that “successful” business people would have something to offer the country when it comes to those parts of government that are like “business”.

          Although, I’m not exactly overwhelmed by National’s ability to negotiate with corporates, make wise investment decisions, maximise government income, and show executive leadership…
12. ghostwhowalksnz 12

    16 November 2010 at 7:45 am

    Wong will resign in the usual way- to maximise her pay and announce it before Xmas but put the final day as just before Parliament sits next year. That way shes can stop turning up to the office for 2 months. The party will announce a new candidate who will conveniently have a ‘job’ as electorate agent and be the front person in the electorate
13. MikeG 13

    16 November 2010 at 8:21 am

    It’s interesting that Key is trying to downplay the address as being a mailing address. Companies Office records show otherwise – it is also the address for the share register. That implies that the address is being used to at minimum administer the company from.
14. Chris 14

    16 November 2010 at 8:39 am

    “Ministers Call for Perk Reform”….how about… “Ministers defend Integrity – No personal business on public business!”
15. Sanctuary 15

    16 November 2010 at 8:44 am

    Anyone who heard Key being interviewed by Geoff Robinson (who interviews more like an astonished vicar than a angry rottweiler) would now understand why Key is so carefully handled by his minders. Key was, in a word, lame. He had no answers and his government was exposed as lackadasical, chaotic and disorganised at it’s highest level.

    Oh and Pansy Wong sharing a mail address with Jenny Shipley? It just gives us the smallest glimpse of the crony capitalism that seems to be the primary motivational engine of this government.
    • OleOlebiscuitBarrell 15.1

      16 November 2010 at 9:15 am

      Sharing a mail address is crony capitalism? Really? Are you completely sure?
    • ianmac 15.2

      16 November 2010 at 10:27 am

      Agreed Sanctuary. They complain that Phil is not succinct enough but John’s performance was as you say lame. He is hopeless when being interviewed which as we suspected, explains his refusal to front up for interviews. During the next election will he be able to not only smile and wave, but also duck and hide? I thought that Geoff was surprisingly persistent but perhaps his effort will give John another reason to dodge interviews.
      • the pink postman 15.2.1

        16 November 2010 at 2:50 pm

        Which once again (as commented before on the Standard) makes me wonder if Key has a drink problem. Often when watching him being interviewed on TV. he seems to be slightly tipsy . The vague look ,gigling and forgetfullness ,all the classic behavour of too much alcohol in the system.
16. OleOlebiscuitBarrell 16

    16 November 2010 at 9:10 am

    Pansy Wong and her husband have been running private companies out of her taxpayer-funded electorate office.

    I am not defending her against the main charge against her, but it is not necessarily true to say that she is “running private companies out of her taxpayer-funded electorate office”. A company’s registered office is not always where the business is run from. The registered office is where notices to the company must be served and certain information must be kept there. Commerce need not be conducted from the registered office. For instance, many companies use their accountant’s office for this.
    • Pascal's bookie 16.1

      16 November 2010 at 9:14 am

      True enough. But you pay an accountant for the service. What reason is there for using the ( I assume) tax payer subsidised electoral office for private business matters?
      • OleOlebiscuitBarrell 16.1.1

        16 November 2010 at 9:17 am

        I doubt accountants charge for this service. They regard it as part of the relationship. That said, they wouldn’t do it for you if they didn’t do your accounts.
        • felix 16.1.1.1

          16 November 2010 at 10:46 am

          “I doubt accountants charge for this service. They regard it as part of the relationship.”

          Just in case you’ve never hired an accountant, they do charge for “the relationship” 😉
    • freedom 16.2

      16 November 2010 at 9:20 am

      Do you really see nothing wrong in a private company being registered out of a Ministerial Office ???

      It is a fundamental problem in this current commercial climate that people paid a lot of money to do a difficult job, can manage to run multiple private interests when they are meant to be sooooo busy
      • Treetop 16.2.1

        17 November 2010 at 12:59 pm

        I want to know who Mr Wong’s accountant is? Possibly it is Pansy Wong.
17. freedom 17

    16 November 2010 at 9:14 am

    the Shipley connection is the interesting bit, especially when you recall Dame Shipley’s guided tours of South Island farmland earlier this year with Chinese investors,
    -the article seems to be untraceable in multiple attempted searches, if anyone has it i would like it.

    The Shipley connection gets more obvious, and more telling when, apart from the links to numerous parties in the current “buy the NZ dairy industry’ jumble, we recall she is on the board of a Chinese Bank
    “A division of the China Construction Bank – China’s third largest bank, which includes Jenny Shipley on its board ..”
    • marsman 17.1

      16 November 2010 at 4:48 pm

      Would like to see an account of Shipley’s travel expenses which were paid for by the taxpayer,and reasons for travel. ( i.e. does she charge up private business travel? She of the ‘personal responsibility’ catch-cry.)
18. ak 18

    16 November 2010 at 9:29 am

    You’re right Eddie, it’s by no means a complete list; but come on, fair’s fair. The media has enough to do what with lost cats and orgasm research and everything – and it’s not as if they’ve done anything really corrupt like trying to close the gaps for Maori, stop bashing kiddies, sign paintings for charity or sit in the back of speeding cars for goodness sake….
19. robertguyton 19

    16 November 2010 at 9:58 am

    Our rag, the Southland Times, published this postage-stamp sized ‘article’:

    “Links between former prime minister Dame Jenny Shipley and businessman Sammy Wong are under scrutiny as his wife, former ethnic affairs minister Patsy Wong, remains under a cloud. Labour yesterday questioned why a company in which Mr Wong and Dame Jenny are shareholders was registered at the same address as Mrs Wong’s publically funded electorate office in Auckland. Dame Jenny’s husband, Burton, was a director of the firm, Shipley and Wong, labour strategist Pete Hodgson said. Speaker Lockwood Smith refused to comment. Prime Minister John Key also refused to comment and said he would advise Mrs Wong not to answer questions.” Fairfax

    http://robertguyton.blogspot.com/2010/11/dodgy-dealings-with-dame.html
20. joe90 20

    16 November 2010 at 10:17 am

    China link to Nats’ $200,000

    National minister’s husband linked to farm bidder

    China dairy investor’s links revealed

    Crafar farms – behind the facade
21. randal 21

    16 November 2010 at 10:27 am

    I guess this is what Marx called an oriental despotism where those in power just do what they like.
    when they get caught out they hide behind cultural differences wchich are just those things which make it possible for them to break the law in the first place.
    • freedom 21.1

      16 November 2010 at 10:38 am

      in this instance, what cultural differences are you referring to ????????????
    • Colonial Viper 21.2

      16 November 2010 at 11:30 am

      I guess Bill English might have some Chinese blood 🙄
22. vto 22

    16 November 2010 at 10:49 am

    Why doesn’t somebody outline all the links that National MPs have with dairying. Key. Creech. Shipley. Carter. Smith. the list goes on.

    Put it all out there for the public to easily see. In a simple format.

    Then ask how on earth these conflicted politicians can make impartial decisions on this industry when their business investments depend on their political decisions…

    It’s a no-brainer ya?
    • felix 22.1

      16 November 2010 at 10:55 am

      Ya.
    • burt 22.2

      16 November 2010 at 11:02 am

      Don’t stop at National party members though. Sunligh is certainly required on this one though.
      • burt 22.2.1

        16 November 2010 at 12:41 pm

        Only a moron would think it’s just one party that are totally self serving troughers. Hell even Clark had a blind trust.
        • felix 22.2.1.1

          16 November 2010 at 12:49 pm

          Yep, open them all. Let’s see the lot.
    • Draco T Bastard 22.3

      16 November 2010 at 11:22 am

      Yes, it would be nice to see just how compromised our politicians are. All politicians financial interests should be publicly available (None of the “blind trust” BS).
23. Graeme 23

    16 November 2010 at 11:00 am

    any body been to this office or google mapped it?
24. Daveski 24

    16 November 2010 at 11:03 am

    Hodgson was exceptionally careful not to fall into the basic mistake Eddie has made.

    “So now we learn from rort-buster Pete Hodgson that Pansy Wong and her husband have been running private companies out of her taxpayer-funded electorate office.”

    Hodgson did not claim that at all. He merely pointed out that this was used as an address (possibly an address for service). It is still not acceptable but neither is Eddie’s assertion which is completely wrong.

    This is not a defence of Wong – she should have lost her ministerial portfolio and did. However, there is no reason for Eddie to get his/her facts wrong when Hodgson was very careful not to do so.
25. grumpy 25

    16 November 2010 at 11:16 am

    One should never underestimate to natural inclination of politicians to instinctively do what is morally wrong.
    • Draco T Bastard 25.1

      16 November 2010 at 11:29 am

      That’s only the natural inclination of the psychopathic ones and they’re not all psychopathic, mostly just the ones on the political right.
26. freedom 26

    16 November 2010 at 11:51 am

    am i nuts or are some people saying they have no problem with a parliamentary office being used for private/personal commercial business.

    I for one was unaware that Politicians could openly use the offices of Parliament to receive correspondence relating to their private/personal commercial business, let alone register the location of a business for whatever purpose as being an office in the jurisdiction of Parliament.

    The conflict and innappropriateness was so glaringly obvious that i had assumed it was not done.

    Boy! Egg on my face!
    Obviously i was aware that Politicians throughout this country’s history have used insider knowledge to better their opportunities in business, including have discrete and not so discrete meetings in their offices. That is an entirely different beastie than actually registering offices of Parliament as being related to the operation of a private business. There are also numerous costs the business avoids, one shining example is if any correspondence is received at Parliament, we the taxpayer are covering the business costs of a Postal Box for the MP’s private commercial interests. The telephone and internet costs are also obvious savings for a private business.

    If the decision to register and operate from Parliament is warranted by the complexities in the day to day operation of the business, ie; requires such close regular contact with a MP that their time in Wellington would be detrimental to the business, then either the person should not be a MP or a privately staffed office elsewhere in Wellington would be the obvious decision. Though with modern technology why an office in their own Electorate could not used is beyond me. Is it a question of not wanting to employ a mangager to oversee the day to day administration whilst the MP serves. This only raises more questions as to the nature of the business.
    • felix 26.1

      16 November 2010 at 12:44 pm

      The office is in her electorate – it’s her electorate office.

      But yep, I don’t know how anyone could think for a moment that this could ever be ok. Even the possibility of the appearance of corruption should keep this from ever happening.
      • freedom 26.1.1

        16 November 2010 at 1:26 pm

        ‘it’s her electorate office”
        unless i am mistaken, this is still under the jurisdiction of Parliament as are all properties and services pertaining to the administration of our Government
        • lprent 26.1.1.1

          16 November 2010 at 1:31 pm

          Yeah they are run and funded by parliamentary services. They barely tolerate any party activity which is why LEC’s are usually quite separate. I hate to think what they will think of running a business out of their premises.
        • felix 26.1.1.2

          16 November 2010 at 2:36 pm

          Of course; I was responding to your last paragraph.

          I think you’re absolutely spot on in your analysis btw.
          • freedom 26.1.1.2.1

            16 November 2010 at 3:17 pm

            true, the ‘from Parliament’ was clumsy, it is not clear i was leaning to the broader holistic Parliament entity rather than the building,

            damn it! my error rate is up this month, no doubt about it
27. Olwyn 27

    16 November 2010 at 12:15 pm

    I am uneasy about saying this because it makes me look like a conspiracy theorist, but here goes: I hope we on the left have not been thrown a piece of bait in the form of Pansy and swallowed it whole, so that we have tacitly accepted an excuse for an early election well before it is announced. Firstly, while we plebs are able to know parliament’s rules, we are less able to know how rigorously they are generally applied, and Pansy’s sins, on the face of things, do not seem significantly greater than the various other things listed, some of which seem much worse, that have been passed over with a shrug. Paula Bennett’s release of benefit details, for example. Bill English’s uncertainty as to where he lived and who he rented his Wellington home from, the National party links with dairying in Canterbury, and so on. And I also recall the disproportionate levels of excitement over carelessness when it was deemed time to kneecap Winston Peters. This involved a level of fantasy worthy of the Sopranos, with the Monaco billionaire, the pretty girls and the billionaire’s little crucifix gracing the media for days. If I am right in my suspicions then Pansy’s situation will probably involve a few House of Flying Daggers-type scenes, just prior to an election being announced.
    • Zorr 27.1

      16 November 2010 at 12:27 pm

      Olwyn, this issue has already been addressed many times over in previous threads. Yes, it is a concern. But as long as Labour play their hand right they can be the ones deciding the early election because it requires a 75% vote in Parliament.

      hmmm… unless of course Brownlee can change that using CERRA – “An unstable government is bad for a Cantabrian recovery. I hereby dictate that we have an election now!”
      • Lanthanide 27.1.1

        16 November 2010 at 12:54 pm

        I know you’re probably just joking, but CERRA excluded the electoral act.
        • Armchair Critic 27.1.1.1

          16 November 2010 at 1:21 pm

          You know I’m probably joking, but a possible remedy would be to modify the Crimes Act to make it a crime to vote for anyone apart from National. A sentence of no less than three years imprisonment would top it all off.
          Scarily, some of the commenters here will read this and agree it is a good idea.
          • Lanthanide 27.1.1.1.1

            16 November 2010 at 2:06 pm

            I think the secretary general would refuse such a blue-eyed law.
      • Olwyn 27.1.2

        16 November 2010 at 1:40 pm

        Thanks for that Zorr – I have clearly not been keeping up with this discussion, and didn’t know that a 75% vote was needed.
28. Carol 28

    16 November 2010 at 1:03 pm

    And there’s more….
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/61881/labour-again-calls-on-wong-to-resign

    Labour says a Chinese local government website shows Pansy Wong, identified as a minister, promoting her husband’s hovercraft company.

    http://dirtydebtors.co.nz/photos/9000206/db_1685596136DDphoto4.jpg
    • freedom 28.1

      16 November 2010 at 1:29 pm

      a link with context of the photo would be more useful.
      That link is merely a person in a photo, it can be used for anything and nothing
      • Carol 28.1.1

        16 November 2010 at 2:01 pm

        That pic is just from the debtors website and is an image that google throws up:
        http://dirtydebtors.co.nz/description.php?descriptionID=9000206

        ODT provides some context for the image found by the Labour Party:

        http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/136541/labour-digs-more-info-wong

        Translated, the website lists Mrs Wong’s ministerial portfolios and talks about her meeting Chinese officials in the city of Lianyungang.
        It said Lianyungang occupied a “unique strategic position and has a tempting future, the hovercraft business invested in by her husband Sammy Wong and Terry Yang…has been developing fast”.
        The article went on to say the reputation of the city would be further promoted through the company’s product sales and the introduction of supporting facilities. The hovercraft deal has since gone sour.
        • freedom 28.1.1.1

          16 November 2010 at 2:19 pm

          “Mr Key said he didn’t know any detail about the Botany office issue, but said there could well be legitimate reasons, including that it could simply be a mailing address for the businesses. ”
          quote from Carol’s link above. Thankyou Carol. Pity Hodgson didnt include the actual link.

          when i look at my reasoning earlier, I have a big question for our PM

          ‘Are you seriously saying it is ok to run a private business from a Government Office?’

          I know a lot of people who will be happy to hear that. Parliament has a lot of smart people working there, now that they are free to operate their businesses from Government premises there is going to be an explosion of productivity and income generation (joking)

          Well done Mr Key your ignoranceof democracy and bias to private enteprise have once again combined to illuminate us with your true motivations. (not joking)
          • Carol 28.1.1.1.1

            16 November 2010 at 5:18 pm

            Well Hodgson just said on Checkpoint that he made the details of the website public. He made it sound like he was referring to the URL for the website. Can’t see it anywhere, so I’ve just asked for it on Red Alert.
            • Carol 28.1.1.1.1.1

              16 November 2010 at 5:44 pm

              Gary on Red Alert posted this link to a pdf
              http://www.labour.org.nz/sites/labour.org.nz/files/Wong%20-%20local%20government%20transcript.pdf

              that includes this URL:

              http://qb.lyg.gov.cn/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=424
            • Jim Nald 28.1.1.1.1.2

              16 November 2010 at 5:49 pm

              What pathway or standing might a member of public have in lodging a case with appropriate authorities: police, Auditor-General, Ombudsman, etc (perhaps, pursuing them all simultaneously) ?

              Is there a legal case that a member of public can bring before the court?

              The PM, who is stalling, seem to make it like he is staging a cover-up or arranging a route for Pansy to escape.
29. tc 29

    16 November 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Another month another clear example of a NACT minister using their public position for personal gain…..it’s so predictable it’s become boring as it’s not really news anymore.

    The MSM in other countries would be jealous of all the juicy material being produced by these KEYstone cops excuses for ministers that would allow them to question and nag away at a gov’t that’s making no attempt to hide the fact they’re in it for themselves and their backers.

    To quote a senior journo in oz…” what the F passes for journalism over there ” to which my reply is ‘anything between the front and back pages apparently’ to which he replies ‘obviously not a great career in NZ then’……oh duh !.
30. grumpy 30

    16 November 2010 at 3:11 pm

    This looks like serious shit. Anything involving Shipley is sure to be dodgy. Key should just sack her from the party as Labour did with Carter and let the police decide whether to charge her without the sort of political interference Labour used to do.

    Looks like she might make Field look like a choirboy.
31. ianmac 31

    16 November 2010 at 4:10 pm

    News at 4:0 National Radio. Key says that he can’t do anything about the new reports about the Hovercraft promotions in her name and title, because Mrs Wong is no longer a Minister so she is not anything to do with him. (paraphrased I hope.) WOT! A great Leader soon dodges any responsibility for his troops. WOW!
    • bobo 31.1

      16 November 2010 at 4:38 pm

      Wong discarded like a used condom, what a nice man that Mr Key is.
    • Vicky32 31.2

      16 November 2010 at 5:15 pm

      Oh that’s slippery! (And, I hope, wrong…)
      Deb
32. freedom 32

    16 November 2010 at 5:26 pm

    well the Brent Edwards comments on Nat Radio’s 5pm news was obviously recorded before 3pm as he never mentioned National blocking an independant investigation into MP’s expenses, if not then the question is why this was not covered ?
33. gobsmacked 33

    16 November 2010 at 6:33 pm

    This has really stuffed up Key’s plans for next year.

    He doesn’t want a by-election. National would hold the seat, but it’s Mana in reverse: ACT would play the McCarten role, and National would have everything to lose. A low turnout and reduced majority would look bad in the lead-up to the general election.

    But he also doesn’t want to stave off a by-election by committing himself to a general election, except on his own terms. Like all Prime Ministers, he knows there’s a real advantage for the incumbent in naming the date, just a month or so beforehand.

    So there’s Option 3: keep Pansy Wong in Parliament. Keep the story alive.

    I bet the opposition would be quite happy with that.
    • Tiger Mountain 33.1

      16 November 2010 at 7:49 pm

      It will be interesting to see how many more of JFK’s (John fucking Key’s) motley crew are bought to public attention. John Carters anointed successor in Northland certainly warrants a look.
34. Hilary 34

    16 November 2010 at 6:38 pm

    I have heard that Pansy was using the Office of Ethnic Affairs as her personal fiefdom which was very handy for favoured businesses. Unlikely that the media will investigate though.
    • Jim Nald 34.1

      16 November 2010 at 9:37 pm

      iamsosurprised

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 15 November 2010 at 7:31 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS