Andrew Krukziener

Tossed from the House for being a Tosser

Oops! And oops! againPrime Minister John Key and Finance Bill English simply have to start finding out what the other is saying. That way they can stop contradicting each other in public. How about this for the day before the National Government’s… [NZ Herald Politics]

Trev the Muss came off second best in the House today after Lockwood Smith booted his sorry ass out for arguing with him and the little Orange Guy of Labour Darren Hughes also came close to being tossed as well.

Labour’s modus operandi at the moment is a mixture of their usual misogyny towards women,  condescension, arrogance and outright bullying. Today Trevor mallard ended up with a carton of eggs in his face, beautiful smashed there by Audrey Young.

Question Time was irritating. Labour decided to pick on the Speaker Lockwood Smith today.

The feature of today’s Question Time was Trevor Mallard getting chucked out by the Speaker.

Mallard had just finished upbraiding Education Minister Anne Tolley on the wrong spelling of the word “academies” in some literature she had put out.

Funny that. Mallard’s recent post on the Labour MPs’ blog site Red Alert has the following words: denomitated; incoherant; speechs; catelogue; and Brethern!

He should have been chucked out for bad spelling at least, but perhaps hypocrisy.

Mallard of course still hasn’t apologised for his scurrilous attacks on melissa lee, in fact he has compounded the attacks on Labour’s MP blog.

Catching Dirty Stinking Rats

Dirty Rat SpyFor those of you who don’t know Clinton Smith was Steve Pierson at the Labour/EPMU funded offshre lap-blog The Standard.

They made no bones about attacking anyone and everyone from the right. Well Clinton/Steve went and got himself a job after the election.  Now you might say so what but it is the where that is the problem.

You see he went and got a job at the Parliamentary Library.

Now staff at the Parliamentary Library are supposed to be non-partisan, neutral and very bookish and essentially policy wonk types. What they are not allowed to be wrking there are partisan hacks. Now Clinton/Steve ostensibly doesn’t post at The Standard anymore, but how can we really know that. As soon as he dropped off the posts all of a sudden posts started appearing in the same writing style under Guest Post and The Standard and now there are at 4 other pseudonyms that have popped up including strangely about 5 minutes after Tane dropped out too.

It is really too much to believe that their most prolific bloggers aren’t blogging anymore.

The worst part about all of this though is that Clinton Smith aka Steve Pierson now works essentially for The Speaker, Lockwood Smith, but here is what he has had to say about LockWood Smith in the past;

Under the headline Did Lockwood Mis-speak too? He accuses Lockwood Smith of lying and hiding a secret agenda which we all know hasn’t happed.

He calls Lockwood Smith an “egomaniac” just days before going to work for him.

In a post titled “Green laffs” he highlights comments made by Russel Norman about “Lockwood’s feet are so small he can fit them in his mouth”.

He mocks Lockwood Smith’s education proposals around PPP’s comparing them to creating sweat shops.

Calls Lockwood Smith a bigot.

He accuses Lockwood Smith of lying.

Lockwood Smith believes that every time he lies about migration numbers and offers no solution to this ‘crisis’ he will not be held to account.

He calls Lockwood Smith “racist” and Bill English “homophobic”.

I think you can get the pattern of his behaviour, and yet he thinks he can waltz in to the Parliamentary Library and think that his past won’t or can’t catch up with him.

There is no way that he can continue to work for Lockwood Smith as Speaker when it is clear for all the world to see through the wonders of search engines just exactly what he thinks of his “boss”.

What stuns me is the lacksadaisical hiring processes that seem to be in place at Parliament. He should never have even got an interview let alone the job with such obvious and blatent hackery and bias. No single National, Act or Maori Party MP can expect impartial treatment from the Parliamentary Library while such a hack exists within its ranks. The Parliamentary Service has been corrupted.

Lockwood Smith unopposed for Speaker

Lockwood Smith unopposed for SpeakerLockwood Smith is expected to be elected Speaker of Parliament today – and although Labour has said it objects it is effectively an empty protest. Labour does not intend standing anyone against Dr Smith and if there is only one… [NZ Herald Politics]

Despite all the bluster from Labour ther appears to be noone else to challenge Lockie for the job of speaker.

It begs the question, Is Phil Goff just a sock puppet?

Bribery and Corruption Scandal engulfs Labour

On the very day that Poneke declared in his usual shrill tone that there was no corruption in New Zealand, Ian Wishart provides substantive proof of serious and large scale bribery and corruption in the on-going cash for citizenship scandal.

Shane Jones, his staff and relatives of his staff who were key campaign strategists for Labour are all donkey deep in this corruption, bribery and graft scandal.

Ian Wishart has got to the bottom of this and it promises to not go away. Unlike the Taito Philip Field scandal, I don’t think Clark will be able to sweep this under the carpet.

In an election about trust we have now discovered yet another Labour MP on the take.

Poneke should stick to writing about buses and public transport in wellington. It is as clear as the nose on your face that Helen Clarks government has lived up to her 1999 promise of bringing a new standard of accountability to government. A very, very low standard involving corruption, graft, bribery and theft.

Trust Helen Clark to govern another term? Not on your life.

Lockwood's D-oh! moment

National MP says small handed workers neededNational MP Lockwood Smith has talked himself into trouble, saying Asians have small hands that make them more productive and Pacific workers need to be taught to use toilets and showers. Dr Smith, National’s immigration spokesman,… [NZ Herald Politics]

Lockwood Smith appears to have had a rush of shit to the brains. In a literal Homer Simpson moment, Lockwood intimated what many employers already know, but the simple fact is that it shouldn’t have been said.

That said Labour and the Media will beat this up mercilessly in a policy free election environment. The real issues about Labour’s secret tax increase agenda and the tanking economy are far more important than a couple of sentences in a discussion about immigration.

If Winston shouldn’t be sacked for filing false electoral declarations and lying to the Privilieges Committee I fail to see how Lockwood could possibly be sacked following the Clark Doctrine for Ministerial Responsibility.

Orchestrated Litany of Lies

Winston Raymond Peters, 63, List MP of no fixed a bode and proven liar is an inveterate liar. Helen Clark loves cuddles especially from corpses and in particular from liars like fellow narcissist Winston.

Here is an attempted timeline of Winston’s lies. It is incredible when read all together rather than the creeping sliperiness we have seen over the past months.

25 July 2008 – Dominion Post – He has assured me he has done nothing illegal, says Clark
On Sunday, Mr Peters was told through a spokesman that The Dominion Post had information about a trust run by his brother Wayne and that the trust sometimes paid NZ First bills.

“That is a lie,” Mr Peters said.

25 July – Fairfax Media “Stuff” website – Peters lashes out in angry press conference
“Neither I nor my barrister has any involvement with the Spencer Trust.”

26 July 2008 – Dominion Post – Jones and Peters in war of words
“I have no involvement with that trust.”
When asked if he could explain why the money should not have been declared as a donation, Mr Peters first told reporters their questions were ridiculous, then said they did not understand the facts.

“He made the cheque out for $25,000 from a company I believe he is in control of to the Spencer Trust. That’s why it’s not disclosable.”

He said he had been advised by party officials at the time that “there is nothing NZ First is required to disclose arising from the Spencer Trust”.

31 July 2008 – Dominion Post – SFO boss weighs Hide complaint
“Would you assure us here today that NZ First, if they received any money from the Spencer Trust, why wasn’t it declared on your election returns,” a woman asked.

“What I’ll assure you is that everything that was required to do within the law has been done,” Mr Peters replied.

31 July 2008 – Dominion Post – Fresh controversy and more answers (Q&A)
Q What is the purpose of the Spencer Trust?
A I’ve just told you if you want to know that, ring up the Spencer Trust. I have no involvement in that trust.
Q What is money from the Spencer Trust used for?
A You’ve got to ask the Spencer Trust that.
Q Who from the Spencer Trust can answer these questions?
A Well, you’re not going to go beyond the veil of the law with respect. We all have the same protections as you have, if you want to know the facts ask the right people. Don’t expect someone who doesn’t know to answer your questions.

Q So you have no idea what the money was used for?
A My officials would and they have said there is nothing to disclose.
Q Bob Jones says he gave you a cheque a month before the 2005 election, he had drinks with you and you approached him.
A Let me say that is laughable, if you think about it with all sorts of political parties in the room, is this likely to be the case? Bob’s memory is failing here. However, he paid a cheque and he says to the Spencer Trust. He did not pay a cheque to NZ First. The details are important.

Q Where did the money go?
A Well, Bob Jones wrote a cheque to the Spencer Trust. That’s where the money went.
Q What was the money spent on?
A You’ve got to ask the trust that.
Q You’ve campaigned against secret trusts.
A No, I haven’t. What I’ve campaigned against are those massive donations that are there to buy policy and buy favours.

2 September 2008 – Dominion Post – Pressure mounts as election fever hits
He is expected to face fresh questions today on NZ First funding after Spencer Trust trustee Grant Currie said its only purpose “was to receive donations from supporters of NZ First and to pass them on to NZ First”.

3 September 2008 – Northern Advocate – North Trust: we are in clear
Mr Currie said the trust had done nothing wrong in the way it handled the donations for NZ First. The trust’s bank statements show Sir Robert’s $25,000 going in on August 2005, and a $50,000 chunk going out to NZ First that September. The details of the other $25,000 donor were blacked out.

The $50,000 donation was not declared to the Electoral Commission, as required by law with donations of $10,000. The breach is technical as the law requires it to be investigated within six months, but that is a matter for NZ First, not the Spencer Trust.”This whole matter is much simpler than people may think.

“It’s a case of funds being directed to the party from donors who wish to remain anonymous,” he said.
None of the funds had been “tagged” for specific purposes and, once the money was passed on to NZ First, it was up to the party to decide what to do with it. He would not say exactly how much had been donated to the party through the trust, but said all, apart from more than $900 still in the trust’s bank account, had been passed on to NZ First.

Mr Currie said the account details could not be made public earlier because it would be unethical to release the details without the donors’ permission.

Mr Currie said he believed the Spencer Trust was no different from trusts set up to give anonymous donations to other political parties.

5 September 2008 – Dominion Post – $150,000 never declared
NZ First failed to declare more than $150,000 channelled through the Spencer Trust since 2005 – including $80,000 last year that is now the subject of a police complaint.

Trustee Grant Currie confirmed yesterday that the 2007 donation was in December – the same month former party president Dail Jones says a mysterious five-figure sum appeared in the party bank account.

Mr Currie said that as well as $80,000 in 2007 and $50,000 in 2005, the trust paid some NZ First bills.
“In 2005, there were two accounts that were paid on behalf of the party … probably in the region of, at a guess, $15,000 between them.” More than $10,000 in bills were paid in 2006.

5 September 2008 – NZ Herald – NZ First used $80,000 gift for payback
But Spencer Trust trustee Grant Currie, a Whangarei lawyer, told the Herald the trust made an $80,000 donation last December, and it was therefore “more than likely” this was the donation Mr Jones was talking about.

He said the $80,000 was a “conglomeration” of smaller donations. NZ First refused to comment last night.

6 September 2008 – Dominion Post – Party President ‘ignorant’ over trust cash
Confirmation he was ignorant of the trust came after trustee Grant Currie revealed it paid $87,648 in NZ First invoices in 2006. “The bills were paid directly by the trust.”

16 September 2008 – NZ Herald – Trust asks SFO to clear it
One of the trustees, Whangarei lawyer Grant Currie, yesterday wrote to SFO director Grant Liddell saying there was “no justification for unleashing the most powerful agency in New Zealand” upon the trust.

Had the agency made the most elementary inquiries of the Spencer Trust in the preliminary period the trustees could have shown that they were discharging their duties.

“Taxpayers would not have been put to the expense of this investigation and responsible professional people would not have had their integrity called into question.”

“I am left, then, with the conclusion that you have launched the investigation against the Spencer Trust solely based on the complaint and allegations of [Act leader] Rodney Hide, a man who has no knowledge of the affairs of the trust and a man who has obvious political motivation.”

22 September 2008 – Southland Times – Committee to Table Peters report
“Mr Henry paid the money initially. He was later reimbursed out of the trust account from the Spencer Trust funds,” he said. “But that was a trust to assist the NZ First party and any actions it might take. What’s wrong with that?”

Other reported comments (not direct quotes)

26 July – NZ Herald online – Peters refuses to answer donations questions – again
Question: Where did the money go?
Peters: Bob Jones wrote a cheque to the Spencer Trust, that’s where the money went.
Question: And what was it spent on?
Peters: Well you’ve got to ask the trust that.
Question: Isn’t it in your interests to find out where that money went and what it was spent on?
Peters: It is in my interest to find out whether the law has been complied with.

2 September 2008 – Radio New Zealand
A trustee of the Spencer Trust, Grant Currie, says it received 25-thousand dollars from Tirohanga Holdings Limited, a company of which Sir Robert Jones is a majority shareholder, in August 2005.

2 September 2008 – Radio New Zealand
A trustee of the Spencer Trust says all of the documentation relating to the trust’s activities has been handed over to the Serious Fraud Office.

The trust is being examined as part of the SFO’s investigation into donations made to the New Zealand First Party.
The party’s leader, Winston Peters, has stood down as Foreign Minister while the inquiry is carried out.
The trustee, Grant Currie, says the SFO can delve into all aspects of the trust as its powers override client confidentiality.

But he says the SFO is bound by some secrecy provisions so donors to the trust who wish to remain anonymous, should be able to do so.

3 September 2008 – Radio New Zealand
A Trustee, Grant Currie says all money received by the Trust intended for New Zealand First has been paid out to the party, including payments in 2006 and 2007.

He says the amount of those payments is confidential, as is the name of donors to the Trust.
Mr Currie says the Spencer Trust has not done anything for some time, and now has only about 900-dollars on its books.

3 September 2008 – Dominion Post – NZ First U-turn on $50,000 donation
Mr Peters’ brother, Wayne, is one of three Spencer trustees. Fellow trustee Grant Currie said on Monday that its only purpose was to channel money to NZ First.

8 September 2008 – Radio New Zealand
The police are investigating the party’s 2007 nil-return, after it emerged the Spencer Trust paid 80-thousand dollars to New Zealand First in December of that year.

Mr Peters says the money came from eight separate cheques, each under the 10-thousand dollar disclosable amount.
He says New Zealand First’s auditor approached the Electoral Commission about how to handle the matter and the party was told to take legal advice, which it did.

9 September 2008 – NZ Herald – Peters knew about secret trust: sources
Mr Currie released details of all the trust’s payments to NZ First yesterday.
He would not say what bills it had paid, but said a list was recently sent to the party at its request. NZ First’s current president, George Groombridge, said he knew nothing of the list.

10 September 2008 – NZ Herald online – Peters makes donation admission
Winston Peters has for the first time admitted some knowledge of the Spencer Trust and its $80,000 donation to his New Zealand First party that is now the subject of a police investigation.

Mr Peters said he was aware in May that the party had sought “legal advice” before deciding not to declare the $80,000 donation from the trust.

“I said you must go ahead on the legal advice that you’ve got, this is not a matter for the party parliamentary organisation, it is a matter for the organisation itself, and that is what happened,” Mr Peters told Radio New Zealand yesterday.”

17 September 2008 – Dominion Post – Studying the facts
THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE: It is investigating whether donations intended for NZ First paid through the Spencer Trust made it to the party, including $25,000 from property investor Sir Robert Jones. Trustee Grant Currie said this week it should drop the inquiry after it was given proof the money was passed on. SFO director Grant Liddell says the inquiry is proceeding “expeditiously”.


Election year bonus for union buddies

Today in the house today Judith Collins highlighted a lovely little rort that Labour ‘s mates the PSA have got going.

Judith Collins: Is it not true that Ministry of Social Development union members received bonuses in the election years of 2002 and 2005, and that now in 2008 they have been told they will get $750 each; and does this not imply that the bonus is the payback for the Public Service Association yet again campaigning for Labour in an election year?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No, that is not correct. The union negotiation covering the collective agreement by the respective workers does not always fall in an election year. Some years it does-in fact, once every 3 years it falls in an election year. In the other years it is not in an election year.

What an amazing coinicdence! PSA member all get a bonus in the years that seem unusually to coincide with elections.

Judith Collins: How can she justify awarding staff election-year bonuses just for being a member of the Public Service Association (PSA), and should not bonuses be related to employment performance rather than union membership?

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is a matter for the chief executive.

Judith Collins: When is this Minister going to take some responsibility; what is the connection between election-year bonuses to union members and the PSA’s campaign against larger tax cuts on behalf of the Labour Party-is she now going to say there is no connection?

Hon RUTH DYSON: There is no connection between the election year and the year in which the negotiations come into effect. If there are any parts of the agreement to be delivered they are delivered every year, not just in an election year. The implication that the member makes is disgraceful.

No Minister, what is disgraceful is that you can get a bonus simply for being a member of the union with no consideration for productivity and it seems that this cosy little arragement magically coincides with elections.

There is a word for this and it is spelt B R I B E R Y.