Cactus Kate

Precious Parker and his Staring at Goats strategy

Labour party researchers looking for another cause

Labour party researchers looking for another “scandal” to investigate

David Parker isn’t happy that parliament is thinking of relaxing rules around satire. He wants the ban to remain.

Parliament’s top official has urged MPs to “grow up” and allow the official television feed to be used to mock them.

Mary Harris, Clerk of the House, told the Privileges Committee a ban on using footage of Parliament for satire may need to be relaxed “in this day and age”.

The powerful committee is considering reviewing the rules which apply to Parliament about footage in the age of social media.

Currently footage of proceedings is made available free of charge, but cannot be used in any medium for “satire, ridicule [or] denigration” or for commercial or political advertising.

Harris, whose seven-year term as Clerk ends on July 3, said the rules around satire were developed at a time when television was among the only ways of viewing Parliament, but with the proliferation of media the concerns had changed.

The rules have “been lifted in Australia [and] we borrowed our rules from Australia, and we maybe need to grow up,” Harris told the committee on Wednesday.

“I don’t think there’s a need to shelter Members [of Parliament] any longer.”

“It’s difficult to police. Once or twice Speakers have brought people in and given them a bit of a lecture about it but I think it’s a bit like slapping people with a wet bus ticket.”

Labour MP David Parker said MPs may need protection from people who deliberately edited footage in an attempt to mislead viewers.

“There’s plenty of people out there who want to misrepresent us and I wouldn’t want to enable that under the claim that ‘oh, I was just being satirical’.”

This of course, is the same David Parker who defamed me and my friends under the protection of parliamentary privilege. Now he wants people to continue to be banned from mocking goat shaggers like him.? Read more »

David Parker moves fully into staring at goats strategy

Is David Parkers in the back of this goat?

David Parker is making excellent use of written questions to Ministers.

Parker is picking at another dirty politics scab that the public so love to hear about that the National poll numbers go up every time they do it. So let’s pick away.

7428 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs
Is the National Library restricting access or censoring its collection, if so why is this?

7421 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs
Does the National Library believe there is a difference between traditional media like newspapers and digital media including blog posts?

7419 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs
Has the National Library received any complaints asserting that the National Library is not permitted to collect or allow unrestricted access to materials relating to Cathy Odgers or Cactus Kate, and if so what sections in the relevant legislation is the complainant alleging apply? ? Read more »

Dirty Media Loses The Plot – Cannot Move On

I am told?Fran O’Sullivan is having another of her world famous unhinged tantrums on Facebook via the closed group “Kiwi Bloggers and Journalists Association” pleading comments stay private within a group of over 200 then continuing her smears. ?Fran has been running her mouth off about me all over town at various functions now for more than half a year all because of one little mention in an email the Prime Minister released.

I have ignored the abuse. ?It has been very d…..ifficult. I am not a patient person.

I have watched with?interest at the spontaneous combustion over this time of someone previously considered to be unflappable by her peers. But enough is really enough.

Fran’s?running of her mouth gets back to me only?because people of any standing in the community and Beltway are bored?and confused?with it all as they were 10 minutes after this started,?wondering why she cannot just get on with her own professional matters. Quite frankly I too have had enough of her silly behaviour from someone old enough to behave more argh…. appropriately.

Perhaps Fran would like to explain to followers:

1. Why I was never required to actually appear at the Chisholm Inquiry?

Lets talk about that shall we?

Could the answer be because of her ridiculous reactive column in the NZ Herald the second she stepped out from the Inquiry as a witness, explaining and losing by republishing private correspondence? ?A move that many of her colleagues wrote to me privately rather aghast over. ?It was fortunate for Fran that I was not an actual witness to the Inquiry at the time else she would have had a large amount of trouble under s29 (1)(g) and (i) of the Inquiries Act 2013 and I would have laid a complaint over her attempt to influence the Inquiry and intimidation of myself as a witness. ?After this column was pointed out to those running the Inquiry they did not contact me again even slightly suggesting I appear at the Inquiry and I do not believe in coincidences. ?In a large part I suspect the lack of interest in interviewing me for the Chisholm Inquiry was driven by Fran herself.

I ignored the abuse, smears and personal inferences in the column.

Fran then had the temerity via Twitter after reporting she had shared a plane back from Hong Kong with me one chilly flight?after the Inquiry reporting period where you could cut the air with a plastic knife, to suggest I had been in New Zealand at least twice during the Inquiry period and had lunch at Antoines with Trish Sherson whom I have not caught up with now for more than a year. This was news not only to me as it was my first trip since the election but Trish as well who corrected her. ?Still the boiling went on.

I ignored her lies and tantrums. ? And her threats to people close to me that she “hadn’t finished with me yet”. Read more »

Comment of the Day [UPDATED]

Cactus Kate gives Twitter terrorist Giovanni Tiso, Keith Ng and all the mouth breathers?at The Standard a right good slapping after they all burst into print wailing about Dirty Politics and the state of Dirty Media.

Ck-slamming Read more »

Chisholm Inquiry – Four Answered Questions For Matt Nippert

Matt Nippert is keen to keep flogging the dead horse that is the Chisholm Inquiry. ?He asks four questions that he thinks are unanswered. No one outside the small selection on the Beltway could possibly care about this heading into the second 24 hours but…

Here at Whaleoil we are?particularly keen to help the infirm, bewildered and lazy so will answer them for Matty.

1. Who didn’t the Inquiry hear from?

Hong Kong-based blogger Cathy Odgers, ruled by Chisholm to have been part of a campaign to undermine Adam Feeley, was allowed to provide a “very detailed” written declaration in lieu of interview.

And former Hanover boss Mark Hotchin, despite his offer to talk from overseas via video link, was also not interviewed. At the time of the email the SFO was investigating Hanover, and the investigation was eventually dropped with no charges laid.

Cactus?provided a voluntary highly detailed 7,500 word statement to the Inquiry. ?She never at law even had to do that because she was never forced to appear at the Inquiry. ?Justice Chisholm accepted all of her?statement as evidence. ?The fact that Fran O’Sullivan called Justice Chisholm in her slag column?a “respected” High Court Judge should mean that his accepting of Cactus’ evidence should be the end of it. ?Cactus wasn’t called to the Inquiry formally for an interview most likely because O’Sullivan had already tainted the Inquiry with her vile attacks on three witnesses to it?as soon as she could reach a keyboard. ?Mark Hotchin wasn’t called to the Inquiry because Justice Chisholm already had all the information he needed to draw a conclusion. ?Along with Judith Collins he was completely exonerated in the Inquiry.

2. What information wasn’t considered?

“The absence of telephone records for Mr Slater’s calls is surprising given that both Ms Collins and Mr Slater confirmed that they phoned each other often,” Justice Chisholm said.

So here we have a journalist questioning a “respected” High Court Judge after the Judge has gone to the effort of conducting a very extensive Inquiry, breached ?privacy to gain evidence and Nippert?thinks that this isn’t good enough after 99 pages? ?If Justice Chisholm was unhappy with the evidence he obtained then he damn well would have asked for more. He wasn’t the sort of man who would have held back and the painful length of his interviews proved that. ?The?Inquiry was already intrusive enough anyone staying awake long enough to read the report should see that. ?? Read more »

A watershed moment


Fran O’Sullivan

I think I will have to calm Cactus Kate down this afternoon, this has never happened before.

It has always been?the other way around. Given the vagaries of time zones I suspect it may be difficult to get hold of her especially as it is Saturday, which follows Friday night.

Nevertheless, I really wouldn’t want to be the journalist who spilled her guts and published private conversations with Cactus. Who on earth would now ever speak or chat with Fran O’Sullivan in what you may have thought were private conversations? She has shown a willingness to publish those private chats in order to protect her own hide.

I suspect things are going to get messy.

The journalist sounds like she is protesting too much and covering her own arse.

I would have thought discretion was the better part of valour, since the very people she has slammed in her article are yet to give evidence (as witnesses, not as participants,?”a?distinction that will not be lost on sensible readers”) to the inquiry.

I note that O’Sullivan has relied on Cactus properly doing a search in Gmail for her name.

Bad mistake Fran, given that Cactus has a terribly short span of attention when it comes to IT matters because she has always had staff to do work for her, then I suspect she probably got bored after the third emails and thought to herself, “that’ll do, Fran will be OK?with this, time for?one of those famous Hong Kong brunches”.

O’Sullivan really should have checked her calendar when making a request that required concentration and accuracy…word for the wise…Saturday comes after Friday night, and everyone knows what happens in Lan Kwai Fong on Friday nights, which is why extensive brunch buffets on Saturday have copious quantities of booze soaking food.

I pity O’Sullivan for gobbing off in the media ahead of three other people having to give evidence to the inquiry. ? Read more »

Memo to Lucy Lawless: NFWAB

Lucy Lawless has been gobbing off about playing Cactus Kate in a movie on Dirty Politics.

Looks like Cactus got in first today while on holiday.


Read more »

Why We Need A Low Flat Tax Political Party

I don’t care about?any other policy when I vote than the comparative taxation rates. ?The rest of the election issues are woolly woofter nonsense to me. ?The lower the tax rate the better, which is counter-intuitive for someone in my industry as the size of my wallet depends entirely on people wanting to find solutions to paying these higher taxes. ? Lower tax makes us redundant.

Bill English loves tax. ?He must do as in his time as Finance Minister he has not once looked like making the slightest amount of tax reform that New Zealand needs to make it more internationally competitive.

So when ACT released their company rate policy to slash company tax from 28% to 12.5% it was immediately poo-pooed by the farmer from Dipton.

“You can’t open up too big a gap between the company tax rate and the personal tax rate. You just invite people to dodge taxes by setting up structures that make them look like companies instead of people.”


So the top tax rate on individuals is 33% and the company tax rate in New Zealand now is 28%. ?The trust rate is 33%. ?There currently is a 5% differential between a company rate and the top individual rate.

Thing is, all his farming mates (including himself) actually can and have paid less taxes by setting up structures that make them look like companies instead of people. ?You know, the married couple on a small farm who operate it themselves. ?Everyone knows what they are doing when they set up a structure in this way. ?It is to pay less tax.

But Bill of course doesn’t want anyone else to be able to do this.

Well I have news for him. ?Everyone who can do this already is. ?And the salary and wage earners in New Zealand cannot actually tell their bosses they want to be contractors and set up companies so they never will be able to take advantage of it.

ACT of course needs to now come out and say that they have taken the Finance Minister’s fabulous advice and propose that company and individual tax rates should be the same – 12.5%. ?That’s what their policy at the last election was and it was a damn good one. ?A growing proportion of New Zealanders are not even net taxpayers at all. ?Why should the already beaten up middle classes take the brunt of excessive government spending. No matter if it is packaged in Bill English blue or David Parker red?

Second Tweet of the Day



A political commentator from the radical right: on the Budget


No problems with disclosures from Cactus Kate, who writes for the NZ Herald

For political tragics, Budget days are the most exciting outside election days. The uninterested 99 per cent will remain more passionate about Queen’s Birthday traffic queues.

This offering is the “Pollsters Budget”, smelling as if National pollster Curia conned a committee of confirmed Labour voters to meet for pizza and $50, then appointed a moderator and banged together Billy’s Budget.

Election budgets should lob lollies to potential voters, not Opposition true believers. Again Bill English acted like the quintessential smug Kiwi farmer content with increasing wealth on unrealised tax-free capital gains. He bottled it.

English has morphed into a less witty Michael Cullen. That transformation is complete in accepting that Cullen’s Super Fund was not such a bad idea after all. Oh, to go back to the day English was secretly taped mumbling he wanted to sell Kiwibank.

Don’t worry Cactus. ?6 kids, 6 budgets. ?The message is clear: ?Unless Bill gets another baby on the way, this will be his last budget. ? Read more »