Food Nutters Aotearoa, Ctd

L-R Jerome Douzelet, Don Huber, organiser Claire Bleakley and Gilles-Eric Seralini

L-R Jerome Douzelet, Don Huber, organiser Claire Bleakley and Gilles-Eric Seralini

You must be joking – $119,000 total cost for the Food Matters Nutters Aotearoa conference? No wonder they put out the begging bowl.


Read more »

National continues to enable the despicable ACT rort

Let’s be honest. ?ACT has been on National life support for a while now. ? They could have stood a goat as a candidate in Epsom and it would have gotten in.

And now, National are making sure ACT are handsomely rewarded.

Act’s 32-year-old sole MP and parliamentary newcomer could be up for a salary of $226,300 and a sizeable package of funding to run his office and Act’s parliamentary operations if Prime Minister John Key gives him a ministerial portfolio.

Mr Key gave his strongest indication yet this week that Mr Seymour would get a ministerial portfolio despite being a new MP, because it would give support partner Act greater resources — “otherwise we’d have an MP pretty much on his own with an [executive assistant] and it is very difficult to manage that party-to-party relationship”. Read more »

Harawira gets taxpayers to pay for this election signs

Hone Harawira knows how to get a whiff of the trough and once he’s found it is in like a robber’s dog.

Here is one of his campaign signs for Te Tai Tokerau and it has the parliamentary crest on it…that means you and I paid for his election hoardings.

Hone - At The Trough Read more »

So what’s the fuss about NZ First Denis O’Rourke’s living arrangements?

First, let’s let Adam Bennett give the overview

A New Zealand First MP is the subject of a complaint to Parliament’s Speaker over the employment of a person who lives at the same property.

…?raised questions about the nature of the relationship between MP Denis O’Rourke and Stephen James, whom Mr O’Rourke employed after the 2011 election. MPs are not allowed to employ their partner, husband or wife in or outside Parliament.

So let’s?break this down. ? The property concerned is here

Screen shot 2014-04-06 at 5.55.48 PM

A Whaleoil Ground Crew member has been sent?on?location to confirm the situation and reports ? Read more »

Kim Dotcom’s cunning plan is so stupid you could pin a Che T-shirt on it and call it Martyn

Kim Dotcom’s big plan is to collapse the Internet Party if they don’t get near 5% and “gift” their voters to which ever party buys their favours and support by acceding to their yet to be revealed policy platform.

The man is an idiot…but then again he paid for political advice from Martyn Bradbury…who coincidentally is shilling this plan as a good idea.

This political genius…who also sought advice from Mai Chen (is the bill paid yet Mai?) and Don Brash and Alistair Thompson…losers not winners in other words…thinks this is a winning strategy.

Let me explain the little predicament for Kim Dotcom, the Internet party and whoever cuts this ‘special’ deal.

The plan appears to be to have Kim Dotcom spend the maximum amount of money during the regulated campaign period (this is problematic since he doesn’t actually pay his pay bills), only to withdraw and endorse the highest bidder if theInternet doesn’t reach the necessary five percent threshold? Read more »

LEAKED: Labour’s plans to use taxpayer money to promote policy

The Labour party continues to leak and this morning I have received documents outlining just exactly how the Labour party plans to echo their $800,000 rort with the pledge card and fund the promotion of their NZ Power policy from taxpayers pockets.

The documents are very clear. They state:

The Leader?s [Office] will provide a targeted mail drop to support upcoming public meetings on NZ Power. We?ll provide the target list, the letter, the collateral, printing and deliver the target mail to electorate offices.

In other words the costs associated with the promotion of a Labour party policy is to be billed to parliamentary services. They go further:

Note: Larger print runs are much more cost effective. So we?ll be looking to combine the print run of as many meetings as possible.?

Nice that they are trying to get as much as possible for the taxpayers dollar.? Read more »


Taking the piss

Someone is having a lend…$287,460 of NZ on Air funding for an online game?

Surely this is a pisstake?

Current NZ On Air logo

A taxpayer-funded video game aimed at educating young New Zealanders interested in a career in music management has “fallen completely flat”, according to some in the industry.

The online and iPhone game, developed by Auckland-based game studio InGame, allows the user to manage one of four Kiwi artists including Tiki Taane and Princess Chelsea, with the aim of getting the acts to stardom.

NZ On Air allocated $287,460 worth of digital funding in 2011 to develop the?Indie Music Manager?video game, which was released last week.

A manager at Auckland-based indie label MUZAI, Benjii Jackson, is severely disappointed with the game, saying it will give young people a “worryingly incorrect impression of what the industry is like”.? Read more »

An idea for Winston

Since Winston Peters is so keen on buying back the assets perhaps he would like to set up a fund to raise the cash to do so.

He could kick it off by paying back the $158,000 his party still owes the taxpayer.

MSM catches up with Blogosphere

? NZ Herald

The Herald has, shock horror, written about the Green’s dirty little rort of paying for signatures for the referendum….several days after several blogs including Keeping Stock and Kiwiblog wrote about it.

The Green Party has used $75,000 of taxpayer money to pay signature-collectors for a referendum opposing asset sales.

The party has used its Leader’s Office fund to hire the equivalent of eight fulltime staff members in an attempt to force a citizens-initiated referendum before the Government begins to sell state-owned power companies.

The payments were permitted under parliamentary rules, but it was believed to be the first time the fund has been used to gather support for a party policy.

The Greens spent $47,000 of their annual leader’s fund to pay signature collectors in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, and planned to spend around $76,000 in total.

Communications director Andrew Campbell said the party was proud to spend part of its $1.3 million leader’s budget to fight asset sales, and would consider the strategy again.

Presumably they would be ok with other political parties expending funds on all sorts of get the message campaigns…like..oh I don’t know…perhaps funding bloggers?

I agree with Graeme Edgeler:

Electoral law expert Graeme Edgeler said that while the Greens’ strategy was allowed, he did not feel it was appropriate.

“The reason that we give parliamentary parties money is so that they can keep us informed of what they’re doing so that they can effectively do their jobs in Parliament.

“Using the money as a direct funding of people to go out and get signatures is a step more than any other party has done to date, and that might be a little concerning if it is seen to be appropriate.”

When political parties’ spending was reviewed in 2010, Mr Edgeler asked for use of Leader’s Office money on gaining support for a referendum to be banned.

“If you’re not allowed to tell people to vote a certain way in a citizens-initiated referendum, why can you spend money telling them to sign their name on a petition to get a referendum? It seems an odd distinction.”

Will the National Backbench support a deal with Winston Peters?


The shameless jockeying for position for the post 2014 election negotiations are well underway. Winston Peters, who is known to be willing to sell his soul for the best deal he can get for himself, is looking like the king maker, and the current king is looking like he wants to do a deal.

But Peters took exception. “Tricky am I? I never worked for a company that took the American people to the cleaners and then went broke and got the American people to bail them out,” he said, referring to Key’s time with investment company Merrill Lynch.

No Winston, you led a party that failed to legally?declare?hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations, laundered donations through lawyers trust accounts, lied to a Privileges Committee and stole $158,000 of taxpayers money that has never paid back. We remember that, those are the things you and your party actually did.

And so the problem for John Key is not whether Winston will do a deal with him. It is whether the National backbench will vote with a Key/Peters government. Those I have talked to are mindful of what happened when Jim Bolger did a shabby deal with Winston to protect his own power, and the decimation that occurred within National after 1999. The party was left broke, leaderless, inept and with 20.93% of the vote in 2002, which contributed to another six years in opposition.

Principled back benchers are telling me they think Winston is corrupt, untrustworthy and will damage National?s brand for a generation, so are discussing how they will refuse to support a deal with Winston post 2014.