November 2005

From the Herald this morning we find that Working for [Other Peoples] Families has hit a spot of bother.

No, not from the right but from the left.

The Government has been forced into a court battle to stop beneficiary families making claim to $3000 a year under the Working for Families package.

In a landmark case, the Child Poverty Action Group has won the right to take legal action over Government policies it says discriminate against the 250,000 New Zealand children who have at least one parent on a benefit. 

Typical fucking socialists, not satisfied with a burgeoning welfare state they now want to extend the new state benefits of the middle class working to those already on benefits.In effect giving them a benefit for not working.

Bizzarely the Human Rights Review Tribunal ruled the group can legally challenge the exclusion of beneficiaries from a new payment which gives families an extra $60 a week from April.  The Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of being a beneficiary.

Looks like Liar-bour has told another porky, this time about the cost of Working for [Other People] Families.

The new name for this policy make well have to be "NOT Working for Families".

Gman has succintly laid out the case for Parliament finding David "Tennisball" Benson-Pope guilty of Contempt of House.

Firstly though he educates the buly-boy minister on the definition of prima facie which it seems that everyone except labour MP’s Margaret Wilson and the minister himself are aware of.

Just in case he hasn’t been advised of that here is the definition from the Oxford Dictionary of Law.

“A case that has been supported by sufficient evidence for it to be taken as proved in the absence of adequate evidence to the contrary”.

Oh and a little hint davey don’t call cops bozo’s they might just revisit your little outstanding prima facie case of assault.

Anyway back to the charge from GMan.

1. Benson-Pope was on Parliaments grounds. [Evidence here]
2. Benson Pope knew that he had a question for oral answer in Parliament. Ministers are not just politely requested to answer questions if they are in the parliamentary precincts, they are required to be there and to answer the question.
3. Mr Benson Pope admits that this dinner was not prearranged, but was held on the spur of the moment.
4. Foolishly, he subsequently seems to have not only admitted that he was on Parliament grounds, but seems to be positively gloating about it. [Evidence:
   "It (lunch) was a real neat experience, much better than being in the debating chamber," Mr Benson-Pope told Radio Dunedin.]

Thus GMan asserts by these actions Minister Benson-Pope has breached Standing Order 399 and in particular Standing Order 400 para (a), (r) and (s). I would also add (q).

Now if the Parliament can just stand up to Speaker Wilson we miught just get somewhere.

This blog has been following the debate over Maori representation in Manukau City for several weeks. Now we see a new twist to the debate as a rather odd South African man enters the debate.

You would think that someone who has lived in South Africa would despise any move that separates two groups based on race. Not Mr Alan Phillips – the former Cape Town City Councillor, now living in New Zealand actually supports the Manukau City Council’s moves to give Maori special privileges by establishing a Maori Standing Committee:

“If you look at South Africa, there are standing committees to address the needs of the disadvantaged,” says Mr Phillips. “In other words, you’re giving preferential treatment to people that have the same vote to raise their level, I’m sure the committee will do the same for Maori.“In South Africa, the needs of black, coloured and Indian people are put ahead of white people. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, but you need to raise the level of all South Africans in South Africa, just as you need to raise the level of New Zealanders in NZ.”

Mr Phillips is certainly entitled to his view, but perhaps he should be open about his past as a Cape Town City Councillor (1996-2000).

In the time that Mr Phillips claims he was a Councillor, the municipal sub-council that he sat on decided to increase local government rates in their area by an outrageous 19% in one single year (1998)!

But not only did they hike the rates up by this much, because of the incompetence of the Council in forgetting to get the munucipality revalued for 25years, the massive increase impacted disproportionally on black homeowners in previously disadvantaged areas. The very people Mr Phillips now claims he strived to protect.

This case of disproportionally hiking the rates up on black communities was taken to the Cape Town High Court. In Lotus River, Ottery, Grassy Park Residents Association v South Peninsula Municipality the court found that the way the sub-council rated the municipality amounted to discrimination on the basis of colour.

So what exactly does Alan Phillips stand for? Using undemocratic methods to give special privileges to Maori based on race? Or does he stand for hiking the rates up on low socio-economic areas by discriminating against them on the basis of colour?

Either way, this sounds like one poor confused bastard. I’d also like to know why he skipped the country to come to NZ if he thought he did such a great job as a Councillor?

Keep this guy away from public office!!

Poor old Helen sure is hating these new coalition arrangements. All Winston Peters has done since becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs is cause grief for the government, and done little to enhance its reputation. What’s worse is the joke that New Zealand has been made on the international stage.

But some smart journalist has decided to milk this situation even further by asking the PM about her thoughts on Winston’s performance!

Helen Clark swept into Malta for talks with 52 other Commonwealth leaders and after discussing the future of the world trade talks she then addressed concerns about Peters and whether he’s up to the job.

"I’ve had good reports on it in Apec…I think he’s really putting in a good effort," said Clark.

Now that looks all fine and dandy in text, but wait until you see the way Clark cringes in the video clip. Remember, its not what you say, but how you say it that matters.

I often watch question time in parliament when I’ve got some spare time, and there’s a few interesting things I’ve noticed recently.

Will blog about the rest later, but firstly, it’s obvious that the Benson-Pope affair sure has the government rattled. Judith Collins did a great job of winding Cullen up on Thursday, and he wasn’t even the minister answering the questions! When Cullen’s losing, he reverts to getting dirty:

Judith Collins: Might a poor child outcome result from taking a motherless 14-year-old child, who is living in a troubled home that is affected by family violence, then subjecting that child to having his hands tied to a desk and jamming a tennis ball like this into that child’s mouth, while a classroom of other children look on; if so, would he now like to take another opportunity to apologise to his victim?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you know what the point of order is going to be. The question assumed that the Minister was guilty of that offence. The member might care to demonstrate whether it is a physical possibility by putting the tennis ball in her mouth right now—it is one of the bigger ones around the House.

Judith Collins: The Acting Prime Minister has asked that I demonstrate that this ball can be put in a mouth. Here is the ball. He might like to show us by putting it in his mouth. It is a deflated tennis ball. It can be done, and it was done.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That is utterly outrageous, particularly from somebody who ripped off the Casino Control Authority in respect of her expenses overseas. The Minister is entitled—[Interruption] We can always make accusations in the House, can we not, under parliamentary privilege

Of course, as DPF has mentioned David Benson-Pope was conveniently meeting John Cleese to avoid any further embaressment.

Speaker Wilson get the muppet award today for refusing to send Rodney Hides privilege complaint tot he Privileges Committee on the basis that;

This is not a matter which which I can deal with.

For the Speaker to deal with a matter of privilege the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity and in any case before the next sitting of the House after it occurs (see SO 392). The matter of which you complain (an alleged misleading of the House on 12 May 2005) was raised at the time and was dealt with by me then. There can be no further “earliest opportunity” at which a matter of privilege which occured in a previous Parliament can be raised with the Speaker.

This speaker plays fast and loose with the rules and does so at the behest of the Prime Minister.

Speaker Margaret Wilson you are…..Janice.

 

Just the other day Benson-Pope was saying "I will be making no further comment to the media on this matter." in a forlorn hope that this issue would just go away.

However he has now burst forth in the media saying National and Act are using dirty tricks. Well diddums….you should have read the Police report that said there was a prima facie case to answer…..in other words they think that based on the evidence supplied thus far they reckon there is a case to answer that really should have been tested in a court but due to the passage of time won’t be.

So , given that with pressure or without the Police decided not to test this in court you now have to suffer the test of the claims in public.

Simply denying these things never happened doesn’t do you any good. Most Kiwis would have accepted you if you had simply said "yep I did it, I regret it, those were different times".

But you didn’t, you lied to Parliament and now you have included the Speaker in your duplicitousness (even though she is a duplicitous cow anyway).

So suffer. You tell lies, so does your leader and most of your caucus, so suffer. 

 

Sorry Winston, you have used up all of your chances with me.

You had your chance when you were in National but you didn’t like cabinet collective responsibility then.

You had your second chance when you formed NZ First and got into cabinet again. Again you failed to recognise that Cabinet colective responsibiltiy applied to you.

So sorry, you have used up all of your chances, best you shuffle off and retire as you are well past your used by date.