Annette King

A month ago I asked this question.

No one has been able to answer the question. Helen Kelly could be building her own wealth at the expense of the downtrodden worker, earning an excessive salary while encouraging workers to strike, forgoing their wages to fight some stupid union ideological battle.

Helen Kelly should come clean and tell us what she earns. She should also tell us how much she expects the union movement to fund her campaign to replace Annette King in Rongotai.

The National Party has its LNI regional conference this weekend in Napier.  Delegates should ask the party hierarchy what they are doing about local government elections in 2013, especially since National opponents hold the mayoralties in the three major cities.

In Auckland Len Brown is vulnerable for numerous cock ups and generally looking like he is incompetent. He wants to spend all sorts of tax payers money on things National doesn’t want to spend money on, and has put rates up excessively in many National voting areas. He should be vulnerable but no one in National seems to be doing anything to run against him. Auckland based board members Alastair Bell and Peter Goodfellow seem to have done nothing to find a competent candidate to take on Len.

Wellington sees the Green Mayor Celia Wade-Brown facing a tough battle with Annette King. National have no potential candidate lined up to run against the two left wingers.

In Christchurch Bob Parker is not a National friend. Gerry Brownlee called him a clown, and probably wishes he could have said what he really thought. Lianne Dalziel will win and win easily against Bob. Internal polling show Bob has negatives that are absolutely unprecedented, so unprecedented that the poller suggested that Boober Fraggle would beat Bob by close to ten to one, and not even an earthquake would save Bob.

Does National have any good mayoral candidates?

ᔥ Stuff.co.nz

A “super moon” will occur on Sunday:

A “super-moon” will be a novelty for New Zealanders on Sunday, but for the 12,000 people of Tuvalu it is a foreboding practice for a future where rising seas make their homeland uninhabitable.

On Monday and Tuesday super-moon king tides will leave much of the capital atoll of Funafuti virtually below sea-level.

On Sunday night the Moon will be 14 per cent bigger and 30 per cent brighter than any other full moon this year, the US space agency NASA says.

Known as a “perigee moon”, it occurs when the moon reaches its closest point to Earth.

The full moon will occur at 3.35pm on Sunday, New Zealand time, but will not be visible here until moonrise over New Zealand at 5.23pm.

With a clear sky, it guarantees Sunday night will be a bright one.

NASA says the super moon has a reputation for trouble, causing high tides, making dogs howl and keeping people awake.

The space agency says the best time to look at it is when the moon is near the horizon.

Ken Ring and Annette King will be predicting calamity.

ᔥ NZ Herald

Fran O’Sullivan explains why David Shearer will never deliver on his aspiration to be a one term PM:

Shearer will find it a tall task to persuade his comfortable colleagues that “doing the right thing for New Zealand” is worth sacrificing the amount of time their butts will be attached to the backseats of swish ministerial BMWs.

Let’s face it, the bevy of powerful Labour politicians that orchestrated Shearer’s leadership grab – the “anyone but Cunliffe” clique – have long held an attachment to power.

MPs such as Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff, and Annette King were also within the core group at the centre of the second-term Helen Clark Government that shamelessly dished out voter bribes to get back into power at the 2005 election.

Those bribes – expanding Working for Families and making student loans interest free – were always going to be fiscally unsustainable. Then-Finance Minister Michael Cullen knew this. But they got Clark her third term.

A leader who was prepared to go over the top in New Zealand’s best interests would also take an axe to this huge expansion of state munificence. But neither Shearer – nor John Key – will do this. Each man believes that stripping these bribes out would cost them the next election.

via the tipline

Maryan Street is asking why a medicine change wasn’t made 5 years ago by the government:

Legislation modernising rules on who can prescribe medicines to patients and also streamlining the process for approving new drugs passed its first stage last night – five years later than it should have, according to Labour.

The Medicines Amendment Bill, which amends the Medicines Act 1981, passed its first reading yesterday with unanimous support and will now be considered by the health select committee.

Labour health spokeswoman Maryan Street welcomed the bill but questioned why the Government was only advancing the legislation now – “Why not five years ago?”

Labour was teh government in 2007, and David Cunliffe was the Health Minister. Perhaps Maryan could ask him. Or perhaps Pete Hodgson, but he has retired of course…then there is Annette King who was Health Minister up until 2005…presumably she would know something of this.

She said that similar legislation introduced by the Labour Government in 2007 was blocked by National, which was “playing naked politics” at the time by “jumping on the bandwagon of people in the supplementary medicines industry”.

Now that is very interesting. National which was in opposition because Labour commanded a majority int he House somehow “blocked” legislation…really?

This is quite silly posturing by Maryan Street. Labour clearly commanded a majority and yet failed to pass legislation and somehow she is trying to blame National?

I can’t believe the Herald just prints her assertions without even challenging the veracity of the statements. I know Tony Ryall is a very effective Health Minister but not even his prodigious powers in opposition would have been able to overturn a parliamentary majority.

Last night Annette King tweeted about the cricket so I asked if she got her tickets off Trevor Mallard. This was her reply:

@Whaleoil heard of cricket on TV ,a comfortable armchair and a balmy Wellington evening? No ticket required. Still on the benefit?

February 17, 2012 9:23 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

@annetterongotai

Annette King

Nice to see the caring left showing itself again.

As a matter of fact Annette the answer is no.

But I have to ask…Do you feel that way about all beneficiaries?

I do so love politicians and Twitter #nfwab

I’m not sure what David Shearer’s advisors are thinking after the first week back in parliament finished on Thursday.

They certainly won’t be lauding it as a huge success, that is unless they are following National’s playbook on leadership minimisation that they last used when Don Brash was their leader.

Back then, after he rolled Bill English, National’s brains trust thought up a way to protect the thoroughly intelligent policy wonk who was in reality politically dim.

Their method was a  couple of tame questions focussing on areas of Don’s expertise and then more questions by other “stars” of the caucus would enable them to avoid the inevitable scrutiny that would eventually trip up the affable leader.

It didn’t work because back then Labour just ignored him and waited, and waited until the inevitable lack of traction and then pounced, bashing him up one side and down the other in the house. Don Brash had to change, he was forced into it by Labour.

Then came Orewa.

I don’t think David Shearer has got an Orewa speech in him. I just don’t see it. But right now he is being protected, or is it perhaps ignored by his caucus. The questions he asked in the house this week were tame, weak actually, ineptly delivered and ineffectual. Even Trevor Mallard refused to call him his leader instead preferring the term “colleague” in what can only been a calculated slight against the leader.

Labour’s caucus isn’t united. They simply weren’t cleaned out as badly as National was in 2002. The factions still exist. Now there is the oldies faction. You know they still have control because Annette King is still fronting against Steven Joyce on NewstalkZB. Trevor Mallard struggles to his feet to defend the young ones and Winston and Phil Goff is sitting there looking over Shearer’s shoulder with Darien Fenton scowling at us all as though we were the enemy.

Right along the opposition benches too is Winston Peters who after this week can claim the title of Leader of the Opposition, not because of his performance, which was dreadful but simply because Shearer ceded control of the opposition benches to Winston and his motley crue by being missing in action.

About the only things that David Shearer hasn’t done which Don Brash did is work his way through the skirt relentlessly, described his favourite dishes made with corned beef or washed his undies in motel sinks. Things are going to have to change otherwise Labour is ceding their role as opposition to the fools of NZ First.

Right now from where I am looking at it, David Shearer and Labour certainly look like Don Brash and National prior to Orewa.

On July 25 Phil Goff made an extraordinary claim in the media:

Labour leader Phil Goff denies he was briefed on the SIS investigation into suspicions that Israeli backpackers were spying in Christchurch. Goff is furious over the Prime Minister’s entire handling of the affair, including claims yesterday that the Labour leader was kept in the loop. Goff insists he was not briefed before, during or after the investigation and says he has texted the head of the SIS to complain about John Key’s comments… …He said the Prime Minister has to understand the responsibilities of his office and cannot “mouth off” without checking his facts first.

Phil Goff in trying to score a cheap political point against the Prime Minister was trying to say that the head of the SIS, Warren Tucker, had not followed the law. As I wrote at the time extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Phil Goff has form in throwing civil servants under the bus in order to score a political point. It is now well known that he lied about a foreign affairs briefing to make his claims about the “gone by lunchtime” comment. Now he was saying that a senior civil servant hadn’t followed the law. I thought I would try and find out and so I sent an email to the SIS on 26 July, just the day after Phil Goff made his accusations:

Dr Warren Tucker
Director New Zealand Security Intelligence Service
Box 900
Wellington

26 July 2011

RE: OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Dear Dr. Tucker

Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request a number of documents. If you require clarification on any of these requests, please do not hesitate to contact me on021 535 xxx.

1. Copies of briefing notes and/or documents given and/or shown to The Leader of the Opposition during any briefing held in March 2011 regarding Israeli nationals.
2. Copies of diary notes made at the time or subsequent to the March briefings to The Leader of the Opposition.
3. Details of any acknowledgement by The Leader of the Opposition of having read or received any of the aforementioned briefing notes and/or documents.

If you wish to withhold any documents I request that you supply me with a list of documents withheld.

I also request that you supply electronic copies of any documents released via email to me.

Regards

Cameron Slater

Little did I know the storm that was about to be unleashed. As days went on Phil Goff dug a deeper and deeper hole with his public pronouncements on the matter. He couldn’t get enough press and he thought he was onto a king hit against the Prime Minister. I simply watched and waited, I had no idea what was going on except that which was in the media.

On August 4 Phil Goff issued a press statement that accused Warren Tucker full out of lying. He was saying that he had lost confidence in him. I didn’t know at this stage that Phil Goff had been told by the SIS that they were going to release the OIA request information to me on that day. I hadn’t heard a word at that stage and after writing that post I went my post box and cleared the mail. In the mail was a plain envelope with OHMS on it…I was gob-smacked. I raced back to the car and opened the letter. In that letter was the response from Warren Tucker to my OIA. I was sitting on a bombshell. It took me 20 minutes to drive to the office, in that time I made some phone calls to media. I agreed to release the documents to Tv3, little did I know Phil Goff at this point was busy feeding the media himself.

When I got to the office I hastily posted a few questions for Phil Goff, I still didn’t know that he had been advised by the SIS that the documents were being released. Those questions were designed to let Phil Goff that I had the documents, that they were about to be released and that they proved he had been lying. Phil Goff had a choice when he was advised by the SIS about the document release. He could have concocted a plausible story about forgetting the details, that he was more concerned with the details of Christchurch and so it slipped his mind. Or he could attack me, the head of the SIS and attempt to brazen it out. He choose poorly.

At 6pm on 4 August I dropped my bombshell and released the documents. (SIS-OIA pdf) Tv3 ran the story as their lead item. Phil Goff went on attack. Meanwhile I was on NewstalkZB with Larry Williams just after Barry Soper had run Goff’s attack lines. My segment followed.

It was now clear that Labour’s attack lines were against me and against Warren Tucker. They weren’t interested in the truth.

Labour and Phil Goff had dug a very deep hole. The hole also threatened to swallow Maryan Street and Annette King who had been put up by Goff to run the attacks against John Key. Their words were now damning them in the face of documentary evidence that Phil Goff had lied.

Maryan Street said she would apologise if she got anything wrong. I have yet to receive her apology. At this stage Phil Goff still had choices, he could apologise and move on or he could die in the ditch he had dug.

The attacks against me were flying thick and fast. For some reason the left wing elements of the media, including Scoop, Barry Soper, John Pagani and to a lesser extent Chris Trotter have all tried to say that I should never have been given the documents. They all ignore the fact that I asked for the documents under the OIA and I asked for details that wouldn’t be secret, I was very specific and not only that I published the exact questions I asked.

Some in the media were upset that I was given the documents first, ignoring that all but one news outlet hadn’t actually asked for them. The one that did asked a week after I did and only at the prompting of Phil Goff and Labour. I guess the SIS figured that because I asked first I should get them first. I found out later that despite my request for them to be electronic they inf act posted them to me. I turned into a race between NZ Post delivering to me in Auckland and Stuff getting theirs delivered in Wellington. It was a race I had no knowledge of.

Instead of apologising fro making amistake Phil Goff decided to make an even bigger issue of the story.

Phil Goff said questions need to be asked:

Labour leader Phil Goff says questions remain over how a right-wing blogger asked the SIS for a confidential document about a briefing he had with the spy agency.

Questions also remained over why the SIS released the material with such urgency – four working days after receiving the request under the Official Information Act. Most requests are either rejected outright or take at least three weeks to action.

The simple answer to the how a right wing blogger asked the SIS is that I simply asked for it. I watched Phil Goff and then Annette King change the story about the briefing he says he never had, but documents prove that he did. I was angered that Phil Goff was using the same tactics that he did when caught lying over the Darren Hughes affair, so incensed I wrote an email. That email proved to be Phil Goff’s undoing.

Their attack dogs are unleashed. John Pagani describes the SIS and a rogue agency committing treason. He and other left wing commentator ignore the fact that the SIS had to follow the law.

After I wrote that email the law took effect. The SIS had to, by law, answer my request. The leftwing, Phil Goff, the media all needed to ask themselves a very pertinent question.

Do they think that the SIS should selectively answer OIA requests based on the political views of the person asking and the political views of the opponents of the person asking?

They never answered that question because where it leads to is where they were trying to smear the SIS, that there was political involvement in the SIS when they know very clearly that there was not. If they were to answer in the affirmative then they supported the politicization of the SIS.

Phil Goff has a proven history of leaking, he has a proven history of lying and he just keeps on keeping the story alive. Phil Goff needed to accept he forgot about the briefing, got it wrong, and was wrong to attack a senior civil servant. There was a point where I could have accepted that Phil Goff just forgot. That point passed when he insisted that he and he alone has things right.

But pause for a moment and think about what Phil Goff was suggesting. If he was right and he was never shown anything, or even briefed. Remember his first contention was that he was never briefed, then it changed to he was briefed just a little bit. But think, about what Phil Goff was really suggesting.

He was suggesting that Warren Tucker had falsified documents, made up minutes for briefings that never occurred and lied about it all. That really is too unbelievable. The alternate was that Phil Goff simply forgot about it, tried to make political capital, got sprung and then made some stuff up to cover for his faulty memory.

What was more believable? That the head of the SIS falsified documents and lied about meetings, or that Phil Goff forgot.

The sad thing for Phil Goff is that when confronted with the truth he continued to lie and continued to extend the lies. Now more than a few people have accused me of using too strong a description of Phil Goff’s actions. That they weren’t really lies. I could have accepted that at the start but when he continually insisted something didn’t occur when it demonstrably did, and then changes his story from ‘it never happened’ to ‘it happened but I never got any documents‘ and an attack on the integrity of a senior civil servant then that crosses over to lies. When he says he received different briefings and documents prove he received the same briefings then yes that is lying.

This issue, started with a little email OIA request proved without a shadow of a doubt that Phil Goff was and is a liar. I believe it was one of the defining moments of the year. On top of Phil Goff’s poor handling of the Darren Hughes affair this should hav been the issue that finished him off as leader, but for the cowardice of his caucus.

I love this great quote from Michael Deacon who is a parliamentary sketch writer for The Daily Telegraph.

The great privilege of the job is that, sitting in the press gallery (located a few feet above the Speaker’s chair), you see all sorts of small but instructive details that don’t make it into news reports. News reports have to be solemn, which means it’s outside their remit to mention that Chief Warden Balls spends half his time in the chamber silently mouthing a single line over and over at George Osborne – usually “So out of touch” or “Such a charlatan”. Obviously the aim of the tactic is to unsettle the Chancellor, although its chief effect is to make Mr Balls look like someone you’d edge away from in a bus shelter.

Heh, we have similar tosspots who do this here. Watch parliament for a while and you can see them doing it. Annette King was one of the worst..her favourite epithet for National MPs is “Tory Scumbag”.