Richard Worth

ᔥ TVNZ

It is very curious that Labour has ‘slammed’ the Government for spending $6.7m on a special room at the new National Library to hold the Treaty of Waitangi.

Labour is slamming a Government plan to move the original Treaty of Waitangi as a frivolous waste of money.

Deputy Labour leader Grant Robertson said the plan is at odds with the Government’s economic commitments.

“This is a very large sum of money when we already have a room specially constructed to store the Treaty. The government tells us this is a zero budget.”

I say this is curious, because Labour didn’t like the incoming National Government’s move to scale back the massively expensive rebuilding project at the National Library… a project which the previous Labour Government signed up to…

The Government is to scale back the revamp of the National Library by cutting almost $40 million from the proposed budget.

The proposed $90 million redevelopment is not affordable in the midst of a recession, Internal Affairs Ministe Richard Worth said.

But doing nothing was not an option as water leaks and failing equipment put collections worth almost $1 billion at risk.

The revamp would now cost $52 million and would focus on increasing storage, fixing leaks, upgrading equipment and replacing critical infrastructure.

And this whole saga becomes a boomerang for Robertson, when you discover that he himself blogged that changes to save money at Archives and the National Library were not necessary:

 Whatever minimal cost savings might result, the upheaval will outweigh it.

Labour thinks the public have very short memories indeed.

John Armstrong talks about Mark Mitchell being asked to take a dive to let Colin Craig win Rodney to give National a life line. The precedent is when Don Brash endorsed Rodney Hide in Epsom, at the expense of Richard Worth, and Paul Goldsmith was told not to campaign in Epsom in exchange for a safe list position.

The difference between Worth, Goldsmith and Mitchell is Mitchell has a safe blue seat, he has a 20 year career ahead of him, and like most National back benchers it is in his best interests to see National go into opposition so he can get a promotion when all the senior people leave.

Richard Worth was dependent on Don Brash for a job after 2005 so he toed the line. Paul Goldsmith does what he is told and knew what he was getting into when he ran for Epsom. Paul has admirable ideological perspectives but this does not necessarily translate to vote winning. Mark Mitchell, on the other hand, has huge vote winning potential, a strong electorate infrastructure who are now all behind him, and a bright future that becomes only brighter if National loses in 2014.

It is hard to see Mark Mitchell take a dive. A guy who has a track record like Mark likes a scrap, and won’t shy away from one no matter who it is with. Peter Goodfellow is scarcely going to have him quivering in his boots. Mark is used to facing really scary people like armed offenders as a police officer and a whole lot of seriously bad, heavily armed arabs in the middle east, hell bent on killing him.

Really stern words from Peter Goodfellow or Greg Hamilton will likely be met with a polite “Get Fucked”. Far better that National looks to throw McCully under the bus if they really want Colin Craig holding them to ransom.

ᔥ NZ Herald

Audrey Young picks up on the whisperings of Nick Smiths mates and talks about his possible return to cabinet just two weeks after he resigned.

John Key’s reshuffle yesterday promoted Simon Bridges and Chris Tremain and leaves the way open for Nick Smith to come back if the Prime Minister deems he has been punished enough.

Frankly anyone who is touting that hypothesis is dreaming.

David Farrar lists a soft sell reasoning about why Nick Smith probably won’t return to the ministry.

He has however left off two other possible reasons:

• John Key is unforgiving of people who lie to his face. He axed Richard Worth when he caught him out and it was one of the reasons Nick Smith had to go. This reason alone would prevent Nick Smith returning.
• Who knows what other documents or letters of information is contained in the ACC files relating to Bronwyn Pullar from Nick Smith. The Privacy Commissioner and the Police are currently investigating and I can well imagine that numerous media agencies have dropped rather complete OIA bombs on the Minister’s office for correspondence between Boag, Pullar, and Smith, not to mention Collins. If even a single new letter emerges then refer to my point above regarding the lying.

Back in 2005 TVNZ had this to say about a poll they conducted in Epsom:

A One News Colmar Brunton poll shows Act leader Rodney Hide trailing in the critical Auckland electorate of Epsom and unless he wins the seat, the party faces oblivion.

In Epsom 44% back National’s Richard Worth while Hide is on 30% followed by Stuart Nash – the great-grandson of former Prime Minister Walter Nash – on 20%.

On these figures Hide won’t win Epsom and with Act polling around 2%, neither he nor his eight MPs will be back in parliament.

Last night TVNZ had this to say:

National leader John Key’s ‘cup of tea’ meeting with Act candidate John Banks may have been in vain according to the results of a ONE News Colmar Brunton poll.

The now infamous meeting was supposed to boost support for Banks in the Epsom electorate, sending a signal to National supporters that they should vote for Banks so Act could return to Parliament as National’s coalition partner.

However, a poll of 517 Epsom voters has National’s own candidate Paul Goldsmith out in front with 41%, while Banks has 30% support.

So instead of a headline saying that the cup of tea had fail to sway voters they could have said in fact that Act was in a better position than they were in 2005. In 2005 Act and Rodney Hide went on to win by 3000 votes in Epsom.

But hey the media have been trying to get rid of Act like forever.

Just exactly what sort of dirt did Howard have on Gerry and Simon?

Why did John Key support them?

How can someone be put forward for a gong when they were still in the job in February when nominations closed?

Is this corruption?

Why does National always reward its enemies?

What do Pike River, Howard Broad and the Red Zone all have in common?

How are they going to chase votes in Auckland when their party list ignores Auckland?

When will Metiria Turei stop telling lies and making shit up about MMP?

Was a Swiss Ball used while they were “hanging” together?

It took 266 days from Richard Worth’s resignation till the Police closed the investigation, so why are Labour calling for a quicker conclusion for Darren Hughes when only 73 days have elapsed since he fell on his sword/was pushed?

Why did they travel to New York together in 2009?

Why did Darrren Hughes use a ministerial car for the same trip with Paul Henry?

Why are tax-payers paying for Chris Carter’s travel for a job interview?

Why did Chris Carter tell anyone who would listen in the Koru Club that he spent 3 weeks with Helen on holiday?

Were you just a little bit sick in you mouth with the news?

Phil Goff admitted yesterday that he got it wrong on the Richard Worth affair.

Yesterday, as criticism of his management of the latest scandal grew, he admitted he had mishandled the Worth affair: “I think I’ve learnt one or two things about the complexity of these situations. I am going to be the first to admit that I was wrong in the judgment that I made at that time.”

Well, hindsight is always 20/20 so no surprises there. However it just smacks of desperation in saying that.

It does however focus on another issue. An issue that seems lost on many commentators and media alike.

If Goff is so stupid/dim/retarded as to not understand the complexities of an issue as simple as a rooting MP getting caught #pantsdown then how can he really expect us to ever vote for him to take the big chair and handle…oh I don’t know…let me a think…an earthquake…or perhaps a global financial recession…what about handling a coal mine disaster?

This is just another example of why Phil Goff is unsuited to lead Labour into the election.

The beauty of the coup plotters pitch is that when it all goes horribly wrong and they lose the election they can point to all this and say Goff, Hughes and King are to blame for the electorate turning off listening to Labour.

In today’s Herald Fran(k) O’Sullivan spanks Rodney Hide…hard.

Rodney Hide – dubbed ‘the little corporal’ by his growing number of opponents within right wing politics – would definitely meet his political Waterloo if a credible candidate stood against him for the Epsom seat at the November elections.

That’s the clear takeout from secret polling done by the potential backers of a new “alternative support party”.

The polling shows that former Auckland City Council mayor John Banks would easily trounce Hide. So, too would other alternative candidates such as former National Party leader Don Brash, and, Colin Craig, the third placed candidate in the recent Auckland mayoral race.

And to really rub salt into this purulent wound, let’s toss in Hide’s bete noire Winston Peters. According to the indicative polls conducted by South Island-based Research First, even the NZ First leader is likely to do down better with Epsom voters than their canary coated MP.

That is a factor which might persuade Peters to contest the seat to try to bring Act down in revenge for the merciless campaign that Hide waged against him just before the 2008 election.

I’m not convinced that John Banks is even contemplating standing, though I do understand that he and Don Brash are busy fundraising and seeing the same donors that Peter Goodfellow has neglected the past couple of years. On who’s behalf, I’m not yet sure, but I am sure it is happening.

In the circumstances, Hide should do the decent thing and clear the way for a credible candidate to stand in Epsom for Act. But my sources suggest that Hide’s colossal ego is such that he is more likely to want to do down in a heap than put Act first.

Banks would stand “in a heartbeat” if Act asked him to do so, says one well-placed intermediary.

Brash – who had gone to cover in Hawkes Bay – was staying clear of the speculation ahead of his own speech to the conference today. But he’s recently been pressured by a number of players – including former National finance minister Ruth Richardson – to re-enter the political fray. He’s very tempted (not that he would need much seduction) as he believes the Government should be doing much more to get the economy on the right track.

The big question facing Banks, Brash, their allies and backers is whether they can reach an accommodation with Act or whether they should go ahead with the new party. Act is an established – if damaged brand.

It has a constitution and a membership base; not all its financial backers have deserted it.

I’m not sure who Fran(k) is talking to, especially with the “in a heartbeat” comment because the people I have spoken to who know John well say this simply isn’t the case. For John banks to stand in Epsom would mean a massive falling out between him and Aaron Bhatnagar. Aaron is the presumptive candidate for National in Epsom being the current electorate chair and National not having a representative for Epsom since Richard Worth fell on his sword.

I think that Banks and Brash though may well have poached the financial backers of Act. I am also pretty sure that banks and Brash know that electorally they are rat poison as candidates. They are both pensioners with Brash over 70. They also both know that their best years politically are behind them.

Colin Craig though is a whole new kettle of fish.

When Labour first got wind that Epsom voters were being polled over whether they should vote for Hide or Banks, Banks denied any knowledge of the phone poll.

In fact, it was Craig who commissioned the December polling. Respondents who identified themselves as centre-right or swing voters were asked if they were in favour of a new partner for John Key in place of Act, “given Act’s decline in popularity and internal problems”. The upshot was that just over 50 per cent either agreed or strongly agreed with the need for a new partner. About 22 per cent were in the disagree or disagree strongly camp.

Another question asking all poll respondents to rank their preferred leader for a new party in place of Act, put Banks at the top with 37 per cent. Craig had 27 per cent, Brash 21 per cent, Peters 16 per cent and Hide was on 14 per cent,

Colin Craig has got money, he has got business skills and had he obtained good credible political advice may well have given Len Brown a decent run for his big corporate money. Colin Craig is certainly best placed to take a truly independent campaign to the streets of Auckland and have a better than even chance of tipping out Len Brown, who is proving to be as useless, if not more so than Dick Hubbard. I’m not sure that running for parliament is the right thing for Colin Craig but I reserve judgement until I see who else he has enlisted for support.

If that support is a bunch of disaffected Act loonies then his campaign will be doomed. There is room for a decent, right of centre party of principle, there isn’t one for a loony fringe of collected single issue drum beaters.

One thing is certain though, unless Act can connect then their days are numbered. This much Fran(k) has right.

It has got to be the most embarrassing story of the year for the bumbling goof Phil Goff.

Last year when Bill English was caught “Double Dipping” (within the current rules I must add) Labour and Phil Goff attacked him. Phil Goff said that he would “lead by example”. They continually taunt English in parliament about his “Double Dipping”. Red Alert constantly brings it up, as does their propaganda machine and paid lap-bloggers also known as “The Standard”. And yet here we have “The Standard” saying that it is okay for Phil Goff to rip off the tax payer. They need to rename themselves as “The DOUBLE Standard”. What a bunch of wankers they are. If it is good for one it is good for all.

So it was with interest today that we see that Phil Goff is literally dripping with hypocrisy. For the last year and a half, him and his Labour flunkies have been attacking Bill English despite him STOPPING his double dipping and all along their inept, bumbling leader has been double dipping the entire time. In fact the hypocrisy of it all reeks so bad that I feel I need to put a peg on my nose to try and avoid the stench.

Good on TV 3 for looking in to it and reporting it.

What pisses me off the most is that Goff is defending it saying that he is doing nothing wrong and that it is within the rules. Well excuse bloody me but what the hell were they hammering English about it for then if it not wrong. I am sick to the back teeth of these wankers and their bloody double standards.

I hate to say this since he is doing so well…for National… but it is time for Phil to piss off. He is well passed his used by date. He needs to quit now and stop wasting taxpayer money.

If Labour had any balls they would get rid of him. Their attacks against double dippers have now been destroyed because of their idiot leader. He has made a total mockery of their attacks and they have lost whatever moral high ground they ever had on the issue. How Phil can claim that Bill English is breaking or musing the perks for his housing arrangements, but that he is not rorting the system is beyond me.

I wonder if Trevor Mallard who wrote this blog on Red Alert about Bill English needing to stop taking the housing allowance will now demand the same of his leader for his double dipping?

I wonder if this latest incident of Phil Goff’s along with his pathetic poll ratings will finally see Labour ditch him before the election. Surely the Labour caucus will be pissed about this.  Somehow though I suspect not. They are the kings and queens of double standards as this latest incident and Phil Goff’s response shows.

If I was Goff I would jump before I was pushed. Pansy Wong resigned when caught out, so did Richard Worth, will Phil Goff?

Add this term to your political lexicon.

Political Necrophilia

(pə-lĭt’ĭ-kəl nĕk’rə-fĭl’ē-ə) also nec·roph‘i·lism (nĭ-krōf’ə-lĭz’əm, nĕ-)

n.

1. Obsessive fascination with political death and political corpses.

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state and politicians or issues that are dead to the public.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: “Calling on the auditor-general to investigate details of an MP who is dead politically “ .

Also known as “cuddling the corpse“.

Labour and especially Pete Hodgson, ironic as he is almost a political corpse himself,  just can’t seem to get it through their heads that the Pansy Wong issue is over. She has resigned, she has gone from parliament and the stench of her corpse is now stinking up them and not National. They did the same with Richard Worth and in fact keep bringing him up.

National has learned that when political meat goes off it is best to chuck it out the back-door. Labour however just seem to want to pick the corpse up and take it home. There comes a point though when cuddling the corpse becomes political necrophilia and you end up stinking of the dead yourself. That’s when corpse rooters usually get sprung, when the stench of the decomposing body starts to stink up their joint and their clothes and the stench pervades their own body.

They should beware of Political Necrophilia.

National are spinning the message voters don’t care about Pansy Wong’s travel scandal, or minor things like this. They are right on the smaller issue of the travel scandal, but wrong about how this matters.

John Key talked extensively through 2008 about mood and feeling and how important that was to change a government. This mood and feeling does not come about by accident, unless the opposition is useless and cant smack up the government.

What changes momentum rapidly is a view that a government is unethical. It is a mood swing that is hard to reverse, and a good opposition bashes away with seemingly small scandals that build this mood.

National may think that guys like Hodgson are total arseholes going on about stuff that doesn’t matter. This is insular thinking that will bite National, as there will come a time when there are enough scandals to make the swinging voter think National are unethical, and they might as well give someone else a chance. The next lot will suffer from the same process, essentially because politicians are stupid and do dumb things.

Richard Worth, Pansy Wong and Phil Heatley have all eroded a little of National’s credibility. So will the next scandal, and the one after that. Then comes the tipping point when voters think it is time for change.

In line with that I see that the Law Commission has recommended and John Key has agreed that an independent body should be set up to administer MPs salaries, perks and entitlements.

Prime Minister John Key has moved to give the Remuneration Authority more control over setting MPs’ perks and entitlements after a further call for an end to the days of MPs having control over their own entitlements.

Mr Key announced the government would introduce a law change to give the Remuneration Authority control over setting MPs’ entitlements beyond the base salary.

This will go some way to alleviating the fox in charge of the hen-house arrangement that currently exists. Predictably, since he is totally out of touch and too full of his own importance, Lockwood Smith hasn’t taken kindly to the loss of control.

The report says Parliament’s Speaker, Lockwood Smith, has “real reservations” about an independent body setting MPs’ entitlements.

“He is particularly concerned that an independent body would not understand the needs of Parliament,” it says.

“His strong preference would be to continue to use the mechanism of the Speaker’s Directions which are flexible, easy to amend and draw on the experience of the Speaker.”

Sir Geoffrey said the report carefully reflected Dr Smith’s view “but we don’t agree with it”.

Sometimes I despair at Lockwood’s pomposity, talking about the “needs of Parliament” like they are “special needs”. Given some MPs are indeed challenged maybe he is a little bit right on that. Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a man i seldom have any time for, though, has another little surprise for Lockwood Smith.

The commission also says the Parliamentary Service, which makes payments to MPs, should be opened to the Official Information Act (OIA).

This has been previously rejected as well, although parties have started voluntarily issuing details of their MPs’ expenses.

“While the move to greater transparency is commendable, and provides more information about the total spending of MPs, in some respects the disclosure still lacks transparency,” it says.

“The figures do not distinguish between domestic and international flights, or separately identify travel paid for an MP’s spouse or partner and dependant children…clearly, a voluntary regime is not the same as a statutory requirement.”

What a splendid idea. Pity Lockwood Smith didn’t listen to me in the Koru Club a couple of months back when I suggested that if he wanted to become a great Speaker he would do exactly that. He didn’t listen and now he won’t be a great Speaker. Now it is Sir Geoffrey Palmer that will take the kudos and the credit for the suggestion of opening up Parliamentary Services to the OIA.

These are all steps in the right direction, even though old troughers like Lockwood Smith have opposed them tooth and nail. The bring greater clarity and greater transparency to parliament. But none yet have taken up the suggestion to have an Independent Commission Against Corruption. This would be the ultimate step in cleaning up parliament of troughers and rorters. it is a step that needs to be taken. here in New Zealand we have the Speaker handling an inquiry into rorts like Chris Carter, three suits Clayton Cosgrove, Richard Worth, Pansy Wong and Phil Heatley. In Australia they have the ICAC.

The Labor MP for Drummoyne, Angela D’Amore, has been sacked as a parliamentary secretary, but the Premier is refusing to call for her resignation from Parliament after the corruption watchdog found she acted corruptly in falsely claiming thousands of dollars in entitlements for two staff members.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption is also recommending that the Director of Public Prosecutions consider bringing charges against Ms D’Amore, who served as parliamentary secretary to the minister for police and the minister for environment, for two offences of misconduct in public office.

The commission found Ms D’Amore and a staff member Agatha La Manna “engaged in corrupt conduct by falsely claiming sitting day relief payments”.

It recommends “action be taken against Ms La Manna as a public official with a view to dismissing, dispensing with or otherwise terminating her services”.

There is a huge difference between how our parliament handles rorters and how Australia handles them. We seriously needs such a commission here, and we need its purview to be over Parliament and all local bodies and the state sector. I’d relish an ICAC looking into Len Brown’s appointments processes for CCO boards.  If John Key can move that which was previously under the control of parliament and the Speaker to an independent body then why not this step? If the Law Commission can see merit in opening up Parliamentary Services to the OIA then why not an ICAC?

Clarity, transparency and sunlight will give us a much better democracy.