Polity: Saudi sheep: Misappropriating taxpayers' money
153 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Auditor-General Lyn Provost will carry out an inquiry into the Saudi sheep bribe. Does this mean that Murray McCully will finally have to front up and actually answer the difficult questions?
If the recent online sacrificial slagging of McCully from those who habitually employ the PM's rectum as a pulpit is any indication, yes.
-
Amidst the numerous calls for McCully to stand down, one Rachel Smalley disagrees because standing MM down might make NZ look bad.
The deal looks messy. The deal looks murky. It appears we have paid what amounts to a bribe, but we shouldn't risk tarnishing our international reputation until we know for sure.
I'd humbly suggest that McCully's bribe, that dodgy 'invoice' and the other backroom antics surrounding this affair have already tarnished our country's previously enviable reputation for honesty and transparency.
Could Smalley be gunning for Mike Hoskings' job? Or maybe a nice, safe government PR role? Because all going well, McCully's department will surely be looking for a fresh team of spin doctors in the very near future.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
It's a pretty weak call she's making. It amounts to "he shouldn't stand down...yet".
But her reasons why beyond the obvious thing about presumption of innocence are very poor. Does it tarnish reputation to actually have dirty dealers held accountable? I don't think so - I think it does the opposite.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
It's a pretty weak call she's making. It amounts to "he shouldn't stand down...yet"
And that's the entire article. Almost a radio soundbite. Blah blah blah blah Murray McCully ok blah blah blah, I cant read documents blah blah Auditor General can blah.Nothing to see here, have I written 100 words yet? What a piece of shit journalism.Quite surprised she didn't blame Labour. She's getting way up there with Hoskings and to be worried about our reputation in the World? Well, I think our largest Newspaper is evidence of reputation out the window way back.
-
If McCully gets done for corruption, what probability he’ll take a number of his colleagues and apostles down with him, whether by accident or design?
-
chris, in reply to
I’d humbly suggest that McCully’s bribe, that dodgy ‘invoice’ and the other backroom antics surrounding this affair have already tarnished our country’s previously enviable reputation for honesty and transparency.
Not to mention the absolute facepalm of an effort to adequately vet the delegate our country sent to assume presidency of the UNSC. Beforehand.
As our foreign minister, his profile is significantly heightened overseas given our role on the UN security council. I think it would be damaging to our reputation if McCully was stood down.
Indeed…
-
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
Another East Coast Bays by-election?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_Bays_by-election,_1980
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Not sure if you are aware Katharine but below the response box is info how to link stuff. It has other ideas as well which can be really helpful. Your post above for example could look like
-
chris, in reply to
I do like a suggestion up some thread earlier that simple words like “Is that the truth John? when he obfuscates and downright lies may just be quite powerful because he can always be called on his bullshit in the future from anyone. Trouble is, we need the media doing it.
While I appreciate the intent, asking an evasive individual questions strikes me as veering ever closer to Einstein’s “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. He’ll evade that one and he’ll evade being called on it.
I can’t quite fathom why members of the opposition keep directing questions at him at all, it strikes me as a masochistic exercise. Obviously the media will still ask him questions, but they’re able to do so beyond David Carter’s oversight. Why not simply stop asking Key, Joyce, English, Brownlee, Guy and McCully anything, they’re all economists of truth. Why not instead play The Weakest Link and attempt to isolate less mendacious members, members with some semblance of a moral compass, find issues (there are enough around) related to them and focus more energy directing questions at them?
At the end of the day, John Key is not only proficient at evading questions, he actually appears to get off on it, on the attention and on the side step. That’s his thing, so why not attempt to starve him of oxygen in that room?
When the go-to response to perfectly reasonable questions (4:24) is derision…
Does he regret his pledge that he would’nt let quote New Zealanders become “tenants in their own country”? If not why has today he refused to stand by that statement. Is it because he’s ashamed of selling out New Zealand by rubber stamping every overseas buyers’ application for the last four years?
-
chris, in reply to
It doesn't strike me as entirely untoward to suggest a change of tack.
-
Sacha, in reply to
perfectly reasonable questions
if a supplementary question has more than one part, the Minister only has to answer one. Which predictably is what he did.
So, no, asking a question like that is not reasonable - it's a wasted opportunity and utterly stupid behaviour that Labour shows no sign of improving on.
It doesn't strike me as entirely untoward to suggest a change of tack.
Amen. They need their heads banged together.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Why not simply stop asking Key, Joyce, English, Brownlee, Guy and McCully anything, they’re all economists of truth. Why not instead play The Weakest Link and attempt to isolate less mendacious members, members with some semblance of a moral compass, find issues (there are enough around) related to them and focus more energy directing questions at them?
Agreed ,good idea, shall I suggest it to them or do you want to?
-
chris, in reply to
if a supplementary question has more than one part, the Minister only has to answer one. Which predictably is what he did.
Thanks for the knowledge Sacha.
-
chris, in reply to
Agreed ,good idea, shall I suggest it to them or do you want to?
You are more than welcome to Sofie, it’s not that I’m lazy it’s that it’d take me a week of deep breathing to find the appropriate tone, plus you have rapport.
-
Sacha, in reply to
have learned some of the strange rules by watching #nzqt more times than is healthy. :)
-
izogi, in reply to
Alfie:
I’d humbly suggest that McCully’s bribe, that dodgy ‘invoice’ and the other backroom antics surrounding this affair have already tarnished our country’s previously enviable reputation for honesty and transparency.
Suzanne Snively of Transparency International was on Morning Report yesterday morning saying exactly this, as I understood it.
BenWilson:
Does it tarnish reputation to actually have dirty dealers held accountable? I don’t think so – I think it does the opposite.
Same here. I’ll happily acknowledge that it’s not always possible to keep corrupt people from power all the time, but to me it’s what’s done when it’s discovered which makes the difference.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
So, no, asking a question like that is not reasonable - it's a wasted opportunity and utterly stupid behaviour that Labour shows no sign of improving on
That particular question was put down and transferred with much ado about Key avoiding it, which left Andrew Little trying to get it in via a supplementary of NZ First, which was unfortunate. Yes, Key squirmed past it, and yes, double barrelled questions don't work however the Speaker allowed Key to not answer any of question 3 by allowing the transfer when Key is sitting right there. It was about a pledge Key made not the associate Minister of Finance. Why is that ? Key is the "go to guy" the media love to have an opinion from, of which the pledge had strength because it was Key. Little had no opportunity.
The one thing that question revealed yesterday was that it appeared that Key wouldn't defend his pledge in the House at question 3 or knew nothing about details reflecting his pledge to be a crock.Either way it said a bit shifty. -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Ok, done that but any tone you express is completely understandable and frustration is often the good cause for emails. Sacha ,on the other hand can appear to be reliving his punk days where head bangin' was the norm . Not sure that's pro active though. ;)
-
Alfie, in reply to
Does it tarnish reputation to actually have dirty dealers held accountable? I don't think so - I think it does the opposite.
As an immediate effect perhaps. But in the long term it would surely discourage other dirty dealers and incentivise greater honesty for all those in public service.
-
chris, in reply to
Thanks for doing that Sofie, that is awesome. Another bugbear I have, related to protocol, is the indulgence that is members being allowed to ask questions of other members from within their party, as can be seen in that same clip where Jami-Lee Ross asks his party leader John Key about the flag. Surely he could just pop along to John’s office after hours. Perhaps it serves a useful function but from the limited examples I’ve seen it’s only ever been used as a platform for propagandizing in taxpayer time. If I were in opposition I’d be ejected from the house repeatedly on such occasions for heckling them to “get a room”.
On the topic of the flag though, John Key’s Stuff article today: Silver fern on flag would represent who we are. He talks about democracy and seems to have confused our country with a sports team, but he does take great pride in not having worn or flown our flag at the match:
Last Saturday night I wore a New Zealand Rugby Union tie with a silver fern on it.
On my lapel I also wore a silver fern because it, to me, symbolises this country that I love and so proudly serve.
The All Blacks’ jersey had a silver fern on it, and around me were more of them.
Though he’s not the type to wave a New Zealand he does almost appear to have thoughts about this:
Besides, it’s too much like Australia’s, especially when New Zealand is playing against Australia.
Without being able to count the stars, how would people know whose flag anyone was holding?
I don’t know about anyone else, but if I paid $50 to watch a footy match, it’s ideally to watch the game, not the flags, and certainly not to count stars. The flags are for those who feel pride waving them and they tend to know exactly how many stars the flags they’re waving have, because they’re waving them proudly. The fern John is sporting is not a symbol of our country but sports branding, a logo of the sports team the non-star-spotters among us are there to witness. For our Prime Minister, the silver fern, not the New Zealand flag symbolises this country that he loves and so proudly serves. God defend Rugby and so on and so forth.
Most interesting about this article is that at the bottom it reads:
*comments are closed on this story
Any Stuff commentator knows the score, generally, the commenting facility closes and people are unable to add the debate but welcome to read it. In this instance six hours after comments are closed there are no comments to be found which is odd don’t you think? I know I commented, I know Ian commented, I know both our comments passed Stuff’s selective moderation process, they were published and they were viewable until they were closed. Now I’m not sure here if “closed” means “deleted” or “being re-moderated” but one thing is clear to me, we’re no longer just having debate and referenda about the flag, we absolutely have a PM actively campaigning for his choice of flags and the debate…maybe not so much. But long live democracy, and the All Blacks®/ Black Caps® logo. Who knows, if we can’t rinse an emblem from the New Zealand sports industry, perhaps we could pilfer something from the culture industry instead perhaps some NZSO or RNZB fishhooks. At least they don’t seem to be part of registered trademarks.
Whatever eventuates I hope they give that guy more articles because he's a miracle when he's editing himself.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Another bugbear I have, related to protocol, is the indulgence that is members being allowed to ask questions of other members from within their party
-
chris, in reply to
Thanks for that knowledge Joe. How would we feel about a rule that only allowed for questions to be asked across the floor?
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
How would we feel about a rule that only allowed for questions to be asked across the floor?
All I can manage is that what looks like a clear case of gaming the system seems to be time-honoured practice. Those better versed in parliamentary practise and the intricacy of standing orders might offer some insight into why we don't have such a rule.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
...but he does take great pride in not having
worn or flown our flag at the match:Surely he had a Driver's Licence in his wallet?
(there's another upgrade cost, over time...)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.