Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Snowden and New Zealand, in reply to Paul Campbell,
does NZ actually have security clearances?
Not as the USA does, where you get vetted and it stays with you as an individual. Generally, security clearances apply only to staff of a government organisation and are the decision of the Chief Executive of that agency and only for that agency. For Restricted or Confidential, that's all you need. For higher levels (there are four - RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET) you may need to be vetted by the SIS. I'm not aware of how they manage this for individuals who are not government employees, but having a clearance at one agency doesn't mean you can see material at the same level at another agency, so I imagine non-employees are at the CE's discretion as well.
See Security in the Government Sector [pdf] on the SIS site for the mind-numbingly boring detail. [disclaimer - I didn't write it but I used to sit next to the guy that did]
-
Hard News: What rules are these?, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
Well ultimately the media interest is in the public interest. As annoying as the cry of “we’re only giving people what they want” can be it is ultimately true.
You mistake the public interest for stuff the public is interested in and they are not the same thing at all.
-
I'm surprised people still read it. I don't even bother picking it up in a cafe anymore. Stupid Fairfax paper is stupid.
But "Well, have a fucking chocolate fish." is going to be the line of the week! :-D
-
Hard News: Autism and celebrity, in reply to Russell Brown,
Actually, Seven Sharp was by far the best of the three. The Newstalk interview with Hosking was insane.
Well, Hosking.
-
Hard News: The sphere of influence, in reply to Matthew Poole,
I took it as Key saying Maurice was the only minister who had received permission to receive income other than his ministerial salary.
You could read it that way, I suppose, as I/S said. Damn, thought I had something there. ;-)
-
Hard News: The sphere of influence, in reply to Tom Semmens,
I wonder who Liu planned to give all the ventilation and air conditioning contracts to…?
That strains more than a straight answer from Key.
If Key said "only one minister has taken additional remuneration and that was Maurice", then money has been paid. But Liu's proposed construction venture never happened. So no money would have changed hands. If money changed hands, and Maurice was the receiver, it had to be for something that actually took place.
Donghua Liu may be a partner-beating bastard (that's for the courts to decide, BTW) but no-one ever said he wasn't a canny businessman - it was part of Maurice's reasoning for lobbying on his immigration status, after all - and I can't see him paying something for nothing.
I'm morbidly curious as to what Key was referring to, and I note that the rest of that question's supplementaries was clouded in rhetorical theatrics that almost got him ejected. Perhaps to divert attention from something that slipped out?
-
Hard News: The sphere of influence, in reply to Sacha,
seems to be the key phrase there
Which would open a whole other can of worms...
-
Hard News: The sphere of influence, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Check the Register of Pecuniary Interests? Williamson gets director’s fees from “Holyoake Industries Limited
Yeah, nah. I can't see how that relates to Donghua Liu.
-
A propos of none of the above, Key said something interesting in the House today.
Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister believes in high standards, does he believe that paying for access to Government Ministers, including the Prime Minister, whether it is through a so-called charity golf game or undisclosed attendance at the Antoine’s dinners, whether it is through Oravida or the systematic abuse of the “Cabinet club”, which contravenes the Cabinet Manual—does the Minister think that those are the standards that New Zealanders have a right to expect of him or his Government?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If you will bear with me for a moment, because this is a slightly longer answer, but let me start with the Cabinet Manual. Paragraph 2.54 makes it quite clear around what a Minister can and cannot do. They certainly cannot take additional remuneration unless I sign off on that, and only one Minister so far has done that, and that was Maurice Williamson. Paragraph 2.94 makes it quite clear that Ministers can go to fund-raising functions for their own electorate or for any other member of Parliament. If they are paid for that, they are meant to donate that. They can also—the Cabinet Manual makes quite clear—be at events where people pay political donations. They can talk about their portfolios, interests, and all of those things. That is because they fundamentally go in their capacity as an MP or a member of the party. But let me—if you will bear with me just for a second on these points—say that I am aware of a couple of interesting situations. I am aware of a situation where a market stand was established, where a fee of $1,250 plus GST was paid—
Was that a Freudian slip? S2.54 of the Cabinet Manual says, specifically:
2.54 Holding ministerial office is regarded as a full-time occupation and is remunerated as such. Accordingly:
(a) accepting additional payment for doing anything that could be regarded as a ministerial function is not permissible;
(b) accepting payment for any other activities requires the prior approval of the Prime
Minister.which would be the first time I’ve heard that there was money involved in Maurice’s transgression. And it’s not a simple numerical error on Key’s part, as the section under which I thought Maurice was biffed was s3.15 (c):
3.16 The style of the relationship and frequency of contact between Minister and department will develop according to the Minister’s personal preference. The following guidance may be helpful.
[...]
(c) It would clearly be improper for Ministers to instruct their departments to act in an unlawful manner. Ministers should also take care to ensure that their actions could not be construed as improper intervention in administrative, financial, operational, or contractual decisions that are the responsibility of the chief executive.Key’s press release was not clear about exactly which part of the Cabinet Manual Maurice had broken. I’m now wondering if that was deliberate.
-
Hard News: The sphere of influence, in reply to "chris",
His name is Neo.
ROFL