Sunday, June 20, 2010


To understand the rationale that has it that Minister's spending, paid for by Ministerial Services, is subject to the OIA while that of the 100 ordinary members, paid for by Parliamentary Services, is not.

I mean, how do we know that Anderton's bid for the Christchurch Mayoralty is not being subsidised in anyway, shape or form by the taxpayer ... not that he would ever do that of course.

Just wondering


Anonymous said...

Of course it's not being subsidised - its being completely paid for

Labour. Institution corruption since 1916.

Why isn't this trougher in jail?

Anonymous said...

I need help to. Please explain how tax cuts lead to a salary rise as quoted in this:

"Tax cuts also meant a salary rise of almost $7000 for a doctor earning $165,000"

Dear Journalist,
Salary and after tax take home pay are entirely different things. What are they teaching you these days.

mawm said...

for a doctor earning $165,000

cue - Dr bashing. Take into account that this would be the pre tax earnings of a specialist with about 3-4 years experience, working 40h/wk plus doing after-hour call, having spent more than a decade training and with a student loan in the order of 60K. And that he/she could earn almost double in Aus and have a very favorable tax efficient package.

The Veteran said...

Thank you Anonymous for your lesson in thread jacking.

Does anyone want to have a go at the original question?

pdm said...

Vet - it is logical to bring Parliamentary Services into line and place them under the OIA. The question is do Lockwood Smith, the best speaker in my time, and Key have the nous to do it.

Taking action immediately should be worth 2 or 3 points in the polls in the current environment.