Saturday, October 30, 2010

A plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel

Shortly after Labour left office, the new National govt speaker, Lockwood Smith, apparently became a convert to "transparency" in MPs spending and opened it up to scrutiny. Naturally, the ex-govt's MPs had done most of the spending over the last few years, and the media spent months enthusiastically dipping Labour MPs in shit, much to the pleasure of Lockwood Smith's party.

Now that the media feeding frenzy has died down and it's only Dr Smith's party that stands to get dipped in shit for extravagant spending over the next few years, he suddenly finds "transparency" has become a less desirable property, and MPs' privacy has become very, very important:

Yesterday he reversed that decision because he said he was "troubled" by a "lack of integrity" in what was being made public.


Oh, there's a "lack of integrity" here alright, a big, fat lack of integrity. There's also a weasel sitting in the Speaker's chair.

UPDATE: Graeme Edgeler pointed out on another thread that the Labour ex-Ministers' spending wasn't opened up by Smith's transparency push, and such spending remains transparent. It was ACT MPs who got hammered for private travel spending.

11 comments:

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Try a few facts with your mueseli Milt. They won't choke you.

The expenses which no longer be disclosed are those of ALL present and past MPs. Nothing to do with who happens to be in government at the time.

Maybe you would prefer the perk be withdrawn and all MPs' salaries increased accordingly? The amount deducted from their salaries far outweighs anything travel concessions.

Stick you writing, mate. You're no good at maths.

kehua said...

Best damn Speaker we have ever had Milt. Read it and weep.

baxter said...

Compared with the previous travesties of Speakers the crone Wilson and the Great Gravy Trougher Hunt, Lockwood is the epitomy of Fair and Balanced. I do agree with John KEY however that all should be revealed... Where does Phil GOFF stand Milt, tongue tied again.

Anonymous said...

I would prefer all perks withdrawn, bieng an MP on a very high salary (compared to most Kiwis) is privilege enough.

Fluffy said...

Agreed, Smith has been pretty good as Speaker.

But then again, after the previous 9 years of having the Minister of Wine & Cheese, then the Wicked Witch from the Waikato Law School serve in the role, that wouldn't be hard.

Monkey Boy said...

yes have to agree - he bar wasn't left particulary high, by Wilson but Lockwood Smith has raised it - initially thought that this was a ploy to defuse controversy over MP's spending, but the details emerged and don't support that ideas. Having said that . . .

Anonymous said...

this move is kjustifiably viewed in those terms Milt, so quite rightly you have called this move cynical. Any moves to minimise transparency are a loss for the taxpayer.
You might actually argue that it was a co-ordinated program to get rid of the high spending hangers-on, so did Smith collude with Goff to get rid of the the Clark detritus?
Overall the transparency that the previous p[olicy enabled was a good thing, and so its loss is regrettable.

Anonymous said...

so his plan was to knife ACT rather than Labour detritus.... interesting way to treat your allies

Anonymous said...

Oh for FUCKS sake:

There's a huge difference between the institutional corrupt Labour party, which should be banned, its members * voters banned from ever voting again, and it's leadership jailed...

And the National party, which governrs for the best of "all New Zealanders"


I would prefer all perks withdrawn, bieng an MP on a very high salary (

They should follow Key's example and cancel all MP's salary and perks. Successful, productive MP's don't need the cash; and for the rest, we don't need 'em as MPs.

More to the point: do this at the same time you cancel every other benefit

Anonymous said...

assholes have their fingers in the till again with the housing rort changes proposed.
when will they learn that we the taxpayer have to live off our incomes, so should they. Why should pepole with a base income of 120k get a housing allowance. If they don't like the costs of upkeep for 2 houses, then don't become a parliamentarian

Psycho Milt said...

I guess if I got to decide my own working conditions and allowances, my conditions and allowances would be pretty damn good too. It isn't hard to spot the flaw in that approach from the perspective of the people who have to hand over the cash for it.