1. What exactly did Brash get for his $30k?
2. Did Whale and Hooton get cash?
3. What was Lusk’s role in this?
4. Did Joyce contribute or was he just the fixer?
5. How much of it did Banks pay?
6. Was money only paid into NZ bank accounts?
7. What do Leonie Hapeta and Mark Mitchell have in common?
8. Is employing a specific consultant now a requirement to get a contested National Party selection?
9. Is there transparency during the selection process, ie did all candidates know of the consultant and his assistants roles on behalf of those employing him?
10. Does Whale get paid for all his endorsements of candidates?
11. What do Upston, Gilmore, Woodhouse, Lee Ross, Lotu Iinga, Wagner and Blue have in common?
12. Does Bill English realise that he is being undermined by these processes?
13. Did Goodfellow know his parties party’s consultant was moonlighting with Brash?
14. Has the team offered their services to any other party this year?
15. Did Key know of Joyce’s involvement, and if so did he tell his deputy?
16. What did Joyce say to Lusk last Wednesday night after they were rumbled?
More to come…………
Why doesn’t any of those questions ask about government policy? Have you given up that part of being an opposition, or do you just agree with everything the government is doing?
…ah yes the old “government policy” diversion tactic….ya never catch duplicitious rats with a bureaucratic policy.
Is it true, Don Brash’s Don’t go there. Trevor
Yeah that old trick where you try and lull the opposition into talking about their views on government policy. You got me. >_>
Why do right wingers keep running the same line, an this and othe blogs? Is it the result of a mass email out?
In doing this, why do they ignore all the questions and criticisms of NAct policies raised weekly inside and outside the House by Labour and other oppositon parties?
Why do righties keep raising these questions about not dealing with policies, instead of dealing with the issues and/or questions raised about democratic processes, underhand dealings etc?
In doing this, why do they keep ignore the policies and policy directions/outlines already launched by Labour; eg No asset sales, King on politices for the wellbeing of our children, Cunliffe on economic & financial policies…. etc, etc?
@Carol, because us “right wingers” are proud of our government policy. We think they are doing a tremendous job and are looking for a chance to debate the opposition on those issue. Most of us aren’t interested in feral politics, so don’t engage in that line of debate.
Also note, we do get engaged with the stop asset sales posts, they are some of the most commented on posts.
15. Does the former Minister of Education know how to use apostrophes? Party’s not parties
Has a group of right wingers set up a local version of Crosby/Textor, and are offering their nefarious expertise to politicans or would be politicians for a large fee? Does this also involve paying some people to keep their mouths shut and not rock the boat?
Oliver
What I want to know is half of this true??
This really is shaping up to be Hollow Men II, the buy out of the National Party.
Because it suits them to do so Carol. Labour puts out information on its policies every week – but that doesn’t help them attack Trevor’s questions. So they ignore it.
This is important because the right wing commentators don’t want to get into discussing the staggering lack of democracy involved in a political party changing leader owing to a Corporate takeover. Who funded it, and the associated question of who Brash’s policies, should he get into cabinet, will favour.
Just looking at the timetable. By the time Brash’s leadership of the ACT party came up for a vote, he had already used the money of his backers to browbeat the caucus and party board into accepting him. It was all over, a done deal, except for the back stabbing of Heather Roy and other minor details.
At which point, Brash thought he would join the ACT party after all. The membership of the ACT party had no actual say in it. Democracy? Yeah right!
Sweet just attack me then, rather than the points I raise then, that’s cool.
@mickysavage
Who cares outside the very small number of political tragics that inhabit blogs like this.
It’s as ludicrous as the H-Fee fiasco if you think this is going to connect with the voting public.
Glad you think it’s cool now go away please and don’t come back. You’re a troll.
Looks like Joyce is lining up his ducks for the post-Key leadership contest.
I see it is being reported that Key might stand down next turn. NZ voters need to know that a vote for Key is a vote for Joyce – because Joyce has been succesful in installing candidates.
I take back what I said about Crosby/Textor. It’s actually starting to look more like NZ’s version of the Watergate Scandal. That brought down a president. So, I have two questions to ask:
1. Been any politically related burglaries lately?
2. Does it go to the top?
I am not sure what you are implying in (2) but be careful pal. I’ve never received a dollar from Brash – not in 2003 and not now.
Not a dollar Matthew? Cunning sidestep. Have you received more than that in cash or goods or other advantages?
No consideration of any kind, ever.
Ah the question is the answer!
I guess the implications in your questions Trevor is that under the blankets there is some fiddling going on. Act, Brash, Key, and others seem to be involved and after “Hollow Men”, I can believe anything is possible from this lot.
OK Matthew. Accepted.
Sure, sure Matthew we believe you just like we believed Winston never received any money from Owen Glenn or the racing fraternity…no money, no favours, no considerations, no government contracts…..
@ Oliver…government policy — “Prime Minister John Key says he does not think changes made to KiwiSaver in the government’s upcoming budget will discourage New Zealanders from entering the scheme.” ….here we go — another “nice to have” cut from the government of PROFLIGACY.
Correct – “no money, no favours, no considerations, no government contracts”
The only time I worked professionally with Brash was a couple of days for the 2025 Taskforce in 2009, and that was arranged by the Treasury. I have never received money or in-kind consideration from him or anyone associated with him for political purposes, ever.
I’ve spoken to Matthew and accept his word .
Oliver, I suspect National/ACT Party policy is not always the same as government policy.
For the sake of clarity, here are Dr Brash’s current and former company directorships. Asterisks indicate the Companies Office list him as a current director:
Ocean Partners Limited
Ocean Group Holdings Limited
Huljich Insurances Limited
Huljich Life Assurance Limited
RBNZ Registry Limited
Troika Family Trust Nominees Limited*
Oceania Dairy Limited*
Brash Family Trust Nominees Limited
Eljean’s Orchard Limited*
Brash Consultancy Services Limited*
Brash Forestry Limited*
Huljich (New Zealand) Limited
Huljich Limited
Huljich Securities Limited
Oceania Milk Limited*
Oceania Dairy Group Limited*
ANZ National Bank Limited
Transpower New Zealand Limited
Huljich Wealth Management (New Zealand) Limited
Risk Reinsurance Limited
In addition, Dr Brash’s wife is a director of:
Brash Family Trust Nominees Limited
JL Consulting Limited
and is a former director of:
Brash Consultancy Services Limited
Brash Forestry Limited
oLIVER, CAN YOU LIST FOR ME THE NAT POLICIES GOING INTO THE 2008 ELECTION AND THEN LIST THEIR IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE POLICIES – oops Caps lock, sorry
I wonder how the Hujlich kiwisaver investors feel about the people supposedly overseeing their investments? Unimportant, distracted?
tracey, national promised tax cuts of $50 pw , which was then broken after the election. This budget will break a lot more
Trevor Mallard said
If that’s the case Trevor, why don’t you remove the allegation which you now accept to be false? Saying you believe him is great, but if the allegation is left there for all to see (who don’t get this far down the comments) makes your acceptance a little…ummmm…hollow.
Lots of great questions raised, nearly all of which are way beyond me. I’d love to know the answers to these and the previous sets!
I2
It is not an allegation. It is a question. And given that there appears to be a significant issue with the way that a political party with representation in Parliament was taken over it is perfectly appropriate and very important issue.
banned
Trevor, I’m with I2. Why don’t you edit the original allegation to exclude Matthew?
I’m with Micky. It is the reason that questions are more lethal than the answer.
Look how useful it was when “Is there a coup on the cards for Phil Goff?” Before long it was thought to be true though no evidence to the contrary. What goes around……
There’s a bit of a difference Ianmac; bloggers like the guys at The Standard, ClusterFarrar, WO and myself are not public figures, so at the end of the day our opinion means jack-sh*t.
On the other hand, Trevor is one of Parliament’s longest-serving MP’s, a former Cabinet Minister, and a senior member of Labour’s caucus, blogging on Labour’s OFFICIAL blog. He has made a serious allegation against a member of the public, albeit framed in a question, which he now concedes is incorrect. At the very least he should withdraw and apologise. Leaving the allegation hanging could be interpreted as his acknowledgment to Hooton being insincere.
Frankly, I think it should stay, and together with Mr. Hooten’s clear and unequivocal denial it makes it a powerful and useful exchange. Trevor’s comments make it quite clear he accepts Mr. Hooten’s word so that is a “win” for Mr. Hooten, for all to see.
For my part I have no idea what any of the questions are about. I took Mr. Hooten’s response to be genuine and truthful and Mr Mallards concession equally sincere.
I took Mr. Hooten’s response to be genuine and truthful and Mr Mallards concession equally sincere.
Agreed. Hooton wouldn’t be so stupid as to get involved in such complicity.
I think mickeysavage is on to it with his comment:
This really is shaping up to be Hollow Men II, the buy out of the National Party.
The Act coup was phase 1 of the strategy. Phase 2 is to get Joyce/Brash supporters selected as candidates. Phase 3 is to roll Key/English next term and install Joyce/Brash in their place. Now it takes all manner of people to get such a strategy in place and that’s where the money comes in. Follow the money trail!
I may not be 100% correct but it’s along those lines.
Trev, I consider this very dirty politics and in much the same vain as “American Bag-man” personal attacks such as “Chinless Scarf -wearers” and the like that we have seen from you and others in the lead up to elections.
However be aware – this time the opposition blogs run strong and active. They will have no trouble dishing out payback, and remember Whale’s favourite saying – about pigs and fighting.
These tactics are low and dirty – essentially you are accusing the right of corruption. You have already had Matthew deny that he has been paid anything. I would dare say you would be severly disturbed if you or or party were involved in undercover or illegal payments (but of course we know your potential co-alition Partner Winston was involved)
Trev – I suggest you clean up your act and cease the innuendo – or be prepared to have similar fired back at you. Do you not know how to fight clean any more?
Monty “I would dare say you would be severly disturbed if you or or party were involved in undercover or illegal payments.”
Crikey Monty. Are you suggesting that there are illegal payments involved? I had no idea in this case. Come on. Tell all.
Ah corruption, the very description the PM gave the former PM’s government… basically Monty, you are saying that smearing is ok if your guys do it and then you get righteously indignant when Labour does it?
“I would dare say you would be severly disturbed if you or or party were involved in undercover or illegal payments (but of course we know your potential co-alition Partner Winston was involved)” and your lot conveniently blamed and tarred the former PM, which would be like me holding the PM responsible for, say, Hone Harawira, you don’t accept that do you?
For my part I found it distasteful when National did it for over 5 years and I don’t like it when Labour does it. In this respect you and I differ.
Monty
I am not sure how you read this and related posts but the way that I read it there are significant issues relating to the takeover of a political party in New Zealand and the issues need to be investigated.
If any of the matters hinted at are true then this is big news and news that has to be made public. Our democracy deserves and depends on the utmost transparency.
As for your threats what are you afraid of being uncovered?
If answers are provided and there is nothing in them then I am sure that Trevor will move on. But he is obliged in the interests of our democracy to at least ask the questions.
Ian – I now know you are a fool. It is Trev using dirty tactics and based unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo that is making the allegations. Similar to the accusation “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” to the person who has never done any such thing. Ask the question and the mud sticks. Labour have tried this same dirty tactic in 2005 and 2008.
Trev – Clean up your act, otherwise you become fair game (and I don’t think the likes of WhaleOil will play to your rules)
C’mon Monty, were you out of the country between 2003 and Nov 2008?
At least Trev has the balls to front his own queries, National and ACT hide behind skirts, as ably demonstrated in Hollow Men.
…and don’t forget he’s being “tipped off”. He said so in a previous list of questions. Part 111 (I think).
Mickey Savage inter alia – I’m told it is not good manners to edit after published and Matthew is happy.
Trev will be judged by the voters , not these self appointed political busybodies like Monty, our very own Hyacinth Bucket.
If its so terrible , why watch?
Not Bucket gwwnz – Bouquet
@ Trevor
May 9, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Definitely in the interests of transparency.
We can see that MH distanced himself, we can see your response, and we can see the chronology of these exchanges from the times that they were posted. There’s a lot of information here and it’s best to leave it alone.
@ Sam and I2: what were you thinking when you asked for the originals to be retrospectively ‘edited’? That’s the sort of historical revision that went on under Stalin.
Just so you know, sometimes Lusk backs a losing horse… so he can’t be that magic.
Actually, sometimes the money backs a losing horse as well.