Gerry Brownlee gets it wrong

National is clearly under pressure. Yesterday on Morning Report (here - about 3m12s in), Gerry Brownlee said:

"..as she put it, um, accusing her government of being corrupt and telling lies. Well we haven't actually done either of those things..."

That's interesting, because in his speech to the Zonta Club in Christchurch on 7 August, Don Brash said:

"Corruption is not a word you use outside Parliament without being very sure of your ground. But I feel very safe, if rather sad, in pointing out that Helen Clark's Labour Government is quite simply the most corrupt government in New Zealand history."

Sorry chaps. You can't have it both ways. It's scandalous that the Deputy Leader of the National Party gets away with such lies.

Unless of course he just made a mistake, like his Mr Magoo-type leader?

Comments

[tim barclay]

Oh dear dear dear Jordan I am afraid in this whole sorry mess it is Helen Clark who is losing it. She just goes off in all directions like a demented catherine wheel. Giving Mallard a ticking off saying her heart sank when he did it has to be the biggest whopper in all this mess. John Tamahere says she loses the plot and we are starting to get a glimpse of that. It is not a pretty process losing power. For Helen it will be like removing a small child from its mother. She will bawl and scream, she will lash out, she will accuse anyone and everyone of plotting. It is going to be very ugly indeed.

[Russell Brown]

"She just goes off in all directions like a demented catherine wheel."

That's rich, Tim ...

Cheers,
RB

[Matt Price]

Well actually if that is really what was said, Gerry is wrong in respect of corruption (I don't think Don has ever accused them of telling lies though- of course that doesn't mean Labour doesn't tell lies...). Don called them corrupt, because they are. Thats what the Electoral Act says. You were told to account for the money. You didn't. That is a corrupt practice. End of story.

[phillipjohn]

In fact the Electoral Act makes it explicitly clear that if a party knowingly claims PS leaders budget $ it is a corrupt practice. So to claim corruption you have to prove that the money was taken with the knowledge that it contravened the rules. Still waiting for the proof.....

[phillipjohn]

Oops. That should have been...........

In fact the Electoral Act makes it explicitly clear that if a party knowingly claims PS leaders budget $ in the knowledge that it is doing so inappropriately then it is a corrupt practice. So to claim corruption you have to prove that the money was taken with the knowledge that it contravened the rules. Still waiting for the proof.....

[Insolent Prick]

Really, phillipjohn?

Please cite the specific clause in the Electoral Act that refers to the Parliamentary Leaders' Budget. Don't just tell me that it's there. Cite the rules.

You want evidence that Labour broke the rules? How about the fact that the independent Auditor-General has publicly stated that he clarified the use of parliamentary services funding with Labour prior to the election, and the fact that Labour broke those clarified rules during the election, and now is trying to smear the Auditor-General? What possible further evidence could you need? A commission of inquiry?

[Paul]

Back to the post at had, and the demented catherine wheel that is National.

Thank Christ that these lying pack of (add your category) _______ hating bastards, aren't in power.

Seriously, if you take 1.2 million from a dangerous cult and preach mainstreaming then have an affair and preach the scantity of marriage, call the govt corupt then deny saying it...

the only demented catherine wheel is National. But Please Please Please leave that esteemed dear old gentleman (oh that's right serial adulterer) as leader, you haven't got a shit show with him as leader.

Tim back on the lithium bud, your starting to rant again.

[phillipjohn]

IP:

parites have bee using the leader's fund for electioneering since the 80s and the AG has never pulled anyone up on it. Why should we then assume that labour had knew that using the leader's fund in this way was innappropriate under the letter of the law?

[Insolent Prick]

phillipjohn:

If you're going to enter an argument, apply some basic facts. Really, it would help your cause.

The PSC changed the rules on application of parliamentary services funding after the 2002 election. That is a fact. It is a fact that this was done after the Auditor-General raised concerns after the 2002 election about application of parliamentary services funding. It is also a fact that the Auditor-General met with representatives from Labour and National prior to the 2005 to clarify the effect of the changed rules. The Auditor-General was clear that the rules had been sufficiently clarified. That's a pretty good reason for assuming that the new rules were pretty clear. If you can't take the A-G's interpretation before the event, which didn't change AFTER the event, who the fuck are you going to trust?

Labour knew the rules. They were set before the election. Labour then broke them, and complains that the rules changed. They didn't. They were clear before the election, and the A-G's interpretation before the election was no different to his post-election interpretation.

In the words of one great wit, just pay it back, assholes.

[Aj]

IP did the law change i.e. was the old law revoked and a new rule written into the books.

[HBHS]

Yep - it was outlined in the Speakers directions in 2003

[james cairney]

Jordan, really? Brownlee "...telling lies..."? There isn't much in that without context. He is one of the few who are worth a little more respect.

[Abdul el Razir]

the use of the word "corrupt" brings back frightful memories of the Bolger government when the incumbent Minister of Education Jenny Shipley described Opposition leader Henry Clark as "corrupt" in regards to corrupt goings-on with regard to the Ministry of Education accepting kick backs as part of a "You give, I take" education policy in primary and secondary school curriculums. Frankly its upsetting when words such as "corrupt" are used in such a manner. Why cant the politicians just focus on the key issues of election spending and homosexual connotations within the party caucuses. Surely New Zealand wants to see things being achieved

[Christopher Greenlees]

Jordan, you,re opening comments were as follows:
Gerry Brownlee gets it wrong

I understand that you are running a left-wing blog which (quite understandably) attempts to demolish arguments purported from the right.

However, your chosen words are undoubtedly misleading. For starters, the words "gets it wrong" following "Gerry Brownlee" allows readers to make the inference that at some stage in his political career, Gerry Brownlee has got something "right."