The Watchdog

Keeping citizens in the loop

Coming up on ‘Sunday’ 12 June 2011 – TV1 : Unanswered questions from Pike River…

tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/coming-up-unanswered-questions-pike-river-0-30-video-4220647

Chris.Cooke@tvnz.co.nz

“Best Practice

We has new evidence from inside the Pike River Mine that raises disturbing questions about what was going on after the first explosion and considers whether some of the men could have survived the blast.

And SUNDAY has been down an Australian mine, compared operations, and talked to a mining expert who’s appalled at safety at Pike River and says the mine should have been closed before the disaster.”

June 10, 2011 Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Internationally significant information | Leave a comment

PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’:”Is the Solicitor-General maliciously abusing his position, as the second-highest ‘lawyer in the land’ by persecuting/ prosecuting Vince Siemer (AGAIN) for ‘contempt of Court’? “

8 June 2011
PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’:
“Is the Solicitor-General maliciously abusing his position, as the second-highest ‘lawyer in the land’  by persecuting/ prosecuting Vince Siemer (AGAIN) for ‘contempt of Court’? “
 Vince Siemer –  is facing jail for contempt of court (AGAIN!), through proceedings initiated (AGAIN) by the Solicitor -General for telling the public J Winkelman’s decision that the people arrested in the state terror raids of 15th October 2007 were not only denied a jury trial, but that the public were being denied the right to know that information.
(There will be a protest outside the Wellington High Court
2 Molesworth St (opposite Parliament)
Thursday 9  June 2011 from 9 – 10am,  then for those who are able – quiet support inside the court room.
Well-known human rights lawyer Tony Ellis will be  defending Vince Siemer).
In my considered opinion, Vince Siemer is NZ’s leading ‘Public Watchdog’ / ‘Whistleblower’ on the lack of transparency and accountability and ‘conflicts of interest’ in the NZ Judiciary.
Why is the Solicitor-General David Collins QC himself not facing an investigation for ‘contempt of the House’ – given his role – in my considered opinion, of helping to ‘mislead’  the former Justice and Electoral Select Committee, which resulted in the matters raised in Petition 2005/142 being declared  ‘subjudice’, at a time they clearly were NOT?
(Petition 2005/142  presented to the House by Mr Hide MP on 24 July 2007 “requesting that Parliament conduct an inquiry into the comittal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Ross Siemer for contempt of court”)
Was the  former Justice and Electoral Select Committee ‘misled’ – not only by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC (‘the highest acting law officer in the land’); but also by the former Clerk of the House  David McGee QC (now an Ombudsman) ; and the former Acting Deputy Solicitor-General (Public Law) Grant Liddell (who later became the CEO of the NZ Serious Fraud Office (SFO)?
Read the following information for yourself – and you be the judge…….
 ________________________________________________________________________________________________
This morning, I ‘cold-called’ the former Clerk of the House of Parliament, David McGee, (now an Ombudsman), and requested an urgent meeting.
At short notice, he agreed to meet.
I explained that the reason why I wanted this meeting was because tomorrow, 9 June 2011, Vince Siemer again faced ‘contempt’ proceedings, initiated again by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC,  in the Wellington High Court.
I further explained that in my considered opinion, the Solicitor-General was effectively abusing his power, and there was a history of his effectively malicious persecution of Vince Siemer.
I reminded David McGee QC, that when he was the Clerk of the House, that on 10 August 2007, he had been sent a letter from Grant Liddell (Acting Deputy Solicitor-General (Public Law), which stated:
“Dear Mr McGee
Vincent Ross Siemer
Our Ref: SOL115/1823
The Solicitor-General has asked me to write to you as a courtesy to inform you that he will be pursuing  an application against
Mr Vincent Ross Siemer for contempt of court.  Mr Siemer’s contempt is constituted by his continuing operation of the website www.stiassny.org and his publication on that site and others of material held by the High court to constitute breach of an injunction the Court issued in the proceedings Ferrier Hodgson v Siemer.  The High Court has already held Mr Siemer to be in cotempt for such publication and he has been sentenced to, and has served a term of imprisonment as punishment.  Despite that, Mr Siemer continues to operate the website.  The Solicitor-General, in his function as Law Officer, is responsible for prosecuting serious contempt of court.  Because of the public interest in obtaining compliance with the orders of the court and in order to maintain the court’s authority, he has now determined to proceed against Mr Siemer for contempt.
I am advising you of this course of action on account of a petition having been presented to the House by Mr Hide MP on 24 July 2007 “requesting that Parliament conduct an inquiry into the comittal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Ross Siemer for contempt of court”, which has been referred to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.
Yours sincerely,
Grant Liddell
Acting Deputy Solicitor-General (Public Law)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
I reminded Mr McGee of his following response”
“13 August 2007
Mr Grant Liddell
Acting

Acting Deputy Solicitor-General
(Public Law)
Crown Law Office
PO Box 2858
WELLINGTON
Dear Mr Liddell
Vincent Ross Siemer
Ref: SOL115/1823
Thank you for your advice that the Solicitor-General will be pursuing an application against Mr Vincent Ross Siemer for contempt of court.
I will draw your letter to the attention of the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Yours sincerely
DG McGee
Clerk of the House of Representatives
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On 20 August 2011, the Justice and Electoral Committee reported back on the above-mentioned Petition:
“The Justice and Electoral Committee has considered the Petition 2005/142 of Penelope Bright and 30 others, Reuesting that Parliament conduct an inquiry into the committal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court.
We are unable to consider this petition further as the matter which it deals with is subjudice (awaiting adjudication in a court of record).
We have no matters to bring to the attention of the House.
Lynne Pillay
Chairperson.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I reminded Mr McGee that Standing Order of the NZ House of Representatives, were very clear on when a matter was ‘subjudice’ and when it was not.
“111  Matters awaiting judicial decision
Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to theright of the House to legislate on any matter, matter awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to –
        (a)      in any motion,  or
(b)      in any debate,  or
(c)      in any question, including a supplementary question, –
if  it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.
112   Application of prohibition of reference to matters awaiting judicial decision
(1)     Standing Order 111 has effect, –
(a)     in relation to a criminal case, from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made:
(b)     in relation to cases other than criminal, from the time when proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the appropriate
               document in the registry or office of the court.
(2)     Standing Order 111 ceases to have effect in any case when the verdict and sentence have been  announced or judgment given. …”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
(Vince Siemer had been sentenced and was in jail when this petition was initiated.
The ‘subjudice’ rule simply did not therefore apply.)
I asked Mr McGee on what lawful basis was this matter  referred to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, when at this stage the Solicitor-General had NOT yet initiated proceedings ‘by the filing of the appropriate document in the registry or office of the court’?
(An ‘intention’ by the Solicitor-General TO ‘pursue an application against Mr Vincent Ross Siemer for contempt of court’  – is obviously not the same as having actually filed the documents  ‘in the registry or office of the court’.
 ‘An intention to pursue an application’ was therefore clearly  NOT ‘subjudice’ .
(These  ‘contempt’ proceedings against Vince Siemer were  filed in the High Court at Auckland on 29 January 2008 – over FIVE MONTHS after  Petition 2005/142 the  on 20 August 2007
There was nothing in the Parliamentary Petition 2005/142 file which indicated how the Justice and Electoral Select Committee arrived at this ‘subjudice’ decision.
The above-mentioned correspondence between Mr Liddell and Mr McGee, was NOT in Parliamentary Petition 2005/142 file, although it was directly pertinent to this petition.
It was only through a Privacy Act request addressed to the Solicitor-General David Collins QC  dated 11 February 2009,  that this ‘smoking gun’ correspondence was effectively  ‘flushed out’.
In my view, the effect of the above-mentioned correspondence between Mr Liddell and Mr McGee, was to help stop an inquiry by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee into the committal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court.
Because this matter was NOT subjudice – in my considered opinion, the Justice and Electorate Select Committee was effectively ‘misled’.
In my considered opinion – this constitutes ‘contempt of the House’….

Misconduct

Deliberate misleading of the House

It is a contempt deliberately to attempt to mislead the House or a committee, whether by way of a statement, in evidence or in a petition. [98]   This example of contempt, while always potential, was given explicit recognition in 1963 when, following a political cause célèbre (the Profumo affair), the House of Commons resolved that a former member who had made a personal statement to the House which he subsequently acknowledged to be untrue had committed a contempt of the House. [99]   It has been submitted that there is an established constitutional convention that Ministers should always tell the truth to Parliament as far as this is possible without harming national security. [100]   Whether this type of contempt embodies a convention or not, regarding lying to the House as a serious transgression of parliamentary etiquette (quite apart from any moral considerations) has been said to be the only way for Parliament to keep a check on the executive. [101]

The contempt can be committed by anyone taking part in parliamentary proceedings. It consists of the conveying of information to the House or a committee that is inaccurate in a material particular and which the person conveying the information knew at the time was inaccurate or at least ought to have known was inaccurate. [102]

As well as a deliberate misleading of the House arising from a remark in the House, it is conceivable that members could mislead the House by their actions: for example, from a deliberate misuse of a voting proxy, by delivering to the Clerk a totally different document from that which the member obtained leave of the House to table, [107]   or by misrepresenting their authority to act on behalf of an absent member. [108]

Witnesses and petitioners deliberately misleading

Witnesses giving evidence to committees are under an obligation to be truthful, whether they are under oath or not. As with members, for a contempt to arise there must be some strong indication that there is an intention to mislead the committee. This can arise out of the nature of the evidence, if it can be presumed to be within the personal knowledge of the witness, or by the circumstances of its delivery, for example, if an answer is deferred and delivered in writing on a later occasion when it can be presumed to be a more considered reply than an immediate response. [109]

It is a contempt to present forged, falsified or fabricated documents to the House or a committee. The main form which such a contempt has taken in the United Kingdom is the affixing of forged or fictitious signatures to petitions. Any conspiracy to deceive the House or a committee in this regard will be held to be a contempt. There are no examples of these having occurred in New Zealand.

Correcting inaccurate information

It is not a contempt to make a genuine mistake and thereby give the House or a committee incorrect information. But it is incumbent on a member or any other person who has given misleading information on a parliamentary occasion to clear the matter up as soon as the error is appreciated. This applies even though the full correct information may not be available at the time that it is realised that an error has been made. Action to alert the House or committee should still be taken at that point with a full correction to follow later. [110]

 

Legal significance of contempt

The power to punish for a contempt of the House is a power that inheres in the House. The power is exercisable only by the House itself. The courts do not punish for contempt of the House, nor do they enforce punishments meted out by the House. The fact that a contempt may have been or may be about to be committed does not give rise to a cause of action for which relief can be obtained from a court. [160]   Contempt is an extra-judicial proceeding, though, as it is a power possessed by the House pursuant to law, its lawful exercise by the House will be recognised and, if need be, vindicated by the courts (for example, as a defence against legal liability that would otherwise arise).

 _________________________________________________________________________________________
(The full copy of my ‘Privacy Act request dated 11 February 2009, is APPENDIX “A” at the end of this post.)
However, Parliamentary ‘Standing Orders’ are very clear
Why hasn’t the Solicitor-General yet faced ‘contempt of the House’ for arguably helping to stymy the former Justice and Electoral Select Committee  Petition 2005/142 ‘Requesting that Parliament conduct an inquiry into the committal of Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court?
In my considered opinion, it  is time for the charges against Vince Siemer (and the Urewera 18) to be dropped forthwith.
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judiciall-recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
‘Anti-Corruption campaigner’
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
Attendee: Transparency International 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 2010
021 211 4 127
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX “A”
11 February 2009
OPEN LETTER/PRIVACY ACT REQUEST:
ATTN SOLICITOR-GENERAL DAVID COLLINS QC:
Dear Solicitor-General,
I have been advised by Jan Fulstow from your Office, that the proper process to follow in making a request for information under the
Privacy Act, is to address the request to yourself.
My full name is Penelope Mary Bright, also known as Penny Bright, of 86A School Rd, Kingsland, Auckland.
A) I am hereby requesting ALL information held by, or  including:
1) Yourself, as Solicitor-General,
2) The  previously  ‘Acting’ Solicitor-General, Grant Liddell,
3) The Office of the Solicitor-General,
4) The Crown Law Office,
Relating, in any way, shape or form, to my involvement in matters concerning Vincent Ross Siemer, particularly pertaining to the
decision of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on Petition 2005/142  (for which I was the initiating petitioner), which
stated on 20 August 2007:
“The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has considered the Petition 2005/142 of Penelope Bright and 30 others, requesting that
Parliament conduct an inquiry into the committal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court.
Standing Orders provide rules against committees considering matters that are subjudice (awaiting adjudication in a court of record), and this means that we are unable to consider this petition further. We have no matters to bring to the attention of the House.”
Parliamentary Standing Orders 111 and 112 state quite clearly when a matter is ‘subjudice’.
“111  Matters awaiting judicial decision
Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter, matter awaiting or
under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to –
       (a)      in any motion,  or
(b)      in any debate,  or
(c)      in any question, including a supplementary question, – if  it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial
                 danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.
112   Application of prohibition of reference to matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to –
       (a)      in any motion,  or
(b)      in any debate,  or
(c)      in any question, including a supplementary question, – if  it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial
danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.
112   Application of prohibition of reference to matters awaiting judicial decision
(1)     Standing Order 111 has effect, –
(a)     in relation to a criminal case, from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made:
(b)    in relation to cases other than criminal, from the time when proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the appropriate
              document in the registry or office of the court.
(2)     Standing Order 111 ceases to have effect in any case when the verdict and sentence have been  announced or judgment given. …”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Vince Siemer had been sentenced and was in jail when this petition was initiated. The ‘subjudice’ rule simply did not therefore apply.)
  __________________________________________
B) This Privacy Act request for information held, includes, but is not limited to:
1) Emails
2) Diary notes
3) Notes made of telephone conversations
4) Reports
5) Meeting minutes or records of discussions
C) In a nutshell, I wish for confirmation (or not), from information accessible through the Privacy Act, that the advice upon which the
Justice and Electoral Select Committee was relying regarding this petition being ‘subjudice’ at a time it clearly was not, came from
either, or including:
1) Yourself, as Solicitor-General,
2) Grant Liddell, in his previous capacity as ‘Acting’ Solicitor-General,
3) Any staff member, or any person acting in any capacity from the Office of the Solicitor-General,
4) Any staff member or any person acting in any capacity from the Crown Law Office.
D) Please be reminded of an email  sent by Jan Fulstow, Assistant to Solicitor-General /Media,  dated 6 November 2007, confirming that the Solicitor-General had NOT YET  filed (further contempt) proceedings:
“Subject: Contempt proceedings
In reply to your voicemail message I advise that the proceedings have not yet been filed but will be filed shortly.
The situation is as was set out in paragraph 9 of Grant Liddell’s letter to you dated 22 August 2007.”
This is hard evidence which confirms that prior to the decision reached by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on 20 August
2007, this matter was not ‘subjudice’.
May I respectfully remind you of the statutory duties which pertain to your Office, under the Public Records Act 2005
“3 Purposes of Act
The purposes of this Act are—
(a) to provide for the continuation of the repository of public archives called the National Archives with the name Archives New
Zealand (Te Rua Mahara o to Kawanatanga); and determinations on the disposal of public records and certain local
authority archives; and
(c) to enable the Government to be held accountable by—
(i) ensuring that full and accurate records of the affairs of central and local government are created and maintained; and
(ii) providing for the preservation of, and public access to, records of long-term value; and
(d) to enhance public confidence in the integrity of public records and local authority records; and
(e) to provide an appropriate framework within which public offices and local authorities create and maintain public records and local
authority records, as the case may be; and
(f) through the systematic creation and preservation of public archives and local authority archives, to enhance the accessibility of
records that are relevant to the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand and to New Zealanders’ sense of their national identity;
and
(g) to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), as provided for by
section 7; and
(h) to support the safekeeping of private records.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 The postal or courier address to which this documentation can be forwarded is:
86A School Rd
Kingsland
Auckland
I look forward to your prompt reply.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FURTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Reply to ‘Open letter’ to Jan Fulstow, Assistant to Solicitor-General David Collins QC, re: the misleading of Parliament over Petition 2005/142″
RE: MEMORANDUM dated 25 March 2009
18 August 2010
Dear Ms Bright
In response to your question about who the memorandum was sent to, it was sent to the Clerk of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, Meipara Poata.  It was a one page memorandum dated 25 March 2008 and was not signed (a copy of the document as sent was attached to the email you sent me).  The memorandum was authorised by the Solicitor-General.

Yours faithfully
Jan Fulstow

Jan Fulstow
Assistant to Solicitor-General/
Media Adviser
Crown Law Te Tari Ture o te Karauna
DDI:     +64 4 494 5552
Mobile:  0274 497 407
Fax:      +64 4 499 5804

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Penny Bright [mailto:waterpressure@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 13 July 2010 16:04
To: Jan Fulstow
Cc: A.King@parliament.govt.nz; aaron.gilmore@parliament.govt.nz; ahan.young@parliament.govt.nz; allan.peachey@parliament.govt.nz; amy.adams@parliament.govt.nz; anderton.wigram@xtra.co.nz; angela.bray@parliament.govt.nz; ashraf.choudhary@parliament.govt.nz; b.english@ministers.govt.nz; bb@brendonburns.co.nz; blueandgold@parliament.govt.nz; brendon.burns@parliament.govt.nz; c.finlayson@ministers.govt.nz; carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz; cartermp@xtra.co.nz; catherine.delahunty@parliament.govt.nz; charles.chauvel@parliament.govt.nz; chester.borrows@parliament.govt.nz; chester.hawera@xtra.co.nz; chester.wanganui@xtra.co.nz; chris.carter@parliament.govt.nz; chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz; chris.tremain@national.org.nz; clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz; clayton.cosgrove@parliament.govt.nz; claytoncosgrovekaiapoi@xtra.co.nz; colin.kingmp@xtra.co.nz; craig.foss@parliament.govt.nz; craigfoss@backingthebay.co.nz; d.carter@ministers.govt.nz; darien.fenton@parliament.govt.nz; darren.hughes@parliament.govt.nz; david.bennett@parliament.govt.nz; david.cunliffe@parliament.govt.nz; david.garrett@parliament.govt.nz; david.parker@parliament.govt.nz; dcunliffe@xtra.co.nz; elecgor@esi.co.nz; electjville@xtra.co.nz; eric.roy@parliament.govt.nz; genelle@johnkey.mp.net.nz; george.hawkins@parliament.govt.nz; greenmps.auckland@greens.org.nz; greenmps.dunedin@greens.org.nz; h.roy@ministers.govt.nz; heather.henderson@parliament.govt.nz; hekia.parata@parliament.govt.nz; hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz; hunua.electorate@xtra.co.nz; Iain.leesgalloway@parliament.govt.nz; ikaroa.gis@xtra.co.nz; ikaroa.hstgs@xtra.co.nz; j.carter@ministers.govt.nz; j.coleman@ministers.govt.nz; j.collins@ministers.govt.nz; j.key@ministers.govt.nz; jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz; jackie.blue@parliament.govt.nz; Jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz; janette.granville@xtra.co.nz; jen.toogood@parliament.govt.nz; jim.anderton@parliament.govt.nz; jo.goodhew@parliament.govt.nz; john.boscawen@parliament.govt.nz; k.wilkinson@ministers.govt.nz; kanwaljit.singh.bakshi@parliament.govt.nz; keith.locke@parliament.govt.nz; Kelvin.davis@parliament.govt.nz; kevin.hague@parliament.govt.nz; kilbirnieeo@xtra.co.nz; labourwest@xtra.co.nz; lianne.dalziel@parliament.govt.nz; lindsay.tisch@parliament.govt.nz; loren.bolton@parliament.govt.nz; louise.upston@parliament.govt.nz; lynne.pillaymp@xtra.co.nz; m.mccully@ministers.govt.nz; m.williamson@ministers.govt.nz; mana.electorate@xtra.co.nz; marlene.ditchfield@xtra.co.nz; maryan.street@parliament.govt.nz; melissa.lee@parliament.govt.nz; metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz; michael.clatworthy@xtra.co.nz; Michael.woodhouse@parliament.govt.nz; moana.mackey@labour.org.nz; mp.rodney.warkworth@xtra.co.nz; murray.mccully@xtra.co.nz; n.smith@ministers.govt.nz; nick@nick4nelson.co.nz; nanaia.mahuta@parliament.govt.nz; napier.electorate@airnet.net.nz; natalie.roberts@parliament.govt.nz; nathan.guy@national.org.nz; national.horowhenua@xtra.co.nz; national.kapiti@xtra.co.nz; nicky.wagner@parliament.govt.nz; nikki.kaye@parliament.govt.nz; northlandelectorate@xtra.co.nz; office@grantrobertson.co.nz; office@judithcollins.co.nz; office@labournorth.org.nz; p.dunne@ministers.govt.nz; p.goff@parliament.govt.nz; p.heatley@ministers.govt.nz; p.wong@ministers.govt.nz; pansy.wong@xtra.co.nz; parekura.horomia@parliament.govt.nz; paul.hutchison@parliament.govt.nz; paul.quinn@parliament.govt.nz; peseta.sam.lotuiiga@parliament.govt.nz; pete.hodgson@parliament.govt.nz; pete@petehodgson.co.nz; petone.eo@clear.net.nz; phil@goff.org.nz; Pita.Sharples@parliament.govt.nz; r.hide@ministers.govt.nz; rae.waterhouse@xtra.co.nz; rahui.katene@parliament.govt.nz; rajen.prasad@parliament.govt.nz; Raymond.huo@parliament.govt.nz; rick.barker@parliament.govt.nz; ritchie.wards@parliament.govt.nz; rodney@epsom.org.nz; roger.douglas@parliament.govt.nz; ross.robertson@parliament.govt.nz; russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz; ruth.dyson@xtra.co.nz; s.joyce@ministers.govt.nz; s.power@ministers.govt.nz; sandra.goudie@national.org.nz; shane.ardern@parliament.govt.nz; shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz; shanejonesmp@xtra.co.nz; simon.bridges@parliament.govt.nz; simonpower.feilding@xtra.co.nz; simonpower.marton@xtra.co.nz; socialjustice@greens.org.nz; steve.chadwick@parliament.govt.nz; stuart.nash@parliament.govt.nz; sue.kedgley@parliament.govt.nz; sue.moroney@parliament.govt.nz; t.ryall@ministers.govt.nz; t.turia@ministers.govt.nz; tainuielectorate@xtra.co.nz; Tari.Turia@xtra.co.nz; tau.henare@parliament.govt.nz; tau.henaremp@xtra.co.nz; terry.ututaonga@parliament.govt.nz; teururoa.flavell@parliament.govt.nz; tim.groser@parliament.govt.nz; tim.macindoe@parliament.govt.nz; todd.mcclay@parliament.govt.nz; tolleygis@xtra.co.nz; tolleywhk@xtra.co.nz; trevor.mallard@parliament.govt.nz; trish.wanden@parliament.govt.nz; w.mapp@ministers.govt.nz; waikatohub.mps@xtra.co.nz; waimakariri@xtra.co.nz; winnie.laban@parliament.govt.nz; WOAoffice@xtra.co.nz; Kennedy Graham
Subject: Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright, fights for justice for jailed anti-corruption ‘Judicial Public Watchdog’ Vince Siemer.

14 July 2010

Jan Fulstow
Assistant to Solicitor-General David Collins QC
Media Advisor
‘Open letter’ to Jan Fulstow, Assistant to Solicitor-General David Collins QC, re: the misleading of Parliament over Petition 2005/142″
RE: MEMORANDUM dated 25 March 2009
SUBJECT: SG v Siemer. Justice and Electoral Select Committee query about what proceedings were before the Court at the time of the correspondence between Crown Law and the Clerk of the House last year.
Dear Jan,
My originating Privacy Act request to Crown Law on 11 February 2009,  ‘flushed out’
the above-mentioned ‘Memorandum’, which proves that the matters raised in Petition 2005/142 were NOT ‘subjudice’ and that Parliament was misled, in my considered opinion, by Solicitor-General David Collins QC (‘the highest acting law officer in the land’); the former Clerk of the House  David McGee QC (now an Ombudsman) ; and the former Acting Deputy Solicitor-General (Public Law) Grant Liddell (who later became the CEO of the NZ Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
In New Zealand – ‘the least corrupt country in the world’!
Vince Siemer is currently locked up in Mt Eden prison, for the THIRD time, (and on the 14th day of a hunger strike) although he has broken no law, and his habeas corpus application has been dismissed by both the High Court and Court of Appeal, as an ‘abuse of process’.
How is the ‘misleading of Parliament’  by helping to get a matter before a Select Committee declared ‘subjudice’ at a time it was NOT, not an ‘abuse of process’ at the highest levels of the New Zealand judiciary and the NZ House of Parliament?
How can the public have confidence in the NZ judiciary and Parliament, when such ‘abuses of process’ are initiated and apparently sanctioned by those at the highest levels of the New Zealand judiciary and the NZ House of Parliament?
Where is the  ‘honesty, transparency and accountability’ in the case of Vince Siemer?
How can it be unlawful to tell the truth?
What happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
Why has Vince Siemer been denied his lawful and basic human rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial?
In my considered opinion, Vince Siemer must be released forthwith, and a full inquiry must be held into his imprisonment, his human rights violations and the judicial and Parliamentary corrupt practices which have led to this happening.
____________________________________________________________
As you know, Vince Siemer was debarred from defending himself in the defamation hearing brought by Michael Stiassny, which resulted in the highest ever award against a defendant.
Lawyer Steven Price blogs about media law and ethics in New Zealand
Judge awards highest ever defamation damages
By Steven | January 29, 2009
“Cooper J awarded Michael Stiassny and his firm $920,000 damages against Vince Siemer for his long-running attacks on Stiassny, including $900,000 for defamation. (To recap: those are the attacks that led to the injunction that led to the contempt of court cases that led to Siemer being fined and jailed for breaching the injunction and then let out of jail to argue that he should have been given a jury trial. Judgment’s still pending on that last one).
Those contempt cases also led to a huge award of costs – more than $180,000 – against Siemer (joining many other costs awards against Siemer). He didn’t pay them. So Potter J debarred him from defending Staissny’s defamation case.
So it can’t have been much of a defamation trial. You had the country’s most famous media lawyer, Julian Miles QC, arguing one side, and on the other…. nothing.
There’s a huge hole in the judgment where the discussion of defences would usually come. Were the attacks true? Were they simply honest opinion? Were they protected by qualified privilege? The judge didn’t have to decide.
At one point Cooper J said: “there is no substance in the allegations that Mr Siemer makes”. The judge really had no place saying that. Siemer has insisted all along that his criticisms are true. He’d been prevented from putting forward evidence to prove them. The judge didn’t know what that evidence might have been.
And that’s surely got to give anyone pause for thought. Nearly a million dollars in damages awarded against someone who was denied the right to present evidence in his own defence. That’s in addition to being sent to jail for contempt for saying things he continues to insist are true, and which have never been disproved, in breach of an injunction he believes was wrongly imposed.
……………………………………”
____________________________________________________________
FURTHER PARTICULARS REQUIRED FROM CROWN LAW:
Following our telephone discussion yesterday, 13 July 2010:
A) Relating to the following ‘Memorandum’ dated 25 March 2009 ( your reference 707325 _I):
(Copy attached)
Vince Siemer Memorandum confirming Petition 2008 142 NOT subjudice 1.15.pdf (application/pdf) 390K
Please provide the following further particulars:
1) To whom this ‘Memorandum’ was sent. (ALL parties.)
2) Who ‘signed’ or ‘authorised’ this ‘Memorandum’.
______________________________________________________________________
“MEMORANDUM
25 March 2008
SUBJECT: SG v Siemer:. Justice and Electoral Select Committee query about what proceedings were before the Court at the time of the correspondence between Crown Law and the Clerk of the House last year
1. On or about 8 August 2007 Penny Bright, a supporter of Mr Siemer’s and the spokeswoman for an Auckland group known as “The Water Pressure Group”, wrote to Michael Cullen as Attorney-General attaching an “open letter” to all political parties. The letter requested an inquiry in to Potter J ‘s committal of Mr Siemer to prison for contempt in mid last year. A copy of Ms Bright’s documents was sent to the Solicitor-General.
2. Ms Bright says in her letter that the Petition Reference is 142, and was presented to the Select Committee by Rodney Hide on 24 July 2007.
3. As a result of receiving the documents from Ms Bright, on to August 2007 the Acting Deputy Solicitor-General, Grant Liddell, wrote to the Clerk of the House. A copy of the letter is attached. The letter explains that:
3.1 Mr Siemer as at the date o f Mr Liddell’s letter (and indeed, as at today’s
date) commits an on-going contempt of court by publishing material on a
website in breach of an earlier High Court in junction;
       3.2 As a result of breaching the injunction Mr Siemer, in proceedings Ferrier
Hodgson v Siemer I, had been held to be in contempt of Court in mid 2007
and was committed to prison for a time ;
      3.3 Because Mr Siemer’s, breach of the injunction is on -going, the Solicitor General
had determined (by the date of Mr Liddell’s letter) that he would
bring his own proceedings fo r contempt against Mr Siemer for contempt.
4. As for the Solicitor-General ‘s proceedings, they are for contempt of court for breaching the High Court injunction. The proceedings were filed in the High Court at Auckland on 29 January 2008. The application is to be heard on 16 June 2008.
5. Note, the contempt proceedings brought by the defamation plaintiff, Mr Stiassny, referred to in paragraph 3.2 above were a discrete application to the High Court, brought by way of interlocutory application, in the context of:
       5.1 A proceeding at that time still before the Court for final determination of
the plaintiffs defamation claim;
       5.2 Conduct constituting an on-going contempt of Court by Mr Siemer for
breaching the High Court’s extant injunction forbidding Mr Siemer from
publishing defamatory material about Mr Stiassny.
_____________________________________________________________________
These are primarily defamation proceedings, flied prior to 2007, brought by Mr Stiassny and his company Ferrier Hodgson against Mr Siemer. As we understand it, these proceedings are currently before the High Court waiting a final hearing, and were certainly before the High Court all of last year. ”
____________________________________________________________
FYI – FURTHER DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL:
“3. As a result of receiving the documents from Ms Bright, on to August 2007 the Acting Deputy Solicitor-General, Grant Liddell, wrote to the Clerk of the House. A copy of the letter is attached. ”
(A copy of that letter is attached to this email:
Vince Siemer Parliamentary CoverUp Grant Liddell letter to Clerk of the House David McGee QC 10 August 2007 1.5(2).pdf (application/pdf) 140K
A copy of the letter from former Clerk of the House David McGee QC to the Acting Deputy Solicitor-General, Grant Liddell, date 13 August 2007, is attached to this email:
Vince Siemer Parliamentary Cover Up Letter from Clerk of the HouseDavid McGee QC to Grant Liddell 13 August 2007 1.6.htm (text/html) 29KAttach another file
“Speech to farewell David McGee CNZM QC, Clerk of the House of Representatives
Grand Hall, Parliament House
5pm, Thursday 25 October 2007
We have gathered, after the unusual early rising of the House to say our farewells to Dave McGee, the Clerk of the House, Queen’s Counsel and Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit and to acknowledge his contribution to Parliament.
Dave has given service to Parliament for almost 34 years, 22 of them as Clerk of the House. He has made a tremendous contribution to Parliament for which we are all grateful. He is truly Parliament’s man and it is difficult to envisage the institution without him.
We are fortunate that Dave’s talents will continue to be put to good use as he is leaving to become the third ombudsman. The qualities he demonstrated as Clerk of the House – those of independence, credibility, impeccable integrity and a sense of the importance of tradition and constitutional institutions will serve well in his new role……. ”
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/Speaker/Speeches/e/6/e/00SpeakSpeech251020071-Speech-to-farewell-David-McGee-CNZM
(So – wouldn’t you think that David McGee QC, with his knowledge and background as Clerk of the House, would know what ‘subjudice’ meant?
Same with the Solicitor-General David Collins QC?)
________________________________________________________________________
B) Your email to the former Clerk of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, Meipara Poata, dated 26 March 2009, which stated:
“..Further to our telephone discussions last week, please find a note attached setting out the proceedings in relation to Mr Siemer.  If you have any further queries or I can help in any way, please let me know.”
Vince Siemer Parliamentary Cover Up Email from Jan Fulstow to Meipara Poata re telephone conversations dated 26 March 2009 1.15 Pg 3 of 3.htm (text/html) 32K
Please provide the following further particulars:
1) ALL notes / diary entries or the like pertaining to these above-mentioned ‘telephone discussions’, and ‘further queries’ (if any).
BACKGROUND:
________________________
The decision of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on Petition 2005/142  (for which I was the initiating petitioner), which
stated on 20 August 2007:
“The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has considered the Petition 2005/142 of Penelope Bright and 30 others, requesting that
Parliament conduct an inquiry into the committal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court.
Standing Orders provide rules against committees considering matters that are subjudice (awaiting adjudication in a court of record), and this means that we are unable to consider this petition further.
We have no matters to bring to the attention of the House.”
___________________________________________________________________

11 February 2009
OPEN LETTER/PRIVACY ACT REQUEST:
ATTN SOLICITOR-GENERAL DAVID COLLINS QC:
Dear Solicitor-General,
I have been advised by Jan Fulstow from your Office, that the proper process to follow in making a request for information under the
Privacy Act, is to address the request to yourself.
My full name is Penelope Mary Bright, also known as Penny Bright, of 86A School Rd, Kingsland, Auckland.
A) I am hereby requesting ALL information held by, or  including:
1) Yourself, as Solicitor-General,
2) The  previously  ‘Acting’ Solicitor-General, Grant Liddell,
3) The Office of the Solicitor-General,
4) The Crown Law Office,
Relating, in any way, shape or form, to my involvement in matters concerning Vincent Ross Siemer, particularly pertaining to the
decision of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on Petition 2005/142  (for which I was the initiating petitioner), which
stated on 20 August 2007:
“The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has considered the Petition 2005/142 of Penelope Bright and 30 others, requesting that
Parliament conduct an inquiry into the committal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court.
Standing Orders provide rules against committees considering matters that are subjudice (awaiting adjudication in a court of record), and this means that we are unable to consider this petition further. We have no matters to bring to the attention of the House.”
Parliamentary Standing Orders 111 and 112 state quite clearly when a matter is ‘subjudice’.
“111  Matters awaiting judicial decision
Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter, matter awaiting or
under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to –
       (a)      in any motion,  or
(b)      in any debate,  or
(c)      in any question, including a supplementary question, – if  it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial
                 danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.
112   Application of prohibition of reference to matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to –
       (a)      in any motion,  or
(b)      in any debate,  or
(c)      in any question, including a supplementary question, – if  it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial
danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.
112   Application of prohibition of reference to matters awaiting judicial decision
(1)     Standing Order 111 has effect, –
(a)     in relation to a criminal case, from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made:
(b)    in relation to cases other than criminal, from the time when proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the appropriate
              document in the registry or office of the court.
(2)     Standing Order 111 ceases to have effect in any case when the verdict and sentence have been  announced or judgment given. …”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Vince Siemer had been sentenced and was in jail when this petition was initiated. The ‘subjudice’ rule simply did not therefore apply.)
  __________________________________________
B) This Privacy Act request for information held, includes, but is not limited to:
1) Emails
2) Diary notes
3) Notes made of telephone conversations
4) Reports
5) Meeting minutes or records of discussions
C) In a nutshell, I wish for confirmation (or not), from information accessible through the Privacy Act, that the advice upon which the
Justice and Electoral Select Committee was relying regarding this petition being ‘subjudice’ at a time it clearly was not, came from
either, or including:
1) Yourself, as Solicitor-General,
2) Grant Liddell, in his previous capacity as ‘Acting’ Solicitor-General,
3) Any staff member, or any person acting in any capacity from the Office of the Solicitor-General,
4) Any staff member or any person acting in any capacity from the Crown Law Office.
D) Please be reminded of an email  sent by Jan Fulstow, Assistant to Solicitor-General /Media,  dated 6 November 2007, confirming that the Solicitor-General had NOT YET  filed (further contempt) proceedings:
“Subject: Contempt proceedings
In reply to your voicemail message I advise that the proceedings have not yet been filed but will be filed shortly.
The situation is as was set out in paragraph 9 of Grant Liddell’s letter to you dated 22 August 2007.”
This is hard evidence which confirms that prior to the decision reached by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on 20 August
2007, this matter was not ‘subjudice’.
May I respectfully remind you of the statutory duties which pertain to your Office, under the Public Records Act 2005
“3 Purposes of Act
The purposes of this Act are—
(a) to provide for the continuation of the repository of public archives called the National Archives with the name Archives New
Zealand (Te Rua Mahara o to Kawanatanga); and determinations on the disposal of public records and certain local
authority archives; and
(c) to enable the Government to be held accountable by—
(i) ensuring that full and accurate records of the affairs of central and local government are created and maintained; and
(ii) providing for the preservation of, and public access to, records of long-term value; and
(d) to enhance public confidence in the integrity of public records and local authority records; and
(e) to provide an appropriate framework within which public offices and local authorities create and maintain public records and local
authority records, as the case may be; and
(f) through the systematic creation and preservation of public archives and local authority archives, to enhance the accessibility of
records that are relevant to the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand and to New Zealanders’ sense of their national identity;
and
(g) to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), as provided for by
section 7; and
(h) to support the safekeeping of private records.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 The postal or courier address to which this documentation can be forwarded is:
86A School Rd
Kingsland
Auckland
I look forward to your prompt reply.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FREE VINCE SIEMER FACEBOOK PAGE”

Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water, and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”
Auckland Mayoral candidate.
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127

June 8, 2011 Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Fighting corruption internationally, Human rights, Internationally significant information | Leave a comment

NBR:’ Govt ministers will make final call on Westpac contract’

www.nbr.co.nz/article/govt-ministers-will-make-final-call-westpac-contract-key-ck-94855

Govt ministers will make final call on Westpac contract –

Key Government ministers and not Treasury will make the final call on any changes to the Crown’s banking contract, Prime Minister John Key has indicated.

The acknowledgment comes after the Green Party last week raised questions over ministers and their staff receiving corporate hospitality from Westpac, which has held the government’s banking contract since 1989.

Nine ministers confirmed they had accepted hospitality from Westpac in the past year, including box seats at the rugby sevens, while 13 said their staff had accepted similar offers.

Mr Key last week said the Greens did not have any legitimate concerns and the Government had now opened up the contract to competition.

He told reporters Treasury would make the final decision, but today said that decision would be based on advice from the Ministry of Economic Development.

“That recommendation will go to ministers, who are likely to base their decision on the recommendation,” he told Parliament today.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman questioned Mr Key on whether the public should be concerned about ministers receiving corporate hospitality from Westpac, which included Rugby Sevens and rock concert tickets, plus restaurant meals.

Mr Key said he did not like the implication because it was “without foundation”.

“There are well set out guidelines in the Cabinet guidelines.

There is also a pecuniary interests list. The member is simply making accusations to get on the front page of the paper,” he said.

Mr Norman later said in a statement that the Government needed to be clear about whether ministers who received hospitality from Westpac would be signing off the final decision.

“The public also deserve transparency around the amount of hospitality and free gifts corporates give to ministers and their staff,” he said.

Westpac last week said invitations from its corporate hospitality programme were extended to “a broad range of key stakeholders, including members of both sides of the House, without prejudice or expectation”. More by NZPA and NBR staff

__________________________________________________________________

Comments and questions

3 Unfortunately, the Government probably has no choice but to continue to use Westpac as their banker at present. However, the real question is: will the Government allow the fledgling NZ banking industry to develop its skills and capacity in business banking so that it may one day take over some of this work? Anonymous | Tuesday, June 7, 2011 –

___________________________________________________________________

6:47pm reply The government has every choice to move their business to Kiwibank. While no doubt Westpac will be sharp on price, it will contact a profit component in their bid. That profit exits the country in the form of dividends to the parent bank.

Now with Kiwibank, the profits will stay in the country of origin and get recirculated locally. The multiplier effect (elementary economics) of this means Kiwibank can afford to bid lower, and NZ inc would still be better off. I would have thought the choice was obvious.

Perhaps Kiwirail should have thought about this before awarding big contracts to overseas comapnies!! Richard S | Tuesday, June 7, 2011 – 7:38pm

_____________________________________________________________________

reply “Mr Key last week said the Greens did not have any legitimate concerns and the Government had now opened up the contract to competition.

He told reporters Treasury would make the final decision, but today said that decision would be based on advice from the Ministry of Economic Development.

“That recommendation will go to ministers, who are likely to base their decision on the recommendation,” he told Parliament today.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman questioned Mr Key on whether the public should be concerned about ministers receiving corporate hospitality from Westpac, which included Rugby Sevens and rock concert tickets, plus restaurant meals.

Mr Key said he did not like the implication because it was “without foundation”.

“There are well set out guidelines in the Cabinet guidelines. There is also a pecuniary interests list. The member is simply making accusations to get on the front page of the paper,” he said.

Mr Norman later said in a statement that the Government needed to be clear about whether ministers who received hospitality from Westpac would be signing off the final decision.

“The public also deserve transparency around the amount of hospitality and free gifts corporates give to ministers and their staff,” he said.’ __________________________________________________________________

MY COMMENT:

I agree with Russel Norman, and look forward to the Green Party (preferably ALL parties) supporting legislative changes to ensure the following:

A NZ ‘Register of Lobbyists’ and ‘Code of Conduct for Lobbyists’ – as required by most Australian States and Commonwealth Governments:

An enforceable ‘Code of Conduct’ for New Zealand MPs .

How is it that NZ is ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Denmark and Singapore according to Transparency International’s 2010 ‘Corruption Perception Index’) – when we lack transparency and accountability in such critical areas?

__________________________________

AUSTRALIAN OVERVIEW: http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/pol/CodesOfConduct.htm Summary of codes of conduct in Australian parliament, including a comparison with NZ __________________________________

AUSTRALIAN REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTERS OF LOBBYISTS, AND LOBBYISTS ‘CODES OF CONDUCT’ :

Australian Commonwealth Government http://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/

In 2008 the Australian Government introduced a Lobbying Code of Conduct and established a Register of Lobbyists to ensure that contact between lobbyists and Commonwealth Government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty.

Any lobbyist who acts on behalf of third-party clients for the purposes of lobbying Government representatives must be registered on the Register of Lobbyists and must comply with the requirements of the Lobbying Code of Conduct.

The public Register of Lobbyists contains the following information about lobbyists who make representations to Government on behalf of their third-party clients:

the business registration details and trading names of each lobbying entity including, where the business is not a publicly listed company, the names of owners, partners or major shareholders, as applicable; the names and positions of persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbying entity to carry out lobbying activities;

and the names of clients on whose behalf the lobbying entity conducts lobbying activities.

SAMPLE LOBBYIST PROFILE: http://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/register ” ___________________________________________________________________

Penny Bright https://waterpressure.wordpress.com Penny Bright | Tuesday, June 7, 2011 – 9:05pm

June 7, 2011 Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Fighting corruption internationally | Leave a comment

NBR: ‘Destiny seeks support for govt contracts’ + my comment

www.nbr.co.nz/article/destiny-seeks-support-govt-contracts-ck-94843

Destiny seeks support for govt contracts

“I expected steam to come off” Tau Henare: “I expected steam to come off”

The government will treat any application for Whanau Ora funding from Destiny Church in the same manner as other requests, Prime Minister John Key said today.

Maori politicians including National MP Tau Henare, Labour MP Shane Jones, Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples and Mana Party leader Hone Harawira were invited to speak at the church’s annual conference in Auckland on Saturday.

Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki indicated the church was interested in government contracts including for Whanau Ora — a Maori Party flagship policy designed to improve efficiency of social services by lessening replication, and improving co-ordination between providers.

The programme focuses on families’ needs as a whole rather than responding only to a specific individual.

About 25 collectives involving 158 health and social service providers have begun to deliver Whanau Ora. Destiny Church has attracted criticism in the past over its controversial stance on homosexuality and claims from former churchgoers that it is a money-making venture.

Mr Key said the church could bid for contracts.

“They’d have to go and bid like anybody else, that’s a matter for those that determine those contracts,” he said. “But from our perspective, they are one of many, many people who have put their name forward for a contract — in the end the officials decide that.”

Dr Sharples said the church ran some good social welfare and education programmes.

He would not commit to backing calls for funding but said he would “certainly listen” to any formal request.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei was not invited to the weekend event. “I’m disappointed he (Bishop Tamaki) didn’t give his people the chance to hear the breadth of political views but the Destiny Church is very intolerant and many of their values are quite at odds from the Greens. We would have had to have talked about that and it would have been uncomfortable for them.

“I’m not sure I would have gone if I’d got an invitation.”

Freaky Mr Henare told reporters this morning it was “freaky” when churchgoers laid their hands on the MPs in prayer during the conference. “I expected steam to come off,” he said.

_____________________________________________________________________

MY COMMENT:

“About 25 collectives involving 158 health and social service providers have begun to deliver Whanau Ora.”

How much duplication of resources occurs under the ‘Whanau Ora’ model?

Is this not privatisation of social services – first to the ostensibly ‘not-for-profit’ NGOs – then what???

Isn’t this just the thin end of the privatisation wedge for ‘social services’?

Look at care for the elderly in NZ.

Devolved from the State to the churches – now run for private profit?

Another form of corporate welfare?

Where’s the accountability as far as the contracting-out of these services is concerned?

In my considered opinion – there is little enough ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ with the spending of public monies on public services , by ‘public’ (government – especially local government) bodies – let alone NGOs. Penny Bright

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com Penny Bright | Tuesday, June 7, 2011 – 5:23pm

_________________________________________________________________

reply >SPAM< Penny Bright | Tuesday, June 7, 2011 – 5:23pm >SPAM< Anonymous | Tuesday, June 7, 2011 –

____________________________________________________________________

8:59pm reply

Getting whanau ora funding sounds like another “piggie snouts in the (government) trough oportunity ” for Destiny and the other organisations of questionable value who line up for it. Would any of them stand up to a full audit and be accountable for every dollar gained.

Doubt it !

Just like the bums on seats payments to language schools and other training establishments who have ripped this country off for zillions.

The NZ government departments are so inept when it comes to spending the tax dollar wisely. Anonymous | Tuesday, June 7, 2011 – 8:58pm

June 7, 2011 Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Transparency in Govt spending | Leave a comment

NZ SOLICITOR-GENERAL IS TRYING (AGAIN) TO GET VINCE SIEMER JAILED FOR ‘CONTEMPT OF COURT’ BY ALERTING THE PUBLIC TO THE DENIAL OF TRIAL BY JURY TO THE ‘UREWERA 18’ (Background information)

PROTEST OUTSIDE THE WELLINGTON HIGH COURT – SUPPORTING VINCE SIEMER

Time
Thursday, June 9 · 9:00am – 10:00am

Location
2 Molesworth St, (opposite Parliament Buildings) Wellington.

Created By

More Info
CHANGE OF PROTEST DATE!
Court case is now Thursday 9 June (not Wednesday 8 June).
So – PROTEST is now Thursday 9 June 9 – 10am.

(Then quiet solidarity support by being there, for those who can be there, inside the High Court.

Human rights lawyer Tony Ellis is defending Vince.

The Solicitor-General is trying to jail Vince Siemer (again) because Vince publicised J Winkelman’s decision that the Urewera 18 were being denied a jury trial.

Vince Siemer is defending FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (again) and is facing imprisonment (again) for so doing. As with the Urewera 18 – the charges against Vince should (and must) be dropped.

It is now time for solidarity and support for Vince Siemer.
www.kiwisfirst.co.nz

Hope to see those of you who can make it outside the Wellington High Court! I’ll be there. Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com/

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

7 June 2011

POLICE CONCEDED MOST EXPENSIVE PROSECUTION IN HISTORY IS LIKELY TO RESULT ONLY IN FINES

9 May 2011
In a Wikileaks disclosure posted on 28 April 2011, it is revealed at cable “7” that New Zealand Police advised the U.S. Embassy in Wellington in late 2007 that the 18 accused in the Operation 8 “terror raids” are likely to face fines not exceeding $4,000.

This revelation is the latest in a massive prosecution which has since cost taxpayers over $13 million ahead of trial and is the subject of a United Nations complaint against the New Zealand Police and blanket suppression orders by the New Zealand courts.

In related action, Crown Law has claimed to have spent over $100,000 prosecuting kiwisfirst publisher Vince Siemer for breaching suppression orders relating to these secret court proceedings. Siemer’s trial for publishing High Court Judge Helen Winkelmann’s December 2010 order denying the accused their statutory right of trial by jury is set to commence in the Wellington High Court on 8 June 2011. The Solicitor General David Collins is asking for Mr Siemer’s imprisonment notwithstanding the fact that even Crown Prosecutor Ross Burns has stated suppression cannot be justified in law and the accused in the case being reported on by kiwisfirst are realistically facing fines according to the Police.

Having been bankrupted by the New Zealand Courts, Mr Siemer is on legal aid. The cost of the trial is expected to cost taxpayers another $70,000 to prosecute and half this again to defend. This is assuming no appeal is necessary.

__________________________________________________________________

THE PURGE OF INCONVENIENT LAW

20 April 2011
The denial of trial by jury to the eighteen Operation 8 defendants by judicial decree is now before the New Zealand Supreme Court.  Though the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, Judicature Act and Crimes Act all exhort the right to elect trial by jury, do not hold your breath that the Supreme Court will uphold the law and reverse the lower court decisions.

At the fore is the ease to which the still infant Supreme Court has repeatedly cast aside statutory guarantees to trial by jury in the most spurious fashion.  The lower court reasoning that a jury would use improper reasoning in its decision-making against these 18 defendants sounds too Orwellian to stand in law.  But the Supreme Court has been masterful in creating fictitious reasons why such laws have not mattered in the past.

Variously the Supreme Court has stated issues are too complex for juries, trials too long or, simply, made a broad reference that trial by juries are not fair to juries or judges, or have been denied in some case in some other country.

The seminal right to jury, which has been a linchpin in the English legal system for 800 years, is being destroyed by judicial fiat in New Zealand.  If you think the effects will be benign, or even positive, consider the following Supreme Court decisions.

In 2009, the Supreme Court, when prohibiting trial by jury in Wenzel v Queen, surreptitiously tagged on an irrelevant opinion to obscure contravention of clear statute when it ruled “The proposed grounds of appeal are quite hopeless. First of all, it is an impossible argument that a fair trial requires a trial by jury.”   The appeal did not state “fairness” as a ground: it relied upon Bill of Rights Act and Crimes Act guarantees.  If this was not troubling enough, the Supreme Court relied upon a Canadian case, R v Lee, where the defendant did not show up for his jury trial, and then was denied one, as grounds why its decision to prohibit jury was consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Wenzel was facing 7 years in prison.  In the subsequent judge-alone trial, he was sentenced to 5 years by District Court Judge Epati.   In later overturning the verdict and ordering a new trial, the Court of Appeal pulled no punches in stating the Judge had failed fundamental principles of fairness and logic in finding Wenzel guilty.  Equally troubling, the Judge dismissed charges against the lawyer who was Mr Wenzel’s co-defendant and gave that lawyer name suppression without justification and without providing reasons.   Fairness by judge-alone?

In Solicitor General v Siemer last year, the Supreme Court covered up the fact that the High Court ignored Mr Siemer’s election to trial by jury by quashing the judgment and ordering a new conviction and penalty of three months prison, thereby meeting the Bill of Rights Act threshold for judge-alone trial.  Proving the judges on the highest court are eminently more efficient at least than juries, the bench declared a new trial was not necessary because the Solicitor General’s unsworn submissions from the bar were sufficient to confirm guilt.

Then there is the case of Gregory v Gollan, where the Supreme Court, in 2009, reaffirmed the lower courts were correct to use discretion to deny Mr Gregory’s “application” for trial by jury.  Gregory’s counsel responded to the Supreme Court that an “application” was not required and was not made.  He asserted Judicature Act, section 19 A(2) gave Gregory the direct right to “require” a trial by jury.  Because the Supreme Court’s actions were such a blatant contravention of the rule of law, Counsel requested Attorney General Chris Finlayson intervene in the public interest.  Finlayson’s office responded simply that judicial independence effectively means judges can pick and choose which laws they want to apply in New Zealand.  For its own part, the Supreme Court refused to be pulled into defending its seemingly lawless decision and simply ignored the evident inconsistency brought to its attention.

We may not consider this issue important now, but there are profound reasons why trial by jury is central to egalitarian legal systems.  History will judge New Zealand jurisprudence on this issue of trial by jury.  And history has shown us that public complacency is an elementary factor in degradation of the rule of law by those in power.

____________________________________________________________________

LOSING THE PLOT

12 April 2011
The Urewera 18 have applied to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s rejection of their right to trial by jury.

Citing no right to appeal interlocutory judgments ahead of trial, the Crown prosecution opposes the Supreme Court considering the matter until at least after the scheduled trial in August, if at all.

In what is already the most expensive prosecution to taxpayers in New Zealand’s history, the result will be a mistrial if Crown argument is accepted and the Supreme Court determines post trial that denial of jury breached New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Crimes Act guarantees.  Strategically the Crown’s hope is that a fait accompli on judge alone trial will bolster the economic pressures on the Supreme Court upholding the lower court’s imposed discretion to deny this statutory right.

Meanwhile, it has been reported in the Whakatane Beacon that Tuhoe will back a request to solicitor-general David Collins later this month to drop all charges against the 18 defendants.  After the September 2007 raids held many without bail on terrorism charges, public protests forced Mr Collins to reduce the charges to various weapons, drugs and gang charges.   It is reported Tuhoe leader Tamati Kruger said iwi would endorse the request to drop charges, sponsored by lawyer Moana Jackson and Auckland University law faculty professor Jane Kelsey, adding “These people will never, ever get a fair and just trial.”

The original Police affidavit used to obtain the warrants to make the arrests which grabbed world headlines 3 ½ years ago suggests several defendants were charged because of their personal association with their co-defendants or for using offensive language in describing Police.  Despite a court-ordered public suppression order of this police affidavit from day one, Auckland High Court Judge Helen Winkelmann read out key phrases for the TV cameras in court when revoking bail against one of the defendants Jamie Locket a week after the arrests.  Those sensationalist excerpts, that “white men are going to die in this country” and “I am going to go commando”, were not given any context and were not representative of the police affidavit.  Talk radio was ablaze in the days afterward, with many advocating reestablishment of the death penalty.

Three years later it was Winkelmann who denied 14 of these 18 defendants their statutory right to trial by jury on grounds jury members will likely use “improper reasoning processes” in reaching a decision and the trial is expected to be lengthy.  As with the affidavit, the Judge suppressed her ruling from the public.  It is this decision which the Court of Appeal upheld last month and the Supreme Court is now being asked to consider.

___________________________________________________________________

(The following article is not connected to the ‘Urewera 18’ case – but provides more information about what I consider to be the persecution of Vince Siemer.  Penny Bright)

___________________________________________________________________

BLACK ROBES, WHITE LIES

31 March 2011 
Okay, Justice Hammond ruled in yesterday’s record $920,000 Court of Appeal ruling against kiwisfirst publisher Vince Siemer, “We have not had our attention drawn to any worse case of defamation in the British Commonwealth, and our own researches have not disclosed one.”

The judge who wrote New Zealand’s handbook on judicial conflict of interest would know.  Hammond, after all, was the trial judge in 2001 who appointed Michael Stiassny, the alleged victim, receiver of the debt-free company with $175,000 cash at the centre of the case, and to whom Stiassny reported –  “We had begun disbursing monies to unsecured creditors on the basis of our understanding that funds would be provided by shareholders to support ongoing trading costs as provided in our cashflow forecasts.  We now have no such assurance and accordingly no further funds will be released to pre-receivership creditors”.

Judge Hammond had been formally requested to disqualify himself in Stiassny’s lawsuit against Siemer.  When Hammond refused, Siemer took the refusal to the Supreme Court.  Mr & Mrs Siemer both provided affidavits to the court swearing Stiassny bragged about Judge Hammond being his good friend and the Judge was a material witness to Stiassny’s alleged accounting misrepresentations.  In response, His Honour provided a statement to the Supreme Court claiming he had no conflict because his previous involvement was before Stiassny became involved.  When evidence was provided to the Supreme Court showing His Honour had lied – he not only appointed Stiassny but had dealt with Stiassny in the case over seven months – the Supreme Court issued this Minute.  Any lawyer will tell you the most likely reason the Supreme Court would issue a Minute rather than the appropriate ‘judgment’ was to keep evidence of Judge Hammond’s material deceit out of the official record.  Proving justice is blind, the judges on New Zealand’s highest court publicly stood by their orginal ‘judgment’ that “bias, actual or apparent, could never have been responsibly alleged”.

Same with the Stiassny defamation claim.  Astute observers would have noticed the Court of Appeal earlier prohibited appeal against the defamation judgment, allowing challenge to only the quantum of the award.  Why did it limit the statutory right of appeal?  Could it be there is something the court is hiding?

The lynchpin in the defamation claim had always been whether Siemer was lying about the most powerful insolvency practitioner and employer of judges in New Zealand falsely labeling a solvent company insolvent.  Understandable.  If evidence existed that Stiassny wantonly labeled a solvent company insolvent, his professional reputation would be justifiably hammered.  So forget about what Siemer says.  The honourable Court of Appeal has declared Siemer is maliciously telling falsehoods and Stiassny is the poor victim – after preventing challenge of the defamation finding which was the product of a closed hearing where only Stiassny, his lawyers and the High Court judge met.  That is right: the ‘trial’ itself was ex-parte.  Rather, look at the two separate handwritten file notes of Stiassny’s lawyer Robert Fardell QC six months into that receivership (note that “Ferriers” refers to Stiassny’s insolvency company Ferrier Hodgson).

Long before his judgment yesterday, Justice Hammond was the subject of a Judicial Conduct Commissioner complaint over his alleged conflict of interest in this case.  Now that Hammond has replaced Geoffrey Palmer as President of the Law Commission, expect the JCC, who has been sitting on the complaint for two years, to claim lack of jurisdiction.  As any law-abiding citizen, Siemer has nowhere else but the Courts to turn for redress.

Such is justice in the New Zealand Courts.  Anyone who believes this is an unusual situtation can be forgiven for not knowing how the courts routinely and secretly operate here.  Perhaps it takes the “worst case of defamation in the British Commonwealth” to open the public’s eyes.

June 7, 2011 Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Human rights, VINCE SIEMER REPORT | Leave a comment

KIWISFIRST: VINCE SIEMER REPORT: ‘WILLYWOOD’

WILLYWOOD

31 May 2011
The resurrection tour of disgraced Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson (pictured) swings back into action with an interview scheduled to run on TVNZ‘s weekly Court Report program 16 June. Despite the actual interview not scheduled until 14 June, it is being touted as one of explosive revelations, with criminal defence lawyer-host Greg King bragging on facebook he could sell tickets.

Supreme Court Justice Wilson resigned last October amid revelations he ruled in favour of his bank (BNZ) and business partner (Alan Galbraith QC) when on the Court of Appeal. Since then, Wilson has given one interview – to his lawyer’s wife, Deborah Coddington of the NZ Herald – where he claimed he had done nothing wrong and chastised the government Ministers for not rushing to his defence. Though Wilson has since told friends he intends to expose the widespread partisanship of his erstwhile judicial colleagues which proved his indiscretions tame in comparison, do not look for the King interview to expose any secrets, despite its billing.

One reason is Wilson has been paid buckets full of money to remain quiet.  In addition to the well-publicised million dollar payout that precipitated his resignation from New Zealand’s highest court, kiwisfirst was tipped off that Wilson is also receiving large government superannuation payments. However, in response to an Official Information Act request, the government has refused to disclose the amount, citing privacy as the reason why taxpayers cannot know how much of their money Wilson is getting.

Notwithstanding this ongoing largesse, Wilson understands his agreed silence cannot be enforced since confidentiality agreements are not enforceable to cover up criminal activity. The former judge has been reservedly astute in playing this card. Consequently, judges and his Queen’s Counsel mates are falling over Wilson to placate him and bring him back into the fold. Powerful QC’s such as James Farmer and Colin Carruthers reportedly have his ear, but his relationship with one-time great mate (Chief Justice) Sian Elias is by all accounts still strained. While Elias was as supportive of Wilson as practical through the ordeal, it still rubs at Wilson that Elias’ was guilty of much more egregious offending, yet has come out above the fray.

Meanwhile, Green List MP Dr Kennedy Graham’s bill which would require judges disclose their pecuniary interests is in Committee, bogged down by political infighting and recent events in Christchurch.  Attorney General Chris Finlayson has proposed an alternative legislative overhaul to the Judicature Act, quietly telling judges on the powerful Rules Committee that they will be allowed to write what effectively will be a Clayton’s Act as to how they conduct themselves if he has his way. This approach fits with Prime Minister John Key’s attempt to promote New Zealand as a corrupt-free zone for international investors, along the line of Singapore. The Prime Minister has repeatedly told his ministers that exposing judicial corruption is off limits as it will undermine public confidence.

New Zealand is virtually unique in the world’s democracies in refusing to consider corruption exists or implementing processes to look for it. As kiwisfirst reported twice in the last two years, Transparency International New Zealand receives 1% of its funding from memberships and more than 90% from the NZ government on the proviso it focuses its work off shore on the smaller Pacific island nations. Several of TINZ’s New Zealand directors are government employees who also run consultancy firms which specialise in obtaining government grants for their clients.

June 7, 2011 Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, VINCE SIEMER REPORT | Leave a comment

NBR: ‘Knight’ of the Roundtable Roger Kerr -was made a Companion of the New Zealand order of Merit in the Queen’s Birthday Honours’ & my comment(s).

Rob Hosking | Friday June 03, 2011 | 10 comments

‘Knight’ of the Roundtable Roger Kerr

Business Roundtable executive director Roger Kerr was made a Companion of the New Zealand order of Merit in the Queen’s Birthday Honours – the country’s secondest highest honour.

Mr Kerr (66) has held the role since the Business Roundtable was formed in 1986, and now notes that nobody expected the role, let alone the organisation itself, to last anything like this long. Formed at the height of the economic reforms of the David Lange/Roger Douglas government, the organisation was aimed at seeing those reforms, and the principles which inspired them, continued.

Mr Kerr, at the time a Treasury official, was deeply involved with those reforms but he credits businessmen Sir Ron Trotter and Sir Douglas Myers as the main push for the Roundtable to become a formal organisation.

“We had the view the Lange-Douglas government economic reforms would not stay in place unless there was broad support in the business community for them.

“I thought we might all last for a year or two until it all fell apart in disunity and argument.”

At the time the Roundtable stood out from most of the other business groups (Federated Farmers was an exception) because it was not involved in arguing for specific concessions from the government for its members but instead was arguing for a principled approach of low taxes, no subsidies, and less rather than more regulation.

Ten years after its formation, at the start of the first MMP coalition government of National and New Zealand First, ministers offered a business assistance package and all the business groups turned it down.

“We said thanks, but no thanks … progressively all have come to the same sort of view – the differences between what we, Business New Zealand, the Chambers of Commerce and the Federated Farmers are all very similar.”

As for his award, he said that he is “delighted and deeply honoured to be recognised in this way; but the honour really goes to those courageous business leaders who cared enough about the country to set up the Business Roundtable back in the 1980s when the country was in a crisis.

“And the honour also belongs to all of those business leaders who over the years have quietly but determinedly backed me as a foot soldier and the Business Roundtable as an organisation in our efforts to promote better public policies for New Zealand.

“So I see this honour as recognition of all that we’ve been able to achieve together – and the list of achievements is very substantial – and I’m very proud to accept it on behalf of the organisation.”

He also acknowledge the support of his family, “especially my three wonderful sons, who did not see as much of me when they were growing up as they might have needed to, when I was so heavily committed to my work

____________________________________________________________________

 

MY COMMENT:

“Formed at the height of the economic reforms of the David Lange/Roger Douglas government, the organisation was aimed at seeing those reforms, and the principles which inspired them, continued.

Mr Kerr, at the time a Treasury official, was deeply involved with those reforms but he credits businessmen Sir Ron Trotter and Sir Douglas Myers as the main push for the Roundtable to become a formal organisation.” __________________________________

When did the public elect Roger Kerr, Doug Myers and Ron Trotter?

Where was the democratic mandate for these ‘reforms’ and whose interests were served by them?

Was the influence of the NZ Business Round Table at the ‘policy’ level – before these ‘reforms’ became legislation, actually an example of the form of ‘grand corruption’ known as ‘State Capture’ ? (where vested interests ‘get their way’ at the ‘policy’ before legislation is passed?)

Never heard of ‘State Capture’?

Neither had I until I attended the 14th Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference last year.

(Now am in contact with international experts on the subject).

(Check out the role of ‘Regulatory Impact Statements’ – who is ‘consulted’ on various ‘policy’ initiatives before they become legislation.)

Has this been helped by NZ’s lack of an enforceable ‘Code of Conduct’ for MPs, and ‘lobbyists’, and the lack of a ‘Register of Lobbyists’?

How is public scrutiny maintained over who exactly is ‘meeting the Minister’, on whose behalf, and for what purpose?

All this ‘transparency’ in New Zealand – ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world (along with Denmark and Singapore according to Transparency International’s 2010 ‘Corruption Perception Index’).

Looking forward to the next ad hominem attempted smear campaign by ‘disinformation agents’?

The more vicious the attacks – the more I know that I’m hitting the mark – eh Lindsay?

Going to try and get me banned from NBR (again) Lindsay for raising these issues? 🙂

Kind regards Penny Bright http://waterpessure.wordpress.com

[Penny, it’s Queen’s Birthday. Go and have brunch or something – CK] Penny Bright |___________________________________________________________________

Monday, June 6, 2011 – 10:23am reply Penny you could ask exactly the same question about the Unions and also apply your “state capture” comments. Both are in, effect ,lobby groups Ross12 | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 10:45am reply Hi Penny 1)Who paid for you to go to this conference and how do you source your current income? 2) Without the sweeping changes in the mid 80’s by this group, NZ would not been forced to be efficicent in farming and other industries, to be forced to close low value manufacturing before the China Story really took off. You should be thanking these guys that our small economy is so cutting edge and without the smoke that protectionism causes. And apparently I am a “Rich p#rick” according to the left , but here i am working on Queens Birthday to make sure my team has work to fund their salaries and lives… Beanie | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 11:34am

__________________________________________________________________

reply In response to Penny Bright | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 10:23am

Well there was certainly a democratic mandate given by the voters when the Lange/Douglas Labour Party were re-elected in 1987 with an increased percentage of the votes (43% in 1984 to 48% in 1987).

There is the mandate for you Penny, but you knew about that already didn’t you. The mandate that wasn’t given by the voters was for Lange to stop the reforms in 1988 that everyone voted for 1987. Anonymous | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 11:38am

_____________________________________________________________________

reply Get a life penny bright. You are a piece of scum who thinks your doing good work. Everyone secretly knows your a joke. Thomas. D | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 11:55am reply

___________________________________________________________________

An excellent man who many young and old NZ’ers should get insipration from. I hope someone makes a small documentary on this legend Devon | Monday, June 6, 2011 –

__________________________________________________________________

12:01pm reply I constantly read Roger Kerrs analysis of business and government. It is excellent. Congratulations Mr Kerr. Anonymous | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 12:51pm

____________________________________________________________________

reply Roger Kerr’s hounours award has been given for his public engagement with the field of business. Any democracy should allow lobbying by different groups, such as business organizations or unions. They have a right to exist and voice their views. Equally, the public has a responsibility to critically analyse what they say and respond if they wish. Personally, I don’t support the views of either Roger or Penny Bright. Anonymous | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 1:21pm

_____________________________________________________________________

reply In response to Penny Bright | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 10:23am Penny, are you in line for any award yet? If not, why not? No Time | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 1:40pm

______________________________________________________________________

reply

In response to No Time | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 1:40pm

Missed these did you ‘No Time’? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10655565

Perennial protester Penny Bright – arrested 22 times, often at Auckland City Council meetings – has received a “Good Citizen” award from a council community board,

The Aucklander reports.

The outgoing Eden Albert Community Board’s chairman, Christopher Dempsey, says the controversial character is being honoured for focusing attention on water privatisation and pushing for transparency in council contracts.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10602660 Auckland council protester and “anti-corruption campaigner”

Penny Bright has the backing of Local Government Minister Rodney Hide in her drive to increase the level of transparency and accountability from local government politicians. Her inquiries have found only a few councils have a register of interests for elected members, not all of which are available on the council websites.

Councils that declare some or all of local members’ pecuniary interests include Auckland City Council, Manukau City Council, Palmerston North City Council, Horowhenua District Council and Hurunui District Council.

Penny Bright, who attended the Australian public sector anti-corruption conference in Brisbane in July, said there was huge scope for abuse of public office for private gain in New Zealand.

At the very least, she said, local government politicians should be subject to the same rules as MPs and have to declare the assets, debts and gifts they may have accumulated or received.

She said New Zealand should follow measures introduced by the Labor Government in Australia, where ministers have to divest themselves of shares (except investment schemes such as diversified superannuation funds) and are forbidden from seeking government or public service work for 18 months after leaving office.”

However – I don’t expect to get an award for my services to big busine$$ anytime soon;)

Penny Bright https://waterpressure.wordpress.com Penny Bright | Monday, June 6, 2011 – 3:35pm

June 6, 2011 Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Fighting corruption internationally, Human rights, Internationally significant information | Leave a comment

NZ has no statutory requirement for a ‘Register of Lobbyists’ or ‘Code of Conduct for Lobbyists’ – unlike most Australian States and Commonwealth Governments: (BACKGROUND RESEARCH DOCUMENT)

5 June 2011

NZ has no statutory requirement for a ‘Register of Lobbyists’ or ‘Code of Conduct for Lobbyists’ – unlike most Australian States and Commonwealth Governments: (BACKGROUND RESEARCH DOCUMENT).

To make matters worse – New Zealand MPs have no enforceable ‘Code of Conduct’  either.

So – how is it that NZ is ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Denmark and Singapore according to Transparency International’s 2010 ‘Corruption Perception Index’) – when we lack transparency and accountability  in such critical areas?:

“WHO IS MEETING THE MINISTER – ON WHOSE BEHALF – SERVING WHOSE INTEREST$?”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

AUSTRALIAN OVERVIEW:

www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/pol/CodesOfConduct.htm

Summary of codes of conduct in Australian parliament, including  a comparison with NZ

__________________________________________________________________

AUSTRALIAN REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTERS OF LOBBYISTS, AND LOBBYISTS ‘CODES OF CONDUCT’ :

Australian Commonwealth Government

http://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/

In 2008 the Australian Government introduced a Lobbying Code of Conduct and established a Register of Lobbyists to ensure that contact between lobbyists and Commonwealth Government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty.

Any lobbyist who acts on behalf of third-party clients for the purposes of lobbying Government representatives must be registered on the Register of Lobbyists and must comply with the requirements of the Lobbying Code of Conduct.

The public Register of Lobbyists contains the following information about lobbyists who make representations to Government on behalf of their third-party clients: the business registration details and trading names of each lobbying entity including, where the business is not a publicly listed company, the names of owners, partners or major shareholders, as applicable; the names and positions of persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbying entity to carry out lobbying activities; and the names of clients on whose behalf the lobbying entity conducts lobbying activities.

SAMPLE LOBBYIST PROFILE: http://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/register

______________________________________________

NEW SOUTH WALES:

http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/prem/lobbyist_register

Register of Lobbyists

The Government has established a Register of Lobbyists and introduced a Lobbyist Code of Conduct.

The Lobbyist Code of Conduct provides that Government representatives (Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministerial staff, staff working for a Parliamentary Secretary, and persons working in public sector agencies) must only be lobbied by a professional lobbyist who is registered and has the lobbyist’s details on the Register.

The Premier will also be writing to Government Members of Parliament requiring them to comply with the Code. The Lobbyist Code of Conduct will take effect from 1 February 2009 and can be accessed here.

From 1 February 2009, professional lobbyists who act on behalf of third party clients will need to be registered with the Department of Premier and Cabinet before they can lobby Government representatives or Government Members of Parliament.

Also, these lobbyists will need to comply with the requirements of the Lobbyist Code of Conduct.

The Register is a public document that will contain the following information about professional lobbyists who represent a client’s views to Government representatives:

the business registration details, including the names of owners, partners or major shareholders, as applicable; the names and positions of persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities; and the names of clients who currently retain the lobbyist or have been provided lobbying services by the lobbyist during the past three months.

________________________________________________________________________________________

VICTORIA STATE GOVERNMENT:

http://www.vic.gov.au/news-detail/victorian-government-lobbyists-register-goes-live.html

A register for lobbyists who make representations to Government is now up and running, as part of a range of reforms to further strengthen transparency and accountability in Victoria. Lobbyists on the register must agree to comply with the requirements of the Victorian Government Professional Lobbyist Code of Conduct.

The Victorian Government Professional Lobbyists’ Code included: Requiring professional lobbyists to register with the Public Sector Standards Commissioner every year, including statutory declarations concerning any relevant criminal history matters;

Requiring lobbyists to submit changes to their registration details to the Public Sector Standards Commissioner within 10 working days of any change;

Barring any unregistered professional lobbyist from lobbying the Victorian Government;

Requiring lobbyists to disclose for whom they are acting and on what issue from first communication with a government representative;

Requiring lobbyists to declare to government representatives, with whom they wish to discuss an issue, that they are registered.

The Register of Lobbyists can be viewed on the SSA website:

http://www.lobbyistsregister.vic.gov.au _________________________________________________________________________________________

QUEENSLAND STATE GOVERNMENT:

http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/community-issues/open-transparent-gov/lobbyists-register.aspx

Register of Lobbyists Changes effective 1 January 2010

Registration requirements previously set out in the Queensland Contact with Lobbyists Code have been replaced by requirements under the Integrity Act 2009 (The Act).

The Act was passed by Parliament on 25 November 2009 and came into effect on 1 January 2010.

The Act transfers responsibility for the administration of the Register of Lobbyists from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to the Queensland Integrity Commissioner.

Visit the Integrity Commissioner’s website (external site) for information on the Register of Lobbyists and registration requirements.

Lobbyists code of conduct The Integrity Commissioner has approved a Lobbyists Code of Conduct in March 2010.

The Lobbyists Code of Conduct replaced the Queensland Contact with Lobbyists Code and supplements the provisions of the Integrity Act 2009 relating to lobbyists.

The purpose of the code is to provide standards of conduct for lobbyists designed to ensure that contact between lobbyists and government representatives is carried out in accordance with public expectations of transparency and integrity.

Now that the code has been approved it is necessary for lobbyists to comply with it.

The Integrity Commissioner intends to review the code in the first half of 2011.

Members of the public and interested parties, including lobbyists and government representatives, will be invited to comment on possible amendments to its contents.

As required under the Act, the Integrity Commissioner will also consult with the parliamentary Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee about the content of the code. Last update: 10 November, 2010

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WEST AUSTRALIA STATE GOVERNMENT:

https://secure.dpc.wa.gov.au/lobbyistsregister/

Register of Lobbyists

Towards the end of 2006, the Western Australian Government decided to establish a code of conduct for contact between lobbyists and government representatives, including a ‘Register of Lobbyists’.

The purpose of the Register is to provide information to the public, as well as the Government, on who is engaged in lobbying activities with Government and whom lobbyists represent in their dealings with Government.

To find out more about the Register, who needs to register, how to register and the ‘Contact with Lobbyists Code’, or to look at the Register, use the links on the left hand side of this page. Page last revised: 5 October 2010

Contact With Lobbyists Code Preamble

Free and open access to the institutions of government is a vital element of our democracy.

Lobbyists can enhance the strength of our democracy by assisting individuals and organisations with advice on public policy processes and facilitating contact with relevant Government Representatives.

In performing this role, there is a public expectation that Lobbyists will be individuals of strong moral calibre who operate according the highest standards of professional conduct. The Government has established the Contact with Lobbyists Code to ensure that contact between Lobbyists and Government Representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty.

Application

2.1 The Contact with Lobbyists Code has application through the Codes of Conduct of public sector bodies.

2.2 The Contact with Lobbyists Code creates no obligation for a Government Representative to have contact with a particular Lobbyist or Lobbyists in general.

2.3 The Contact with Lobbyists Code does not serve to restrict contact in situations where the law requires a Government Representative to take account of the views advanced by a person who may be a Lobbyist. Definitions “Lobbyist” means a person, body corporate, unincorporated association, partnership or firm whose business includes being contracted or engaged to represent the interests of a third party to a Government Representative.

“Lobbyist” does not include:

(a) an association or organisation constituted to represent the interests of its members;

(b) a religious or charitable organisation; or

(c) an entity or person whose business is a recognised technical or professional occupation which, as part of the services provided to third parties in the course of that occupation, represents the views of the third party who has engaged it to provide their technical or professional services.

“Lobbyist’s Details” means the information described under clause

5.1. “Government Representative” means a Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, Ministerial Staff Member or person employed, contracted or engaged by a public sector agency.

“Ministerial Staff Member” means a person employed under section 68 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994; a person seconded to a Ministerial office under section 66 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994; or a person otherwise placed, contracted or engaged in a Ministerial office.

Contact between Lobbyists and Government Representatives 4.1

A Government Representative shall not at any time permit lobbying by:

(a) a Lobbyist who is not on the Register of Lobbyists;

(b) any employee, contractor or person engaged by a Lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities whose name does not appear in the Lobbyist’s Details noted on the Register of Lobbyists in connection with the Lobbyist;

(c) any Lobbyist or employee, contractor or person engaged by a Lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities who, in the opinion of the Government Representative, has failed to observe any of the requirements of clause 4.3.

4.2 Contact with a Government Representative for the purposes of lobbying activities by a Lobbyist includes:

(a) telephone contact;

(b) electronic mail contact;

(c) written mail contact; and

(d) face to face meetings.

4.3 When making an initial contact with a Government Representative about a particular issue on behalf of a third party for whom the Lobbyist has provided paid or unpaid services, the Lobbyist must inform the Government Representative:

(a) that they are a Lobbyist or employee, contractor or person otherwise engaged by the Lobbyist who is currently listed on the Register of Lobbyists;

(b) that they are making the contact on behalf of a third party;

(c) the name of the third party; and

(d) the nature of that third party’s issue. Register of Lobbyists

5.1 There shall be a Register of Lobbyists which shall contain the following information: (a) the business registration details of the Lobbyist, including names of owners, partners or major shareholders as applicable;

(b) the names and positions of persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the Lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities;

(c) the names of third parties for whom the Lobbyist is currently retained to provide paid or unpaid services as a Lobbyist; and

(d) the names of persons for whom the Lobbyist has provided paid or unpaid services as a Lobbyist during the previous three months.

5.2 A Lobbyist wishing to have contact with a Government Representative for the purposes of lobbying activities may apply to the Public Sector Commissioner to have their Lobbyist’s Details recorded in the Register of Lobbyists.

5.3 The Lobbyist shall submit updated Lobbyist’s Details to the Public Sector Commissioner in the event of any change to the Lobbyist’s Details.

5.4 The Lobbyist shall provide to the Public Sector Commissioner within 10 business days of each of 30 March, 30 June, 30 September and 30 December each year a confirmation that their Lobbyists Details are up to date.

5.5 The registration of a Lobbyist shall lapse if a confirmation is not provided to the Public Sector Commissioner by the dates referred to under clause 5.4. Access to the Register of Lobbyists

6.1 The Register of Lobbyists shall be a public document.

6.2 The Public Sector Commissioner shall ensure that the Register of Lobbyists is readily accessible to members of the public. Principles of Engagement with Government Representatives

7.1 Lobbyists shall observe the following principles when engaging with Government Representatives:

(a) Lobbyists shall not engage in any conduct that is corrupt, dishonest, or illegal, or cause or threaten any detriment;

(b) Lobbyists shall use all reasonable endeavours to satisfy themselves of the truth and accuracy of all statements and information provided to parties whom they represent, the wider public, governments and agencies;

(c) Lobbyists shall not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims about, or otherwise misrepresent, the nature or extent of their access to institutions of government or to political parties or to persons in those institutions; and

(d) Lobbyists shall keep strictly separate from their duties and activities as Lobbyists any personal activity or involvement on behalf of a political party.

Registration The Public Sector Commissioner may at his or her discretion:

1) refuse to accept an application to be placed on the Register of Lobbyists; and

2) remove from the Register of Lobbyists the details of a Lobbyist if, in the opinion of the Public Sector Commissioner,

(a) any prior or current conduct of the Lobbyist or his employee, contractor or person otherwise engaged to provide lobbying services for the Lobbyist has contravened any of the terms of this Code; or

(b) any prior or current conduct of the Lobbyist or association of the Lobbyist with another person or organisation is considered to be inconsistent with general standards of ethical conduct; or

(c) the registration details of the Lobbyist are inaccurate; or

(d) not confirmed in accordance with the requirements of clause 5.4; or (e) there are other reasonable grounds for doing so. Last amended: 28 November 2008 _______________________________________________________________________

SOUTH AUSTRALIA STATE GOVERNMENT:

http://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/

In 2008 the Australian Government introduced a Lobbying Code of Conduct and established a Register of Lobbyists to ensure that contact between lobbyists and Commonwealth Government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty.

Any lobbyist who acts on behalf of third-party clients for the purposes of lobbying Government representatives must be registered on the Register of Lobbyists and must comply with the requirements of the Lobbying Code of Conduct.

The public Register of Lobbyists contains the following information about lobbyists who make representations to Government on behalf of their third-party clients: the business registration details and trading names of each lobbying entity including, where the business is not a publicly listed company, the names of owners, partners or major shareholders, as applicable; the names and positions of persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbying entity to carry out lobbying activities; and the names of clients on whose behalf the lobbying entity conducts lobbying activities.

Consistent with the Government’s commitment to keep the Code and Register under review, the Cabinet Secretary, Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig, has released a discussion paper to invite feedback on possible reforms. Comments were sought by 30 September 2010. See also: Who needs to Register How to Register For Registered Lobbyists ___________________________________________

TASMANIA STATE GOVERNMENT:

http://lobbyists.dpac.tas.gov.au/

Register of Lobbyists The Register of Lobbyists contains the following information about lobbyists who make representations to the Tasmanian Government on behalf of their clients:

Business registration details and trading names of each lobbyist including where the business is not a publicly listed company, the names of owners, partners or major shareholders, as applicable.

Names and positions of people employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities.

Names of clients for whom the lobbyist conducts lobbying activities.

From 1 September 2009, any lobbyist who wishes to contact a Tasmanian Government representative for the purpose of lobbying activities must be registered and must agree to comply with the requirements of the Lobbying Code of Conduct.

Lobbying Code of Conduct

Download the Tasmanian Government Lobbying Code of Conduct as a PDF (PDF, 131KB)

1. Preamble

1.1 Ethical lobbying is a legitimate activity and an important part of the democratic process. Lobbyists can help individuals and organisations communicate their views on matters of public interest to the Government and Parliament and, in doing so, improve outcomes for the community as a whole.

1.2 In performing this role, there is a public expectation that lobbying activities will be carried out ethically and transparently, and that Government representatives or Members of Parliament who are approached by lobbyists can establish whose interests they represent so that informed judgments can be made about the outcome they are seeking to achieve.

1.3 The Lobbying Code of Conduct is intended to promote trust in the integrity of government processes and ensure that contact between lobbyists and Government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty.

1.4 Lobbyists and Government representatives are expected to comply with the requirements of the Lobbying Code of Conduct to ensure high standards of professional conduct and to facilitate open and transparent government.

2. Application

2.1 The Lobbying Code of Conduct applies in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government Members Handbook and any other relevant codes.

2.2 The Lobbying Code of Conduct creates no obligation on the part of a Government representative to have contact with a particular lobbyist or lobbyists in general.

2.3 The Lobbying Code of Conduct does not operate to restrict contact with Government representatives where the law requires a Government representative to take account of the views advanced by a person who may be a lobbyist.

3. Definitions “Client”, in relation to a lobbyist, means an individual, association, organisation or business who has:

(a) engaged a lobbyist on a retainer to make representations to Government representatives; or

(b) in the previous three months, engaged a lobbyist to make representations to Government representatives, whether paid or unpaid. “Communications with a Government representative” includes oral, written and electronic communications. “Government representative” means a Minister, a Parliamentary Secretary, a Member of Parliament of the political party (or parties) that constitute the Executive Government of the day, a person employed as a Ministerial adviser, or a Head of Agency appointed under the State Service Act 2000.

“Lobbying activities” are communications with a Government representative in an effort to influence Government decision-making, including the making or amendment of legislation, the development or amendment of a Government policy or program, the awarding of a Government contract or grant or the allocation of funding, but does not include:

(a) communications with a committee of the Parliament;

(b) communications with a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary in his or her capacity as a local Member of Parliament in relation to non-ministerial responsibilities;

(c) communications in response to a call for submissions;

(d) petitions or communications of a grassroots campaign nature in an attempt to influence a Government policy or decision;

(e) communications in response to a request for tender;

(f) statements made in a public forum; or (g) responses to requests by Government representatives for information.

“Lobbyist” means any person, company or organisation who conducts lobbying activities on behalf of a third party client or whose employees conduct lobbying activities on behalf of a third party client, but does not include:

(a) charitable, religious and other organisations or funds that are endorsed as deductible gift recipients;

(b) non-profit associations or organisations constituted to represent the interests of their members that are not endorsed as deductible gift recipients;

(c) professional associations, guilds, trade or union bodies who represent a class of professions, tradespersons, employers or other workforce entities;

(d) individuals making representations on behalf of relatives or friends about their personal affairs;

(e) members of trade delegations visiting Tasmania;

(f) persons who are registered under an Australian Government scheme regulating the activities of members of that profession, such as registered tax agents, Customs brokers, company auditors and liquidators, provided that their dealings with Government representatives are part of the normal day to day work of people in that profession; and

(g) members of professions, such as doctors, lawyers or accountants, and other service providers, who make occasional representations to Government on behalf of others in a way that is incidental to the provision to them of their professional or other services.

However, if a significant or regular part of the services offered by a person employed or engaged by a professional practice or other service provider involves lobbying activities on behalf of clients of that practice or service, the practice or service provider and the person offering those services must register and identify the clients for whom they carry out lobbying activities.

For the avoidance of doubt, this code does not apply to any person, company or organisation, or the employees of such company or organisation, engaging in lobbying activities on their own behalf rather than for a client, and does not require any such person, company or organisation to be recorded in the Register of Lobbyists unless that person, company or organisation or its employees also engage in lobbying activities on behalf of a client.

“Lobbyist’s details” means the information described under clause 5.1. ”

Secretary” means the Secretary, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

4. No contact between Government representatives and unregistered lobbyists 4.1 A Government representative shall not knowingly and intentionally be a party to lobbying activities by:

(a) a lobbyist who is not on the Register of Lobbyists;

(b) an employee of a lobbyist, or a contractor or person engaged by a lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities whose name does not appear in the lobbyist’s details noted on the Register of Lobbyists in connection with the lobbyist; or

(c) a lobbyist or an employee of a lobbyist, or a contractor or person engaged by a lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities who, in the opinion of the Government representative, has failed to observe any of the requirements of clause 8.1(e).

5. Register of Lobbyists

5.1 There shall be a Register of Lobbyists that shall contain the following information:

(a) in the case of a person, company or organisation that conducts lobbying activities, or whose employees conduct lobbying activities with a Government representative on behalf of a client:

(i) business registration details, including trading names, of the lobbyist including, where the business is not a publicly listed company, the names of owners, partners or major shareholders, as applicable;

(ii) names and positions of persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities;

(iii) subject to clause 5.2, the names of clients on whose behalf the lobbyist conducts lobbying activities; and

(iv) contact details of the person or company or organisation that conducts the lobbying activities: such as name, address, telephone number, facsimile, email and web address.

5.2 A lobbyist is not required to list a body corporate as a client on the register if disclosure of the lobbyist’s relationship with the body corporate might result in speculation about a pending transaction involving the body corporate and that transaction has not previously been disclosed by the body corporate in accordance with its continuous disclosure obligations under Chapter 6CA of the Corporations Act 2001.

Where the lobbyist relies on this clause, they must advise any Government representative they are lobbying of such reliance and also the anticipated date when they will add their client to the register and the lobbyist must add the name of their client to the register promptly once the market sensitivity has passed.

5.3 A lobbyist wishing to conduct lobbying activities with a Government representative must apply to the Secretary to have his or her details recorded in the Register of Lobbyists.

5.4 The lobbyist shall submit updated details to the Secretary in the event of any change to their details as soon as practicable but no more than 10 business days after the change occurs.

5.5 The lobbyist shall provide to the Secretary within 10 business days of 30 June and 31 December of each year, confirmation that the lobbyist’s details are up to date.

5.6 The lobbyist shall provide to the Secretary, within 10 business days of 30 June each year, statutory declarations for all persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities on behalf of a client, as required under clause 10.1.

5.7 The registration of a lobbyist shall lapse if the confirmations and updated statutory declarations are not provided to the Secretary within the time frames specified in clauses 5.5 and 5.6. 6. Access to the Register of Lobbyists

6.1 The Register of Lobbyists shall be a public document that is published on the website of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

7. Prohibition on lobbying activities

7.1 Persons who, after 1 September 2009, retire from office as a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, shall not, for a period of 12 months after they cease to hold office, engage in lobbying activities relating to any matter that they had official dealings with in their last 12 months in office.

7.2 Persons who were, after 1 September 2009, employed as a Head of Agency under the State Service Act 2000 shall not, for a period of 12 months after they cease their employment, engage in lobbying activities relating to any matter that they had official dealings with in their last 12 months of employment.

8. Principles of engagement with Government representatives

8.1 Lobbyists shall observe the following principles when engaging with Government representatives:

(a) lobbyists shall not engage in any conduct that is corrupt, dishonest or illegal, or unlawfully cause or threaten any detriment;

(b) lobbyists shall use all reasonable endeavours to satisfy themselves of the truth and accuracy of all statements and information provided by them to clients whom they represent, the wider public and Government representatives;

(c) lobbyists shall not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims about, or otherwise misrepresent, the nature or extent of their access to Government representatives, members of political parties or to any other person;

(d) lobbyists shall keep strictly separate from their duties and activities as lobbyists any personal activity or involvement on behalf of a political party; and

(e) when making initial contact with Government representatives with the intention of conducting lobbying activities, lobbyists who are proposing to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of clients must inform the Government representatives:

(i) that they are lobbyists or employees of, or contractors or persons engaged by, lobbyists;

(ii) whether they are currently listed on the Register of Lobbyists;

(iii) the name of their relevant client or clients, including a client whose identity is not required to be made public under clause 5.2; and

(iv) the nature of the matters that their clients wish them to raise with Government representatives.

9. Reporting breaches of the code

9.1 A Government representative who becomes aware of a breach of this code by a lobbyist shall report details of the breach to the Secretary.

10. Registration

10.1 The Secretary shall not include on the register the name of an individual unless the individual provides a statutory declaration to the effect that he or she:

(a) has never been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24 months or more, and

(b) has not been convicted, as an adult, in the last 10 years, of an offence involving dishonesty or any crime as defined by section 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1924. 10.2

The Secretary may remove a lobbyist or a person who is an employee of a lobbyist, or a contractor or person engaged by a lobbyist from the Register of Lobbyists if, in the opinion of the Secretary:

(a) the conduct of the lobbyist or of the employee, the contractor or person engaged by the lobbyist to provide lobbying services for the lobbyist has contravened any of the terms of this code;

(b) the registration details of the lobbyist are inaccurate;

(c) the lobbyist fails to answer questions within a reasonable period of time relating to the lobbyist’s details on the Register or the lobbyist’s lobbying activities (in particular questions relating to allegations of breaches of the code) or provides inaccurate information in response to those questions; or

(d) the registration details have not been confirmed in accordance with the requirements of clauses 5.5 and 5.6. 10.3

The Secretary shall not remove or a person who is an employee of a lobbyist, or a contractor or person engaged by the lobbyist from the Register under clause 10.2, unless the Secretary has advised the lobbyist or the individual concerned of the reasons why he or she proposes to remove the lobbyist or individual concerned from the register and given the lobbyist or individual concerned an opportunity to state why the proposed course of action should not be followed.

10.4 The Secretary:

(a) must not register a lobbyist, a person who is an employee of a lobbyist or a contractor or person engaged by a lobbyist if the Premier, in his or her absolute discretion, directs the Secretary not to register the lobbyist or the individual, and

(b) must remove from the register a lobbyist or a person who is an employee of a lobbyist or a contractor or person engaged by a lobbyist from the register if the Premier, in his or her absolute discretion, directs the Secretary to remove the lobbyist or the individual from the register.

10.5 The Premier shall not issue a direction under clause 10.4 to the Secretary unless the Premier has advised the lobbyist or the individual concerned of the reasons why he or she proposes to issue the direction and given the lobbyist or the individual concerned an opportunity to state why the direction should not be issued. ______________________________________________________________________________________

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY:

As of 5 June 2011, cannot access any information which confirms the requirement for a ‘Code of Conduct’ for Lobbyists, or a ‘Register of Lobbyists’.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

NORTHERN TERRITORY STATE GOVERNMENT:

As of 5 June 2011, cannot access any information which confirms the requirement for a ‘Code of Conduct’ for Lobbyists, or a ‘Register of Lobbyists’.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Information complied by:

Penny Bright ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009

Attendee: Transparency International 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference 2010.

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

June 5, 2011 Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Fighting corruption internationally | Leave a comment

OPERATION 8 – NATIONWIDE SCREENINGS! Feature image Operation 8: Deep in the forest Feature length documentary

OPERATION 8 – NATIONWIDE SCREENINGS! Feature image Operation 8: Deep in the forest Feature length documentary

In October 2007, citing the Terrorism Suppression Act, police arrested 18 people in nationwide raids linked to alleged training camps in the Urewera mountain ranges, near the township of Ruatoki in eastern Bay of Plenty.

The documentary Operation 8, by independent filmmakers Errol Wright and Abi King-Jones, premiered last month as part of the World Cinema Showcase and is now opening in cinemas around the country throughout May and June.

It investigates how and why the raids took place, featuring interviews with academics and professionals versed in the case. Operation 8 was shot over three years and includes first-hand accounts from some of those arrested.

“The single most important New Zealand film in decades” – Crop Magazine

“Impassioned, balanced, entertaining and hugely important” Graeme Tuckett, Radio NZ,

The Dominion Post “Compelling, humane, intelligent… A film that every NZer ought to see” – David Larsen, The Listener

Now Showing for a limited time at: Auckland, Rialto Newmarket – Sessiontimes and details here

Auckland, Academy Cinemas – Session times and details here

Waiheke Cinema – Session times and details here

Whakatane, Cinema 5 – Session times and details here

Rotorua, Basement Cinema – Session times and details here

Palmerston North, Te Manawa Gallery – Session times and details here

New Plymouth, The Arthouse Cinema – Session times and details here

Wellington, Paramount Theatre – Session times and details here Petone,

Lighthouse Cinema- Session times and details here

Motueka, The Gecko – Session times and details here Dundein, Rialto Cinemas – Session times and details here

(links regularly updated with new session times, if the link is not found the session times are just updating)

More screenings coming soon, check our website for details: www.cutcutcut.com

Like us on Facebook!

Rating: Exempt

Duration 110mins

June 3, 2011 Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Human rights | Leave a comment

Ex-Business Round Table heavyweight Lindsay Fergusson wants my comments on NBR banned – so I MUST be ‘on target’!

www.nbr.co.nz/article/treasury-drop-all-screening-foreign-investment-ck-94649#comment-134613

Treasury: drop all screening of foreign investment

Acting Secretary to the Treasury Gabriel Makhlouf

Acting Secretary to the Treasury Gabriel Makhlouf

Acting Secretary to the Treasury Gabriel Makhlouf has hit out at critics of foreign investment in New Zealand, saying Treasury has consistently recommended removing all screening.

The British civil servant who arrived in this country 15 months ago told the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs that lowering foreign investment would be counter-productive to growth ambitions.

Small, high productivity economies relied heavily on international connections of people, capital, trade and ideas, he said.

He advocated the reduction of costs and distortions associated with capital inflows, particularly tax.

“If we are to continue to screen foreign investment, and Treasury has consistently recommended removing all screening, it needs to be kept to a minimum and under constant review,” he said.

Fashionable
He said it had become fashionable to question foreign direct investment, arguing there was a loss of control of land assets and profits were exported.

The issue was really how the land was used, rather than who owned the land, Mr Makhlouf said.

Regulatory mechanisms governing land use applied to all land owners irrespective of nationality.

“Some of you might have followed the story of the big Swedish furniture outlet called IKEA, and its attempts to find a site for a store in the North Island,” Mr Makhlouf said.

The company ran into so many obstacles that it eventually abandoned its plans to establish a New Zealand branch. Domestic policy settings relating to roading infrastructure, the Environment Court process and the approach of the local council managed to sink IKEA’s plans.

“New Zealand requires foreign investment to meet the gap between national savings and national investment. If the idea of foreigners earning a return on New Zealand investment is unpalatable to some, there are two alternatives — lowering national investment or increasing national savings,” Mr Makhlouf said.

A higher rate of national savings would provide New Zealanders with greater scope to own assets that they want to retain control of, and entitle them to any returns on the investment.

Commenting on the world economic outlook, he said the picture was mixed.

“While there are signs the global economy is recovering, there have been some set-backs recently. The recovery is being driven by emerging economies, in particular China and other Asian countries, and there are some additional benefits for New Zealand via Australia.”

Activity in the major developed economies has been slower to rebound.

More by NZPA

Back to NBR homepage

PrintPrintEmailEmail Share

To share this article, click on a service below

Comments and questions

MY COMMENT:

Where is the ‘Register of Interests’ for Treasury staff – including Acting Secretary to the Treasury Gabriel Makhlouf ?

What are his connections, and whose interests is he serving?

How can ‘conflicts of interest’ be avoided if interests are not declared ?

Declared in a form which makes them readily available for public scrutiny – given NZ’s lack of an ‘Independent Commission Against Corruption’ or the like – who’s tasked with PREVENTING corruption and educating the public about corruption?

(Unlike the Police or SFO whose focus is more upon investigation of corruption AFTER the event, rather than PREVENTION ?)

Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Penny Bright | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 4:14pm

Dear Mr Editor. IF we want Fonterra and OTHERS to expand in China. Well, yes I would agree, but why dont you do your homework and go and interview Fletcher Construction who was expanding into China in the 1990’s, and ask them why they gave up and pulled out.

whitecloud | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 4:19pm

Penny , the guy says something you don’t agree with so therefore you imply corruption.No wonder this country is struggling to get ahead with people thinking like that.
We have had foreign investment from day one in this country and will always need it — our own capital base is too small.
The example Key gave the other day of Synlait is a classic example — they tried or looked hard at a public float and saw it would not be successful so went off shore to raise capital and hopefully for them they get better market access as well.
Companies like Sealord have had foriegn shareholders for decades.

In response to Ross12 | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 4:26pm

errr…. no.

I have been raising the need for ‘disclosure’ of the interests of those responsible for property and procurement for some time.

This is a continuation of the same theme…

Where is the genuine ‘transparency’ if ‘interests’ are not publicly disclosed and available for public scrutiny?

Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Penny Bright | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 4:42pm

Agree with foreign investment as long as its ‘clean” Dont want Mafia money Drug Cartel monet etc etc. Then we will have corruption as this always follows ‘dirty”money.

And we dont want dear Penny B to be proved right

Back from holiday now Penny…so how about answering those questions pertaining to your own transparency and corruption now you little neo-marxist cougar you?

Victrix

Victrix | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 5:47pm
In response to Penny Bright | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 4:14pm

Penny your as corrupt as FIFA

Anonymous | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 6:26pm
In response to Penny Bright | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 4:14pm

Your comments are becoming repetitive and tiresome. It is time the NBR banned your posts. This last one borders on defamation. If you don’t have something intelligent to say why not just shut up?

Lindsay Fergusson | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 9:21pm
In response to Lindsay Fergusson | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 9:21pm

Lindsay Fergusson | Thursday, June 2,
2011 – 9:21pm

Your comments are becoming repetitive and tiresome. It is time the NBR banned your posts. This last one borders on defamation. If you don’t have something intelligent to say why not just shut up? ”
______________________________
(grumpier) old man Lindsay?

Thought you (used to?) support ‘freedom of expression Lindsay?

Or – have you got something to hide perhaps?

Wanting to have my posts ‘banned’?

Goodness me – I MUST be on target to cop that sort of flak, from someone with your Business Round Table background.

You and your mates ever seen this?

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

by H. Michael Sweeney <

HMS@proparanoid.com>
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.

3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require… or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

Penny Bright | Thursday, June 2, 2011 – 11:30pm

June 2, 2011 Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Fighting corruption internationally, Human rights | Leave a comment