I'm about to start a conspiracy. I'm wondering if Chris Carter's actions involve corruption. I think the question is worth an answer, because what he has done may be common practice with all our Ministers.
The recent events of Chris Carter writing a letter to the media to trigger some kind leadership challenge brought out a few extra items we might never have heard about, and it's those items that interest me.
Firstly, Mallard let drop that Chris Carter had spent 2 weeks in Tibet, without sanction from the caucus, as was required. That in itself could be a firing offence.
Then Carter claimed Annette King said "you can go, but keep it quiet", a claim she refutes. So lying, if proven, could be a firing offence.
Then Carter stated that it didn't cost the tax payer any money. Except he gets paid a salary by the tax payer, so it depends on the nature of the trip and its importance to the NZ people. And there are direct costs, not just salary costs, unless he paid for the trip personally.
And that's where it gets interesting.
Chris Carter claims the trip to Tibet was paid for by the Chinese Government.
So what does Russel Norman think of that? What does Phil Goff think about that? What does John Key think about that? What do I think about that? Glad you asked.
I think it's a very interesting thing that the Chinese Government found it a worthwhile investment to send an opposition member to a place like Tibet. What was in it for them? What other incentives or investments had they made in Chris Carter? Did he offer them any specific information around the leadership of the Labour Government, and the steps that he and "friends" were taking to ensure they win the next election?
These are reasonable questions to ask, given the circumstances.
At the very least, a declaration of all MPs around who pays for travel, and the reasons for travel when on "government" business would appear necessary. Is it a requirement to lodge this in the register of pecuniary interests? Or are there other rules Chris Carter has just admitted to breaking?
Update: A similar vein of thought from Adolf at No Minister: Carter's lost horizon. I haven't seen any such consideration from the Antique Media.
The recent events of Chris Carter writing a letter to the media to trigger some kind leadership challenge brought out a few extra items we might never have heard about, and it's those items that interest me.
Firstly, Mallard let drop that Chris Carter had spent 2 weeks in Tibet, without sanction from the caucus, as was required. That in itself could be a firing offence.
Then Carter claimed Annette King said "you can go, but keep it quiet", a claim she refutes. So lying, if proven, could be a firing offence.
Then Carter stated that it didn't cost the tax payer any money. Except he gets paid a salary by the tax payer, so it depends on the nature of the trip and its importance to the NZ people. And there are direct costs, not just salary costs, unless he paid for the trip personally.
And that's where it gets interesting.
Chris Carter claims the trip to Tibet was paid for by the Chinese Government.
So what does Russel Norman think of that? What does Phil Goff think about that? What does John Key think about that? What do I think about that? Glad you asked.
I think it's a very interesting thing that the Chinese Government found it a worthwhile investment to send an opposition member to a place like Tibet. What was in it for them? What other incentives or investments had they made in Chris Carter? Did he offer them any specific information around the leadership of the Labour Government, and the steps that he and "friends" were taking to ensure they win the next election?
These are reasonable questions to ask, given the circumstances.
At the very least, a declaration of all MPs around who pays for travel, and the reasons for travel when on "government" business would appear necessary. Is it a requirement to lodge this in the register of pecuniary interests? Or are there other rules Chris Carter has just admitted to breaking?
Update: A similar vein of thought from Adolf at No Minister: Carter's lost horizon. I haven't seen any such consideration from the Antique Media.