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.
Y'know, what I do not get about all of this stuff is that we are told again and again that there are checks and balances in place to insure propriety, but this kind of stuff just keeps happening. Is the whole government structure corrupt? Are bloggers the only people in NZ who care about the law??
ReplyDeleteCertainly seems that way.
The police and the administration are corrupt, or something would be done.
Carter should be in prison.
If China is already meddling in Canadian politics, why not ours?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/821919--china-meddling-in-toronto-election-observers-say
I don't buy any of that.
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing more than an internal civil war in Labour between the previously ruling homosexual faction, known as "Rainbow Labour", and anyone else non-homosexual.
Without Labour, radical homosexuals have no other party to influence NZ through to the same extent as them and they will not give up their foothold on the public purse easily.
Wait now for John Key to start favourable comments to the homosexual community as part of his plan of pleasing everyone to gain the best possible voter base.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePutting aside the in-party politics, I still wonder why China was prepared to pay for Chris Carter, member of NZ opposition party, to visit Tibet, and what might have been promised or expected downstream.
ReplyDeleteThis could be bigger than electoral finance scandals.
Just found Chris Carter's response.
ReplyDeleteSeems it was a trip to China, to a "conference", during a parliamentary recess, with funding by an undisclosed source.
He thinks that explains everything: Who paid, what for and how is it relevant to your job, your salary which is paid for by tax payers, or did you take it from your holiday allowance?
WARNING OF COPYRIGHT ENFRINGEMENT
ReplyDeleteThe July 31st posting in this blog of copyrighted material authored by Craig Young and published by GayNZ.com contravenes New Zealand copyright laws.
It has been re-printed here in full without permission from either its legal author or its publisher. No permission to reproduce it in this manner and on this blog site was sought. None would have been given.
GayNZ.com asks that your respect the intellectual property of another author and that this verbatim entry be deleted immediately, without our having to resort to other measures.
Jay Bennie
Co-publisher
www.GayNZ.com
They'll beat you to death with a feather boa?
ReplyDeleteBlogs copyright infringe all over the place. It's the nature of the beast. So, it make me wonder why pick on this particular comment. Is there something in it that GayNZ desires not be widely disseminated?
ReplyDeleteI'll take it down. But I will write a post on it, and I will rewrite it in my own words, and I will keep a copy of it just in case the original disappears from the GayNZ website.