Questions for the Prime Minister filed today:

These questions have just been filed with Kathryn Street, the PM's chief press secretary, at 9.30am today:

Has the Prime Minister, or any other Minister in her government who owns investment property, ever excused themselves on the basis of a conflict of interest from discussing cabinet papers or legislation, or voting on legislation, that deal in any way with taxation issues on investment properties?

Has the Prime Minister, or any other Minister in her government who is any kind of beneficiary of a family trust, ever excused themselves on the basis of a conflict of interest from discussing cabinet papers or legislation, or voting on legislation, that deal in any way with taxation issues on family trusts?

Regards

Ian Wishart

TGIF Edition

tion

Comments

[Fairfacts Media]

Well done Ian.
Did Adolf give you the idea?

[ian]

Yes...in my rush to cut and paste the PM's questions, I neglected to add that Adolf over at No Minister tweaked my interest.

I decided to widen it however, to leave the Prime Minister less wriggle room. She may or may not have an LAQC...but she certainly does have investment property, and a chunk of her ministers have family trusts...technically, those with such interests should have declared and disqualified because any vote they took would have a direct bearing on their personal financial situation.

[peter]

Ian

Is this not blatant publicity seeking on your behalf?

Asking questions in a letter is not news. In fact it is a way of making insinuations before you have something concrete to report.

Why did you not ask if any of them had been involved in legislation that had involved income tax cuts, income tax increases or inccome tax decreases. Just who has the right to vote on these issues.

The whole thing appears to be a smokescreen to deflect the embarrassment experienced by John Key - who has been accused of failing to identify his conflict of interest concerning Tranzrail, as well as trying to understate the issue by reporting a stake an order of magnitude than lower than his actual stake.

Your agenda is as clear as that of Leighton Smith on 1ZB.

[ropata]

peter,
Speaking of smokescreens, Labour has played up this Tranzrail brouhaha in order to bury the embarrassing Winston Peters political funding saga. I think this issue makes Ian's questions even MORE pertinent to accountability and transparency in government.

[peter]

OK Ropata.

Tell me this then. What do you think Ian's agenda is by publishing a letter of enquiry to Kathryn Street?

He is also set no doubt to get into an "Ain't It Awful" mode if he detects guilt.

But if the explanation is a good and viable one, will he equally promote that?

Seems to me it will get the David Cunliffe non-case treatment.

[ropata]

peter,
It seems you're trying to shoot the messenger rather than actually pay attention...

[AcidComments]

Of interest.

Whose going to quiz ACT's Rodney Hide on Roger Douglas's questionable Underworld business partners along with his brother Malcolm?

[peter]

Acid Comments

Interview Rodney Hide on mischief by ACT party notable?

Well I will give you a clue. Ian Wishart is not likely to be interested, and neither is Leighton Smith! Two of a kind there.

[Glutaemus Maximus]

"The whole thing appears to be a smokescreen to deflect the embarrassment experienced by John Key - who has been accused of failing to identify his conflict of interest concerning Tranzrail, as well as trying to understate the issue by reporting a stake an order of magnitude than lower than his actual stake."

Well Peter, it appears that the 9th Floor don't like research into their affairs. Yet under Labour special rules, they can ping John Key all the time.

Bizarre.

[peter]

Glutaemus Maximus

You sound like something out of the ark - or out of the Roman Empire anyway.

I simply don't understand the point of difference you would draw between "affairs" of John Key and Helen Clark.

It would be true to say that more is expected of a prime minister than an opposition leader. Which reminds me how fortunate it was that Don Brash suffered his humiliation as an opposition leader rather than a prime minister - the year after the 2005 election>

OF course Ian and extreme right Christian fundamentalists - plus assorted Exclusive Brethren, Education Forum, Business Round Table, Maxim Institutioners, ACT Party (seemingly compromised by Brash Foreman etc) - they all would have wanted Brash as Prime Minister. How lucky they were so wrong!!!

Ha Ha Ha!!!