Sunday, 16 September 2012

Questions to Ministers should be answered honestly

The perfect crime...

The words below appear in an official police report. The PM John Key refuses to read this report, he stated on TV One, that he didn’t need to read the report because he has great trust in John Banks. Here is the vital paragraph in that criminal assessment report:

“The executive summary of Detective Inspector Mark Benefield’s criminal assessment report, which indicates in it, that the threshold had been reached for prosecution under section 134(2) of the Local Electoral Act for John Banks’ actions, but it did not occur because it was outside the 6-month time period”.

Now after reading that, any person of sound mind, would accept that John Banks broke the law, lied to both the PM and the media, but was not charged because the period of six months for laying the charge had expired. The PM stated that he has no intention of reading the report, why, because he is not paid to do so!  

Yet knowing this to be true Steven Joyce answering on behalf of the PM, stated the following over and over again in answer to questions in the house from Labour Party Deputy Leader Grant Robertson.

  • that the police determined that there was insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution : Wrong there was sufficient evidence.

  • I also note that the police obviously assessed the information and determined not to do a prosecution. Wrong because the six months had expired.

  • I have not read those details, but I did note that the police determined that there was insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution. Wrong again.

  • The police determined that there was not evidence to prosecute, and did not. Wrong yet again.

In a matter of five minutes Steven Joyce answering on behalf of our absent part time PM [it was Thursday and the PM rarely appears in parliament on Thursdays] gave answers he knew was wrong, no matter how ones views it these were lies.
They were not only incorrect in actual fact, but were lies.
Would you trust a person who can lie with such ease? They are obviously lies because the sworn police evidence proves that they are. And these guys Joyce and Key are running our country…and believe or not with the willing support of John Banks the man who told the lies and who is a minister in the ACT / National / Maori Party / United Future government, and note that the Speaker Lockwood Smith never once pulled Steven Joyce back into line…


Another very interesting question was asked last Thursday about the ACC and its shonky and disgusting behaviour, some would say criminal…

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Does she agree with Peter Trapski’s recommendation in his 1994 Report of the Inquiry into the Procedures of the Accident Compensation Corporation that “the Corporation must ensure that the opinions it obtains from medical practitioners are independent, not only of the claimant, but also of the Corporation, and that they are seen to be so”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): Yes.

KH: Is she concerned that just four of ACC’s favourite specialist medical advisers— Dr Martin C Robb, Dr Vic du Plessis, Dr Bill Turner, and Dr David Beaumont—are collectively paid up to $2 million a year from ACC for services rendered?

Judith Collins: Yes

KH: [Greens] asked, “Does she believe that an ordinary person would consider it possible that medical advisers like Dr du Plessis, Dr Turner, Dr Beaumont, and Dr Robb could remain independent of ACC, when it pays them between $300,000 and $500,000 each per year?

Judith Collins: Yes and Maybe and I don’t know

KH; Does she agree that an ordinary person would find it unbelievable that ACC would continue to fly these doctors around the country and pay them an average of almost $1,700 for each client they see if they were not acting as “hit men”, to use the phrase that Laurie Gluckman was described as according to Judge Trapski, in targeting the exit of long-term claimants, which ACC has referred to as low-hanging fruit?

Judith Collins; It could be perceived that way

KH: Does she accept that there is a risk that the assessments performed by a doctor who earns up to half a million dollars a year working part-time for ACC could be affected by that doctor’s desire to continue receiving such lucrative contracts from the corporation?

Judith Collins; as for above question

KH: Does she agree that contracting for specialist medical assessments with district health boards or professional colleges would help ensure that they are independent and are seen to be so, as Judge Trapski says they must be?

Judith Collins; Maybe and she is meeting with the board [her old mate and pet National board appointee Paula Rebstock] and will have a chat about it.

Barbara Stewart: New Zealand First] asked, “Will ACC cap the annual amount it spends on any individual medical assessor to avoid the risk of incentivising advisers to provide reports that ACC wants rather than independent advice?

Judith Collins: I am not sure that that would be a good idea, particularly if, for instance, there may be only two or three specialists with the level of expertise in the country. So I think that might be a bit of a blunt instrument, but I can undertake to look at all those considerations.

And so it looks as if ACC will walk away from its disgusting and revolting corporate ingrained and arrogant learned behaviour leaving its victims damaged and still in great need of rehabilitation paid for out of their own pockets. This is: justice honesty and fairness.
Nick Smith the dumped ACC minister should be totally ashamed of himself, as should Judith Collins who continues his corrupt rĂ©gime, smiling as she does so.    
No doubt this matter will end up before the courts…

No comments: