Is it a Labour party mantra – ‘We have learnt from our mistake/s, and we are ready to move on’? Isn’t that the resolution to any problem, courtesy of Helen Clark many years ago?
And now Ginny Andersen says time to move on with regard to Michael-the-incompetent Wood and Jan-I-didn’t know-the-rules Tinetti.
Labour Party ‘ready to move on’ after Michael Wood, Jan Tinetti dramas – Minister Ginny Andersen.
Michael Wood was ‘unable’ to sell the shares when asked to 12 times, and then, miraculously, overnight was able to achieve the sale that had for so long been too difficult, or paperwork was lost, or he was too busy or, or, or – all the excuses rolled out.
If he is unable to sell 1500 shares, how can we be expected to believe in him as a government minister of anything that happens to be available right now? We can’t. He is an incompetent fool. The value of the shares doesn’t matter: It is the principle of the matter; he is a cheat and a liar, incapable of carrying out the simplest of requests. The man oversees budgets of millions yet was unable to divest himself of an estimated $13,000 worth of shares which put him in a direct conflict of interest.
His role included making decisions such as declining a North Shore Airport application last year. North Shore Aerodrome applied to become an airport authority in 2020 with plans for a “modest expansion”. Wood stood by that decision, saying he carefully considered “overwhelmingly negative feedback”, and advice.
He also is involved in transport projects relating to Auckland Airport, such as the light rail project. […]
On selling the shares, he said the first year he was a minister, “which I apologise for, because I got this wrong, I had instructed the person who deals with these things for me to effectively get rid of those shares”.
Stuff.co.nz
He blamed the share registry. Then he found a convenient bus and threw “the person who deals with these things for me”, a hapless stockbroker, under it for not “effectively” (emphasis added) getting rid of the shares. What exactly does that mean? “Was he instructed to ‘effectively’ get rid of them”? In effect? To all intents and purposes? Nominally? For all practical purposes? The obfuscation and lies are possibly the tip of much a larger iceberg. And his wife? How deep does her deception go in this grubby little family saga?
Erica Stanford’s excellent summation on Newshub rings so true: Chris Hipkins must sack him.
But will he? Very possibly not, even though he has been lied to. And then there’s Jacinda Ardern, who’s hastily retreated from the mess of the country she created, and is donkey-deep in this deception. She knew, and seems she did not tell Chris Hipkins, who grabbed the poisoned chalice of her resignation with glee. This he may now regret. He has been lied to by yet another minister and also, by omission, the rapidly departing PM.
National’s Chris Penk has put the cat among the pigeons for the PM, who would very probably have reinstated Wood as he meant no wrong…
In a statement, parliament’s registrar Sir Maarten Wevers said he had received a letter from National MP Chris Penk requesting an inquiry into whether Wood had complied with his obligations to declare certain interests (that meaning the $13,000 in airport shares).
“The registrar’s preliminary review also took account of the degree of importance of the matter under inquiry; whether the matter may involve a breach of the obligations to make a return; and whether the matter is technical or trivial,” said the statement.
The Spinoff
Let’s not forget that Michael Wood lied to two PMs. Where does all that get placed in the do-not-pass-go rankings?
And is Chris Hipkins miffed? Just a teeny bit annoyed? Apparently not.
Hipkins said Wood was “a hardworking, diligent, conscientious person” and said he couldn’t “quite understand what has happened here”.
On Tinetti, Hipkins accepted “her at her word that she didn’t intend to mislead Parliament”.
Newshub
So that’s all just fine then. As long as you don’t intend to lie and as long as you are a “conscientious person”, then no problem, nothing to see here; just move on.
And Ginny Andersen’s support for Jan-the-really-ignorant Tinetti would be laughable were it not for the fact that it is not funny. She rolled out every excuse under the sun for this incompetent minister. ‘She didn’t know, she did know, she got confused in the heat of the moment, she was just gonna…’ – how can these people ever be MPs let alone ministers?
Here is the truth of it, “Andersen also defended Tinetti, saying it’s been a “tough time” but “Jan is a good friend of mine and I trust her.” (Emphasis added.)
Evidently, for Police Minister Ginny Andersen, friendship trumps honesty, common sense and most importantly – the rules. If you are a good friend of Police Minister Andersen then all is OK. She will defend you for the indefensible.
Jan Tinetti as a teacher knows all about rules. How foolish is it for her not to know the rules that apply in her current job? So basic. She should stick to making scones and cups of tea for PTA meetings. If you don’t know, understand and follow the rules then how can the country have any faith in your ability do the job? Answer: Clearly, it can not.
Ginny-miss-superior Andersen then added some comments about retail crime. The woman is an idiot if she thinks we will fall for her naïve and half-baked comments.
Retail crime unit with “about eight” cops “having some real successes” – Police Minister Ginny Andersen. This despite yet more ram raids and Foodstuffs’ research showing a 38 per cent increase in theft reports and a 36 per cent increase in serious crime in its stores since last year.
“Police continued to work hard to get offenders before the court,” she said. “Thirty per cent of those prosecuted are receiving a custodial sentence because police are really working hard to get those repeat offenders.”
