Feedback sought on earthquake memorial

18/02/2015

The public is invited to give feedback on the six designs shortlisted for the  Canterbury Earthquake Memorial:

The Memorial will honour the victims of Canterbury’s earthquakes and acknowledge the suffering of all those who lived through them as well as the heroism of those who participated in the rescue and recovery operations.

More than 330 submissions were received from 37 countries after designs were sought by the Government, Christchurch City Council and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.

The six short-listed were selected last year and have since been adapted following consultation with stakeholders, including those who lost loved ones and those who suffered serious injuries, and in order to ensure they met design criteria.

“I think each of the designs is outstanding and reflects the Canterbury experience in a different way. Every one of them could be a fitting memorial for what we lost and what we have been through as a city,” says Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Nicky Wagner.

“The public now has a chance to have its say on which design best reflects that shared loss and experience.”

Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel says this is an important step towards having a memorial space that will mean so much to so many people, here and around the world.

“Allowing the public to have a say in how we commemorate what we have lost, while capturing a sense of hope for the future, will make a real difference.”

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Kaiwhakahaere Tā Mark Solomon says: “It is very important for the region, our city and our communities to have an appropriate place to honour and reflect on the events of the earthquakes. I believe as a community we will achieve this.”

The short-listed designs can be viewed at www.ccdu.govt.nz/ideas-to-remember and feedback can be given on the website until 15 March. . .


Dalziel sees light on asset sales?

02/08/2014

Christchurch has to find an extra $883 million by 2019 to cover its share of the rebuild and one of the options for funding that is asset sales:

. . . Meanwhile the Cameron Partners report shows the council needs to find an extra $883 million by 2019 to cover its share of the rebuild – constructing basic community facilities like libraries and swimming pools, and carrying out road and piping repairs.

The finance advisory firm believes the council has few legitimate reasons to hold onto its entire $2.6 billion asset portfolio and says there is “considerable scope” for a partial sale.

Ms Dalziel says the proposal is being considered as part of a wider recovery plan, which is likely to include rate increases and spending cuts. The council plans to open the floor for consultation in September and will listen to public opinion before making any decision.

The council is considering the release of around $400 million in capital from CCHL. The $2.6 billion portfolio includes Christchurch International Airport, the Lyttelton Port Company and electricity supplier Orion – although Ms Dalziel hopes to maintain “strategic control” of all three companies. . .

Christchurch mayor, Lianne Dalziel, was a Labour MP when the party so vehemently opposed the government’s plan to sell shares in a few state assets.

She appears to have now seen the light and accepts that asset sales would be preferable to a huge rates hike or steep increase in debt but her former colleagues are still in the dark:

Labour will vigorously oppose short term solutions to plug Christchurch City Council’s funding shortfall – including asset sales – which leave the city worse off financially and strategically in the long term, Labour’s Canterbury Recovery spokesperson Ruth Dyson says. . .

The Green Party is similarly blinkered:

Christchurch City Council should not be forced into selling its strategic assets, the Green Party said today. . .

“A firesale of Council assets involving the sale or partial sale of strategic assets such as Orion and Christchurch Airport is not in Christchurch’s interests,” said Green Party Christchurch spokesperson Eugenie Sage today. . .

This is the council’s business not opposition partys’.

The government is making a multi-billion dollar commitment to the rebuild and no-one should begrudge that but the city has to help itself too.

Christchurch people have more than enough to cope with without substantial rates increases or shackling themselves with excessive debt.

The city council has asked for advice on what to do and it’s up to it to do it or not without the interference from opportunistic opposition parties blinded by their ideological opposition to sensible economics and more interested in securing votes than the best interests of the city and its people.


Labour’s listing

23/05/2014

Labour MP Ruth Dyson is standing for the Port Hills electorate but isn’t seeking a place on her party’s list.

Dyson has dropped down the Labour Party rankings in a series of reshuffles, from No 5 under former leader Phil Goff in 2011, to recently being demoted by David Cunliffe to 28 (out of 34), behind the likes of Kelvin Davis.

Davis is not yet even an MP but will return to the Capital when Shane Jones leaves Parliament.

Barnett said it was “not unusual” for MPs not to chase list placings. . . .

He was never on the list when he was an MP and Lianne Dalziel didn’t seek a list place three years ago. Nor did Damien O’Connor who objected to the process being run by selection process run by “self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays”.

Labour’s candidate in Napier, Stuart Nash isn’t seeking a list place this time either.

Dyson’s move was announced at a regional list selection meeting in Christchurch on Sunday, which Barnett said was “relaxed”. He believed the move was tactical, with Port Hills always a tightly contested seat.

“It’s not unusual for somebody in a seat which is going to be a pretty tight, hard race to focus entirely on being an electorate candidate,” Barnett said.

“My sense [speaking to Dyson] was the consideration was entirely about the electorate . . . It’s always been a tight seat for the 20 years that she’s been there; it’s the nature of that part of the city.” . . .

National won the party vote in the seat at the last election and boundary changes have made it far more marginal.

But under MMP, it is never entirely about the electorate.

Electorate votes get a candidate into parliament but it’s the list vote which gets a party into government.

Opting off the list can send a message to voters that if they want the candidate, they have to give them their electorate vote.

But this also reinforces the message that all’s not well on the not so good ship Labour, that candidates have no confidence in the list ranking process and emphasises the lack of unity in the party and caucus.

The nautical definition of listingis a tendency for a boat to tilt or lean to one side owing to an unstable load or ballast.

If it lists too far it can start losing cargo and eventually tip over.

Labour’s lurch to the left could be described as listing to port which ought to please Dyson who is one of its more left-wing MPs but she has decided to jump overboard from the list.

It could just be a message for voters to support her with their electorate votes. It could also be showing she doesn’t trust her party to give her the support she’s seeking from voters.


Labour’s seat to lose

27/11/2013

Labour leader David Cunliffe reckons the Christchurch East seat is National’s to lose.

So despite Dalziel’s solid 5334 majority in 2011, Cunliffe has been talking up National’s equally emphatic victory in the party vote in 2011, by 13,252 (46 per cent) to 9100 for Labour (31.65 per cent).

Labour’s “key message” is that the seat is National’s to lose.

For Cunliffe “any old win would do”, he said yesterday.

“I would say 50 per cent would be great.”

He is adamant the party vote is the best measure of “underlying party allegiance” available.

But this isn’t a general election where people get two votes. It’s a by-election for a seat Labour has held for decades.

No-one would expect a new candidate to get the support Dalziel built up over several terms as the local MP,even though, contrary to her assertion she would be an independent mayor, she is helping Poto Williams.

But it would be a serious blow to Labour, its candidate and its leader if National’s Matthew Doocey won the seat.

People in Christchurch East have had more than enough of living with the aftermath of earthquakes, dealing with insurance companies and all the other challenges which make day to day life more difficult. There’s little more the government can do about most of these than it’s already doing but even so, people at the end of their tethers can use their votes to send a message about their frustration.

This all makes the seat Labour’s to lose and it’s Cunliffe’s to lose too.

He hasn’t made much progress in the polls since becoming leader and anything but an emphatic win for his candidate, chosen over those supported by the locals, will be a big blow for him.


What about Earthquake Recovery? – Update

25/09/2013

One glaring omission from David Cunliffe’s new line-up of spokespeople is someone for Earthquake Recovery.

Clayton Cosgrove is spokesman for the Earthquake Commission but that isn’t earthquake recovery.

Former MP Lianne Dalziel is regarded as the favourite for Christchurch’s mayoralty but surely Cunliffe doesn’t think she’ll carry on doing his party’s work in this very important role as well.

 

Update – Deborah has  left a comment below which points out Ruth Dyson has responsibility for earthquake recovery.

It hadn’t occurred me to look beyond those ranked for such an important role.

Any spokesperson is better than none but having someone out of the shadow cabinet and unranked hold the position doesn’t give it the importance it needs.


Labour selects candidate for Chch East

21/09/2013

Labour has selected its candidate for the Christchurch East by-election:

Labour Party President Moira Coatsworth has announced that Potu Williams will be the candidate for the Christchurch East by election following the resignation of Lianne Dalziel. We had a robust democratic selection process with hundreds of local people in a packed rugby club hall in the heart of the electorate, where a very strong field of candidates discussed local issues.  . .

Labour’s view of robust and democratic isn’t necessarily the same as other people’s.

Kiwiblog points out that Labour has a six person panel with three head office appointments so the vote of each local member is worth around 1/100th the vote of a head office person.

Christchurch East is regarded as a safe Labour seat although retiring MP Lianne Dalziel had a strong personal vote.


Matthew Doocey to contest Chch East for National

13/09/2013

The National Party has selected Matthe Doocey as its candidate for the Christchurch East by-election.

“While an incumbent Government has never won a by-election in a seat it does not already hold, the National family are united behind Matthew as he accepts the challenge to wrest a seat which Labour has held since 1922,” says National Party Regional Chair Roger Bridge.

“Matthew Doocey is a fresh new face to the political landscape in Christchurch, and one of two nominees interviewed for the candidacy. We’re delighted to have him aboard.”

Matthew Doocey says he is proud to have won selection to contest the by-election on behalf of National.

“It’s going to be a big challenge up against the Labour machine in East Christchurch. Of course Lianne Dalziel is a household name there and Labour will be desperate to hold on to the seat.

“But I believe Christchurch East needs a constructive voice inside John Key’s National-led Government. It’s an electorate with huge opportunities and big decisions to make as it works its way through the recovery and beyond.

“Jobs, growth, education and healthcare are the bread and butter issues. I think the public appreciate the fact that National has held steady despite the distractions and side-tracks that appear to pre-occupy the other side.

Matthew Doocey (41) is married to Hungarian-born wife Viktoria. They have lived in Redwood since returning to Christchurch from the UK earlier this year. He works at the Canterbury District Health Board as a manager in its surgical division.

He went to St Bedes college, then studied counselling psychology at WelTec (Wellington). He has a Bsc (Hons) in Social Policy, an MA in Healthcare Management from Kingston University in London, and an MSc in Global Politics from Birkbeck University in London. He is also studying towards a Doctorate in Health by distance at Bath University in the UK.

Matthew Doocey has a long career in healthcare management including in the delivery of community mental health and social care services both in voluntary, and Government settings. He has worked extensively in the voluntary and community sector, including for Youthline NZ.

“Christchurch is my home town. My closest family are here. When I heard about the quakes I really wanted to come home to the city I grew up in and give something back.

“Christchurch East was characterised by strength and resilience in the aftermath of the earthquakes. Now we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make the community even stronger and I want to be part of that.”

The Green Party is contesting the seat which will split the anti-government vote to some extent and a new candidate won’t have the personal following that the retiring MP Lianne Dalziel had.

But Christchurch East is a dark red seat and even a strong National candidate like this one faces a huge task in contesting it.


Parker pulling out

06/07/2013

Christchurch mayor Bob Parker has announced he’s pulling out of the contest for mayor of Christchurch in October’s local body elections.

As difficult as this decision is, I have decided that I am not going to stand for Mayor at the upcoming election in October.

I have to think of my own well-being, and those closest to me, and I don’t believe I have the energy to lead this city for another term. I feel exhausted having worked non-stop over the past six years in office and I know that I can’t sustain the pressure and stress of this job for another three. The people of this city need a fresh face to lead them over the next three years, when there will be so many great things happening with the rebuild of this city.

I really love the organisation I work for and I’m incredibly proud of this city and the people I work alongside on a daily basis. They’ve taken a pounding since the earthquakes and they have continued to perform outstandingly against much adversity. I’ve put my heart and soul in to this job, as I know they have, and I thank them all from the bottom of my heart for their loyalty and support.

It’s taken a great deal of self-examination to walk away from this job. The people of this city have stood beside each other since the earthquakes and have faced extremely demanding challenges. Their strength astonishes me and I know they now deserve to move forward with their lives with a new Mayor at the helm. Everyone deserves a fresh start and this city needs to be led by someone who has the energy and drive to take them on this journey.

The future is so bright for this magnificent city and I know there are many tremendous things already starting to happen here. I was born here and truly love this place, so I hope to find a new role where I can continue to contribute to the future of this city.

Extraordinary events require extraordinary leadership.

Polls showed Parker was likely to lose the mayoralty to Jim Anderton in 2009 but his performance after the September earthquake saved him.

He was again a voice of calm after the February quake.

But once the crisis was over,  the city and its people floundered.

The loss in the past week of the right to grant building consents and the news that some recently consented buildings didn’t meet building codes and the loss of insurance cover for claims which may arise under the Building Act reflected poorly on the council and its leadership.

How fair it is to blame the mayor may be moot, but the buck stops with him and not standing again is the right decision.

His standing down might make it easier for Lianne Dalziel but it might also open the door for another contender.


From MP to mayor?

19/06/2013

The will-she-won’t-she ? question is about to get an answer:

Labour MP Lianne Dalziel is set to enter the Christchurch mayoral race, Fairfax Media understands.

The Christchurch East MP has long been rumoured as the favourite to challenge incumbent Bob Parker for the mayoral chains, following her high-profile role as Labour’s earthquake recovery spokeswoman, and criticism of the current council.

Her declaration is expected later this week. . .

Dalziel was a minister but now is ranked only 20 in the Labour caucus which makes the odds on getting back into Cabinet pretty low, even if her party wins the election.

She almost certainly feels she can do more for her city as mayor than an MP, whether or not Labour is in power.

She may well be right and it’s likely she’ll have at least a couple of running mates:

The rumour mill started turning again this month when Dalziel posted a picture of her with former mayors Vicki Buck and Garry Moore in a Christchurch cafe.

Buck and Moore were both said to be considering local government comebacks, and it emerged Buck and Dalziel had been meeting regularly.

Moore has since stepped back from that position.

When contacted yesterday, he declined to comment on record about his plans, indicating that he wanted to control the way he made the announcement.

The former three-term mayor has been a vocal critic of incumbent mayor Parker.

Anyone who’s listened to Moore on RadioNZ’s panel won’t be surprised by that. He often sounds as if he’s in campaign mode.

Had it not been for the September 2010 earthquake, Bob Parker would almost certainly have lost the mayoralty to Jim Anderton.

He was given a second chance and did well in the immediate aftermath of the February 2011 quake . But a lot has been  asked of the council since then, and whether it’s his fault or not, it hasn’t delivered.

The city is looking for a new mayor and Dalziel will be a very strong challenger.


Dalziel not ruling out mayoralty bid

30/11/2011

Quelle surprise – Labour MP Lianne Dalziel isn’t ruling out moving from central government to local government.

Dalziel said yesterday there were no guarantees the seat would remain within its current boundaries, or even exist, after the March 2013 census.

“I will stay full term but I’m not going to rule out going for the mayoralty because I don’t know what’s going to happen to the boundaries,” she said.

“I’m committed to serving my electorate for the next three years.

“I’m not going to retire from politics early and I will announce if I’m going to stand at the following election when we have the details of the new boundaries. That won’t be until the census has been taken.”

This is not unexpected, there’s been speculation that she would swap a seat in parliament for the Christchurch mayor’s chair for some time.

But what if the boundaries don’t change in the next three years?

The census was supposed to have taken place this year which would have left plenty of time for boundary changes to be worked out before the 2014 election.

But the postponement to 2013 would put pressure on the boundary setting process and even more on parties which wouldn’t be able to begin selecting candidates until the new boundaries were settled.

Parties usually start preparing for candidate selection early in the year before the election which is the year of the next census.

It would be at least the end of that year before boundary changes were confirmed, less than 12 months before the next election.

That doesn’t give parties much time to set up electorate structures, hold the special general meetings needed to form new electorates then select candidates.

The census was postponed because of the earthquake, it might be better to postpone the boundary changes too so they don’t take effect until the 2017 election.


Not united on bi-partisan approach

16/06/2011

Phil Goff was very circumspect on Checkpoint last night when asked to comment on calls for a speedier resolution of which areas of Christchurch can’t be rebuilt.

He said Labour was trying to to be bi–partisan about it. (2:12 @17:39)

The party, doesn’t appear to be united on that approach, or at least one MP isn’t following her leader’s example.

 Lianne Dalziel got a lot of media exposure yesterday criticising the government about the time it is taking to resolve which areas will be abandoned.

Did someone forget to tell her about the bi-partisan approach or isn’t she listening?

As Bill English says:

. . .  the latest earthquakes had given the matter “extra urgency” but drip-feeding information or partial decisions would not help.

“These people are suffering the severe and psychological impact of another quake and they’re going to need some reasonably definitive answers, not half-baked ones.”

Thousands of people are living in limbo while dealing with continuing quakes and aftershocks and  insecure housing and infrastructure.

But giving them only part of the information they need to make decisions, or information which later turned out to be wrong would only make matters worse.

The Checkpoint interview showed both Goff and Green co-leader Metiria Turei appreciate this and the difference between advocacy and politicking. I’m not sure Dalziel does.


At risk of losing seat?

09/04/2011

Labour is ranking its party list this weekend and Christchurch East MP Lianne Dalziel has opted out of it.

“I came to the conclusion that if I wasn’t re-elected by the people of Christchurch East I wouldn’t want to be a member of Parliament. I wouldn’t want to be anything other than the MP for this area, especially now with the challenge we’ve got.” She said she had not enjoyed being a list MP because the connection with her constituents was not as close.

Why would a senior MP opt out of the list?

She is right that list MPs don’t have as close a connection with constituents as electorate MPs do but is this an admission she’s at risk of losing her seat?

That is the only way she would be in danger of reverting back to being a list MP.

Lianne received 20,969 votes and Labour got 18,893 votes in 2005. National’s candidate David Round got the support of 8,996 people and the party got 9,851 votes.

In 2008 she won the seat with 17,969 votes from National candidate Aaron Gilmore who gained 12,204 votes. Labour received 15,585 party votes and National gained 12,289 party votes. 

The trend is down but a 5,000 majority would hardly be called marginal.

Does opting out of the list mean she’s expecting a demotion this time and wants to avoid that? She was 26th in 2005 and 15th in 2008.

Standing for the electorate only without the protection of a reasonably high list place gives her the opportunity to tell voters the electorate vote is the only way she’ll be returned to parliament.

But it’s the party vote that counts. A candidate who is standing for both electorate and on the list can say, ask for both but tell voters if they’re going to split their vote it’s they should give her/his party the tick.

A candidate who will only get in by winning an electorate is hardly likely to give that message.

Manakau East  MP Ross Robertson has also opted out of the list, as he has done before.


Moving on to more of the same

14/09/2009

Phil Goff has said sorry and Labour will be moving on to focus on what really matters.

He hasn’t however, accepted that some of the policies of which he is still proud are responsible, at least in part, for the problems New Zealand is facing. Nor has he learned there’s an urgent need for less government spending.

Bill English said in a media release (not yet on line): (now online)

Phil Goff tries to suggest he has made a break from the past and is listening to New Zealanders,” Mr English says.

 “But there is no evidence of fresh thinking in Labour’s reckless economic policies, which would send New Zealand billions of dollars deeper into debt, drive up interest rates and ultimately bankrupt the country. . .

“Under Labour’s flimsy plan, that would spiral by more than $6 billion to reach $18 billion by 2011/12.

While Goff hasn’t learned from the economic mistakes his government made, at least two of his colleagues haven’t got the message about the risk of being side tracked by side shows.

Ruth Dyson wants to give out free condoms, a policy which Kiwiblog has costed at $100 million a year. Macdoctor says Pharmac might be able to get a discount but whatever the cost, it would still be a waste of money.

Even worse, Lianne Dalziel is excited about a Commission for Social Inclusion about which Dim Post says:

Finally! Joined up effective solutions to – I’m sorry, what was the problem? I think it was Ramsey McDonald who said he became a democratic socialist after he realised that the workers didn’t want a revolution, they just wanted a decent salary and a good life for their kids. You know what would be truly revolutionary? If Labour MPs realised that workers want hundreds of pointless taxpayer funded commissions even less than they want a permanent revolution.

Quite.

Phil Goff wants to move on but it’s no use moving on to more of the same. Economic mismanagement and social engineering were  a large part of  why voters threw Labour out of government so they’re not going to help them get back in.


Pledge spectacular failure

26/09/2008

The ODT looks at the accusations against John Key and concludes:

Whether people accept his word remains to be seen but Dr Cullen is making his best efforts to show an intent to mislead and his accusation and Mr Key’s admission will generally work in favour of the Labour Party’s present election stance of asking voters whom they should trust.

But that can work against Labour and others, and in the context of the Winston Peters affair few MPs emerge with any credit whatsoever.

The attitude of the Prime Minister, who sacked ministers Lianne Dalziel and David Benson-Pope for lying to or misleading the public, is not untypical, for she has adopted a different quantifying scale with Mr Peters. . .

. . . Miss Clark’s response to this, when questioned by journalists, was that she did not intend to waste any more time on the matter.

That may be the safest political course in an election campaign, but Miss Clark also criticised the privileges committee hearing and described it as “tainted” before it had made its final report, a shameful attempt to influence one of our legal institutions.

She was not alone. Mr Peters himself, Dr Cullen and several other members of the committee, which represents a cross-section of parties in the House, felt moved to comment on the procedures, the evidence, and the accused, and their own conclusions during the hearings which, had the matter been heard in the High Court, would surely have invited a citation for contempt.

Indeed, contempt is a word many voters might well be employing to describe the poisonous state of affairs where the MPs’ behaviour and standards have sunk so low as to bring the very concept of the “people’s representatives” into serious disrepair.

“Our mission,” declared Helen Clark when opening her successful 1999 election campaign, “is to clean up government, and to clean up Parliament . . . the public’s faith in the democratic process must be restored.”

That is a pledge which voters should now measure, nine years later, and judge it to have been a spectacular failure.

Labour asks us to judge them on their record. But many of the promises they’ve kept were election bribes which shouldn’t have been made in the first place. and the most important one on restoring public faith in democracy has not just been ignored, it’s been torn up and ground into the mud.


A cautionary tale of the fishy kind

31/08/2008

Helen Clark ponders alone in despair

Her dearest dream’s turned into a nightmare

She thought she was popular and competent too,

But now she’s stuck knee deep in donkey do.

 

She ruled as PM which is what she desired

If anyone threatened her then they were fired

Ruth and Leanne were stood down when they failed

She couldn’t risk having her plans derailed.

 

Dover Samuels went fast and didn’t return

He was left on the back bench his lesson to learn

Phillida Bunkle, Marion Hobbs too

Were cast out from cabinet on their sins to stew.

 

She stood by BP when the first mud was thrown

But lest some spattered her, he was out on his own.

David Parker had a whoopsy so she dropped him fast

But let him come back when the danger had passed.

 

Phillip Field’s another who got into trouble

And eventually she left him alone in the rubble.

It took her a while, perhaps she was slow

But when polls started falling he had to go.

 

Harry Duynhoven, was another who went

And John Tamihere was forced to repent.

The message was clear: you falter – you fall

You’re out of cabinet if you drop the ball.

 

But she stuck with Peters through good times and bad,

Though many’s the day he’s driven her mad.

She put up with his bluster and held her tongue

When often she wished that he could be hung.

 

She draped him with baubles and stoked up his pride,

And accepted his word that he’d never lied.

Allegations have swirled but she stood aloof

Not trying too hard to seek out the truth.

 

But as the dirt that was thrown began to stick

She wanted him gone lickety split.

When all else had failed she at last told him “go”

But when you look at the facts, ‘twas only a show,

 

Portfolios passed over, the hard work he shirks.

But he’s still a Minister and keeps all the perks

Whatever was said only those two can tell,

But something has got a strong fishy smell.

 

Corruption’s a strong word, but something’s not right

As conflicting evidence comes into light.

And clinging to power is not without cost

Clark’s paid for it now with credibility lost.

 

Any day soon she’ll set a date

And voters will have in their hands her fate.

There’s still a faint chance they’ll buy her spin

And give her enough votes the election to win.

But win it or lose it one thing’s for sure

She and Winston are deep in manure.

John Key’s in the right and he’s standing strong

While Helen and Winston are left in the wrong.

 

And perhaps looking back she’ll see her mistake

In letting him of so many baubles partake.

If you sup with the devil it’s something you’ll rue

Especially if he’s supping a rotten fish stew.

 


Casualty list

30/08/2008

Stuff has a list of Helen Clark’s ministerial casualties. The ones who have been sacked, suspended, stood down or forced to resign under her leadership since 1999 are:

June 28, 2000 – Dover Samuels

October 31, 2000 – Ruth Dyson.

February 23, 2001– Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle (Alliance)

July 23, 2003 – Harry Duynhoven.

February 20, 2004 – Lianne Dalziel.

November 4, 2004 – John Tamihere

May 16, 2005 – David Benson-Pope.

October 19, 2005 – Taito Phillip Field

March 20, 2006 – David Parker.

July 27, 2007 – David Benson-Pope (again).

August 29, 2008 – Winston Peters.

If losing one minister may be regarded as a misfortune and two looks like carelessness, what can be said about losing a dozen?

The explanations for the ministerial falls from grace on Stuff is here and The Herald has photos here.


%d bloggers like this: