How the Parties Stand
July 28th, 2006 at 8:18 am by David FarrarFrom this morning’s NZ Herald we have the latest stances on the Field affair:
Parties against Corruption
National
Greens
United Future
Act
Parties for covering up Corruption
Labour
Maori Party
Poodles for Parties for covering up Corruption
Progressive
NZ First
Hopefully even the Poodles can be shamed into supporting further inquiry.
No tag for this post.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Ok, in the mode of “you started it” and being so very squeaky clean maybe National can tell us who contributes funds to those trust funds that channel so many millions of dollars to their coffers.
In the same breath, perhaps you can give us an indication of what National party support there has been for introducing a code of ethics for MPs to parliament.
(can you also make this site run a little faster
)
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Parties that support the Speaker following Parliament’s rules:
Labour
Maori Party
Greens
Parties that think the Speaker should ignore Parliament’s rules when it suits:
National
Act
And why does anyone think that the Police will need support from either NZF or UFNZ to investigate corruption?
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Always can be trusted to live up to your name dont you Noddy.
Why are you not outside a MP’s office that has re-introduced slave labour to fill his own pocket? This was a poor person who was exploited and then intimidated to say nothing. A worker. Not some-one with loads of money. And you believe that you have a social conscience? Are you really that dumb and shallow? Where is the compassion for the family who lost their house because of the “help” offered? You pathetic political hanger on. No principals just party slogans that you read on some hand produced poster somewhere.
Graeme , quite frankly, no. The police at the top end take their orders directly from HC. And an increasing number of the new ones….well.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Always can be trusted to live up to your name dont you Noddy.
Why are you not outside a MP’s office that has re-introduced slave labour to fill his own pocket? This was a poor person who was exploited and then intimidated to say nothing. A worker. Not some-one with loads of money. And you believe that you have a social conscience? Are you really that dumb and shallow? Where is the compassion for the family who lost their house because of the “help” offered? You pathetic political hanger on. No principals just party slogans that you read on some hand produced poster somewhere. Why dont you go and hook up with that other nonga here and smoke some more. It has obviously influenced both of your reasoning abilities.
Graeme , quite frankly, no. The police at the top end take their orders directly from HC. And an increasing number of the new ones….well.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Noddy:
And in the same spirit of weapons of mass distraction, and not to let facts get in the way of a good rant, perhaps Labour can tell us where all the money from A. Nonymous really came from. After all, it’s a simple matter of public record that Labour has been the largest recepient of his/her deep pockets over the last decade.
Or who’s going to be paying for the next pledge card? If the rules are so “confusing” to the Labour Party, surely we need to clear them up pronto?
And when that campaign finance reform bill is going to hit the order paper. After all, Parliament could stir itself to retrospectively re-write the Electoral Act to protect Harry Duynhoven’s job (and incidentally avoid an embarassing by-election) in three days under extreme urgency. Funny how “the rules” could go fuck themselves then, ay Graeme? And funny how Labour’s in no rush to clarify those confusing rules that seem crystal clear to everyone else, ay Noddy?
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Craig…I have written here many tiumes on the corrupting influence of anonymous funding of political parties, all of them.
In terms of fact your statement only holds true of you ignore $2 fucking million of funds from trusts that Natianol receives. This has been pointed out to you by others before so try not to be quite so cute, or disseminating. For the facts you could go to:
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html
to avoid making the same silly mistake over and over again.
DPF has argued that anonymous funding is ok because the politicians are not allowed to know who the funds come from. I disagree. However, I also presume that no such rules apply to trust funds. This cozy little relationship allows the politicians to know exactly who is paying and the payees to know what they may or may not get in return. It is the rest of us poor saps, the voters, who are kept in the dark. Tell me that this set up is not corrupt or at the very least open to abuse?
Back to PTF, his actions are wrong, unethical but seemingly and unfortunately not illegal. Nowhere have I stated otherwise My first post simmply matched the tenor of DPFs ebtry.
I am looking for consistency of behaviour from the people crying so loudly from the roof tops for further punishment to be delt out. Frankly I am not seeing it.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 11:22 am
This is a first, the National party worried about immigrants and low pay.
I look forward to Don Brash’s demand for an immediate rise in the minimum wage.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Craig, I’m genuinely interested, which of Parliament’s rules did the Speaker, or the Labour Party, break when the Duynhoven Act was passed?
Immoral, undemocratic, or abhorrent, I can accept these epithets being ascribed to the affair, but un-Parliamentary? I can’t see it.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Something that isn’t a first: noddy and the rest of the Labour in general trying to turn everything that is brought against a Labour MP onto the ones who unearthed the issues, It came up with DBP: They claimed to have proof of similar things in certain National MPs pasts, yet none of this ever came to light another words it was them trying to remove heat from DBP, and now with PTF we hav a similar situation it is being turned on the Nats, instead of Labour admitting the issue and kicking him out cause the problem is they can’t afford to lose their majority…Come on people get a clue…Also anyone noticed that the MP’s that seem to be causing the biggest problems have 3 initials?? Seems like a conspiracy along the lines of assassins.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Sonic – National presumably believes that a non-socialist solution would be better for immigrants and the low paid. Just because they don’t follow the solution *you* favour doesn’t mean they don’t care. Grow up.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Something that isn’t a first: noddy and the rest of the Labour in general trying to turn everything that is brought against a Labour MP onto the ones who unearthed the issues, It came up with DBP: They claimed to have proof of similar things in certain National MPs pasts, yet none of this ever came to light another words it was them trying to remove heat from DBP, and now with PTF we hav a similar situation it is being turned on the Nats, instead of Labour admitting the issue and kicking him out cause the problem is they can’t afford to lose their majority…Come on people get a clue…Also anyone noticed that the MP’s that seem to be causing the biggest problems have 3 initials?? Seems like a conspiracy along the lines of assassins.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Graeme – I think the Speaker broke the Electoral Act by not immediately declaring Harry D no longer an MP.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Am I wrong in my belief that at the time of the unseemly haste with the law change for Harry Dynhoven, there was also a deathly silence about a citizenship question for Micheal Cullen..???
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
So, can I take it that the National Party will be supporting Darien Fenton’s Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill that was drawn out of the ballot yesterday that would make unlawful the appallingly exploitative rates that Field has gotten away with paying the immigrant contractors who worked on his properties?
What extraordinary timing for this Bill to come out of the ballot!!!
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
No no no David. Changing laws after the event for a leftie to grasp power is morally acceptable.
Private citizens using their own money to support the party of their choice is EVIL EEEEEEEVIL whens its a conservative party they choose.
Good god man what were you thinking. Off to the reeducation camps for you.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Camryn – well put.
Sonic – I would hazard a guess that Don Brash would favour an increase for ALL wage and salary earners just to try and bridge the gap between NZ and Australia. This could be achieved quite simply.
I have family in Australia that vote red, I said if you wanna vote red bloody move back here and live with these ass holes, they replied we won’t be voting again, and can’t afford to move back cause we won’t earn enough. These are not minimum wage earners.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
DPF – I’m open to the argument that that is what the Speaker ought to have done, but it can place a Speaker in an invidious position. It is the Speaker’s role to order a by-election if a seat becomes vacant (say, for example, because a member had been convicted of corruption).
In Duynhoven’s case however, whilst it was highly likely that he had vacated his seat, he adamently disputed this, to the point of retaining legal counsel to represent him before the Privileges Committee.
The Speaker was not really in a position to hear evidence on issues of foreign law (which in the end were irrelevant), or to listen to Duynhoven’s arguments (I’ll remind you here, that the natural justice guarantees in s 27 of the Bill of Rights Act apply to the exercise of the Speakers’ powers).
I’m open to the argument that it was the wrong call; it remains a suspect call, but I don’t think it’s clear cut. This one is clear cut. Wilson is right: she was not permitted to send this to the Privileges Committee. Anyone who says otherwise is misguided or politicking.
And if Speaker Hunt’s decision on Duynhoven wasn’t bad enough for National to move no confidence, how is this?
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
I’m particularly disappointed in the maori party’s stance here, just when they were starting to appear like a sensible party, despite all expectations.
It appears that they will support anyone as long as they are of the right color. I won’t be surprised to see Donna Awatere-Huata joining their ranks soon.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
All I can say is you have a touching faith in the police Graeme. I confidently predict that the police (and for that matter, another state agency) won’t touch the Field case with a bargepole. To do so would be a certified career limiting move.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Perhaps the reason for the Maori Party stance relates to the ‘informal’ discussions TPF had with them.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Poodles have no shame. Labradors, on the other hand…
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Graeme – I do not accept Wilson is right. McCully points out that standing orders give her great discretion, and she has chosen to intrepret them in a way which means Field can not be investigated.
Even worse Standing Orders prohibits any other select cmte except Privileges from inquiring into the conduct of an MP.
If Wilson is going to help block the truth, she has to face the consequences.
And as for Harry D. The facts and law were clear. Just because an MP hires a lawyer doesn’t change that. The advice from the Solictor-General and Clerk was unambigious. He was no longer an MP. Hunt should have told Harry of his intention to declare him no longer an MP at the next house day, and if Harry disagreed let him try and get an injunction.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
DPF – I understand that you do not accept that Wilson is correct, but do you doubt that David McGee’s advice on this matter was similarly unambiguous?
The great discretion standing orders grant the Speaker is a broad discretion to refuse to send someone to the Privileges Committee, even though there’s a case involving privilegeto answer; not a discretion to send someone even though there is no case to answer.
The analogy is not entirely apt, but consider the position of the police: they have a broad discretion to choose what charges to lay against an individual, indeed, whether to lay charges at all, even if convinced of guilt. They can lay manslaughter charges, even though there is a prima facie case for murder; they could choose not to charge H2 with failing to properly authorise election advertising because it was a technical breach (everyone knew the pledge card was from Labour). But what they categorically cannot do, even though they have an exceptionally broad discretion, is charge someone if they do not believe there is sufficient evidence to ground a conviction. They cannot say – let’s charge this guy even though we don’t think we’ve the evidence to convict. The same is true of the Speaker – she CAN say ‘there is evidence of a breach a privilege but I won’t send this to the Privileges Committee because I don’t want to’; she CANNOT say ‘there isn’t sufficient evidence to raise a question of privilege, but I’ll send it anyway.’
I agree that if Wilson helps to block the truth from coming out that she should be held to account. And if she calls up Dr Buwalda or the Commissioner of Police and orders, asks or pleads with them not to investigate Mr Field I will join those calling for her head. But she hasn’t, and she won’t.
The problem isn’t Margaret Wilson’s considered judgment, it is the rules of Parliament. Change them for the future and we won’t have to suffer through this again.
If you don’t mind fielding another question – do you believe that Nick Smith’s conduct in invoking Parliament as the “Highest Court in the land” to place pressure on a witness in a family court proceeding should have seen him before the Privileges Committee?
As Parliament’s rules stood, and currently stand, I do not. Dr Smith’s actions were rightly held to account in Court, and if the allegations against Taito Phillip Field have any grounding that too is where they belong (albeit with criminal charges rather than civil ones).
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
National is so setting itself up to regret this one day.
1. The Ingram report found NO evidence of actual corruption. Yet you cretins convict him, while at the same time making pretence that you are SO concerned about following rules.
2. If you think that PTF’s actions amount to real corruption, then you all really do need to get out from your mother’s back bedrooms sometime.
3. At the most PTF made a few miserable thousand dollars from this affair, while at the same time many others who actually know and work with the man strongly support the man for his hard work, generosity and willingness to help those whom no-one else will. You miserable sods judge a man you have never spoken to, yet those who know him back him to the hilt. Are they ALL corrupt?
4. And while you accuse HC of minimising the “errors of judgement” PTF haas made, at the same time you willfully ignore the fact that PTF’s career has been effectively ended and is now exiled to the backbenches.
5. Unable to get their pound of flesh from Ingram, Natioanl has now turned it’s beady sights on Wilson. Anyone who actually knows anything about the rules the Speaker must operate under has stated that the correct decision has been made. Brash has exposed himself badly on this one. He pushed has pushed the melt-down button over a minor issue, and got a fizzler in response.
6. All Brash is actually interested in is pulling down the Govt by breaking it’s slim majority. An early election is Brash’s only hope of ever getting his bony arse on the Treasury Benches, because he surely knows he will not last until 2008. Hence the unseemly desperation and the clumsy move. Notice how English and Key have said sfa on this topic. Ugly.
7. An opposition Labour party will SO exploit this precedent at the first chance it ever gets.
Vote:July 28th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Gryf, I believe you are almost crying !
Vote:July 29th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Really Gryf. The Natinal Party should be scared that the National PArty will pull down the government and the Labour Party will use that precedent to make life hell for a National Government. So National should just shut up and accept a Government that relies on the vote of a corrupt MP. I have news fo you mate. I hope the NAtional Government does pull down Labour, and sends that wretched party deep into the history books never to see the light of day for a very very long time. If they can do it over Field good, lets have a general election in 3 weeks time on the issue of Field and see where that party goes fighting an election on that issue.
Vote:July 29th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I don’t think it is National that are the issue here, I think it’s just there are a few people in the Media who have a personal agenda.
This really is a Dr. Rigid-Ideology Cullen moment; Corruption in the labour party and National outraged about it – What’s the cunnection !
Vote:July 31st, 2006 at 9:29 am
I don’t fancy your chances of the poodles being shamed into supporting further inquiry….isn’t their purpose in life to mark out their territory by pissing on everything they come across..?.cue Washington
Vote:July 31st, 2006 at 9:33 am
I don’t fancy your chances of the poodles being shamed into supporting further inquiry….isn’t their purpose in life to mark out their territory by pissing on everything they come across..?
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
msfoen cdtnl kibmdo stkuxjfoy dpzb lzbfm pfcri
Vote: