Comings and Goings
- Dover Samuels – sacked June 2000, reinstated August 2002
- Ruth Dyson – sacked October 2000, reinstated June 2001
- Marian Hobbs – sacked February 2001, reinstated a few weeks later
- Phillida Bunkle – sacked February 2001
- Harry Duynhoven – stood down July 2003 while not legally an MP
- Lianne Dalziel – sacked February 2004 for lying, reinstated 2005
- Tariana Turia – quit in protest April 2004
- John Tamihere – sacked November 2004
- David Benson-Pope – stood down May 2005, reinstated months later
- Taito Phillip Field – sacked October 2005
- David Parker – resigned April 2006, reinstated May 2006
- David Benson-Pope – sacked July 2007
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Labour
July 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Remarkably stable for for 8 years, eh?
- a resignation over nothing as it turned out, and another on a legal technicality
- a few minor scandals for which ministers have been sent back to the backbenches and then worked their way back into deserving portfolios again.
- a couple of permanent sackings for more important offences
- and one resignation over policy (compare National’s 2 resignations within a year over policy while it was in opposition)
July 27th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Sam Dixon – the first dumb-arsed apologist out of the starting blocks!
Surprise, surprise.
July 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Remarkably stable for for 8 years, eh?
And why wouldn’t it be – after all, it seems the only sackable offence is making Helen Clark look stupid.
July 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
And thats only the MPs, I wonder what internal party movements are like
July 27th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
There are three possible explanations really:
1.) This Labour-led government has a high level of accountability
2.) This Labour-led government has a high level of problems
3.) This Labour-led government has faced a particularly effective/nasty opposition.
Depends on your ideology really.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Being a facist bully is a “legal technicality”?
July 27th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
well G –
those options are premised on that being a high number, one might say its a reasoanble number and that a lower number would indicate low accountability etc – like you say, depends on your ideological assumptions.
Freindly fire -
First person to make an insubstantive contribution – surprise, surprise – well, acutually definitely a surprise, what ever happened to good ol’ D4J?
July 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
How come Helengrab of Leader’s fundgate, Paintergate, Doongate, Speedinggate, etceragate fame, remains apparently sqeaky clean?
July 27th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Sam Dixon – they are historically high. 22 Ministers resigned during a term between 1941 and 1992 (McLeay, 1995: 190).
To have 12 in 8 years is a pretty big jump.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Love the “etceragate” Frank – it covers a multitude of sins, and goodness knows, she’s committed a few!
Meanwhile, Sam can spin it all he likes (he must have been at the crisis meeting last night and come away with the Damage Limitation media kit), but an average of four Ministers per term ( and this term of Parliament still has a way to go – maybe) sacked, demoted or disgraced – hardly a record to be proud of.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Colin Espiner of the Press says: “Benson-Pope … truly was ‘a hard-working and conscientious minister’. He was also extremely loyal to Clark, and did her bidding without protest.”
It seems Colin is trying to infer that Benson-Pope only had Setchell sacked because Clark told him to.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Sam Dixon – you might get a pat on the head for being an apologist toady from your Labour masters…but not from me.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
When this DBP stuff broke I was talking with some guys who were saying kind of the same sort of stuff that we’ve been hearing in the threads here – you know – Helen keeps her mates – there’s no accountability – ministers are getting away with murder. Now Benson Pope leaves these same guys are saying, look at the turnover – wow, how unstable. Funny how that general sentiment seems to be appearing here too. I am glad Benson Pope has resigned. I think he crossed a line that should never have been crossed. That being said, his departure can be seen as being a sign of a healthy accountability or it can be seen as instability and signs of rot. I suppose it depends on your political POV. What’s more fascinating is that people manage to keep the seemingly irreconcilable views that Helen and her government are not accountable with the view that these kinds of sackings are unstable. Funny old world we live in.
I am just pissed that Benson Pope’s resignation effectively kills the need for an enquiry. So we will never really know what went on.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
welly_girl get over yourself – silly little tart!
July 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
later we get a new Government, a NAT government,
and with luck a more stable economy,
July 27th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
The issue is not just the number of sackings, but the number of Ministers who have either taken far too long to be sacked, or did not resign for serious errors by departments.
It wasn’t so long ago that Ministers resigned whenever their departments seriously ballsed up.
Bolger made just two wrong calls as PM over seven years: he should have accepted Denis Marshall’s resignation immediately after the Cave Creek disaster, and should have accepted Upton’s resignation over the bad blood scandal. Marshall eventually did resign, but it was too late. In seven years, that’s not a bad record.
Helen Clark has totally destroyed the concept of ministerial accountability. Ministers are no longer accountable for the misdeeds of their departments. Damian O’Connor should have resigned over any one of half a dozen of Corrections fiascos. Trevor Mallard should have resigned over the NCEA fiasco. Steve Maharey should have resigned over any number of major fuck-ups under his watch.
Government departments generally act with much more prudence if the Minister is hawkish enough to hold them accountable. The only way to force a Minister to hold his department accountable is to hold the sword over his neck if the department screws up.
Taxpayers deserve nothing less.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Well said Welly Girl .
July 27th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
What’s your problem “anon”?
Having a bad day are we?
July 27th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I really don’t see how National can clear up the mess this time. With a politicised public service back up to full 1990 strength, spending through the roof for no gain and economic problems, what are they going to do?
July 27th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Porc. I think it will be very easy for the Gnats to sort it out. Labour has given them open slather. If Ms Setchell is not immediately reinstated and her erstwhile departmental CEO reprimanded, they can go through the mandarins of the public service during their first week in office and turf out ALL those who have any connection with or leaning toward the mangey, disgraceful Clerk led Labour Party.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Forgot to add: and they will need to.
July 27th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
There are three possible explanations really:
Or a fourth: this government is the most corrupt in NZ’s history; was fraudlently appointed by labour-leaning civil servants after National actually won the election ; and is only hanging on to power thanks to the Maorimander.
DBP mislead the house – according to Helen. His resignation from cabinet is not enough.
July 27th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Remember the Te Wanangagate. No bums on seats excluded from the terms of reference!
So whose next in line? We have the Field case coming off shortly. So how many politicians are going to be dragged into this long dragged out affair.
On 30 July 2006 @ 09.46 Helengrab, along with most Members of Parliament, at later times were sent an e-mail containing:
New complaint 19 07 2006
Police Commissioner Howard Broad:
As a Member of Parliament and Minister at the time, I allege that Phillip Taito Field was in breach of the Crimes Act 1961 under the sections referring to offences by Ministers and Members of Parliament
Howard Broad did not investigate this complaint, despite his Office after an approach by the Herald which reported Friday 28 July 2006: “Police confirmed yesterday they are considering a complaint alleging corruption under the Crimes Act against Mr Field laid with them by X, who has filed several complaints against political parties or politicians on various issues, most recently on Labour’s electoral spending”.
Police never investigated any of the complaints and never revealed their considerations. So who were they advantaging and why? So who directed a legal opinion into the Ingram Report that resulted in the investigation , resulting in the present charges?
Hon Annette King, Minister of Police is the next Minister to be asked to explain?
Where there’s smoke there’s fire
July 27th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Taito wasn’t sacked…he stood down while inquiry was on then resigned from Labour…
July 28th, 2007 at 8:38 am
I think Michael Bassett got it right. There hasn’t been a government with the same number of scandals, and certainly no prime minister has ever been more interviewed by the police.
The reason is because for the last 20 years Clark and Wilson have chosen candidates based on their willingness to support their agendas and choice of leadership candidate. As a result, many people in the labour caucas would never have made it in the past.
This problems associated with this faulty selection choice is coming home to roost.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Well if Labour needs the support of the myopic and willfully stupid as it appears here, then I’d say they stand a damn fine chance of getting re-elected because they’ve done a bloody good job of driving out those smart enough to be sucessful and to normalise and make acceptable coruption and dishonesty.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Anon, you seem to be lost, this is neither Parliament nor kindergarten.
July 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
G said -
22 Ministers resigned during a term between 1941 and 1992 (McLeay, 1995: 190).
To have 12 in 8 years is a pretty big jump.
well, 1)- not all of those 12 resigned permanently, some were just stood down and reinstated – 2 quit their party, its not obvious whether McLeay included previous similar occurances
2)- still doesn’t say anything about whehter more resignations is a good or bad thing – more problems or more accoutantability?