NZ First opposed Pecuniary Interests Register

July 21st, 2008 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

I’ve just dug up the Hansard relating to when Parliament created the Register of Pecuniary Interests for MPs. The only two parties against were NZ First and ACT. Some quotes:

: … This is a case of much ado about nothing. There is little corruption in politics in this country, and the corruption that has occurred has been targeted, found out, and exposed. We do not have to have this sort of carry-on in order to declare a war on corruption. It has no relevance to that, at all. As I said, this is a nosy parker amendment to the Standing Orders. …

This measure is a sop to the Greens. I hope it is the only one, because they will disappear at the end of this Parliament, and we can forget all about them. This measure is unnecessary; it is a mistake. It will encourage nosy parkers, and in the longer term it will discourage able people from putting their names forward to stand for Parliament. New Zealand First opposes this measure vehemently.

I am sure that opposition was indeed vehement.

Tags: , ,

22 Responses to “NZ First opposed Pecuniary Interests Register”

  1. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    And yet our torch-bearers for financial transparency are curiously silent now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. pushmepullu (686 comments) says:

    ACT opposed this? Can you double-check your facts there DPF? I find this v. hard to believe as ACT have always stood for the most rigorous standards of personal responsibility… perhaps Labour had its minions in the Beehive fiddle the parliamentary records in an effort to smear ACT

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    hmmm – no wonder Act was against this. i.e. Surely Rodney wouldn’t have paid for that monstrous $1,400 “canary yellow”, “used car salesman” campaigning jacket himself? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    pathetic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Yvette (2,761 comments) says:

    At least Rodney Hide is making a complaint to Parliament’s Speaker today, which seems a good idea, unless it allows the ruling out of questions ‘because the Speaker is considering the matter’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Grendel (991 comments) says:

    seriously DPF, ban nome, hes a fucking waste of space.

    So nome, why is the only comment you have made have nothing to do with the fact that one of your precious lefty parties is even more corrupt than previously expected?

    or is it becuase you already support dear leaders 800K (plus all the rest) of corruption this is small fry that can be ignored?

    And you obviously missed the part on agenda where people in the area (fashion people, who would know) thought the jacket was good and a good choice of colour. or course since its not labour it has to be bad right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. polemic (459 comments) says:

    Winston Peters has a serious problem – maybe ,maybe not, shall we, sharnt we, will I, wont I, I’ll just blindly follow him even though its not a good look for me, hullo Hullo oh do you mean my future as a NZ first MP !!!!!!

    This is a serious problem that the other NZ First MPs need to deal with and unfortunately they are a bunch of spineless followers and now when the chips are down they cant do a thing.

    They should be resigning from nz1 and joining up with National or Labour whichever way they are leaning because their own political future is now on the skids if they don’t get a backbone fast.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. polemic (459 comments) says:

    Memories!!!

    Keeping them Honest.

    Remember the famous slogan

    “New Zealand First- Keeping them honest”.

    Cough splutter gasp !!

    Winston – keeping honest??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kaykaybee (153 comments) says:

    Curiouser and curiouser” cried Alice……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,066 comments) says:

    What bizarre fucked up excuse does ACT have for opposing the register?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Looking at the transcript pushmepullu – you paranoid much?

    edit: you too Danyl (minus the paranoia)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Vinick (217 comments) says:

    Just been reading through why ACT opposed. I was a little curious as to why they would, but their rationale seems sound. The honest will be honest, and the dishonest will continue to be dishonest; so what does it actually solve?

    From the Hansard…

    (Coddington)
    “All this will do is be a burden for the honest, who will agonise over it. It is so complicated and so badly drawn up that it is very difficult to see where to begin and where to end. It will build a climate of dishonesty. The crooks, who do not give a stuff, will just make it up anyway—and who will have the time and energy to trawl through everything and find out whether members have been honest? It is like taking the rich list at face value. The rich list does not even take into account people’s liabilities. All it can do is take into account their assets. The poor, diligent, honest MP who struggles to declare everything under this measure will possibly trip up, or by accident exclude something, and the media will pick it up, have a field day, and destroy him or her for no reason at all.
    This measure would not have caught Donna Awatere Huata. We asked her time and again whether she had any interest, any personal gain, and she lied to us. She would not tell us the truth. It would not have picked her up. If this Parliament really wants to get down on corruption, why does it not take note of what Ian Ewen-Street said yesterday when he talked about the scampi inquiry and Mr Peters’ involvement with Simunovich Fisheries?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Didn’t Huata just flat out *steal* (or ‘divert’) some money though? We have laws against that…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Stockbroker (17 comments) says:

    If NZ1 MPs had any brains or gumption, they should march along to Keys office and say if we roll Winnie will you formally announce that he was a blight on Parliament, and that you would be happy6 to go into a coalition with NZF if the opportunity presents itself (and Mark can be Law and Order etc)

    Then roll Peters and cast him out.

    Heck, if they did this and Key could get Maori Party on board then Labour would be over now and Nat in control! Does anyone know any NZF MPs? Would this fly or are they as morally bankrupt as him and/or braindead?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. JC (942 comments) says:

    John Key supported the provision, but he pointed out a range of negatives as well. These included having to declare a personal loan to someone to help out, to missing something out and the potential discouragement of people becoming an MP where they had a multiplicity of business and income sources.

    It’s all very democratic to expose 100% of your private affairs but pretty offputting all the same. In the longer view it likely leads to a Parliament of members with very ordinary achievements.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. 3-coil (1,215 comments) says:

    Ah, that mercurial clever Winston has outsmarted you again DPF.

    Can you point out where there is specific verbatim mention that “BACK-HANDERS” have to be declared?

    Can’t can you!

    God he’s good! No wonder Labour supporters and the greedy wrinklies love him so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rex Widerstrom (5,343 comments) says:

    If Peter Brown ever got off his lazy arse and said anything, you can bet your life it was written for him by someone else because there’s no way in the world he’d have put the effort in to writing it. Wonder who the author of that was…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    JC, if people are so dispassionate about politics that they’re put off from running for Parliament by having to declare financial interests, we probably aren’t missing much by their not being there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. baxter (893 comments) says:

    I can’t see the need for it myself and I don’t think it reflects the individuals wealth or interests. Does anyone seriously believe that MicHael CULLEN after a decade among the highest paid on the Public Tit as Finance Minister still owns little more than a house and the clothes he stands up in. If so what were his credentials for the job, or was Brian HENRY his solicitor too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Grant Michael McKenna (1,158 comments) says:

    ACT opposed the legislation because it was a meaningless sop to morality- NZ First because it hindered their corruption. As the Register is now shown to be effective- not in preventing corruption but in exposing it- I wonder if ACT would vote against it again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Vinick (217 comments) says:

    Grant,

    How has it exposed corruption? If Winston has been dishonest, then the register has neither prevented it, nor exposed it. As ACT said in 2005, the dishonest will continue to be dishonest regardless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Luigi As slippery as a piece of spaghetti off your fork.

    As to the Interests Register in MY Parliament the members would have 250 volts hooked up to their members ( wimmin included) and be strapped to a lie detector.

    Then and only then would I be satisfied that the Interests Register was a true and complete record.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.