A new low
August 5th, 2008 at 12:49 pm by David FarrarI meant to get to this earlier, but it is appropriate to deal with it now, with the House about to resume. The Herald on Sunday covers what happened:
A former New Zealand First staff member branded a “paedophile” in Parliament last week is demanding an apology from the MP responsible, after more mud-slinging over the secretive Spencer Trust.
Rex Widerstrom, who last week alleged the trust was a slush fund for Winston Peters’ legal battles, has written to NZ First MP Ron Mark challenging him to repeat the underage sex claim outside Parliament – or at least have “the guts” to apologise.
Widerstrom has also claimed it was “a bit rich” of Mark to make such an allegation when the MP had a conviction for unlawful sex with a 15-year-old. In 2001, it emerged that Mark had been convicted 30 years ago of unlawful sex with a minor. He was fined $150.
During heated debate at question time in the House last week over donations to NZ First, Mark accused Widerstrom of being a “paedophile”. Mark yesterday declined to comment.
I’ve always had a lot of time for Ron Mark. Even though I think it is misplaced, I respect his loyalty to his leader. So it saddens me to make this post but nothing justifies using parliamentary privilege to label a critic a “paedophile”.
The fact that Ron actually has a conviction for under-age sex, should mean he should be especially prudent about his language. Now Ron was 17 when he was convicted of sleeping with a 15 year old and personally I don’t think that is anything particularly unusual or immoral, even though technically illegal. But Ron would not appreciate having his opponents label him nasty things on the basis of that conviction.
It would be the honourable thing to do for Ron to withdraw his remark and apologise when the House resumes, by way of point of order.
Related posts:
- Parliamentary response from Rex Widerstrom
- More on Spencer Trust
- NZ First’s 2005 donations return
- Peters on Peron
August 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
NZ First election platform: Do as I say, not do as I screw.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Thanks for your support David. I’ll withhold further comment till I see if he’s the man he pretends to be later today.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
There’s not a lot of honour left in our parliament, and apologies are a distant memory.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
i thought ron was a classy guy.. but this just sucks.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Alas getstaffed you are correct The Parliament has degenerated from a place where honourable men and women discussed and debated matters of national importance and sought ways and means to serve the citizens.
It is now full of cretinous pond life scum whose only objective is to seek and retain power for the sake of power and to punish the good hard working citizens confiscating their hard won earnings in order to enrich themselves and their favourites and waste money on mad cap hare brained schemes.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Yes, that was an appalling call and Mark should apologise or be brought to task by the privileges committee.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Where he would join his leader! Margaret Wilson has just announced that a question of privilege does exist in respect of Peters.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I used to think that Ron Mark would have made a decent replacement for Winston when they try and rebuild the party after the next election.
Perhaps not.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Well for all his desperation to project an image of the tough but decent ex-army type, Ron Mark has shown himself to be little more than a foul mouthed bully who’s prepared to bring the institution of Parliament into disrepute by exhibiting gross and offensive behaviour in the House.
As a result I shall now be writing to Speaker Margaret Wilson asking her to utlise her discretion to refer Mr Mark’s remark to the Privileges Committee as it surely represents the lowest level to which debate has ever descended in the House (and that’s saying something!) and seeking to have a response to his remark included in the Parliamentary record as per Standing Order 160.
You heard it here first! I’ll keep you posted.
It shows the depths to which NZF is prepared to descend when it would rather give the media yet another story to report over the coming weeks than simply do the honourable things and apologise for a remark that would be clearly unacceptable in a South Auckland tavern let alone New Zealand’s highest court.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Go for it Rex Wilson has refused to excercise any real control over the conduct of the House and is herself guilty od being the House into disrepute She had lacked the will the capacity and the capability to act in accordance with the role of Speaker.
Sadly its now become a badge of honour for the inhabitants of the Parliament to prove who can act as the biggest arsehole and repugnant piece of human excretment.
And Wilson has given tacit encouragement
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Actually since the subStandard has shown up I’ve often wondered if Mark was one of their bloggers – after all, he is a strident harpy who toes the party line and is not above abusing anyone who disagrees with him. An execrable little man with a holier than thou attitude should know better.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Hey, Ron — guess which finger I’ve got rigidly extended in your direction.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
My understanding is that Rex Widerstrom had charges laid against him of paedophilia (against a 14 year old) but these were dropped when the 14 year old withdrew her complaint.
Still, it does raise the question of why did Rex Widerstrom fly to Perth in 2000, who did he think he was meeting and why did he want to do so? And what is his version of what actually occured? Contacting underage teenage girls in chat rooms and flying 3000 kilometers to go and meet them can have innocent explanations but does seem to require an explanation.
A legitimate question that if he has been unfairly accused he would be happy to clear up.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
NPOG
Tell me, as you seem to be highly connected with the Labour party can you tell me what ACTUALLY happened when Mr Peter Davis was detained by the Police in the USA and while you are at it can you also tell me what strings dear corrupt leader pulled to ensure that the story was hushed up?
A legitimate question and one that you should be happy to clear up.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
NPOG – have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
big bruv & getstaffed:
Why are you guys taking a bath in npog’s sewer? Smarten up guys, and don’t be stupid enough to rise to the troll bait. (I know, not one to talk but I can’t believe you’re going to get into a fishwife-off with this idiot…)
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Ron Mark has zero credibility now – he is just a snivelling little c***
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Craig
Normally I would agree with you but I feel that it is time that we on the right started to fight back, for far to long we have allowed the left to set the agenda and it has got to the stage where so many feel that they need to bloody apologise for what they believe in.
While this has been going on the left led by Clark and to a lesser extent the Greens have been waging a very dirty war where it seems that anything goes, one only needs to see the gutless crap written here about Rex to see how far the left will go to smear anybody who does not agree with their socialist views.
I am stuffed if I am going to allow low life scum like NPOG and Ghost to have things all their own way any longer, failure to fight fire with fire will see this country ruined even further by the socialist scum and I am not going to let that happen without a fight.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
3 coil
Is that the same Ron Mark that was convicted for having sex with an under age girl?,
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
big bruv wrote:
Well, big bruv, I just don’t believe you’ve got to get down in the sceptic tank with the turds. Expose their lies, laugh at them with a merry heat and no mercy (they really hate that), but why get flame-trolled into playing their worthless game by their squalid rules? If you want to draw a military analogy, a smart general doesn’t engage his enemy on a battleground where the terrain suits his adversary’s forces and the weapons at his disposal.
And just because Ghostie randomly (and incoherently) blunders with whatever reeking clump of dirt he can grab, that doesn’t mean a rapier can’t be every bit as effective as a bludgeon.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Dunno.
I quite believe Rex Widerstrom account that no sexual contact took place.
But it seems to me contacting teenagers through chatrooms and flying to meet them is somewhat abherent behaviour which all politic parties, with the honorable exception of the National party, would be unwilling to contenance from staff members.
As I said there could be innocent explanations: such as the girl lied about her age or he was going to Perth for something else. Just on the face of the material in public sphere it looks a bit peculiar.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Yeah, it was bruv. He was 17, she was 15, and I’m not even sure he knew she was under the age of consent. Plenty of us have done something like that – it’s not like some guy in his 20s or 50s screwing a 12 year old.
I don’t like Ron Mark’s politics one jot, but he doesn’t need to be vilified forever for one minor indiscretion as a teenager.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Craig
“Well, big bruv, I just don’t believe you’ve got to get down in the sceptic tank with the turds”
I accept that, however the left also know that the vast majority of those on the right share the same views as you and that allows them a free crack.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the voters Craig, the right have lost the last three elections for many reasons, one of them is that they always play by Queens bury rules while the left spread their thick blanket of lies and smears.
One more thing, I NEVER get to the stage where I am “flame trolled” Craig, they are beneath contempt as far as I am concerned however as I said I believe in fighting fire with fire, having said that I respect and appreciate your comments.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I also have to say that Ron Mark’s comment in the House was despicable, and I support Rex in seeking to obtain any redress he can for it.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Toad
She was still under the legal age of consent and therefore Marks is guilty of having sex with a minor.
Normally I would agree with you on this Toad but as far as I am concerned Marks is a low life who is prepared to use parliamentary privilege to smear a man who have not been convicted of anything, scum like Marks do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
As far as I am concerned Marks is and will remain a man who was convicted of having sex with a minor (a child)
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Big bruv down with the turds! I can just picture it! Or is it down with the chocolate fish?
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“scum like Marks do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.”
Indeed, Marks when he was 17 years old scored with a hot and willing 15 year old girl.
Rex Wilderstrom when he was 39 flew to Perth to met up with a 14 year old girl he met in an internet chatroom.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
NPOG
Do you share the same distaste for a party that harbors a man who during his time as a teacher used to regularly walk in on school girls while the where changing?
Or are you just being a troll?
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
“Do you share the same distaste for a party that harbors a man who during his time as a teacher used to regularly walk in on school girls while the where changing?”
Trouble is there is no such party in New Zealand politics, unless you have some revelation to make about the National party.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
NPOG
Lets get this right, you support and advocate having sex with minors?
I can just see this on the front page of the herald, “Labour party supports men having sex with children”
Mind you, given the nature of many of your caucus I would imagine this is not something new to many of them.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
NPOG
There is such a party, it is the Labour party.
You must remember that, this is the same chap who used to delight ion shoving tennis balls in the mouths of school kids.
I think he goes by the name of panty slut boy…or something like that.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Take it you mean Benson-Pope, bruv. Well, I suppose he has at last got his just desserts. Helen Clark’s misplaced loyalty to him was actually the start of the Labour Party’s current polling nightmare – she just couldn’t face up to getting rid of a Minister whose public credibility was nil, and from then on, her own credibility has been seriously eroded.
Keeping Mallard in Cabinet didn’t help either.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
“You must remember that, this is the same chap who used to delight ion shoving tennis balls in the mouths of school kids.”
I think you are confusing with standing at the door while girls are showering and changing in individual cubicles with walking on girls changing.
Though doubtless those DVDs you are so partial to may have given you a false idea of what actually happens in schoolgirls shower rooms. But take it from, behaviour like schoolgirls leaping out of their individual cubicles and prancing around naked, covered in soap suds, only happens in your own private fantasies.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
NPOG
Now now, while you seem to be taking this personally there is no need to start frothing at the mouth.
Everything I have said is factual, perhaps you have a problem with that but that is not my concern, perhaps you should just face the fact that your party is full of deviants, your coalition party NZ first has a member who has been convicted of having sex with a minor and you by your own words support the right of men to have sex with minors.
Personally I think that is disgusting, anyway, I am off now and I will leave you to your own private sick thoughts about having sex with children.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
“Personally I think that is disgusting, anyway, I am off now and I will leave you to your own private sick thoughts about having sex with children.”
Thanks Big Bruv.
Anyway the opportunity has been given to Rex Widerstrom to put on record just what he believed was going on back in 2000, fully accepting that no sexual offending took place.
But as it stands, just on material in the public sphere, contacting 14 year old girls in chatrooms and flying to meet them is behaviour that all parties except National, would have problems accepting in a staff member.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Actually, NPoG, I think there are one or two (dozen) MPs whose moral strictures would be welcomed by your average Parliamentary staffer as enthusiastically as anger management counselling facilitated by Tony Veitch and Trevor Mallard. But if you think civil servants should be subject to the Big Brother morality of the likes of Ron Mark and Winston Peters, I think the PSA would beg to differ. Or perhaps you’d be quite happy to see a Benson-Pope style of civil servants who don’t consort with the ideologically-pure.
Well, Toad, you may be right — but Mark sure deserves to be villified for his hypocrisy. Convicted statutory rapists (whether you think they should be on the books or not) should be a little more careful about calling other people paedophiles, don’t you think? Or at least not do so while hiding behind the skirts of Parliamentary privilege. (Something you don’t enjoy, NPOG, so you might want to be a little careful.)
I also think it’s totally fair comment to ask whether Mark would like to be held to the same level of treatment he and his own party so loudly demand.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“(Something you don’t enjoy, NPOG, so you might want to be a little careful.)”
Pretty sure everything I have said is public record.
“But if you think civil servants should be subject to the Big Brother morality of the likes of Ron Mark and Winston Peters, I think the PSA would beg to differ.”
I doubt the PSA would interfer if anyone got sacked for using parliamentary computers to meet up with 14 year old girls – unless it could be demonstrated that the 14 year old girl was pretending to be an adult online
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
NOPG: Not that it is any of your business, especially since you’ve repeatedly descended into the gutter to wallow with Ron Mark but here’s some facts for you.
I did not travel to Australia in 2000 to meet with any teenage girl(s). I travelled there to meet with a number of Liberal and Labor politicians and the secretaries of both parties ahead of the election due in 2001. I had a fairly full diary and had the case come to court there would have been an interesting parade of senior figures on both sides of Australian politics paraded through the the courts to attest to such.
The complainant was one of several people I hired in Australia to provide an online “clipping service”. While the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age had made some inroads into an online presence at that time, dailies in the other areas had not. Nor was the ABC much use in online terms and the TV channels, of course, weren’t even trying to send streaming video down 56k dialup connections.
I therefore sought people who were politically aware and who’d read the papers for political news and send me a daily update. Yes, the girl was 14 but she had also been a youth MP, was a ‘straight A’ student, keen and – most importantly – willing to do it for peanuts. I had people providing a similar service in Queensland and Tasmania (alas Territorians still thought that readin’ stuff was for them posh folks
)
Beyond that I’m not prepared to go into her motivations or the circumstances which caused her to make the accusation other than what I’ve already said publicly – family and psychological issues – as I don’t intend to parade her private life to defend myself aganist your innuendo.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
You see….your story sounds perfectly reasonable and was certainly not detail that was available in the five minutes googling I did.
Given everybody probably read the same NZ Herald stories I did, that did not contain such details, they probably would have come to same conclusion that I did – that it needed an explanation.
“had the case come to court there would have been an interesting parade of senior figures on both sides of Australian politics paraded through the the courts to attest to such.”
Like to provide any names? Brian Burke has been quite a familiar figure in the witness box.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
“Anyway the opportunity has been given to Rex Widerstrom to put on record just what he believed was going on back in 2000, fully accepting that no sexual offending took place.”
Very short memory NPOG, you can recall 2000 but isn’t this the same year it was revealed that Labour Minister Of Maori Affairs Dover Samuels did not deny having a sexual relationship with a very young girl when he was 45?
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
LOL now you’re trying to link me with Brian Burke?! No, NPOG he’s one of the few I didn’t meet with. He wasn’t an MP, party official or candidate at the time or I probably would have, ignorant of his past misdeeds because, as I say, information was very thin on the ground in those days.
In fact it was the “clippings service” which got me definite offers from both major parties to consult to them at the next election – they thought I’d unravelled the intricacies of local politics since touching down in Australia.
You’re right, the details were not well reported at the time. Whereas the Dom led with the arrest above the fold on page 1, for instance, and both TV channels ran it before the first break, when the whole thing was dropped the Dom ran a single paragraph in its “in brief” column on page 3. Which is why I think people accused of a serious crime ought to enjoy automatic name suppression till the verdict, and permanent name suppression if found not guilty or the charges dropped – because the media don’t find innocence nearly as exciting as they find accusations.
A notable and noble exception was Paul Holmes and his producers, who ran an extended 6 1/2 minute piece as the lead item on the day it was dropped, for which I will forever be grateful. Unfortunately it’s not archived so doesn’t come up in Google. It’d be nice if some of the blog sites that do come up took down their original report of the arrest, or at least updated them to reflect the outcome, but sometimes blogs are like the MSM.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I’m near-certain that anyone sacked on the basis of a guttersnipe MP’s mouthing-off in the chamber would have the PSA’s full support for one hell of an Employment Court action. Then again, I doubt Ministerial/Parliamentary Services would be stupid enough to set themselves up like that.
I’ve long said that if most MPs swapped places with their secretaries, the quality of Parliamentary discourse would improve exponentially but the scut-work that makes the place function would go to shit. The antics of Winston Peters and his little hench-things (both inside and outside Parliament) have done nothing to change my view.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Oh, and for the record the political consultancy I established was formed in 1999, three years after I left Parliament. It was in that capacity that I engaged people to provide a daily political update. No Parliamentary Services computers were used to communicate with anyone about anything other than Parliamentary / NZ First business.
Vote:August 6th, 2008 at 4:53 am
It seems to me that NPOG proves the point of this thread. A new low.
So is he going to apologise to Rex for what he said or will he act like a typical lefty? All bluster and balls until his bullshit is called and then change the subject.
Vote:August 6th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Speaking of new lows…
I see Comrade Bradford has sunk about as low as one can go in the house, while bleating on about some low life beneficiary she thought it might be a good idea to use the word “Fuck”
The sooner this maggot is kicked out of our Parliament the better.
Vote:August 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Indeed BB
In fact saw the piece and was amazed at the context of her unparliamentary uttering. She was suggesting to the Minister that MSD should prepare places for some “experienced advocates” top act on behalf of claimants who felt intimidated by MSD/WINZ staff. It rather sounded liker she was laying the groundwork for a job after she was ‘expletive deleted’ from the NZ House of Representatives
What is just as worrying is the fact that the Speaker refused to censure her and will ‘make a decision’ on the use of such words when using quotations in asking questions. I remember the Canadian Speaker in an identical situation saying the the term “expletive deleted” had gained some reasonable currency in such matters! Bradford should not be allowed in decent company – so maybe she just just stay in the debating chamber 24/7!
Vote: