Parliamentary response from Rex Widerstrom
September 8th, 2008 at 11:30 am by David FarrarRex Widerstrom has had the Speaker approve this response from Rex Widerstrom to comments from NZ First MP Ron Mark.
RESPONSE PRESENTED UNDER STANDING ORDERS 160-463
ON APPLICATION OF MR REX WIDERSTROM
RELATING TO A REFERENCE MADE BY RON MARK ON 30 JULY 2008
In the general debate on Wednesday, 30 July 2008, Ron Mark made an interjection during part of a speech in which Rt Hon Winston Peters referred to me in such a way as to be readily identifiable. In the context of Mr Peters’ remarks, Mr Mark interjected with the word “paedophile”.No reasonable person listening to proceedings at that time could fail to have understood that Mr Mark’s reference was to me. This was presumably a reference to my arrest in 2002 on several charges in Australia that were later subject to a nolle pro sequi with prejudice when the complainant-much to her credit-admitted that the entire thing was a fabrication.
Such is the opprobrium in which child sex offenders are held within the community, there can be no worse slur to offer against someone’s character. To do so against someone who has suffered the horror of being falsely accused of such an offence, only makes Mr Mark’s behaviour more offensive. A false accusation of the nature of that made by Mr Mark has a major effect on the life of an individual and his or her family.
I have always had a good relationship with Ron Mark and a lot of time for him. But there is no excusing his use of parliamentary privilege to label a critic a paedophile. It would be a good look for him to apologise for the remark, otherwise I suspect he will face questions at Rimutaka meet the candidate meetings about why he behaved in such a way.
Tags: Rex Widerstrom, Ron Mark, Winston First
September 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Here here!
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 11:44 am
If Mark had any shread of decency he’d appologise to Rex.
Of course if that were the case he wouldn’t be in the party that he is either.
A disapointing effort Mr Mark.
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Well said Rex. This incident removed Mark from my ‘reasonable person’ register and now has him in firmly the ‘scum bucket’ category. Will he apologise? He should do… but then again when was the last time we heard a genuine apology from an MP?
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am
That’s an extremely measured response from Rex Widerstrom in the circumstances. I guess Winston First goes nicely with Ron Last, seeing as he’s last to apologise.
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Ron Mark will exist to regret this.
What is in your cupboard Ronnie?
Now watching every move, and starting to ask questions.
Let’s see what we will find.
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Ron Mark apologise? Ha! Don’t you know the first rule of NZ1 is never apologise, never explain?
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Yes” Corporal” Marks does have some skeletons in his cupboard and at the appropriate time they will come tumbling out.
Given his comment as regards Rex I can only say How totally ironic
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I must say I’m impressed with Margaret Wilson’s handling of this matter. Convention says the response can’t be critical of the “Honourable” Member who’s being responded to. But it was in fact her office (drawing on the text of my letter) who composed the reponse and by including the third paragraph comes as close to reprimanding an MP as I’ve ever seen a formal response go (c.f., say, Dave Henderson’s response to Michael Cullen).
I’ve known about Marks’ conviction for underage sex since 2001 and have criticised him extensively for what I see as a simplistic, populist and knee-jerk approach to justice issues, but never felt the need to drag that particular skeleton out of the closet and rattle it. Nor, I note, have MPs in other parties who are known not to be shrinking violets when it comes to lashing their opponents. If nothing else did, that should have alerted Mark to the fact that – even given the present corrosive environment – there are some places one just does not go in debate.
Then again, it was ironically me who was sent to vet his suitability when he was first put up by the Canterbury region of NZF as a potential candidate. To say I was underwhelmed by his intelligence is an understatement, but since Winston can’t resist a man who’s been in uniform my reservations were brushed aside. That my judgment has proven correct – and and at a time that causes Winston yet another wobble when he’s busy trying to hold the wheels on – does have a certain delicious irony to it.
What your “good relationship” is built upon I cannot begin to imagine, DPF, but it can’t possibly be a meeting of the minds unless you’ve recently had both a lobotomy and an overstimulation of the hypothalamus :-/
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I’d like to be proven wrong but I believe Ron Mark will not be issuing an apology to Rex anytime soon. He’s too much of a Winston’s stooge, and like his venal master completely incapable of admitting mistakes.
Shame on him.
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I’m genuinely disappointed in Ron Mark. I’ve always respected his stance on criminal justice issues. Seems a shame to have to lump him in with all the other crooks and charlatans.
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
In my dealings with Ron Mark he has struck me as being a nasty and stupid little man.
Vote:And his office decorated like a teenage boy’s room with pictures of jet planes makes me wonder if he has his marbles.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
“Mr Peters’ New Zealand First party is also facing investigations by the Serious Fraud Office, police and Electoral Commission into undeclared donations”.
“New Zealand First law and order spokesperson Ron Mark has challenged Labour and National to support his legislation outlawing gangs”.
Surely the first qualifies under the proposed later. Public nuisance, malfeasance and a corrupt, if not criminal, organisation injurous to the public good.
Vote: