Fran calls for an inquiry
June 13th, 2009 at 2:18 pm by David FarrarFran O’Sullivan says the allegations that Richard Worth promised appointments for “favours” were so serious they should have gone to an inquiry.
Key should not be allowed to get away with ducking his own basic democratic responsibility to ensure a “favours for jobs” allegation that casts doubt on the integrity of his Government is tested.
Mrs Choudary could always file a complaint with the Police, as I suggested, as what she alleges is a crime under s107(1) if the Crimes Act
Corruption and bribery of Minister of the Crown
(1) Every Minister of the Crown or member of the Executive Council is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his capacity as a Minister or member of the Executive Council.
Maybe Phil can help her with the complaint.
No one emerges from this affair unscathed. In Goff’s case, his campaign looks decidedly shabby. First, another senior Labour Party official identified Choudary by leaking telling details about her. Then, secondly, right-wing bloggers chipped in with revelations about the immigration scams her husband, Kumar, orchestrated.
Toss in the additional factor that one of Kumar Choudary’s victims alleges he has since been offered a $15,000 hush payment by associates to shut up about the pair and this whole episode is starting to take on very serious connotations.
The reality is that Goff tabled no real evidence to support his allegation that Worth tried to entice the “strikingly beautiful” Choudary (Goff’s description, not Worth’s) with the offer of a job on the Lottery Grants Board. Even the allegedly saucy texts that have been published by the Labour leader give the appearance of little more than an obsession.
They are not sexually explicit. They do not corroborate the most serious allegation against Worth – that he was prepared to use political patronage for favours.
Fran also criticises Key:
After Key’s own ham-fisted announcement of Worth’s ministerial “resignation”, the MP was subjected to a ceaseless barrage of innuendo from both Goff and Key as they shamelessly plumbed Worth’s peccadilloes for their respective political advantage.
Both political leaders need to grow up. New Zealand is surely not Malaysia, where a political opponent (or even a former colleague) can be drummed out of Parliament or jailed without a fair go. Or is it?
List MPs can be – they basically serve at a party’s pleasure. Electorate MPs are very different.
Related posts:
- Goff v Goff
- Fran calls again to cancel tax cuts
- Pellett calls on Goff to resign as Labour Leader
- Brash calls for Commission of Inquiry
June 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
A Police enquiry may have been appropriate if Choudary accompanied by Goff had lodged a complaint soon after the alleged job offer, but at this stage it would seem that Choudary and Goff have been completely discredited. Only Worth himself seems worthy of belief. There is the prospect of some criminal action in respect of the Korean complaint but even here the known post offence behaviour of the Korean throw some doubt on any criminality. The Korean was also labelled unreliable by a Korean businessman who claimed she tried to inveigle him.
Vote:KEY has already confronted WORTH over the allegations and received a strong denial and a threat to sue. He wasn’t prepared to allow WORTH to remain a Minister but in the absence of any evidence whatso-ever he can’t be expected to take it further.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
John Key does many things well. He’s bright and obviously has a strategic turn of mind as demonstrated in his alliance with the Maori Party. However, his rush to sideline the Richard Worth peccadilloes (Fran O’Sullivan’s description) suggest a darker side to his character.
The longer Key had waited, the deeper the trap that would have sprung on Goff when the Choudary pair’s background was revealed.
Throwing Worth out of Cabinet is entirely the PM’s prerogative, but driving him out of Parliament before the police report goes beyond that prerogative. The Herald says other National MPs warned Worth they wanted him out, but they wouldn’t have done that without Key’s nod.
Similarly with the anti-smacking bill. By promoting a compromise on such an unpopular issue, Key lessened the ultimate damage that is going to fall on the lefties and liberals. He also sold out allies who opposed to the bill.
It’s unlikely that Key crumbles under pressure. He probably has the nerves of a fighter pilot. He made a fortune trading currency futures, after all.
Could the conclusion from his actions therefore be that Key is too ready and too quick to sacrifice his politicians and allies to consolidate his strategic position — like a chess player sacrificing a pawns?
This conclusion could explain his torpor in pursuing justice over the Brash emails, as evidenced by the latest sidelining of this into a police inquiry into the police inquiries.
More political gain in forgetting the Brash ambush than in nailing the thieves, Key may think.
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I hope there is an enquiry but I doubt there will be.
It should focus on Goff’s association with his Mata Hari; her attempts to have him help out her fraudster husband when he was minister; the lies he has told to John Key and the media; and his ill conceived and poorly concealed attempts to entrap a National MP. I wonder if she was road tested before he sent her into the field of battle.
John Tamihere was right. They spend all day and half the night scheming and plotting, these Labour people.
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Goff plumbed Worth’s peccadilloes. Key has condemned Worth but has expressly stated that he does not intend to divulge the basis of that condemnation until the police enquiry has been completed. Those rushing to judgement might well like to consider the possibility that he has made an appropriate decision based on information available to him and that his decision is better assessed when the facts are known. It is entirely possible that, in hindsight, he may have selected a better option but those rushing to judgement now are probably acting more on the basis of blind prejudice and political division than rational judgement.
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Just a passing thought – could there be any connection between the Choudarys, and the allegations of wrong-doing against National MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi? Is it possible that this might have been another attempted sting? I may be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 22, but after the way that Neelam Choudary’s story unravelled this week, can anything be excluded?
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
IV2, the same thought crossed my mind yesterday. Nothing about Labour surprises me any more. They are completely devoid of morals or ethics. Helen Clark saw to that, remember? “Whatever it takes…….”
You are seeing her legacy in action.
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Fair enough Nookin (2.57pm post).
But what harm would there have been in waiting until the police announced whether they will prosecute Worth? If not, then Key, under Parliamentary privilege, could still have given us (the voters) the information about Worth that he thinks rule him out of being an MP.
I thought we voters decided who should be MPs.
Pushing a list MP out of Parliament on a moral judgement rather than an a conviction, or at least charge, raises questions about the MMP system. At election time we know the list rankings of parties. I suppose they could change them in minutes after an election, but they don’t seem to without public notification.
Voters may decide where their party vote is going on the names and places in the ranking lists. Perhaps parties when they release the list rankings should be required to add a proviso for the public: people on this list can be forced to resign at any time at the prerogative of the party leader in the House of Representatives. Or: if any person on this list commits behaviour unbecoming of an MP that person will be forced to resign from the House. The party leader’s decision will be binding and the party leader will be the sole judge of the appropriateness of the behaviour.
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“Key should not be allowed to get away with ducking his own basic democratic responsibility to ensure a “favours for jobs” allegation that casts doubt on the integrity of his Government is tested.”
The media (and left) have started to say that Key should have seen the allegations proven before he went.
WRONG. Key fired Worth as a Cabinet Minister and that folks only requires a loss of TRUST AND CONFIDENCE. And there was enough swirling around Worth to ensure Key lost this in regard to Worth.
Incidentally this is the basic rule in employment as well although the trust and confidence required by a Cabinet Minister has to be higher and therefore the benchmark for losing it is much lower than for an average employee.
Yes, he got hammered out of Parliament but as I posted yesterday before his resignation was announced it was too late to salvage his political reputation and it was time to move on and salvage his personal reputation. He has done this.
The question now is can Goff salvage his political reputation over his handling this? BBQ chicken being served somewhere in Wellington in the near future I suspect.
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Can I digress for a minute please from Worth to Donna Awatere-Huata, the ACT MP who I think actually did a stretch inside.
Maori TV had Donna Awatere-Huata on a panel last night. Donna, who looks to be in fine shape, was strongly advocating that the Government divert funds from Government departments to Maori agencies in education.
I think it was a Maori school she was involved with that led to Donna’s downfall.
Do any ACT posters on Kiwiblog know what ACT would have done about Donna A-H if she had been found not guilty or if the charges had not been laid, or had been withdrawn, and the accusations didn’t get beyond the MSM? At what stage did ACT drum Donna out? Before or after charges were laid?
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
adolf..!..hilarious..!
so goff is responsible for worth thinking with his dick..eh..?
..did he do it by osmosis…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Why make this so complicated? Worth was on a warning because of the India imbroglio. ‘One more strike and you’re out. ‘ If he lied to Key about his indiscretions lying to the leader has got to be a sacking (and expulsion offence). Simple as that. The Parliamentary caucus is a ‘team’ and the team must have mutually agreed standards and sanctions. Buck the standards and you are off the team. It is an internal matter and in spite of journos baying for full information there is no need for it to be explained or justified to the public.
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
“here is no need for it to be explained or justified to the public.”
I’d prefer more of an explanation that . “I’ve done nothing wrong, oh and I resign, but my conscience is clear.”
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
So what. Every inmate in prison declares he is innocent. The public may ‘prefer’ an explanantion but they are not ‘entitled’ to it. Worth was a list member and his continued membership of the caucus is entirely at the discretion of the Party ( he could have been kicked out for not wearing the right tie if that was a rule). Elected members are different (and they know it – there is emerging a two class system for MP’s – list members are lesser beings – an unintended consequence of MMP), they are answerable to their elctorate as well as the party and are able to put electorate priorities first (remember Damien O’Connor and the West Coast timber controversy).
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
trout,
“Worth was a list member and his continued membership of the caucus is entirely at the discretion of the Party ( he could have been kicked out for not wearing the right tie if that was a rule). Elected members are different (and they know it – there is emerging a two class system for MP’s – list members are lesser beings – an unintended consequence of MMP), they are answerable to their elctorate as well as the party and are able to put electorate priorities first (remember Damien O’Connor and the West Coast timber controversy).”
Not quite. An electorate MP can be kicked out of a party’s caucus as easily as a list MP (see Philip Field’s (eventual) expulsion from Labour’s parliamentary party; Brian Connell’s suspension from National’s caucus … both were electorate MPs). Equally, a list MP may leave a party and sit on in Parliament – just as Gordon Copeland did. All an electorate MP’s status means is that sometimes a party may give an electorate MP dispensation from party discipline on an issue, if that issue particularly affect’s their electorate (Damien O’Connor).
Furthermore, do you think Worth would still be a National MP if he represented Epsom? If so, doesn’t that indicate John Key’s “hard line” position was, actually, kinda weak (ie he knew Worth could be replaced automatically, so it cost him very little to wield the axe)? I think Worth was toast however he came into the House … better another by-election than his ghost hanging over National for another 2.5 years!
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I cant seem to find any references from Phil of Shite about the text messages that this Choudary woman SENT to Richard Worth or have they been deleted as well.I hear she has a recollection and has saved some of the Text Messages received but what has happened to the messages she sent in reply or did she instigate the Text conversation if there is such a thing. Most puzzling
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
AG you have taken my contention further and I agree. Electorate MP’s can be chucked out of caucus but they have ‘status’ and can survive in Parliament (generally only until the end of their term). List MP’s chucked out can stay (as Copeland did) but are treated as pariahs even if they Party hop – (as Kopu did). Worth could well of stayed on; I see Coddington says he should have stayed and brazened it out. That is his personal choice. But as WO so nicely put it the Nats do not take kindly to miscreants – ‘they cut their throut and throw the body out the back door’.
Vote:You argument re Worth being an electorate MP (Epsom voters rejected him because he was rated unworthy) you are setting up a straw man to knock down. Key has been fair and decisive – get used to it.
June 13th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
The real battle was between Phil Goff and John Key. Goff set this thing up right from the start. My concern is the political trap Goff thought he had laid blew up in his face, but John Key was not fully on to it, thinking the private complaint Goff made was bona fide. it wasn’t, – it was a carefully orchestrated campaign right from the start. Beware of the Leader of the Opposition bringing gifts. But Worth is an unspeakable fool. He had political liability written all over him. He has made one sensible political decision in his life and that was to resign cleanly and quickly once he realised he had no future in politics.
Vote:June 13th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
trout.
I have NO idea what you are arguing. Seriously. Not a clue.
Vote:June 14th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I’m not sure Choudry is all that keen of more time in the police station all things considered.
She may not really be up for more police attantion, particularly if they get a warrant for he text messages they’ll be able to look at ALL her text activity if only to see whats relevant.
Vote: