Garrett to resign tomorrow
September 22nd, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Discredited MP David Garrett will reportedly resign his seat in Parliament tomorrow, after last week quitting the Act Party over revelations he acquired a passport in 1984 using a dead child’s identity.
Mr Garrett – a list MP – in recent days has indicated that he won’t stay on as an independent MP but is yet to formally announce his decision.
However Radio New Zealand, which Mr Garrett used to announce his resignation from ACT, is reporting that he will now step down altogether.
I’ve been saying all along that I was sure David would resign from Parliament, once he quit ACT.
September 22nd, 2010 at 12:04 pm
At least he has honour, unlike the corruption that is systemic in Labour. Q. our Phil TF.
They are just great in Labour. lies, lies, lies. I am loving it!
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:07 pm
If this is a resigning offence there should have been about twenty resignations by Labour politicians during their term of power. At least.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:07 pm
And what will Chris Carter do? He’s been on the public tit for two months, but that’s now up. Let’s see where integrity lies – on the right or left of politics. Good on David Garrett doing the right thing.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
No, you said that Garrett would stay but lose the Law and Order portfolio. You were still defending him, then the fresh orders arrived.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:15 pm
@Guy fawkes:
Vote:Honour!? WTF. And, he lied to all and sundry, including in court, by denying his previous Tongan conviction. It may be a matter of degrees as to whether he is any more or less “corrupt” than the Labour lot, but honour is certainly not a word I would bandy about hen discussing Garrett’s actions here.
September 22nd, 2010 at 12:18 pm
“It may be a matter of degrees as to whether he is any more or less “corrupt” than the Labour lot,”
Probably about 180 degrees less. Remember their unflinching support of now jailed fraudster and bribe taker Field?
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
180 degrees would suggest that Garrett was fully honourable – my point is that he definitely isn’t. Maybe 90 degrees in that he has fallen on the sword now, but remember, he was happy for it all to be under the carpet for as long as it was (as was Hide).
Again, not honourable behaviour…
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:25 pm
No matter the degree of wrongs, this is the right (and only reasonable) thing to do now. It’s a bugger when things done in the past come back to bite you, unfortunately that sometimes happens. Lives get fundamentally changed by small things.
This sets a good benchmark for list MPs – but not for party infighting nor for media trying to wield it’s sword.
You could say honourable – in the end. At least that’s something.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
He may have forgot. That is at least as credible as Steven Joyce who claimed that he forgot about losing his licence. I lose my licence one over forty years age. I find it hard to beleive how anyone could loss their licence and forget about it.
How about Helen Clark who leaked lies on Peter Doone and denied it. I heard Clark when she caught signing a painting she did not paint. She was asked that was the only one she falsely signed. She said she could not remember.
It an MP from another party had done what Garrett did the MSM would not attack them like that they have Garrett.
There are things Clark has done far worse than Garrett did but the MSM will not say anything – only Ian Wishart will. Most MPs Labour and National will know what I am talking about but will not say anything.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
and looking ahead a little….
who’s national’s candidate in waiting in Epsom – david kirk?
and whose national’s “only cab on the rank” post election?
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
I repeat this prat of a Lawyer had honour. In the end of course. Unlike the thieving cheating stealing types in the ranks of the Socialists.
They are just great for keeping the National Party in power right now. Philip Taito Field, what a guy. Phil Goff my hero. Helen Klark the
straight up and down Politician that bought her sinecure at the UN with our money. Evil and bitter to the last.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Clever old Roger. Faking support for Rortney while they work the numbers. Clever old Roger. He took Lange on and got re-elected to cabinet. The idea that he would back away from putting the screws on young Johnny Key is laughable. I can hardly wait for the day, not too far off, when Key has to eat his words and welcome Roger into cabinet. A great day.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:54 pm
In the immortal words of Hone Harawira ‘Good Riddance!!’
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Wow, we’ve got someone who publicly admits to being a Hone Harawira (that paragon of political virtue) fan.
A rare bird indeed, but anyway, the honesty is appreciated.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Having honour “in the end” is much like converting to Catholicism and repenting your sins “on your deathbed”… somewhat hollow if you ask me…
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Guy Fawkes, if Clark “bought her sinecure at the UN with our money” how come Key signed the cheque?
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 1:36 pm
The honourable thing to do when you are being honourable is to let your party, your boss and your colleagues know in an honourable way.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10675267
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Garrett isn’t the most likable guy but he deserves respect for the fact he was the only MP who didn’t give Helen Clark a standing ovation after her valedictory speak. Clark didn’t even bother to stay for Brash’s valedictory, & was a lousy PM. Garett was the only one not to be sweep up by the occasion.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Redbaiter suggests:
It is. And yes, there should have been. So instead of lamenting seeing the back of this deceitful sociopath we should be celebrating this as a new benachmark of what’s acceptable to us, the people who pay the wages of our representatives and have every right to expect accountability in return.
I tend to agree with those who say the MSM (or rather, sectors of it) haven’t shown as much gusto in going after those on the other side of the House who don’t belong there, but in some ways this sets them a new benchmark too. Such was the (broadly) bipartisan agreement that Garrett had overstepped the mark, the MSM are now also on notice as to what’s considered acceptable and what’s not.
If they fail, in future, to pursue corruption of any stripe, it will be all the more evident that they are failing in their duty.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 1:55 pm
“but in some ways this sets them a new benchmark too”
Of course you’re right, but no chance this gang of duplicitous partisan cowards will ever measure up to it.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 pm
He taken Heather Roy with him along with the other rotten apples.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
See this from those objective “reporters” at the Herald, in their piece on Roger Douglas?
“whose far right views are considered extreme”
They’re so extreme left themselves they would have fitted right in to the editorial board of Pravda when it was a state owned propaganda organ of the Russian/ Soviet Communist Party.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
22 September 2010: “I’ve been saying all along that I was sure David would resign from Parliament.”
**What you actually said**
15 September 2010: “This, along with the Tongan assault conviction, seriously undermines Garrett’s ability to continue as law and order spokesperson. I’d put Heather into that portfolio, and move Garrett into other areas where he has a strong background such as industrial relations.”
God you talk some utter bullshit sometimes DPF.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 2:33 pm
I’m wondering whether we’ll ever actually hear about these Helen Clark rumours, such as those referred to by Chuck @12:27. I’m guessing probably no, because:
Vote:– it’s not clear to me there’s anything of real substance there – at least even odds it’s just talk with no real underlying detail. But even assuming there is something:
– once the MSM cover them up at the time, they can hardly admit to the punters now that they did so
– once the opposition are complicit in covering it up, they can hardly admit to the punters now that they did so, and even worse, it looks petty and vindictive when you’re in power
-
September 22nd, 2010 at 2:49 pm
PaulL – you forgot the final bullet point:
Vote:- And really, what is there to gain from doing so now (aka, who gives a flying f?)
September 22nd, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Sam, I give a flying f. I get annoyed at the innuendo if there is nothing there that is actually in the public interest. If there is something there, I get annoyed that the media were complicit in a cover up instead of fearlessly reporting something that was in the public interest, and I’d like to have the national debate about it so that the media could understand how offensive NZers find it when the fourth estate act like they’re part of the govt.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Curious how it is in the news today what is supposed to be happening tomorrow. If Garrett has decided he is resigning why not just come out and say it today? Does he need time to have to organise a haircut, get a new tie and give the media to set up a conference room? If so, why not keep quiet until he is ready to make his announcement.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 3:55 pm
One question that perplexes and has not been clarified regarding Garrett’s “silly” act of 26 years ago and that is; did her renew the passport during that period so that it remained current, thereby repeating the fraud?
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Pita. The answer is definitely no and it has been clarified. The passport had a ten year life but was destroyed after about 4 years. Another fact that many have no noticed is that someone else who did the same thing got a $2000 fine. There is no doubt that this has cost the child’s family distress but you would think he murdered and ate the child the way the media is pushing this thing.
John Tamihere has joined in exaggerating the gravity of Garrett’s offending but convenient forget his 5 DICs. Sure he did not hurt anybody but he could have easily killed someone.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 4:34 pm
The Daily Fish Wrap ?/?/20??
MP Returns to Parliament
A Whiny Git MP returned to parliament today. She told our reporter in Parliament that National; whose far right views are considered extreme, had been hounding her because she was a woman. Labour leader ?? said “A Whiny Git has returned from stress leave, and the matter is closed”. He further stated thet the “cookie jar scandal” had been blown out of all proportion by the “right wing media, and far right blogs, such as Kiwi Blog”.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Hide to be rolled within the next two weeks and replaced by Sir Roger.
ACT to withdraw from the coalition and only support the government on confidence and supply.
Remember, you heard it here first folks.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Tell me again; what party does Mayor Williams represent? It’s not Labour is it?
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 5:42 pm
No, I remember reading somewhere that Williams used to be a member of the National party.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 6:14 pm
I think history will judge Garrett more kindly than we do today.
Vote:We are New Zealanders and we are small minded and we like to cut people down.
September 22nd, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Chuck, its not the fact that he did such a dorky thing (seriously dorky, wanky in the extreme) but that it wasn’t disclosed. If it was not a big deal, why go for suppression?. The nasty bit for Rodders is that he knew about this all along, he said so on TV the other night, after fiegning no knowledge,
Trouble with a lot of these guys is they think they are really sophisticated but actually they are naive and very unworldly. They all feel the need to say something, anything and it trips them up.
The trick is when you are guilty or have been found out STFU, basic.
And speaking of not declaring, the Wellington regional Council candidate with a fraud conviction, surely thats important to
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Yep and that’s the problem. Some touchy feely socialist in the law dept. decided that they needed to tell a family about something that had no effect on them and so the downward victim spiral went.
Vote:Harden up,times are going to get tougher yet and all you victims will need to find some fortitude.
September 22nd, 2010 at 8:42 pm
According to TV3 there will be another Act exposé tomorrow, apparently Garrett has given an interview to Truth Weekender who were rustling up some free pre-publicity.
“In the interview Garrett talks about the dark forces within ACT and the `thrill’ of securing the birth certificate of the dead infant 26 years ago,” the report said.
“He takes a shot at ACT’s former deputy Heather Roy and her adviser Simon Ewing-Jarvie.”
Whoopty-do.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 9:04 pm
RB, whenever I see the phrase “whose far right views are considered extreme” all I can do is smirk at how much of a bedwetter the writer probably is and how effective the target probably is.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 9:20 pm
I look forward to the next installment. I agree with Fot that Hide is on the way out.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:00 am
Agree, Hide is goneburger.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 10:45 am
Garrett had to go as he is now a liability for ACT. It’s difficult to use the defense that he has paid his debt to society when he lied to a Court in order to escape a conviction. Also the police or the Crown have the option to pursue a historical case of perjury here. Not good.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 11:41 am
ummmm……….. your post is quite correct.
Vote:I found DF’s original blog rather weak. I feel he went onto protection mode of the right rather than considering the level of the crime and the extent of the hurt caused by Garrett’s actions. Though he soon came round when the thoughts and posts of others were clearly against Garrett. Age makes no difference; Garrett at 26 was an adult with lousy judgement. The fact that past actions show that the left run and hide and refuse to resign when clearly they needed to does not excuse the right for the same behaviour. Good God its like refusing to walk when quite clearly you have knicked one to the keeper. Its not cricket, its simply disgraceful behaviour that is not becoming of a gentleman.
September 23rd, 2010 at 12:45 pm
For those who think that Garrett’s offending was on par with paedophilia try searching for Frank Macskasy on the Herald website. He had the same motive and was inspired by the same movie. It would appear the judge accepted that Macskasy did not use his fraudulently obtained passport either. Macskasy was fined $2000. That would hardly make it the crime of the century.
He did a stint on Jim Anderton’s team and was a great friend of Sonja Davies. So you might say he was left of centre. I do not recall those on the left calling for his career to be sabotaged. If he had of been an MP under the Clark government and was discovered I doubt if he would have been forced resign thanks to a left wing media.
I recall not that long ago that convicted killer Tania Witika had another child.
http://www.safenz.org.nz/Data/witikatania.htm
I believe most people should get a second chance and maybe a third. However I draw the line at child killers and paedophiles. She had to be supervised with the baby whatever that means for a while. Since I have not heard anything I assume she now has the baby unsupervised. Where was the public outcry over a child killer being allowed a second chance with a child?
These are the type of crimes Garrett and the Sensible Sentencing Trust are concerned about. If it was not for the Israeli agents the passport fraud would have gone undetected and no one would have been affected.
This outcry about Garrett is 90% political. There are different standard for the right than the left.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
The sorts of crimes other people do?
Did Macskasy get name suppression? Presumably not, you are posting about it (and it can be easily found online). And he didn’t get discharged without conviction, he accepted his punishment (presuming he paid the fine). So what he did was out in the open. He didn’t get off by filing a false affidavit either. So this is hardly a good example of preferential treatment for “the left”. Possibly the opposite, if you look at the treatment of both by the court.
Yes, there is a lot of politics in what has happened to Garrett. He may have avoided it if he had made better decisions earlier. Doesn’t sound smart trying to blame his situation on the left.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Well spotted Chuck. Someone on the left who committed the same crime as Garret and we never heard a word from the media about “stealing identity” or being unfit to be a politician. What liars and cowards the left wing gang posing as our media really are. Despicable.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 1:14 pm
This was easily spotted, in the open, no suppression: Wednesday Apr 12, 2006
I couldn’t find any evidence of Macskasy promoting getting tough on crime and stopping name suppressions.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Good riddance!
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Someone on the left who committed the same crime as Garret and we never heard a word from the media about “stealing identity” or being unfit to be a politician.
What do you base this statement on? It seems to me that ANY bad politician makes good headlines eg Chris Cater got taken to town just recently by the media.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Hey Toad, while collecting signatures calling for a referendum on Bradford’s anti-smacking bill I heard plenty about Bradford from neighbours and the police. I can be certain if they became public you would be defending her.
It would be good if you and Pete state the following
Should anyone who has committed a crime be allowed a discharge without conviction if it will seriously affect their career?
Should anyone be allowed name suppression?
Should an an MP where it has been found that there is a Prima Facie case that they committed a serious crime have to stand trial?
Clark and Benson Peep are two examples.
I will tell you my view after. We will see who is the hypocrite.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Should anyone who has committed a crime be allowed a discharge without conviction if it will seriously affect their career? – yes
Should anyone be allowed name suppression? – yes
Should an an MP where it has been found that there is a Prima Facie case that they committed a serious crime have to stand trial? – yes
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Chuck, it has nothing to do with whether someone has criminal convictions or not. It has to do with hypocrisy.
Bradford’s convictions resulted from acts of civil disobedience where she deliberately broke the law (in most cases relatively minor offences like trespass or obstructing police, from my recollection, although I think there were a couple of more serious ones during the Springbok tour) in an attempt to achieve political change. She never applied for name suppression, and is on record as viewing her convictions as “badges of honour” for standing up and fighting for what she believed in.
Garrett, by contrast, is a rank hypocrite. He camapigned agaisnt name suppression, but took advantage of it himself. He campaigned against leniency in sentencing, but when pleading guilty to a serious offence, asked the Court for leniency. He also, it appears, lied about his criminal record when doing so.
My views, in response to your questions, are:
Should anyone who has committed a crime be allowed a discharge without conviction if it will seriously affect their career? That depends on the circumstances, including the circumstances and seriousness of the offence and their past criminal history.
Should anyone be allowed name suppression? Names suppression should almost always be granted if it is necessary to protect the victim of the offence. I can’t think of any other circumstances where I would consider name suppression appropriate when someone has pleaded guilty or is found guilty of an offence. I am concerned about the inconsistency in name suppression before a trial – I tend to think it should only be granted where it is necessary to protect the victim of the offence or if there is a strong case that making the alleged offender’s name public would jepoardise the right to a fair trial.
Should an an MP where it has been found that there is a Prima Facie case that they committed a serious crime have to stand trial? I don’t see why an MP should be trated any differently from anyone else in that regard. The Police should always ahve the dicretion to determin whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. My recollection was that in the Clark painting case they decided it wasn’t. In the Benson-Pope tennis balls case I recall that the Police decided there was not enough evidence upon which to base a prosecution (although I think there was enough for Clark to sack him, and it was poor judgment on her part to let him continue as a Minister as long as she did).
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 2:55 pm
It will be interesting to watch Act now to see if they can recover some semblance of internal party discipline and gain enough credibility to have a realistic shot at the next election of gaining some seats. Looking grim right now
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Thanks for the straight answers Pete. I would answer the same way.
Toad, from the stories I were told by neighbours and police Bradford was far from and ideal mother. Whether she broke the existing law we will never know. It is a shame I could never get an MP to ask her some probing question’s it would have shown her hypocrisy. You might try and deny it but there is plenty of hypocrisy on the left.
There was a prima facie case against Clark that carried more of a penalty than Garrett’s offending. If Clark had not leaked lies to the media about Doone she probably would have been charged.
I guess I should not be surprised with such a view from the left. It is in police states where the police decide it is not in the public interest to prosecute government MPs and most certainly not the head of state or any or his or her family even if the is a Prima Facie case of serious offending.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Chuck, what level of offending do you think the allegation against Clark was? If she had been charged and found guilty what do you think a suitable sentence would have been? Community service assisting a charity?
Garrett sounds very aware of his sticky predicament. From his statement:
“As a result of my own foolish actions 26 years ago, I now have other battles to face.”
He is accepting responsibility. The repercussions for him have and will continue to far exceed those of Macskasy, I think that’s unfair, but he tried it on and got found out, and life dishes up shit sometimes. So do devious people in political parties. Power can ride roughshod over people.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
@Toad,
Where is seeking “political change” listed as a valid legal defence?
If someone regards breaking the law as a “badge of honour” what place do they have sitting in House that creates and amends those same laws and demands that everyone adheres to them?
One thing you are 100% right on though – it’s about hypocricy!!
[And Bradford showed herself to be a hypocrite through and through - entitled to make laws for others to follow but free to not only disregard them herself, but to wear that disregard as "badges of honour"]
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 3:45 pm
The level of offending was very serious. I tried to buy the painting for what the person who thought she painted it paid for it – $1000. I got called and asked if I could match 5K. I was not prepared to pay that much. The painting ws bought and burned by a lawyer close to her while the investigaion was going on. That is destroying evidence. I complained to the law society but got fobbed off.
She tried to dishonestly portray her self an an artist. It was an oil painting not a kid’s painting. People will vote for a MP and partularly an PM on thing like sporting and other abilities.
If she had been found guilty she would have had to resign. That would have been a just outcome.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I assume we’re still talking about Bradford here? If it had been a valid legal defense, she wouldn’t have been convicted.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 4:04 pm
“I complained to the law society but got fobbed off.”
No surprise.
Vote: