That's the only way to describe National's actions this afternoon in denying leave for the Green Party's motion to censure and demand an apology from Taito Phillip Field. National has spent the past ten months chasing Field and trying to get him to accept responsibility for his actions and admit some wrongdoing. To then turn around and prevent him from doing just that makes it look like they're not really interested in the substantive issue of corrupt or at least grossly exploitative behaviour by a Member of Parliament, but are rather simply trying to keep a scandal alive and milk it for all it is worth. They seem to think they've won some political battle by doing this, but I really don't think the public are going to see it that way. Instead, the entire thing will be written off as just another case of petty point-scoring - when there is a deadly serious issue at stake. Thanks, National.
Add to that National's political bumbling - Don Brash apparently told the Greens he would support the motion, only to be overruled by Gerry Brownlee (who then undermined him further by shoving him back into his seat during Question Time so he could be first to put a point of order) - and National couldn't have looked stupider and more hypocritical if they'd tried.
12 comments:
Fianlly you maybe get it. Field's fuckup was both a very minor matter in the larger scheme of things, nor is there the slightest evidence that his actions were exploitative or venally motivated. Almost no-one involved has actually raised a complaint, or were willing to make one when approached by Ingram.
Field and his associates believe he was acting at the time with the intention of helping people. The fact that he failed to keep separation between his public and private life was always a political matter and only in a small way an ethical one.
Again I tell you, crucifying public figures over minor matters for political advantage is a far larger and much more dangerous threat to democracy than anything Field has done. National have now demonstrated here their true colours...persecution puce.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 08:38:00 AM
It does look as so the last thing National is interested in is upholding the standards we expect from our MPs. It is one thing to stop a "personal statement" in the house. That is par for the course. However, Craig and others are confusing this action with National refusing to support the Green's motion of censure...after Don Brash had given his word that they would support it!
What National would like to do is drive an electorate member out of his or her seat and either give the coalition parties a reason to switch or force a by-election. Hence the hysterical rantings about DBP and the now totally bizarre handling of the PTF case.
I wonder who the next electorate MP will be and whether Ian Wishart has been briefed on his next story. There is a pattern emerging here.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 09:13:00 AM
Anonymous:
Again, I don't really place much stock in ethics lectures from people who scream "persecution" while skulking behind the cloak of anonymity.
Noddy:
Let's take a reality check here. Field's public 'apology' today unfortunately followed the script I predicted on another thread - and the Greens were quite happy to let that be used in the House to shut down all further scrutiny of his actions. And that was taking the issue "seriously" precisely how? With all due respect to you and I/S, I'm a little less certain who's really letting partisan politics trump principle here. Let's just see if the Greens want to extract payback - or honour some deal with Labour - by shutting down any attempt at a Select Committee inquiry.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 8/02/2006 09:30:00 AM
Hold on though.
If he had made leave to make an (inadequate) statement in the house, doesn't that then give the speaker leave to ignore this issue in the future, citing that he has already made a statement?
I seem to remember the speaker doing something like this on previous issues.
So if national had granted leave, then the issue would effectively be a dead one.
Which is fine if you're labour and just want the issue to go away. But not fine for anyone else.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 09:53:00 AM
Craig and anon, you are still confusing the denial of leave to make an apology woth the motion to censure.
The former, is as you point out, pure politics. I don't think anyone expected leave to be given. The latter was very different and certainly has more to do with ensuring MPs to meet the ethical standards the public expect of them. That, presumably, is why Brash agreed to support it.
The fact that Brownlee overruled him (twice now) leads to the power for powers sake accusation you are so fond of throwing in the other direction.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 10:05:00 AM
Anonymous #2:
As Graeme Edgler - who can hardly be dismissed as a blood-crazed partisan hack - has pointed out a a personal statement cannot be impeached or questioned in the House. Period - and I think (though could be wrong) that also applies to select committees. With all due respect to our learned host, I'm not convinced that the Greens and Labour weren't also playing politics here euqally (if not more so) deserving of censure.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 8/02/2006 10:11:00 AM
Well for starters, if he said something in the personal explanation that was demonstrably false, that WOULD be a matter for the Privileges committee.
And if his explanation or apology were inadequate the that leaves all the aspects not covered open.
As a glaring instance, the immigration minister would have to keep answering questions about the exercise of discretion in these cases (as he has for the last week).
Political point - if National does has a case that this would actually shut down the debate, they should explain it.
Posted by Lyndon : 8/02/2006 10:33:00 AM
Craig. You are going to have to be clearer, are you responding to something you think I have written or just pulling statements out of thin air?
The question under debate is why did National go back on Don Brash's word to the Greens that it would support their motion to censure? This has nothing to do with PTF's personal statement.
A related question, why is Brash being undermined by his offsiders?
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 10:37:00 AM
Noddy:
With all due respect, the only person I've heard claim National promised any such support is... Michael Cullen. Pardon me if I hardly find him a disinterested, or entirely credible, source. Now, if Dr. Cullen or Ms. Fitzsimmons care to produce any evidence that Gerry Brownlee clearly mislead the House - oh, let's not beat around the bush stood up and lied his arse off - when he denied any such assurance was given, I'd suggest that's a clear breech of privilege.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 8/02/2006 11:31:00 AM
Sorry, that anon stuff makes it hard to have a discussion. I was anon#2.
Looking back at the original post, I can see that I misunderstood it.
If the greens were trying to censure TPF then probably national should have gone along with it. Wouldn't that have been in their political interests?
Or did they think it didn't go far enough?
What is the real issue here?
a. That the greens and nats can't agree on what prosecution to take
b. That Don Brash isn't really in control of his party (nothing but weak spin really)
Or is it something else?
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 11:36:00 AM
Craig. I may have misheard, but the point about Brash being overturned was made by Fitzsimmons during PQ yesterday. Horses mouth, in other words. I have not heard Cullen make any comment so was certainly not quoting from him. Quite frankly, I doubt even Cullen could make this up, talk about life being stranger than fiction.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2006 11:48:00 AM
Noddy:
Ah, I missed Question Time yesterday, so I'll take your word for it and am sure when I track down the transcript you'll be right. Still, I've got a niggling scepticism that National would never agree to play along. And I still think it's utterly disingenuous of Fitzsimmons to pretend that she wasn't 'playing politics' along with everyone else. I had my doubts that the Greens were ever going to support a select committee inquiry into matters arising from the Ingrahm Report anyway, because it's hard to believe that it wouldn't have had serious blowback. I'm sure most people inside Labour are (quietly) grinding their teeth and muttering, "Field may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch." National doesn't have to work with them; the Greens do.
Anyway, sounds like the Greens are going to take another pass today and let's see how it plays out.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 8/02/2006 12:42:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).