Stench of Dishonesty
Anyone with half a brain must know by now that there is something rotten in the state of New Zealand politics and the odour of dishonesty emanating from Parliament must have citizens of the capital walking the streets with pegs on their noses.
So says Garth George in a NZ Herald opinion piece commenting on the pledge card rort, Phillip Field, and the koha/lafo brouhaha.
He blames MMP, saying
That half the people in Parliament are there thanks to political party patronage and, for all their protestations to the contrary, owe the electorate no allegiance or even service leaves us powerless.
And concludes
I’m glad I like bananas.
In other news, Trevor Mallard has promised to go nuclear and start spreading tabloid gossip on opposition MPs who insist on calling the government corrupt just because they stole public money to buy an election. Presumably National will follow suit and one can only dream that Mutual Assured Destruction ensues.
The Kiwi Herald reports that Don Brash has declared a National ‘people’s government’ in exile.
We are starting at the famous Kaiaua Fish and Chip shop and then on Thursday we will head off to the Happy Wok in Botany Downs where we will probably introduce a flat tax rate.
September 8th, 2006 at 8:52 am
this was the editorial in th ePress on the 29 August 2006.
Sleazy politics
29 August 2006
The twin issues of Labour’s illegal rorting of taxpayer funds for electioneering purposes and Mangere MP Phillip Field’s questionable behaviour over immigration matters have previously been dismissed by Prime Minister Helen Clark as “beltway issues”.
This suggests they are of interest to the inner circle of Wellington politicos and commentators, not the wider electorate preoccupied with the issues of employment, health, education, taxes and rates. But as the sleaze subjects continue to draw attention, it appears Clark’s well-honed Teflon instincts are somewhat astray. Both issues are showing every sign of making the leap from the beltway to public awareness.
In spite of Labour’s spin machine on election spending (”this is essentially a dispute between the Parliamentary Service and the Auditor-General”) there is growing awareness that its misappropriation of about $800,000 of public money to fund election-campaign spending was a deliberate act, not a case of “confusion”.
More details about Field at the weekend also increase the need for cauterising action there, no matter how destabilising that will be as Clark’s coalition loses its parliamentary majority.
On the spending scandal, an irritable taxpayer could pre-empt retrospective legislation by launching a court challenge to Labour over the misuse of public money. If that got off the ground it would become the country’s leading soap. It would quickly settle the canard that the rules were confusing.
It would be fascinating to see in court the Auditor-General, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Solicitor General on who they warned about it. And police chiefs for why they failed to prosecute a clear breach. Then, from inside Labour and the Prime Minister’s Office, on who, precisely, gave the go-ahead in spite of the warnings about misuse of public money.
It is known that Labour Party president Mike Williams was contacted and he presumably responded that the party coffers were bare. Clark’s chief of staff, Heather Simpson, has the final say over the leader’s office budget spending. But did she tick this off on her own volition, or was she instructed to go ahead, irrespective of the rules? In other words, to use Beehive jargon, does the buck stop with H1 (Clark) or H2 (Simpson).
Visiting British Labour MP Austin Mitchell, a friend of Clark’s, did not make things any easier for her when he said on TV One’s Agenda programme that British Labour’s pledge card (on which the New Zealand card is based) has to be financed by the party, not the taxpayer.
One could sense, in New Zealand, the mandarins in the Parliamentary Service, Audit Office, Crown Law Office and Electoral Commission, rising in their seats to silently applaud a Westminster principle which is so effectively ignored and evaded here.
If election spending is untidy for Labour, the saga of Field gets worse. It was reported at the weekend that Field and his wife made conflicting statements to the inquiry by Noel Ingram QC and to Samoan immigration authorities over the situation of a Thai tiler.
They told Ingram they had no intention of employing the tiler who they arranged to send to Samoa and who was subsequently alleged to have worked on the Fields’ house there. However, Samoan Immigration confirmed that Mrs Field filled out a Samoan immigration sponsorship form, promising to be his employer.
TV One’s Sunday programme reported further on Thai workers and projects they allegedly carried out for Field, and also on allegations by a former electorate office staff member about unlisted “donations” to Field’s electorate office. National is understood to have other information to use in Parliament.
As Labour’s discomfort increases, Clark’s problem is that if she does an about-turn and gets Field expelled, she would then face the nightmare of managing an even larger coalition of disparate forces to maintain her majority. New Zealand First and United Future distrust the Greens. The Maori Party distrusts Clark.
Labour will be desperate to avoid a by-election and another general election. For one thing the latest UMR poll, published on Agenda at the weekend, showed National crawling to a 4½ point lead, on 43.8 per cent support, as the lagged effect of the sleaze issues spreads beyond the beltway.
In view of the illegal election spending disclosures, Labour will dare not offend again by dipping into the till of taxpayer funds for its by-election or general election campaign expenses. Clark is canvassing the party faithful for funds, but the chances are it will be a lean campaign.
My question relates to the forth paragraph - isn’t this exactly what you are doing and do you intend to call as witnesses the Auditor General, Cheif Electoral Officer and the Solicitor General on what and who they spoke to.
Also I would like to see Clark et al in the stand as well being subject to real scrutiny and being forced to answer question instead of trying to get around them.
What is the status of the action at this time and what are the next actions.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Legal processes move pretty slowly. Next action is for the Parliamentary Service to file their Statement of Defence. Once that is in we can start talking about the timetable for the trial and who needs to be called to testify etc.
September 9th, 2006 at 6:09 am
Go nuclear? I thought NZ was nuclear free. Oh wait, that’s just more spin.
September 10th, 2006 at 8:43 am
The ePress doesn’t get it,
It doesn’t matter whether H1 or H2 signed off on the spending.
Both are responsible.
Buying an election is completely out of the pale,
It is, far, far, far more serious than anything Philip Tiler Field may or may not have done.
FIeld can pay back some money: but the Labour party - if they have done this - are guilt of a corrupt practice.
The only potential remedies start with Brash being appointed caretaker PM, perhaps fresh elections (although there is no real need once the Labour MPs are out of the house), and lifetime bans - and finishes with the Labout party being formally disestablished and most of its MPs and leaders being jailed.
Pay it all back? no where NEAR enough!