Taito Phillip Field
It seems time for a post on the whole messy Field affair. It’s been reported this morning that the Greens’ involvement is as a result of some kind of deal with Labour to shut the issue down, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
Obviously, this isn’t a core issue for the Green Party, but it was felt by the Green MPs that the findings of the Ingram report, and the lack of action over them, were doing considerable damage to the (let’s face it, already pretty terrible) public perception of MPs’ behaviour and the institution of Parliament. Following the Speaker’s (technically correct, if frustrating) decision not to refer the matter to the privileges committee, the Greens were keen to explore alternatives which would allow Parliament to express its concern at the report’s findings, and impose some kind of censure on Mr Field.
A select committee inquiry was one option, but a flawed one, since a select committee can’t force witnesses to appear or require an MP to resign or apologise. After considering it over the weekend, Jeanette came up with a better option - a motion of censure which would reaffirm the key principle that MPs must not receive, or appear to receive, personal gain from the exercise of their role as an MP, and call on Mr Field to apologise.
Obviously, Labour wasn’t keen for a select committee inquiry, and after pressure from the Greens, granted leave for the motion to be moved and Mr Field to make a public apology. But, when the time came, the National Party blocked the motion - revealing once and for all that their motivation in this whole affair isn’t actually to see Mr Field censured and apologise, but to string it out for as long as possible in order to score the most political points off it that they possibly can. (Although as a caveat to that, I’m not sure that we can speak for Don Brash, who was overruled by his deputy Gerry Brownlee not just in deciding to block the motion, but also, hilariously, when it came to defending himself when Labour pointed this fact out).
I think the public are getting thoroughly sick of this issue, and we missed the best chance for a satisfactory resolution to it so far when National blocked the motion yesterday. Still, the motion has now been added to the order paper, so perhaps they’ll come to their senses. Long term, the central problem remains that there is no satisfactory way for Parliament to deal with allegations of misconduct against its members.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I’m taking a very long view of this problem, as a student of New Zealand political history, I venture the opinion that as our Parliamentary system was primarily organised to protect the priviledges of those families who first ‘owned’ properties in the original runholder highcountry (herein after referred to as ‘the squatocracy’), there will never be a move to completely remove parliamentary priviledge from those who attain the green leather benches; and public censure is one such removal of priviledge.
As the recent Federated Farmers’ outburst shows, there is still a core of folk in NZ /Aotearoa who believe that their status as descendants of the first farming families entitles them to more representation than that of other citizens.
Field, of course, plays on a form of tribal/aristocratic allegiance which is still rife in the Pacific Island communities, which in essence is derived from the same mindset; that his land-owning forbears in the Islands are his ticket to priviledge and ruling over the lesser members of his electorate and his homeland. This engages with his personal ego to create a business ethic which is unfortunately not unique, but is still somewhat special even in the rarified environment of Parliament.
If all businessmen/women were required to give up their active business interests while serving as Members of Parliament, not only would the lists get shorter rapidly, but some separation of business interest and national political ethics might be possible. Haven’t heard Mr Blumsky very loud on this issue!!!!
Both local and national governement are plagued with decision-making which appears to be activated by cronyism and not pure principles; business has far more sway under this Labour government than under any previous governments of any stripe in recent decades. (I’ll give you the National government in power in 1951 was probably worse…)
We won’t see any consensus from National or Labour to reign in the behaviour of Parliamentarians as an outcome of this issue.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Offer Don a deal - the Nats don’t oppose leave for a censure motion, and the Greens don’t oppose leave for Don Brash’ Electoral Spending (National Party Stuff-Up) Bill to be introduced.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 pm
this is all very well…frog…..
but if we are talking perceptions here….the perception out here is that the greens are helping labour to pull a veil over this little pile of dog-do….
i suggest some serious spinning is in order to counter that perception….
‘cos..otherwise..it’ll bite-ya-in-the-arse…..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:18 pm
phil, nah, the perception is National have screwed up and Labour have covered up. I don’t thinbk the Green’s come into it much at all.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:52 pm
my god? national wanted to score political points??
wouldnt see the greens doing that! oh no thats way beneath them..
speaking of scoring cheap political points and creating an issue out of nothing with the hope of trying to stay relevant.. i see that nz cricket got a payout of a whopping 400k today - compensation for the zimbabwe cricket side not being able to tour. my math may be a little out but im sure that cheque is about 3 million light.
i must say im also curious that there is no ban on the zimbabwe rugby team coming here if they qualify for the rugby world cup. i guess its too hard to mess with rugby fans? that and the election is over.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:55 pm
jeeves..you’ve lost me….could you indicate just how national screwed up..?
(sorry..i’m a bit slow..eh..?..)
(or were you trying for a one-liner..?…i’m puzzled…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:45 pm
fair call dimebag on scoring political points, but youve got to admit that the Greens do it less than other parties and that we always do it on issues rather than personalities.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:56 am
i think having corrupt member of parliment is an issue.
did ya hear Ron Mark apologise on the news?? ” i have said sorry 3 times now!!” like hes insulted. imagine if criminals could use that as a defence!
is it just me or does anyone else here feel like choking the life out of cullen?? has there ever been a more condescending, smug lil ^%%# in parliment?
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:38 am
Phil, National screwed up by Brash first indicating that they would be giving leave for Jeanette’s censure motion to be debated, the by deputy dawg Brownlee apparently overuling his Fuhrer in rising in the House to block leave for the motion, and then by waving to Brash to sit down when Labour interjected as to who the real Leader of the Gnash-gnarl Party was (which Brash did).
The Nats proposal for a Select Committee enquiry would not have achieved anything in terms of either Field’s accountability or finding out more about the things the Ingram report could not uncover. A Select Committee has no power than Ingram did to compel reluctant witnesses to give evidence. It also would have no power to impose any penalty on Field.
What surprises me is that Helen hasn’t quitly persuaded Field to resign on the promise of a cushy little appointment to a Board or two or to a diplomatic post somewhere, which is the way those who have outlived their usefulness to the major Party in Government are usually moved on.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:57 am
Isn’t the main thing, in the minds of both Labour and National in this mattter, the slim majority that the Government holds?
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 am
yes toad..but this is all just parliamentary flim-flam/national party domestic dysfunction…which only political junkies/journos care about….
the nub of this story is that the perception out there/here amongst the punters is of the greens helping labour cover some things up that should be exposed….
(the stench of political expedience/opportunism/deal-making around this one is unmissable….eh..?..)
nothing i have seen/heard counters that cover-up perception in any real way..(in fact in any way at all..)
i don’t even care if the greens entered into this process with overt ‘good intentions’…that they have done so displays a political naievete that is frightening to us out here watching..)
w.t.f. were their advisors thinking..?
don’t you see the importance of this…?…
that the ‘high moral ground’ is one of the few points of difference the greens have from other political parties…
(and that so infuriates those other pollies..
and they’ll be rubbing their hands in glee at this foot in the mouth/integrityslip by the greens..eh..?)
if the greens lose that edge……what have they got left…?
and i’m telling/warning you…the backwash from this little ship of fools will be very very uncomfortable…
for the greens more than any others…and will last for a very long time…(think next election campaign..eh..?….)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Taking the ‘moral high ground’ may sometimes be perceived as political naivete, and it seems that in this instance the NZ Herald has done its best to create that perception.
What the Gnats wanted was an ongoing circus of a Select Committee ‘inquiry’ for their own political ends that had no teeth and couldn’t make Field any more accountable than the Labour or the Greens could. I think the Greens were correct not to buy into that.
The reality here is that Parliament’s Standing Orders are inadequate in this regard, and there is nothing anyone could do to force Field to either resign from Parliament or apologise to it, because the rules simply don’t give Parliament that power. I think the idea being promoted by Peter Dunne and Sue Kedgley for a Code of Conduct to make MPs accountable is a good one - as long as it has some teeth when MPs breach the proposed code.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:51 pm
hahahahaha
shouldnt that read
as long as it has some teeth when National MPs breach the proposed code.
the only political party than can tke the moral high ground when it omes to disciplining their MP’s is ACT!.
not only did they throw her out of parliment they had her go to jail!!
this labour government is corrupt. they will do anything to “cling” to power.
it will be a joy to watch it fall apart.
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:31 pm
The green party have shown they are nothing but the lap dogs of the Labour party, the actions of the Green leader are a disgrace in agreeing to this.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
did you actually read any of frogs post big bruv?
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 pm
i think they prefer the term “poodle”
August 4th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Yes I do Stuey, it is typical spin more than likely written with with the full approval of the Labour party.
One other thing Stuey, why do you people not allow free speech?
August 4th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Should make a plead for the real of crown of England to come back and declare martial law. These pricks just please themselves.
August 5th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
I have voted Greens the last few elections and love what it stands for.
But the move to block the Field inquiry has cost all votes from this household. Goodness knows who we will vote for now but we have to protest. As Richard Prebble said on TVONE”s Agenda, this would never happened under Rod Donald and the party is drifting badly with bad decisions since his sad death.
August 6th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
and what do you think the Greens should have done fundy? Allow a pointless select committee inquiry that would have acheived nothing but ongoing newspaper headlines that would have continued to damage the reputation of Parliament? Or support a motion of censure that would have indicated that there Parliament has ethics and principles which MPs should uphold?
Are you sure that your opinion of the Greens actions has not been formed more from the negative media coverage rather than the facts. Have you actually read frogs explanation or the Greens PRs on this issue? If you have and you still feel that this was so unethical that it is worthy of withdrawing support then I have to ask…
What proof do we have that you are truely a Green supporter and not an ACT staffer who is trying to introduce negative elements into our blog? I must remember to use that line next time I comment on ACT’s site, I have voted ACT at the last few elections but I will never do so again, blah blah blah.
August 8th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Stuey, if you don’t like some-one’s opinion, say so. But to accuse the person of being an ACT voter who is deliberately lying on this blog, and then use that assumption to decide it’s OK to go and lie yourself is not, in my opinion, a good way to go.
At the very least, if we accept your thesis that fundude is a liar (and I have to say, I’m taking fundude at his word until I get better information), then why not a disgruntled National voter? Because he saw Richard Prebble on TV? Scary.
Let’s look at the clues. He referred to Rod’s death as “sad”. That indicates feeling. do you really think those evil ACT voters that you dream of each night would have inserted the word “sad”? If they were that cunning, do you really think they would have achieved only 1.8% of the vote?? Nope, I’m thinking Fundude might be telling the truth and you need a nice cup of tea and a lie down, before you charge off to the ACT blog and figuratively shoot some-one.
August 8th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Guys and Gals, I got to go with Phil U here. A censure just doesn’t cut the mustard. (And I believe he has voted Greens the last few elections too).
Don’t follow me? Well, why not suggest Jeanette put forward motions of censure for Labour failing to protect the environment, failing to instigate sustainable policies and failure to look after NZ’s less well off, and failure to sort out the Health crisis?
Yes indeed, why settle for one motion of censure when you can devastate Labour by forcing an apology for 5 key issues? On that basis, I’d have to say the Green Party’s job is over, and they can all retire.
Or the Greens could consider holding out for something a little more appropriate than a slap near the wrist with a wet bus ticket? Just saying is all…
August 11th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I’m not sure why maintaining Parliament’s reputation is important in and of itself. Field remaining in Parliament is doing far more damage than any enquiry could.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
sorry..imho..this tacky little deal being stiched up by all the political parties to cover their over-spending.(of our money)…
does far more damage to all politicians and parliament…
it totally reeks of all the worst accusations made about politicians..
and could someone tell us why the greens decided to get down in the sewer with the others..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)