How to deal with Taito Phillip Field? In the absence of a thorough police investigation or him showing a shred of decency and resigning, the options are rather limited. The Speaker can't do anything - Standing Orders define contempt only as "obstructing or impeding the House" and do not include corruption. Likewise, the limits on the powers of select committees mean that they probably can't do anything either. Given these limits, the Greens have proposed effectively a motion of censure, calling on Field to apologise to the House for "not ensuring a clearer separation between his private business and his duties as an MP", and asking him to recommit to that principle. They're planning on trying to put this to a vote today.
So, what are the odds that Labour will deny leave...?
15 comments:
How about this...cross party support for the speakers' proposals to introduce a code of conduct for MPs. Does National support this? Does Labour? I ask with genuine interest as I have been unable to find an answer.
Ultimately though, if the electors don't like an elecrorate MP's ethics (or a Government's) then they can vote them out. Nothing wrong with following the democratic process, is there?
Posted by Anonymous : 8/01/2006 01:53:00 PM
Why must there be an absence of a thorough police investigation? That seems a sensible next step (I understand a complaint has already been laid)
[I'll add also, that corruption can amount to a contempt of Parliament, as envisaged by Standing Order 400(i):
"(i) as a member, receiving or soliciting a bribe to influence the
member’s conduct in respect of proceedings in the House or
at a committee"
but of course, not corruption of the sort alleged against Taito Phill Field]
Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 8/01/2006 01:57:00 PM
Until you have actual evidence that Field actually did anything wrong, then taking the matter further is really quite pointless. The Ingram report raised questions about a couple of very small beer incidents indeed. Suspicions you are welcome to hold, but to convict the man WITHOUT conclusive evidence is to my mind is a far larger and more dangerous corruption than anything Feild has been accused of.
Yes Field fucked up, yes he has been demoted and his political career is not likely to go much further. But as for the rest...how about leaving it to democracy?
Posted by Anonymous : 8/01/2006 02:30:00 PM
National denied leave for the Greens' motion, and also denied leave for Taito Field to make a personal statement to the house apologising.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/01/2006 02:53:00 PM
Yes, in fact Labour were prepared give leave for the motion to be moved before the Nats blocked it.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/01/2006 02:57:00 PM
"National denied leave for the Greens' motion"
Eh? Why would they do that? Surely they have totally lost the "moral highground" now. We keep hearing about Labour's desperation to cling to power by relying on the vote of one MP who may be ethically challenged. Seems that National is desperate to claim power through any means other than the ballot box.
Taking the lead from their governator friends in California maybe. I wonder if they have another electorate MP in their sights.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/01/2006 04:00:00 PM
Noddy: I'd like to see a code of conduct, or a change in Standing Orders which would allow the House to effectively investigate corruption amongst its own members.
As for National, I'm appalled, and I really don't understand why they did it. A select committee doesn't seem to be able to do what they want it to, and this seems to be the best way of dealing with it available. And of course it leaves other options on the table...
Graeme: I'd also like to see a police investigation - but that's obviously not under the control of Parliament, and nor should it be.
Anon: There's a prima facie case which bears further investigation. But even if that's all there is, the stench of it undermines our entire political system. Censuring Field and demanding that he apologise and formally commit to keeping private and public interests seperate isn't "convicting" him of anything - but it will help undo some of the damage his actions (whether careless or otherwise) have caused.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/01/2006 04:23:00 PM
I was developing a theory that National were actually deliberately trying things that were unlikely to work - giving themselves the mantle of corruption-fighters while at the same time prevent the issue from being resolved.
Actively hampering things that might help strike me as overstepping that plan.
Posted by Lyndon : 8/01/2006 04:37:00 PM
Brownlee describes the censure motion and Field's attempt to make a personal explanation as a joint attempt to shut the issue down:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0608/S00010.htm
Posted by Lyndon : 8/01/2006 04:44:00 PM
Thnaks Lyndon - I have assumed it was something along those lines (I didn't get quite as far as unmasking it all as nasty Labour/Green plot, however).
Opposition to a request to make a personal statement was always going to happen - a personal statement cannot be impeached or questioned in the House, and National still feel questions are going unanswered (it's a similar rationale behind the decision to oppose leave for a personal statement to David Benson-Pope, and Labour's opposition to leave for Jenny Shipley to make a personal explanation over the Kevin Roberts' bbq).
National, like Labour has in the past, considers more questions need to be answered before the matter is finally put to rest.
Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 8/01/2006 05:00:00 PM
Interestingly National have suceeded in raising the bar on what happens to Ministers who make ethical or political mistakes. No longer is it acceptable to simply sack them from their warrants, it is also required to throw them out of Parliament. And I thought that was the job of the electorate.
National may not get Feild's scalp, but they have set the stage to get the next. Seeing as how they cannot win the ballot box, the are going to try and achieve power by other means. And you think Field is a threat to democracy?
Posted by Anonymous : 8/01/2006 09:26:00 PM
Graeme is quite right about the status of personal statements in the House. And with all due respect to Tony, as Field has been remarkably careful o avoid making any public statement even remotely implying he considers he's done anything even vaguely questionable, pardon my scepticism as to whether Field suddenly had a road to Damascus experience and was going to offer a full and frank statement he didn't give to Noel Ingrahm.
Sadly politicians have become adept at the non-apologetic apology - "I sincerely regret that YOU have formed a mistaken perception, and any distress that causes." Perhaps we all deserve a little better than a procedural two-step.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 8/01/2006 09:36:00 PM
Anonymous:
I can hardly criticise you for making use of the ability to post anonymously that I/S has seen fit to provide. But you might like to consider that the very people you're so vociferously attacking as a threat to democracy don't - and shouldn't - have the ability to hide from public scrutiny and criticism.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 8/01/2006 10:54:00 PM
Apparently from what I have heard Field was willing to apologise for any inferences we might have made that put him in a bad light.
Anything that includes that sort of comment is a pretty patheic "appology".
Posted by Genius : 8/02/2006 07:14:00 AM
Deselect him when the time comes.
Craig Y.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/05/2006 01:11:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).