Awatere-Huata & Garrett, what’s the difference?

Written By: - Date published: 9:24 pm, September 19th, 2010 - 75 comments
Categories: act, rodney hide - Tags: , ,

Having a List MP leave the party is not a new situation for ACT. In 2003, Donna Awatere-Huata was evicted from the caucus and let her membership lapse after the fraud that would later see her sent to jail were revealed. After being kicked out of ACT, Awatere-Huata refused to step down as an MP.

What did ACT do? Understandably, they demanded she resign from Parliament so they could get the next person on their list, Kenneth Wang, in instead. They invoked the now-lapsed Electoral Integrity Act (the Waka-jumping Act) to force her out of Parliament. Rodney Hide was one of the appellants against Huata in the court case.

That’s a bit of a contrast with how Hide is acting now. He says it’s up to David Garrett whether he wants to leave Parliament and he’s not putting any pressure on Garrett either way.

Why the difference? Why would Hide forgo a vote in his caucus? What could be worth more to him?

His leadership – out goes Garrett, in comes Hilary Calvert, goodbye Hide’s leadership.

It shows how much ACT has devolved under Hide’s leadership. It used to be a party of warped principles. Now, it is egos at war. Hide and his weird mate John Boscawen on one side. Heather Roy’s camp – who obviously leaked the stories that led to Garrett’s downfall – in the other. Both sides are willing to destroy the Party to put the knife into the other lot.

Grab some popcorn. This ain’t over.

PS. In researching this post I found a press release from Tariana Turia backing Awatere-Huata with a ‘us Maori have to stick together‘ line. Jesus, Tariana.

PPS. the image is from a reader who thinks Garrett is a Hide with a hairpiece and asks ‘has anyone ever seen them in the same room together?’ Of course, Hide hopes we’ll be seeing them in the same chamber together for some time to come.

75 comments on “Awatere-Huata & Garrett, what’s the difference? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. George.com 1
    19 September 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Can some please put a stop to this ACT in fighting, temporarily. Gives me time to go and grab a chair and make a thermos of tea and some sandwiches to enjoy the spectacle.

  2. Outofbed 2
    19 September 2010 at 9:39 pm

    How things have changed in 7 years, now its more likely to be : Us right wingers have to stick together

  3. Bob Stanforth 3
    19 September 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Maybe the difference is that Garret didn’t employee a tiler who needed / wanted a work permit.

    Deniability, CIA, hey, who knows, it could be the reason. No, really, it could.

  4. RobertM 4
    19 September 2010 at 10:08 pm

    No it about more than ego. How many supporters did the bolsheviks have in l913 (400?) or the National Socialists workers party have in l928. Bank robbing is an established way of financing left wing political movements and I regard Act as an extreme left wing party rather than an extreme right wing party. Donna Awatere’s crimes can be seen in this light like Stalins method of financing his party before WW1 or Christopher Boyce hitting 40 banks in Oregon and Washington state in the late l970’s.
    The war within Act is about two modes of applying a more severe social control to NZ. The Garrett sensible trust is you need social control through a severe judicial system, executions and tough prisons- essentially the method in Texas, the USA and China. It is arguable you need a pratorean guard and severe judicial system if you are going to allow a free 24hr society which Rhiana, Lady Ga Ga and Christopher Hitchens are shock troops driving towards.
    The alternative Act idea is social control through psychiatry and social workers. The social worker mass medication model of society campaighed for by the Roys and Murel Newman. It could be argued this is a far crueller method which restrict far more people.
    Neither Act faction really stands for capitalism of even creative destructive or Chicago school . The polices or Douglas and Richardson were basically stalanist in there pure destructiveness and really beyond in the same school as Sue Bradford and Keith Locke. Sort of the ultimate socialist levelling on a variant of the Soviet or North Korean model

  5. Rex Widerstrom 5
    19 September 2010 at 10:22 pm

    Why the difference? Why would Hide forgo a vote in his caucus? What could be worth more to him?

    His leadership – out goes Garrett, in comes Hilary Calvert, goodbye Hide’s leadership.

    Could happen in any small party. It’s why Lhaws got rid of so many of the NZF originals and stacked the 1996 list with his lickspittles like Deborah Morris.

    Yet one of the benefits on which MMP was sold to us (and is currently being re-sold to us) is the encouragement of small parties. Ironically, as I write this a free ad to the right is exhorting me to “campaign for MMP” and “vote for electoral stability” and calling STV, which would ensure an electorate had the final say on the likes of Garrett, “a gerrymander”.

    Stability? This? Oh the satire is coming thick and fast today.

    • Outofbed 5.1
      19 September 2010 at 10:27 pm

      Nothing wrong with MMP
      less middle aged white males like you Rex 🙂
      I just needs tweaking so a few thousand voters in Epsom can’t wreak havoc on the country

      • mcflock 5.1.1
        20 September 2010 at 1:24 am

        My current speculative thought is to set the threshhold at either 5% or the percentage of the vote that the lowest polling party to gain an electorate achieved.

        Yes, Winston would have been back in this term, which is not necessarily a bad thing: he won’t get my vote, but he does tend to shake things up a bit. But more importantly for the long term it gives parties another avenue to cross the parliamentary boundary and create a bit more positive fluidity into parliament. At the moment under-performing parties can slip below 5% and get kicked out, but it’s more difficult for emerging parties to reach 5% and get in.

        And to be fair, more people voted Winston1st than ACT.

        • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1
          20 September 2010 at 11:39 am

          While an interesting solution to the problem, it is too complex and really leaves election results completely up in the air – the results of a single electorate can change the outcomes of the party vote for other, completely unrelated parties.

          As it currently stands, it would be Dunne or Anderton that would be setting the lower threshold value, not Act.

          What would be better, IMO, is lower the threshold to 4% or maybe 3.5%, and alter the rules for “brings extra list MPs through” to something where only a single additional MP can be brought through, but only if that they get sufficient party votes for 80% of that MP. Eg if Anderton won Wigram and got party votes worth 1.4 MPs, only he would be seated. If he got party votes sufficient for 1.81 MPs, he would get a list MP in addition. If he got votes sufficient for 2.81 MPs and still under the 4% (or 3.5%) threshold, he would still only get himself and a second list MP.

          This rule would have the effect of ‘wasting party votes’ if the small party failed to achieve more than 1 electorate or more than the 4% threshold, as they would only get 2 MPs yet might, on straight party vote, have been entitled to 4. This is essentially saying that while the party did achieve some national success in the party vote, it is mostly the members from a single electorate that got them in, so removes the excessive drift-net effect from a single electorate while still giving them more standing than an electorate winner that had low party vote. It also gives a bit of a boost to smaller parties that manage to poll very well in a single electorate (like Anderton and Dunne) to the point where they can get a list MP seated at a slight discount.

          • Rex Widerstrom 5.1.1.1.1
            20 September 2010 at 1:48 pm

            Just playing with numbers, but 2,233,146 party votes were cast in the 2008 general election. If I’m doing my maths roght (and believe me, there’s every chance I’m not) then 1/120th of that vote is around 18,609.

            If that were the criteria for one list MP, then NZF would definitely be in Parliament with 5 MPs and Bill and Ben would have come relatively close and even the Kiwi Party would see itself with a chance next time.

          • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.2
            20 September 2010 at 2:53 pm

            IMO, the problem is the electorate seat combined with the threshold. A party with less than 5% support doesn’t get in unless it gets an electorate seat and then the number of seats it has is boosted to it’s full representation. This results in parties with more overall support than others missing from parliament just because the lesser party won an electorate.

            The only way to prevent this is to drop the threshold down to 1/120 of the total number of votes but that would still have the problem that an electorate seat can be won with less than 1/120 of the total vote meaning that electorate votes would have more power than party votes. The answer to that, of course, is to get rid of electorates or to have the electorates be voted for after the general election from the pool of 120 parliamentarians (which I think is just more unnecessary complication – we just don’t need the electorates).

            • mcflock 5.1.1.1.2.1
              20 September 2010 at 3:30 pm

              As a Dunedinite, I reckon electorates are highly important. People tend to forget that the South Island exists when they’re talking policy.

              Another way-out option is to have list MPs in the general election and local MPs voted on at the time of local body elections. I.e. you vote for mayor and MP. Especially if electorates were a bit smaller, say 1:15-20000. That should ameliorate the “yay we’re dictators for three years” factor a bit, because it would enable people to shuffle MPs around if they don’t like how it’s going. Wouldn’t affect the overall vote, but it would reshuffle the parties a bit, and maybe make the opposition a bit keener if it was underperforming.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                20 September 2010 at 5:32 pm

                I reckon electorates are highly important. People tend to forget that the South Island exists when they’re talking policy.

                That’s why you have city and regional councils. Just need to have them to be heard by the parliamentarians which doesn’t appear to be the case ATM.

                • mcflock …
                  20 September 2010 at 11:39 pm

                  A direct line to parliament for the citizenry has got to be a good thing – not of this “list MP responsible for…” crap.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      20 September 2010 at 11:42 am

      Take note of the unstable periods thus far:

      1996-1999 and 2008-ongoing…

      It’s not that MMP is unstable but that the right of the political spectrum are.

  6. M 6
    19 September 2010 at 10:39 pm

    What’s the difference?

    Could it be Donna was a woman and brown and more likely to stir up Rodder’s favourites, wealthy rednecks?

  7. Drakula 7
    19 September 2010 at 10:44 pm

    The Act party is founded by members who had gutted out the labour party by treacherously infiltrating it and turning it from within.

    With it’s modus operandii, then it is no suprise that it is attracting the criminal element.

    Their philosophy is extreme and danerously flawed in a number of ways (1) to privatize as much of the government as possible and (2) giving tax breaks to their rich buddies at the expence of workers.(3) breaking of promises like putting a cap on local body rates (4) establishing phoney lobby groups; the two in question Sensible sentencing Trust???? and No More Rates???????

    Their backers are the worst sort of employers.

    No, I won’t be sorry to see the end of the ACT party.
    Yes, I will be getting out the bottle of wine and celibrating their demise I hope the whole house of cards collapse (including National)
    Well here it is, bottoms UP! (have you all got your glasses?)
    CHEERS!!!!

    • Jum 7.1
      20 September 2010 at 2:29 pm

      I hoped you checked the glass bottom of your modern version of the ale tankard or you may have unwittingly accepted the King’s/Queen’s shilling and will be bounced on to some ship complete with parrot – aargh, I see blood, blood… and off to the slave market, the modernised version being the unemployment line for any non-unionised worker.

      captcha: contents

  8. Psycho Milt 8
    20 September 2010 at 6:24 am

    The difference? How about, Awatere was facing serious criminal charges and Garrett isn’t?

    You’re right though, a party leader without principle will pull shit like sheltering a criminal for the sake of remaining in power – just look at how Helen Clark handled Field and Peters…

    • lprent 8.1
      20 September 2010 at 6:38 am

      Or that Garrett had already been convicted and all of the others hadn’t? What he is getting done for is hiding previous convictions, especially in debates where those convictions were highly relevant.

      In each of the other cases people were stood down or stood aside from their positions of responsibility when the accusations arose. When charges were laid by the police was when they were forced to leave their party and/or parliament.

      There is this interesting legal principle called a presumption of innocence that you seem to avoid looking at. But of course the members of lynch mobs such as yourself don’t need such niceties. All you braying morons need is an assumption of guilt without going through the exercise of proving it. Probably because that would involve work of judgment that you’re pretty much incapable of doing.

    • Psycho Milt 8.2
      20 September 2010 at 8:57 am

      There is this interesting legal principle called a presumption of innocence that you seem to avoid looking at.

      There are also interesting legal artifacts called “discharge without conviction” and “name suppression” that you seem to avoid looking at, when it comes to “braying lynch mobs.”

      • lprent 8.2.1
        20 September 2010 at 9:11 am

        …“name suppression”…

        Which Garrett abrogated by speaking in parliament ….

        Discharge without conviction means exactly what it says – that he was found guilty by a court – but the court wasn’t going to impose a conviction. It is pretty clear from the transcript of the judgment that I looked at, that the only reason he got a discharge and name suppression was because he’d concealed previous convictions.

        • Psycho Milt 8.2.1.1
          20 September 2010 at 12:47 pm

          Which Garrett abrogated by speaking in parliament ….

          You want it both ways. When he was correctly observing name suppression he was “hiding previous convictions,” but when the media publishes the story and breaches name suppression, suddenly it’s his fault because he then addresses the issue in Parliament. This is just partisan bullshit.

          • lprent 8.2.1.1.1
            20 September 2010 at 1:27 pm

            Nope, we’re not having it both ways. You’re just acting like a legally illiterate dork.

            We’re simply following the legalities. We’re pretty careful doing that – even when we disagree with them (for instance with the suppression orders on the ‘terrorism’ trials that I suppressed rocky on earlier this year).

            We didn’t publish any posts until after Garrett himself addressed the suppression order issue in parliament.

            1. The one person that can break a suppression order (without the courts getting too upset) is the person on whose behalf it is made. There are probably a number of legalities involved in that. But certainly I’ve never seen any cases where that has been overturned. However it is probably a bit dicey if a judge chooses to get irritated.
            2. Anything that is stated under parliamentary privilege is public domain and is able to be commented on despite any suppression orders made in a lower court. If it hadn’t been Garrett doing it himself then I’d have probably been a bit more cautious.

            Since Garrett himself did the details under parliamentary priv, it is completely trashed the suppression order.

            I don’t really care much about what the MSM did. They would have argued public interest in that they were exposing that the suppression order was granted on the basis of invalid information. I’m interested in what this site and its authors did, not what whoever broke the story did. I suspect that you’re confuting the two without bothering to engage your brain.

            What you’re appear to really be saying is that you don’t understand the legal principles involved and/or have not real respect for the legalities. Perhaps you should examine them so you don’t look quite so dorkish.

          • Psycho Milt 8.2.1.1.2
            20 September 2010 at 3:32 pm

            You seem to be arguing with someone else now. I can’t really relate any of that back to what I’ve posted.

            • lprent 8.2.1.1.2.1
              20 September 2010 at 4:31 pm

              Or as I suggested – you simply have no idea what you’re talking about… Empty phrases on your part and the legalities of the situation from me.

              Or you’ve simply moved on to stirring.

            • Psycho Milt 8.2.1.1.2.2
              20 September 2010 at 7:59 pm

              Yeah, those are certainly possible. However, you left out a third possibility: that you have (yet again) jumped immediately to the conclusion that someone who disagrees with you is either stupid or a troll. My money’s on number three.

              For the record: the post author asked “Awatere-Huata & Garrett, what’s the difference?” I pointed out the rather obvious difference that one was facing serious criminal charges and the other isn’t.

              I also pointed out the difference between the author’s attitude to this incident and the lack of similar outrage from lefty bloggers to similar incidents involving Taito Philip Field or Winston Peters. Sure it was a cheap shot, but it served to highlight the partisan nature of the attacks on Garrett from left-wing blogs. You find the “legalities of the situation” very different between these cases. Well duh, every political scandal is different – but the partisan nature of the responses from various quarters certainly seems uniform.

              • lprent …
                20 September 2010 at 8:19 pm

                Yep, and I pointed out that the most significant difference was that Garrett is being pilloried over concealing two existing guilty verdicts and one conviction that were directly relevant to his area of responsibility in ACT. Whereas the others hadn’t been even charged at the time they were being pilloried. They were stood down from their responsibilities while the investigation proceeded. Field and Awatere got charged and eventually convicted. In the case of Winston he was never charged with anything (apart from the partisan kangaroo court at the privileges committee). Benson-Pope was never charged. Worth was never charged etc etc…

                My point was that while there are obviously partisan attitudes, the real difference is in the presumption of innocence. You aren’t considered to be guilty in a legal framework until you are found guilty. IMHO, generally the left tends to respect that and gets pilloried by the wingnuts for not wanting to lynch people on accusation. The idiots in the sewer are just a lynch-mob who don’t respect the legal system and the process of law. That is the ‘partisan’ difference.

                It was particularly noticeable for me during the Worth affair.

                • mcflock …
                  20 September 2010 at 11:45 pm

                  Suppression counts towards publication, I can see that. But does it apply to private conversations, e.g. Garrett telling his mum or the party leadership about his past?

                  Didn’t Hyde say he knew beforehand about Garrett’s wrongdoing (although he ummed and ahhhed on the details when saying this)?

                  If it doesn’t apply to 1:1 conversations, all they had to do was say “oh we’ll pretend we never offered you the job, because this could blow up in all our faces. Let’s get someone else from the SST and hire you as an advisor”.

      • Jum 8.2.2
        20 September 2010 at 2:34 pm

        you and your ilk, milt, have a nerve telling anybody off about lynch mobs – being the natural form of attack by the lying parties of the right – fanatics in a fit.

    • bbfloyd 8.3
      20 September 2010 at 2:07 pm

      Psycho…..you’re gonna need much stronger arms to pull that bow sonny.

  9. HitchensFan 9
    20 September 2010 at 6:31 am

    My two cents’ worth is as much as I loathe the hypocrisy of the whole stinkin’ thing (Rodders admitted yesterday on TV1 that the whole caucus and the senior ACT board knew about the passpost scam! They’re all as revolting as each other), I hope Garrett DOES stay in Parliament. Every time he opens his mouth the opposition can shout something about “dead babies” or “hypocrisy” at him, he’s completely lost any credibility. And ACT will be tarred by association, so that will ensure their demise (which couldn’t make me happier).
    But if he goes, in will come Hilary, Rodders will get rolled, they’ll go back to their scary, dangerous Douglas neo-lib roots, the country will forget in a year and the nasty party of rich white bullies will remain.
    Personally I think Garrett leaving Parliament is the worst possible outcome for those of us who hate ACT.

  10. Tigger 10
    20 September 2010 at 7:49 am

    When talking to Holmes Hide actively volunteered the fact that the board knew. He is spreading the blame to dilute the pressure on him. All he’s done is turn the SS ACT into the Titanic.

  11. kerry 11
    20 September 2010 at 9:36 am

    Looking at some comments its nice to see the right are still intimidated by Helen Clark…..the right so hate intelligence and decency and good political management.

    • Tigger 11.1
      20 September 2010 at 9:42 am

      Not to mention women who don’t know their place is in the kitchen…

    • burt 11.2
      20 September 2010 at 9:44 am

      the right so hate intelligence and decency and good political management.

      And that relates to Helen Clark how ?

      • Blighty 11.2.1
        20 September 2010 at 9:56 am

        3 election victories.
        4 years of below 4% unemployment.
        Record pay increases.
        Unbroken growth.
        Working for Families.
        The Cullen fund.
        Interest-free student loans.
        Modern apprenticeships.
        20Free ECE.
        Keeping NZ out of Iraq.
        More doctors, nurses, teachers.
        An ETS.
        Government net debt below zero.

        I can go on….

        • burt 11.2.1.1
          20 September 2010 at 10:01 am

          Do go on, it’s great to see just one side of the story. I bet you wet your pants with excitement everytime you heard the phrase ‘Not in the pulic interest to prosecute’.

          • Blighty 11.2.1.1.1
            20 September 2010 at 10:07 am

            I don’t even know what you’re referring to. Let alone how it negates all this proof of the Fifth Labour Government and Clark’s intelligence and good political management

            • The Voice of Reason 11.2.1.1.1.1
              20 September 2010 at 11:02 am

              C’mon, Blighty, leave Burt alone. You know how badly facts confuse and annoy him. Just pat him on the head, tell him it’ll be alright and leave him to his fantasy world in which he restrospectively changes history to suit his own beliefs.

          • Jum 11.2.1.1.2
            20 September 2010 at 2:37 pm

            learn to spell sonny. It was too close to ‘pubic’ and then I would start to worry about your reasons for outing yourself on public blogs.

      • bbfloyd 11.2.2
        20 September 2010 at 2:10 pm

        Burt… don’t be silly. if you want to indulge yourself in a hate session, then it’s kiwiblog for you son…

  12. Eric Crampton 12
    20 September 2010 at 9:40 am

    Umm, I’d thought the difference was that the Electoral Integrity Act expired. When Huata left, there was a legal mechanism in place by which ACT could get her expelled from Parliament so the next one on the list could come in. That would have taken a vote in caucus. Now, there’s no such mechanism. No matter what ACT says or does, the decision is Garrett’s.

    As nice as the conspiracy theory sounds, it’s not the binding constraint.

    • Blighty 12.1
      20 September 2010 at 9:53 am

      Um. Hide is not even pressuring Garrett to leave. He is happy for him to stay.

      Hide doesn’t need the Electoral Integrity Act to be able to call on Garrett to resign.

      Muppet.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.2
      20 September 2010 at 11:48 am

      IIRC, Act was instrumental in getting that act into law so that they could throw Huata out.

    • bbfloyd 12.3
      20 September 2010 at 2:14 pm

      is it just my imagination, or are all the right leaning apologists writing on this site indulging in more than the usual semantic game playing?

      • Draco T Bastard 12.3.1
        20 September 2010 at 3:00 pm

        The usual semantic game playing from the right has been increasing for some time in direct proportion to how far right National have deviated from their Labour Lite election campaign. Now that National are showing themselves to be hard-right authoritarians they have gone into DDD (drastic disinformation and distraction) mode.

  13. Graeme Edgeler 13
    20 September 2010 at 11:32 am

    Why the difference?

    A buckletload of reasons:

    1. He expects David Garrett will resign.
    2. The law now states it is solely David Garrett’s decision. When Donna was around, it didn’t.
    3. Donna’s matter was more serious.

    etc.

    • Blighty 13.1
      20 September 2010 at 11:40 am

      Missing the point young fella. Hide could call on Garrett to resign if he wanted but he isn’t.

      • Graeme Edgeler 13.1.1
        20 September 2010 at 1:18 pm

        Missing my point: if David Garrett decides to stick around, Rodney may well publicly call on him to resign. Giving him a few days to publicly come to that conclusion himself is, well, humane. David Garrett won’t come out of this well, allowing him to be seen to “do the decent thing” off his own bat is the least Rodney can offer a loyal MP whom Rodney completely dicked around.

        • bbfloyd 13.1.1.1
          20 September 2010 at 2:25 pm

          Graham…you’re getting yourself tied up here son. an argument based on what you would like to happen is actually not an argument. it is wishful thinking. your affection and loyalty is commendable, if misplaced, and a little naive.

          garrett has discredited himself, and the right wing cause in the process. is he so slow witted as to need days/weeks to come to the obvious conclusions that he has no credible alternative to resignation from parliament? i don’t think so, do you?

        • Eric Crampton 13.1.1.2
          20 September 2010 at 3:08 pm

          Mr Hide said he was not putting pressure on Mr Garrett in terms of whether he should quit Parliament. “But it seems to me the people elected five ACT MPs — not four and an independent,” he said. The allocation of five MPs came after Mr Hide’s successful Epsom electorate win and will only be retained if Mr Garrett quits Parliament.

          It’s gentle for now, would be less gentle in a month’s time.

          Just for fun, I hit “taito” in the search field here. Amazing how loud the calls are for Garrett’s immediate departure compared to how little shows up in searches on a minister who was engaged in corruption as part of his portfolio.

          • lprent 13.1.1.2.1
            20 September 2010 at 4:43 pm

            …compared to how little shows up in searches…

            Probably because you searched on a first name compared to a surname. If you searched for Garretts first name you’d be amazed at how many other people there are with the same first name. If you read your own comment I notice that you didn’t use Garretts first name yourself.

            The sign of someone who doesn’t know how to conduct a relevant search…. I think that you should relegate yourself to the ranks of the technically incompetent?

            • Eric Crampton 13.1.1.2.1.1
              20 September 2010 at 9:04 pm

              First off, Taito wasn’t his first name, it was his title. Also searched on “Philip Field” and didn’t find it. But I picked Taito as most likely unique identifier. Just “Field” could bring up anything, “Philip Field” would miss anything that didn’t have the name in that exact order, (Philip AND Field) would be too broad. I’ll trust you can point me to your post arguing that Field ought to have been booted both from Labour and from Parliament…preferably something before he came out saying he’d stand as independent.

              A straight google search on Taito, no modifiers, gives a Herald piece on the corruption and bribery investigation as sixth hit. Only stuff I find here on searches on Taito is comments from folks mad about Field.

              I’ll agree with y’all that Garrett ought to be out of Parliament. But I’d have the amp turned up to like 2 when saying that; the amp ought to have been up to about 8 or 9 for Field.

              • lprent …
                21 September 2010 at 1:42 am

                There is of course a pretty simple reason why there were few posts on Field. Apart from the conviction, everything was done and dusted long before this site started in August 2007. Read the timeline from wikipedia

                In 2005, Field was stood down from his ministerial posts following controversies around allegations that he had improperly used his influence as an MP to receive material gain. In particular, it was alleged that he had used his position as a Member of Parliament to obtain a work permit for a non-resident who had worked as a tiler at reduced hourly rates on his home in Samoa. It was also alleged that Field had used his position to obtain a discounted price for a property deal he had constructed with low-income welfare beneficiaries in his electorate. An inquiry cleared him of any conflict of interest, but did criticise his judgement over the events.[4]
                Further allegations of improper behaviour were made by the Television New Zealand Sunday program on 27 August 2006, which led to Prime Minister Helen Clark saying that Field should reconsider his future as an MP.[5] Police launched an investigation the following day into claims that Field had benefited from helping people with immigration applications. Field was put on indefinite paid leave from Parliament by the Labour Party.[6] After Field made comments to the media that he might run against the Labour Party in a future election, steps were taken on 13 February 2007 by Labour to expel Field from the party.

                On 14 February 2007, Field was formally expelled from the Parliamentary Labour Party. This was announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Margaret Wilson. To forestall moves to expel him from the Labour Party, Field resigned on 16 February 2007, returning to Parliament as an independent, but promising to support the Government’s legislative programme;[7] However, on 21 February, he voted against the Labour Party on Green MP Sue Bradford’s Members’ Bill to amend Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 (see Child Discipline Act 2007).

                The Sunday Star-Times reported on 15 April 2007 that Field would form a new political party based on family values.

                On 24 May 2007, police announced that they would seek the leave of the High Court to lay corruption charges against Field (a necessary procedural step when such are laid in New Zealand). The offence, corruption and bribery of a member of Parliament, carries a maximum sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment. If Field was convicted while still a member, his Parliamentary seat would be vacated.[12][13]

                It was pretty clear that he wasn’t going to get before the high court before the election and the probability of him winning either his electorate seat or 5% were minimal. So he simply wasn’t that interesting to the writers here…. Furthermore he was before the courts, and our authors don’t tend to second-guess the judicial process without a particularly good reason. That piece of idiocy we leave up to the seriously deranged, the idiots in the lynch mob at the sewer and other lawless RWNJ blogs.

                There have been quite a few posts on Garrett because he has of current interest to the authors when the site has been running. Most of the posts were about his connections to the sensible sentencing trust or the self-evident fact that the guy was monumentally not suitable to be an MP.

                Now the question is really how much of an idiot are you? Do I have to explain this in any more depth? What is the bet that you have problems counting between dates?

  14. randal 14
    20 September 2010 at 11:59 am

    garret is a faiure as human being yet hide persists in treating him as a morally upright person.
    so therefore there is a failure of ethics and morals permeating the whole party.

  15. Treetop 15
    20 September 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Whats the difference: The Act Party are part of the coalition. Hide is not yet off the hook. To the person who had the guts to expose Garrett good job, well done! Does this person know what Garrett told Hide? I want to hear from Garrett what he actually told Hide about the identity theft?

    • bbfloyd 15.1
      20 September 2010 at 2:32 pm

      Treetop… good question… i assume you already know that we won’t get an answer on that until act are already in the dustbin of history

  16. Nick K 16
    20 September 2010 at 11:20 pm

    There is no comparison.

    When a MP, Donna stole taxpayer funds destined for maori charities and used it for stomach stapling operations.

    Twenty six years before becoming a MP Garrett performed a stupid student prank.

    • mcflock 16.1
      21 September 2010 at 12:13 am

      … when he wasn’t a student, was sober and in his (late?) twenties. He didn’t nick a pie from the late night dairy! Then he campaigned on “law & order” after an assault conviction and applying for name suppression when he finally got caught.

      • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1
        21 September 2010 at 12:16 am

        And also not telling the court 2005 that he did have that 2002 conviction.

        Garretts forgery of a passport was no prank – you just don’t do something that bad and involved as a prank.

    • felix 16.2
      21 September 2010 at 5:24 am

      Nick K,

      If by “student prank” you mean “serious crime committed by a 28 year old adult” then yep.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.