Kia kaha New Zealand First

Written By: - Date published: 9:28 am, July 29th, 2015 - 88 comments
Categories: national, nz first, Parliament, Politics, same old national, winston peters - Tags: ,

winston445

Parliamentary question time is really important.  It is the one chance the opposition has to hold the Government to account and demand answers to questions on what it is doing.

Ministers are meant to answer questions honestly.  If they do not do so accidentally then they are expected to correct their answer as soon as they are able to.

The correction is by way of seeking leave of Parliament to make a personal explanation and to set out the inaccuracy.  This is an important safeguard to make sure that Parliament has not been misinformed.

Anne Tolley made such an explanation yesterday.  But the way in which it was conducted and the Speaker’s handling of  subsequent issues made a mockery of what should be a solemn apologetic process.

Here is the video:

This is what was said on July 23:

Darroch Ball : Does she still stand by the statements she made on Q+A on 21 June “If they … deliver good results … why not?”, and “if private enterprise can deliver those sorts of results, I wouldn’t hesitate to use them.”, when she was asked about Serco providing child services in New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : To the first part of that question—yes of course, because this Government is all about making sure that the money we invest in social services gets results for the people they are designed for. But I did never ever answer any question in regard to Serco, and I have had no conversations with them about any social services. In fact, it was the interviewer who talked about Serco, using it as an example of private enterprise.

Ball then sought to table the transcript but was refused leave.  Tolley’s answer was clearly wrong.

Following her personal explanation yesterday there was some response from Ron Marks and Winston Peters.  Clearly they were upset that they were not able to contradict the Minister with her own words and that she had delayed a proper response for so long.

Then Winston Peters raised a point of order about the delay in Tolley seeking to correct her answer as soon as possible which she clearly did not.  This had previously been raised by Ron Mark but it was an important point.

Carter then chucked Peters out for relitigating the point of order and the rest of New Zealand First walked out in protest.

New Zealand First’s collective anger at their treatment was understandable.  And you have to question why transcripts of interviews cannot be tabled in Parliament.  Especially when they can show that what a Minister has said to Parliament is wrong.

 

88 comments on “Kia kaha New Zealand First”

  1. Clemgeopin 1

    Readers’ comments under this article indicate that CARTER is partial to John Key and other Nat MPs. He seems unfair and unbalanced as a speaker.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/70621334/winston-peters-kicked-out-of-debating-chamber

    His bias against opposition MPs compared with his treatment of Key and National MPs is often quite obvious.

    • Tracey 1.1

      He is making Margaret Wilson’s tenure seem stellar by comparisson

      (note: I had a lot of respect for Ms Wilson, through her work in La, before she became Speaker. I thought she would make the kind of speaker that Smith later did. I was incredibly disappointed in her performances. I dreaded Lockwood’s appointment but believe he may be the best Speaker the House has had during my political consciousness. I can see why Nats felt he had to go)

  2. The last sentence answers the penultimate sentence. David Carter’s style of “managing” the House is farcical in how much it allows Ministers to avoid ever answering any questions, and punishes Opposition MPs for ever trying to hold them to account.

    Question’s short? A Minister gives a one-word answer then dodges any supplementaries because “I don’t have that detail.”

    Question’s long, and includes detail? Minister dodges the question and Carter allows it because “in fairness to the Minister it was a very long question.”

    Question is specific? Minister refuses to give detail, Opposition points out they had notice of the question, Carter threatens to throw them out for re-litigating a point of order.

    The Minister’s answer is either a lie, or a memory lapse so severe they should probably see a doctor? You can’t table evidence that’s in the public domain, you can’t table transcripts, you can’t table the Hansard, and when you get frustrated Carter threatens to throw you out for relitigating a point of order.

    And finally, when the Opposition has absolutely nailed a Minister and caught them in a lie and the Minister has nowhere else to turn, Carter will “apologise to the honourable member, but there was a lot of noise in the chamber and I didn’t hear the answer. Question number six.”

    • Old Mickey 2.1

      Carter is even worse than Margaret Wilson, and that is saying something ! Carter is doing a great job of supporting Winston as leader of the opposition.

    • wyndham 2.2

      Stephanie, You fail to mention the commonly used tactic of Carter – – – – “In my opinion the question was answered satisfactorily”.

      • Old Mickey 2.2.1

        Don’t you mean “In my opinion, which was given to me by the Honourable Stephen Joyce, the question was answered satisfactorily”.

    • Clemgeopin 2.3

      +1

      He also lets Key, Joyce, English and others go off the question on a tangent and turn it into silly attacks on Labour. Just at the very last moment of their attack conclusion, he tries to stop them probably to show that he is being ‘fair’!

      He not only should be fair, he must also genuinely appear to be so. I wonder how Carter would manage proceedings in some overseas parliaments where MPs literally indulge in en masse brawls and blows.

  3. Observer (Tokoroa) 3

    Micky Savage

    Carter the Speaker, is treading the narrow edge of corruption.

    But more is the pity that the entire opposition parties did not leave the House with Winston Peters.

    Gutless? Honourable this and Honourable that, ? The Speaker does not own the Democracy of New Zealand. He should be made to give a personal explanation to our Parliament.

    • Rodel 3.1

      ‘honorable’
      adjective
      ‘honest, moral, ethical, principled, righteous, right-minded; decent, respectable, estimable, virtuous, good, upstanding, upright, worthy, noble, fair, just, truthful, trustworthy, law-abiding, reliable, reputable, creditable, dependable. ‘

      joke?

    • Chooky 3.2

      +100 … “But more is the pity that the entire opposition parties did not leave the House with Winston Peters.”

      • Clemgeopin 3.2.1

        I think it is dangerous/foolish for all the opposition to walk out en masse on marginal issues because then the government could simply pass any laws they want quietly and quickly without any opposition or oversight.

        Also, the question time gets wasted and the government ministers will get a free pass.

        There could be a public backlash against the opposition.

        There are marginal judgements by the speaker everyday. Should the opposition walk out daily? While we may not agree with his judgement sometime, other parties, media or many people may agree with it.

      • Save NZ 3.2.2

        yep. +1

    • mary_a 3.3

      Watched the whole fiasco in Parliament yesterday and we thought Labour and Greens should have shown some solidarity with NZ First and walked out as well. Now that would have really put the wind up NatzKEY, to see that kind of strength from opposition parties. FJK would have literally soiled himself then and there on the spot!

      The Speaker is indeed as corrupt as his sleazy string puller FJK and the rest of the venomous NatzKEY filth!

      Anyone else notice the slimy smart arse answers Todd McClay was giving David Parker’s reasonable questions yesterday re the TPP? Because Parker raised a point of order requesting some justification for one of McClay’s responses, Speaker Carter threatened to throw him out of the chamber also, as he was doing for most of the Question and Answer session towards opposition yesterday afternoon!

      Despite being the highest court in the land, NZ Parliament is an absolute disgrace, sinking deeper into the foul odorous cesspit it has become over the past seven years!

  4. David H 4

    Cyclops Carter made to look a fool by NZF.

    • Stuart Munro 4.1

      Good on NZF – but it’s pretty hard for Carter to ever look like anything else.

    • Chooky 4.2

      +100…and Carter is a FOOL

      • greywarshark 4.2.1

        Chooky
        You praise him by calling him a fool. He is very adept, and mendacious, and clever at turning question time into a farce of democracy. The word fool doesn’t apply. He is an active agent in denying the people of NZ a functioning correctly operating forum for government to honestly and openly reveal its actions and decisions to the people.

        He is obliged to be fair in parliament but allows government ascendancy over the opposition. So he is dishonest in the use of his influence, even to the point of being a subversive (adjective: subversive – seeking or intended to subvert an established system or institution.)

        I think that is fair comment, observable in action and effect. I hope that this doesn’t involve TS from a hostile response.

        • Chooky 4.2.1.1

          +100 greywarshark …you are correct….”adept, and mendacious, and clever at turning question time into a farce of democracy.”

          …my problem is that I tend to think all right wingers are fools …but clearly they are they are not!

          • greywarshark 4.2.1.1.1

            Yes Chooky you’re no fool and we’ve been looking at things political on here for long enough to know the program of political play, attack and defence. The Olympics have nothing on the sport here down under.

  5. repateet 5

    David Carter, soon to be “Sir.” Dear oh dear.

  6. Bill 6

    Well I’m donning the bullet proof vest because…having read the part of the Q+A transcript that’s in question, it seems to me that she was answering to the general question of private provision and that Serco was used merely as a named example of a private provider by Corin… which she then unwisely picked up on by saying she was involved in the development of their prison contract.

    But maybe I’m missing something?

    Even if I am, is this the best an opposition can do? Split hairs on small segments of an interview?

    Or am I missing even more than what I may or may not have been missing before?

    Corin: ….We’ve got private prisons, we’ve got charter schools – could we see the likes of a company that runs a private prison, Serco, which in the UK is looking at child services, involved in an area like that?

    Tolley: If they can deliver good results for people, why not? I mean, I’m very involved in the development of the Wiri contract. That’s a service-based contract…

    • Clemgeopin 6.1

      Bill here is the thing about this post. It is not about what she did say or did not say in the Q and A interview but about the way she went about her personal explanation on Tuesday, for whatever reason she decided it was called for.

      Peters was actually making a slightly different point of order about the minister ‘being put on alert’ on Thursday itself, but did not bother to correct herself till late on that day as is the supposed normal protocol.

      Even if the point of order was marginal in Carter’s opinion, it still did not deserve the ‘booting out’. The parliament chamber, where the opposition get just an hour to hold the ministers to account, is not a military complex. If Carter was a fair minded wise guy he could have simply said ‘something’ like this : ‘I thank the member for pointing that out and I would like to remind all ministers to be mindful of that in the future’….Matter ends. Why kick out an MP on a pretty frivolous issues just for the speaker to feel himself strong as a stubborn mule and to satisfy his own power/ego trip? He needs to be a better moderator.

    • mickysavage 6.2

      Not so much Bill. I am not worried about what Tolley said originally. If the nats think that privatising social services is the way to go then at least they should publish this publicly.

      Where Tolley got into trouble is saying “I did never ever answer any question in regard to Serco”. This is clearly wrong, not to mention indecipherable.

      Her staff obviously thought the same, this is why she decided to make the personal statement.

      I am fine with the sloppiness of her language. I am not fine with her staunch “there is nothing to see here” attitude. Because the Nats do this all the time. Marginal descriptions are converted into black and white responses. If it can be shown that they strayed over the line there ought to be a penalty.

  7. Puckish Rogue 7

    Oh please Winstons grinning like the cheshire cat over this, he loves this sort of thing…unless this is a back door overture to NZFirst in which good luck with that

    [This site is not a political party nor is it linked to a political party. You know this, PR. Sharpen up or else. TRP]

    • Puckish Rogue 7.1

      Sorry should have been more specific, I was meaning an overture by Mickysavage personally not by The Standard itself

      • Clemgeopin 7.1.1

        Personal explanation or relitigating? Lucky for you that TRP is not DCC!

      • sirpat 7.1.2

        yeah…leave the house……the speaker has spoken!!!!

      • mickysavage 7.1.3

        Absolutely no overture PR. My preference is that NZ First does not make it back into Parliament. But when they perform in a principled way and raise important issues they should be supported.

        And I endorse their position on the TPP.

    • Enough is Enough 7.2

      I tend to agree.

      Winston knows how to make a headline. And what is better than getting kicked out or Parliament and taking your team of sycophants with you.

      It is a very sad day indeed when we on the left all start cheering on Winston.

      • Clemgeopin 7.2.1

        Not cheering Winston but calling Carter out for his treatment of the opposition MPs.

      • Chooky 7.2.2

        @ Enough is Enough….I cheer Winston most of the time…he is a lefty as far as I am concerned…no State Asset Sales( he brought a National government down over this)….New Zealand for New Zealanders….especially against foreign ownership of NZ land and housing

        ….as far as I am concerned those who hate/bash Winston the most are disguised right wingers and /or racists

        ….for a long time Winston NZF was to the Left of the Labour Party …especially on the sale of State Assets

        ….and dont forget he worked very well with Helen Clark…and supported her Labour Government in power

        …so I dont know where you are coming from (imo the right wing?)

        • Enough is Enough 7.2.2.1

          Winston will not hesitate to go into government with National if the opportunity arises. He is no friend of the Greens or the socialist movement generally.

          He is not left nor right. He is populist.

          Winston should be a last cab off the rank option for the left.

          We should not be planning a future social democratic future with him front and centre.

          • Chooky 7.2.2.1.1

            Disagree!…”populist” is a “lowest common denominator” derogatory term which denotes immorality or amorality

            Winston is genuinely for New Zealand …a patriot …which makes him popular

            …nor is Winston immoral…otherwise he would have been a National Prime Minister long ago…he is genuinely for New Zealand

            You say:”He is no friend of the Greens or the socialist movement generally”

            ….yet many Greens vote alternately Green and NZF

            …Winston has similar policies as the Greens…on foreign ownership and sale of State Assets

            …He is a long time feminist..He worked well with Helen Clark….He held up the Labour Government

            Also your assertion that he will go into coalition with the Nactional Government if given half a chance …is a misrepresentation…he is completely opposed to this jonkey nact government and everything it stands for

            • Enough is Enough 7.2.2.1.1.1

              Please point me to any election since MMP began that Winston has ruled out going into government with National?

              He indicated he would kick National out in 1996, then jumped into bed with them.

              He will go with them if the opportunity areises.

              If we are relying on him then we are doomed.

              We need a Green Labour government. Anything less will fail to achieve the real change we need in New Zealand.

              • Chooky

                “We need a Green Labour government. Anything less will fail to achieve the real change we need in New Zealand.”

                ….you realise everything is corruptible…including the Greens…In Australia they sided against Kevin Rudd and his efforts on climate change and with the right wing

                …you realise also that the biggest thing that the Nacts fear is Winston Peters forming a coalition with Labour…because then there is a new governement.

                (It is unlikely the Greens will form a coalition with Nactional …)

                • Enough is Enough

                  I am not sure I follow your reasoning.

                  I don’t give a shit what the Nats are afraid of. Their fears are irrelevant to the creation of a new New Zealand.

                  What I fear is Winston doing what he did to us in 1996. Promising to remove the Nats then becoming Bolger’s deputy PM.

                  Want I want is a left government.

                  Are you trying to say that NZ First is preferable to the Greens, in forming that government?

                  • Colonial Viper

                    Labour won’t get over 30%-32% even in the most optimistic of scenarios. Both GR and NZF will be required.

                    What will be critical is pressuring that government to head left and stay left. Knowing those bastards the pressure to conform to the orthodoxy and simply tinker with the status quo here and there will be too much otherwise.

                    • Chooky

                      +100 CR…agree both NZF and the Greens will be required( am more optimistic Labour will get more votes though…maybe 38% if they work on the housing crisis and foreign land buy ups)

                      …and if I were a Nact right winger strategist i would be desperately trying to drive wedges to prevent that Left coalition forming:

                      1.) … I would be trying to drive a wedge between between NZF and Labour and vice versa

                      2.) ….I would be trying to drive a wedge between NZF and the Greens and vice versa

                      Not only is Winston likely to take disillusioned votes away from jonkey Nactional, he is likely to form a coalition with Labour:

                      1.)….this coalition worked in the past with Labour, under Helen Clark

                      2.) …this coalition did not work with National…Winston destroyed National over the sale of state assets and brought down that government in short order.

                      3.) …because of that very brief coalition with National …( which was brought on because Helen Clark did not have the numbers for a working coalition government and Winston did not want to force another Election)….Winston almost destroyed NZF…He wont do that again!

                    • Colonial Viper

                      I like your optimism. And its important to factor that Winston is now looking for a legacy to his time as a Parliamentarian. Propping up John Key is not likely to be it, but the Greens and Labour have to start working jointly together and with NZF to demonstrate to the voting public that such a combination would work.

                    • Enough is Enough

                      Your legacy isn’t based on your final act.

                      Will Helen Clark be remembered for losing to John Key and then resigning….No.

          • Rodel 7.2.2.1.2

            E is E
            ‘Populist’ has a derogatory stigma but I like the dictionary definition.
            ‘populist’ – noun
            a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
            • a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people.

            • (Populist) a member of the Populist Party, a US political party formed in 1891 that advocated the interests of labor and farmers, free coinage of silver, a graduated income tax, and government control of monopolies.

            I think that sums up Winston and I don’t mind it. Still don’t vote for him though but never say never.

  8. Stuart Munro 8

    Shame on Carter – this subnormal scumbag must go.

  9. Clean_power 9

    A pathetic sight of minions walking after their master. Those NZF MPs should be ashamed of themselves. Sheep they are.

    • At least their caucus is united, competent and working together well. National … not so much.

      • Enough is Enough 9.1.1

        Don’t kid yourself. There is no New Zealand First caucus.

        Winston is the party and the party is Winston.

        The day he finally leaves parliament will be the end of the party and the so called ‘caucus’.

        • te reo putake 9.1.1.1

          That’s not what Shane Jones and Ron Mark think! And more importantly, I reckon, Winston doesn’t think that way either. He won’t want his legacy to be a defunct party.

          • Ad 9.1.1.1.1

            I’m looking forward to Peters unleashing on TPP when its landed.

            • lprent 9.1.1.1.1.1

              Problem is that any debate in parliament will essentially be meaningless. The cursory access to treaties by select committee or the house has no effect. Treaties are passed in council, ie by the cabinet.

              Much of the implementation can also be done in council by regulation.

              Parliament could vote down every supporting bill and that won’t make a blind bit of difference. The government merely has to reintroduce them as often as they feel like.

              National have been lying about parliament being able to have any effect on signing of the TPPA from the start.

              Normally I wouldn’t give a damn about this because all of the treaties that I am aware about that we have signed have had more than 75% support in parliament with support from both Labour and National, and for that matter from the parties back into the dominion era. This is because the trade and security benefits have been pretty obvious to all major parties in the house.

              However National appear to be planning to force this treaty through despite its uselessness and high costs to NZ and probable lack of support across the house. This is something that I think is unique in our political history.

              If that happens, then we need to put pressure on Labour to do something just as radical. Repudiate the treaty immediately after a change of government, and change the law so that the council may not sign binding treaties without a constitutional level of support – typically 60-75% of the house.

              I’d also suggest a royal commission into the conduct of the TPPA negotiations. Something about how our servants have proceeded with this one stinks of corruption.

              • Ad

                My point was not about Parliamentary debate.

                Winston’s greatest skill is straight to camera with excellent soundbites, and taking no crap from reporters.

                He and Key are still the best at that in the country. Being able to change any of the TPP agreements will be done only when there is a change of government, if at all. That will also need a great electoral swell of support.

                Only Peters currently has the skill in Opposition to be able to do that. Peters also has the rhetoric of economic nationalism in his blood, all the way back to Muldoon.

                TPP is custom-built for the revival of the NZFirst Party.

                • Hanswurst

                  Peters is head and shoulders above Key in that respect, because he can take what a reporter says and put them in their place in such a way that every viewer can see why they are talking bullshit. Key’s way of “taking no crap from reporters” is simply to ignore what they say and repeat his lines until they give up. It relies on the reporter being a quiescent fool.

                  The difference in a nutshell is that Peters can think on his feet, whereas Key can merely talk on his feet. He’d probably fail the Turing Test if one took his interviews as a basis.

              • rawshark-yeshe

                You might want to find the footage of Winston today as first speaker after question time — used the word ‘treason’ several times and called Groser “Benedict Arnold” .. Worth the effort to see some him state the fight it truly is for our democracy .. Winston is daring them to table the agreement before it’s signed. Powerful imho.

                http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/38600

          • Enough is Enough 9.1.1.1.2

            Shane Jones possibly. However I can’t see him attracting that same level of devotion from the demographic that consistently supports Winston

            Ron Mark – No chance. He is a half decent list MP. He will never have the support to lead a party that can break the 5% threshold.

            Of course Winston won’t want that to be his legacy. Unfortunately for him he has no choice in that matter. People vote NZ First for him and no other reason.

    • Anno1701 9.2

      Its called solidarity

      maybe a concept you dont quite grasp ?

  10. Draco T Bastard 10

    And you have to question why transcripts of interviews cannot be tabled in Parliament. Especially when they can show that what a Minister has said to Parliament is wrong.

    We don’t need to question it at all as we know why – the documents proved that a National MP and a minister lied under oath. What we need is a way to hold National to account for lying and covering for lies in parliament.

  11. Observer (Tokoroa) 11

    Anne

    Your thought is far from idle !

    Greens and Labour are so shy …”hush lil babies – now don’t you cry”.

    Is there some way we could put name tags on them and encourage them to say little things? Complete with mummy’s phone number on their tags. Little packets of sticking plaster in their pockets.

    I so wish the Opposition would get some strength and ticker. They have the stamina and strength of a wet bus ticket.

    (I am off to buy some hearing technology so I can hear Andrew talking. I can see his mouth moving. BOO)

    • Anne 11.1

      😀

      Complete with mummy’s phone number on their tags. Little packets of sticking plaster in their pockets.

      … and pin a hankie on their fronts for when they need to wipe their noses. Ooops… I’m showing my age.

  12. Observer (Tokoroa) 12

    Anne !

    Naughty. Should we get lil pinnies for them. Keep their lil drips and dribbles off their angel clothes?

    Maybe there is a Nurse or Matron at the Beehive who could give The Greens and Labour a spoon of malt and a tonic to strengthen their lil bones.?

    (Concerning ears – I had no trouble hearing Mr Cunliffe. ) SHHHH

  13. Sable 13

    This country’s government are really behaving like dictators who are not accountable to anyone. Small wonder NZ First as so disgusted.

    • Puckish Rogue 13.1

      Bollix, if National don’t get enough support then it won’t pass…if National are dicataors then they’re the worst dictators ever

      • Hanswurst 13.1.1

        if National are dicataors then they’re the worst dictators ever>/blockquote>

        Yes, and?

  14. freedom 14

    another test as once again i seem unable to reply to comments

    edit:to LPRENT
    all i get when trying to reply to comments is a message saying I am making duplicate comments but the comment is not showing up anywhere except in the text box at bottom of page.

    I have had numerous ‘no posts’ today with no apparent rhyme or reason to when i can and can’t post.

    Will send another email but really would like to know what is going on

    • freedom 14.1

      reply test
      edit: ok this now i can post-now i can’t-now i can routine is officially doing my head in 🙂

  15. Rudi Can't Fail 15

    Does anyone have an issue with Carter been called Subnormal on this site.
    Why don’t you just call him Untermech and then apply eugenics to people to see if they are National voters.
    You call out the Whalesite site as vomit but what is regurgitated here is no different for a majority of the comments.

    [Dude, if you are going to go down the Godwin path, at least check the spelling of the German words you use. And it’s bit rich you moaning about language when I had to edit one of your comments for offensive wording just the other day. However, ‘subnormal’ was a poor choice. Below average, useless, partisan or pathetic are much better descriptions of Speaker Carter, so I hope commenters will use those words or similar in future. TRP]

  16. DoublePlusGood 16

    What I don’t get is why no one ever just stares down the speaker and refuses to leave. Should the behaviour be sufficiently appauling, then get in a comment about the lack of accountability in the house, criticise the speaker for allowing such nonsense or being biassed in preventing appropriate points of order, and then when asked to leave, refuse.
    Carter can then spend 10 minutes staring angrily or getting security or whatever.

    • riffer 16.1

      I think standing orders 87 through 93 have that covered DoublePlusGood:

      87 Naming of member
      The Speaker may name any member whose conduct is grossly disorderly and call on the House to judge the conduct of the member.

      88 Member may be suspended
      Whenever a member has been named, the Speaker forthwith puts a question, “That [such member] be suspended from the service of the House”. There is no amendment or debate on this question.

      89 Naming in committee of whole House
      If a member is named in a committee of the whole House, the committee is suspended and the chairperson reports the matter to the House. The Speaker then puts the question for the member’s suspension as provided in Standing Order 88.

      90 Time during which member is suspended
      If any member is suspended under Standing Order 88, the suspension—

      (a) on the first occasion is for 24 hours:

      (b) on the second occasion during the same Parliament is for seven days, excluding the day of suspension:

      (c) on the third or any subsequent occasion during the same Parliament is for 28 days, excluding the day of suspension.

      91 Refusal to obey Speaker’s direction
      If any member who is suspended under Standing Order 88 refuses to obey a direction of the Speaker to leave the Chamber, that member is, without any further question being put, suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the calendar year.

      92 Rights forfeited by suspended member
      A member who is suspended from the service of the House may not enter the Chamber, vote, serve on a committee, or lodge questions or notices of motion.

      93 House’s right to hold in contempt
      The fact that a member has been suspended under Standing Order 88 or 91 does not prevent the House from also holding the member’s conduct to be a contempt.

      • DoublePlusGood 16.1.1

        I’m not seeing these as necessarily barriers, should someone have the courage and willingness to take the risk of public backlash and make a principled stand against the corruption.
        With the appalling behaviour that goes on in parliament, such a stand could be a hugely popular move. But I guess it couldn’t be from Winston Peters, who has a history of getting thrown out for points of order.

  17. Stuart Munro 17

    The short answer is that this issue is best pursued by public action. The speaker is our servant and is accountable to us. The convention that we allow parliament to make our laws is dependent on their not utterly betraying us. Similarly the notion that traitors can remove the capital consequences of treason merely by passing legislation is fatuous. We appoint MPs with the expectation not merely that they should not betray us, but that they shall vigorously prosecute our interests.

    I’m curious too what Maori traditional law has on the subject of treason – I have a feeling that their traditions are every bit as rigorous as our own.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago