Russel’s speech on the Privileges Committee findings
Ok, so as speeches go the atmosphere is not quite Barack Obama in front of faux Greek pillars, but it’s a pretty clear annunciation of why Russel voted to censure Winston Peters.
Bookmark to:
15 Responses to “Russel’s speech on the Privileges Committee findings”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I was just wondering why this speech was given. Was it prompted by anything outside Russel’s participation in the Privileges Committee? It’s interesting nonetheless, I’m just curious.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Well done Russell !
It is refreshing to hear, from our Hallowed Halls of Democracy, a common sense speech which gives a fair assessment of the situation under discussion with no “personal agenda” attached.
Imagine how well Parliament could function (for the good of all) if all its Members adopted similar attitudes and acted likewise.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
For which Russel was accused of political bias by Helen Clark.
Wake up call, Russel. Time for the Greens to truly go it alone. There are an abundance of disaffected Labour voters looking for a home.
Un-hitch your wagon from the train-wreck that is Labour and NZF.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
So, to sum it up:
1. Russel wasn’t really interested in being there, but since he was, he did his duty.
2. Russel believes Winston lied over funding transparency with regard to Owen Glen.
3. Russel believes a censure is adequate punishment.
Fair enough I suppose.
Given that Winston also has been deliberately unclear on $50,000 worth of donations from the Vela family; on money donated from Bob Jones; on failing to declare debts and on filling out nil returns when they patently are not nil; on failing to repay $150,000 worth of tax payer money for the last election overspending, I’m a little surprised it doesn’t get any worse than this for Winston. Maybe it is lucky we are so close to an election, although his core supporters may not care about these recent disclosures, so he could yet be king maker, such is MMP.
Imagine how well parliament would function if they (the politicians) took the laws they made more seriously. Seems to me the issue here is more around a lack of respect for the declaration of pecuniary interests and receiving money, perhaps more so than the fact that businesses and individuals donate to political parties.
Politicians make more and more laws every day; when they are found failing to obey the laws they make, or avoiding them by using trusts and using weasel words to blur the meaning of “debt” and “donation” why should they expect their constituents to bother?
Are the Greens likely to declare they will not prop up Labour if it means that Winston gets his job back? What if he doesn’t file his return properly etc?
September 24th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
ZenTiger Says:
September 24th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
> Given that Winston also has been deliberately unclear on $50,000 worth of donations from the Vela family; on money donated from Bob Jones; on failing to declare debts and on filling out nil returns when they patently are not nil; on failing to repay $150,000 worth of tax payer money for the last election overspending, I’m a little surprised it doesn’t get any worse than this for Winston.
The Priveleges Committee investigation was only an investigation into some of the allegations. Aren’t there two other investigations that are still ongoing? (in which case it can get worse for Winston)
September 24th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
When voters consider each party on the political spectrum, they see the Greens squished aganist the wall on the far left of Labour. The open pasture is in the centre, previously occupied by NZF, now being settled by the Maori Party. The Greens have the opportunity to be a major political player in this election, but only if the can convince voters that they have migrated to the middle paddocks.
That means they need to convince voters that a vote for the Greens, is not a done-deal vote for a Labour led government. Russel gives the Greens that chance, because he doesn’t carry the Labour-tainted baggage/history of others in the party. He performs well on camera, and he will go well in the leaders debates.
But if the idea of a National/Green coalition is completely unpalatable for Green party members, then the Greens fate is already consigned to the fate of Labour and NZF. And for the disaffected Labour voters looking for an alternative, there is no point in going Green.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
The limits, censors, rules, regulations and barriers against free speech and information being made available to the public by the public is APPALLING and rigged for the status-quo for their own interests.
Instead of trying to dismantle this situation the Greens have only added to it in their lucrative part of the status-quo’s private n privileged tug of war where centralised power dictates.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
“The limits, censors, rules, regulations and barriers against free speech and information being made available to the public by the public is APPALLING and rigged for the status-quo for their own interests.”
What was left out of the report that should have been included?
“Instead of trying to dismantle this situation the Greens have only added to it in their lucrative part of the status-quo’s private n privileged tug of war where centralised power dictates.”
I don’t understand this sentence.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Green thinking and policy about free speech Valis………..”The problem is, there arn’t enough mines in the field. If we can can lay more and more mines, people will stick to the path and we have a share in the path, in fact we have the share in the path for free speech; why look at the trouble we went to in laying more mines in the field so everyone has to be more focussed on using the path-which we protect and safeguard with free speech.”
September 24th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Right, of course, thanks for clarifying that.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:09 am
‘annunciation’ is what happened to the Virgin Mary, if you go with the story.
‘ennunciation’, by contrast, refers to clarification of speech or concepts under discussion …
I doubt that Russell was in danger of immanent recognition by God!
Grammar nazi on the go, again
September 25th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Katie, you seem very assured that the eminent co-leader’s immanence isn’t imminent. Not exactly inventive invective, but surely frogblog’s first add homonym riposte.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Katie, you seem very assured that the eminent co-leader’s immanence isn’t imminent. Not exactly inventive invective, but surely frogblog’s first add homonym riposte, reposted.
September 25th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Pat2 says:
” When voters consider each party on the political spectrum, they see the Greens squished aganist the wall on the far left of Labour.”
… The Greens have the opportunity to be a major political player in this election, but only if the can convince voters that they have migrated to the middle paddocks… ”
I reply:
Tell those “voters” to look again, carefully!
Those used to “left versus right” thinking, sometimes fail to see that Green has its own dimensions … These are measured from a different point of view. We describe these dimensions as “GREEN”.
If one applies the left/right scale: in some ways Green thinking may APPEAR to be lefter than left, and in other ways APPEAR to be “righter than right” … but Green thinking is consistently “Green”.
For example: Start with the fact that we live on a FINITE Planet …
The resources of this Planet are finite, therefore we (and all the other species) on this Planet must SHARE the resources and, where appropriate, conserve them for future generations …
Another example: Because the Planet is finite, we must limit our reproduction rate. To encourage people to do this we need to ensure that the infant mortality rate drops so that parents can be sure that their child(ren) live to grow up. This requires health care, collective concern for the welfare of children, the community … and education etc etc
So, next time you look at what the Greens are saying or doing, ask yourself the question WHY? before assigning us to one of your “pigeon holes”.
Your current assumptions are neither GREEN reasons or answers.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
The New Zealand Herald claims that Peters has been condemned “by his peers”. That is in a sense true, but it would be just as true to say that Peters has been condemned by his enemies in the parliament. The process of parliament, including the Privileges Committee, is a political process which at best is only quasi-judicial. If we consider the Privileges Committee to be a judicial body, then Peters is quite justified in making the comparison with Zimbabwe, because it fails all the normal tests of impartiality and legal rigour.
I believe that this affair has damaged the standing of the monarchist parliament. As a republican, I can be quite relaxed about that outcome. But the Green parliamentarians should not have joined in this extraordinary vendetta against Winston Peters, regardless of past offences given and received. The Parliamentary motion of censure was more of an affront to the electorate than to Winston Peters. It was an implicit challenge to the doctrine of “popular sovereignty”, which purports the people’s right to choose or dismiss their representatives, and the duty of parliament to accept whomsoever the people decide to elect. (Parliament will not accept the election of republican representatives of course, but that is just another example of “popular sovereignty” being honoured in the breach) It is easy to see how parliamentarians would be tempted to pass their own judgement on the people’s decision to send Winston Peters to parliament. It is, however, a temptation they should have resisted. They should have limited themselves to establishing the facts, so far as they were able, and then got on with the job of promoting their own policies, and defending their own constituency, leaving Peters to his.