Hard News: A Taito Spot
38 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
at the same time as National is bagging Clark for not rushing to the police the day after the story broke, Act's two MPs are alleging a conspiracy to influence the police in favour of prosecuting the MP because Clark wanted to see him dealt to.
Not just Act. Bill Ralston on Eye to Eye this morning had this to say:
In the Taito Phillip Field thing the interesting thing is that he was going to attack their South Auckland vote by setting up his own party by moving out of that caucus he was posing a huge threat to Labour in South Auckland - South Auckland won them the last election.
Would he be charged if he was still in that Labour caucus? I don't think so and I think one of the important questions we are seeing here is that the police are no longer politically independent. I don't think they've been independent for some time but it's been hastened under the Labour Government.
And I think the cops have moved in and they're charging this guy because he's a threat to the government, because they see the way clear to do so, they can take him out and they know they're going to get favours from it.
Massive call.
-
I agree - huge.
As for it's accuracy that's another matter. I'm not sure NZ has got quite that conspiratorial just yet. I'm positive there'd be plenty of people within the Police who'd have a quiet word in a friendly journo's ear if politicians were putting the squeeze on them and telling them how to do their job. NZ is just too small for those sorts of things to happen and someone not tell someone else about it.
Mind you Bill was a political journo' when I was still in short pants so I'm not going to dismiss what he says out of hand. No doubt he's still got some pretty good contacts in all sorts of interesting places.
-
Felix is right about the 'word in the ear' but I'm also sure the 'Top Brass' (does anyone use that word anymore? It's right up there with "Guv'nor") wouldn't have made this move (to prosecute) without a wink and a nod from The PM's Office.
Ralston's theory is all well and good but surely Labour are also going to get dragged thru the muck if this goes to trial during an election build up? As has already been done here on PA, National will dredge up some old soundbites from Labour about Fields. -
Nobody Important:
I wouldn't be in the least srurprised if Police prosecutors were very careful about, shall we say, embarassing the folks who (effectively) are going to have to go into the next Budget round and argue about how big a slice of the pie gets labelled VOTE POLICE. And let's not be naive in pretending that senior police managers and their union is as intensely 'political' as everyone else.
Having said that - and it might surprise some folks, give my clear ideological bent - I'm very reluctant to go as far as to suggest the Prime Minister, or anyone in her office or inner circle, would be stupid enough to politically interfere in police operational decisions they have a blindingly obvious political interest in.
It's like the whole decision not to prosecute either National or Labour over breeches of electoral law. Do I think the officers involved were spineless twats who knew nothing about electoral law, and cared even less. Certainly. Political meddling from the Ninth Floor or the Opposition Leader's office? No.
-
Massive call.
And complete bollocks. He's losing his mind.
Field was on his way out quite some time ago; he was removed as a minister as soon as there was an opportunity, and the leadership jumped at the chance of expelling him from caucus without appearance to deny him natural justice.
It's not like the Labour leadership actually liked the guy (David Lange, of course, famously despised him and opposed him getting the nomination), and there's a difference between wanting to limit damage and seeing Field as a desirable candidate in next year's election.
Worse, Ralston is saying that without even knowing what the charges relate to, which you'd surely want to know before you went about pronouncing on the merit of prosecutions. He's just making shit up here.
And finally, this prosecution is going to land on Labour, with serving Cabinet ministers probably having to give evidence, just in time for the election next year. It would be a strange sort of Machiavellian genius that thought that one up ...
-
David Lange, of course, famously despised him and opposed him getting the nomination
I had thought (with little understanding why, but still) that Lange had opposed Field's nomination for 'his' Mangere in 1996. Field first entering Parliament under FPP as the member for Otara the previous election.
this prosecution is going to land on Labour, with serving Cabinet ministers probably having to give evidence, just in time for the election next year
I'm not so sure. People have certainly been speculating that Ministers might need to give evidence, and while we don't know the exact nature of the charges, I'm not particularly sure what they could add to the case for either prosecution or defence - perhaps importantly, I don't recall any news that ministers had been interviewed - it's possible it was kept quiet (or that Field will want to call them), but if a minister was to be called by the prosecution, then that minister would have been interviewed by police already.
-
I'm not so sure. People have certainly been speculating that Ministers might need to give evidence, and while we don't know the exact nature of the charges, I'm not particularly sure what they could add to the case for either prosecution or defence - perhaps importantly, I don't recall any news that ministers had been interviewed - it's possible it was kept quiet (or that Field will want to call them), but if a minister was to be called by the prosecution, then that minister would have been interviewed by police already.
If the prosecution doesn't call them, then I'm sure the defense will. From memory of that summary of the Ingram Report, there's involvement from other ministers that Field will be wanting to bring to public attention, for legal and political reasons.
-
Ministers might need to give evidence
Can MPs be compelled to repeat statements made in the House under parliamentary privaledge in court?
-
If they can they'll soon change the laws retrospectively so they don't have too.
-
I'm sure privilege would extend in such circumstances, otherwise Ministers would be dragged into court everytime someone was upset with what they said in the House.
In any case, MP's would argue that a reading of Hansard in court should suffice, if that is all you're trying to prove (that they said "XYZ" in the House) -
I'm sure privilege would extend in such circumstances, otherwise Ministers would be dragged into court everytime someone was upset with what they said in the House.
And what would be the downside of that, exactly? As I don't enjoy a near blanket immunity from defamation, I'll just say there are a few MPs whose contributions to political discourse would be vastly improved if they were occupied paying off a large defamation settlement, with costs.
-
Yeah. I think parliamentary privilege has some useful purposes (the ability of elected representatives to speak out without fear that they will be squashed by legal gargantuans), but some MPs just use it for political gain, dropping muck and then moving on without fear of it catching up with them, which annoys me.
Though perhaps that says more about the politicians than the privilege.
-
If it helps-
Court proceedings are covered by privilege.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.