Dompost Wally of the Week
Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.
Pecuniary interests registrar Dame Margaret Bazley seemed to be in no doubt that he should have declared a company directorship which he failed to include in Parliament’s pecuniary interests register. Isn’t he supposed to be the Government’s top legal brain?
I find it difficult to reconcile the difference in the way that outrage is published in the MSM. On one hand endless slanted publicity for such things as tiny mis-spending of things like flowers and minor gifts. On the other hand muted if not silent response to much more important issues such as Mr Findlayson’s non-disclosure. The media have a responsibility but seem not accountable.
Couldnt agree more Ianmac. The front page of the Sunday star times, while titilating makes me one how tabloided our so-called journalists have become.
No one seems to give a toss about Mr Finlayson, despite the days focused on Mr Parker a couple of years ago. But there’s no bias. I am imagining it.
The Left needs its own MSM channels with a viewership of half a million plus.
Multiple NACT Ministerial staff collected flybuys points on Govt purchases
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10654732
He he he
Seriously this is soooo funny, when Labour was in power National supporters complained about the free ride Labour got from the MSM and now the boots on the other foot…
What free ride was that Chris73? IIRC things like Helen Clark’s speeding to the rugby, the art ‘forgery’ brou-ha-ha, the chewing gum tax cuts etc, didn’t seem like the MSM were giving Labour any quarter whatsoever, much less a ‘free ride’. The NZ Herald has been pro National for a few years now.
Chris73 When Labour was in power I complained about the pro national msm.
The herald singlehandedly pursued the anti democracy line NACT over EFA yet waited til one day after submissions closed to editorialise on the supercity erosion of democracy.
I cant ever recall Paul Henry being anything other than the prime morning mouthpiece for National
Just to clarify Chris73, you’re happy with the transgression of the AG?
As I said before on another post Tracey, if hes found to have done wrong then he should be relieved of his duties for a period of time (and probably brush up on his law…)
you missed dame beazley’s statement then? Seriously chris73, what did you really think about the Parker accusations when national made them?
At first?
Clutching at straws, throwing mud and hoping it sticks that kind of thing
Then as actual proof came in I changed my view to if hes proven to have done wrong then he should be sacked, the same view I have of certain labour MPs
Fair enough, but there wasnt actual proof with Parker, beazley is saying Finlayson ought to hve declared it. This isnt a glass or bottle of wine thisd is our legal leader flouting the rules.
Exactly, so send him to the naughty for a while with a pile of legal books for homework
naughty chair i meant
I guessed you did.
Doesnt it need to be a bit firmer than that though? National bayed for parker to be sacked, and e was stood down from his portfolio. I just think politicians find it hard enough being seen as having integirty or leadership, keeping anyone in who seems to flout their position or simply isnt bright enough for it, further undermines things.
For example iw as fine with Dover Samuels being stood down while under suspicion but once cleared, he wasnt brought back, yet Dyson, guilty of being over the limit came straight back…
Wasn’t Dyson the one who castigated Norm Hewit for playing with a broken arm? That one was pretty funny.
I believe any MP who does something wrong should be stood down for a period of time but there should always be an opportunity to prove oneself
You believe in capital punishment and the opportunity for redemption… hmmmmmm
I believe that if you deliberately kill someone then there is no redemption and I don’t think you can compare an MPs minor indiscretions to something like murder
Finlayson should probably lose his AG post for at least a year – for 4 years of false (hmmmmmm ‘inaccurate’ or ‘incomplete’ if you are in a generous frame of mind) parliamentary returns based on what he called independent legal advice, when the rules said declare company directorships no ifs or buts. And we do not know for certain that he didn’t personally benefit himself or his friends through his directorship?
I’d actually replace him for getting it wrong in the first place, hes the AG hes not supposed to get it wrong
Yeah, I can definitely buy that suggestion Chris73.
With an ongoing lack of action on the AG, the credit card/porn vids/minibar carry on, FlyBuys points, etc, its not hard to imagine why the majority of people view politics and politicians as a necessary evil (and yes, that’s at best).
I wonder if you could send a survey around to politicians and ask them when they thought they’d sold out or what made them abandon their principles…would be interesting reading
He he he it would,
Though they’d never do it because it would be political suicide 
anonymous of course spud.
the conitinuum is the same one though Chris73
Apart from the apparent “oversight” and potential misleading of the public, the actual possible advantage directly or indirectly should be assessed.
The media does tend to be selective but then remind yourself about who owns the media in NZ and the sources of international perspectives.
http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/15/05.htm
Tracey – I agree.
It isn’t a case of ‘if he is found to be breaking the rules’ – he clearly has.
As our chief legal brain he should know better and I think we can assume he did in fact know better so he should be put out on his ear.
Declaring ones pecuniary interests is hardly rocket science – heck, even TM has managed to grasp it
How on earth an AG can protest innocence is beyond me. He’s lying he should be fired. Period.
The next question is will this be thing that makes the Nats finally drop in polls – probably not….as indicated by the latest Readers Digest poll, New Zealanders don’t trust lawyers or politicians (in terms of their professions) so when they are caught out doing something they shouldn’t or lying we are hardly surprised….
Guaranteed New Zealanders care more about what politicians do on their personal time with taxpayer money…such as buying caviar, high fashion suits, flowers, massages, going on guided tours etc. LIke it or not, that seems to be the case.
@Rebecca
I’d find out why he failed to declare before taking action because if hes good at what he does then something like this shouldn’t be the end of him (but I’d give him a hell of a rocket and a final warning)
Chris – yes I’d be interested to know if he has a plausible explanation, but I just don’t see how he can and I don’t understand why he just didn’t comply with the rules – it’s not like this particular company is of huge interest so not sure why he just didn’t choose to declare just in case..
My best guess would be that he didnt think it was worth declaring…balance deleted Trevor
Thats a call worthy of a world cup referee…
Red card Two warnings One too many. One month suspension. Trevor
Comment deleted following chris73 off thread Trevor