On Twitter this afternoon someone mused on the contrast between the UK parliament being granted a couple of days ago a snap debate on the Leveson Inquiry into the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal whereas today here in New Zealand, our own Speaker would not grant an application for an urgent debate regarding the John Banks investigation and Key not standing Banks down as Minister.
The Guardian has written a good editorial about the role of parliament in holding the government and its Ministers to account. I would hope that our parliament sees its role in a similar vein.
Jeremy Hunt: the court of parliament
Monday 30 April 2012 20.53 BST
If it is parliament’s job to hold ministerial feet to the fire, then a good parliament will make the government sweat.
The Commons got halfway there yesterday, after Speaker John Bercow accepted an “urgent question” about the position of Jeremy Hunt. In opposition, David Cameron proposed Westminster clawing back power from Whitehall, but as prime minister he was dragged across the road from Downing Street in a palpable rage.
Our speaker hopes to move onto more salubrious surroundings fairly soon.
But the ink isnt dry yet.
Oh, for pity’s sake!
Clare, John Banks lost the election to which the donations related, and was a private citizen at the time he approached Maurice Williamson. Moreover, Williamson clearly wasn’t influenced. While that certainly doesn’t make Banks a virtuous human being worthy of emulation, comparing this to the phone hacking scandal is just desperate.
A much more relevant comparison is with Winston Peters and Owen Glenn. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlight us as to why you think Winston’s demonstrated lying to Parliament did not warrant his being stood down, but Banks merely being investigated does. Perhaps also you would like to discuss the other occasions on which Labour has been referred to the police for electoral law violations and why no-one needed to be stood down for those?
NZCL, which infraction carries a penalty of 2 years jail and which other incident was a breach of parliaments code of conduct ?
News International phone hacking scandal that has gone on for 15yrs+, affects numerous MPs from all sides, numerous members of the public, the police, has cost millions in investigation and has world wide effects vs one man and a $50k political donation to a tiny political party with little relevence. Not the best comparision to make. Why not have a snap debate about not having a snap debate?
Heres a funny read, (warning slightly potty mouthed
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-to-spot-b.s.-political-story-in-under-10-seconds/
This is another example of why politicians are held in such high regard.
The News Corp scandal has festered because some people didnt tell the truth and covered up their illegal actions.
Comparison with whats happening in NZ ?
We are not arguing which one is bigger than the other, it is about principles and ethical behaviour of Ministers of the Crown and are they acting in the best interests of all New Zealanders.
In New Zealand we have seen the Public Purse stripped with large wealth transfers going from the Public Assets to private individuals and their associates. New Zealanders are only just waking up to what has been going on hence they are finding the current asset sales a little hard to stomach especially with GST rising to 15% and tax breaks given to the wealthy 10% in this country.
There appears to be one set of rules for one section of society and one set of rules for another.
If a young Maori from South Auckland steals some pinky bars and a packet of pineapple lumps from the local dairy there is a good chance he will end up in jail but if a Minister of the Crown fiddles his accommodation allowances or takes his girlfriend on expenses paid trips overseas and claims against the state this behaviour is deemed as acceptable.
What we have is double standards for one group of people over another depending on race and socioeconomic background.