Thursday 6 August 2009

Worthy of Office

National Shame

Upholding standards of integrity, trustworthiness, and honesty is essential for national leaders worthy of their office. It is inevitable--and not unexpected--that MPs will breach ethical codes and standards of behaviour from time to time. How they are dealt with by their political colleagues and party leaders is what is vitally important. For how they are dealt with tells us loudly and clearly whether their colleagues and party leaders are themselves worthy of high office. In other words, how political parties deal with their fallen tells us whether the corruption is general and systemic or not.

The guilty verdict brought in against Philip Field for charges of bribery, corruption and perverting the course of justice brings no sense of pleasure or vindication. He has been dealt with according to the law--proving, if it needed to be proved--that no man is above the law. Yet, there is a strong sense that a greasy sheen of unfinished business lies on this rotting swamp.

Kiwiblog traces the history of the sordid affair. It contrasts how another criminal MP was treated by a party leader with the way Field was dealt with by his leader, former Prime Minister, Helen Clark. Donna Awatere Huata was accused of stealing public money. Richard Prebble, leader of the Act Party in which Huata was a MP, moved decisively, forcefully, and consistently to bring her to justice--regardless of the cost to the Party and its reputation.
ACT demanded Donna explain herself, and when she could not they suspended her from Caucus, and then used the Electoral Integrity Act to have her thrown out of Parliament. They even went all the way to the Supreme Court of New Zealand, to to defend their actions in getting her thrown out of Parliament they were so appalled and disgusted by her behaviour.

Richard Prebble proved himself to be worthy of his office. He demonstrated that the Act Party as a whole was not equally corrupt.

The behaviour of the Labour Party over Philip Field could not be more contrary. When allegations of bribery emerged, Helen Clark (Prime Minister!), senior government ministers, and the parliamentary caucus went out of their way to run interference for him, protect him, defend him, and justify him in every way possible. They politicised the whole affair. They saw it not as a matter of ethics or illegal behaviour on the part of a colleague: rather, it was a political attack by opponents. It had to be politically defended. Kiwiblog provides the blow-by-blow account of the sordid affair.

This leaves us with very few options when weighing the matter. Either Helen Clark and the Labour caucus knew (or suspected) that Field was guilty, or they genuinely believed him innocent. If the former, they are as guilty as Field and are simply unfit to hold any public office in this country.

If the latter, it can only be their political partisanship which so blinded them. They put politics ahead of integrity and respect for the office and responsibility of a member of Parliament. This also makes them unworthy of office. It makes them not honourable, but contemptible.

Even now they could redeem themselves. They could emphatically affirm that what Field did was "conduct unbecoming" for a member of Parliament and intolerable. They could also declare that they did not handle the matter properly and they could, and should have moved decisively to suspend, then eject Field from the caucus from the very beginning--even as Richard Prebble and the Act Party did in the case of Huata). They could apologise and commit to acting more worthily in the future. They could resile from all the comments made in the House and outside the House at the time in which they protested that Field was an innocent, hard-working parliamentarian.

But no. It is clear from the statements being made by Labour members that they have decided on a "party" line. Apparently they have determined that they would "acknowledge the verdict" and make no further comment. Once again they appear to be intent on "managing" the matter politically, not cleaning house. Such behaviour is unacceptable for parliamentarians in this country. These people are not worthy of the office with which they have been entrusted.

Never again. Never again should Parliament be brought so low, disgraced so deeply. We can no longer assume that political parties can be relied upon to clean up ethical and legal breaches made by their own members with integrity and rectitude. We have to assume that there are some political parties where corruption is systemic, that corners can be cut, that pockets can be lined--and that the only crime is getting caught. Even then, with good luck and a compliant media, there is a chance it can be "managed".

We need more checks and balances. We do need a standing independent Commission for the Investigation of Corruption.

No comments: