"When a government becomes powerful, it is destructive, extravagant and violent; it is an usurper which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance for votes with which to perpetuate itself." - Cicero
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force." - George Washington
"In all that people can do for themselves, the government ought not to interfere." - Abraham Lincoln
"The most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power." - John Stuart Mill
"The government's role is whatever the government defines it to be." - Helen Clark

Blogarama

Review Kiwi Pundit

< ? kiwi blogs # >







inHOUSE: Software development and services, web design, computer training, crystal reports, sql, business intelligence and reporting in Wellington, New Zealand

 
Mallard's Attack on Henare

What happened?

The original version was that Henare made an insulting remark, Mallard punched Henare in the head, then Henare grabbed Mallard's throat. Over the last few days there has been an attempt by Clark to claim that the throat grabbing came before the punches.

We may never know for sure but it's highly unlikely the revisionist version is correct. As David Farrar says, why would anyone, especially Mallard, apologize for hitting someone who hand was around their throat? Punching under those circumstances is fine, and if the attacker squeezes your throat too hard then poking them in the eyes is not out of the question.

It also just doesn't ring true to suggest that Henare followed up a smartass insult by going straight for the throat. Who does that? Grabbing the throat of someone who is punching you makes much more sense, especially if you're taller and can hold them at a distance.

Clark is a master at this sort of manipulation. It won't be long before the media adopts her version.


How serious was it?

My initial reaction to these kind of things tends to be 'who gives a shit?'. What's important is that Ministers do a good job of running the country, regardless of whether they are decent people in other respects. I wouldn't have sacked Ruth Dyson for drunk driving, or Dover Samuels for being accused of various crimes (which he probably didn't commit), or Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle for fiddling their accommodation expenses either, unless there was some reason to think their ability to perform as Ministers would be significantly affected. On the other hand I would be much quicker to cut loose Ministers who make a mess of their portfolios, such as Annette King in health and George Hawkins in just about everything he was involved in.

For this to happen though, the media would have to spend as much time and space reporting on outcomes in health, education and crime as they do on MPs' extra-curricular activities. Don't hold your breath.

Also, there are much worse things than punching someone. In this case, the insult was minor and the name mentioned was someone Mallard was't even involved with, so clearly the punches were a massive overreaction. But generally, given (for example) a choice between living in a country with people who think it's ok to insult someone by making sexual comments about their mother, or with people who will retaliate with violence to such comments, I would much prefer the latter. The 'sticks and stones' rule is good as a legal rule because it's easy to understand and enforce, but as a moral rule it is a only an average first approximation.


Punishment

Apparently the punishment consists of being moved to a different seat, and giving up two portfolios in exchange for three new ones. I think Mallard is lucky that the incident occurred at a time when the far left faction of the Labour party was already becoming underrepresented.

The parliamentary privilege question is more interesting. Dean has set out the relevant law but I can't agree with his conclusion. They key point, which the media appear not to understand, is that privilege attaches to Parliamentary activities, not the physical Parliament building. A bunch of MPs can hold a select committee meeting on a beach at Gisborne and be covered by parliamentary privilege, but a punch-up in the debating chamber may not be. What matters is whether the acts done are part of the 'proceedings of Parliament'. Even if the punches were a response to an insult which was a continuation of insults uttered during a Parliamentary session, it is a real stretch to include them in the proceedings of Parliament.

There is a private prosecution underway and a summons has been issued.

If there is parliamentary privilege, then the rule that appears to prevent action on breaches unless they are reported to the Speaker at the earliest available opportunity seems almost designed to ensure that MPs will get away with stuff.


Smacking

It should be obvious but this has nothing to do with the smacking debate. Mallard is not a hypocrite for voting to ban smacking and then punching Henare, especially once he admitted he shouldn't have done it. And Rodney Hide is certainly not a hypocrite for voting against the anti-smacking bill and advocating the prosecution of Mallard. People who say that are just nuts.

But while on the subject of hypocrisy, there may be a viable candidate. This is from Rodney's blog:

[15 May 1997] Hon. ANNETTE KING (NZ Labour---Rongotai): Within 3 minutes of the announcement on television last night of the Privileges Committee's decision, the phone in my parliamentary office was ringing. I was berated by an irate member of the public who was astounded that one of the highest-ranked leaders of the land could be found guilty of assault and behaviour unbecoming of a member of Parliament and walk away with the proverbial wet-bus-ticket slap. I have to say that I am not happy with the signal this decision sends to young people in New Zealand, to the public, and to criminals. It says to them that aggressive, angry, obnoxious behaviour and violence are OK if one's name is Winston Peters or if one is the Deputy Prime Minister and a Cabinet Minister. But nothing has changed for the ordinary people of New Zealand. The full weight of the law would come down on them.