She says if any evidence had been presented to her showing that Mr Field used Parliamentary processes, such as a question or debate, to advance the immigration applications at the centre of the case, a question of privilege would have arisen. She says no such evidence has been presented.¬†
Oh for crying out loud, he is a Member of Parliament, of course he used Parliamentary processes, he spoke to a Minister. If that is not a parliamentary process to speak to a minister as a Member of Parliament then what the fuck is.
Gerry Brownlee is suitably indignant.
[quote]"Outside those formal procedures – the parliamentary questions process or select committees – Margaret Wilson has effectively ruled that anything goes.
"What does it take to get an MP referred to the Privileges Committee? If the Field case isn't strong enough, what will be?"[/quote]
And the Greens don't hold back either.¬†
[quote]"In future, as the Speaker indicates, it is up to Parliament to devise and pass a code of conduct for its members, in line with those already in place in similar Parliaments overseas. However, such a development cannot apply retro-actively and address the case of Mr Field. All it does is identify a legal loophole that evidently allows Mr Field, for now at least, to escape any Parliamentary sanction for his actions.
Given the lack of any other meaningful way of addressing the damage to perceptions of Parliament's integrity, the Green Party would support any motion for select committee scrutiny of the various issues raised within the Ingram report."[/quote]
Well National it is up to you now, you have the Greens (6), plus ACT (2) and yourselves (48) that is 56 so far , see if you can get the Maori Party (4) and we could be looking at a real good emabarrasment for the Government. Of course if Peter Dunne could find his spine then all the better.