Tuesday, February 17, 2015

ANDREW LITTLE VS THE GREENS

I see the Greens are crying foul over Andrew Little's nomination of David Shearer to Parliament's powerful Intelligence & Security Committee replacing the Green's co-leader (for the meantime) Russell Norman.  

Clearly Little broke the law by ignoring Section 7(1)(d) of the Intelligence & Security Committee Act 1996 which requires the Leader of the Opposition to consult with "the leader of each party that is not in Government or in coalition with a Government party" in naming his nominee.    Both the Greens and Winston First confirm that Little did nothing of the sort.   They first became aware of Shearer's appointment through the media.

Putting aside Little's disdain for both the law and Parliament and I have to wonder how is was the Labour agreed to Norman's nomination in the the first place given that Section 7(2) of the same Act requires the that nominator, in making the nomination, "shall have regard to the requirements of security".    Perhaps someone might care to explain to me how Labour was able to square Section 7(2) of the Act with Norman's background as member of Australia's Marxist Democratic Socialist Party.    Talk about letting the fox loose in the hen-house.  

And don't start me on Turei's suitability either.


11 comments:

Oscar said...

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

It's actually an astute move. There will be a collective sigh of relief across the country as people realise the loons are on the outer as far as their security is concerned.

The Veteran said...

Adolf ... I have no quarrel with Shearer's appt per sae except for the fact that Little broke the law.

Re the Greens. Part of the problem is that every elected member is considered an 'honorable member' by dint of their election. I take issue with that insofar as appointing someone with a Marxist pedigree to the Intelligence & Security Cttee is stretching the appellation 'honorable' to the limit and beyond.

Noel said...

Was his response an oversight or deliberate? If the latter he certainly put what many wanted but didn't see at the last election. A distancing between Labour and the Greens. In that respect I would agree with Adolf.
A question do they continue to positive vet from a Communism vs capitalism leaning? Odd for this new century.

Noel said...

Silly me of course not.

"Government departments and agencies determine suitability to access official information through an assessment of an individual's background, consisting of (but not limited to):
•Records checks and enquiries, carried out as part of pre-employment checks, and
•through a formal vetting process conducted by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) to assess an individual’s honesty, trustworthiness, loyalty and their appreciation of security responsibilities and obligations."

Noel said...

Did Johnny Boy agree to the appointment?

"d) 1 member of the House of Representatives nominated
for the purpose by the Leader of the Opposition, with
the agreement of the Prime Minister, following consultation
with the leader of each party that is not in Government
or in coalition with a Government party."

The Veteran said...

Noel ... to respond (1) doesn't matter, Little broke the law. If he couldn't be bothered to read the Act then at least you would expect his Chief of Staff to be up with the play (2) MPs, to the best of my knowledge, aren't PV'd. Don't think they ever have been and (3) Yes, clearly the PM agreed to Norman's appt ... probably something to do with the Honorable Member thing.

I can think of a number of MPs who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them. Norman is one of them. Clearly the PM thought otherwise. His call, not mine and so, for me, the 80/20 rule comes into play.

Noel said...

I'm not convinced Pareto's Principle is correct for this situation.
I just find it odd that the Greens are directing all their angst at Labour when it's a joint decision. Presumably the PM approved Little's choice as required by the act.
Did he ask Little if he had consulted before agreeing?

The Veteran said...

Noel ... it was NOT a joint decision in the sense that it was Little's nomination to make as Leader of the Opposition. Key approved it as required by the Act but he was entitled to assume that Little had followed the law by consulting with both the Greens and Winston First.

Consultation does not mean learning about it from the media.

Pareto's principle does apply. Key made the call. I choose to disagree with Key.

Noel said...

Consultation does not mean learning about it from the media.

And the media is claiming Peter Dunn wasn't consulted either.
Hmmmmm.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... If that were true then Dunn (sic) Dunne might have cause for complaint but I haven't seen him raise the issue.

I note however that Dunne resigned from that Cttee back in 2013 after his brain fade concerning the leaking of sensitive documents. He could hardly have expected reinstatement.