Since the 2011 General Election, we have commented a number of times on how well Russel Norman has been leading the Greens, and how he was looking like a de facto Leader of the Opposition.
Sadly, events in Parliament yesterday have severely dented our respect for Russel Norman. Here's a synopsis of what happened.
After the normal opening formalities, John Key moved a Notice of Motion on the deaths of the three New Zealand soldiers in Afghanistan. Key led off the tributes, followed by Labour leader David Shearer. But when it came to the Greens' turn, it was not the leader who spoke, but Dr Kennedy Graham. Dr Graham's contribution was one of the shorter speeches given.
Come Question Time, Russel Norman asked Q4 to the Prime Minister:
Will he commit the Provincial Reconstruction Team to Bamiyan province in Afghanistan when the current deployment ends in October; if so, why?
This was not an unreasonable question. Nor was the Prime Minister's reply, confirming that it was the government's intention to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2013, and that the current rotation would indeed be replaced when their rotation ends shortly. Key would not give dates for that, for obvious reasons. Norman probed around the edges in his supplementary questions, and received detailed, considered and non-political responses from the PM.
Come the end of Question Time, this happened:
We are pleased that Dr Lockwood Smith refused to grant what would have been a politically motivated debate. The House had already paid its respects to the fallen soldiers; now Russel Norman was seeking to blame the blame game, for wholly political purposes. Norman wanted the debate to include the deaths of the soldiers, the operations on which they were engaged, the equipment provided to them and the timing of New Zealand's withdrawl from Afghanistan.
We started to blog about this at the time, but we were upset and angry, and sensibly decided to sleep on it. This post is nowhere near as caustic towards Dr Norman than it may have been had we blogged immediately.
But even after a sound sleep, we do not resile from our criticism of Russel Norman for a callous attempt to politicise the deaths of three brave young New Zealanders, before their bodies had even left Afghanistan on their journey to their final resting place. There is a time and a place for everything, and yesterday was neither the time nor the place.
Russel Norman had his chance to speak about the deaths of the soldiers, and to pay tribute to them. He passed on that, giving the speaking spot to Kennedy Graham. Perhaps we should be grateful for that, because we doubt that Norman could have been as statesmanlike as his colleague.
But we are left with the feeling that Norman's decision not to speak to the Notice of Motion was a cynical ploy designed to give him an extra shot at the government. That he would do so at a time such as this is inexcusable.
All sorts of game-playing goes on in Parliament; we know that. But emotions were running high yesterday. Winston Peters was ejected from the Chamber, and Stephen Joyce and Trevor Mallard were perhaps fortunate not to follow. We shudder to think how an urgent debate might have panned out.
26 comments:
And during that same question David Shearer gave John Key the opportunity to point out the Norman who were the top dogs in parliament, as I commented here on KB:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/08/general_debate_21_august_2012.html#comment-1012203
I guess it all depends on how much you care about protecting New Zealanders whose safety is the responsibility of parliament and the government.
When a child dies through a traumatic incident, or a worker dies through a workplace accident there is generally immediate scrutiny of the causes to protect others from receiving the same fate.
New Zealand has tragically lost five soldiers in the space of two weeks and while it is important to recognise their extreme sacrifice in serving our country it should also be the responsibility of government to ensure those who are left are not unnecessarily vulnerable. This does not negate the sacrifice made by those who have died nor lack of compassion to grieving families.
I struggle to understand that when a soldier dies there is an immediate attempt to justify the reasons for their deployment to make their death appear more worthy. The very fact that a soldier dies in the service of their country is enough to have them honored (just like a policemen who dies in action), but there are families who still have family members in the same environment and they also deserve some reassurance that they have the equipment, operational support and due care provided to ensure their safety as best as is reasonable. When we have soldiers in such a dangerous environment and we have lost five in two weeks, how long is reasonable to delay such discussion? We may have a repeat of this tragedy tomorrow.
I don't think Russel's response was politically motivated, the Greens just care about those we place in dangerous situations at our behest.
"We are pleased that Dr Lockwood Smith refused to grant what would have been a politically motivated debate."
What nonsense! Politically motivated debates are what Parliament is for - that's what happens in the House.
Politically motivated debate! How silly.
It seems a little ironical that you are questioning Russel's behaviour when our Prime Minister unfortunately implied that his son's baseball game took priority over the funeral of a soldier because of the sacrifices his son had made in allowing him to do his job.
You wrote that the House had already paid its respects to the fallen soldiers; now Russel Norman was seeking...then you revealed your prejudice by assigning motivations to Norman. What he asked for was debate on the 3 fallen soldiers and other matters. There had not been debate, only respects being paid, as you wrote. It's clear you fear debate on the issue of the deaths and of New Zealand's involvement in Afghanistan.
@Lorna Upman and Stella Tu.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Some issues are hot and should be addressed when they occur, as Speaker Lockwood Smith said in the clip you have provided, KS. You are forever saying 'it's too soon to talk about it' whenever there are deaths. This means important issues get passed over and forgotten. For example amidst the supportive stories from soldiers about being in Afghanistan is the comment from one of the now-dead soldiers about John Key not going to the funeral of the two soldiers killed a fortnight ago, choosing instead going to his kids baseball game.
You will no doubt say it's too soon to talk about that but really KS, it's too late to talk about it, too late for that soldier anyway. By all means discuss immediate issues I say. Don't hide behind grieving and hope to bury issues that are embarrassing for the Government. It's a shameful way to behave.
You too Pete George. And you Keeping Stock. It's as though we are fish in a barrel.
@ Lorna Upman, Stella Tu and rogerguyfordTu
I know where you are coming from. Me Tu.
KS, what happened to my lengthy comment that preceded the published one?
Sorry bsprout; missed it in the moderation queue. Should be up now.
Bsprout, rogerguyford, River Town Crier, Stephan Wohlers, Stella Tu, Lorna Upman and Pete George are all expressing anxiousness around the issue of muting discussion around Afghanistan, Keeping Stock. That's a lot of concern and makes your criticism of Russel Norman's attempts to debate in the House seem out of step with public opinion.
Pete George has said nothing of the sort House Martin. And what I've blogged this morning is my opinion. If others disagree, that's fine. Every comment left on the post has been published, which hardly suggests that I am trying to mute discussion.
Hi KS, I read your blog regularly, but this is the first time for posting. I appreciate your post and what you felt, and don't totally disagree at the sentiment, however, I personally didn't get angry at Russel Norman in parliament yesterday, but rather thought that he showed how totally unsuited he is to be in any leadership role in any future Government.
First, he showed complete ignorance of anything to do with the military, the logistics involved in pulling out not one but several camps/bases and equipment, and lastly the terrain of Bamyan.
Second, he showed a complete and utter lack of any consciousness of operational security for our troops, if he truly wished to keep our troops safe then he wouldn't be asking in public questions surrounding movements or capabilities, which could potentially put them at greater risk.
On another (slightly pedantic) note, Bamyan is not spelt with an i and y, the town is spelt with an i (Bamian) and the province with a y (Bamyan).
Your comment and your correction are both much appreciated Missy.
And you're dead right; Russel Norman projects well, but one wonders how much there is of substance behind the veneer. His comments last week feigning outrage at government members for calling him an immigrant when he had that same day sent out pressers about the "evil coalition" suggests that his is somewhat thin-skinned. Still; it would be interesting to see how he handled the day to day grillings that ministers get.
Missy, I cannot imagine how our troops could be compromised by the information being sought, given the operation that they are involved with.
Also military forces are trained to shift camps at short notice, they have to be flexible and mobile as the need arises.
Generally the claimed need for secrecy around military matters is just an excuse to avoid answering embarrassing questions. The majority of the forces that threaten our troops are not supported by sophisticated intelligence and their methods are very crude.
The war in Afghanistan is not one that we should be supporting as it has deteriorated into a civil war and the government we are ostensibly supporting is corrupt and dysfunctional. We are now having our troops targeted as supporters of an oppressive regime and occupying forces who have outlasted their welcome. Were supposed to be supporting reconstruction but this has not often been the case and many of our troops have been involved in offensive action.
@ bsprout - your comments are generally very reasonable, but I completely disagree with this one. Where do you think the Taleban is gathering its intelligence from? The internet has made the world a far less secure place, and the Left's friend Julian Assange has shown just how accessible information previously thought to be confidential is.
Key's replies to Norman yesterday were straight-up and respectful. There were no attempts to evade Norman's questioning. But operational matters regarding the NZDF are NOT a matter for public consumption; well; not if you value the safety of our troops.
Russel Norman should have taken note of David Shearer yesterday, when as Pete George noted above, he offered whatever support Labour could give the government. In response, Key said he would be happy to brief Shearer and Labour's defence spokesman. A small amount of goodwill can go a long way.
"Missy" is a fiction, Keeping Stock and bsprout. That's why his comments sit so oddly. KS accepts them without question because they pander to his desire to diminish Russel Norman but you, bsprout, suspect that something's not quite right with "Missy's" comment and you are right.
It's interesting to note that John Key was accused earlier in the week, of revealing too much information about out troops' plans, in his comments to the media. Did you agree with that charge, KS, with the same enthusiasm you did when Russel, who said nothing at all, was accused by "Missy"? Bet not. Your pretense of admiring Russel, KS, is just a fiction too, and provides you with endless opportunity to say how "disappointed" you are with anything Russel says that challenges the Government. It's all a bit weak.
At the risk of being reminded I said I wouldn't post on this matter again, I forgot to address your further comment in my previous comment.
I agree on your assessment of Russel Norman, he does come across as being thin-skinned, and more polish than substance, it would be interesting to see how he stacks up against the grilling that a Minister gets - but do we want him as a Minister??
Keep up the good work KS, a most enjoyable blog.
I'd venture to suggest that Missy is as fictional or as real as you are Live Kennedy.
Norman wanted to use the deaths of the soldiers to push for a political debate on the War in Afghanistan, and would call for all troops to be withdrawn immediately.
Given that all knew the Green Party position already, it smacks of using the Parliamentary Process to grandstand over the deaths of the soldiers.
You've nailed it Michael; far more succinctly than I was able to!
Despite all my best efforts to refrain from commenting again, fate has something else in store for me, and I wish to address the grossly inaccurate assumptions of live Kennedys.
First, I don't know what you mean by me being a fiction.... but if you think I am not real then you are completely incorrect.
Second, interesting you think I am male, why? A little bit of a sexist assumption I think. Maybe I am female, transgender or a hermaphridite....
Third, you think there is something not right with my comment?? strange you think that, is it because it is logical, thought out, written based on historical study and common sense, or perhaps because it is not in line with what you think, and your wish to know everything?
Fourth, I believe John Key does give too much information to the media on the plans and operations of our military, which has led them to believe they have the right to know every detail of their operations, a dangerous thing indeed. It frustrates me no end, he needs to learn to keep his mouth shut on some things.
Fifth, as for me 'accusing' Russel Norman, you didn't state exactly what you think I accused him of, but I will gladly agree that I accuse him of showing a lack of interest in operational security, his question and supplementary questions show that, as do the reported areas he wanted to debate.
Speaker Lockwood Smith refused permission for an urgent debate on the deaths of kiwi soldiers in Afghanistan - not because it failed to meet the requirements of Standing orders, but because "the House has more appropriate ways of recognising such events, and today has already done so". In other words, the mawkish exercise in hypocrisy Parliament opened with today - desperately reciting the old lie in the hope that this waste of life would therefore be rendered meaningful - is used as an excuse to shut down real scrutiny and debate.
Fictional Missy Kennedy - at the risk of being unparliamentary, bugger off; you're trolling. Comment deleted.
Keeping Stock do you also agree with Missy where she says that John Key reveals too much " to the media on the plans and operations of our military, which has led them to believe they have the right to know every detail of their operations, a dangerous thing indeed."
Interested in your view.
Post a Comment