recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thanks, that was an interesting read. Labour's Little, Shearer and King generally made their cases well (it's a pity Shearer since decided to quit politics and would rather face tremendous uncertainty and potentially death with the UN in Sudan again! But I guess he felt he could do more good work there than have to deal with the shenanigans here and have to put up with the Greens' toxic mix of naivety and outrage - I shall say no more about them, apart from why is Kennedy Graham wasting his time with that lot)!Another good point in Little's cap is that he has not played partisan activist politics over the intelligence services and is holding the line in that policy area over the Alliance faction who have taken over quite a few of the electorate branches in the last 5 years. And he is also showing disinterest in having the Greens anywhere near that select committee.
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/han...ntelligence-and-security-committee-membership
The above is an interesting read from Hansard.
The other intriguing thing exposed yet again is supposedly pro-defence and pro-intelligence services, conservative NZ First, how it throw's its toys out of the cot when it doesn't get their way (and by voting lockstep with the Greens, their "arch enemies", over these two Intelligence and Security Committee motions) simply to spite the Govt, mind you to be fair to their MP's I guess they too would figure out that it is probably safer to be in the dustbowls and anarchy of Sudan (alongside Shearer) rather than endure the wrath of their leader (and expulsion) if they dared to offer some common-sense by not always totally agreeing with dear leader!
(In terms of my own biases I have at times voted Lab, Nat & NZF, so hopefully that means I can criticise them without appearing too partisan)!