Do people like this have a place in politics?

A high-profile political figure has won the right to keep details of his divorce secret after a judge ruled he was a “vulnerable person”.

His messy divorce case included allegations of espionage, infidelity, dognapping, theft, the involvement of three Queen’s Counsel, and a disputed allegation the man grabbed or touched his wife’s neck, tried to kick in the door of their home and shouted abuse at her.

The couple were involved in a protracted legal battle through the Family Court. The ex-wife has sought the right to speak publicly and to her friends about the break-up, but the husband has fought to keep the dispute secret.

How can anyone be a high profile political figure and at the same time “vulnerable”.

If you enter politics, you get to make judgements about other people. ?You get to influence policy. ?You get to make decisions over the careers, lives and families. ?This person, at the very least, should have no say or influence over many political policy areas.

But how can we make sure someone that kicks in the door and “grabbed or touched” his wife’s neck is kept well away? ?Why the code of silence?

It seems to be an upside-down situation to have someone who has alleged involvement in espionage and theft in a high profile position in a political party be protected from public scrutiny and the public’s judgement as to this person’s suitability. ?

We have the ridiculous situation where hiding donations money or drinking a glass of milk turns into headlines and debates in parliament over multiple days.

Yet a situation involving breaking and entering, physical assault, theft and espionage can not be discussed or disclosed because someone who wants all the recognition, baubles and prestige of a high profile political job isn’t allowed to be judged in public for something that is like a million times more serious than a glass of milk.

There is something rotten here, when the Courts stand in the way of our right to know the true character of the people that are at the top of our political system.

As a National Party leaning blog, I feel that John Key and Peter Goodfellow should sit down and work out a plan to ensure this high profile politician isn’t in the National Party, and I encourage other political blogs, party presidents and leaders to do the same.

David Cunliffe and Moira Coatsworth should be able to advise us whether or not this man is in the Labour party. Winston Peters and Anne Martin should do the same for NZ First and Russel Norman, Metiria Turei, Pete Hugging and Georgina Morrison need to get together and tell us it isn’t a Green politician.

Te Ururoa Flavell and Naida Glavish need to to do this for the Maori party. All parties and leaders should be ensuring such a person has no place in their party.

I love how the euphemism “messy divorce” is used to provide a cloak of respectability and sympathy when we’re talking about someone who appears to have broken a number of laws and is, in essence, a divorced criminal.

Surely people like that have no place in our system, and even if the courts don’t let us talk about who it is right now, parties should show leadership by having a quiet chat and organising a “retirement”.


Notice: ?Name suppression is in place, so any comment that identifies the politician will be deleted and the person who left it will find themselves on an indefinite cooling off period. ?The fine for breaching name suppression is now a maximum of $100,000 (used to be $1,000), so anyone causing me to end up in court will find themselves “invited” to shoulder the load.