THE LEVEL OF HYPOCRISY surrounding the resignation of Peter Dunne is astounding.
Mr Dunne has admitted to contemplating the unauthorised release of “sensitive material” to Andrea Vance, a Fairfax Media journalist, and, acknowledging this to be a serious lapse in ministerial judgement, resigned from John Key’s cabinet. In spite of the fact that the conduct of politics in the early twenty-first century relies to a significant degree upon there being politicians willing to leak, and journalists willing to receive and publicise, “sensitive material”, Mr Dunne’s resignation is presented as being both appropriate and inevitable. Indeed, pressure is building for him to resign his Ohariu seat and leave politics altogether.
It is a near certainty that every MP and journalist involved in applying this pressure has, at one time or another, either leaked, or made public, sensitive material. In other words, Mr Dunne is being condemned for doing exactly what his critics themselves have done many, many times before.
Mr Dunne’s refusal to reveal the contents of more than 60 e-mails exchanged between himself and Ms Vance on the grounds that all such communications between a citizen and his or her political representatives ought to be considered privileged, has been dismissed out of hand as self-serving. Indeed, Mr Dunne’s sensitivity in regard to these e-mails is being construed by many people as prima facie evidence that he was involved in an unprofessional and illicit relationship with Ms Vance.
The possibility that Mr Dunne’s ideas concerning the inviolability of political correspondence, and his flirtation, however brief, with the idea of leaking the Kitteridge Report’s revelations, might both be expressions of a genuine belief in the citizen’s right to privacy, has not been taken seriously.
That a Member of Parliament might take umbrage at the New Zealand state repeatedly and illegally spying upon its citizens and engage in a frank discussion of his options with a journalist in whom he had developed a relationship of trust and confidence, has similarly been dismissed as laughable.
That the grey-haired Member for Ohariu might be involved with the much younger Press Gallery journalist is, however, considered entirely plausible.
What is the nature of the value system at work here?
Clearly, it is not a moral system that places much stock in taking one’s principles very seriously. On the contrary, too great an adherence to principle is considered a weakness in today’s political culture. What counts is the sort of ethical flexibility that allows you to leak material to a journalist one week and then insist that the Police investigate your parliamentary colleague for doing (or not doing) exactly the same thing the next. Demonstrating consistency on matters of principle has become much less important than conveying the impression of doing so.
Which is just another way of saying that in today’s political environment perception trumps reality; and that the only crime to which adverse consequences are ever attached is the crime of getting caught.
Like many other people, I don’t really care whether Dunne is guilty of a misdemeanour or something worse. I am just pleased to see on the farewell path as he has done little for the general health of NZ politics. He is a political whore of the worst kind, willing to trade any ideals for the sake of keeping his salary.
Dunno 🙂 about political whore, but he has certainly been the Vicar of Bray:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viw5JXopin0
Thou must not lie to Key !!!
He hates competition!
Peter Dunne’s problem, of course, is that he has for so long set himself as the epitome of propriety, even the conscience of the nation, so to speak. Many moons ago, Steve Braunias memorably and accurately described him as a sanctimonious prat. For Dunne, this is a case of petard, hoisted.
And his deeds betrayed him well before this latest debacle, as in stating his intention to support the pokies for convention centre deal. I expect this new controversy will cost him the Sky City directorship he was aiming for in political retirement, although I’m sure JK will still tuck his feet under the boardroom table.
But if Mr Dunne does indeed harbour deep moral reservations about the actions of the GCSB then, as an independent MP with no ministerial office, he will have a wonderful platform from which to speak out against the obvious abuses of government power both here and in the US.
I suspect the silence will be deafening
John Banks is in court, Peter Dunne has stood down, it will be ever so interesting to see who is next.
[…] The only offence for which Peter Dunne is being punished is getting caught – Chris Trotter writes, […]
I would have rated being the leader of a party that doesn’t exist is the more important reason for Dunn to resign
good point Chris. One of the many flaws in our “democracy”.
If Peter Dunne had been a stalwart of the poor and powerless, opposed the plethora of attacks upon our rights and property, he would not be where he is now. But as it stands he not only stood by but aided national as it orchestrated its campaign of attacks on the poorest most vulnerable members of society.
If he had the strength and inclination to resist, I would laud the man as a hero, comparisons to Bradley Manning and others, as well as take to the streets to oppose these attacks on a moral and upright man, protest the courts etc.
but he could not summon the effort to say ‘nay’ and nor can I. To remove Peter Dunne and expose national is the best outcome for a sorry episode, two birds with one stone as they say. Good day Mr Dunne and good riddance.
Comments are closed.