The Auditor General’s report on conflict of interest on Canterbury water issues is out.
All members of parliament should read it – but especially Ministers who own parts of NZ based companies that benefit from their decisions.
Someone should read it to Melissa Lee who continues to vote on Radio New Zealand legislation both in the house and worse still in select committee despite having a direct conflict when competing for NZ on Air funding.
Great just what the dry region needs.
The TVNZ charter scrapping bill will actually hurt Lee. Her company has suckled at NZOA’s teat to make charter type shows. So not only should she not vote on it, her party is actually signing her company’s death warrant.
The politics of water are rather bloody here in Canterbury. I lodged my complaint in July with the Auditor-General about four councillors voting against part charging farmers to manage water from which they get the benefit; those 4 votes meant the rates of my constituents, all of whom use a tiny fraction of water compared to farmers, went up by 8 percent more than needed if part-charging had been introduced.
One of same councillors later moved the motion to oust Kerry Burke as chair of ECAN, who had provided the initial advice from the Auditor-General that they were “prohibited” from so voting. That motion was supported by the other 3 councillors now found guilty of a law breach. The beneficiary of the votes was former Nat MP Alec Neill, who still maintains on Checkpoint tonight that Burke was being “political.” And he suggests that he will seek blanket declarations from the Auditor-General so each of these councillors can continue to vote as they did. I am not sure that the Auditor-General’s message is really getting through here. The rules around conflict of interest are designed to ensure that people with a potential or real conflict don’t get to vote; it may not be perfect but it’s the only rule we’ve got to protect us from feather-nesters, self-servers, rule-benders and mate-assisters.
Trevor – you will be well aware that the House’s rules around conflicts of interest are very different from those in local body organisations (or indeed the cabinet, or the courts).
In an organisation like ECan, the conflict has to be declared and the conflicted person can’t vote (or have any further involvement) in the matter. They probably shouldn’t even be in the room when it is discussed, unless the meeting is public.
In the House, a conflict of interest – even the most direct of conflicts of interest (the Appropriation (Super yacht for Melissa Lee) Bill, for example =) ) only raises a requirement that the conflict be declared. It is perfectly proper – and within the rules of the House – for someone to continue to take part and vote on the matter.
You’ll also be aware that the definitions of conflict of intest, and the circumstances in which such conflicts must be declared, are quite narrow. No-one was required to declare an interest around the validating legislation in 2006 even though the legislation would “obviate recovery action being initiated in respect of any unauthorised payments that have been made” (McGee, p 463) and there were amendments proposed and voted down that would have have made MPs personally liable.
You’ve been around Parliament for a while now, can you remember the last time an MP made a declaration in the House about a conflict before taking part in a legislative debate or asking a question? Can you remember a time when someone declared an interest and didn’t take part/vote on a bill? I think Harry Duynhoven did over his matter, but that was a different type of conflict.
I agree we should know about the extent of involvement that Melissa Lee (and every other MP) has in matters they are discussing, but the inherent suggestion that she’s breaking the rules may be hard to sustain. And the suggestion that the Auditor-General’s views on what rules around conflicts require in local body organisation has a bearing on the matter is even harder to give credence to.
If you want Parliament’s rules to operate like that, you’ll need to tighten them considerably.
I’ll bite at Graeme Edgeler’s suggestions – YES, Parliament should massively tighten the conflict of interest provisions for MPs! For a start, a proper register of MP interests would mean you wouldn’t have to ask that “we should know about the extent of involvement that Melissa Lee (and every other MP) has in matters they are discussing”…
But back to the thread – the dodgy ECan councilors. Why not Labour & Greens and any relevant NGOs get a private prosecution together? Take down some dodgy Nats and show up the Nats for allowing corruption on their watch by their people?
This case disgusts me, beacuse the same National party hypocrites who bleated endlessly about the corrupt Taito Philip Field are saying very little when their mates are caught voting for cash-in-kind for themselves… In stark contrast to the Dunedin cop sent to jail for pressuring a prostitute into free sex, or Field sent to jail for immigration rorts.
This is the face of coruption in NZ.
The ECan situation is quite extraordinary. In the case of Cr Bronwyn Murray, serious amounts of money are involved, misleading statements have been made, and a conflict of interest seems obvious.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/3188568/Council-members-in-breach
We hear lots about ‘user-pays’ from these people as a rule. Not so here, apparently.
My understanding of the ECan matter is that the councilors had a legal opinion (paid for by ECan) that they could discuss this matter
I also note that the AG’s office feel a prosecution would fail
So apart from headlines a fail for Brendon Burns
Have any Labour MPs voted for taxes that might give them a financial advantage, as in favour their voters who might send them back to the trough
That is allowed but is it different
Yet another case of the “Old Boys” network going hard out.
There was clear proof of a conflict of interest, and at least three of the four stood to gain financially from their vote, they should be removed from office, and the AG should serriously reconsider the prosecution.
What message does this send to the ratepayer?