Over the last week while being questioned by Russell Norman John Key has asserted that whether or not a conflict of interest exists is a matter for a Minister to decide.
Well bad news John it isn’t. There is a process and you are responsible both for that process working properly and detailed arrangements for managing conflicts that flow from it.
The case in point, if the facts as alleged by Norman are accurate, is a pretty clear cut one. David Carter as a farmer in Canterbury has a case currently before Ecan to increase his water rights and therefore the value of his land. He takes part in the Cabinet debate and decision to scrap Ecan and short circuit the system for the decision relating to his farm. About as obvious a conflict as one could get and certainly well over the perceived conflict test.
Why do we have rules – the Cabinet Office Manual puts it pretty well:-
And how does the system work in practise:-
the management of any conflicts that are identified is agreed between the Prime Minister and the Minister concerned, with advice as required from the Cabinet Office.
So John you can’t just smile and wave and say it is up to your Ministers. The Cabinet Office, the rules and their implementation has one person responsible to parliament – it is you.
No evidence he removed himself from discussions Trevor?
the management of any conflicts that are identified is agreed between the Prime Minister and the Minister concerned, with advice as required from the Cabinet Office.
has this changed since Labour were in Govt?
They will just get the Approval…sorry Auditor general to say its all confusing and they cant be expected to follow any rules with more than 6 words
Court’s usually take a very dim view of conflicts of interest. Any party to Carter’s court action is entitled to raise the issue, and more than likely the action would be thrown out of court – for how could a court judge if one of the proponents was manipulating the system?
Someone could, couldn’t they(?), challenege the law passed to disband with a Judicial review? Laws of Natural Justice dictae a decision must be made free from bias… if successful the Cabinet or law would have to be re-discussed without any iinput / invovlement from David Carter. It would still pass but it would be heavily delayed?
Even Parliament/ Cabinet are bound by such laws aren’t they? Thisis the basis of our separation of powers?
Has the media been alerted to this little fact? They should be all over this – once again I question the medias ability to be impartial.
I am no expert on the issue as it pertains to Carter, but I know a bit about leadership, and if I was his leader I would be looking closely at this and seeing if there was a conflict – and if there was, I would be getting a bit nervous. But then, I don’t have the teflon suit Key has – and I also dont have a cloak of invincibility that hides all my flaws when I smile and wave.
Looks like John Key is rewriting the rules to suit himself and his ministers once again. He’s done it before with the rules around ministers’ cars and houses to allow ministers like Bill English to pocket all the baubles of power.
Now he’s rewriting the rules on conflicts of interest.
There is a word for allowing the personal interests of ministers, their families and their friends to trump the public good in areas like water management and the mining of our most important conservation lands. It is called – corruption.
“whether or not a conflict of interest exists is a matter for a Minister to decide.”
???????
“David Carter as a farmer in Canterbury has a case currently before Ecan to increase his water rights” He does know that’s a dry part of the country, right?????
Bleeping crooked
“There is a word for allowing the personal interests of ministers, their families and their friends to trump the public good in areas like water management and the mining of our most important conservation lands. It is called – corruption.”
aye – nz is getting less democratic and more of a dictatorship by the day.
“they cant be expected to follow any rules with more than 6 words” Bleep me! These people are running the bleeping country!
Tracey – no evidence that he removed himself from discussions and Key was asked about Carter role twice in Parliament. And no – a judicial review can’t overturn an Act of Parliament based on a problem at the Cabinet approval stage.
Spud, Carter is a major landowner and has a number of farms in Canterbury.
Almost any agricultural policy must effect him in some way, yet the National party would always have a farmer as Agriculture minister, while Education is passed out to a motelier.
For while Key played the corporate end of the dairy industry, but his conflicts of interest of legion.
This is why the Nationals conflict of interest standard is looser than the vatican.
Key is the worst offender
[...] at Red Alert says: The case in point, if the facts as alleged by Norman are accurate, is a pretty clear cut one. [...]
This is extraordinary nonsense.
Firstly you maybe all need to have a look at the Penguins latest post where he puts to bed the conflict lie.
Then while we are talking about farmers being the min of ag and moteliers being min of ed. let us have a look at history teachers being min of finance and teachers being… Well pretty much the min of everything. Of course the complete lack of real world experience pretty much stops labour from ever having specialists in any ministry.
I’m pretty sure that you’ll find that Jonkey is quite relaxed about conflicts of interest. Remember NZRail shares and Jonkeys attempts to sell NZRail to a US company while a minister.
Thanks Trevor. IF you guys can prove this it ought to be significant, especially if it comes from those opposed to the disbanding rather than the Labour party.
Is it me, or does it seem like John Key is relaxed with only having a nodding acquaintance with the Cabinet Office Manual?
Has the media been alerted to this little fact? They should be all over this – once again I question the medias ability to be impartial.
You and me both Paul, but should pressure be put on Key by the MSM on this issue, he will respond by stating darkly that if the matter was looked into, the last government would surely be caught out on this issue – or words to that effect, just as he did over ministerial expenses. Not that Key would provide any examples.
I am tired of this tactic being accepted by the media. All it needs is for a journalist to say ‘Really? Who then.”
Are you quite sure on your facts regarding this Trevor or full of BS
I can find no evidense that David Carter or one of his farms has asked for a change in their water rights via Ecan
That sort of blows the Green and your case
On the other hand you can show that I am wrong I will give you a hand with the tumbril, no worries
I think DPFs trackback says it all.
Key represented change to this electorate (NZ). Part of that was in inference that the change would extend to behaviour, they pilloried Helen for all kinds of things from her signing off a painting she didnt do to tholding her responsible for O Glen adn W Peters not agreeing on facts. Someone in the MSM has to have the gonads to say when they say Labour did it too “but John you represent a change from all that”
Raymond, I am with you also, would like to see proof. Having said that the greens DO NOT usually come across this way if they dont.
Raymon
“Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a copy of resource consent CRC91.1, in the name of David Cunningham Carter, to take water from the Hurunui River for his cattle farm in the Hurunui District.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.”
If Farrar and Toad are correct and Carter’s loss would be as a result of an application by another party (not the impression I got from Norman in the house) then it is a marginal case of real conflict but in my opinion still a clear case of a perceived conflict. Having inserted himself into the process (and no one has disputed Norman’s evidence on this) as a local landowner then he should have been excluded from the Cabinet process.
But the main point of the post is to point out that Key is the person responsible for this process – something he pretends not to understand.
another link
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/7/b/c/49HansQ_20100401_00000010-10-Canterbury-Hurunui-River-Water-Conservation.htm
Note the tabled documents.
“But the main point of the post is to point out that Key is the person responsible for this process – something he pretends not to understand.”
Perhaps he doesn’t understand.
Maybe Key is so imbedded with business/corporate interests that ‘he can’t see the woods for the trees’ as my old Gran used to say.
She’d have also called him a few ripe names, which I wont offer, because I don’t want to be moderated.
Mind you he comes from an industry rife with insider trading so maybe he doesn’t “get it”?
I hope it’s not smile and wave, then nod and wink for cronies
Gary
Nail.
Head.
How did we start to lose our reputation for being largely corruption free? When we became ‘relaxed’?
Joe, we were the dirtiest little country in the south pacific in the 1980′s. Just as we were cultivating our clean green image behind the scenes we had someof the loosest insider trading laws in the world, we had a money laundering reputation and so on. NZ hasn’t been a clean country for a long time. I wouldn’t say we are corrupt, there seems very very little evidence of public officials being bought off (and when there is it tends to be inside Immigration), BUT our monetary laws are still pretty loose (as so many discovered with the collapse of financial companies) and how many are being found to have breached any laws?
So, the woman in Ruatoria who steals a bale of huggies, has to go to court, while dealers etc can fail their clients, and wake up and move on to the next deal, new company, same house, same trust structure.
We have not come so far that we still view (from a legal point of view) blue collar crime MUCH differently to white collar (including making blue collar criminal way before we consider some white collar activity to be criminal).
ALL business people are not criminals or behaving criminally. We absolutely need the profit motive to move the economy and provide for society BUT I wonder, fi all the behind the scenes settlements were revealled, just how much criminal behaviour is going on inside some industries?
Example, banks will often settle with an employee, dismiss them but NOT charge them because they dont want publicity showing how they can be ripped off, or how often (twice a year would be an impact on a bank’s reputation), then we have Don Brash, now MD of an investment company, who couldnt see any reason why people needed to know they had been topped up because of a mistake by the fund manager… he was quite comfortable that they didn’t need to know that the investment had failed in some way as long as they didnt lose any money.