Chris Finlayson has now made five corrections to his declarations to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests. After he was caught making five false declarations. He has decided to share corrections other members have made. But he fails to point out that in each case these were careless omissions not deliberate decisions to mislead the Registrar and the public.
The NBR reports thus:-
After making a second amendment to his own pecuniary interest declarations, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson’s office has drawn media attention to the slips of others over the last five years.
All up, a total 14 MPs can be named and shamed – with some omissions more exotic than others.
In the year ended January 31, 2010, Speaker Lockwood Smith was honoured with a kilt from a visiting Scottish parliamentarian and a crystal vase from Japan, both of which he failed to declare.
Trade Minister Tim Groser failed to declare his directorship of the trade promotion group Indian Overseas Group in 2008, and Environment Minister Nick Smith omitted to mention legal fee contributions.
In the same year, National whip Chris Tremain omitted interests in investment companies Sunset Investment Partnership and the Provincial Club, while Labour MP Damien O’Connor left out two community health trusts seeking government funding.
Labour’s Chris Carter was stung again for overseas travel costs, as were Maori Party MPs Te Ururoa Flavell, Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira, including an appearance on a Malaysian current affairs show.
Failure to declare KiwiSaver superannuation interests hit MPs from across the political spectrum.
Even Prime Minister John Key is not exempt. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Mr Key failed to declare interests in gold mining company Jackson Minerals, as brought to light on the Q+A TV programme in February.
Okay I will bite one last time re “these were careless omissions not deliberate decisions” how can you be certain that this is the case? Who decides whether such omissions were mere oversight or deliberate attempts to mislead NZ?
I forgot about the mining thing
Especially baffling are the ones who are mean to those who are loyal to them, I know how that feels 
@Rebecca – you just never know about people
In the past I have been very critical of MPs when they try and divert blame by referring back to what others may have done – (Labour for instance were still blaming the 1990-99 National Government for everything right up until 2008) and this is another example. Finlayson needs to fess up and make a comprehensive statement once and for all declaring excatly what weent on and the context – ofr instance what is the company at issue all about and what exactly was his involvement.
Maybe then Trevor we will be able to make some informed judgements about whether or not this is a sad beat up or there is something to it. If it was such a real issue I am sure it woulf be across the media.
How did the Attorney General get hold of the ‘correction’ information? Is it published?
@ jennifer – yes – as members correct (if they have made a mistake) or update (if there is a substantive change in their interests ) they tell the Registrar who I understand puts it on a website. I understand that a few corrections related to a change in Kiwisaver provider, which I regard as pretty small beer compared with a decision not to declare a directorship.
He reminds me of one of those narky little school kids who run to the teacher telling stories about his school mates in the hope it will distract attention away from himself. I bet he was one of them.
Yeah, Anne, there’s nothing worse than double standards
The same rules have to apply to everybody, like bashing certain Labour members but turning a blind eye to the same behaviour in others. 
Leave it Spud. You don’t know who has been put into moderation or had direct messages. Two people got banned yesterday for (more extreme examples) things you have done. Trevor
I apologise in advance if I’m unaware of what has been happening here, but isn’t Spud talking about the different media handling of the National and Labour mis-use of the ministerial credit cards?
Yes, I was pointing out that Labour had been raked over the coals by the media, while Mini bar dude and Finlayson are getting an easy ride. Tolley too over the censorship thing.
Nact have perfected the art of deflection. I think they have a list of “bones” to toss out to the Media. In this case the discussion will perhaps be about the “others did it too.”
(My youngest son was skilled at doing the deflections when challenged to do, say the dishes. So we learned to watch out.)
We ll said Monty @ 8.40am – there is too much speculation. I would like to have all the facts on the table before becoming judge & jury.
Trevor can you please quantify your statement that ““these were careless omissions not deliberate decisions”.
That’s poor reporting from NBR. A quick check of the interests register shows that John Key declared “Jackson mining” in each of those years. Granted the name of the company is Jackson Minerals not “mining”, but he did claim it. And, this year he even updated the name to Cauldron Energy.
@ Rebecca – can’t be totally sure – but i have accepted the explanations that the members have given. Finlayson is the only person who has said his false declaration was deliberate.
I am puzzelled that Finlayson would do deliberately leave out a directorship (no matter how minor). A simple search of the companies office can advise all director shipes held by every MP (or anyone else for that matter) a simple excersise in comparing the company search / director results against the declarations would not be a diffcult exercise.
Where are the facts clear and concise?? that is what we want to know to be able to make judgements?
@Ianmac “Nact have perfected the art of deflection.”
It looks like they have also perfected the art of acting, as exemplified by Finlayson’s boss – Key proud to have imaginary Kiwis’ support. I got this funny feeling that there’ll be a post soon on this
Where/when did Chris Finlayson say his “false declaration was deliberate”?
I was of the understanding that he had only said that he chose not to declare it as had “sought advice from the trust’s lawyer, who told him he had no personal or pecuniary interest in the company” (NZ herald).
Exactly
When trying to find proof of Finlayson admitting that he was deliberately trying to mislead NZ I came across a blog by Imperator Fish where they write Finlayson “was acting in a trustee capacity, and had nothing to gain by the omissions”.
Again, not really sure what these posts will achieve given that CC’s & that of various other Labour MPs who made “false declaration[s]” (by omission) were clearly very deliberate and all at the expense the taxpayer.
Perhaps the NZ public at large cares, but I am just not sure they do.
The Tolley angles – well there’s plenty more room to move there so perhaps best to stick to that eh…
“he chose not to declare it as had “sought advice from the trust’s lawyer, who told him he had no personal or pecuniary interest in the company”
It’s not acidental or an oversight if he did not declare on advice from a lawyer, that is, he deliberately chose a course of action, in this case to not declare.
For my part, as a member of the legal profession, Mr Finlayson has two legal question marks, the first in relation to the handling of Justice Wilson and now over declarations on his interests. As a profession we are constantly acccused of creating, driving, embracing loopholes, now the country’s head lawyer is making the same lame justifications.
This is not like Shane Jones buying adult movies, in my opinion, because it’s not illegal and it is misguided and stupid use of our money but not undermining the integrity of the legal machinations.
I repeat, brownlee went ape-shit over Parker, as did Hide. Now they are silent, and their PM is saying, oh we really need to look at these pesky rules. Brownlee and Hide HOWLED for days to the media and NZers about Parker.
For those with short memories
“National’s deputy leader Gerry Brownlee says Parker has admitted multiple breaches of the law.
“While he may wish to describe it as a mistake, falsification of documents is very clearly a serious matter,” says Brownlee.
He says Parker made a deliberate decision to infer that everything had been done appropriately, when it hadn’t been.
“Helen Clark must explain why it is acceptable for a minister who has admitted ‘cutting corners’ on returns to the
Companies Office to retain the critical transport and energy portfolios,” says Brownlee.
The maximum penalty for filing a false return is a fine of $200,000 or five years imprisonment””
And if I remember the outcome correctly: not only was Parker cleared of any wrong-doing, but the individual who made the accusation in the first place turned out to be a former business colleague who was acting out of malice for a perceived action against him by Parker that had either never been committed, or Parker’s actions were recognised as having been the appropriate course of action at the time.
Did Brownlee apologise? I have no recollection of it.
Is Labour laying it into Finlay.s in Parliament hard enough at the moment? Is there some overarching campaign to have him removed from the position of AG underway?
Loota, most of the Ministers stopped turning up for pesky things like Parliament
I’m sure it’s like the Job Summit, too busy “do-ing” rather than “talking”, and look how well that worked for job creation out of the summit?