The National party are up to their old tricks – appointing people very close to them to positions in a way that is not appropriate.
First Sir Wira Gardiner. Very talented. Appointed by the previous government to do some tricky tasks. But he is married to a Cabinet Minister. He should not be appointed by any Minister in the current government to paid employment. John Key and Bill English have appointed him to sell their asset sales process to Maori.
The Labour government was very strict on this issue. Spouses were even rejected when they topped processes for voluntary advisory groups. It might seem prim and proper but processes need to be seen to be beyond corruption.
And now it appears that one of the two Nat MPs from the last intake who wasn’t good enough to make the extended list to get back in again has been employed to put the chairs out at the very same meetings that Gardiner is running. I’m not sure if Paul Quinn would be very helpful in any role.
I wonder which Labour spouses would have the experience and capability to take on the roles for both Labour and National as Gardner has consistently done over many years.
The fact that he has a sucessful wife is not relevant.
Just jealous perhaps.
you are right Trevor, in most countries the obvious conflict of interest would automatically rule out close family members from such posts. NZ seems to lack some pretty basic rules in this area.
That is irrelevant Fortran. A spouse or partner of a Cabinet Minister should not be given this job I agree. Trevor has generously omitted Wira also attempted to become President of the Nats then chucked his toys when he wasn’t favored making him twice as inappropriate.
It’s as much about appearance as substance.
Can’t type the word as it will go straight to moderation, but like the saying goes, if it looks like it and smells like it, then it usually is it.
But no real surprise, surely.
It’s cronyism by stealth.
Thinking about this a bit more, as the “job” is a highly political one, not some sort administrative or technical role, there could be an exception for someone of Gardiner’s ability.
Its not like the Charter schools position ( for Issacs) where some one was needed could ad value by being informed on these “warehouse” schools overseas or education in NZ.
Gardiner will be required to push an established National/Act policy and not provide advice about the best way to go about it.
very interesting reference tot he woman in charge of charter school implementation in the states this morning in the SST. Interesting to see a staunch advocate, promoter and implementer of it now being one of its fiercest critics.