A great article. The common thread in these various cases is that each involves a very well-off person trying to screw an even bigger share of the pie. An ugly manifestation of entitlement magnified by greed. The more sunlight cast on this sort of stuff the better.
These are good studies. I'm equally interested in regional politics, particularly Regional Councils, where pecuniary conflicts of interest seem to run even deeper. If we look at Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) for example, there are farmer-councillors such as Ian Mckenzie and Peter Scott who directly engage on issues, at committee and vote level, which affect them financially in a manner different to an ordinary member of the public. This is the classic definition in the Local Government 'Member's Interests' Act of a pecuniary conflict of interest. They are also engaged in the performance committees and discussions for the Chief Executive, i.e. her performance is rated by people whose demonstrated interest is in personal enrichment, and to that extent whether she enables it as CEO (which she does). I would love to see a deeper dive into the plain-as-day conflicts of interest at ECan.
Whilst clearly it would be impossible to eliminate all conflicts of interest, it would be entirely practical to prohibit Ministers in particular from holding portfolios where their "active" business interests, including those of close family members, could enjoy direct advantageous impacts, especially financial, or market positioning, as a result of their portfolio decisions.
If as a result of ongoing scrutiny, undisclosed conflicts were later discovered then if the business related sources of the conflict could not immediately be eliminated the Minister should be required to resign from the associated portfolios. Such discoveries would potentially trigger an independent review and relitigation of portfolio decisions as appropriate.
These are just more recent examples of a long trail of conflicts of interest and potentially undue influence under this government.
Three examples:
- the changes to the tobacco laws - and the Minister's and Prime Minister's connections to tobacco industry
- the changes to the bright line test and the Prime Minister's property holdings and sale of some properties after the bright line test was changed
- several ministers and donors to political parties throughout the fast track bill process.
A great article. The common thread in these various cases is that each involves a very well-off person trying to screw an even bigger share of the pie. An ugly manifestation of entitlement magnified by greed. The more sunlight cast on this sort of stuff the better.
These are good studies. I'm equally interested in regional politics, particularly Regional Councils, where pecuniary conflicts of interest seem to run even deeper. If we look at Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) for example, there are farmer-councillors such as Ian Mckenzie and Peter Scott who directly engage on issues, at committee and vote level, which affect them financially in a manner different to an ordinary member of the public. This is the classic definition in the Local Government 'Member's Interests' Act of a pecuniary conflict of interest. They are also engaged in the performance committees and discussions for the Chief Executive, i.e. her performance is rated by people whose demonstrated interest is in personal enrichment, and to that extent whether she enables it as CEO (which she does). I would love to see a deeper dive into the plain-as-day conflicts of interest at ECan.
And let’s not ignore the non-elected representatives from Ngai Tahu who (collectively) are one of the bigger dairy farmers in the area.
I had a boss who taught me " Laddie, we rise, and we fall, on our ethics". I've never forgotten his lecture.
Prevention of conflicts of interest is a neglected principle in NZ. This long article rightly insists.
However, an abstract or v terse summary would be useful.
Whilst clearly it would be impossible to eliminate all conflicts of interest, it would be entirely practical to prohibit Ministers in particular from holding portfolios where their "active" business interests, including those of close family members, could enjoy direct advantageous impacts, especially financial, or market positioning, as a result of their portfolio decisions.
If as a result of ongoing scrutiny, undisclosed conflicts were later discovered then if the business related sources of the conflict could not immediately be eliminated the Minister should be required to resign from the associated portfolios. Such discoveries would potentially trigger an independent review and relitigation of portfolio decisions as appropriate.