-
Related
So John Key gave Richard Worth "a bollocking". This is the first time we've seen the Prime Minister hang one of his ministers out to dry , and there's no doubt the Internal Affairs Minister deserved it.
Dr Worth gained Prime Ministerial permission to take a private business trip to India last month and while there spoke as a Minister about the virtues of New Zealand as a base for pilot training. Oh, and failed to mention to the PM that back home he was a director in New Zealand Aviation Ltd, which is aiming to attract students from India to train here as pilots.
In fact this is how Dr Worth was reported by one media outlet in India: "For students who want to study in New Zealand the civil aviation sector has a lot of scope. One can get a commercial pilot license in our country in only eight months at a cost of $70,000 New Zealand dollars."
Let's be charitable and say Dr Worth wasn't drumming up business, but merely showing his enthusiasm for the New Zealand aviation industry. But how could he possibly fail to see the conflict of interest when he was a director in a company called, er, New Zealand Aviation?
What was also revealing was the list of other business links Dr Worth relinquished as the political firestorm engulfed him. Not only did he resign as a director of New Zealand Aviation, but also as Chairman of the India Trade Group, director of the Indian Overseas Group and chairman of the Korea New Zealand Business Council.
Now I'm willing to be convinced that, unlike most men, Dr Worth is great at multi-tasking but I thought being a Minister was a full time job working for the tax payer.
In fact the Cabinet Manual - the rule book for Ministerial behaviour - backs me up here.
Section 2.54: "Holding ministerial office is regarded as a full-time occupation and is remunerated as such." For a minister outside Cabinet, such as Dr Worth, that remuneration is $204,300 a year.
Dr Worth would do well to read on to section 2.57 on ' Ministers Interests': "Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no conflict exists or appears to exist between their personal interests and their public duty. Ministers must conduct themselves at all times in the knowledge that their role is a public one; appearances and propriety can be as important as an actual conflict of interest."
Dr Worth's colleague, Trade Minister Tim Groser , could do with a refresher course on the Cabinet Manual too.
Groser was also a director of New Zealand Aviation and the Indian Overseas Group. Okay, he resigned from the former on January 31 and the latter on February 15 but he'd been Trade Minister for two to three months by that time - a Trade Minister working towards a free trade deal with India . Surely that creates a potential conflict of interest or at least the appearance of one?
Groser acknowledged as much by resigning those directorships. He claims he did so as quickly as possible. But does that quite stack up?
I was on the companies office website on Monday morning and can report that Dr Worth resigned his directorships at 10.19am. He clearly made that decision only after the Dominion Post published the story about his visit to India in their Monday morning newspaper. It appears to have taken Dr Worth about two hours to resign. Now I know Groser is a busy Trade Minister, but two to three months looks a little tardy.
The Cabinet Manual again, this time section 2.59: "Minister themselves are responsible for proactively identifying and reviewing possible conflicts of interest and ensuring that they are promptly addressed &"
Now I'm not saying that Groser was up to anything nefarious here. But what defies belief for me is how often Ministers leave themselves open to being compromised.
Groser must have known for most of 2008 he was going to be Trade Minister, he certainly knew on election night November 8 and he was appointed in mid-November.
Dr Worth must have prayed for most of the year he would be a minister - of anything - and been pleasantly surprised when he too was appointed to the executive.
The question for both ministers is: Why didn't they clear the
decks, there and then.
Got a comment on anything that Guyon has to say? Share your
thoughts on the message board below.
Add a Comment:
Post new commentGeoff Keey said on 2009-08-14 @ 01:47 NZDT: Report abusive post
Guyon, I was surprised to see you citing the Government's climate change cost estimates so uncritically given the extent to which they have been discredited.
stephen6565 said on 2009-08-13 @ 22:15 NZDT: Report abusive post
Another very poor article. You are part of the fourth estate and should be asking the hard questions of the govt. Making the govt accountable is not just the oppositions job. This whole article is just rubbish 'feelings' centred around your personal political views. Stick to policy and 'news' items.
geekypolitics said on 2009-08-11 @ 19:34 NZDT: Report abusive post
Mr. Espiner has some good advice for Labour especially on the environment, but the idea that Goff should "cuddle" up to Key is appalling. It is always difficult for the opposition to take a stance on matters that are of an international nature, as the reputation of the country as a united entity is at stake. Democrats in the U.S. had the same problem with regards to the Iraq War. I'd hate to see Labour make the same mistake in the name of "solidarity behind the troops."
Andrew Nichols said on 2009-08-11 @ 14:17 NZDT: Report abusive post
"Polls in Britain showed, counter-intuitively, that support for their troop deployment increased even as casualties mounted. " You're flat wrong! Current polling in the UKs major dailies actually shows majority and growing option to Britains involvement in Obams purposeless war. Not that that's ever bothered the govt there, who in time honoured fashion enjoy perpetuating "Britains post WW2 role as the Greeks to the US Empire" (Harold McMillan 1943)
Kereama said on 2009-08-11 @ 13:39 NZDT: Report abusive post
Of course Labour need to find their direction! They lost the election and they lost touch with grassroots NZ - National did too once, and it took them years to get back on track - but they did. The point is, the "road to nowhere" isn't permanent (unless you're Winston Peters... let's hope anyway). While it may be the opposition's role to critique the Government, the media has an obligation to do so also. Let the opposition "find" themselves and focus instead on the ones that count.