Home »
Posts filed under Conflict of interest
Winston Peters may not have been an MP prior to the 2011 General Election. But he certainly was a party leader campaigning for re-election. Which makes this an interesting story:
Royal Flight was the omen bet for Saturday's Francolin Stakes at Riverton.
The matriarch of Royal Flight's illustrious maternal line is Francolin, who was owned by the late Dave Tweedie, a past president of the Riverton Racing Club.
Royal Flight gave Wingatui apprentice Toni Direen an important win in Saturday's $20,000 fillies and mares' event. Direen works for trainers Brian and Shane Anderton who intend to start Royal Flight at the $45,000 Great Easter Stakes at Riccarton on May 7.
New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters was on course and had a wager on Royal Flight. Mr Peters was invited to the Riverton Easter races by a Southlander he met at the Karaka yearling sales. Mr Peters, who couldn't recall the name of the Southlander, said he would make two more visits to Southland before the New Zealand general election in November.
He addressed members and supporters of New Zealand First in Invercargill on Saturday morning.
Mr Peters would not reveal details of his party's racing policy.
However, he did say: ''Owners and the punters have to be looked after. Owners are investors and they have to get a better deal (in racing).''
Was Winston Peters one of a syndicate of owners of Bellazeel when he made representations for better treatment of racehorse owners?Given that the horse sold at Karaka in January 2010, and as at 5.30pm yesterday Peters was still listed as an owner, we'd say the answer to that is a resounding "Yes".
Mr Peters of course, would have a different view of things. But would you trust him to give an honest and unequivocal answer?
It's a rare day when we agree with Brian Edwards. But the good Dr Edwards has chucked his tuppence-worth into the mix with regard to Shane Taurima and TVNZ; check this out:
There was nothing terribly complex about Shane Taurima’s situation with regard to his job as Head of TVNZ’s Maori and Pacifica Department once he had, albeit unsuccessfully, sought the Labour Party nomination for the Rawhiti Ikaroa seat following the death of Parekura Horomia. Taurima had very publicly nailed his political colours to the mast. In doing so he had effectively disbarred himself from any further involvement in News or Current Affairs broadcasting with the state broadcaster. The potential conflict of interest could not have been more clear.
Television New Zealand apparently did not see it that way. Perhaps they thought that Taurima’s failure to actually win the nomination made all the difference. He had been a would-be Labour candidate, not an actual Labour candidate. (And, as it turned out, would be again.) That rationalisation is so facile as to be laughable. Taurima was politically tainted. He should not have been re-employed in his previous role. But he was.
When he took things even further and turned his TVNZ office into a Maori/Pacifica Labour Party branch, Taurima did his employer a favour. Without actually hanging portraits of Savage, Fraser and Kirk on the walls, the conflict of interest in which he and others in his department now found themselves could not have been more patent. To his credit, Taurima had the grace and good sense to resign.
Brian Edwards is quite right. Shane Taurima's conflict of interest was so blindingly obvious that it beggars belief that management did not notice it.Whilst TVNZ is partly culpable, the blame however rests primarily with Taurima, who made his own position, and those of some of his staff untenable. There are just two unanswered questions. How much did the Labour Party know about Taurima's use of TVNZ resources for Labour Party activities? Given that Tamaki Makaurau branch meetings were held on TVNZ premises, and that David Cunliffe himself attended a hui facilitated by Taurima for party members, we'd say that the Labour Party knew quite a lot.
Which leads to the second question; did no one in the Labour Party, from Moira Coatsworth and David Cunliffe down see a potential conflict of interest in Mr Taurima's activism?
The Labour Party is not blameless in this messy business either. But we reiterate; most of the blame falls on Shane Taurima's shoulders.
The Herald devotes its editorial to the Shane Taurima/TVNZ/Labour Party affair. And it doesn't make good reading for any of those named in the preceding sentence. Under the headline Credibility before politics for journalists the Herald opines:
Shane Taurima thought he could keep his affiliation to a political party entirely separate from his journalism, and to a degree he was successful. The Prime Minister, for one, felt fairly treated by him in television interviews despite Taurima's affiliation to the Labour Party. It is not hard to put personal views aside in the interests of objective journalism even when a subject is political. But the independent report into political bias at Television New Zealand was right to find him at fault. Partisan politics and mass media journalism do not mix.
The report found Taurima not only had a clear conflict of interest, but had used TVNZ facilities for Labour Party activities. These included a $343 credit card bill for an air fare and the use of TVNZ's offices and email for Labour Party planning and campaigning. Clearly the problem is not confined to the former head of its Maori and Pacific programming unit. Three of his staff also participated in the party activity.
But if these misuses of company property had not occurred, Taurima's position would still have been untenable. He not only joined the Labour Party while working in news and current affairs, he made an unsuccessful bid to be Labour's candidate in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti byelection last year. Strangely, after missing the selection, he was able to return to his position at TVNZ. There, his continuing Labour activities reached a level that, the report says, "would plainly be deeply embarrassing to TVNZ if it came to light".
He must have known that would be so. It is elementary to journalists that joining a political party is not an option unless they plan to make their career in the party's publications. Those who want to be credible reporters of news and politics for a mass audience cannot belong to a party. If they did, they would have to declare their affiliation, and their audience would rightly question the reliability of everything they reported.
The Herald's leader writer makes a very valid point here. Most senior journalists profess to be political agnostics, and we would be surprised if many are members of political parties. Shane Taurima would appear to be the exception to that rule, along with Julian Wilcox at Maori Television, who must either be a member of the Labour Party or an intending member if he has even a passing intention of contesting the Tamaki Makaurau nomination. Common sense would suggest that he is already a Labour Party member given the party's requirement of one year's membership before being nominated as a candidate for election.
The editorial then addresses the Public Service Association's rather quaint, Utopian view of these matters:
The Public Service Association seems not to understand this. It thinks a recommendation to ban reporters, content producers and editors from political activity is a draconian and unnecessary breach of their rights as citizens. It believes the State Services Commission guidelines for public servants are sufficient for the state broadcaster and that TVNZ will set "a dangerous precedent for other public servants".
Public servants serve the Government of the day. They can belong to a political party and take part in its activities after hours because the primary audience for their professional work is ministers and other politicians understand their code. State-owned media such as TVNZ and Maori Television are different. Their primary audience must know their reporters, producers and editors are not a member of any party in their spare time.
The leader writer makes a very good point here. TVNZ, Radio New Zealand and Maori Television are different from other media outlets because they are ultimately owned by the state. Their staff, including journalists, are essentially public servants, and the public service is, in an ideal world, politically neutral. It seems rather strange that the PSA, the union representing public servants, does not understand the concept of the public service not only trying to be neutral, but being seen to be neutral.
The editorial closes with an insight into how the Herald manages these issues:None of this is to suggest that journalists should be devoid of political views and judgment. They would be less than citizens without them. Their views and judgment will be apparent to the audience and acceptable so long as there can be confidence they come from an interested, well-informed, even concerned person who has no conflict of interest.
The Herald does not allow its editorial staff to participate in community or political activities that could compromise their work. This means not only membership of political parties but taking part in public campaigns that they could have to cover. Preserving this distance from politics is not an onerous restriction for those whose credibility is paramount. They have the privilege of observing, reporting and commenting on public affairs. Once they cross the line to partisan participation, there is no coming back.
Shane Taurima had a clear conflict of interest when he returned to TVNZ after his failed tilt at the Ikaroa-Rawhiti nomination. There is evidence that he was less than honest with his employer about his future political intentions, although TVNZ concedes that its own management of the conflict was not ideal. But there was no justification whatsoever for Taurima doing Labour Party work on the taxpayer dime, via TVNZ.That Shane Taurima seems to believe that the TVNZ inquiry report vindicated him is telling. Perhaps he needs to undergo some more training in the principle of public service neutrality before embarking on another journalistic career in the state sector, or a lesson in managing conflicts of interest before furthering his political aspirations. In both areas, he has been found wanting.
John Key has questioned whether David Cunliffe's reported media trainer is conflicted; the Herald reports:
Prime Minister John Key has questioned another broadcaster's links to the Labour Party following the party's veto of journalist Shane Taurima.
Labour this morning confirmed that they would not allow Mr Taurima to seek the party nomination for Tamaki Makaurau.
The decision followed confirmation in an independent report that he had misused TVNZ funds for political purposes while he was head of Maori programming.
Mr Key said Labour's actions were expected.
But he was also surprised to learn that journalist-turned-lawyer Linda Clark, who fronts TV3's show The Vote, was providing media training to Labour leader David Cunliffe.
"In the same way that MPs and ministers have to manage their conflicts of interest, it's also true for the media.
"I don't know how she's managing that situation but she'll just have to demonstrate to viewers that she's managing it appropriately."
Mr Key said it was not unusual for media commentators to provide these services - he was trained by former TVNZ head of news Bill Ralston.
But he said it was important that viewers knew of any political connections.
TV3 did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The revelation has prompted some amusing, and some thought-provoking tweets; first up is Bill Ralston, who freely admits having worked with John Key:Next up is the Herald's Business editor, Liam Dann:Ralston again, followed by Matthew Hooton (there's no connection between these two tweets; they just happened to run consecutively on our timeline):Lastly (for now) Tim Murphy from the Hera;d replies to Ralston's original tweet.Karen Price was indeed the star of Campbell Live's At Home With... segment last night as she fed the chooks, cleaned out the beehive with bees buzzing all around her then whipped the cream for the pikelets. Mr Cunliffe's main contribution to the segment was going to the fish and chippery, and taking John Campbell for a beer whilst the Friday night shark and tatties were frying.It will be interesting to see the next preferred Prime Minister rankings. We predict that Karen Price will rate higher as Preferred PM than her husband!
Judith Collins is not taking the latest allegations against her lying down; Stuff reports:
Justice Minister Judith Collins has hit out against the latest conflict of interest allegations levelled against her by Opposition MPs.
Collins has been under fire over allegations she used her ministerial position to benefit her husband's business interests.
She was also refusing to name the Chinese border official who she, Oravida managing director Julia Xu and chairman Stone Shi, who were close personal friends, shared a private dinner with while on an official trip to China.
The latest allegations levelled by NZ First leader Winston Peters under parliamentary privilege were that Collins went to the rescue of Oravida after it wrote to the Government seeking assistance after the Fonterra botulism scare last year.
The letter said Oravida had been "profoundly negatively" affected by the disaster and urged "ministers and the New Zealand Government to help us to navigate through this difficult time".
Collins has avoided the media, but told RadioLive today the allegations made by Peters were "utterly untrue".
"Worse than that, TV3 and Winston Peters have made utterly false comments and stated as fact things that are not fact," Collins said.
"Pretty much everything" about the allegations was false "and I'm not going to to dignify them with a response", she said.
"I'm not responsible for the company, I'm not responsible for actions that they take and I'm absolutely disgusted at the way in which my family has been dragged through this by some elements of the media."
She denied it was a bad look for her to meet with Oravida after the company wrote to Trade Minister Tim Groser and Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy seeking government help.
"It does not look wrong. It looks no more wrong than the fact that 41 companies wrote or received some funding from the Government because of the issue," Collins said.
David Cunliffe made a rare appearance in Parliament yesterday to lead the attack on Judith Collins. But given that he still refuses to name those who donated anonymously to his leadership campaign, and given those donations were hidden away in a secret trust which Mr Cunliffe hoped would remain secret, he is the last person who should be calling for transparency.Opposition MP's used three of their eight allocated questions yesterday during Question Time to attack Ms Collins, but made little progress. There's a good reason for that; it's a beat-up, and no amount of hysterical shrieking, mud-slinging and innuendo can change that. Winston Peters promised to release damning evidence against Ms Collins to Parliament yesterday, but once again he came up short. His allegations against Judith Collins are as strong as his allegation earlier this year that Huka Lodge had been sold to Chinese buyers.And the Minister of Justice knows who her real friends are:Any ties that Sir Peter Leitch may have still had to Labour from the Clark years were severed when Darien Fenton attacked his character in 2011 for daring to say something nice about John Key; the ultimate act of class treason in Ms Fenton's eyes. We applaud him for sticking up for his friend; that's the mark of the man.We will predict that Judith Collins will survive this because, apart from having fallen foul of the Prime Minister's "no surprises" policy, there is no evidence that she has done anything wrong. There is plenty of innuendo, there is no shortage of mud being flung, but there is no evidence of wrong-doing. Sure, she is suffering some reputational damage, but in the absence of any evidence that Ms Collins directly or indirectly intervened on Oravida's behalf, the Opposition has nothing.
