The public are being served heaps of news items about a fellow called Kamahl Santamaria, who was hired by TVNZ as breakfast host but has departed under a cloud.
In contrast, Point of Order has found just one mainstream media report (in the New Zealand Herald) which raises questions about the management of contracts awarded to Mahuta family members.
It was headed Government contracts to husband and family of Minister Nanaia Mahuta ‘managed for conflict’.
Fair to say, Waatea News has shown an interest in this issue, too, although it was headed Mahuta attack fails to prove link.
Waatea News’ idea of checking out the truth or otherwise of the Herald’s report was to talk with former MP John Tamihere. Then it recorded his huffing that
The Waatea News report did note the Herald had picked up on allegations made earlier in the month on a Twitter account
And that was the extent of Waatea News’ delving into the substance of the matter.
They have opted to dismiss information of the sort provided in reports posted on The Platform here, here and here.
Mainstream media seem to have ignored ACT leader David Seymour’s press statement, headed Mahuta Questions Need Answers
Seymour said ACT had sought answers on these matters through the Official Information Act and Written Parliamentary Questions.
Seymour has raised questions in Parliament, too, where media reportage is protected by parliamentary privilege.
Point of Order found no media reportage of Seymour’s questions or Robertson’s responses.
We are left wondering which parts of Seymour’s questions were “not accurate”.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
“… a New Zealand Herald story linking Minister Nanaia Mahuta to government appointments of family members was a disgrace to the newspaper.”
The Waatea News report did note the Herald had picked up on allegations made earlier in the month on a Twitter account
“… about a Ms Mahuta’s partner, environmental consultant Gannin Ormsby, getting a small contract with the Environment Ministry, and her sister Tipa Mahuta’s appointment to the Māori advisory group for the Three Waters reforms.
“Mr Tamihere says the framing seemed to be that if Māori were involved something must be wrong while ignoring the far more extensive connections between wealthy pakeha families and professionals with the government.
“It’s got fix its game up and it’s got to get more integrity and credibility and start calling out its own white folk for conflicts of interest and corruption rather than focusing on just Māori because there’s no evidence Nanaia had any connectivity to any of those decisions. It was just a dirty little allegation,” he says.
And that was the extent of Waatea News’ delving into the substance of the matter.
They have opted to dismiss information of the sort provided in reports posted on The Platform here, here and here.
Mainstream media seem to have ignored ACT leader David Seymour’s press statement, headed Mahuta Questions Need Answers
“The Government needs to answer questions about Nanaia Mahuta fully and swiftly,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.
“Members of Nanaia Mahuta’s family have been appointed to working groups in areas for which the Minister has, or had, ministerial responsibility.
“At the very least, a perception of a conflict of interest exists. As a Minister, Mahuta is responsible for ensuring no conflict – real or perceived – exists between her personal interests and her public duty.”
Seymour said ACT had sought answers on these matters through the Official Information Act and Written Parliamentary Questions.
In the interests of openness and transparency, the Government should release the following information proactively:
* What interests the Minister has declared and how they have been managed;
* What processes were followed in appointing the Minister’s family members and who made the decisions;
* Whether the positions were publicly advertised, what qualifications the successful applicants have, and whether the applicants declared conflicts of interest.
“If proper processes have been followed, there should be no difficulty in releasing this information.”
Seymour has raised questions in Parliament, too, where media reportage is protected by parliamentary privilege.
David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that four people related to just one Cabinet Minister Nanaia Mahuta have been appointed to Government working groups or governance roles since 2017 in areas for which for which that Minister had Ministerial responsibility; and if so, is she comfortable that such appointments fit with the Cabinet Manual’s guidance that “appearances and propriety can be as important as actual conflicts of interest.”?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Aspects of the member’s question are inaccurate and I reject the premise of them. With respect to Ms Mahuta, she is scrupulous in the way that she adheres to the Cabinet Manual.
David Seymour: Which aspects does the Minister reject, and which are inaccurate?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the Member has to be responsible for that, but he is aware that aspects of the question that he has asked are not accurate. I repeat, Ms Mahuta is scrupulous in the way in which she manages conflicts of interests and adheres to the Cabinet Manual.
Point of Order found no media reportage of Seymour’s questions or Robertson’s responses.
We are left wondering which parts of Seymour’s questions were “not accurate”.
2 comments:
I am astonished at the level of policy apparently originated apparently wholey from her husband's consultancy. Just what incredible experience did he gain in the Brit army? Or who on the staff actually formulates the divisive policies? Do they have a hot line to Waikato University, Unitec, Tribunal members, and every academic separatist activist?
'I reject the premise' - i thought this was patented by ms ardern. it turns out to be a patent held by the post not the person :)
Post a Comment