Hipkins announced five changes to the conflict-of-interest rules for Ministers last week, following Minister Michael Wood’s resignation after he discovered more shares in a family trust raising further questions around potential conflicts of interest. The former Minister had already been stood down from the transport portfolio after failing to sell his shares in Auckland Airport, despite multiple requests to do so.
The new rules are:
The new rules are:
- Quarterly reporting about conflicts of interest to the Prime Minister
- Escalation process if Ministers are not acting on advice
- Annual in-person reviews with Ministers
- A nominated person in each Minister’s office to be aware of possible conflicts
- Conflicts becoming a standing item at Cabinet meetings
While strengthening them may go some way to helping the integrity issues that are beleaguering this Government, questions remain about why elected representatives, and in particular Ministers, can’t take personal accountability for their integrity.
Independent agency
The Prime Minister has indicated that more change may follow including possibly following Australia’s lead by requiring Ministers to divest shares at the time of their appointment.
Earlier this year, Lyn Provost became New Zealand’s first Independent Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards. The appointment followed the Francis review into bullying behaviour and the culture of Parliament’s precinct. The role is responsible for looking into claims of bullying and improper conduct.
However, some commentators have suggested it may be time to have a wider independent agency oversee the integrity and ethical issues in Parliament. International experience, however, shows that such independent oversight appears to make little difference to behaviour and worse, doesn’t increase the public’s trust in elected officials.
In May 2009, the widespread misuse of allowances and expenses by British MPs in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and on all sides became a major political scandal. The scandal happened during a time of economic recession and the public outrage led to a number of MPs resigning, some being fired, some being charged with criminal offenses, some of which resulted in convictions and jail terms, and some MPs being deselected before the 2010 general election.
One of the outcomes of this scandal was the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to oversee MPs’ salaries and expenses. This was in addition to other already established oversight bodies, including the Committee on Standards in Public Life, that had been set up in an effort to regulate the ethics of elected representatives in Britain.
Research undertaken after the 2009 scandal, found that codes of conduct and other institutional guidance did not have any impact on either the level of transgressions or on the public’s view of politicians. In fact, the levels of trust in politicians continued to decline despite this. More recently, it’s clear that the rules, guidance, and independent oversight did nothing to stop the raft of scandals in British politics including former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s party gate saga.
Citizens’ views of ethics and integrity
Of even more concern, is that the same research found that politicians’ views of what is considered ethically acceptable differed from that of citizens. Elected representatives tend to take a more minimalist view, whereas the public considers it in a wider context even as far as including the words politicians use and keeping the promises they make.
One of the starkest findings was that when citizens are forced to choose, most people would rather have politicians who were honest, even if they were less successful and hard-working. At a time when citizens’ engagement in politics is waning with declining levels of voter participation, Ministers would do well to remember that the public holds them to higher standards than they do. And, further, that “the health of any democracy is in part dependent on citizens having confidence and trust in those who rule them”.(2)
- Allen, N., & Birch, S. (2015). Ethics and Integrity in British Politics: How Citizens Judge their Politicians’ Conduct and Why It Matters. Cambridge University Press.
- ibid, pg 4
Jacqui Van Der Kaay is a PhD student at Victoria University of Wellington. She is a former journalist, holds a Masters degree in Political Science from Victoria University of Wellington. This article was first published HERE
4 comments:
Only an ivory tower academic (not you Jacqui!) would suggest a new set of rules to replace those that being treated with contempt. It's the rule breakers with their " rules are for the little people not me" attitude that are the problem here.
And as soon as they enter government (corporation) they become a cog in the corporate structure to which they must serve and not 'we the people'. Therefore a system of Corporatocracy and not a Democracy occurs.
You cannot legislate for stupid any more than you can legislate to change dishonest politicians. This administration is so full of incompetent, corrupt politicians lacking in credibility and integrity the only way out is to vote them out. The present PM has no more credibility than the rest of the labour/greens maori cult, and is obviously intent on continuing on the pathway of corruption, nepotism and apartheid, otherwise he would have already sacked and removed Allan, Tinetti, Nash, Wood, Davis, Anderson, Mahuta plus others.
And speaking of Mahuta (and now McAnulty) and the purported new "Escalation process if Ministers are not acting on advice", what about their claim that Crown Law have said Maori have a rights in relation to 3/5/Affordable Waters according to the Treaty? Where is this advice, and why isn't it public?
Integrity, and conflicts of interest, indeed! More like corruption and self-interest.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.