Maybe we’ve all got scandal fatigue. This is the best explanation for why there’s not more public and media concern in the wake of the disturbing report into former Minister Stuart Nash’s relationship with donors. There have been so many integrity violations lately from Government politicians and officials – including Michael Wood, Kiri Allan, Jan Tinetti, and Meng Foon – that it seems hearing about a minister’s dodgy communications with donors barely registers.
The results of the investigation released on Friday morning – in what seems to be something of a calculated government news dump (along with news of Meng Foon’s forced resignation) have largely been ignored or downplayed.
The investigation was undertaken by the Cabinet Office following Nash’s most recent integrity violation, in which he had breached ethical standards, including the Cabinet Manual, by providing sensitive Cabinet information to wealthy businessmen. The leaking was bad enough, but it was made worse because the recipients of Nash’s information had also donated money to the Minister to help him get re-elected. An inquiry was launched to see if other conflicts of interest had occurred.
Minister deletes text messages to donors
The investigation came up against a major problem, contributing to the delay in the report being completed. It found that the Minister had made a habit of deleting his communications with his financial donors, making it impossible for the Cabinet Office to do its job investigating any wrongdoing. Cabinet Secretary Rachel Haywood protested about the deletions in the report, stating “I am not able to give an assurance that I have seen all information relevant to the review”.
The Herald’s Adam Pearse explained what had occurred: “there were some time periods when there were no text message exchanges with some donors. Nash had told those coordinating the review that he did, at times, delete messages from his phone – a protocol he said he developed well before his career as a minister.”
On this, Hayward also states, “I have drawn no conclusions, adverse or otherwise, about the presence or absence of texts on Hon Nash’s phone”. But the clear conclusion to be drawn is that the investigation was undermined by the Minister’s actions. The public should be troubled about such practices by Ministers and MPs. Similarly, the use by Nash of a personal Gmail account as well as Whatsapp to correspond with donors is also suspicious and hardly best practice, especially in terms of the need to abide by the Official Information Act.
Another limitation dogged the Cabinet Office’s attempts to uncover what had gone on. In initiating the investigation, the Prime Minister said he hoped the process would give the public confidence in the integrity of the political system, but he decided not to give the Cabinet Office any real powers of investigation. Therefore, the Cabinet Secretary simply had to accept that there was nothing she could do about the destroyed evidence, as she was not empowered to do anything to dig deeper or recover the material.
Furthermore, the investigation was limited by the PM’s decision to reduce its scope. The Cabinet Office was asked not to look at the donors themselves, or the lobbying that they carried out, meaning the original lobbying and exchanges of Cabinet information were deemed outside the terms of reference.
A Further conflict of interest discovered
Although it has been glossed over, the investigation discovered that Nash had been guilty of another breach of the Cabinet Manual – once again involving one of his major business donors. Phil McCaw is a “close friend” of the politician, having gone to school with him. He’s worth an estimated $180m, and was appointed by the Cabinet to chair the Startup Advisors Council, which had the job of supporting Nash as Minister for Regional Economic Development.
Nash had recommended to officials that McCaw be appointed. But then, because of the donations and their friendship, Nash put some separation between him and the appointment. The investigation found that the measures taken were entirely insufficient, and Nash breached the Cabinet Manual by not following four crucial aspects of “good practice in managing this conflict”.
The minimal efforts that Nash made to separate himself from the appointment, such as getting another minister (Megan Woods) to make the decision, were not nearly enough. The biggest problem was that, once another minister made the decision to appoint McCaw, Nash effectively took back responsibility for managing his friend.
The Cabinet Office report explained: “The relationship between the chair and Nash as minister was an ongoing one, and the terms of reference stated that Nash continued to have responsibility for further decisions around McCaw’s reappointment or dismissal. Nash’s friendship with, and the donation from, Mr McCaw conflicted with this ongoing responsibility.”
To make matters worse, the report uncovered that Nash’s friend and donor also lobbied government ministers to be removed from the scrutiny of an IRD study into New Zealand’s mega-wealthy. The businessman sent an email to Nash’s ministerial email address last year saying that, although he was willing to commit his time to Nash’s business group, he was also having his time taken up by IRD questions about his assets. He made it clear what he wanted: “In order for your project to have my full attention, I kindly request that you arrange for me to be removed from this project.”
Rather than entirely rebuff the donor or tell him this wouldn’t be ethical, Nash’s ministerial adviser, Andrea Black, informed the businessman that Nash didn’t have the capacity to deliver his request, and she then passed it on to David Parker, the Minister of Revenue, who was apparently the more appropriate minister to lobby for the favour. Ultimately the lobbying was unsuccessful, and McCaw continued to be part of the IRD study.
The Prime Minister has batted away concerns about the donor seeking favours, saying simply that “everyone has the right to make representations to ministers on matters that concern them, and second, ministers cannot control the communications others send to them.” But this ignores the fact that Minister Nash had put himself in this situation by accepting donations from the businessman, and continued to cultivate a close relationship and communications with the donor about policy. While it might be true that Nash hadn’t broken the law or even breached the Cabinet Manual, many voters might well feel that such an ongoing relationship of lobbying and donations stinks and that Hipkins is minimising the problem.
Hipkins has also sought to minimise the failure of the Beehive to release Nash’s communications with the donor when requested under the Official Information Act. He has tried to explain the obfuscation was just a “cock up” and not “a conspiracy”, downplaying that a significant breach of public trust occurred which advantaged the Government by keeping (at least initially) embarrassing information from the public.
In fact, Nash himself continues to say that he has done nothing wrong. Even after he was fired from Cabinet, he gave a radio interview saying that his donors didn’t benefit from being given Cabinet information, and he would do it again.
What happens now?
The investigation into Nash’s communications with his donors was meant, according to the PM, to help restore public confidence in Government MPs and processes. And although headlines such as “Stuart Nash cleared in cabinet report” have helped assuage the public, a more careful reading of the report reinforces the big problems of integrity in the system.
Political donors still have special access to decision-makers, and there are not sufficient safeguards in the system to prevent corruption and abuse. Unfortunately, this doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon.
Even though Labour’s Independent Electoral Review has been set up to look at donations to politicians, it won’t deal with any of these problems. The terms of reference established for it by the politicians have pushed the panel away from dealing with donation scandals like the Nash one. And the panel has accordingly provided no significant recommendations that might usefully deal with these conflicts of interest with donors. This is a real missed opportunity.
We need better rules and procedures for when wealthy donors are being promoted by their friends for appointments. And although the Cabinet report doesn’t criticise Nash for putting forward his donor for appointment, most people will see a problem with that. Yes, the decision to appoint the donor may have been made by people other than Nash, but the Minister’s recommendation for appointment would have carried a lot of weight, and officials understandably feel the need to back up the Minister on such issues.
A proper overhaul of appointments and donation rules required
The appointment of cronies and donors by governments, therefore, needs an overhaul quickly. And those Labour supporters who see this as no big deal should ask how happy they would be if the same thing occurs once a National government is back in power.
Progress also needs to be made on the record-keeping of ministerial communications. Ministers deleting messages to and from donors, or in fact from anyone, should be highly suspicious, if not illegal. This is an OIA issue. Even though Nash has previously said that when he was discussing Cabinet issues with his donors he was doing this while wearing his parliamentary hat rather than in his ministerial role, such cynical absurdity can’t be allowed to continue.
In fact, we are still waiting for the Ombudsman to report on whether or not the Beehive and Nash were legally able to withhold communications with donors under the Official Information Act. If it turns out that Ministers get a free pass – or indeed just a smack over the hand with a wet bus ticket – then calls for a major reform of the OIA should escalate quickly.
Major issues of the integrity of our political system now deserve urgent attention. Commenting on the Nash report, as well as other scandals – the Meng Foon conflict of interest resignation in particular – Stuff political editor Luke Malpass said in the weekend, “It is now the time to ask – if it wasn’t before – whether there is something a bit rotten in the political system where falling short of the highest levels of probity are treated with a shrug. Or, where they are treated seriously, those who fall foul of the rules don’t see what is wrong.”
Malpass is right. And he’s also correct in saying that these episodes are giving the Labour Government and its appointees “an entitled, arrogant and slightly smelly vibe”. However, he’s probably far too kind about that whiff – the troubling Nash report shows that the whole system really stinks.
“But, they all do it!” Is no defence. It is exactly the opposite, it justifies a proper investigation and improvements to our political and governance systems.
The Hager expose in “The Hollow Men” justified reform and this saga shows that we learned very little from that lesson other than the need for politicians and those with power to “cover your arse and not to get caught”.
Nash telling the media that “ he’d do it again” looks like a trick he’s picked up from that mistress of bullying bravado, Bennett, and childishly evasive. Whether he’d do it again, isn’t the issue, the issue is what he, or others, have gotten away with so far. Breaching cabinet confidentiality isn’t on, but rich boys enlisting politicians to help them avoid IRD scrutiny seems pretty corrupt to me; politicians playing pass the parcel on this one are equally at fault, and look dodgy as.
Is their workload too much for them?
Are they just incompetent?
Do they give a fuck?
How many bananas do they eat a day?
Does their resume over egg their skills and abilities?
Why do they want to be a Polly?
Time to remove MPs from the decision-making process by getting rid of mmp and replacing it with governance by public referendum.
Why? Because they’re fuckn useless!
Direct Governance/Government by Public Referendum.
Dirty, dirty greedy man. This is truly disgusting.
For the PM to say there is nothing wrong with lobbying a minister… ridiculous we the majority are not really able to do this. If this man asks for an audience he will get one, because he is super wealthy.
Michal. Anyone can lobby, it’s the professional lobbyists with vested interests who can be problematic.
Parliament need to sort this themselves. The trouble with referenda, is ending up with lowest common denominator decisions, and non- participants being harshly or unfairly impacted upon.
If, as it seems, OIA Requests aren’t being legally complied with, for no good reason, they need to make a commitment to sort this ASAP. Slack MSM not calling politicians to account are also part of the problem. Overseas news outlets reporting on the New Zealand media’s failure to honestly report eg on the Posie Parker debacle, are moderately helpful, but not hugely so. If they follow up, which the UK Spectator said they would about the Albert Park disgrace, then that does make it harder for our politicians to mislead or lie.
Integrity of the political system is nil under this administration.
Labour Government have now proven beyond doubt they are not capable of governing.
There is a stench coming off Labour that usually sets in on some governments in the third term. All the ducking and weaving – moving right along crap ain’t working no more!
100%. Bryce as always manages to tell it like it is. Only a tad short of corruption, media and govt not caring and presenting all the usual ‘so what’ hubris when it really stinks and it’s an election year!
Maybe this is the likely/right progression of action?
‘Minister deletes text messages to donors’
Minister deletes his text messages …
Minister deletes donors text messages
Minister deletes donors
Minister deletes….
Minister?
Mini haha.
He whole shit show is a mess. The NZ first case with crap loads of money in another that supposedly Winnie knew nothing about is yet another example of how stupid this country is.
The and missing word is ‘entity’.
The errors are piling up show a lack of care and lack of accountability. This group are in charge of the future of 5 million plus people and the fact they cannot organise themselves is a real worry .
” Progress also needs to be made on the record-keeping of ministerial communications. Ministers deleting messages to and from donors, or in fact from anyone, should be highly suspicious, if not illegal. This is an OIA issue. Even though Nash has previously said that when he was discussing Cabinet issues with his donors he was doing this while wearing his parliamentary hat rather than in his ministerial role, such cynical absurdity can’t be allowed to continue. ”
What this shows again is that the current neoliberal parties ae compromised and that accountable government and democracy are severely compromised and that in reality our other kiwi myth that we sit at the top of the corruption free nation list is just that ………..a myth.
” Hipkins has also sought to minimise the failure of the Beehive to release Nash’s communications with the donor when requested under the Official Information Act. He has tried to explain the obfuscation was just a “cock up” and not “a conspiracy”, downplaying that a significant breach of public trust occurred which advantaged the Government by keeping (at least initially) embarrassing information from the public.
In fact, Nash himself continues to say that he has done nothing wrong. Even after he was fired from Cabinet, he gave a radio interview saying that his donors didn’t benefit from being given Cabinet information, and he would do it again. ”
Its ROTTEN to the core and Nash is perverting the course of justice by ” Fabricating or disposing of evidence ”
And has the arrogance to say he would do it again.
He and the others know they can get away with it because the law does not hold them accountable. Being parliamentarians they are exempt from the rule of law just like Richard Nixon believed he was in 1974.
” Maybe we’ve all got scandal fatigue. This is the best explanation for why there’s not more public and media concern in the wake of the disturbing report into former Minister Stuart Nash’s relationship with donors. ”
IMHO I believe that as a country we have been conditioned to accept this behaviour as normal. Which means that previously high standards that we held our political parties and process to has been weakened.
It has slowly destroyed here in New Zealand our concept or encouraged belief that our politicians and system operate to high standards and observe the rule of law.
Neoliberalism has changed all of that.
Your fucking kidding here !
” Cabinet Secretary Rachel Haywood protested about the deletions in the report, stating “I am not able to give an assurance that I have seen all information relevant to the review”.
The Herald’s Adam Pearse explained what had occurred: “there were some time periods when there were no text message exchanges with some donors. Nash had told those coordinating the review that he did, at times, delete messages from his phone – a protocol he said he developed well before his career as a minister.”
This is dirty rotten she’ll be right New Zealand CORRUPTION and cover up !
Nash should be charged with obstruction of justice if we actually had standards and the removal of the old boys club cause even the winebox warrior Winston likes a drink with Stuey.
Thanks for a great article. It’s a sad indictment of mainstream media that I have to read this in a blog.
Labour is averaging a scandal per week at the moment: I hope for their sake that they’re polishing their resumes, because they’ll need them later this year!
I don’t think we’ve ever had a Government with so many Ministers under review.
Labour Government has set a new low.
Surely no one of sound mind will vote for them.
The fact Chippy narrowed the scope says it all.
” Thanks for a great article. It’s a sad indictment of mainstream media that I have to read this in a blog. ”
No truer statement than that !
Government out of business. Business out of government.
Labour don’t understand the business of Government.
A Frontline Moment, as you might say: https://natlib.govt.nz/items?text=frontline+public+good
AO/NZ’s politics and its relationships with the very rich are gangster as fuck. But wait, there’s far more.
It always has been so.
Great Post @ Dr Bryce Edwards.
@ Chris Harris.
That’s bloody interesting. Thanks.
Well, this Labour, descended from Douglas, isn’t built on ideals. Just a career move.
Thanks for your report. As an east coast guy who went to school with these guys, I’m disappointed in Stuart — the kindest of us, but without ideas he turned that into ‘mateship’, like Mike whatsname.
I had the right idea but that wasn’t allowed for 40 years. Deathly shy, so I had to get through that first, and till now ideas remain my best friends.