Now that’s a conflict of interest
July 29th, 2007 at 8:59 pm by David FarrarJohn Tamihere got paid $55,000 to advise the NZ Government on issues around the Waipareira Trust and the National Urban Maori Authority.
Now nothing wrong with that generally. Tamihere would know a fair bit about both.
Except that during the period of the contract he was in fact Chief Executive of both bodies.
Can one imagine a greater conflict of interest? Why does Te Puni Kokiri seem to operate with a different level of accountability to other agencies?
Related posts:
- Case studies in political conflicts of interest
- No conflict of interest
- Conflicts of Interest
- Conflicts of Interest
July 29th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
“Why does Te Puni Kokiri seem to operate with a different level of accountability to other agencies?”
So many reasons-
They’re Tangata Whenua, the ‘elite’.
The Government is fascist.
The Government is racist.
The legal system is racist.
European NZer’s are intimidated by myths about stolen land and other “historical grievances”.
The major parties might need the support of the Maori Party.
Corruption and socialism go hand in hand.
The media fawns over them instead of investigating them. (see todays sickening Herald editorial on Maori TV) (and notable this appears to have come from Rod Hide, not any inquisitive journalist)
NZ’s whole culture has slipped into a condition of lies deceit and dishonesty. Here’s a good article about it-
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2267/print
Note the comments by Dalrymple-
“We have come to expect dishonesty at every level of society. The dishonesty is intellectual, moral and financial, and its root is self-interest conceived in the narrowest possible way. ”
I dunno what’s going to become of this country.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Oh Lord here we go again. The answer to the problem is in the answer to your question:
“Why does Te Puni Kokiri seem to operate with a different level of accountability to other agencies?”
A: It doesn’t.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Just when I thought Red was starting to develop a sense of humour…
The Government is apparently a bunch of facist, socialists. Something for everyone, as the old vaudevillian saying goes.
TPK is subject to the same level of accountability as the rest of the public service. If, and it is an if, TPK has exercised bad judgement and made bad decisions then it should face the same repercussions as any other agency. Remember also that the ultimate accountability of all these agencies is to Parliament. Are you suggesting the Opposition has dropped the ball on exposing and challenging this kind of thing?
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Absolutely brilliant references Redbaiter. In Dairymple’s article’s on Tony Blair you could replce him with Helen Clark and you’ve got New Zealand pegged. I love the bit about the NHS bureaucracy bloating out by 2.5 times in his lordship’s reign.
Dishonest politicians and bureaucrats really have created a new international oligarchy.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
They’re all part of the probem DDD. Read the articles RB referred to.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Redbaiter.
Who introduced us to this sad state of affairs during the 1990s? Was it those greedy deceitful socialists in the Labour Party. Umm, umm. Noo? Ooh who could have it been, then? I’ve come up blank. Can someone else fill me in?
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
BTW Redbaiter,
What myths are you regarding stolen land are you talking about? Oh you mean those “mythical” grievances that the National Party started sorting out in the 1990. Or are you saying that its ok to take other peoples land if its held in common and if they don’t have “official” individual title to it? Typical.
Yes I am aware that National is responsible for some great things that they’ve achieved for New Zealanders. I’m not a socialist.
I’m a liberal in the true sense of the word, not the big business loving pseudo-liberals in ACT or the Business Round Table.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Perhaps Porcupine you could list one other govt agency which gives money to someone to advise on the organisations he is the CEO of?
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Have you forgotten the 80s, Farrar? Do the names with Faye-Richwhite ring a bell?
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Well DPF the Vet Association of NZ advising the Vet council of NZ. Probably the medical council, medical association and medical defense society share “consltants” around. But I dont see this as particularly different from the two health board scams we’ve seen this year.
Often its government agency or quango being paid to give advice to the government that they’ve already paid for. What % of those two organisations are government funded? And then the government needs to pay a consultant to tell them what they’ve been doing, WTF? Perhaps when the government funds quangos and agencies it needs to sign an “memorandum of understanding” that they are entitled to know what is going on.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
For some time under Labour, the Chair of Transit sat on the board of Transfund, which approved funding for Transit and was meant to be at arm’s length. The Chair of Transfund also sat on the board of Transit.
Of course that’s why now they are being merged – because the accountability of Transit to Transfund’s successor agency (LTNZ) has been badly eroded.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
“Have you forgotten the 80s, Farrar? Do the names with Faye-Richwhite ring a bell?”
Its not really a partisan issue Jimmy. There’s not much point in referring to some dark distant legend from almost two decades ago in the delusion that there’s somehow some comparison. Its whether you think what Te Puni Kokiri has done is right or wrong Jimmy. What’s your opinion?
What’s also your opinion on how much value they would have got from John Tamihere in two months. Frankly, I’d be amazed if the worth of any advice amounted to $55, let alone $55 thousand. Do you think this is a valid amount Jimmy?
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
They use it as another form of wealth redistribution, and of course the iwi elite that the governments have created is much easier to deal with than the rabble. Also it ensures that the money wont filter down to the rabble and fuel inflation.
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Te Puni Kokori — A slide show Presentation as a guide to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangj
as expressed by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal
***************************************
Foreword
This 27 Powerpoint slide show has been downloaded from the WWW and has doubtless been shown to many selective audiences up and down the country by TPK. The text of each slide is shown in normal fonts and “the balancing side of the coin” is in bold italics for the readers to make up their own minds of what really constitutes the unstated “Aims of presentation” of this propaganda.
Aims of Presentation
The aims of the presentation are to:
. provide an overview of He TIrohanga 0 Kawa – translate
. explain the role of the Courts and of the Waitangi Tribunal –
Ask yourself:: Why should TPK chose to do this?
. outline the principles of the Treaty as expressed by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal
Overview of He Tirohanga o Kawa
. Why a guide? Because Maori have artfully widened the scope and intent of the Treaty
. Who is the audience? The Judiciary and Government. Non-Maori need to listen to this
What does He Tirohanga 0 Kawa cover? ????? What does it mean first?
Why a guide?
The Treaty and its principles are an important part of the cultural and constitutional identity of New Zealand. The Treaty contains no principles. Only obligations and responsibilities
. The Government is committed to upholding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Government is committed to upholding its obligations and Maori its inherited Laws
. TPK’s role to provide advice on the Crown-Maori relationship and policies affecting Maori requires that Treaty principles occupy a very high priority in policy-making. (This is a presumptuous ‘take¬over’ role particularly as the Treaty made Maori British citizens to join with the influx. of settlers).
. A reference is needed to assist policy analysts (and others) in addressing Treaty principles in their work. (Something that doesn’t exist cannot be ‘addressed’. The Treaty is the sole referenc.
Significance of the Treaty – The Courts
. .. . .. the Treaty is a positive force in the life of the nation and so in the government of the country.” Lands (CA) (1981] per Richardson J at 682. (It is difficult to see why it should be so when the originators of it described it as a legally naive hastily drawn-up document in order to annex the territory).
(Once signed, it had no further use other than as a reminder to both parties to carry out its obligations and responsibilities. It is fast becoming a negative force, dividing the nation).
“There can be no doubt that the Treaty is part of the fabric of New Zealand society.. Huakina Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority (HC) [1987] per Chilwell J at 210. (There can be no evidential doubt, this is being made to apply only to Maori society aided by the judiciary0.
The Treaty “is of the greatest constitutional importance to New Zealand.” Broadcasting Assets (PC) [1994) per lord Woolf at 516 (It is probably nearer the truth to say it is the greatest pecuniary importance to New Zealand’s law profession. New Zealand does not have a properly ordered Constitution, as Their lordships should be well aware. What passes for such today is wholly government ordered,. wholly influenced by Maori for their own benefits).
Significance of the Treaty – The Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty was “not intended to fossilize the status quo, but to provide direction for future growth and development … it was … intended … as a foundation for a developing social contract.. Motunui-Waitara Report (1983) P 52. (The Treaty was intended to facilitate the annexation of the North Island as the first step to bringing law an order into a lawless uncivilised growing colony. Other sentiments as expressed here are for conforming to a written contract for social order. The Treaty was an acknowledgement of Maori existence, of their prior occupation of the land and of an intent that the Maori presence would remain and be respected.. Orakei Report (1987) P 183 . Acknowledging possession of parts of the land. The remainder was ceded absolutely). . . The Treaty is “a basic constitutional document: Ngai Tahu Report (1991) P 224 [Not yet it isn’t!)
Vote:Why a guide? – Government commitments
July 29th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
John Tamihere was Chief Executive of New Zealand! Why wasn’t I told?
Vote:July 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Sorry the balancing side in bold italics does not come through the processs. They are determined by brackets instead. These are only 3 of the 27 subjects analysed that are submitted. It appears to be a kind of propaganda distributer to Maori only. My opinion wqas submitted somehow before I had achance to edit it. My apologies.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Redbaiter
“Its not really a partisan issue Jimmy.”
Fine you’re right. It isn’t. Even Phil u at whoar is pissed about it.
“…just after being booted out of parliament…john (’meow!’) tamihire was given an uncontested contract..for $55,000..
and what did tamihere have to do for his 55 grand..?..um!..not much..
this advice/contract to be for a period of two months only..(25 grand a month….6+ grand a week..(sweet..!..eh..?..)
and with no milestones/work/output requirements for tamihere…(nothing too arduous..!..eh..?..)..”
“There’s not much point in referring to some dark distant legend from almost two decades ago in the delusion that there’s somehow some comparison.”
It was barely fifteen years since they bought and sold Tranzrail earning a tidy sum in the process. The delusion is that you can expect anything has changed since then. Tamihere is small fry in comparsion to the “conflict of interest” that was part and parcel of the deals between those crooks and the government of the day. I would be an interesting exercise to compare the names on Labour and National party rolls today and back then to see how closely they match up. Honestly I’m not too keen to find out. I think it would be pretty depressing reading.
“Its whether you think what Te Puni Kokiri has done is right or wrong Jimmy.”
Its uncontestable mate. Whoever is responsible for this farce must be sacked.
I’ve lost count of revelations regarding cases of conflict of interest within the public sector. So no Farrar Te Puni Korkiri ,lamentably, does not have disimilar levels of accountability to other public institutions.
Porcupine
“They use it as another form of wealth redistribution, and of course the iwi elite that the governments have created is much easier to deal with than the rabble.”
I agree. Its the oldest trick in the book. How else was the Roman Empire able to survive for over 400 years?
“Also it ensures that the money wont filter down to the rabble and fuel inflation.”
Na its about control. The best way to control the scarcity value of a commodity is tax it. Thus imposing an artificial scarcity on it. The best ways to contract and thus increase the value of money is a) tax it, and b) hike interest rates.
Thats the thing thats not understood by most well-meaning socialists.
I believe you’ve alluded to the writings of Dr. Elizabeth Rata in previous comments. Shes a very thought provoking academic. Gives me something else to be pissed about. As if I don’t have enough! lol.
http://www.anewnz.org.nz/paper_comments.asp?paperid=92
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:32 am
It’s the policy of “Indirect Rule” at work.
An imperial government handpicks suitably venial natives and by generously lining their pockets and stroking their egos ensures that they spastically dance when their strings are pulled.
Is it effective? Yes.
Is it democratic? No.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I agree Elizabeth Rata’s writings are thought provoking. Well put JamesE and Flashman – your comments are keepers!
another little snip from the Dariymple article:
‘British citizens pay obscenely large amounts of taxes, but get less and less in return for this, except an increasingly hostile state: “The National Health Service, where bureaucracies have hugely expanded and entwined their interests so closely with those of private suppliers and consultancies that it is difficult to distinguish public from private any longer. Spending on the NHS has increased by two and a half times in the space of 10 years; yet it is hard to see any corresponding improvement in the service, other than in the standard of living of those who work in it.” ‘
Sound familiar?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 11:19 am
The problem is when anyone trys to point out examples of bad governance the usual suspects start shouting conspiracy theorist in order to shut down the messenger. Corruption is a continum At one end we have the used oncers in the browm paper bag and at the other we have the very subtle nudge nudge wink wink with often no words spoken between the parties.IN NZ we tend towards the latter end of the continum.
The citizens are generally pretty naive to what goes on. NZers are a very trusting bunch and so are easily conned.
We aint the squeaky clean little paradise we try and paint ourselves. Politics the Civil Service and business all have their dark secrets. Its up to those who dont accept that bad governance and corrupt behaviour should be tolerated to keep speaking up and speaking out even when the deniers and perpertrators try and outshout them.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I don’t understand the problem here David, at least from the text of your post. According to your post he was not Chief Exec of the agency doing the hiring, only of the two organisations around which the government needed information. If he was Chief Exec of the hiring party and the hired party, that’s a problem. But that’s not what you’re saying.
Vote: