Dissenting Views
Stuff has an NZPA story on the abolition of the SFO. Not surprisingly the former Director is very criticial of the move, and disagrees with it.
The worrying aspect for me isn’t that the Government took a different view to officials, but that they went out of their way to shut down dissenting views internally. The part that concerns me most is:
Ministers would not see him and a final Cabinet paper on this issue did not mention any of the SFO’s concerns, despite his requests for them to be included.
It is normal for dissenting opinions to be included in Cabinet papers.
Again I stress there is nothing wrong with Ministers not following the advice of officials. That is why we have Ministers – to decide.
But when Ministers will refuse to meet an agency CEO to discuss something as fundamental as the future of that agency? That is pigheadedness and arrogance.
And when the Cabinet paper doesn’t canvass all the pros and cons of an issues, but pretends there no no dissenting opinions – that is a very bad thing. When the agency being abolished specifically requests its views to be included – and this is denied – that is even worse.
Ministers can and should disagree with officials. But when Ministers tell officials to only include views they want to hear – then you have a significant politicisation of the public service.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Lets here more about the background on this one. I cant believe you’d want to amalgamate a SFO function with the police, the coppers dont have the background.
And I fail to understand why you may want to amalgamate the intelligence services with the SFO function, judge jury and executioner scenario.
Grudge match?
July 11th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Sounds like more corruption on the part of Labour MP’s.
Maybe a few of them intend to head into “business” after the election and this will insure that they are treated with the same level of immunity they have come to expect as Labour party members.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Not only that, but you don’t actually make very good decisions when you’re surrounded by courtiers and courtesans who aren’t going to test and refine your ideas by challenging them, or providing other perspectives that you probably aren’t going to agree with but contain worthwhile insights all the same.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Absolutely agree with expat, let’s get some sunlight on this. This proposal came out of the blue, the office did not appear to be broken, it appears on the surface to be the wrong decision to abolish it and now we’re seeing pretty fundamental procedural flaws in the execution.
Who proposed the change, who drove it through and why? Something looks mighty odd here.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
having made submissions on this on behalf of my organisation it appears the current government is continuing its hands off approach to corporpate crime and corproate governance in general In other postings I have pointed out that the attitude is that its mostly Nat and Act supporters who lose their money so what the hell
This governemnt has taken the most irresponsible attitude towards corporate matters. Indeed FATF and OECD have both issues scathing reports( see their websites) on NZs failure to comply with international standards.
We are a laughing stock and at overseas meetings I get wacked around the head about when the hell is the govenment going to get real.
As we speak the Aust government is tightening up its processes around incorporating companies whilst our Minister tells me that its not necessary in NZ and it wont happen as we live in a benign environment.
tell that to the poor smucks who lost their shirts in the finance company rorts
Oh I forgot Their only Nat and Act supporters so they deserved it. Right.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“Get some sunlight you say”, Reid.
Absolutely agree,– let’s get some sunlight on this
(in fact a Royal Commission set on by the Governor General due to Cabinet misuse of Ministerial Royal Warrants !!!!!!!)
This whole move to disband the SFO has a very dark and sinister undertone to it.
I am predicting that
a) The Govt wanted to axe them following the Pledgecard and Auditor General exposing the Electoral funding rort as they are the only agency that had the power and could compel witnesses to give evidence.
b) A number of complaints were filed against the Labour Party and therefore the SFO definitely needed to go-(They were probably waiting for a sellable reason to dupe the public into believing that they needed to go anyway)
July 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
polemic
I dont know whether its as sinister as you say but I do believe from what Ive seen that the Socialists dont have any appetiate for going after white collar criminals and certainly dont have any interest or understanding of what constitutes good or bad corporate governance.
Mind you some will say given their own governance behaviour this is not surprising.
sadly we do live in an interconnected business world and so if NZ business wants to maximise its opportunities it must demonstrate good governance and have a government that enforces good governance.
China (PRC) government has a superior corporate governance model and code than NZs and they are enforcing it strongly.
Like 10 plus years in prison for corporate offences that dont even get prosecuted in NZ
July 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Interesting gd and polemic and I’m even more curious now.
It’s one thing to be agnostic, and quite another to be atheistic about something. Liarbore must have known something like the SFO wouldn’t disappear quietly, they must have known their decision would be closely scrutinized.
So in my thinking, they must have either had a good reason that justified to them the heat they would take on it, or it’s a monumental fuck-up.
Is it possible there was a power-grab in play here, with the Police (who seem sometimes to be slightly too close to this govt) making a territorial advance?
Is it possible Liarbore actually believed their public justification – to better tackle organised crime. Certainly Goff was vehement in his advocacy of that position last night on the news.
Is it possible that Goff has been setup by the SisterHood?
July 11th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
It will be one of the actually interesting battles to watch play out.