Hodgson Pete: General Debate 
Hodgson Pete: General Debate 
[Volume:662;Page:10329] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 In June of last year Environment Canterbury paid a visit accompanied by the police to the property of Mr Tim Smith and 21 charges were subsequently brought against Mr Smith who has subsequently pleaded guilty on all counts. Mr Smith’s brother is the Hon Dr Nick Smith the Minister for the Environment who has recently sponsored legislation through this House sacking Environment Canterbury. A conflict of interest therefore arises. The conflict arises because the  
Cabinet Manual 
 says so. It says so very clearly. 
Let me quote paragraph 2.60. Paragraph 2.60 states: “A conflict of interest may be pecuniary … or non-pecuniary (concerning for example a member of the Minister’s family.) A conflict of interest may be direct or indirect.” So a conflict of interest is there all right but the question is how the conflict was handled. Again the  
Cabinet Manual 
 gives us some guidance. It states that when a conflict of interest arises and it does not impinge on the Minister’s own portfolio then the Minister should declare the conflict of interest. It then states: “Having declared the interest the Minister should either withdraw from the discussion or seek the agreement of colleagues to continue to take part.” So if it is not within the Minister’s own portfolio that the conflict of interest arises the conflict should still be declared and the Minister may or may not choose to leave the Cabinet meeting. 
In this case the conflict of interest directly impinged on the Minister for the Environment’s portfolio. Indeed it was probably the most important thing on his plate at the time. At the time there was probably no bigger issue in the environment portfolio than whether to sack a rather large regional council. Again the  
Cabinet Manual  
gives guidance as to what to do in those circumstances. Paragraph 2.70(c) states: “A Minister with a conflict of interest concerning a particular issue within his or her portfolio may with the agreement of the Prime Minister transfer responsibility for that issue to another Minister.” I know because I have had issues transferred from me or to me on many different occasions—more than a dozen I would think. 
I do not think that that happened in this case. I do not think that the Minister for the Environment transferred the portfolio; I will say why in a minute. It is important to note that a conflict of interest does not cause the Minister to behave badly. The fact that a conflict of interest arises does not mean that the Minister necessarily performs badly in pursuit of that conflict of interest but what does matter is that the Minister cannot say that he did not behave badly because he did not take himself out of the action in respect of this conflict of interest. That is bad Cabinet practice—pure and simple. 
How can I be sure when I do not sit around the Cabinet table that the Minister did not transfer responsibility to another Minister? Well because legislation resulted and the legislation was in the name of the Minister and the Minister involved was the Minister in the chair in this Chamber during the Committee stage and was the predominant Minister shepherding the legislation through. That is really bad practice. It is not just a sort of bad manners thing; it leaves the Minister vulnerable to the accusation that he did behave badly and it leaves him vulnerable to not being able to prove that he did not. 
That sort of thing is becoming a feature of this Government. We saw it just yesterday in the House with the Minister of Agriculture and the response that the Prime Minister gave to a series of questions from a member of the Green Party. I am putting on the table my concern about the slackness of Cabinet processes in this Government. I do not think that conflicts of interest have been managed at all well in this Government. They can be very awkward. They can be very awkward. When dealing with Maori land issues sometimes half the frigging Cabinet used to get up and leave including a bunch of Pakehas. That certainly was the case with the South Island Landless Maoris legislation I was responsible for. Certainly if something involving Brierley’s arose 10 years ago there would be a bit of a railway station effect as Cabinet Ministers left. I do not think that is happening in this Cabinet. 
I think that this Cabinet is taking an easy approach to managing conflicts of interest and I am putting this on the record now because I intend to question the Prime Minister as time goes on about the management of conflicts of interest in this Government. I do not think it is up to scratch. I do not think enough attention is being paid to the propriety of governance decisions.