As far as I’m aware, there’s nothing preventing any politician or political party voluntarily over-sharing instead of trying to game already weak rules. It’s not only bad on principle, but as you say bad politics.
Yes. And I'm surprised that the Greens (who advocate change in this area) don't. What happened to being the change you want to see in the world?
According to the bits in the Cabinet Manual that have been put front-and-centre with Collins' indiscretions, that perceived conflict is a big problem.
Yes, it is.
And the Cabinet manual is online; you can read the sections on conduct and conflicts of interest here.
No Right Turn says she declared no interests as an MP and it's unclear whether her declarations as a minister were sufficient.
I should add: Adams' press secretary has provided some answers, and it appears she has behaved ethically in regards to Central Plains Water. As for the wider issue of the Canterbury dictatorship, I'd still like to see some answers on that.
I'm kind of amazed at how vague her ministerial declarations were allowed to be.
They wouldn't have been. I've linked to Cabinet office's summary of those declarations, which sanitises all relevant details, so we don't even know which companies to look out for.
But its all on DocumentCloud now, so we can annotate them in if we can find sources.
That's pretty big news. Trouble is, neither David Cunliffe or Russel Norman actually say that -- or anything of the kind -- in the report.
Which is pretty sensible, as giving a straight answer either way would render their actions open to judicial review for bias or pre-determination.
But mostly: I don't think the Electoral Commission would have bothered here had not Bomber's dumb free wi-fi plan come to light. He's quite the political strategist.
I guess this is what not paying him $8,000 a month gets you.
legitimate anonymous donations
You lost me about there. These people gave sufficiently large donations that Parliament has legislated that they should be disclosed. They got around that by manipulating their affairs. They deliberately laundered their donations to evade the law. And that is the very opposite of "good faith".
TV3 just mentioned that one of the alleged rapists is the son of a police officer. And suddenly, everything becomes clear...
Doesn't the alleged serial gang-rape of minors warrant that kind of investigation?
It certainly permits it; surveillance warrants are available for any crime with a penalty of 7 years imprisonment, and there's no limit on the use of production orders. Hell, they used the latter to seize Bradley Ambrose's privileged emails and texts on the bullshit teapot tapes case; it would be nice if they used it to investigate real crime.
I genuinely don’t understand why no charges can be laid unless a victim makes a complaint.
Well, it makes it very difficult to bring a successful prosecution in a rape case (and its difficult enough when the victim is willing to testify, because rapists love to put their victims on trial). But given what's been said publicly, they should be able to start with conspiracy to commit rape (7 year sentence) and move on from there.