I don't think some sort of "roving ambassador" post counts. The only way they could elevate that role would be to create a special government office on some Pacific island, and even then one could argue that a "post" is the sole NZG diplomatic presence in a state, so could not be in a place where we already have one.
Or if the appointment is really to an international fisheries organisation.
But even then: while heads of misison/post are appointed by the G-G (which means on Ministerial Advice), that doesn't mean that the decision is entirely in the discretion of the Minister. To point out the obvious: these people are employees of MFAT. And that means that the decision on who to employ and on what terms is rightly one for the Chief Executive, on which they are statutorily independent. McCully can say "we need a new ambassador to X", but he can't say "and I have just the man for the job".
No Right Turn takes the opposite view -- that the absence of a Labour-Green campaign coalition will give National more scope for mischief, because National will be able to define the relationship itself. This seems counter-intuitive to me -- surely National would be more likely to make hay out of the fact of a formal coalition?
National will cricise them regardless. The difference is that without a formal alliance, it is National which gets to frame what a Labour-Green government will do, rather than them getting a chance to frame it themselves.
Edit to add: Or to put it another way: the "Labour beholden to loony Greens" narrative will exist regardless (hell, even Labour people are spreading it here). The benefit of a formal alliance is that you get to put up your counternarrative. The current situation - a public denial of what everyone implicitly understands to be the case - prevents Labour from doing that.
For those in those businesses delaying that loss by even a short period of time can mean millions in profit.
And, more importantly, that they get their bonus for this quarter.
It'd be a start, I think, if we asked "young people" (that being an amorphous blob, like "the gays") why they aren't voting.
Obvious answer: because most of them aren't legally allowed to. The law tells them at a crucial time that their political views don't count. Is it any wonder they react accordingly?
So hot curries never existed until the Portuguese and Spanish brought back chillies. It makes sense then that there are quite a few authentic curries that have no heat at all - they are "just" blends of spices.
Ginger, pepper, and mustard seeds.
The foreground ones, shaped more like a small capsicum, sent me into convulsions, to the amusement of my children, when I made the mistake of taking a large bite.
They look like jalapenos; not actually that hot on the scoville scale, but they're big, so I guess you can get a lot of pain from one big bite.
(My garden is full of them after I failed to eat them all one year; now I have them as weeds)
Ethically and politically, of course, it is truly abhorrent.
Yes. And that's what I'm focusing on.
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.