Do the Conservatives support the death penalty?

The Sensible Sentencing Trust's Garth McVicar is standing for the Conservative Party. I guess they're a natural fit for a vicious bigot who thinks same-sex marriage causes crime. But then there's this from NewstalkZB's Felix Marwick:

McVicar describes himself as a reluctant candidate. Says it's the only way he can get changes other parties refuse to make

Like perhaps the death penalty? Because in addition to being a bigot, McVicar backs judicial murder.

I think journalists should be asking Colin Craig where his party stands on capital punishment...

No deal

Its official: National won't be cutting an electorate deal with the Conservatives this election. I guess they figured out that a Colin Craig - Winston Peters deathmatch in East Coast Bays might not go their way - or that snuggling up to the fundies might drive people away from National.

As for Craig, he now gets to stand or fall on his own merits. Which on current polling means fall. Meanwhile, parties which get fewer votes will enjoy representation. While I don't like the Conservatives or what they stand for, that's unfair and undemocratic. We need to get rid of the threshhold so that our electoral outcomes won't be distorted like this.

Seriously conflicted II

In July 2012, Christine Rankin - a member of the Families Commission - joined the board of the Conservative Party. Did she tell her employer about this massive conflict of interest? Of course not:

We have no record that the Families Commission was aware of any additional conflicts of interest apart from those disclosed by Ms Rankin between 2009 and 2011.

While the register of interests is a standard agenda item updated at each Board meeting, the Families Commission was not aware of Ms Rankin's political party involvement prior to Monday 6 May 2013. On that date Ms Rankin emailed the interim Chief Commissioner and advised that she would be acting as Chief Executive of the Conservative party. A copy of the email is attached.

Ms Rankin's term ended shortly after this date so we did not provide advice on managing this issue.

That email is a perfect example of Rankin's arrogance: she informs the Commission of a conflict of interest "just out of courtesy". She goes on

I wouldn't normally let you know about TLC's contracts but as this is a political party of which I am a board member I thought I should. Feel free to call of this causes any concern.

The Families Commission was apparently not concerned, but the rest of the public service was. When MSD heard of it - after the public announcement - they immediately asked SSC for advice. The SSC advised that the conflict was not manageable, and Rankin left 4 days later.

This is an appalling example of lax oversight by the Families Commission and its Minister, Paula Bennett. At the same time, it also appears to involve active deceit from Rankin. How could she not think that high-level involvement in a political party - and a political party with extremely strong views on "the family" - would be a conflict of interest? Or did she really think that because she laundered the relationship though a corporate shell, the conflict disappeared?

Either way, the Families Commission needs a shakeup, so that they can recognise a conflict of interest and act appropriately. And it raises a question: how many other such conflicts have gone unnoticed, because our Crown Entities are stacked with cranks and party hacks unfamiliar with the ethical obligations of public service?

[Thanks to Alex Harris on FYI for following this up]

Update: It gets worse: according to a clarification on that FYI request, the Families Commission did not tell MSD that Rankin had become CEO of a political party. They learned about it from the media. Someone needs sacking for this.

Nonexistent oversight

If a senior state servant such as a Crown Entity board member joins the board of a political party, you'd expect their Minister to be informed of the conflict of interest and the measures which are being taken to manage it, right? Not if you work for Paula Bennett.

The senior state servant in question was Christine Rankin, who back in May announced that she had accepted a position as Chief Executive of the Conservative Party (oh, and that she'd been on its board since July 2012). This appears to have blindsided MSD, who didn't ask the State Services Commission for advice on the conflict of interest until after the position had been announced. And via FYI again, Paula Bennett seems to have been blissfully unaware of it:

I can advise that, apart from when Ms Rankin was first appointed a member of the Families Commission in 2009, I have not received any written advice concerning any conflicts of interest she may, or may not, have.

I am aware that Ministry officials had discussions with the State Services Commission in the week ending 10 May 2013 concerning Ms Rankin's appointment as Chief Executive of the Conservative Party. Those discussions took place at a time when I was in the process of replacing Ms Rankin as a member of the Families Commission.

But more important is what else she was blissfully unaware of. Rankin joined the board of the Conservative Party in July 2012. And no-one bothered to raise this with the Minister. While no-one has requested MSD or the Families Commission's end of things, IMHO it would be unbelievable for them not to have made her aware of it if they knew. This implies that Rankin did not tell them of a major conflict of interest involving her position.

But quite apart from any dishonesty on Rankin's part, this also tells us that Bennett's "oversight" of her portfolio is simply non-existent.

Seriously conflicted

Back in May, then-Families Commissioner Christine Rankin took up a position as CEO of the Conservative Party. At the time I thought that this was a serious conflict of interest. Now, via FYI, I learn that the State Services Commission agreed [PDF]:

SSC has no documentary advice on this matter however on 10 May 2013 SSC's view was sought by officials of the Ministry of Social Development in discussion concerning the appointment of Ms Rankin as CEO of the Conservative Party while undertaking her role as a Families Commissioner.

The State Services Commission's expressed view was that there was a conflict and that it was not one that was manageable. This view was communicated in discussion with Ministry officials on the same day. The State Services Commission did not provide advice directly to the Minister for Social Development.

Ms Rankin did not inform the State Services Commission of her intention to take up the role of CEO of the Conservative Party, nor of her membership of the Board of the Conservative Party, and the State Services Commission did not provide advice to her on this matter.

Rankin left the Families Commission 4 days later, but note the dates: MSD didn't ask for advice until the appointment had already been publicly announced - suggesting that she sprung it on them by surprise. Meanwhile the absence of any similar request for advice on the board position is worrying, and may mean that she didn't tell them about it at all. There's apparently a parallel request in with Paula Bennett for her end of the story, and it will be fascinating to see what comes out, and whether she acted effectively in recognising and managing Rankin's conflicts.

A conflict of interest

One of the core requirements on New Zealand public servants is political neutrality. Public servants must be impartial in enacting the policies of the government of the day and not bring their politics into their work. As the guidance on this notes, this is as much about perception and the sensitivities of politicians to dealing with "the enemy" as it is about professionalism:

If we hold a prominent decision-making position in our organisation and take part in high-profile activities that are not directly related to our job, we risk a public perception that we are not able to work in a disinterested, public spirited and politically neutral way. There may be disbelief that we can separate our personal and professional lives. Public trust in our impartiality can be affected. The confidence that the Government or future Ministers have in our organisation can be undermined in the same way. A consequence is that we must always consider the way our actions may be perceived by reasonable observers, and accept that our official responsibilities may place some constraints on the way we exercise our personal freedoms.

For junior public servants, this doesn't matter much. Its a different story with senior ones, however; the need to maintain the confidence of present and future governments effectively rules out any political involvement at all:

We must maintain in our non-working lives the level of political neutrality that is appropriate for the responsibilities we have. Those of us in very senior positions may be required to have a very low level of involvement, perhaps with our interest being discernible only by a visit to a polling station on election day.

The requirement of political neutrality applies to most Crown Entities. So imagine my surprise to learn that Families Commissioner Christine Rankin firstly has been a board member of the Conservative party for the last six months, and secondly that she's just been made its CEO. While Rankin's position is now temporary (her term has expired and is being renewed on a monthly basis), and I have been informed that she will not be reappointed in the next appointment round, these positions are highly inappropriate for a board member of a Crown Entity. They represent a fundamental conflict of interest for someone in her position, and call her - and by extension the Commission's - ability to impartially serve the government of the day into question. She should resign immediately, and be sacked if she does not.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy

In 2011, former United Future MP Larry Baldock ran as a candidate for Colin Craig's Conservative Party. And now he's been referred to police for filing a false election expenses return, and for exceeding the $25,000 limit on candidate election expenses. If done knowingly, then each is a corrupt practice, with a penalty of 2 years imprisonment. otherwise they are merely illegal practices, subject to a $40,000 fine.

Of course, we know what will happen: the police will take the complaint, and then forget about it, just as they have with virtually every other complaint referred to them by the Electoral Commission. The police simply don't care about electoral law. If you steal a television, they'll throw you in jail. Try to steal an election, and they ignore it.

The risks of political promiscuity

So, just two days after John Key signals that he's willing to crawl into bed with the Conservatives, Conservative leader Colin Craig reminds everyone of why we are suspicious of Christian parties:

New Zealand has the "most promiscuous young women in the world" and the Government should not be providing free contraception for those who choose to sleep around, Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says.

[...]

Mr Craig said international research showed young Kiwi women are sleeping around and living what he called a "destructive lifestyle".

"We are faced with a reality that the constant changing of partners is a decision young women are making. It's a destructive decision on a lot of levels. Health is one of those, and it is a big cost to us."

So, according to Craig:

• All New Zealand women are sluts
• Only people who sleep around need contraception
• Health costs are reduced by forcing people to become pregnant

And remember, John Key wants you to vote for this crazy, so he can stay in power.

A shift

With ACT now a walking corpse, National is looking for potential coalition partners for the future, and has signalled that it could work with Colin Craig's Conservative Party. It makes sense for National - parties with no friends simply don't get to be government - but it would mean quite a shift. Most obviously, the Conservatives are anti-privatisation - meaning that any future National / Conservative coalition wouldn't be selling New Zealand assets. Which may explain why National are so keen to sell stuff now: because it’ll be the last chance they get.

The other problem is of course that the Conservatives are a Christian Party, led by a pro-child-beating fundamentalist, and staffed largely by former members of the Kiwi Party (who in turn were the Christian faction within United Future, and before that called themselves the Christian Democrats). While we've seen some of these people in Parliament before, its fair to say that it was because they were very quiet (some might even say "deceptive") about their beliefs. The New Zealand electorate tends to be quite suspicious of explicitly religious parties, and so climbing into bed with one is a political risk for National. And actively endorsing a Conservative candidate, in the way they have repeatedly endorsed ACT in Epsom, could backfire badly. But when you're a big party with no friends, you don't really have many options.