Minister rejects conflict of interest assertion

Environment Minister Nick Smith has rejected assertions made in Parliament that he should have stood aside from legislation that was introduced to sack Environment Canterbury because his brother last year pleaded guilty to charges brought by the council.

Dr Smith was in charge of the legislation and earlier this year the council was sacked and replaced by commissioners because the government didn't consider it was properly handling the region's water supplies.

Labour MP Pete Hodgson, speaking during the general debate today, said that in June last year Environment Canterbury, accompanied by police, visited the property of Tim Smith and 21 charges were subsequently laid against him.

Mr Hodgson said Mr Smith subsequently pleaded guilty on all counts.

"Mr Smith's brother is Dr Nick Smith, the Minister for the Environment, who has recently sponsored legislation through this House sacking Environment Canterbury," Mr Hodgson said.

"A conflict of interest therefore arises."

A spokesman for Dr Smith said the minister "rejects any assertion that he had a conflict of interest or in any way breached the Cabinet Manual.

"Dr Smith maintains he has been scrupulous throughout his political career in keeping his public responsibilities separate from the fact he has seven siblings of whom five are involved in the construction business," the spokesman said.

"He does not share his brother's views nor is he responsible for them."

The spokesman said Dr Smith was unaware of any Environment Canterbury prosecution involving any sibling until after the cabinet had made decisions on the council.

"Dr Smith is disappointed that Labour has chosen to drag family members into political debate," the spokesman said.

In Parliament, Mr Hodgson quoted from the Cabinet Manual, which he said showed clearly that Dr Smith was in a conflict of interest situation.

"It says 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," he said.

"So a conflict of interest is there alright, but the question is how was the conflict of interest handled?"

Mr Hodgson said the Cabinet Manuel stated that a minister with a conflict of interest in his or her portfolio could, with the agreement of the prime minister, transfer responsibility for the issue involved to another minister.

"I do not think that happened in this case. I do not think the Minister for the Environment transferred the portfolio," Mr Hodgson said.

"That is really bad practice. It leaves the minister vulnerable to the accusation that he did behave badly and it leaves him vulnerable to not being able to prove he did not."

Mr Hodgson said he did not think the government was handling ministerial conflicts of interest properly.

"I don't think it is up to scratch. I don't think that there is enough attention to the propriety of government decisions," he said.