Amy Adams in very serious conflict of interest
James Dann at Rebuilding Christchurch has published a shocking investigation this morning, about potential abuse of Ministerial office by the Minister of the Environment, Amy Adams. The basic sequence of events is:
In 2010, the government sacked the democratically elected representatives serving on ECan, replacing it with government appointees.
In 2013, Adams as Minister for the Environment was part of a decision to extend the government appointees’ mandate to 2016. In doing so, she specifically cited freshwater management issues as a reason for extending the mandate, saying: “”It is critical for New Zealand that the planning governance structure for Environment Canterbury is stable, effective and efficient. To keep the freshwater management work on track, we intend to retain the limited appeal rights on decisions made by Environment Canterbury on plans and policy statements relating to freshwater management.”
At the same time Adams part owns a company, along with her husband, that holds over 800 shares in Central Plains Water Limited, a firm that stands to directly benefit from the government appointees’ ongoing programme of “freshwater management work” and the “limited appeal rights” in the current setup. Several other shareholders in Central Plains Water Limited have the last name Adams and live near Amy Adams’ home.
Adams also owns two farms that will receive better irrigation, and will increase in value, as a result of Cantral Plains Water schemes that are government-funded to the tune of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
As Dann concludes:
The Central Plains Water scheme would not have been viable if the National government had not passed the ECan bill in 2010. The value of land with access to water for irrigation is greater than land which does not. Adams owns a large amount of land which is within the CPW water scheme, and also owns shares in the scheme itself. It is difficult not to conclude that the actions of this government, including Adams and Carter, have benefitted their farming portfolios.
This raises very serious questions about Amy Adams’ conduct as Minister for the Environment. It is possible, of course, that there is a perfectly innocent expanation for these unlikely coincidences. But before believing that, I think the public needs to know:
Does Amy Adams stand to benefit, either through increased land value for her farms or from increased share value in her firms, from the government-funded irrigation work in the Canterbury Plains?
Did Amy Adams recuse herself from all cabinet and caucus discussions that were related to ECan and the Central Plains Water scheme?
Did Amy Adams delegate authority to another Minister to make all decisions in the environment portfolio that relate to ECan, the current government-appointed commissioners, or the Central Plains Water scheme?
If the answer to (1) is “yes,” and the answer to either of the other questions is anything other than “100% yes,” then Amy Adams has been taking part in government decision-making that directly benefits her and her family.
If she has taken part in those decisions, and stands to benefit from them, then she has to resign.