More on Amy Adams
Yesterday, we discovered that Amy Adams owns part of Canterbury Plains Water (CPW), a firm running irrigation schemes in Canterbury. This revelation is significant because it exposes two potential avenues through which Adams could use her public office to benefit herself, her husband, and other family members. These two avenues are:
- Participating in government decisions explicitly about CPW.
- Participating in government decisions about the management of freshwater resources in Canterbury, which affect CPW’s profitability and the value of its shares, creating a conflict of interest under the Cabinet Manual (2.61).
On the first issue, Adams claims she has recused herself from the one Cabinet decision specifically related to CPW and delegated her authority in that area to Gerry Brownlee. Documents from the Cabinet Office appear to support this claim.
However, on the second issue, it seems Adams has been actively involved in government decisions affecting CPW’s profitability. For instance, Adams fronted the government’s decision to extend the ECan commissioners’ terms to 2016. She even specifically praised the Commissioners’ changes to freshwater management rules, which have made approvals easier for CPW.
This represents a clear conflict of interest. As Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams played a leading role in government decision-making about who would regulate irrigation projects in Canterbury, including those run by CPW. Her role included briefing the media on the decision she had been part of and the reasons for it. Adams herself noted that she preferred the way the Commissioners were regulating the freshwater management sector and cited this as a reason for keeping the ECan Commissioners on longer.
Amy Adams should not have been involved in the decision to extend the term of the ECan Commissioners, as that decision affects CPW’s profitability. But she was.
Amy Adams should not have been advocating—publicly or privately—for a more permissive approval process around freshwater resources in Canterbury, as that approval process affects CPW’s profitability. But she did.
These are serious questions about Amy Adams’ judgment and propriety as a Minister. While she had the good sense to absent herself from one Cabinet-level discussion specifically about CPW, it is clear she has done little to manage the conflict between her Ministerial role overseeing the regulators of the Canterbury irrigation industry and her private role as part-owner of a Canterbury irrigation firm. There can be no place at the Cabinet table for individuals who cannot recognize such conflicts.