Talk:David Parker (New Zealand politician)

Article inaccurate as it stands
Gadfium, at the moment the article reads too much like a hagiography, which would be fine if it were accurate. But if you study s196(2) of the NZ Companies Act, it will quickly become apparent that the Companies Office investigation clearing Parker on the filing of false returns was 'ultra vires'.

That's because the defence hinged on the letter purporting to waive all future requirements for a shareholder resolution on audits. That much is common ground and uncontroversial.

But s196(2) states that any resolution lapses after one year, and must be renewed afresh in writing each year. Thus, it was legally impossible for the Companies Office and Crown solicitors to find the letter was effective as an ongoing defence for Parker. The Official Assignee had no legal power to waive future audit requirements with one letter.

Whilst the media and the government painted it as such, you won't find a lawyer specialising in the Companies Act in NZ who will support that analysis, given s196(2).

Given that, there are quite serious implications: ie, that the Companies Office investigation was a whitewash, particularly as Investigate's website predicted the precise outcome and grounds for clearance, three weeks before the report was released and two weeks before the Crown solicitor's office was even asked to provide a legal opinion.

It may be a point of fact that the Companies Office cleared Parker. But it is equally a point of fact that it had no legal basis for doing so. This, I submit, needs to be reflected in the article because, as I said, it is currently inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.232.46 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At present about half the article (3 paragraphs) deals with this incident. It is hardly a hagiography when half the article is critical, and you want to expand it to be two-thirds of the article! For someone who was a Cabinet Minister and the Attorney-General, this seems excessive. The solution is to expand the article to cover more of his life and career, not to expand this particular incident. I also suspect that you are not neutral on this subject; changing "This left no case to answer" to "According to the Government and the Companies Office, this allegedly left no case to answer" seems to be adding the maximum possible doubt to a clear finding by adding both the "According to" and the "allegedly". I suggest you try expanding to the article to at least double its present length with details of his life and career before you try expanding this incident again.- gadfium 08:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding the words "According to the Government and the Companies Office etc" is a more accurate statement than the one you have left us with. It clearly sources the "no case to answer". At the moment, you are editorialising, effectively pronouncing innocence on your own authority. Which would be fine, if you happened to be right. I ask you again to read s196(2), and tell me how your statement makes legal sense. There is an Emperor's Clothes issue here. Just because a government, or a government agency, declares something to be so, does not of itself make it so. If you wish to make blanket claims such as "no case to answer", you need to be able to justify it.

Your comment "...that he had received an exemption from seeking unanimous shareholder agreement..." is wrong, because no such exemption exists in law. I refer again to s196(2). The Wikipedia article is factually, demonstrably wrong. Likewise, your comment earlier in the piece, "...after publicity around his filing (as one of three shareholders) of an incorrect declaration..." is also inadvertently misleading, because it suggests Parker's actions boil down to a one third split of the blame in a collective error by shareholders. It wasn't. He was the Director of the company. He was tasked with filing the Annual Return for the relevant years. He was tasked with getting written approval from shareholders. The blame was entirely his, as a Director.

With respect, "half the article" is not critical. As it currently reads it is a strawman based largely on the declarations of the NZ Government. You raise the fact of his resignation, but find he was entirely innocent of all claims.

I have pointed out to you the actual law, and my reasons for including it as a factual anchor. Wikipedia should not be a forum merely for press releases from either side. Parker's exemption letter has no weight in law - something even the Crown Solicitor's opinion was forced to admit in the final paragraphs of his analysis.

You can let the article stand as it is if you wish, it's currently your name on it and no skin off my nose. But it is not accurate. Perhaps the issue is not about expanding this particular segment, but merely refining it to more accurately reflect the law. Read the Companies Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.232.46 (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reduced the amount of material to a more appropriate level. The remaining material reflects the New Zealand Herald coverage, which says "a Companies Office inquiry emphatically cleared him of filing false returns".- gadfium 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's better than it was. The Herald reporter was unfortunately a little wet behind the ears and hadn't joined the dots to the Companies Act... The Companies Office "investigation" was straight out of "Yes Minister". It was so cunning it was almost art.

So whilst the Herald might have called it "emphatic", it was only because the journalist didn't know the law.

This comment from lawyer Stephen Franks illustrates my point:

"...the opinion which “cleared” him was rubbish..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.232.46 (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where can I find that quote from Franks? We can't quote from the Companies Act, that would be Original research, but we can quote someone giving their interpretation of the Act as it relates to this case, so long as it was published in a reliable source.- gadfium 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DavidParkerNZ.jpg
Image:DavidParkerNZ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Parker (New Zealand politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001195125/http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents/Files/Ministerial%20List.DOC to http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents/Files/Ministerial%20List.DOC
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211164936/http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-58.html to http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-58.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Date of resignation wrong
The article incorrectly lists the 25th of July 2023 as the date of Parker's resignation when he actually resigned on 24th (Ministerial List as of the 24th). The reason given for his resignation was not revealed until the 25th and it did not receive substantial media attention until this point. 138.235.70.20 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)