Conflicts of interest: Avoiding

Simply declaring a conflict of interest may not be enough. A public entity should carefully consider what, if anything, needs to be done to adequately avoid or mitigate the effects of a conflict of interest.

Where there is a clear legal requirement or other written rule covering the situation (such as a statutory prohibition on participating in a matter at a meeting), the onus to comply lies with the member or official concerned, and that rule may override any other discretion. However, in all other cases the primary obligation to determine the appropriate next steps (and to direct the affected member or official accordingly) lies with the public entity.

There may be scope for a range of options and the exercise of discretionary judgement. In these cases, the public entity needs to assess carefully:

• the seriousness of the conflict of interest; and
  
• the range of possible mitigation options.
  

The assessment is not primarily about the risk that misconduct will occur. It is about the seriousness of the connection between the interests, the risk that a public entity's capacity to make decisions lawfully and fairly may be compromised, and the risk that an entity's reputation may be damaged. In making this assessment, the public entity needs to consider how the situation may reasonably appear to an outside observer.

Usually, mitigation means that the member or official withdraws or is excluded from being involved in a public entity's work on the particular matter.

In the interests of openness and fairness (and to minimise the risk of the public entity having to defend itself against an allegation of impropriety), it is always safer to err on the side of caution.

In short... If you have some form of interest in an industry that promotes frost fan use, it behoves you and the public entity that you are involved with to ensure that you are not involved in deliberations or planning for their use.