Senator Donovan Dela Cruz has come under scrutiny for voting multiple times in favor of House Bill 496, a measure aimed at safeguarding māmaki tea, while also owning a māmaki tea business himself.
This bill, which received near-unanimous support from state legislators, mandates that only packages containing 100% māmaki grown in Hawaiʻi can bear the term “māmaki” on their labeling.
Māmaki tea is derived from a plant native to the Hawaiian Islands and is increasingly recognized for its potential economic significance as a locally grown cash crop.
Dela Cruz is a proprietor of Kilani Brew, a company dedicated to producing high-quality, locally sourced tea, with a specific focus on māmaki tea, which retails for $14 for a loose leaf pouch and $15 for a tea bag pouch.
Headquartered in Wahiawā, a region Dela Cruz represents in the Senate, Kilani Brew allows him to directly influence legislation that may economically benefit his business.
Despite the clear potential for a conflict of interest, Dela Cruz did not seek clarification from Senate President Ron Kouchi about whether he should recuse himself from voting, as required by Senate rules.
Senate guidelines stipulate that members must refrain from voting on legislation that presents a direct financial interest in the matter — defined as affecting the legislator’s personal business or financial interests.
Although Dela Cruz’s financial disclosure mentions his tea business, he did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding his votes on the bill.
Interestingly, other senators indicated awareness of his potential conflict but hesitated to voice concerns given Dela Cruz’s influential role in the Senate’s legislation and appropriations processes.
Only one other senator, Glenn Wakai, opposed the bill during the voting process.
Governor Josh Green is now considering whether to veto the māmaki tea bill, as it raises significant labeling requirements that some believe could harm small businesses involved in blending māmaki with other locally sourced ingredients.
The governor’s office expressed worry that these guidelines could negatively affect producers who responsibly mix various tea leaves.
The debate surrounding HB 496 has generated significant grassroots mobilization from farmers who are passionately advocating against a potential veto.
As Green’s deadline to decide approaches on July 9, the implications of the bill are causing intense discussion among stakeholders and the community.
The situation around Dela Cruz’s votes brings to light broader questions about how lawmakers assess and navigate conflicts of interest when considering legislation.
Within recent years, the issue of transparency and ethical conduct has gained increased attention within the Legislature, particularly after two former lawmakers faced charges related to bribery.
In response, a House committee recommended changes to conflict-of-interest guidelines, aiming to promote public trust in governance.
While the House took significant steps to amend its conflict-of-interest regulations in the wake of these events, the Senate has not followed suit.
For example, the current House rules encourage members to manage their personal interests to minimize voting in situations where a conflict could arise.
Conversely, the Senate’s rules are less defined in practice when evaluating conflicts of interest.
Despite Dela Cruz’s actions, no senator in the 2025 session publicly sought a ruling on their potential conflicts of interest — a stark contrast to House members who often requested clarifications.
In at least ten instances during the session, House members approached legislative leaders to confirm their status regarding conflicts, prompting detailed discussions about ethics and conduct.
Representative Della Au Belatti, for instance, abstained from voting on a significant claims bill due to her professional ties to a law firm involved in one of the claims.
Belatti proactively sought guidance based on her situation, demonstrating an awareness of the importance of transparency in governance.
In other cases, various representatives disclosed their ties to ensure they were acting in accordance with ethical standards, even when those ties initially appeared to present no conflict.
Overall, the responses in the House regarding potential conflicts highlight the varying approaches legislators take in addressing similar situations.
Dela Cruz’s case serves as a reminder of the need for clearer guidelines regarding conflicts of interest, particularly as the māmaki tea industry continues to develop in Hawaiʻi.
While some argue that the bill is essential for ensuring quality and authenticity as interest in māmaki tea surges, Dela Cruz’s involvement raises ethical questions about the legislative process and its openness.
As discussions continue to unfold, the integrity of regulatory frameworks concerning conflicts of interest will likely remain a focal point for public discourse and potential reform in Hawaiʻi’s governmental structures.
image source from：civilbeat
