Shane Jones has come under fire for an undeclared dinner with mining interests.
An article from Newsroom reveals that the dinner was excluded from his ministerial diary, Jones saying that the dinner was “informal” and “last-minute”.
He then corrected himself, saying the dinner was arranged in advance.
When questioned why the dinner wasn’t in the dairy, Jones said it was “less conspiracy more cock-up - and inattention in our office,” promising to tighten the administration of the diary for the future.
Julie Haggie, CEO of Transparency International NZ, told Kerre Woodham that transparency is absolutely necessary, especially when the Minister wants to use a social license to take a considerable amount of power to make decisions.
She said the issue is fast tracking sets up a situation where ministries are referring cases, but there’s limited opportunity for review, limited advice, and limited challenge, which is quite a concentration of power.
Haggie said that the power shifts from the Government agency and Minister, and so much greater transparency and more accountability is very important.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerrywood and Morning's podcast from news Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be if you heard me yesterday. I am concerned
about Resource Minister Shane Jones playing fast and loose with
newsroom reporters about a dinner on the West Coast. The
newsroom piece reveals Minister Jones misled the public about dinner
with mining companies that he didn't declare and said wasn't
prayer arranged. Oops. Later he corrected the record, saying yes, well.
(00:34):
Emails from the Minister's office were sent inviting the heads
of three mining companies to dinner in Westport four days
before the event. The event, the minister previously said the
meeting was very much a last minute thing, not a conspiracy,
more a cock up, said Resource Minister Shane Jones. It's
not good enough, especially given that he has form presiding
(00:55):
over a slush fund that had such poor accounting that
the Auditor General had no idea whether the money spent
was good value or not. None. Not a one to discuss.
I'm joined by Transparency International New Zealand CEO Julie Haggy.
Good very good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Good morning, Carrie.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
It is concerning isn't it that, Like, I know, it's
a little thing, a little thing, not recording the meeting,
but if you're going to have fast track consenting, then
the record keeping has to be absolutely scrupulous.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
I think you've absolutely nailed it. It's sort of like
a minor the merit point on your social license. Yes, okay,
it was near. It was near. He said, it's an
eraror he had lots of other meetings with mining and
fishing and oil industry things throughout that whole of that month.
So all of that was declared and put into the
diary so you could accept that. You know, it's a
(01:50):
mistake and error. And I guess the question is was
there anything trying to be hidden by it? You know,
that's the sort of question that you're after. And so
it sits somewhere on a saying it's an era through
to its favoritism. That's your sort of your sort of
spectrum of what you're looking at, you know, and and
and so that's the that's the kind of issue. Yes,
(02:12):
transparency is absolutely necessary, especially in light of the fact
that the minister wants to use a social license to
take a considerable amount of power to make decisions and
and and that separation of powers thing is going to
disappear if they act goes through, and it's in its
draft and so and so it will face a large
amount of power in the in the hands of somebody
(02:34):
who's then meeting with people. And so you do get
that perception coming through. So that's really that is you're right,
that's it's a question.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
I mean, if he wants to have unprecedented powers to
consent to think, then he has to be like Caesar's wife,
not just doing right, but being seen to do right.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Yes, and and the problem is that whole fast Track
Bill does rather set up a situation because you're because
the Ministry is referring cases because you know, he made
the suggestion that they thing. So there's the referring cases
and then there and then there's limited opportunity for review,
and then there's limited advice being given to them, and
then limited challenge and and and they over wrote other
(03:17):
types of legislation. All of that is quite a concentration
of power, and it's concentration of power above where it
would usually usually that would serve at at the government
agency level, and the Minister would have a sort of
final say on things, you know, and on the general
policy whereas this is shifting that. And because of that,
the need for much greater transparency and more accountability in
(03:41):
that in that process is also very important. And and
and the Minister may you know, I understand he wants
to get to grips with his portfolio. That's really understandable.
He came in on that platform so of of of
you know, really invigorating mining and forestry and fisheries and
into all the natural resources. So he came in on that.
That's that he has. He has a license to do
(04:03):
that sort of thing from you know, from his vote.
But the question is how much how much does he
how far did he go with that without breaking the
public trust. That's and I know he's aware of that
issue because I've heard him use the term social license.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yeah, but it's also the fact that he still hasn't
really accounted for the last slush fund and he's on
a jolly around the country promoting the next one when
the Auditor General said that there was no idea whether
it was value for money or not because of the
poor record keeping. And you're the titular head of that
slush slush fund, then you're given another one plus fast
(04:41):
track consenting. You need to have somebody in there that
keeps an eye on the coins, like an old fashioned
EA we used to have in television. You would have
thought it was her money. Every cent had to be
accounted for and there was hell to pay if you
didn't have the receipts.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Yes, I mean, you know, accounting for the value of
we're talking about the value of things, or just that
the money was Yeah, yeah, that's right. Yeah, I mean
the accounting for the actual elements of projects as vital.
Accounting for the for the value for what they've where
they've actually achieved what they set out to do is
even more important. And I'm said, we're not very good
(05:21):
at that across our major infrastructure projects, but certainly that
accounting for projects is really important, and that and that
flows through to no matter what, no matter what projects
is undertaken, but especially in one where there's been a
limited opportunity for safe, fair competition or or challenge to things,
(05:43):
so it becomes particularly important that there's not unfettered access
to and that organizations don't get a sort of VIP
route to natural resources.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Absolutely, I mean, he's a very very bright man. We
all know that, and he wants to get things done
and I well understand that, but he cannot be so arrogant.
It's to not appoint somebody that is good at the
at the boring stuff, at the detail.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
He must Well, we just have to hope that that
part of it is that the Select Committee comes back
with some really strong, much stronger accountability mechanisms which have
been which have been recommended by multiple parties that have
submitted that on that bill. Lots in order to general
and many other organizations have submitted and said you've got
(06:27):
to increase your accountability mechanisms in this and also your
ability to challenge. And we would say it's not actually
it's an appropriate in terms of the amount of power
being taken up in the first place. But but yeah,
that's right. The accountability mechanisms must be built into it.
I mean, that's the sort of thing where you look
at a Rruption Perceptions Index and that kind of view
(06:49):
where what people have, which is about perceptions about where
people's views of things sit. And those questions do come in.
One of the questions that is asked not by Transmits International,
but those contributing surveys to the Corruption perceptions indexes that
are the clear procedures and acountability governing the allocation and
use of public funds. And you can also add public
(07:09):
resources into that, and that is what that's one of
those key elements where people feel, is it being done fairly,
is it accountable? Can we see the pathway? And that's critical.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Really Well, that hasn't been happening over the last few years,
that's for sure, and I don't want to see it continue.
I did that. Cabinet Minister Chris Bishop, who's one of
the one of the superpowers, said the government was a
where ministerial conflicts of interests could arise but dismiss them
rather aily with a oh, they'll be carefully managed in
accordance with Cabinet Manual guidance. Is that enough?
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Well, it's interesting to you look at the Cabinet Manual
Guidance because it has been added. It has been pumped
up a little bit more recently to talk specifically about
a minister needing to take care because they because they
have to be making a collective decision and not just
an penits decision, to be clear that they're not being
become associated with non governmental organizations or community groups where
(08:06):
the group's objectives may conflict with the government policy, or
the organization is a lobby group, or the organization receives
or applies to government funding. That could also be read
as a sort of project, you know, natural resource use.
So that is pumped up right because there's been added
quite recently, and perhaps it's something that ministers are now
having to get to grips with. It happened after that,
(08:28):
then came in after the Nash issue, and I think
that's something that ministers really need to understand and get
to grips with and to make sure they're applying that
in practice. It's not just a matter of having a
piece of paper that's there as a matter of actually
asking for advice from the partner, the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
(08:48):
They do do advice to ministers all the time on
the issues around conflict of interest and actually investigating and
considering their own position in relation to the decisions and
the power that they have.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
So how hard will it be for you to get
information to keep an eye on the process. Are they
being quite good about offering up information?
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Yes, well, I mean we're not doing we haven't done
a lot of you know, haven't done the individual sort
of investigations. That's not what we do. But then God
for the media, Thank God for the o I A,
thank God for independent organizations like like the Order to
General and the Ombodsman and and thank God for civil society.
Actually a should be saying okay, what are you what
(09:32):
are you doing, and people saying okay, we want more accountability.
So that's the critical thing. You know, organizations like us,
but other organizations as well saying hey, we need to
see this being fair. And the Minister also should be
seen to be open to having conversations with other organizations,
so that that that element of that Cabinet manual has
(09:53):
an implication that they're that they're open to being to
having a variety of views being put to them, and
we should be seeing that in the Minister's diary. We
should be seeing that coming through that they're open to
having those separate conversations and not just going on a
single pathway.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Nice to talk, Julie Julie Hagy, Transparency International New Zealand CEO.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings, listen live to news Talks.
It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio,
You're listening to the Kerrywood and Morning's podcast from news Talks.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be if you heard me yesterday. I am concerned
about Resource Minister Shane Jones playing fast and loose with
newsroom reporters about a dinner on the West Coast. The
newsroom piece reveals Minister Jones misled the public about dinner
with mining companies that he didn't declare and said wasn't
prayer arranged. Oops. Later he corrected the record, saying yes, well.
(00:34):
Emails from the Minister's office were sent inviting the heads
of three mining companies to dinner in Westport four days
before the event. The event, the minister previously said the
meeting was very much a last minute thing, not a conspiracy,
more a cock up, said Resource Minister Shane Jones. It's
not good enough, especially given that he has form presiding
(00:55):
over a slush fund that had such poor accounting that
the Auditor General had no idea whether the money spent
was good value or not. None. Not a one to discuss.
I'm joined by Transparency International New Zealand CEO Julie Haggy.
Good very good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
Good morning, Carrie.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
It is concerning isn't it that, Like, I know, it's
a little thing, a little thing, not recording the meeting,
but if you're going to have fast track consenting, then
the record keeping has to be absolutely scrupulous.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
I think you've absolutely nailed it. It's sort of like
a minor the merit point on your social license. Yes, okay,
it was near. It was near. He said, it's an
eraror he had lots of other meetings with mining and
fishing and oil industry things throughout that whole of that month.
So all of that was declared and put into the
diary so you could accept that. You know, it's a
(01:50):
mistake and error. And I guess the question is was
there anything trying to be hidden by it? You know,
that's the sort of question that you're after. And so
it sits somewhere on a saying it's an era through
to its favoritism. That's your sort of your sort of
spectrum of what you're looking at, you know, and and
and so that's the that's the kind of issue. Yes,
(02:12):
transparency is absolutely necessary, especially in light of the fact
that the minister wants to use a social license to
take a considerable amount of power to make decisions and
and and that separation of powers thing is going to
disappear if they act goes through, and it's in its
draft and so and so it will face a large
amount of power in the in the hands of somebody
(02:34):
who's then meeting with people. And so you do get
that perception coming through. So that's really that is you're right,
that's it's a question.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
I mean, if he wants to have unprecedented powers to
consent to think, then he has to be like Caesar's wife,
not just doing right, but being seen to do right.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Yes, and and the problem is that whole fast Track
Bill does rather set up a situation because you're because
the Ministry is referring cases because you know, he made
the suggestion that they thing. So there's the referring cases
and then there and then there's limited opportunity for review,
and then there's limited advice being given to them, and
then limited challenge and and and they over wrote other
(03:17):
types of legislation. All of that is quite a concentration
of power, and it's concentration of power above where it
would usually usually that would serve at at the government
agency level, and the Minister would have a sort of
final say on things, you know, and on the general
policy whereas this is shifting that. And because of that,
the need for much greater transparency and more accountability in
(03:41):
that in that process is also very important. And and
and the Minister may you know, I understand he wants
to get to grips with his portfolio. That's really understandable.
He came in on that platform so of of of
you know, really invigorating mining and forestry and fisheries and
into all the natural resources. So he came in on that.
That's that he has. He has a license to do
(04:03):
that sort of thing from you know, from his vote.
But the question is how much how much does he
how far did he go with that without breaking the
public trust. That's and I know he's aware of that
issue because I've heard him use the term social license.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yeah, but it's also the fact that he still hasn't
really accounted for the last slush fund and he's on
a jolly around the country promoting the next one when
the Auditor General said that there was no idea whether
it was value for money or not because of the
poor record keeping. And you're the titular head of that
slush slush fund, then you're given another one plus fast
(04:41):
track consenting. You need to have somebody in there that
keeps an eye on the coins, like an old fashioned
EA we used to have in television. You would have
thought it was her money. Every cent had to be
accounted for and there was hell to pay if you
didn't have the receipts.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Yes, I mean, you know, accounting for the value of
we're talking about the value of things, or just that
the money was Yeah, yeah, that's right. Yeah, I mean
the accounting for the actual elements of projects as vital.
Accounting for the for the value for what they've where
they've actually achieved what they set out to do is
even more important. And I'm said, we're not very good
(05:21):
at that across our major infrastructure projects, but certainly that
accounting for projects is really important, and that and that
flows through to no matter what, no matter what projects
is undertaken, but especially in one where there's been a
limited opportunity for safe, fair competition or or challenge to things,
(05:43):
so it becomes particularly important that there's not unfettered access
to and that organizations don't get a sort of VIP
route to natural resources.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Absolutely, I mean, he's a very very bright man. We
all know that, and he wants to get things done
and I well understand that, but he cannot be so arrogant.
It's to not appoint somebody that is good at the
at the boring stuff, at the detail.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
He must Well, we just have to hope that that
part of it is that the Select Committee comes back
with some really strong, much stronger accountability mechanisms which have
been which have been recommended by multiple parties that have
submitted that on that bill. Lots in order to general
and many other organizations have submitted and said you've got
(06:27):
to increase your accountability mechanisms in this and also your
ability to challenge. And we would say it's not actually
it's an appropriate in terms of the amount of power
being taken up in the first place. But but yeah,
that's right. The accountability mechanisms must be built into it.
I mean, that's the sort of thing where you look
at a Rruption Perceptions Index and that kind of view
(06:49):
where what people have, which is about perceptions about where
people's views of things sit. And those questions do come in.
One of the questions that is asked not by Transmits International,
but those contributing surveys to the Corruption perceptions indexes that
are the clear procedures and acountability governing the allocation and
use of public funds. And you can also add public
(07:09):
resources into that, and that is what that's one of
those key elements where people feel, is it being done fairly,
is it accountable? Can we see the pathway? And that's critical.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Really Well, that hasn't been happening over the last few years,
that's for sure, and I don't want to see it continue.
I did that. Cabinet Minister Chris Bishop, who's one of
the one of the superpowers, said the government was a
where ministerial conflicts of interests could arise but dismiss them
rather aily with a oh, they'll be carefully managed in
accordance with Cabinet Manual guidance. Is that enough?
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Well, it's interesting to you look at the Cabinet Manual
Guidance because it has been added. It has been pumped
up a little bit more recently to talk specifically about
a minister needing to take care because they because they
have to be making a collective decision and not just
an penits decision, to be clear that they're not being
become associated with non governmental organizations or community groups where
(08:06):
the group's objectives may conflict with the government policy, or
the organization is a lobby group, or the organization receives
or applies to government funding. That could also be read
as a sort of project, you know, natural resource use.
So that is pumped up right because there's been added
quite recently, and perhaps it's something that ministers are now
having to get to grips with. It happened after that,
(08:28):
then came in after the Nash issue, and I think
that's something that ministers really need to understand and get
to grips with and to make sure they're applying that
in practice. It's not just a matter of having a
piece of paper that's there as a matter of actually
asking for advice from the partner, the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
(08:48):
They do do advice to ministers all the time on
the issues around conflict of interest and actually investigating and
considering their own position in relation to the decisions and
the power that they have.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
So how hard will it be for you to get
information to keep an eye on the process. Are they
being quite good about offering up information?
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Yes, well, I mean we're not doing we haven't done
a lot of you know, haven't done the individual sort
of investigations. That's not what we do. But then God
for the media, Thank God for the o I A,
thank God for independent organizations like like the Order to
General and the Ombodsman and and thank God for civil society.
Actually a should be saying okay, what are you what
(09:32):
are you doing, and people saying okay, we want more accountability.
So that's the critical thing. You know, organizations like us,
but other organizations as well saying hey, we need to
see this being fair. And the Minister also should be
seen to be open to having conversations with other organizations,
so that that that element of that Cabinet manual has
(09:53):
an implication that they're that they're open to being to
having a variety of views being put to them, and
we should be seeing that in the Minister's diary. We
should be seeing that coming through that they're open to
having those separate conversations and not just going on a
single pathway.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Nice to talk, Julie Julie Hagy, Transparency International New Zealand CEO.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings, listen live to news Talks.
It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.