While many will appreciate his dogged championing of such businesses and the economic benefits they bring, there should be some doubts about whether his extreme enthusiasm for assisting mining companies could lead to improper or even corrupted decision-making.
The problem is that the interests of the mining companies aren’t necessarily the interests of New Zealand as a whole – often, what’s good for business can be terrible for others. That’s why we have rules to make decision-making more transparent. One rule is that ministers must publish details of all their meetings, including with lobbyists and business executives.
However, Jones failed to declare a meeting with mining bosses back in February, and he’s still being unapologetic about his cosy dealings with business leaders, as well as his lax transparency about lobbying.
However, Jones failed to declare a meeting with mining bosses back in February, and he’s still being unapologetic about his cosy dealings with business leaders, as well as his lax transparency about lobbying.
Jones has been caught improperly withholding ministerial diary entries
Shane Jones continues to thumb his nose at the need for transparency in the activities of Cabinet ministers such as himself. In particular, Jones’ contemptuous attitude towards publishing complete and accurate records in his ministerial diaries is ringing alarm bells.
There has been one particularly egregious case where Jones continues to prove unreliable and suspect. This relates to a meeting he held with mining executives in February, which Jones didn’t initially record in his ministerial diaries and has since given implausible explanations for getting wrong.
As Minister for Regional Development and Resources, Jones visited the West Coast in mid-February. His Beehive office scheduled a dinner meeting with three mining company bosses, during which Jones explained the Government’s upcoming Fast-Track resource consenting processes.
The meeting was organised four days earlier by Jones’ ministerial private secretary, John Doorbar, who emailed invitations to Bathurst Resources chief executive Richard Tacon, Federation Mining vice president Simon Delander, and Barry Bragg of the Stevenson Group. The email read: “Hon Shane Jones, Minister for Resources, is in Westport on Friday February 16 and was wondering if you would like to join him for dinner along with other mining sector people”.
Some attempt was made by the secretary to make the meeting informal and keep the restaurant bill off Ministerial Services books: “This is an informal dinner, and it would be appreciated if you could pick up your share of the costs if you attend.” Nonetheless, it was also clear that this was a meeting concerning Jones’ ministerial Resources portfolio, as the email invitation was extended to “you or someone else” at the respective mining companies. Therefore, it wasn’t just about catching up with friends. In fact, all three mining executives were members of the Straterra lobby group.
The four met at Westport’s Donaldo’s Cafe and Beach Bar. Following the dinner, one of the mining bosses, Barry Bragg, wrote a letter to Christopher Bishop (also copying in Jones) about his company’s proposed Te Kuha opencast coal mine project that the courts have blocked. Bragg wrote: “I had dinner with Resources and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones last Friday and he suggested I write to you to ask that the Te Kuha coal project be considered for listing in the fast-track and one-stop shop bill.”
This letter was discovered by Newsroom journalist David Williams, who had made an Official Information Act request about communications on the Fast-Track bill. He then noticed that Jones had not declared the February meeting in his official Ministerial Diaries.
These diaries, which have been in place since 2018, detail all the meetings that ministers have as ministers. They are released as a transparency mechanism to allow the public to scrutinise the government's decision-making and be aware of any influence of potential vested interests.
When asked why Jones had omitted the mining meeting from his published diaries, Jones explained that it was simply due to his office being unaware of the spontaneous meeting: “When I had a dinner with Barry Bragg down on the West Coast, it was very much a last-minute thing, because I was in the middle of nowhere.”
Jones changed his story the next day, saying that his office had actually been in contact with Bragg and that the dinner meeting involved the two other mining executives. Explaining the failure to declare the meeting, Jones said: “To be honest with you, less conspiracy more cock-up – and inattention in our office.”
Should the public expect further diary omissions by Jones?
Shane Jones has been far from contrite about his diary omissions. For example, in discussing the issue last month, he complained to RNZ that conflicts of interest are too often “catastrophised” in the media. And he dismissed the mining dinner controversy, saying “I'm not too bothered by these political games of trivial pursuits, it's a relatively minor detail.”
Jones also gives little indication that he is prepared to keep to the rules or spirit of the meeting disclosure rules. In fact, he seems contemptuous or purposefully opaque in his orientation to the transparency requirements.
For example, Jones makes it clear that there might be further “unscheduled” last-minute meetings with mining executives that he also won’t put in the diary. He has said that he classifies some ministerial meetings as being informal and therefore not required to be declared: “I met with the leader of the mining industry this morning, and when I go to the rugby or go have a beer or go fishing I may bump into people who have a connection with mining. And that's not going to change.”
The Minister is also a fan of citing his different political roles – or the hats he wears – as a reason to classify some engagements that don’t need to be publicly declared: “Of course, it depends on what pōtae I wear. A pōtae is a cap. Some caps are NZ First, some caps are ministerial… Some matters are not declared... in the diary because they represent the political connections between NZ First and the other governing parties.”
Jones needs to front up
Shane Jones is correct that politicians wear different hats, and the roles of ministers and MPs overlap. However, the public can’t have much confidence in Jones’ ability to discern the differences, given his track record. He seems too inclined to rule that specific meetings don’t need to be declared because they are regarded as “informal” or as the Minister wearing his “MP hat”.
The public’s confidence in Jones’ judgement should also be dented by the Minister’s
unwillingness to answer further questions about these issues. Newsroom’s David Williams has asked [Jones’ office how he could have described the dinner as “last-minute”, and whether its status as “informal” was an attempt to dodge disclosure rules. Also, how often did his staff organise “informal” meetings?”]
Jones’ ministerial press secretary, Lucy Bennett, has responded to such inquiries with a simple note: “As Minister Jones told journalists on 27 June, the omission of the dinner from his diary was cock-up rather than conspiracy, and it has now been fixed in the diary. The matter is now closed.”
Usually journalists don’t cite the names of the public officials in ministerial offices, giving them the privilege of anonymity. But this is now changing, as journalists seem to feel that these spin doctors have moved beyond being public servants into being political players in their own right.
Whether Ministers’ offices will get away with asserting that such an essential issue of political integrity is “now closed” will be interesting to see. Will journalists continue to hold Jones to account and scrutinise his connections with mining, or is the issue not sufficiently interesting enough to the public?
“Reverse lobbying”
Jones is not shy about declaring that he’s close to vested interest and business. He takes a hawkish approach when challenged, saying he makes no apologies for being close to the business interests in his various portfolios. For example, last month, he declared: “I am a pro-industry champion”. And when accused of being too close to mining interests, he replied, “I would have thought I was more cosy with the fishing people”.
Jones is also keen to emphasize that he often contacts industry leaders rather than having them lobby him. Nicola Toki, the chief executive of Forest & Bird, has labelled this “reverse lobbying.”
The Minister emphasises that he likes to reach out to and hear from as many voices as possible on his portfolios. Therefore his dinner meeting with mining bosses in Westport isn’t so significant. And he’s been backed up on this by lobby group Straterra – its chief executive Josie Vidal told Newsroom that “Ministers take advice from many corners, so one dinner does not give people any kind of extraordinary advantage.” She praises Jones for being “very engaged” with the industry.
Vidal also claims that in terms of the Westport dinner, the media has, therefore, “made much of very little”. Furthermore, she is full of praise for Jones for being so outwardly engaged: “It is entirely appropriate for the minister to meet people informally as he travels around the country… This dinner was early in the coalition Government’s term, shortly after the makeup of the Government was confirmed, and an excellent opportunity for industry engagement for a recently elected minister.”
According to communications released this week by Jones’ office, the mining industry was also so keen on getting Jones back to the coast for further meetings and to visit their mining operations that they offered to hire a helicopter for him. An email from Federation Mining vice president Simon Delander, who was one of the three who met Jones for dinner in February, said to Jones’ staff: “We did indicate to the minister on Friday evening that Bathurst and Federation are happy to share the cost of a helicopter to move between sites to cut down travel time and allow a good overview of the mining on the coast.”
Such arrangements and offers should fuel further questions about conflicts of interest, or at least their perception. However, the most critical issue here is that all these meetings are made public. It’s a simple case of the public’s right to open government.
The right of the public to know what their government is doing is an age-old part of democracy, with the desire for transparency becoming more critical over time. It helps the public and the media keep an eye on corruption or abuse of office. Yet some politicians are reluctant to fully comply with the rules or spirit of the transparency measures. Shane Jones is one of those politicians.
Dr Bryce Edwards is a politics lecturer at Victoria University and director of Critical Politics, a project focused on researching New Zealand politics and society. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.