Urgent Debates — Hon Shane Jones—Provincial Growth Fund, Conflict of Interest

I’ve received a letter from the Hon Paul Goldsmith seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the involvement of the Hon Shane Jones in a decision to fund a project in which he had identified a conflict of interest. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. It is very important that the public has confidence in the conduct of Ministers and, to this end, that any conflicts of interest they have are well managed. Answering for the management of such conflicts is at the core of executive accountability to the House.

In considering this application, I took account of the fact that Mr Jones identified the conflict of interest in the project funding application, gave undertakings including to this House that he would not and had not been involved in meetings that involved decisions on the project, but did in fact participate in a meeting about the application. At that meeting he reportedly gave an assurance about the governance of the project. I make no judgment about whether that assurance influenced the decision of other Ministers. In making this decision, I’m applying as precedent the decision of my predecessor, the Rt Hon David Carter, on the application by Grant Robertson exactly five years ago today. Having carefully considered the application, I have decided to allow the debate. I therefore call on the Hon Paul Goldsmith to move that this House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.

I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

So, here we have Shane Jones saying it’s all a beat-up. He’s like Mr Schultz: “I see nothing. I see nothing. I went into the room. I was part of the debate. I gave reassurances to the Minister of Finance. But I had my fingers in my ears and I didn’t hear a word I was saying.” That’s the approach that he is taking. He cannot seem to fathom the basic idea that if he is given responsibility for spending $3 billion of taxpayers’ money around the country, including $100 million in the Northland electorate—where he is based; where he claims to know everybody, to have deep connections across the community—he should be absolutely focused on ensuring that there is no perceived conflict of interest in the way that he hands out that money. What we’ve seen in that response—in his answers today in the House and in the press—is he has no concept of what a conflict of interest actually is and how to manage it, and that is why it is important that this House considers this fully.

So let’s go back, by way of background, to what we’re talking about here. So in November 2007, Shane Jones declared a conflict of interest with the Cabinet Office relating to a proposed cultural centre in Ōpōnoni, called Manea Footprints of Kupe. The nature of the conflict wasn’t publicly disclosed at the time. We weren’t quite sure what it was. So what is this project? It’s a proposed cultural centre and museum in Ōpōnoni, north of Auckland, to tell stories about the Māori ancestors of Northland. It’s a worthwhile thing, wonderful to see. A charitable limited liability company, Manea Footprints of Kupe Ltd, was established to own and run the centre, and that company is owned by Te Hua O Te Kawariki Trust.

Now, following this, on 23 February 2018, that project received $4.6 million of funding from the Provincial Growth Fund. Now, when we asked the Minister a question in the House on 5 April about it, Minister Jones stated that he had delegated responsibility to Minister Davis where the project was concerned, but written questions further confirmed that Minister Jones had withdrawn fully from the decision-making process, and he further stated he had not attended any meeting at any point in relation to the project. Then, in reply to the question which I quoted into the House, he said, “I raised my conflict of interest with the Cabinet Office in November 2018 and indicated I would not be involved in any decision to grant funding to the project under the Provincial Growth Fund.” Well—and then to our great shock and surprise and horror, we discovered, in Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) documents released to the Sunday Star-Times this weekend, that Minister Jones had indeed attended a meeting relating to the project, and he had reassured Minister Robertson, the Minister of Finance, and the other Ministers on matters relating to the project, to the point that the funding was approved.

Now, obviously, this doesn’t align with the answer that he’s given. We don’t know the details of the conflict and we don’t know the extent to which the Minister was involved in the funding decisions, and just saying that “I didn’t sign the document and hand over the money” is no answer. Being in the room—it is a reasonable question to assume that if the Minister wasn’t there and hadn’t given the reassurances to the Minister of Finance and the others in the room, that the project wouldn’t have got the funding.

What would have happened if he hadn’t have been there? The likelihood is that—the briefing from Treasury and the advice from Treasury was not to fund it because it didn’t stack up for a whole host of reasons. So if he wasn’t in the room, providing that reassurance, it probably wouldn’t have been funded.

💬 Darroch Ball: Stop guessing.

Well, we don’t know, and it will be interesting to know. But the point is: he was there.

💬 Darroch Ball: You’re making it up.

So there are two key issues here—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

💬 Darroch Ball: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member will do it when I sit down and he will do it clearly, and it’s a ruling that I want to reinforce to members in the House. Members cannot use that expression.

💬 Darroch Ball: I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, there are two key issues that I wanted to traverse this afternoon. One is the nature of conflicts of interests and how Mr Jones manages the perceived or actual conflicts of interests in doling out $3 billion, especially $100 million in Northland, where, as he’s said so many times, he has deep connections, knows everybody, and also has political goals. How does he do that while maintaining the confidence of New Zealanders that he is not acting in a way that is conflicted? Secondly, the second issue is about his truthfulness to this Parliament when he answers a question saying he wasn’t involved, wasn’t there, and we find out that he was.

So let’s go through the first. Ministers should always, of course, be careful when they’re spending taxpayers’ money. When you’re spending $3 billion you have a great burden of responsibility on your shoulders that you’re going to spend that money wisely. But the first burden that you have is that you’re going to spend it more usefully than the people of New Zealand would have spent it themselves, if they had not had that money taken from them in the first place. So he has a burden of responsibility to ensure that it’s going to be spent wisely. He said that four or five years ago he once met the chief of Waimamaku, Whetū Naera, and he has since died. That is his explanation for the conflict of interest that we are supposed to be talking about here, and that’s what the Prime Minister explained as well.

So an interesting question that I’d love to hear some more detail from the Minister himself is: well, is that the extent of his conflict of interest? Because we don’t know. We know that there was a meeting in the Ōpōnoni pub, where the whole thing was discussed. That was back three or four years ago, and we’d be interested to know who was there. Was it any of the people that have subsequently become directors of the company that will now run the Manea Footprints of Kupe museum or institution that will be established? Two of them are very well-known. We know, for example, that Anton Haagh, the co-owner of the Duke of Marlborough, is now one of the directors. Was he at that meeting at the Ōpōnoni pub? I don’t know. Or Shane Lloyd, the owner through a trust of the land that was sold for the project and now also a director of Manea Footprints of Kupe Ltd—was he also at the Ōpōnoni pub meeting? I don’t know. We need to get to the bottom of the extent to which the nature of the Minister’s conflict is fully understood. So we want to get to the bottom of that.

What exactly was his involvement in the formation of the project? He says that it’s all been made up by Wayne Hutchinson, presumably when he wrote to MBIE in January 2015 saying, “Te Hua O Te Kawariki trustees and the proposed directors of Manea Footprints of Kupe Ltd, under the chairmanship of Hon Shane Jones, have met and discussed the funding application over the Christmas period giving guidance to your response to your letter on 22 December 2014.” So in black and white, Wayne Hutchinson, who is now also, I believe, a director of the company, has said that they all met, they all got together, Shane Jones was the chair, and “We discussed the funding application and we’ve worked away on it.” So Shane Jones says that Wayne Hutchinson was wrong, presumably, in saying that. He’d misunderstood and he’s likened himself to Sonny Bill Williams—as being so famous that everybody wants to have him involved. Well, let’s find out about that.

But what is his exact involvement in the formation of this project, and who does he know, and how is he connected to it—these are the questions, so that we can get a full understanding of why, indeed. He seems genuinely confused in the House. He seemed genuinely confused at question time as to why on earth he declared this conflict of interest. He seems to think that there isn’t actually one; he’s not sure: “Is there a conflict? I don’t know. I don’t know what all the fuss is about.” So that’s a legitimate question for us to get to the bottom of.

I don’t sort of imply that any of the other people involved are doing anything improper in any way, shape, or form. I’m sure they’re all publicly minded people, but it is a question of perception, and it comes to others. The Provincial Growth Fund has also handed out millions of dollars—$6 million to Ngāti Hine’s forestry works. The ones that weren’t mulched are still going to be owned by that Ngāti Hine trust, and the acting CEO of that trust is none other than Pita Paraone, a former New Zealand First MP and on their list. Now, again, I’m sure he’s got the best motivations of heart and he’s doing a great job, and I don’t have any complaints about his efforts, but it’s about perceptions. How is this money being spent, and how is the Minister managing perceptions around conflicts of interest?

Again, we can think of the roundabout: there are roundabouts just down the road from Shane Jones, the $11 million roundabout. Now, there are roundabouts all around the country; there’s a country full of worthy roundabout projects. I’ve been to many of them. I go around a roundabout just about every day myself, in Greenlane, and I’m sure it could be better. So if the whole country—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I feel like the member’s on a roundabout now. I think it would be good to get back to the matter which he put before the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I was making about the roundabout was that the nature of spending $100 million of taxpayers’ money in one region—the Northland region, where the Minister says he has deep connections throughout the community—is a challenging matter in terms of maintaining integrity in the system and Kiwis’ belief in the robustness and appropriateness of that spending. That is the point that the Minister doesn’t seem to be able to grasp, when he thinks it’s all a beat-up and he doesn’t really know why—he indicated that—he should be making some kind of reference to a conflict of interest. So how we manage the conflict of interest is a question. There are serious questions to answer, and we need to know how he’s actually going to manage those conflicts going forward.

The other point is in relation to political ambitions, and that’s slightly unrelated, but he has made no bones about the fact that he’s interested in winning the seat—and good luck to him on that score—but when you talk about spending—[Interruption]

💬 Matt King: Don’t like the way he does it.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Mr King can have a call later.

—$100 million in a particular region, then, again, you have to be able to justify that this is what we’re getting. So the first point is: what is the nature of the conflict of interest exactly, and why did he think that it’s appropriate to be in the room, part of the discussion, reassuring, and, essentially, advocating for the project, having made that conflict of interest?

Then, secondly: why was he so misleading in his answers to Parliament? I’m sure he might come up with some sort of explanation, but it’s very difficult to explain how you can say, “I raised the conflict of interest, and indicated I would not be involved in any decision to grant funding to the project”. Now, we took him at his word when he made that response.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just reflecting, for a moment, on the comment the member just made about deliberately misleading the Parliament.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I don’t think he did say “deliberately”.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, he said the Minister had given answers to the Parliament that were misleading.

💬 SPEAKER: That’s right, and that’s different. It’s a question of deliberately or accidentally, and it is quite an important question. If the member had said “deliberately misleading”, I would have pulled him up.

There you go. So he was misleading, and the question that we have that he has to answer is: what was going on in his mind when that misleading answer came through to me, in response to my trying to understand his involvement in this case?

The final point I wanted to make is the way that the Minister has conducted himself throughout this whole process, because he has been prepared to answer trickily and “slipperyly” in the way that he’s responded to what his involvement was. So the slow trickle of detail coming out of MBIE—and it has been slow, and it has taken an enormous amount of work from my office. We get abused on a regular basis by Shane Jones for asking too many questions. Well, this is what happens when you finally start to put the pressure on for people to be actually open and transparent: eventually, the details come out, and they point out where the Minister has not been full in his explanation and open and transparent about how he’s been engaging in this process.

But the other way that he’s responded, of course, is to go out on full attack with the media. I don’t know why he thinks it’s appropriate to go around attacking journalists and calling a well-respected journalist, Hamish Rutherford, a “bunny boiler”. I’m not quite sure what he’s referring to, but it’s a shocking way to talk about people who are trying to ask basic questions. The only assumption that you can draw from that kind of response from the Minister is that he’s trying to intimidate and bully the press gallery, as he tries to intimidate my office and me, in terms of asking questions to try and get us off the—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The member is making a serious accusation of a breach of privilege. He is not raising it in the proper way. Any attempt to intimidate a member with regard to questions is a clear breach of privilege and it is to be raised properly at the time.

Perhaps that was not quite the right word then. Bullying is another word, I suppose, and if you’re always saying “Don’t trouble me and irritate me by asking all these questions.”, then the clear message is to shove off. That has been the approach that he has taken with the media. To go—in such a personal way—attacking a member of the media over them just doing their job, trying to ask some basic questions around conflicts of interest, and calling them a “bunny boiler”, I think, is a new low for New Zealand politics, frankly. So this Minister has a lot of explaining to do. He needs to take it seriously, and the broader point is that he needs to take the basic issues around conflicts of interest, particularly in Northland, much, much more seriously than he is at the moment. Only time will tell whether he comes up with some reasonable explanations, but he hasn’t shown a good start to it today in the House. Rest assured, we’ll be asking more questions over this week to come. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to respond to the issue that is under debate. The subject matter of the funding application was for a cultural heritage and education centre named Manea Footprints of Kupe, to be sited in Ōpōnoni on the banks of the Hokianga estuary.

The background to that, which the Minister, the Hon Shane Jones, has already stated to the media, is that some period earlier he knew some of the people who were in support of that proposal and, not because he was conflicted because of having a personal financial interest or a family interest in it, he chose to contact the Cabinet Office because he knew particularly well one of the deceased proponents of the scheme but he was uncertain as to how he should deal with that association. He contacted the Cabinet Office, and the Cabinet Office, effectively, didn’t tell him he must declare a conflict of interest, but said, “Look, if you’re feeling uncomfortable about this, maybe you want to.”

Now, I’ve got to say that if this is the test for a conflict of interest, then I think lots of people in this House, including me and the Hon Nick Smith, breached that standard in respect of the Waimea dam. We were aware of that, we knew proponents for it, we advocated for it in Government and in Opposition, and, actually, we both took part in the decision in respect of the funding of the Waimea dam.

But the Hon Shane Jones, in part because he has been under attack and he’s been concerned to protect the reputation of the Provincial Growth Fund against accusations of self-interest, decided that he didn’t want to partake in the decision-making process for this particular application. Now, I was one of the decision-making Ministers, and I have before me—and, at the end of this, I will table it—the document that came to me. It somewhat surprisingly bears the date of 8 April, because it came to me on 31 January, when it was signed out by officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), from the Provincial Growth Fund, who forwarded me the briefing on the issue of whether there should be an investment in the Manea Footprints of Kupe, and that’s proven by the signature of the official from MBIE, dated 30 January 2018.

The meeting that the member, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, complains of was after I’d actually already approved the investment. My approval of the investment was on 7 February 2018, where I agreed to approve the proposal for funding of up to $4,600,000 for the Manea Footprints of Kupe Cultural Heritage and Education Centre from Vote Business, Science and Innovation’s Regional Growth Initiatives’ multi-year appropriation. So the idea that there’s somehow some terrible influence on Ministers in respect of this issue—even if there were a conflict, and, to be perfectly honest, I don’t think that there was a conflict of interest here, but let’s just assume, for argument’s sake, that there really was a real conflict, I certainly wasn’t influenced by the Hon Shane Jones’ comments at a later meeting, because I’d already taken my decision.

I do make the point that we need to be a little bit careful here that we don’t become unrealistic as to what amounts to a conflict of interest. I can understand why the member Shane Jones didn’t want to become involved, because I think he had a feeling of some loyalty to the deceased man who had been one of the people behind this. Now, I know the Hon Shane Jones’ motivation in respect of the Provincial Growth Fund, and I know why he has argued for it to concentrate its efforts in three regions in New Zealand that, for slightly different reasons, have been on hard times.

There are three regions in New Zealand where the Provincial Growth Fund focuses its investment efforts. I’m raising this because the Hon Paul Goldsmith has made assertions that there is undue investment into the North because of the private interest or the political interest of the Hon Shane Jones. Now—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s right.

Well, there we go again; the Hon Gerry Brownlee says that. Now, I don’t know how the National Party can be blind to the fact that the Far North is bedevilled by the highest rate of violence in New Zealand, probably the highest rate of intergenerational welfare dependency, and probably the highest rate of imprisonment of any populations in New Zealand. The other area that’s bedevilled with that particular curse is, actually, the Tai Rāwhiti region, the region around the East Coast. These are two of the three surge regions for the Provincial Growth Fund.

Now, what do you do if you’re trying to overcome a disadvantaged part of New Zealand and you just want to break with the neo-liberal tradition that we’ve had for 20 or 30 years? Actually, you focus a bit of attention on the region. Now, the level of sophistication of what’s going in in the North, I would suggest to the House and to those that are listening, is quite high. We’re supporting not just burgeoning tourism—that’s what this addresses. There is, no doubt, an untapped tourism potential in the North. The more wealthy parts of New Zealand already get more tourism than some of the less wealthy parts. The Far North is one of the most interesting and beautiful and culturally diverse parts of the country, and yet it’s under-serviced by tourism infrastructure, and that’s what this project was intended to address by effectively creating a destination somewhere between, you know, Tāne Māhuta—the great kauri forest as you head up towards the Hokianga—and then as you head further north up to—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s not the point.

Well, the member says, “That’s not the point.” Actually, it is the point of the fund. In respect of the point that the member raises as to somehow misleading either members of Parliament or people who were involved in the approval of this venture, he’s just got it wrong. If he wants me to quote further from the paper that I’ve just quoted, that I signed on 7 February—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why didn’t he leave the room?

—in advance of the meeting that you complain of, Mr Brownlee—recommendation A was that I note that the Minister for Regional Economic Development has declared a conflict of interest and will not receive this proposal for consideration. So I (1) defend the Minister—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why was he in the room?

The member was in the room because we were having a broader discussion about how we were going to make the initial announcements for investments through the Provincial Growth Fund and other approvals that he was interested in. As he has said, and as the Prime Minister has said, given that he did declare a conflict of interest, it probably would have been less controversial if he had stepped outside the room. But I can assure the House, and those who are listening, that that made absolutely no difference to the outcome on this particular application as far as I was concerned, because I had already approved it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I rise to take a call in this debate to clarify two or three main points. The first of those is that the process for deciding upon projects within the Provincial Growth Fund over the $1 million mark involves a group of Ministers assessing those projects and then making final decisions on them. In the case of this particular project, that is the subject of today’s urgent debate on the Manea Footprints of Kupe, it is quite clear that the Hon Shane Jones had no decision-making role—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Rubbish.

That is the critical element. Mr Goldsmith says, “Rubbish.” With respect, Mr Goldsmith, the Ministers who made the decision know the answer to that question. Minister Jones was not a decision maker on that project. His role in the decision making was taken by the Hon Kelvin Davis.

The second clear point that I want to make is that the Cabinet Office give advice to Ministers on the question of conflicts of interest. Just declaring a conflict of interest doesn’t mean that there is a single, blanket response to how to manage that conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest can be managed in a number of different ways. He went along with the advice that he was given. So the management of a conflict of interest does not require a specific and particular outcome. In this case, Mr Jones acknowledged that conflict of interest, it was known to Ministers who were making the decision, and he did not take the decision himself.

The third point relates to the role that I have in this particular set of circumstances—which is the role I take, I might add, in most of the discussions about the Provincial Growth Fund—which is to ensure that issues like governance and the overall commercial arrangements that surround a project are ones that we can be satisfied with. The issue that I raised was around, for example, milestones for the project—who would be managing; who would be looking after those milestones? As has been recorded, Minister Jones provided information about the role of Far North Holdings Ltd—or the Far North District Council, of which Far North Holdings Ltd is a company related to that—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, it gets worse.

It doesn’t get worse, Gerry. This is the actual thing that’s in the media. So Mr Jones provided information about the fact that they were involved in the governance side. That was not information about the proposal or the project; it was about an issue around the governance of the project. That information was received by Ministers and then I made the decision that I would be comfortable to move forward with supporting the project.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: So the information was helpful? The member was influenced.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe it is disorderly to accuse a member of being under outside influence when making a decision.

💬 SPEAKER: I confess to being rapt in the comments that the Minister was making and didn’t take notice of the interjection. I don’t think it’s a problem of being under the influence of someone. The suggestion that someone’s under the direction of someone—if that accusation was made, it will be withdrawn and apologised for; otherwise, we’ll continue.

So, provided with that information, I was able to support the project, ensuring that there were accurate milestones and the proper organisation and governance around it.

This is the way that a conflict of interest can be managed within all of the work that Ministers do. I know, and you made the point, Mr Speaker, earlier today, that we are on the fifth anniversary of another occasion on which issues of conflict of interest came up. Now, I’m not going to go deeply into that—

💬 SPEAKER: No.

—because I’m sure you won’t allow me to do it, but given that you introduced that material when you were announcing that, there are, obviously, different ways of managing conflicts of interest. For example, if one were in a situation where there was direct commercial advantage likely to flow to a person or a close member of their family, the management of that kind of conflict of interest would be quite different from the management of a conflict of interest where a person simply knew people involved in a project and those people wanted that person to continue their involvement but it didn’t happen. That is a quite different matter entirely from a conflict of interest that involves potential commercial gain for a person. As such, those two conflicts will be managed in different ways. This conflict here was managed by the Minister concerned making those involved in the decision making aware of that and then not participating in the decision making. That is an appropriate course of action to manage a conflict of interest.

It is very important to note that Minister Jones had no personal gain from this project—none whatsoever—and to hear Paul Goldsmith in the House assert today that somehow or other Minister Jones cannot be involved in making decisions about an entire region of New Zealand reflects exactly the perspective you would expect from a regional economic development spokesperson coming from the Epsom electorate and not understanding that, in New Zealand, we have regions that for years were ignored by the previous Government. On this side of the House, we have made a commitment to the people of Northland, the people of Tai Rāwhiti, the people of Bay of Plenty, the people of Manawatū-Whanganui, and the people of the West Coast of the South Island that their regions are ones we are prioritising because they are regions that actually deserve a fair go. They’re regions that, once and for all, the Government is actually going to be able to support, so projects like this one are actually part of a Government taking responsibility for widespread regional development in New Zealand.

We know why the National Party want to put up urgent debate requests like this one: because they don’t want to admit or focus on the fact that, right around New Zealand, people are seeing, finally, a Government that is investing in the regions, that is actually seeing practical projects being started, not another one of Steven Joyce’s glossy booklets or strategies but practical projects on the ground. That’s what the Provincial Growth Fund is about, and that is why a project like this is appropriate. This is a situation where a Minister declared a conflict of interest, followed the advice of the Cabinet Office, and took a particular course of action as to how to manage that conflict of interest. That is entirely appropriate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I said during my contribution that I would seek leave to table the document that I signed out on 7 February before the meeting that is contentious.

Is there any objection to that process? There is none. It will be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I’m going to call Andrew Falloon, but just to indicate that according to the agreed rosters, there is not a position for the ACT Party as part of this debate. Of course, if other members don’t take a call, then I’m sure the Speaker will recognise Mr Seymour.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be taking a call this afternoon on this urgent debate. I was just interested to see that Grant Robertson took the call that would otherwise be taken by a New Zealand First MP, and I hope that doesn’t indicate that the Hon Shane Jones doesn’t intend to take a call this afternoon and answer some of the questions that have been put forward to him by Paul Goldsmith, by myself, and, shortly to come, I hope, Jonathan Young, because there’s some very serious questions around the role that he’s played in this fund and, in particular, with this project.

David Parker spent the first five minutes of his contribution essentially saying that there is no conflict of interest in this case—there is no conflict of interest in this case. Well, if that’s the case, then why did Shane Jones declare a conflict of interest? If there was no conflict to declare, then why would Shane Jones put up his hand and say, “I have a conflict here in relation to this project, and I need to step aside from the process.”? The fact that he did that shows that David Parker is quite wrong—there is a conflict of interest to be declared. Grant Robertson continued on with that line. He said there’s no conflict because “There’s no monetary gain”—no monetary gain. Well, if that’s his test for what is a conflict of interest, I have grave concerns about other decisions that happen in that Cabinet. If his test for a conflict of interest is only where an MP or Minister is making money on the deal, then that is a scary representation of what might go on in that Minister’s Government.

If there was no conflict to declare, why would Shane Jones declare one? If there was no point in declaring a conflict of interest and delegating responsibility to another Minister in terms of being actively involved in that decision-making process, then why would he have declared one? The Minister of Regional Economic Development apparently withdrew himself from the process. But we now know that he didn’t do that. He claimed in written questions earlier this year that he had “withdrawn fully from the decision making process” and further stated he had not attended any meetings. Well, we now know that’s not true—that’s not the case. He did attend a meeting, and so the question that we have, on this side of the House, is: why would he try and cover up that fact? Why would he suggest that he hadn’t been to any meetings in relation to this project when we now know, through the release of documents on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website, that he did attend a meeting?

Grant Robertson made some comments—unfortunately, he didn’t address the one concern that we have, which is that Grant Robertson was “reassured by Shane Jones in that meeting”. So the fact is we know that if Shane Jones hadn’t been at that meeting, hadn’t spoken on behalf of the project, it wouldn’t have been funded—it would not have received $4.6 million of taxpayers’ money if Shane Jones had not been at that meeting. That is where the problem lies. The fact that he declared a conflict of interest in this project and still went to that meeting, spoke on its behalf—and therefore taxpayers have put up $4.6 million to this project—shows that there has been a conflict of interest. Parliament has been misled—Parliament has been misled by the answers that Shane Jones has given to written questions.

The concern that we have, on this side of the House, goes back to how the fund is being operated. There’s a huge lack of clarity around the entire project. Ministers have said that they have great sway in deciding where money will go. I think it’s less than $1 million will be decided by officials, but anything greater than that is decided by Ministers. That means that Ministers—and Shane Jones is one of those Ministers—have great say over where that money goes. It’s become a highly politicised fund, and I only have to look as far as something like Westland Dairy, where $10 million of taxpayers’ money has gone.

The problem that we have on this side of the House is that because it has been such a political fund, because there’s no clarity released on why funds are put into certain things—we have concerns around the Westland Dairy one in particular, because, in that case, we don’t even know the terms of the contract. We don’t know how much the interest rate is, for example. We don’t know what the key performance indicators are. There is no clarity around Westland Dairy’s $10 million or, in fact, most of the funding applications that have been approved by the Government. So I ask the Minister—and I hope he’ll take a call shortly to answer some of the questions that we have—if it’s good enough to give Westland Dairy $10 million, then why not give $10 million on the same terms to a company like Synlait? Synlait, for example, don’t know the terms of the loan that was given to Westland Dairy. They don’t know that, for example, if they’d been given $10 million, they might have been able to do a much better drying plant or something like that—produce far more jobs. But because there’s no clarity around the fund and how it’s allocated and what the interest rate is, they don’t know what they don’t know.

I want to now turn to the regional breakdown of the fund, because that makes for quite sober reading. This goes back to Shane Jones—“Matua Jones”—his position as a Minister from Northland, and if we look at the regional breakdown, we see that $100 million of taxpayers’ money has so far been allocated out of the Provincial Growth Fund for Northland. Now, compare that for a moment with Canterbury, which has received just $8 million; 8 percent of the funds that have gone to Northland have gone to Canterbury. If we’re talking about conflicts of interest—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Canterbury doesn’t need as much assistance as surge regions like Northland, like Tai Rāwhiti.

—which we are this afternoon, we have to ask: why is it that 8 percent of the fund—or 8 percent of what Northland’s received—has gone to Canterbury and $100 million has gone to Northland? Now, David Parker said, in his contribution, that that was quite innocent, and we all appreciate that Northland could use some investment. My colleague Kiri Allan across the hall has said has been talking about the Tai Rāwhiti as well. But when we’re talking about such a dramatic difference in figures—of $8 million for Canterbury and $100 million for Northland—and if we’re talking about conflicts of interest, the question that has to be raised is: where is Mr Jones running? If it was as innocent as David Parker’s suggesting, I’d like him to speak, perhaps later on today, and confirm for us that, no, Shane Jones won’t be running in Northland—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just seeking guidance, sir. This sounds remarkably close to a line suggesting something that should never be suggested in this House.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I think we’ve seen over a period of time suggestions from both sides of the House, or various corners of the House, including in the time of the last Government, of pork-barrelling approaches. I think that’s the suggestion we’re having here now. I’m listening very carefully to what is being said but, so far, the member’s come up to the line and not gone over it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. So I come back to the $8 million that Canterbury has received, and we again have to ask ourselves: apart from perhaps electoral advantage, why is it that Canterbury has received such a small number? I have to say, as a proud MP and a proud Cantabrian, that there are a lot of issues around the process—there are a lot of complaints around the process in Canterbury, and a lot of those complaints come back to the point that I’ve been making, which is around clarity and the ministerial decision-making, that there’s no published parameters about what Ministers will look at. There’s no suggestion of why Ministers will choose a certain project over another one.

A lot of that $8 million actually has come to my electorate, so I have to thank Mr Jones very much for that, but $7.5 million has been allocated for the thermal pools in Methven, which is a great project—but $7.5 million has been approved. Interestingly, though, they only ever asked for two. So the project came to Shane Jones, they said, “We’d like $2 million for this project.”, officials approved it around the middle of last year that $2 million should go forth to this thermal pools project, it then landed on the Minister’s desk, where it sat for round five and a half months, and then the Ministers came back and said, “Oh well, I know they’ve asked for $2 million, but, actually, let’s give them $7.5 million.” So there are real questions around how the money is being allocated and why Ministers are making the decisions that they are.

I do want to come back to Northland, though, because what’s interesting in that $100 million is that nowhere do we see, in that $100 million that’s gone to Shane Jones’ region of Northland, the Northland motorway. The members opposite—we heard them, for about three or four or five years, talking very negatively about the so-called Holiday Highway. I found that quite offensive, actually, because the so-called Holiday Highway, the four lanes to Northland, would have unlocked the potential of Northland. If you look at the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan, which was worked on not just by MPs but by stakeholders, by local government, by businesses and industry in Northland, the No. 1 recommendation from that report was for a four-lane highway into Northland to unlock the potential of Northland.

The fact that the Government has given $100 million on projects where the Minister is highly conflicted—he’s declared that conflict—and has not put money into something that would unlock the economic potential of Northland, I find quite outrageous. The fact that he would put money into pet projects where we now know he’s conflicted, because he’s declared that conflict—he’s gone to meetings which he said he hadn’t been to. He’s gone to those meetings, sat in those meetings, pulled his friend Grant Robertson aside and said, “Oh, actually, mate, can you just throw these guys $4.6 million? I know them; they’re really good—but, hey, there’s no conflict of interest here.”

Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Look, it’s not my job to defend Shane Jones. He’s called me plenty of names over the years, including “that squawking mollyhawk from the Greens”, but this isn’t about our colourful relationship; it’s about the important issue in front of the House, and I would like to outline the Green Party’s perspective on the issues. Now, first, at the highest level we absolutely support the investment in our regional economies. For too long, we weren’t investing in regions that were really struggling, like my home region of Tai Rāwhiti.

I want to put on the record the Green Party’s acknowledgment of the Speaker’s decision to grant this urgent debate. I think it is important that these issues are given a transparent hearing in Parliament. I think it’s important we get to canvass the issues, but I think what’s most important for anyone watching, for the media, is the opportunity to hear from the Ministers, who have outlined their role, their experience, the time line. What this Parliament and what this country has heard is that there was no conflict of interest, as the Hon David Parker said. What we heard from the Hon Grant Robertson is that it didn’t influence the decision.

Now, I acknowledge those members for their contribution. The fact is that we heard from the National members “Well, why?”. Now, I think every member in this House probably has examples where they’ve used the term “conflict of interest” without actually meaning the technical term. It’s quite a cut and dry legalistic term, “conflict of interest”—you have it or you don’t—but I think many of us actually want to go above and beyond the requirement because you simply want to publicly acknowledge a relationship and that’s what the situation is. The Minister simply knew people in the room. He didn’t influence the decision, and we’ve heard that from the Minister. So Minister Parker is correct: there was no conflict of interest.

Now, why I said it’s important we have this debate is that this is one of our strongest strengths as a country, which is the institutions which mean we don’t experience the corruption we see in many other countries. Kiwis can trust Government institutions, and it’s important that we have this opportunity to put it on the record. The Green Party is glad that these facts have been outlined, and we stand by the comments we’ve heard that there was no conflict of interest.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Shane Jones said, “I asked my ministerial colleagues to make the decision on that project in order to manage a conflict of interest.”—he said this in a written answer two months after attending the meeting—“As such, I have had no formal meetings regarding the Manea Footprints of Kupe project since receiving my ministerial warrants.” I’m not sure that turning up to a Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) Ministers’ meeting would be considered an informal meeting—that’s a formal meeting. So this answer, in reply to Paul Goldsmith’s written question No. 8264 (2018), is false and incorrect. Then, specifying “no formal meetings” leaves one definitely of the view that there were informal meetings since he received his ministerial warrant. We’ve heard of meetings at the Ōpōnoni pub.

I guess the Minister would say, as he travels about in Northland, that he has a wide variety of informal meetings all across the region, as one would expect. I have lots of informal meetings myself. To say that those informal meetings don’t count when it comes to a conflict of interest is incorrect, because the Minister was able to say to my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, in one of his questions on 27 June, “I have been very loud on the marae in my own area in my community after I was approached by someone who I felt I should have no fear or favour following his advice encouraging me to meet with [certain people]”. That was an informal meeting, and the Minister would have gone on to meet those people, and, of course, that became a whole series of questions in the House that came from that. So to hide behind “I’ve had no formal meetings” is not good enough and not strong enough. It influences people’s actions, and I have no doubt at all that when the Minister attended this meeting with the other provincial growth Ministers and they wanted to have a reassurance, you can’t get much more formal than that. To state that he was there informally is so incorrect, and so it is a conflict not only of his interests but also of his statement in a written question.

You’ve got to ask, “Well, what are the perceived conflicts?” The Minister has said his relationship with the key proponent of the project, Whetū Naera—the chief of Hokianga—and his past advocacy and support for the project as a Labour MP. But you’d also have to say, as many MPs would know in their constituencies, that when you have worked with a kaumātua, when you have supported a project, there is a strong interest in you causing that project to succeed, otherwise your mana and your reputation is affected because you have not delivered on your support—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not mine—not mine.

—other MPs, I’m referring to—have not delivered on their support and their advocacy, as has been suggested by my colleague Andrew Falloon. Not just from in this House and not just from this side, but the conjecture of the media is that if New Zealand First are to succeed in the 2020 elections, then they need an electorate seat. If the Hon Shane Jones was going to stand in Northland, then his mana and his reputation are absolutely vital, so perhaps there is an implied conflict in that particular area.

To hide behind “I have had no formal meetings regarding the Manea Footprints of Kupe project” is absolutely just an obfuscation, creating suspicion that more is at stake here. But why did he arrange for Kelvin Davis to make the decision? He said, “It’s necessary for me to seek advice from time to time from the Cabinet Office.”, etc. Obviously, the Minister has worked with Mr Davis in the past when it came to decisions regarding Northland. I do recall, back in February 2018, in a discussion that’s been raised here today regarding the State Highway 10 roundabout, that here we see there was an obvious cooperation or collusion at its finest.

Earlier in the year, the State Highway - Waipapa roundabout project near Kerikeri received the go-ahead for $9 million of provincial growth funding, and I raised this in a question in the House. I questioned the appropriateness of this, considering the Cabinet minute stipulated the Provincial Growth Fund couldn’t be used to fund any projects already funded by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). So Mr Jones said the chief executive of NZTA came to him asking for the money, although Shane Jones, in reply to one of my questions, said, “NZTA has provided me with details of specific projects in response to requests for information from myself about projects that may align with the PGF criteria.” It was interesting, and I raise this issue because—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It might be interesting, but it actually—

No, no—madam, it does have context, and it’s around this conflict of interest, and particularly in the Northland area. It was Northland MP Kelvin Davis who suggested, through his own question at that particular point in time, that the PGF fund was given because of the huge number of serious accidents and fatalities. Well, as we found out later through the parliamentary research unit, over 15 years there had been no fatalities. I raise this point because in my area, from Bell Block to Waitara there is a piece of road that has three intersections in the country’s top 20 that are deemed as incredibly dangerous, and we have had 12 fatalities in the last 10 years. Why is it that one roundabout gets funding and another doesn’t—one has no fatalities and the other has 12 over a decade?

So what I would say is that this is pork-barrel politics at its worst, where New Zealand lives are at stake. When we want accountability and probity and transparency around the Provincial Growth Fund and how it’s administered, and that it’s not a political slush fund, it’s because New Zealanders’ lives and welfare are at stake. I believe that is a very important issue that we need to understand here, that it’s not just a conflict of interest because Shane Jones says he knows a kaumātua; it’s not just a conflict of interest because it’s a project that he supported. I say it’s a conflict of interest because it’s to do with his mana and his reputation in a region that he has made many promises to, to the point when in a formal meeting—not informal; a formal meeting—of PGF Ministers, when there was a question around reassurance, that Treasury was saying they don’t back this project that he was involved in, he participated in a decision that went his way.

So I believe that we do need to call this a decision, this process, into the clear light of day, and there needs to be accountability. People all over this country are recognising more and more and more that this Provincial Growth Fund is being misused at times. It’s doing a lot of good things. It’s doing a lot of good things, but at times it’s been misused for purposes which I think New Zealanders would be very upset about and disagree with.

That’s the point I wish to raise, and I thank you for the opportunity to bring these matters to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much. So I think what we have seen in the contribution from the last member, Jonathan Young, and the contribution from Mr Falloon, is that, actually, this is not about the urgent debate topic that was put forward. What we have seen in the previous contributions from the two National Party members is an articulation of “We didn’t get some money, so how come Northland did?” What I find very interesting about the contribution particularly from Mr Falloon is that sitting next to him is Matt King, the member for Northland, who has just sat next to the gentleman who has argued that Northland, one of the most neglected areas in New Zealand, should not—should not—get any economic development funding. There is a suggestion that this is all because a member, a Minister, may or may not stand in a particular seat. That line was glided to very closely by Mr Falloon. He completely ignored, of course, that Tai Rāwhiti has had over close to $200 million worth of provincial growth funding. I do understand that Mr Falloon somehow is very sad that his area—his area—that he, obviously, advocates for has only received $8 million to date—to date. The whole of the Provincial Growth Fund is still running.

But let’s get back to—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, so the member now has taken a minute and a half debating things that she didn’t think should have been debated. So I would ask her to come to the topic on the floor.

So let’s get back to what, supposedly, this urgent debate is about, which is actually about the disclosure, the actual disclosure, by Minister Jones of a perceived conflict of interest. Let’s make sure we identify this correctly. There is no direct benefit to Mr Jones from the project that is being discussed—there is no direct benefit to Mr Jones from the project being discussed. There is a perceived conflict that he took advice on in October 2018 from the Cabinet Office, who said to him that there is not necessarily any perceived conflict just to know somebody, which—we all know lots of people in a small country around New Zealand. Just to know someone is not a perceived conflict. There is an error that has been repeated in this House by the Opposition: Mr Jones was never the chair of this particular organisation, and they should stop repeating incorrect information, because the Speaker has previously warned, only last week, about the ability to provide evidence, should one continue to make such statements.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was not the Opposition who made that allegation against Mr Jones. It was stated as a fact by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fairness, that is not a point of order; that is a debatable point, and I’m sure that the next speaker will take that up.

I think people should go and actually go and check the Hansard.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That might apply to all of us.

Yes, that’s right. It applies to all of us. People should go and check the Hansard. So let’s get to the other process, then. So the Minister sought advice. He was told he didn’t need to actually declare any perceived conflict of interest, but because he knows that the Opposition is so incredibly jealous of the fact that there is a Provincial Growth Fund, and for the fact that it is incredibly popular and doing good things for New Zealand, he erred on the side of extreme caution. He erred on the side of extreme caution and declared. He not only declared; he removed himself by asking another Minister to sit in on the decision-making part of this process.

Let’s now come to the question that Mr Goldsmith put down in writing—and words matter. They’ve always mattered. The Opposition is manipulating the words continually around this particular issue for their own benefit. The question was: had the Minister gone to or attended any meetings on this specific project? Technically, Mr Jones did not attend any official meetings on this specific project. He attended a meeting of 16 projects with four other Ministers and did not take any part in the decision making on that particular project.

Now, these are the facts for New Zealanders to digest. They need to go and check the Hansard around the comments made by the Opposition and marry that with the reality of what went on here. A Minister, who is determined to grow—and there is a terrible undercurrent coming around any project funded by the Provincial Growth Fund for Māori in this country, and the people should go and check the Hansard around those comments. It would appear that if there are predominantly Māori in an area, the Opposition will object to there being any Provincial Growth Fund money spent.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’d just like to take my stance against what Tracey Martin was actually saying. She was trying to correct something that doesn’t actually exist. It was the Rt Hon Winston Peters during the 2015, I believe, by-election of Northland, where he actually said and stated and campaigned, saying that Shane Jones was in fact the chair. So I would like to correct the member on that. I think she should go and check her facts.

Once again, we are in this House debating about the secrecy, the shambles, and the shoddy deals of the most, I quote, “open and transparent” Government in New Zealand history. This Government has claimed to be that, a pledge that they have actually given to New Zealanders, which lies in tatters. We thought that they may have learnt something from last year’s events. I’m reminded of those events that actually happened in this very House during oral questions that I personally had given to a Minister, a former broadcasting Minister, where she had failed to tell the truth. This Minister has also done similar things, where written questions were asked of him and he had declared that there was nothing to see here, and we find out today—well, I find out today—that we do have something to question him on.

The Minister should come to this House—and he is in the House—and should actually answer questions on why he was present at that meeting. He declared a conflict of interest. Actually, it was Grant Robertson who said that he was a little bit concerned about that. He was concerned about it so much that he actually got assurances from the honourable gentleman sitting at the back of the row, the Hon Shane Jones, and it was Shane Jones who actually gave the Minister of Finance the reassurance of this group. What would you call that, Madam Deputy Speaker? I’d call that influence.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into it.

I’d call that influence. It was Shane Jones who reassured the Minister of Finance about this group. If it wasn’t about Mr Jones’ convincing the Minister of Finance, this group would not have been funded to the tune of millions of dollars, and we have a Minister who is responsible for hundreds of millions—actually, $3 billion.

The issue is particularly critical for the future in my own portfolio. I’m quite worried because this Minister is responsible for the regional digital hubs and the rural connectivity. I am really worried that this Minister will be getting into all of these meetings when he has actually declared a conflict of interest himself, identifying that he does have a conflict. I mean, he’s not a silly man. He’s a learned man who knows the difference between a conflict or not, I would guess—I hope. He laughs at the back of the room. If he has actually declared it, then he knows that there is a conflict.

There might be family members who are involved in this project. He should have removed himself from the meetings where the decisions were being made. Where the decisions are being made and where the discussions are actually happening, this Minister, having declared a conflict, should not be in the room, where he is actually influencing the other Ministers who are making the decision to give the group millions of dollars.

So, Mr Jones, I say that I think this Government is actually not very transparent, nor is it open, and this Minister certainly has not been open about his relationships. He should come clean about what kind of an influence he had and what kind of a role he played where the decision was made to fund this group. I certainly believe that there was influence. I certainly believe that he had a conflict of interest, and he should not have actually been in that room and convincing the Minister of Finance or giving reassurances to the Minister of the Finance that there was nothing to see there, because there certainly was. He himself declared the conflict.

If there’s anything that just came through really clearly from Melissa Lee, the previous speaker, it was that she clearly had no grasp with the factual narrative, because if she had have, she would have realised that at the very first opportunity, the Minister colloquially known as the first citizen of the provinces made the declaration of a perceived conflict of interest at the earliest possible opportunity.

In 2014, the factual narrative goes—just to assist some of those members in the Opposition—that the Minister, who was at that point a Labour member of Parliament, met with the Manea group. Due to his gravitas, they approached him to be the chair, which he declined. Now, coming to 2017, he became the Minister responsible for the regional economic development fund. He was then presented with a proposal from Manea. He turned to the Cabinet Office for guidance. The first thing that the Minister did at that point was declare the perceived conflict of interest.

Now, I turn to the good practice guide that was published by the Controller and Auditor-General. Now, what they say is that “In a small country like ours, conflicts of interest in our working lives are natural and unavoidable.” A small country like ours—New Zealand. Not some other country; here in New Zealand. “The existence of a conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that someone has done something wrong, and it need not cause problems. It just needs to be identified and managed properly.”

So, what happened? What happened was that the Minister, the first citizen of the provinces—and as the junior citizen of the provinces, I’m very proud of the way that he managed that conflict—turned to the Cabinet Office. He made the declaration. He then informed and he gave off his vote to other Ministers—not even of his own party, might I add—and they managed that application.

Now, what is really interesting is that if you listened to the speeches from every person from the Opposition, including the person that called for this debate—who could barely make up his time when it came to giving his offerings, because he had to turn to saying how sad, mad, and bad it was that particular regions weren’t getting funding for their provinces. What is that? That’s got nothing to do with the Minister for Regional Economic Development. That has everything to do with the fact that the Opposition knows that the Provincial Growth Fund is having an immeasurable impact in the provinces and in the regions, so much so that the provinces are, rightly, saying that they were left behind for nine long years by the guys that they’d been voting for for so long. What are they doing? They are withdrawing their support, and your polls are showing it, absolutely.

So it’s a little bit rich, as well. We turn, and we listen to the Leader of the Opposition. Just yesterday, on Morning Report, he goes on and he says, “Oh, that Jones’ behaviour was serious and wrong.”, and then he goes on to say, “And, you know, Jones, he says, ‘Oh, it’s sweet as, bro. It’s sweet as, bro. We just go about and we just grant all the applications, because it’s sweet as, bro.’ ”.

What a horrible articulation of the way that the Hon Shane Jones conducts himself. I have never ever heard the Hon Shane Jones speak in that way, and I’m very disappointed to hear a Leader of the Opposition articulate our fine, articulate, Māori Minister in charge of the regional growth fund to be characterised in that way. That’s my first point.

My second point is that he said that it was serious and wrong that there is this egregious conflict of interest. Now, let’s turn to, I don’t know—in his time in Government, there was this little issue of a wee company called Oravida, and his other mate, who’s on—what is it? Six percent or 7 percent, is she riding at about now? Judith Collins. Now, there—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Come back to the matter at hand. Thank you.

Sure thing—sure thing. But I do think it’s rich that when we had these egregious actual conflicts of interest under the previous administration—when they need to, they bark at every passing car because they’re trying to get attention. This debate is, well, in the interests of justice, it’s fine—like let’s all have this constitutional dialogue. But the substance of the debate and the issues that are giving call to this debate are absolutely egregious, and I’m really proud to support our Minister for Regional Economic Development and the way that he’s conducted himself alongside the other Ministers responsible for the regional economic development fund.

I didn’t realise this was a split call, but I guess it is.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a very sad day when the Opposition gets a prime opportunity to debate an issue that is, obviously, making some headlines at the moment and really fluffs their lines, because that is what has happened. I’ve been watching this debate and it’s my pleasure to wrap proceedings up, because I can’t make head or tail of what the Opposition’s argument has been today. Is it that they love the Provincial Growth Fund—because I heard Andrew Falloon saying “Give us more. We love it—give us more.”, and then I heard another speaker call it a slush fund.

So it’s a sad and sorry day when the National Party can’t even get the basic—I don’t know what’s happening to the person putting their notes together, because they used to be disciplined. But the lack of key messaging that has come through in today’s debate really disappoints me, because the National Party used to be a party that was disciplined and right on message. But, today, when given the opportunity of a debate, I see them floundering. Paul Goldsmith made a decent first attempt, but, really, those after have really, really struggled.

I want to pay homage and respect to the Hon Shane Jones, someone who on both sides of the House has had great respect, because the previous Government saw fit to make the Hon Shane Jones a roving ambassador in the Pacific, with distinction around our fishing. So they saw the great talent of the man and the relationships that he could have and the value that could have to New Zealand. That’s why we saw the great potential in him in making sure that as Minister for Regional Economic Development, he could take the coalition agreement around the Provincial Growth Fund and do something with that and make sure that the nine years of neglect under the previous Government was actioned, to make sure that those people in those regions like Northland and like Tai Rāwhiti—could make sure that there was hope and opportunity for them.

So, back in 2014, when the Hon Shane Jones was a hard-working Labour member of Parliament, he visited this outfit, the Manea trust, who were advocating, obviously, for the project that they had, and Mr Jones wrote to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, saying, “Hey, look, this is a really worthy project. We should look into it.” Now, when, in November 2017, Mr Jones became the Minister for Regional Economic Development, having already had a relationship with the trust, he said, “Hey folks, because of this, I’m going to step back.”, and he declared a conflict of interest perceived.

Now, as my colleague Kiri Allan has pointed out, there are different conflicts of interest. In this case, because Mr Jones had actually been to this outfit before, had seen the merit of it, and had said, “We should take this and do something with it.”, he said, “Because I’m a decision maker in the Provincial Growth Fund process, I’m going to recuse myself from being in this decision-making process, and I’ll remove myself.”—which is absolutely the right thing to do—after he got some advice.

Now, the Opposition has been “barking at cars” around what Mr Jones has reportedly done or not done, and I think he has already said himself that maybe it could have been a little tidier if he had recused himself from a specific meeting that wasn’t specifically about the Manea trust but was a broader Provincial Growth Fund meeting. So in the big scheme of things, knowing someone, having engaged with them five years ago, and then declaring a conflict of interest perceived after getting advice from the Cabinet Office isn’t the big drama that the Opposition would lead people to believe. I think once people figure out the facts of that case, they realise that this is actually nothing about nothing—which brings me to my final point.

My final point is that the Leader of the Opposition himself was on Morning Report, I think either today or yesterday morning, when he said, “Oh, look, we don’t want to be barking at every car.”, and that’s the problem with this: they are. It’s not getting any resonance because this issue is a big pile of nothing.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Then stop talking about it.

Well, I’m quite happy to take up the next 45 seconds, Mr Brownlee. So the Leader of the Opposition can continue to bark at cars. His colleagues know that that barking at cars isn’t giving them the resonance that they need out there in the public, and, certainly, this issue isn’t going to be the big game-changer that they know they need—the big game-changer that happens to be the person that is sitting in that seat.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.