Shane Jones interview on Nation

Shane Jones on Newshub Nation:

Have you offered your resignation to the Prime Minister at any point?

Oh, no. Absolutely not.

Newshub:  Shane Jones drops capital gains tax clue (includes video of the interview):

Shane Jones has hinted the upcoming capital gains tax announcement could include relief for the regions.

The Regional Development Minister declined to comment on what exactly the Government has come up with, following the Tax Working Group’s recommendations, which were made public in February.

The Regional Development Minister told Newshub Nation on Saturday revealing its contents was off-limits.

“There’s various ways that I could be sacked,” he told interviewer Tova O’Brien.

“One of them that will definitely get me sacked by the end of this programme is if I offer any view whatsoever in terms of what lies exclusively in the realm of my leader and Prime Minister.”

Asked if he could give assurances that “farmers and regional businesses” wouldn’t be hit hard, Jones gave one of his typically cryptic replies.

“Well, in the near future, all I would say is that to the folk who have dirty boots and hard-working calloused hands, watch this space.”

Transcript:


Tova O’Brien: He’s the self-styled champion for the north – as he so often likes to remind us – the first citizen of the provinces, but does Shane Jones’ bluster and bravado mean he gets away with far more than most other ministers? Once again he’s in hot water, once again he’s been reprimanded by the Prime Minister and once again it’s over allegations of a conflict of interest and interfering in a judicial process. Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones joins me now. Kia ora, Matua. Thank you for joining us. Minister Jones, you directly spoke to the Chief Executive of the NZ Transport Agency about its case against Stan Semenoff Logging failing to meet safety standards. A High Court case, you’re a minister, you’re not allowed to interfere. Why did you?

Shane Jones: No, well, the facts are being distorted by the National Party. Not once have I ever had anything to do with the prosecution decision that you refer to. Those decisions, I imagine, are made in windowless rooms by lawyers and an independent body. I have no delegations for those matters.

The brief discussion I had with the acting CEO of NZTA, I’m glad to see, has been taken up now by the industry leadership. I accept, however, the cautionary words that the Prime Minister expressed with me. It is a distraction.

It is very difficult to maintain the entirety of the Cabinet Manual if perceptions start to grow that a minister’s interfering with a High Court case. But I’ve probably seen more High Court cases and, in the Maori Fisheries, funded more High Court cases than any other MP. I know exactly where the boundary line is.

But you’re related to the managing director of this Northland company. You once received a donation from him. What made you think it was appropriate to get involved and make that call to the NZTA CE?

You see, I have not made any call to the NZTA CEO. I have raised, in Parliament, with him issues that are now actually being agreed to by the broad leadership of the industry, and people misapprehend what my role is. My role is to isolate those issues that time to time thwart and undermine regional development.

Now, try as much as the Tories might to brand me as someone breaking High Court rules, the reality is I am a feisty, earthy, industrial-grade politician. That’s what the people expect of me, and when I’ve been around the motu, the country, over the last two weeks, not one single garden-variety Kiwi has raised this with me as being a problem.

That’s not necessarily on them, though, and being feisty and industrial-grade doesn’t preclude you from the Cabinet Manual and interfering in judicial processes is against the Cabinet Manual. The NZTA had taken a case against Semenoff Logging.

And that case is, I presume, going to continue in the High Court, and I have nothing to do with that case. I’ve never had anything to do with that case. They are a body that exercises statutory power, and our democracy works on the basis that when we who hold power, i.e. the officials, they’re capable of looking after themselves and having their decision tested in any court. Just because I raise an issue about the essential importance of logistics, supply-chain, doesn’t mean that I’m involved in a High Court case. I absolutely reject-

The reason the ministers need to keep an arm’s length is because of ministerial influence, so even having that conversation can be perceived as influence.

So this is where, Tova, I think that you run the risk of repeating non-credible memes being driven by the National Party. I utterly reject their assertions, and the reality is that I will remain the champion of the regions. The industry love my contributions. From a party that is pro-industry, you should not expect me to shut up. Just because I say things that make the windy bureaucrats feel a bit nervous, in actual fact that makes me more popular amongst the people who back me.

Yeah, there’s windy bureaucrats and then there’s ministerial interference. But anyway, this isn’t the first time you’ve been accused of this. You were also accused of interfering in legal proceedings against fishing company, Talleys, the PM hauled you over the coals for overstepping with the Serious Fraud Office investigation. You have form here.

Well, I don’t recall saying anything untoward about the SFO. I remember giving a general debate speech.

It was enough for the Prime Minister to give you a call and to tell you not to.

Yeah, I mean, the reality is that there’s the role that I have as a minister and then there’s the role that I have as a politician. Look, I wouldn’t read too much in it. I think that people from time to time in the media misapprehend the role that I have. In terms of any other court cases — well, I’ve got nothing to say about them. The people that are embroiled in litigation, they can look after themselves.

So was the Prime Minister wrong to reprimand you?

No, she is totally within her rights to do what she does. I thoroughly understand the Westminster system of democracy. I’ve just got a very robust— and as I’ve said, I’m a retail politician, I’m industrial-grade and I don’t care if it sounds as if I’m always leading with my chin. That is what the people who support me expect me to do.

Yeah, perhaps there needs to be more of a demarcation between those two hats because former National minister, Maurice Williamson, he interfered in a police case, made a call, also said he wasn’t trying to influence an active police case, but he was forced to offer his resignation to the then Prime Minister and resigned. Have you offered your resignation to the Prime Minister at any point?

The difference between Maurice Williamson and me is that I was an ambassador, then I became a politician. Maurice was a politician, now he’s an ambassador in America. He’s done it the other way round.

Have you offered your resignation to the Prime Minister at any point?

Oh, no. Absolutely not.

OK, what about — because it looks a bit like the Prime Minister, she kind of hauls you into the office, says, ‘Don’t do this, Shane.’ You say, ‘Sure, sure, sure.’ Then you walk out and perhaps do it again. Does she have any control over you?

No, I take very seriously what the Prime Minister says, but the Prime Minister also realises that there has never been a consistently loud, focused voice from the regions and the provinces. She, I believe, realises that from time to time there might be a bit of bump and grind, and she’s well within her rights to caution me to ensure that I don’t represent an unwelcome distraction to the overarching narrative of the government. I don’t believe I do. In fact, where I go, I’m met with popular acclamation.

What about Winston Peters? Has he ever chastised you or cautioned you?

What happens in our caucus is tapu. That’s where it stays.

Okay, on the Provincial Growth Fund, how many full-time jobs is your PGF, Provincial Growth Fund, created so far?

Yeah, so the most recent announcement was well over 500. The challenge that I’ve got is that although we’ve allocated $1.6 billion the pace at which the bureaucrats and officials can roll out the approval process, I can’t interfere with that. I can encourage them to go quicker. I do, every week. But at the end of the day, there are strictures that they have to observe in terms of the allocation of public money.

You say over 500, but the list provided by your office says that only 272 full-time jobs have been created so far. That’s a long way off the 10,000 promised.

Yeah, well, look, can we just deal with the 10,000? That 10,000 figure is an extraordinarily important and ambitious figure associated with the full import of the programmes, once they’re up and running. And as I said to you, the Provincial Growth Fund, whilst we are allocating putea, there are other things happening in the provinces. I’m a great supporter of those other things because I’m pro-industry. I’m pro-fishing, I’m pro-dairy, and I’m pro-mining. The fact that oil and gas is actually going to get a boost down in the South Island, then they’re going to find in me a great champion.

Let’s talk about oil and gas. Let’s talk about a region that is crying out for more funding and jobs, Taranaki, thanks in large parts to your government’s oil and gas ban. What responsibility does the Government — and you, as champion of the regions — what responsibility do you have to ensure economic stability there.

Well, I don’t want to go into too much detail, but in the near future there’s going to be a transitional, large meeting up there. But I would say that Taranaki stakeholders, they have various proposals that they’re promoting. There is a proposal doing the rounds called 8 Rivers. That’s associated with storing gas in the ground, using gas for hydrogen energy.

But I want to remind everyone, Tova, that when the Prime Minister made her announcement, which I supported, but we secured the on-going existence of entitlements that are already in place, which is why I’m an enthusiast for the various mining entities, oil and gas mining in the South Island, who are rolling out through the process that they’re entitled to do.

OK, so, 8 Rivers, you raise that now, you also raised that last time you were on this programme, last year. But we haven’t heard much more about it, so what’s happening with that? It wants $20 million from the PGF, is that right? Is it going to get that money?

Yeah, well, it’s just going through the process. I mean, obviously these things take a bit of time, because it is an enormously large project. I’m not the only Minister that would make that decision. And, look, I accept that when I associate myself with the oil and gas industry it does lead to criticism.

And you mentioned Greenpeace, well, you mentioned the accusations that Greenpeace made against me about a fishing court case. I’ve got no time for their lime-coloured righteousness. And if people in the South Island are allowed to use their rights to explore and develop oil and gas, I know the South Island people want that to happen. And before Greenpeace lecture me about that, they can explain to New Zealand why their boat has been under investigation for polluting the Bluff harbour.

Greenpeace aside, what about Labour and the Greens. What do they think about what you’re saying today?

No, they know, the Prime Minister knows that when we made our announcement, no more fresh mining applications offshore. We did, however, retain the ability of International and Domestic firms to use their current entitlements.

Which means 8 Rivers could go ahead, cause they—

Well, they would need to go through a statutory consent process, but the point I’m making—

With the help of your $20 million dollars from the PGF?

Well, we don’t know what the amount of putea is.

But there is going to be some?

Well let’s not taint the process, allow them to go through the process. Ministers will make a decision, yea or nay. But the point that I’m making — I can’t fund, and we don’t fund everything that happens in provinces. We make decisions that have impacts. An impact that was made from our oil and gas decision is people are legally allowed to continue to explore and invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the South Island.

So, 8 Rivers, for those who don’t know, is a development project – it would create hydrogen, urea, and electricity using natural gasses. So, that’s controversial within your Government. How much biffo is going on behind the scenes between you and David Parker, say?

Oh, no, David Parker is a very good friend of mine. Although as Attorney General, he has been known from time to time to warn me to be very conscious of the blurry lines between my writ as the champion of the provinces and other legal obligations.

OK, let’s move on to Westland Milk. Chinese Company Yili is buying Westland Milk for nearly $600 million dollars, $588 million dollars. Are you comfortable with China buying such a significant New Zealand dairy asset?

Well, in phase two of the overseas investment rules that David Parker is leading, he is going out to consult whether there should be criteria dealing with a test of national significance, not necessarily for land, but for strategic industries.

Is that a ‘no’?

No, what I’m saying is that I don’t want to say anything that taints the ability of the Mongolian milk company to acquire whatever consents that they might have.

Well, one of your colleagues, Mark Patterson, has said that it’s an erosion of New Zealand control in our significant dairying assets. Do you agree with him?

Well, you’re talking to me as a Minister of the Crown. And I feel like I have an obligation—

Sometimes it’s hard to differentiate.

Yeah, fair point. But please listen with your taringas. I don’t want to taint whatever process the Mongolian milk company is going through. Mark is a dearly loved colleague of mine and I thoroughly understand his anxieties, but people are playing by the rules. And the rules at the moment allow them to proceed. I’m disappointed with the ineptitude and how absolutely useless the directors of New Zealand’s second-largest dairy co-op are, but that’s not the problem of the Mongolians. That’s the problem of how useless those directors are.

The $10 million that the Provincial Growth Fund loaned Westland Milk, was that an attempt to stave off an offshore purchase like this?

Well, I must be very honest, I had no idea that the directors had only one plan in mind, and they never ever shared that with me that they were preparing the company for sale via Macquaries, I think those are their advisors. So we put a caveat on that $10 million dollars in the event that there was a change of ownership, then the deal would vaporise.

Now it’s been suspended. And it’s not the only time you’ve offered a loan through the PGF. You also gave Oceania Marine in Whangarei a $4.8 million dollar loan. Is the Government becoming a lender of last resort?

Well, look, the policy underlying the Provincial Growth Fund is imaginative. It is bold. And, look, I accept that it inverts what used to happen. And I realise there are risks in doing that. But if there is a genuine case of market failure, then we have the criteria, endorsed by Cabinet, for the four ministers to proceed in that direction. Now, I know I’m attacked by the National Party for doing this, but I’m reminded of that great saying which I’ll adapt from my Grandmother, which is that if the Epsom cat wants to eat fine fish, then he’s got to get his feet wet.

OK, let’s move on to the capital gains tax, an announcement is going to be made very soon by your Government. Are you happy with where the Government has settled?

So, there’s various ways that I could be sacked. One of them that will definitely get me sacked by the end of this programme is if I offer any view whatsoever in terms of what lies exclusively in the province of my leader and Prime Minister.

Yes, but as the much-lauded, by your good self, champion of the regions, that includes farmers and regional businesses, can you give them assurance that they’re not going to be stung by a capital gains tax?

Well, in the near future, all I would say is that to the folk who have dirty boots and hard-working calloused hands, watch this space.

Sounds like New Zealand First got a win, and perhaps the tail is indeed wagging the dog. It was Winston Peter’s birthday this week, 74-years-old, what did you get him?

Every time I go overseas I bring a gift back for my rangatira, and that gift is the subject of great privacy between him and I. But we shared a day yesterday in Whangarei, and although the announcements were relatively modest, it’s always a pleasure to be with, yeah, the rangatira of New Zealand First.

What about the gift of succession? Who would win in a leadership fight between Shane Jones, Ron Mark and Fletcher Tabuteau, say?

Right, well, I don’t think we should contemplate a future at all without our leader, Winston Peters. And when I had the opportunity, Tova, to come back into politics, I wanted to demonstrate that the provinces would have a champion, and that champion doesn’t need to hanker after anything else.

Yeah, that’s not a no. Thank you very much for joining us, kia ora, Matua Shane.

Transcript provided by Able. www.able.co.nz

Loose cannon Shane Jones fires more shots, Ardern missing in action

I’m not sure if Shane Jones is deliberately trying to make things difficult for Jacinda Ardern, or is trying to establish himself as New Zealand’s version of Donald Trump (an arsehole popular enough to get elected), or is just getting out of control.

On Tuesday Jones made threats against a journalist who had criticised his conflict of interest as minister in charge of the Provincial Growth Fund – Hamish Rutherford “Minister of Regional Economic Development Shane Jones delights in announcing funding cash from the Provincial Growth Fund, but when he or his office face questions about the probity or merits of the fund, the response has bordered on hostile.” Shane Jones makes ‘chilling’ threats against journalist.

Yesterday in General Debate in Parliament he fired another shot at the journalist, threatened that the Government would ensure the SFO investigation of the National party over a donation was thorough, and also blasted the Spark CEO who made a disclosure as required by NZX rules.

This is a message to corporate New Zealand: do not arrogantly take upon yourselves the ability to influence foreign policy and make these unwise statements as Mr Simon Moutter did to the sharemarket, thus providing an opportunity for anxiety and stress for all of our exporters. Show judiciousness; do not go beyond your corporate writ. Wanderlust, you may be.

Jones has attacked CEOs and companies in the past, notably Air New Zealand.

How the bar has been set for the provincial champion to declare a conflict of interest. Has the Leader of the Opposition yet been interviewed by the Serious Fraud Office? Was the Leader of the Opposition interviewed by the police; more to the point, will he declare to the New Zealand public that he has been; and if that is the case, will he stand down? No. Where is this self-styled crusader of civic responsibility from Fairfax pummelling and pounding the other side of the House? Conspicuous silence from the media.

Another swipe at Rutherford. The media has not been silent on the announcement that the Police handed over the donation case to the Serious Fraud Office – but the SFO has not even said they will investigate yet, so obviously they won’t have interviewed Simon Bridges.

This is a very dangerous development in the integrity of our electoral system.

Ministers attacking journalists doing their job is not new, but Jones is threatening the integrity of the media, which is an essential component of our electoral system.

But, if he could actually do what he next threatens, that would be a particularly dangerous development on the integrity of both our democratic system and our judicial system.

Now, we’ve watched a pattern of this. We’ve watched a proud police officer be lampooned and suffer scurrilous allegations; he had done nothing wrong, yet he was pilloried, tainted, and stigmatised.

That’s talking about Wally Haumaha, who has been linked with NZ First. The State Services Commission found that Justice and Corrections had failed two complainants, and “A report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) has found two instances where the high-ranking cop aggressively asserted authority and belittled staff from Ministry of Justice and Corrections…The report said Haumaha’s behaviour met the common understanding of bullying…The IPCA received a third complaint in August, and found Haumaha pressured officers to provide information that would help him defend allegations after taking advice from lawyers.” – High-ranking cop Wally Haumaha belittled and humiliated staff, police watchdog says

May all of that wrongdoing rest upon the head of the Leader of the Opposition, because he says he’s the Leader of the National Party but it’s just not his responsibility in terms of what the Serious Fraud Office is looking at.

I make a prediction: the Serious Fraud Office, once unwisely sicked by that side of the House on to our Leader, knows we will study every single step that they take, to ensure—to ensure, because it’s the National Party—it’s not whitewashed. We will ensure that happens, this incredibly serious and people may very well go to jail, because they won’t have offended the Cabinet Manual; they will have broken the law.

Paul Goldsmith (National) followed Jones in the General Debate:

Well, here I am, coming after Shane Jones, and I’m not quite sure what he actually said, but he seemed to say that they will ensure—presumably, “they” being the Government of the day—that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) does a thorough job on our leader. That would be an extraordinary statement to make. Is he now saying that he is going to guide the SFO, which is an independent statutory body on the police doing their work? He’s going to stand and guide the SFO as they do their work? What an extraordinary thing for a Cabinet Minister to say. I can’t believe he said they will ensure that the SFO does it well.

Newshub: Shane Jones makes outrageous claims about National Party donations probe in Parliament

New Zealand First Minister Shane Jones has outrageously weighed in on the investigation into National Party donations.

The extraordinary scenes in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon added to a string of New Zealand First ministerial mishaps in recent times.

Jones’ incredible comment about the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) probe into the Simon Bridges-led party was made under parliamentary privilege and therefore protected from threats of prosecution.

But the SFO is protected by a fundamental of New Zealand’s democracy known as ‘constabulary independence’, meaning politicians can’t get involved in how it chooses to uphold the law – it’s sacred.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has already mildly rebuked Jones after his attack on Rutherford. Will she do anything about this latest outburst from Jones? Probably not much – she seems largely impotent when it comes to NZ First loose cannon MPs bringing the Government into disrepute.

Jones seems to be able to get away with whatever he likes, and he seems to be getting out of control – but Winston Peters is also not doing anything about Jones, publicly at least at by the way Jones continues to spray dirty bullets around it appears that Peters approves of this.

And Ron Mark is also joining the attacks, so it appears that it may be a deliberate NZ First strategy to improve their flagging support.

They may manage to get another percent or two, but at risk of dragging Labour down, especially if Ardern continues to appear to have no control over them.

Ardern has successfully become a champion of progressive celebrity style politics, but if she can’t manage the tough stuff and show some leadership over her much smaller coalition partner party she may find some of her support is not sustainable.

Shane Jones makes ‘chilling’ threats against journalist

Minister of Self Promotion Shane Jones has made disturbing threats against Stuff journalist Hamish Rutherford.

Rutherford:  Bunny boiler jokes aside, Shane Jones’ threats could be chilling

On Monday, in an interview with Morning Report, Shane Jones, possibly the most forceful personality currently in New Zealand’s Parliament, described me as a “bunny boiler”.

Whatever he means by that, I would have happily let that pass.

But Jones also described me as “unethical”, a more serious claim which he has not clarified, despite implying that he might use parliamentary privilege to say more – an ancient right MPs have to say literally whatever they want without legal repercussions, so long as they say it in the House.

It is an ancient and important right. But I understood, at its core, was the need to promote free speech, not to stifle it.

This has led to a difficult couple of days. I have not been able to defend myself as I have not known what the accusations might be.

Jones (or any MP) could say anything at all about me, or you, with no legal comeback.

It is extraordinary for Jones to make ‘unethical’ accusations and threaten to use parliamentary privilege to say more.

This all came after I published a story on Sunday, which revealed that Jones sat in a meeting and provided reassurances to his ministerial colleagues about a project he had declared a conflict of interest in.

That project, Manea, Footprints of Kupe, a proposed cultural centre in Opononi, is in line to get up to $4.6 million in taxpayer funding.

The story also highlighted what I believe were inconsistencies about his statements about what exactly his interest was and whether his statements to Parliament were, with the benefit of hindsight, accurate.

Jones’ office tried to shut down questions on the project in 2018 and Jones has equivocated about whether he knew that the project’s supporters were using his name as they tried to apply for taxpayer funding in 2015.

Jones has drawn more attention to all of this rather than shut it down by trying to scare Rutherford off.

The fact that no-one from the Government has properly shot down Jones’ threat to malign me in Parliament will not deter me.

But it should be a chilling warning of the potential consequences for anyone planning to question this Government’s integrity.

Where does Jacinda Ardern stand on this?

RNZ:  Jacinda Ardern says Shane Jones’ remark on journalist is not appropriate

The prime minister says attacking a journalist in the House using parliamentary privilege is “ill-advised”.

Jacinda Ardern told Morning Report it would not be appropriate for Mr Jones to launch an attack on Rutherford.

“Ultimately I have, when asked, said that I did not believe that would be appropriate, and that’s my advice to Mr Jones.”

That really put Jones in his place – a place where he seems to be able to do and say as he pleases.

Shane Jones denies conflict of interest accusations

Putting Shane Jones in charge of a billion dollars a year of handouts through the Provincial Growth Fund was always going to be both a financial and a political risk.

And it was always going to be scrutinised by political opponents, especially with the amount of money being poured into Jones’ home province, Northland.

RNZ: Shane Jones denies conflict of interest in funding decision

Cabinet Minister Shane Jones is denying his role in a decision to fund a group from the regional growth fund is a conflict of interest.

Before he became minister Mr Jones was involved in plans to build Manea Footprints of Kupe, a culture heritage and education centre in Northland.

He declared a conflict of interest in the project when he became a Minister in November 2017.

But in February 2018 he attended a meeting of Ministers where he spoke about the project, providing reassurances about its management.

Finance Minister Grant Robertson then approved a $4.6 million grant, despite Treasury recommending it not go ahead.

Mr Jones said he gave only factual information at the meeting and was not otherwise involved in the decision.

National MP Paul Goldsmith…

…said the Prime Minister must demand answers from Mr Jones.

“If you’ve declared a conflict of interest you shouldn’t be in the room,” Mr Goldsmith said.

“He was in the room, responding to questions, we don’t know to what extent, and so he’s left himself wide open to perceived conflicts of interest and not doing things as they should be done.”

Act leader David Seymour…

…said the Prime Minister must sack Mr Jones over his involvement in the project.

Mr Seymour said it was “completely inappropriate” for Mr Jones to be involved in the meeting which decided to grant the project $4.6m.

In an answer to a Parliamentary question, Mr Jones said he had attended no formal meetings about the project since becoming a Minister.

He said Mr Jones’ misleading answer showed he is not fit for ministerial office and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has no choice but to sack him.

Stuff: Prime Minister rejects calls to sack Shane Jones, saying conflict was managed

Jacinda Ardern says she will not sack Shane Jones, after it was revealed the NZ First Minister took part in a key funding meeting for a project he had earlier declared a conflict of interest in.

Documents show Jones, the Regional Development Minister, sat in on a funding meeting where a group of Cabinet colleagues approved up to $4.6 million in funding from the Provincial Growth Fund, providing reassurances about the governance of the plan.

“Based on both the information and advice I’ve received, the conflict of interest was managed in accordance with the Cabinet Manual so therefore I would have no cause to sack Minister Jones”, the Prime Minister said in a statement.

Jones defended staying in the meeting in taking part, saying he had disclosed his interest, which satisfied is responsibilities, although he acknowledged there was a “school of thought” that would consider he should have left the meeting.

“I don’t believe my presence in any meeting with three other powerful ministers has any deterrent effect.”

He has dismissed documents from Manea’s proponents suggesting he was proposed to be the chairman of an entity to facilitate the project.

“I don’t care what the documents said, that was just wishful thinking on the part of the people of Hokianga.”

Act MP David Seymour called for Jones to be sacked as a minister and has written to the auditor-general asking for an investigation.

“Clare Curran was sacked for failing to disclose a meeting. Shane Jones has done exactly the same, the only difference being that Curran’s meeting had no consequence whereas Jones was decisive in $4.6 million of taxpayer money going to an organisation he’d previously been involved with,” Seymour said.

Jones will probably keep his job, for now at least, but these stories will keep nagging away at Government credibility and prudence in handing money out to Northland projects that he has had some connection to.

 

Provincial growth Fund another ‘Think Big’ dud?

A New Zealand think tank is claiming the Government’s Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) needs a course correction to ensure it isn’t wasting money.

The Maxim Institute released a report on Tuesday which suggests the Government’s “big” thinking with the $3 billion PGF comes with too much risk, and it needs to start making “smart” investments to generate the best outcomes for the regions.

“The temptation when you are under that kind of pressure is to pick the low hanging fruit, to grab the thing that is investment ready, even if it isn’t necessarily the best investment in the big scheme of things” said chief executive Alex Penk.

The report says that the PGF has “great potential” but introduces the risk of “misallocating resources, creating dependency culture and favouring rent-seekers over innovators”.

The institute’s five key concerns include a lack of evaluation and little co-ordination across the overall regional development strategy. It also said a “sector-based investment strategy that picks certain sectors over others introduces undue risk”.

 

Provincial Growth Fund – jobs created

National MP Paul Goldsmith asked Minister for Regional Development Shane Jones questions about job creation in Parliament yesterday:

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept the figures of the latest household labour force survey, which showed that while New Zealand was creating 10,000 jobs per month under the last two years of the National Government, over the past three months it’s created only 667 jobs per month; and if so, does he think the Provincial Growth Fund will compensate for that massive reduction in job creation?

Hon SHANE JONES: On the question of jobs, as the first citizen of the provinces, I look at things through the spyglass of optimism. And the reality is that, as we make our allocation decisions, these projects and these capital investments take time to fully roll out. But I have sought additional advice, and very shortly I will provide a figure both to the House and to public, which is inversely related to the gibberish I had from that member around about Waitangi time.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that if job growth had continued at the same pace that it had under National, there would have been an extra 28,000 jobs created in the past three months in this country; and is the Provincial Growth Fund in any way compensating for that lost opportunity for Kiwis?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, the Provincial Growth Fund is really premised on the notion of provincial futures, and I have had precious little time to think about those dim, bleak times that he refers to.

Comment from Gezza:


Provincial Champion, Shane Jones corrects the record on PGF job numbers
(Actually, it’s more of a case of he says he finally now has a record of job numbers)

Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones has told 1 NEWS that 560 jobs have been generated so far by the Provincial Growth Fund. It comes several weeks after National’s Economic and Regional Development spokesperson Paul Goldsmith claimed the fund had only created 54 jobs.

Mr Jones admits he wasn’t tracking the number properly, but says officials have now done a ring-around and are promising regular updates. “[It’s] 10 times larger than the miserable figure that my National opposition character [in] Epsom sulks, Mr Goldsmith was tossing around,” he said.

The Minister says the 560 figure is made up of both part-time and full-time jobs, and does not include contractors, trainees or bureaucrats.

More…

1 News at 6 video clip embedded
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/exclusive-govts-3b-provincial-growth-fund-generates-560-jobs-good-start-towards-10k-promise?variant=tb_v_1


So 560 is all jobs working any number of hours, not the Full Time Equivalent that is often given for job numbers.

It’s early days yet for the Provincial Growth Fund. ‘Only’ $650 million of the three year budget of $3 billion has been handed out so far.

Time will tell how many jobs are created through investment from the fund – total and FTE – and more time will tell how many of those jobs are not short term. It’s possible that once the fiunding runs out that some jobs won’t be financially sustainable.

 

Predator control, 1080 and Green refusal to allow GE science

The Provincial Growth Fund seems to be in part a fund for whatever policies Shane Jones wants to promote. And so it seems with a predator control announcement.

But funding for innovative new means of control seems to be suffering, with Jones and NZ First wanting to move away from use of 1080 use , but the Greens refusing to allow research that has anything to do with genetic modification.

Newsroom:  Political dead rat a win for 1080 protesters?

Tired of being harangued by anti-1080 campaigners, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones is welcoming a $19.5 million Provincial Growth Fund investment to be spent on the development of new predator control tools and techniques as alternatives to the pesticide.

The funding will be used by Crown-owned Predator Free 2050 to encourage research and development of new tools, as well as to contract predator control projects for rural and forested land.

Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage said it would help “stimulate rapid innovation” hopefully resulting in more effective traps, lures, remote sensing, surveillance and data management technologies. The Government hopes these new innovative techniques will reduce the need for 1080 to maintain predator-free status in areas where predators have been eradicated.

Sage was keen to emphasise that the Government was not backing down on 1080, but looking for innovative alternatives to use in addition to the pesticide, which has been the focus of nationwide protests, marches and the reported abuse of DOC staff.

However, comments by Shane Jones, and posts on the New Zealand First Facebook page, may give heart to anti-1080 campaigners that their protests have swayed the Government’s coalition partner – even though the funding of new pest-control technology is something that has long had all-party support.

On Facebook, the party is promoting the investment, with posts reading: “We’re doing our best to render 1080 redundant. New Zealand First has maintained its opposition to 1080 and that with adequate resources, research and development into alternatives, we can replace it.”

Northland is home to many of the anti-1080 protesters, as well as to Jones.

There seems to be conflicts between Greens and Jones on the us of 1080.

But what are the realistic alternatives to 1080?

Newshub:  Govt blocking breakthrough technology that could make New Zealand predator-free

There’s a major roadblock within the Beehive over the role genetic engineering (GE) could play in a predator-free New Zealand by 2050.

Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage has stopped any and all work being done to use GE technology, despite official advice suggesting it could be used to help rid New Zealand of predators.

But Ms Sage told Newshub she is not interested in going down the GE “rabbit hole”.

“We want to focus on existing tools, making them better and finding new tools without being diverted down the potential rabbit hole of GE research.”

Officials have signalled GE could be an effective alternative to 1080.

“It could be efficient and much more cost-effective method of pest control than conventional approaches.

“For potential application to replace knockdown tools such as aerial 1080, they would be most effective for short generation pests such as rodents, and less effective for longer generation pests such as stoats and possums, due to their requirement to spread over generations.”

Despite that, Ms Sage penned a Letter of Expectation to Predator Free 2050 Limited, explicitly telling the company not to invest in research into the technology.

The letter:

Newshub’s also obtained a number of emails written by the minister that reveal her personal position on the technology.

In one email, she wrote: “Please be assured that the department is clear about my expectations regarding genetic technologies. It has informed me that there is no mammalian gene drive technology research currently occurring in New Zealand.

“I have also required Predator Free 2050 Ltd to carry out appropriate due diligence on any co-funded projects before agreeing on any contracts, and have explicitly required them not to be involved in any research with genetically modified organisms and technologies such as CRISPR or gene editing.”

In another email, the minister made a similar comment: “I have been clear about my expectations regarding such technologies.”

Official advice also said the technology has the potential to control pests “in a humane and efficient manner without inadvertently harming other species like native birds”.

But Ms Sage told Newshub the Government isn’t blocking work in the area, there’s just been no decision to advance any discussion in the area.

“There’s no public mandate to do any work in that space – it would be a major change in Government policy.”

So is it Government policy that any research into predator control involving genetic modification is banned?

National’s conservation spokesperson Sarah Dowie said the Government is refusing to look into the potential benefits because it’s blinded by ideology.

“I think she’s been captured by her ideology, [and] that’s not a good thing,” Ms Dowie said.

“National’s all about the science. We think good science should inform conservation policy, and if we want our children to experience kiwi, tui, takahe in the wild – because that’s a New Zealand legacy – we need to have these conversations and make a decision moving forward.

It seems that while Greens are in Government science is limited to what fits within their rigid ideologies, which includes a staunch anti-GE stance.

Genetic modification is also contentious as a potential means of reducing carbon emissions.

‘Let’s do this’ Ardern promise for light rail now ‘let’s do this later, if NZ First let us’

Minister of Transport Phil Twyford has admitted that a Labour promise for a light rail line in Auckland to be completed by 2021 will not be kept, but he says that the Jacinda Ardern promise was made before she was Prime Minister.

Newshub: Jacinda Ardern breaks the first promise she made as Labour leader

The first promise Jacinda Ardern made as Labour leader looks to have gone up in smoke.

During her first big public outing as leader during the election, she promised rail for all – including a line from the Auckland waterfront to Dominion Rd to Mount Roskill, all to be completed by 2021.

The promise was part of a $15 billion package and came with a plea from Ms Ardern – she needed cash to fund it.

“You can call a regional fuel tax ‘crowd-sourcing’ if you like,” she told the public.

That part of the promise did come true: Aucklanders are paying the 10 cents a litre more at the pump.

But Labour hasn’t done the rail part.

On Wednesday, Transport Minister Phil Twyford admitted the Government would fail to build light rail down Dominion Rd by 2021. Instead, he only expects work to start on it next year.

Mr Twyford’s defence is that promises made by Jacinda Ardern as Labour leader are completely different from promises made by Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister.

NZ Herald (6 August 2017): Jacinda Ardern outlines Labour’s light rail plan for Auckland

Labour is promising to build a 20km light rail line from the city to the airport as a priority – partly funded by higher petrol prices – leader Jacinda Ardern announced today.

She says Labour will build light rail from Wynyard Quarter to Mt Roskill within four years, followed by light rail from Mt Roskill to the airport and light rail to West Auckland within 10 years.

I wonder if this is another scrapping of an interim target but retaining the 10 year target (as the Government has done with KiwiBuild targets).

“I believe Labour’s plan is a game-changer. It will reduce the $2b a year that congestion costs Auckland. It will realise Auckland’s potential to be a truly world class city,” said Ardern.

She said Labour will give Auckland Council the power to introduce a regional petrol tax – understood to be 10 cents a litre – to help pay for light rail. Infrastructure bonds and targeted rates will also be used to fund transport in Auckland.

A world class city needs a rail connection from the CBD to its international airport – that’s why Labour will build light rail to Auckland Airport as a priority, said Ardern.

The fuel tax to fund it was a priority – it is already being paid in Auckland.

But the actual building seems to be less of a priority – or it was a promise made without a proper assessment of how long it might take to do.

Twyford was still talking up light rail in Auckland as a game changer yesterday in parliament, but the game was going into extra time.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Is he committed to building light rail from the city to the airport in Auckland and if so, when will work begin?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes. Light rail will be a game-changer for Auckland. It will be a magnet for private investment in urban renewal, and each line will be able to carry 11,000 commuters per hour, the equivalent of four lanes of motorway. The light rail project will extend Auckland’s rapid transit network, a core part of our plan to build a modern transport system for the city. There is a procurement process under way now, so work has already started.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Government on track to have built light rail from Wynyard Quarter to Mount Roskill within four years of becoming Government, as promised by Jacinda Ardern in August 2017?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: At that point, Jacinda Ardern was not the Prime Minister.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s not answering—

SPEAKER: Well, it answered as much as the Minister has any responsibility for it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, the core part of the question was—

SPEAKER: Well, the member can ask it again. Ask another question if he wants to.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Government on track to have built light rail from Wynyard Quarter to Mount Roskill within four years of becoming Government?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve expressed the view that we hope to have shovels in the ground in 2020. There’s a procurement process under way; that’s what we’re working towards.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is that another target he no longer intends to keep?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the premise of the question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister agree with infrastructure Minister Shane Jones’ message to Phil Goff about the light rail project: “I would say before Phil Goff gets too enthusiastic about the Dominion Road idea he needs to sort out how he’s going to fund the CRL project. It hasn’t been completed yet and now he’s got to find $500 million to $1 billion for that.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I would point out that the light rail project is being pursued through the Auckland Transport Alignment Project and is expected to be funded and financed as part of that 30-year transport plan, and funded partly through the National Land Transport Programme. The member will know that the City Rail Link project that was entered into under the former National Government is funded through Crown contributions—completely separate from the National Land Transport Programme.

Twyford fobbed off the promise as “At that point, Jacinda Ardern was not the Prime Minister.” Does that mean that any promises made by Ardern during the election campaign are not worth the PR they were written by?

An implication raised here is that NZ First are not playing ball in Labour’s ambitious game changer.

Can any election ‘promise’ be taken seriously when governing agreements negate them?

Single party claims like “Labour will build light rail to Auckland Airport as a priority” are meaningless if Labour is not going to run a majority Government alone.

Calls for more than handouts for Māori

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Regional Development minister Shane Jones have preceded Waitangi Day celebrations with announcements of hundreds of millions of dollars in development grants, but this approach has been questioned and in some cases slammed – see National leader Simon Bridges urges RMA reform over $100m for Māori land ownership

NZ Herald editorial: Handouts are no substitute for a Ngapuhi Treaty settlement

The Prime Minister is doling out a great deal of money on her extended visit to Northland for Waitangi Day.

At a Kaipara marae on Sunday she announced $100 million of the Government’s $1 billion provincial growth fund will be set aside as capital for Māori developments.

Yesterday at Mangatoa Station near Kaikohe she announced $82m from the fund will be used to set up regional training and employment “hubs”, and a further $20m from the fund will go to establishing regional digital “hubs” to help small towns and marae get internet connections.

In two days, with Regional Development Minister Shane Jones at her elbow, they have committed about a fifth of the original fund which is already depleted by some grants of dubious value he made last year.

While the projects announced at the weekend will be spread around a number of regions Northland is one of the most needy, which is why successive governments have been working so hard to try to help Ngapuhi get organised for a Treaty settlement.

After a year of trying, Justice Minister Andrew Little seems to be no closer than previous ministers came to finding a bargaining partner all Ngapuhi hapu will accept.

Now the Government seems to be giving handouts instead.

The Government may be right that Māori land is the underdeveloped asset that can provide those parts with more wealth. But providing seed capital is the easy part. It has to do much more to ensure the seedlings are not mulched.

Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom):  Ardern’s Waitangi sequel a test of relationship

Heading to what has traditionally been a tempestuous occasion for prime ministers, Jacinda Ardern’s Waitangi debut in 2018 went about as well as she could have hoped.

While Waitangi Day organising committee chairman Pita Paraone believes Ardern will receive a similar reception this year, he suggests there may be “a bit of murmuring” from Māori over some areas of discontent.

There has always been murmurings of discontent at Waitangi.

Matthew Tukaki, chairman of the National Māori Authority, agrees there will be plenty of expectation from Māori for the Government to deliver on its many promises.

“We’ve had a year of inquiries, we’ve had a year of investigations … 2019 for this Government must be the year of action.”

Many of the issues prioritised by Māori are the same as for the wider population: Paraone mentions mental health and housing, while Tukaki talks about high suicide and unemployment rates.

Tukaki says there is value in “universal principles that guide your waka”, but argues that is not enough: it must be supported by targeted reform and policies to succeed.

Solutions will not come in the form of short-term fixes, he says, but a longer-term vision that can be sustained over years or decades.

The handouts look to be more short term political fixes, or attempted fixes, but fundamental problems remain.

“For too long, government agencies and offices and ministries have been working on solutions and then saying to Māori, ‘Here’s a solution to whatever problem’,” (Labour MP and deputy Prime Minister) Kelvin Davis says.

Like “here’s some money”.

“Really what we need to say is, here’s a problem, how do we work on a solution together so it actually meets the needs of the people who we’re working for?”

There is a lot of work to do there, more than meeting a next year holding to account deadline that Ardern seems to be trying to address.

Māori will be looking to the future too, and whether Ardern’s government can deliver on its promises: perhaps with an added degree of wariness, but also hope.

They will be hoping for more from Ardern and her Government.

 

Splashing cash at Waitangi

So far one of the biggest stories of the lead up to Waitangi Day is the splashing of Government cash.

It looks more like a political pork barrel campaign than a dignified marking of New Zealand’s most important historical event.

And it’s not just the PR use and abuse of being in the national spotlight that is raising questions.

Newshub can reveal the Government’s Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), designed to create jobs and boost the regions, has only created 54 jobs and spent just $26.6 million of its $3 billion.

Even with just 3.4 percent of the funding paid out, each job is costing the Government about $484,000.

Minister in charge of ther Money Machine, Shane Jones:

“I accept that the projects are going to take a while to fully establish…The Regional Economic Development Minister find himself tangled up in the Government’s own red tape. Despite my heroic rhetoric, it is quite a red tape process”.