Auditor-general clears Jones, but says he 'confused the situation'

Wednesday, 10 July 2019

NZ First MP Shane Jones, pictured during a visit to Nelson.

NZ First MP Shane Jones did 'not necessarily' need to leave a meeting which determined funding for a project in which he had declared of interest, but better record keeping could have been kept, the auditor-general has said.

In March Stuff revealed that Jones, having earlier declared a conflict of interest in the project, attended a ministerial meeting in early 2018 where millions of dollars of taxpayer money was awarded to Manea, Footprints of Kupe, a proposed Northland cultural centre.

When Finance Minister Grant Robertson expressed reservations about the structure of the project, Jones 'provided reassurance' about its governance, according to an email sent by an official at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Act leader David Seymour complained about the handling of the matter to the Auditor-General, as he called for Jones to be sacked as a minister.

* Act asks Auditor-General to investigate Shane Jones' involvement with Manea

Act Party leader David Seymour said Jones had a 'chequered history in relation to the Manea project' having said in Parliamentary questions that he had attended no formal meetings about the project.

* Bunny boiler jokes aside, Shane Jones' threats could be chilling**

In a letter to Seymour, Auditor-General John Ryan said Jones had 'acted appropriately' in declaring an interest in the project and in transferring decision-making responsibilities in Manea to a ministerial colleague, Kelvin Davis.

However Ryan went on to question Jones' handling of the meeting, as well as the lack of record-keeping once Jones had offered a view.

'In our view, having declared an interest, it might have been better for him not to confuse the situation by expressing a view on the Manea project when it came up for discussion,' Ryan wrote.

'Alternatively, if he was going to express a view, it would have been better if a record had been kept … explaining why he was taking part in the discussion …[and] confirming that his ministerial colleagues had agreed or asked him to participate, notwithstanding his conflict of interest.'

However Ryan concluded that Jones did not necessarily have to leave the meeting.

'Overall though, the exchange that took place between Mr Jones and Mr Robertson at the 12 February 2018 meeting does not raise any significant concerns about the decision-making process which resulted in the award of a grant to the Manea project.'

Jones' office has not yet responded to a request for comment.

In a statement, Seymour said Jones playing 'a decisive role' in the awarding of taxpayer money to Manea 'makes a mockery of Jacinda Ardern's claim to be running the most open and transparent government in New Zealand's history'.

Seymour said Jones had given misleading answers to questions about his involvement in Manea, claiming he had been in 'no formal meetings' about Manea.

'Shane Jones not only played a decisive role in allocating funding to a project he once chaired, he also tried to conceal his involvement in this meeting,' Seymour said.

'In the past he has said he had no relationship, but declared a conflict of interest upon becoming a minister. Despite that conflict of interest, he was interested enough to speak up for the project in a meeting where funding it was being discussed. No doubt he will now downplay his association again.'

Final Response by Hamish on Scribd

The auditor-general's letter does not make it clear whether Ryan was aware Jones has been put forward as the proposed chairman of Manea, or whether Jones was aware of this.

It confirms that 'sometime towards the end of November 2017' Jones had approached the Cabinet Office about the project.

'He told them the nature of his interest was that he had championed the Manea project and knew one of the kaumātua involved in it.'