PM: Conflict of interest kept to rules
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says she will not sack Shane Jones, after Stuff revealed the NZ First Cabinet 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.
An all-weather cultural and tourism facility planned in Opononi – Manea, Footprints of Kupe – was among the first group of projects awarded funding from the Provincial Growth Fund in February 2018. Jones had earlier declared a conflict of interest, which he said related to work he had done when he was a Labour MP, although documents claim Jones attended a meeting as the ‘‘proposed chairman’’ in December 2014 or January 2015.
This led to calls for Jones to be sacked but Stuff revealed on Sunday evening Ardern said she would not be doing so.
‘‘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.’’
Jones defended staying in the meeting, saying he disclosed his interest, which satisfied his responsibilities, although he acknowledged there was a ‘‘school of thought’’ that would consider he should have left.
‘‘I don’t believe my presence in any meeting with three other powerful ministers has any deterrent effect.’’ Jones has dismissed documents from Manea’s proponents suggesting he was proposed to be the chairman of an entity to facilitate the project.
‘‘That was just wishful thinking on the part of the people of Hokianga.’’
ACT MP David Seymour called for Jones to be sacked and has asked the auditor-general to investigate. ‘‘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 $4.6m of taxpayer money going to an organisation he’d previously been involved with,’’ Seymour said. ‘‘Why the double standard?’’