Me and Mister Jones
There is a degree of rough and tumble in journalism and, if you’re going to give it out, you have to take it. But this week vague claims were made that were quite troubling. On Monday, in an interview with Morning Report, Shane Jones, possibly the most forceful personality currently in Parliament, described me as a ‘‘bunny boiler’’.
Whatever he means by that, I would have happily let it pass. Much of the reaction has been fun. I never imagined I would have to explain those sort of cultural references to my parents, themselves avid RNZ listeners.
Friends, colleagues and others I barely know have taken delight in sending weird and wonderful messages.
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 only 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.
After Question Time and an urgent debate, it still is not clear. Shane Jones did not use his privilege, but he could do, at any time.
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 in which he had declared a conflict of interest.
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 as to 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 projects 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.
On Friday morning, his office claimed he learned that it was envisaged he would have a governance role in the project only that same day.
When I spoke to Jones several hours later – not long after I had provided his office with documents which pointed to an earlier involvement – the minister said the information I had been provided, in writing, was wrong.
He had known about the interest at the time (late 2014 or early 2015), but it was just ‘‘wishful thinking’’ from people enamoured with his brilliance.
This is a minister who is at the head of a fund which is attempting to spend $1 billion a year of our taxes. A string of the projects which have been awarded funding have been approved against the advice of the Treasury.
Jones is happy to take credit for spending money across the country, but becomes highly defensive when anyone questions the probity or merits of the spending.
When I asked to meet officials from the Provincial Growth Fund last year, his office suggested that I meet his own staff instead.
Jones is happy to take credit for spending money across the country, but becomes highly defensive when anyone questions the probity or merits of the spending.
Jones stated in his radio interview that I had stayed with him during the Northland byelection in early 2015, and this was how I came to be aware of Manea. This is correct. I did so at his invitation. At the time he was a former Labour MP. Although I was aware of speculation that he would return to Parliament as a NZ First MP, this was to me, just guesswork.
If he cares to elaborate on his concerns, I am happy for him to do so. In the almost four years since, he’s never mentioned anything.
I am left with the impression that, because I accepted his hospitality (and I acknowledge he and his wife were helpful and hospitable), he seems to think he should not be subject to scrutiny.
This would be an extraordinary situation for us to be in, and it would contradict media freedom in a small country.
I believe that other journalists have also stayed with Jones. After nearly a decade of journalism in Wellington, I have socialised with MPs of every political party.
If any MP believes that this is a way to escape scrutiny, then they should make very clear that they feel that way.
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.