Shane Jones has come under fire for an undeclared dinner with mining interests.

An article from Newsroom reveals that the dinner was excluded from his ministerial diary, Jones saying that the dinner was “informal” and “last-minute”.

He then corrected himself, saying the dinner was arranged in advance.

When questioned why the dinner wasn’t in the dairy, Jones said it was “less conspiracy more cock-up - and inattention in our office,” promising to tighten the administration of the diary for the future.

Julie Haggie, CEO of Transparency International NZ, told Kerre Woodham that transparency is absolutely necessary, especially when the Minister wants to use a social license to take a considerable amount of power to make decisions.

She said the issue is fast tracking sets up a situation where ministries are referring cases, but there’s limited opportunity for review, limited advice, and limited challenge, which is quite a concentration of power.

Haggie said that the power shifts from the Government agency and Minister, and so much greater transparency and more accountability is very important. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Shane Jones has come under fire for an undeclared dinner with mining interests. 
An article from Newsroom reveals that the dinner was excluded from his ministerial diary, Jones saying that the dinner was “informal” and “last-minute”. 
He then corrected himself, saying the dinner was arranged in advance. 
When questioned why the dinner wasn’t in the dairy, Jones said it was “less conspiracy more cock-up - and inattention in our office,” promising to tighten the administration of the diary for the future. 
Julie Haggie, CEO of Transparency International NZ, told Kerre Woodham that transparency is absolutely necessary, especially when the Minister wants to use a social license to take a considerable amount of power to make decisions. 
She said the issue is fast tracking sets up a situation where ministries are referring cases, but there’s limited opportunity for review, limited advice, and limited challenge, which is quite a concentration of power. 
Haggie said that the power shifts from the Government agency and Minister, and so much greater transparency and more accountability is very important.  
LISTEN ABOVE

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Julie Haggy: Transparency International NZ CEO on Shane Jones' meetings and the need for transparency

I heard a shocking story about someone who went out on Saturday night and, over the course of about five hours, polished off a bottle of wine.

They didn’t share it with someone else or with other people. A bottle of wine is what this person, themselves, drunk over about five hours while they were at some do, some party.

Then guess what this person did? They got in their car to drive home. And this is one reason why I think we need to stop messing around when it comes to drink-driving, and why I think we need to have a zero-alcohol limit. 

Because talk about a lottery. Taking a chance. This person obviously thought ‘oh, I’m fine. Yeah, I’ve drunk a bit but, you know, it was over the space of five hours, all good’, and away they went.

So, what happened on their way home? Yep - they got pulled over by the cops and breath tested, which came back with a zero-alcohol reading and this person said ‘thank you officer, good night’, and drove the rest of the way home.

The same weekend, another driver thought they could do exactly the same, except they weren’t quite so “lucky”.

This other person got behind the wheel, was stopped by the cops, they did a breath test on him, and he had a breath-alcohol reading that was nearly 10-times the legal limit.

He was in Cromwell and blew more than 2,000 milligrams of alcohol per litre of breath. The legal limit in New Zealand is 250. If you’re under 20, it’s zero. And I’m in no doubt it should be zero for everybody.

As the police are saying today, it is “absurd and dangerous” what these people are doing —driving after drinking so much alcohol— and who could argue with that?

I remember when John Key’s government reduced the alcohol limit for driving and how, pretty much overnight, everyone I knew was so much more cautious. In fact, I remember people deciding then that they just wouldn’t drive even if they’d had just one drink. They didn’t think it was worth the risk of getting caught. 

But I don’t think that level of vigilance has stuck. 

The other thing too is when you have a legal alcohol limit —whatever it is— it’s still pretty hard for people to decide whether they should be stepping-in and stopping someone from driving.

Sure, if someone’s slurring their words or staggering around the place, it’s pretty obvious. A lot of the time, though, who would know whether or not someone’s ok to drive? Unless you or they have kept a written record of the intake, again - it’s just a guessing game. 

But if we had a zero-alcohol limit, it would be easy. “You’ve had at least one drink mate, you’re not driving”. No arguments. Easy.

Now I love a beer or a glass of wine. I also like to think that I know when I should or shouldn’t be driving after I’ve had a drink. Even so, it’s still a bit of a guessing game, isn’t it? Because no one ever really knows. 

And it is possible to go out and not drink. A mate of mine was having a party out of town and I had to drive out there myself.

So I didn’t drink. I had some no alcohol beers —which were pretty sweet and nowhere near as enjoyable as what I might normally drink— but I made a plan and stuck to it.

Which is what we would do if it was illegal for anyone to drive with any alcohol at all in their system. And what harm would there be in that?

I heard a shocking story about someone who went out on Saturday night and, over the course of about five hours, polished off a bottle of wine. 
They didn’t share it with someone else or with other people. A bottle of wine is what this person, themselves, drunk over about five hours while they were at some do, some party. 
Then guess what this person did? They got in their car to drive home. And this is one reason why I think we need to stop messing around when it comes to drink-driving, and why I think we need to have a zero-alcohol limit.  
Because talk about a lottery. Taking a chance. This person obviously thought ‘oh, I’m fine. Yeah, I’ve drunk a bit but, you know, it was over the space of five hours, all good’, and away they went. 
So, what happened on their way home? Yep - they got pulled over by the cops and breath tested, which came back with a zero-alcohol reading and this person said ‘thank you officer, good night’, and drove the rest of the way home. 
The same weekend, another driver thought they could do exactly the same, except they weren’t quite so “lucky”. 
This other person got behind the wheel, was stopped by the cops, they did a breath test on him, and he had a breath-alcohol reading that was nearly 10-times the legal limit. 
He was in Cromwell and blew more than 2,000 milligrams of alcohol per litre of breath. The legal limit in New Zealand is 250. If you’re under 20, it’s zero. And I’m in no doubt it should be zero for everybody. 
As the police are saying today, it is “absurd and dangerous” what these people are doing —driving after drinking so much alcohol— and who could argue with that? 
I remember when John Key’s government reduced the alcohol limit for driving and how, pretty much overnight, everyone I knew was so much more cautious. In fact, I remember people deciding then that they just wouldn’t drive even if they’d had just one drink. They didn’t think it was worth the risk of getting caught.  
But I don’t think that level of vigilance has stuck.  
The other thing too is when you have a legal alcohol limit —whatever it is— it’s still pretty hard for people to decide whether they should be stepping-in and stopping someone from driving. 
Sure, if someone’s slurring their words or staggering around the place, it’s pretty obvious. A lot of the time, though, who would know whether or not someone’s ok to drive? Unless you or they have kept a written record of the intake, again - it’s just a guessing game.  
But if we had a zero-alcohol limit, it would be easy. “You’ve had at least one drink mate, you’re not driving”. No arguments. Easy. 
Now I love a beer or a glass of wine. I also like to think that I know when I should or shouldn’t be driving after I’ve had a drink. Even so, it’s still a bit of a guessing game, isn’t it? Because no one ever really knows.  
And it is possible to go out and not drink. A mate of mine was having a party out of town and I had to drive out there myself. 
So I didn’t drink. I had some no alcohol beers —which were pretty sweet and nowhere near as enjoyable as what I might normally drink— but I made a plan and stuck to it. 
Which is what we would do if it was illegal for anyone to drive with any alcohol at all in their system. And what harm would there be in that?

John MacDonald: Is it time for a zero-alcohol limit?

Kamala Harris could make history if the Democratic Party follows through in giving her the reigns. 

Joe Biden's publicly endorsed his Vice President for the presidential nomination after deciding to end his campaign. 

She could be the first Black woman and Asian-American to lead the ticket of a major political party. 

Uncertainty had been circling since last month's debate about whether Biden would stay in the race.

US correspondent Dan Mitchinson told John MacDonald many donors had taken a step back - unconvinced Biden would be able to beat Donald Trump.

“They don’t want to back a losing horse, so I think they were waiting to get their chequebooks out to see what he’s going to do, and now we’ll see if they’re willing to back Kamala Harris.”

LISTEN ABOVE

Kamala Harris could make history if the Democratic Party follows through in giving her the reigns.  
Joe Biden's publicly endorsed his Vice President for the presidential nomination after deciding to end his campaign.  
She could be the first Black woman and Asian-American to lead the ticket of a major political party.  
Uncertainty had been circling since last month's debate about whether Biden would stay in the race. 
US correspondent Dan Mitchinson told John MacDonald many donors had taken a step back - unconvinced Biden would be able to beat Donald Trump. 
“They don’t want to back a losing horse, so I think they were waiting to get their chequebooks out to see what he’s going to do, and now we’ll see if they’re willing to back Kamala Harris.” 
LISTEN ABOVE

Dan Mitchinson: US correspondent says many donors were unconvinced at Biden, now we'll see if they'll back Harris

It's no surprise really, given that National campaigned on getting tough on work-shy beneficiaries, that benefit sanctions have increased more than 50% since the same time last year. Last year Louise Upston said should National become the government, they would make it crystal clear to those who were receiving the job seeker benefit, what their obligations were and what the consequences would be if they refuse to do their bit. So there were 10,389 sanctions issued in the June quarter, up 3,630 or 53.7% compared to June last year, mainly for not attending appointments and failing to prepare for work. 

The National Party has a traffic light system for those on Jobseeker Benefit to make clear the consequences of not fulfilling their obligations. Green light - you're good to go. You're compliant with finding and preparing for work. You receive your benefit as normal. The government doesn't interfere in your life. Anyone on an orange light is at some risk. These are clients who have received one or two warnings, that they aren't fulfilling their obligations, so they might have to do more frequent check-ins with WINZ, not necessarily in person - you can have phone check ins, or computer check ins, or do mandatory training. If you're high risk, you've had three chances and a number of sanctions can be applied to these people, including either cutting or suspending the benefit, subjecting them to money management, or making them do community work. 

Money management is a new sanction. WINZ would pay the person's rent, bills and debt directly, puts some of the benefit into the bank account and then add the rest to a special card that could only be used for food and groceries at approved stores. People might not like that level of interference, but that will only happen after you have had three or more warnings.  

Green Party spokesperson for Social Development and Employment Ricardo Menendez March spoke to Jack Tame last night and said the benefits sanctions will hurt people already struggling to make ends meet and it will limit their chances of getting out of poverty. 

“Benefit sanctions have not been shown to work, so I think just peddling with the same failed approach won't actually help anyone, and it's also quite rich for the government to be kicking people off work, cutting jobs, and pushing people onto a benefit, while at the same time doubling down on punishment and yet not being able to substantiate the millions of dollars that go into these works seminars that have not shown to help people into good work. We've got plenty of reports that show that people get just pushed into casual jobs that end up costing more in childcare, that are insecure as well.”

That was the Greens Ricardo Menendez March talking to Jack Tame on the drive show last night. I would like to know if he's right? Are the work seminars a complete and utter waste of time? Because if they are, then let's not keep doing that. We've learned that that if something doesn't work, if something isn't getting the desired result and you can measure that, then we stop it. We don't go throwing good money after bad. So, if the work seminars are not worthwhile and they're not meaningful, what is the point? And perhaps you have been on a work seminar in the immediate aftermath of Covid, when people suddenly found themselves without a job, you might have had to go to a work seminar or have some counselling over the phone. Does it help you find another job, look at another career?  

Also, in politics it's all about timing and I totally support getting tough on people who choose not to work, who are able to work and choose not to, when employers are screaming for staff. People like BBQ man and Nature Boy who think we're the idiots for getting up and going to work and paying our taxes while they refuse to take work because they are better than the jobs being offered them, they are superior humans, they're worth more than the money being offered and the job being offered. I mean, nobody else thinks that apart from them, but they will continue to take their BBQ to the beach and have a lovely time on a glorious day while we're at work, or whistle through the wheat fields in and the forests, communing with nature and hugging trees and listening to the birds and pitying us for going to work and providing the taxes that pay for their benefits. They grind my gears and I'd love to see them go under the oak and go to a bloody, pointless seminar. 

But like I say, it's all about timing to come out swinging about sanctions, when people are suffering through job losses and a recession when there are people who would love to be working and paying the mortgage and putting the food on the table but they can't because they've lost their jobs through an engineered recession... seems a bit cruel. You lose a bit of the impact with your talk of sanctions and your talk of getting people back into work when people at the moment can't, precisely because this government, and the previous government, and the Reserve Bank have engineered a recession. They need people out of work so we can get inflation down. So it's all about the timing. 

I have no problem with getting tough on people who choose not to work when the jobs are going, begging, and they just can't be assed. Going to a nine to five is going to interfere with the drug dealing. How am I supposed to meet all my customers, when I'm expected to be at work? It's not going to do it. Benefit’s a nice little supplement to my black-market dealings, I have no intention of getting a job. Sure, get tough on them. I would have liked to have seen this come out when we were at a time of high employment, not at a time when there are people who are desperate for work, and because a recession has it been engineered, they cannot get one.

It's no surprise really, given that National campaigned on getting tough on work-shy beneficiaries, that benefit sanctions have increased more than 50% since the same time last year. Last year Louise Upston said should National become the government, they would make it crystal clear to those who were receiving the job seeker benefit, what their obligations were and what the consequences would be if they refuse to do their bit. So there were 10,389 sanctions issued in the June quarter, up 3,630 or 53.7% compared to June last year, mainly for not attending appointments and failing to prepare for work.  
The National Party has a traffic light system for those on Jobseeker Benefit to make clear the consequences of not fulfilling their obligations. Green light - you're good to go. You're compliant with finding and preparing for work. You receive your benefit as normal. The government doesn't interfere in your life. Anyone on an orange light is at some risk. These are clients who have received one or two warnings, that they aren't fulfilling their obligations, so they might have to do more frequent check-ins with WINZ, not necessarily in person - you can have phone check ins, or computer check ins, or do mandatory training. If you're high risk, you've had three chances and a number of sanctions can be applied to these people, including either cutting or suspending the benefit, subjecting them to money management, or making them do community work.  
Money management is a new sanction. WINZ would pay the person's rent, bills and debt directly, puts some of the benefit into the bank account and then add the rest to a special card that could only be used for food and groceries at approved stores. People might not like that level of interference, but that will only happen after you have had three or more warnings.   
Green Party spokesperson for Social Development and Employment Ricardo Menendez March spoke to Jack Tame last night and said the benefits sanctions will hurt people already struggling to make ends meet and it will limit their chances of getting out of poverty.  
“Benefit sanctions have not been shown to work, so I think just peddling with the same failed approach won't actually help anyone, and it's also quite rich for the government to be kicking people off work, cutting jobs, and pushing people onto a benefit, while at the same time doubling down on punishment and yet not being able to substantiate the millions of dollars that go into these works seminars that have not shown to help people into good work. We've got plenty of reports that show that people get just pushed into casual jobs that end up costing more in childcare, that are insecure as well.” 
That was the Greens Ricardo Menendez March talking to Jack Tame on the drive show last night. I would like to know if he's right? Are the work seminars a complete and utter waste of time? Because if they are, then let's not keep doing that. We've learned that that if something doesn't work, if something isn't getting the desired result and you can measure that, then we stop it. We don't go throwing good money after bad. So, if the work seminars are not worthwhile and they're not meaningful, what is the point? And perhaps you have been on a work seminar in the immediate aftermath of Covid, when people suddenly found themselves without a job, you might have had to go to a work seminar or have some counselling over the phone. Does it help you find another job, look at another career?   
Also, in politics it's all about timing and I totally support getting tough on people who choose not to work, who are able to work and choose not to, when employers are screaming for staff. People like BBQ man and Nature Boy who think we're the idiots for getting up and going to work and paying our taxes while they refuse to take work because they are better than the jobs being offered them, they are superior humans, they're worth more than the money being offered and the job being offered. I mean, nobody else thinks that apart from them, but they will continue to take their BBQ to the beach and have a lovely time on a glorious day while we're at work, or whistle through the wheat fields in and the forests, communing with nature and hugging trees and listening to the birds and pitying us for going to work and providing the taxes that pay for their benefits. They grind my gears and I'd love to see them go under the oak and go to a bloody, pointless seminar.  
But like I say, it's all about timing to come out swinging about sanctions, when people are suffering through job losses and a recession when there are people who would love to be working and paying the mortgage and putting the food on the table but they can't because they've lost their jobs through an engineered recession... seems a bit cruel. You lose a bit of the impact with your talk of sanctions and your talk of getting people back into work when people at the moment can't, precisely because this government, and the previous government, and the Reserve Bank have engineered a recession. They need people out of work so we can get inflation down. So it's all about the timing.  
I have no problem with getting tough on people who choose not to work when the jobs are going, begging, and they just can't be assed. Going to a nine to five is going to interfere with the drug dealing. How am I supposed to meet all my customers, when I'm expected to be at work? It's not going to do it. Benefit’s a nice little supplement to my black-market dealings, I have no intention of getting a job. Sure, get tough on them. I would have liked to have seen this come out when we were at a time of high employment, not at a time when there are people who are desperate for work, and because a recession has it been engineered, they cannot get one.

Julie Haggy: Transparency International NZ CEO on Shane Jones' meetings and the need for transparency

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips