Police investigate Grey Lynn shooting, Ngā Wai hono i te pō expected to continue her father’s legacy and hearing aid costs put older Kiwis at risk.
THREE KEY FACTS
Shane Jones says he will refrain from publicly critiquing the judiciary after a conversation with Attorney General Judith Collins.
The Law Society and Bar Association called for the Prime Minister and Attorney General to intervene after Jones’ comments about the judiciary and referring to High Court judge Cheryl Gwyn as “a communist”.
The Cabinet Manual says ministers “should not express any views that are likely to be publicised if they could be regarded as reflecting adversely on the impartiality, personal views, or ability of any judge”.
Claire Trevett is the NZ Herald’s political editor, based at Parliament in Wellington. She started at the NZ Herald in 2003 and joined the Press Gallery team in 2007. She is a life member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
OPINION
The battle between NZ FirstShane Jones and the judges ended with a whimper this week – and so we saw the first public telling-off of a smaller party Coalition minister for making things uncomfortable for the Prime Minister and National.
The whimper in question came from Jones, who apparently buckled after being thrice confronted by the expressive eyebrow of Attorney General Judith Collins.
It is not easy at the best of times to convince Jones he needs to shut up, so it took one letter to all ministers and two conversations with Jones directly, telling him off for airing his opinions about the judiciary.
Collins actioned the eyebrow after a tsunami of missives from the legal fraternity over Jones’ views of the Waitangi Tribunal, judges in general, and one judge in particular - High Court Judge Cheryl Gwyn - who Jones called a “communist” in a meeting while discussing the court’s interpretation of the Marine and Coastal Area Act.
It took until Jones’ third strike, when he was once again asked about his criticisms and ventured that there were “totalitarian” tendencies at play (later claiming he was referring to the Waitangi Tribunal, not the courts).
When that happens, things start to get uncomfortable.
It delivered Luxon one of the trickier situations for a Prime Minister in a coalition – how to bring into line one of the ministers of the smaller parties.
It is easy for Luxon to discipline his own ministers. It is not quite so easy when it comes to those of Act and NZ First.
For the sake of harmony, the Prime Minister can’t publicly criticise unless they know they have the backing of the leader of the smaller party.
Illustration / Guy Body
It was at least a fairly easy example of coalition personnel management.
For a start, the consequences were not immense: it was not something that warranted demotion or stripping of responsibilities.
It also helped the minister in question was Jones who, by dint of practice, has developed the act of contrition and penitence into something of an art form.
Jones even took it upon himself to announce publicly that he had been brought to heel, rather than make the PM or Attorney General continue to face awkward questions about what they would do.
He gave an interview to the Herald, saying Collins had “schooled” him on the probity of his actions and made it clear his actions were reflecting badly on all of Cabinet.
Jones had initially made it sound as if Collins had single-handedly dragged him into submission, so Collins might be sitting there content that her eyebrow’s powers are intact.
However, it later transpired it was not Collins’ who was solely responsible – although she is one of the few people Jones is a tad scared of.
Any situation involving a minister from a smaller party requires the leader of that smaller party to be involved.
NZ First leader Winston Peters – who had held his tongue on the issue publicly until it was over - also weighed in.
Peters revealed on The Country that he too had had words with Jones. He said Collins was right and Jones was wrong, and he had told him so. It’s a fair bet it was actually Peters’ view that tipped Jones into the public backdown rather than Collins.
Jones will not be sitting there sulking, because he has got off scot-free. He had made his point. He maintains he was not in breach of the Cabinet Manual.
NZ First's minister Shane Jones. Photo / Mark Mitchell
His sin was not in having such thoughts, but in voicing them.
National ministers are quietly not displeased that Jones has had his time in the sun on the issue. Nobody actually disagreed with him, they simply said they might not have used the same language. Even Luxon initially tried to defend him by saying Jones was simply being “descriptive” rather than critical. In fact, Luxon’s defence of him lasted longer than Peters’ did (partly because Luxon then went overseas where he did not have to be asked about it).
The High Court’s decision relating to the Marine and Coastal Area Act is seen by the Government as judicial over-reach – and has created a headache Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is now trying to clear up by amending that law.
So while Jones did deliver a pledge to stick to taking pot shots at frogs and skinks (and presumably the Green Party because nobody could deprive him of his favourite habit), he did not retract his existing criticisms of the judiciary. He has a history of doing it.
Nor has Jones sworn off having improper reckons about the judges in future: he might just be more careful about his audience.
He said that if such an opinion came over him again, “I certainly wouldn’t say it in front of officials, that’s for sure”.
His communist comment was delivered at what seems to have been a loose meeting between Jones, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith and the seafood industry about the Government’s plans to change the Marine and Coastal Area Act.
It was diligently noted down by an official at that meeting, and the notes released during the Waitangi Tribunal inquiry into the plans to amend the MACA.
By way of suggesting a way to prevent a repeat of such an episode, Jones promptly proposed officials should be more judicious in their note-taking at meetings.
He did not go so far as to suggest that perhaps ministers should be more judicious in what they actually say.
Claire Trevett is the NZ Herald’s political editor, based at Parliament in Wellington. She started at the NZ Herald in 2003 and joined the Press Gallery team in 2007.
