This was not a question of someone mislaying their spectacles or car keys. It involved two hard copies of the same or similar documents handed over by two big businesses on two separate occasions in mid-2024 to someone in the PM’s office.
Within those documents, which have been described as briefing notes, Fonterra and Z Energy — who were in the midst of long-running litigation brought by activist Mike Smith — the government was told precisely how to amend the Climate Change Response Act to protect their interests.
This month the government announced it would amend the law, basically as sought by Fonterra and Z, and that this would apply to current and future court cases.
Mr Luxon insists Cabinet came to a decision on this because many ministers felt ‘‘very strongly’’ about the situation and that the state should set the climate change framework, not the courts, not business.
Sadly for the PM, that is not how it looks.
Nobody questions that business and other people in the community have the right to lobby for their causes.
But there must be transparency around it.
There have been considerable concerns about murkiness around influence on policy making in the term of this government including the role of Big Tobacco, infant formula manufacturers, and the mining, fishing, and pork industries.
As we have said previously, we should know who lobbyists are and whether they have ease of access not offered those who might have a contrary view.
But the government has shown no appetite for meaningful change to lobbying rules.
When documents disappear, meetings are not recorded, and sought law changes suddenly turn up, it is understandable there are calls of corruption from the Opposition.
These documents, or the occasions of their handover, were not revealed in two separate specific Official Information Act requests.
The only reason they have come into the public arena at all is because of Mr Smith’s court action.
They were discovered as part of his High Court case and the judge ordered their release, against the wishes of Fonterra and Z who insisted the documents were confidential.
Mr Luxon’s ‘‘nothing to see here’’ approach shows a breathtaking disdain for the Official Information Act, the Public Records Act and even the Archives Act.
He has told Parliament there is no record or recollection of the interaction with the two companies with regard to the litigation.
But that has not been important enough for him to instigate an investigation into the matter.
The best he can come up with is: ‘‘Ideally, there should be a record of it. That’s why my office has asked Ministerial Services to remind staff of their obligations’’.
Is the public expected to believe staff in his office and in other ministers’ offices are not aware of their responsibilities?
It is a repeat of the sort of nonsense we heard about the naivety of staff in Associate Health Minister Casey Costello’s office when she was ineffectively trying to justify her appalling OIA behaviour over tobacco law changes. That also involved a mysterious document which seemed straight out of the tobacco lobby’s playbook.
It raises the question of whether his oversight of what goes on in his and ministers’ offices is so lax, what other lobbying might be going on over our laws which we might never find out about?
Mr Luxon’s frequent use of the word ideally in the latest situation is not ideal either.
It suggests that in a perfect world he would like records to be kept and the OIA followed properly but this might not always be possible or practical.
The PM’s office following the law should be a given, not some sort of target which you strive for, but if you miss it, too bad.
We are pleased the Ombudsman has agreed to investigate this case, but if the PM understood the importance of transparency and proper practice he would have ordered his own one.
