Kyota at Chelsea Daniels here, host of the Front Page. We're taking away breakover summer, but to help build the gap, we're re issuing some of our most significant episodes of twenty twenty five on behalf of the Front Page team. Thanks for listening and we look forward to being back with you on January twelfth, twenty twenty six.
Kyota.
I'm Chelsea Daniels, and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. A self described prince of the Provinces, there are a few politicians like Shane Jones. He's the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, Regional Development and Resources and has been in the spotlight recently for spearheading a restart and expansion of oil and
gas in New Zealand. Over the years, he has faced criticism for his close relationships with industry leaders over the environment, comments like Goodbye Freddy when talking about if an endangered frog stood in the way of mining construction probably doesn't help. Today on the Front Page, Shane Jones is with us to take us through his latest push for oil and gas changes to oceans and fisheries and whether the New
Zealand's power crisis is fixable. First off, when it comes to oil and gas, remind me why we're repealing the ban in the first place.
So the oil and gas industry as a contributor to the energy mix of New Zealand. In the absence of gas or coal, our electricity system doesn't work. We have the option of importing gas, but then that worsens our vulnerability, although we may be forced to do it. Everyone wants to race to achieve renewable one hundred percent electricity, but in the transitional period we need fossil fuels and I'm a politician who believes we should use our own resources
before we import other people's resources. The two hundred million dollars set aside as a part of the package beyond the oil and gas ban is to both accelerate what we know is already here and hopefully to durisk in the future in the event that foreign firms or domestic investors want to have another go and open up new gas fields. So it's really an attempt on my part, on behalf of the government to buttress our security.
Will there ever be a day give it? You know?
So five ten, twenty years time, when we will be one hundred percent renewable.
Do you think the challenge is that the best renewable option for US is more hydro or more geothermal. The difficulty with solar and wind, which people are investing in, is that you have to overinvest because of the unreliable nature of the weather. So let's say you build a solar farm for one hundred megawatts. Figuratively speaking, you can really only rely on it to give you forty or
fifty percent of that hundred megawatts. So then you have to build two hundred megawatts so that over the lifetime and the cycle of the weather, you can get up to one hundred percent, and just no one is ever going to put in that additional investment. So us Kiwi's historically what we've done when it hasn't rained, we've drawn on the natural gas, which has declined. I think it's fair to say that the decrease is both a matter
of politics as well as mother nature. Look an art form about blaming Jacinda, but a lot of that is just because I'm a politician. But the real danger of Jasinda's oil and gas band decision was a chilled investment. It pretty much sent a signal to New Zealand businesses
and overseas investors. There's no future in New Zealand for this type of fuel to power the economy because the government wants to ban it and there are so many other places overseas for foreigners to put the capital in and use gas, and that's what they did.
So you don't think that we'll ever move one hundred percent away from oil and gas.
I love sixty five. It won't happen in my lifetime.
In terms of geothermal energy, though, you've promised that will double production by twenty forty at the same time as promising to restart the oil and gas industry. Is it a bit of a contradiction there? Are you just making sure that we've got fingers in all of the pots.
My mission is to create the most competitive priced energy in the OECD. I want New Zealand to have the most affordable energy in our comparable trading partner jurisdictions. So that's what I'm not known about. And for that to happen, we need to boost and shoot every arrow in the quiver. Now, gfthermal may prove to be a game changer in a
fundamental way. If we can commercialize what's called deep seated supercritical energy, which has down at about five kilometers in the Earth, and the international experts have advised me, along with our own officials, if anyone can do it, the Keywis can do it. It is a bit of a
moonbeam shot. However, such as the critical importance of energy, I think that the community should expect the government is willing to put capital at a risk and take on some of the long term punts, and without a doubt, to your thermal supercritical energy is one of them.
Garcity is rewarded in terms of high prices instead of high profits or gent tailors. And one of the things we've observed in the market is that the price of electricity has been decoupled from the cost of actually producing it, So the cost of ectricity, the fourth prices of electricity are currently well above the long run cost of building
new power stations and happened since twenty nineteen. And that's a good sign that the market isn't delivering those sort of outcomes that you'd expect from a competitive.
Market in terms of gen Taylor's in this country. You mentioned power prices for KIWIS. Does there need to be a reform into how gen Taylors work.
Yeah, well, gent Taylor's exist for net profit after tax. They're commercial profit seeking entities. They don't believe it's their role to deliver either affordable energy or energy security. And that's the trade off that we all entered into once John Key sold them to the share market. The position that I've always advocated is there needs to be more transparency in separation within the gent tailors. Their level of power rivals the Australian owned banks and look quite a
professional relationship with them. They know, if I ever have my chance, I'm going to visit UTU on them on behalf of New Zealanders who are experiencing energy hardship and energy poverty. But at the moment I don't have enough votes and I don't have the authority to do that. It's the devistly complex area, this electricity area. We have
an organization called the Electricity Authority. I dismissed them as chocolate teapots, although I've started to moderate my views and they are looking at different options as to what might be some smarter ways to regulate the energy sector and the gent tailors to improve petition. So we have more private sector investors. We have a diverse range of people creating energy, maybe closer to where the energy is actually consumed.
And one thing that I'm looking at is the allocation of over one hundred million dollars into some of the lines companies in Northland, where we've got arguably the best solar and some of the best wind generating capacity. But the transmission pipe, the garden hose going to Auckland is literally a garden hose. It's not capable of transporting new sources of energy at volume.
If we move on.
You're also Oceans and Fisheries Minister, of course, so you need to be protecting the oceans but also advocating for fisheries. But that must be quite difficult, hey, because if you do something that benefits the oceans, the fisheries would presumably get pissed off, and then obviously vice versa. As we've seen, how does that all work? Should they be separated those portfolios?
Do you think?
Well, I don't remember there being an ocean's portfolio. I think it was an innovation that came in with labor. But I'm guided by what we campaigned on. I'm guided by our manifesto and we said that we were going to generate more jobs, more investment and revenue from a legacy industry called the commercial sea fishing industry. It's quite a complex area, as you rightly point out, because lots
of litigation takes place. I mean, the litigiousness in the sector is akin to someone with a very drunken habit. It just seems to roll on and on, which is why I only want to see in the future responsible litigation, not vexatious, frivolous or reckless litigation. And that's why we're changing the law to restrict the ability of people to litigate against the fisheries decisions less it's tightly defined and
relevant to a fisheries decision. Not saving every ecosystem, not saving the braughts, or trying to pile onto fisheries the responsibility for the broad health of the ocean around New Zealand.
I mean, they're the ones out there though, right well.
The men and women who eke out in existence, often in the big vessels, going away for six weeks at a time. They literally are taking their lives into the cup of their hand. All you need to do is watch those images of men and women going over the Graymouth Bar and off the west coast of the South Island to Taypotini. There is a very lucrative fishery. It's a dangerous wildlife industry. I had some experience in the fishing sector when I was a younger man, advocating for it.
In some respects. The lessons I learned in the fishing industry have made me the politician who I am today.
So you've announced reforms, obviously to the Fisheries Act. You mentioned it's the most significant for decades.
What else have you done to support fisheries lately.
Well, I've broadened my attention to both seafood farming and fisheries. Most of the seafood protein comes from fisheries and related resources that are farmed. It's a relatively small percentage that comes from wild caught fishery. But New Zealand has one of the most enviable fisheries systems in the world. There are quote a management system. So look, what I've sought to do since I've been the minister is bring some overdue change, the largest changes since nineteen eighty six. On
the question of muscle farming and oyster farming. I extended all the permits by in large to twenty fifty, so people don't need to go and get any more permits. They can just put the money into the business and get on with running their business. I've initiated a body
of work with mister David Seymour, my senior colleague. He's the deregulatory Minister, and we want to identify what rules and regulations need to change so we can farm trout and other freshwater species because we need to create new industries, we need to create new jobs, we need to build new exports and that's not going to happen unless we take risks. So it's quite a busy dance card. I'm
on the downside. I need to be very careful that I explained to the New Zealand public, in particular the recreational fisheries sector, that these changes are not going to hobble their rights or their privileges.
And in terms of this portfolio, Shane, what have you done to protect our oceans while you've been in charge.
Well, that's been addressed mostly by the Foreign Affairs and Winston Peters he attended the Ocean's Conference. I mean, obviously New Zealand First has supported Honorable Tummer Portucker with his introduction of some reserves around the Hodaki Golf. I've closed down some fisheries whilst I've been the Minister, such as crayfish. I'm about to go out and consult and closing down the harvesting of crayfish off the entirety of the coast
of Northland. Given that I come from Northland and I was born and bred on Kaianwana, you might imagine it's going to be quite a stiff experience. But that's a small example which shows that I don't shy away from making some of these decisions which will be to the benefit of our fishery resource and the community over the long term.
What about bottom trolling? Why can't we just say no to that?
Oh, well, that's because David Attenborough's documentary was a gross misrepresentation of what happens in New Zealand, and then all these sort of kind of social media critics and warriors mistakenly thought that our fishing industry is ruining our ecosystems by bottom trawling. The images on that documentary are not from New Zealand, and bottom trawling is a very skillful
set of operations and it's easily catastrophized. But New Zealand doesn't actually apply bottom trawling to much of our economic zone. It's just some targeted areas, and a lot of the seamounts deeply located in the ocean, they're already protected. It is a key feature of how the industry operates at the moment, and with the advent and the expansion of cameras, I'm sure over time people's fears will be allayed. But it is an area you're right that is easily weaponized
and exaggerated. But then I often find that the green main na drives people to catastrophize the one or three events that happen in the fishing industry which may be egregious, but they're not reflective of the behavior or the experience of the entire sector.
Is I mean, if it is done so little though, there does the benefit of just saying yes, we're going to ban it outweigh the economic benefit of bottom trawling.
Say yeah, well, I know that there is an agenda to ban it in New Zealand. I know that a number of people have been agitating to bann it in the Hodarky Golf that will not be happening for as long as I'm the Fisheries minister, why not once you bann one part of an activity in a certain area of the coastline, the fishing activity just moves to another area and the bottom trawling references which is not exclusively
but it pertains to the Orange Ruffi fishery. And obviously the Orange Ruffi fishery has been very low in the past and quote dropped off substantially in order for it to recover. That's how the system works, and we're going to have to look at those options going forward because there is an issue obviously where the scientists and the officials in the industry are concerned about the state of part of the Orange ruffy fishery in the South Island. But you can't blame bottom trawling for that.
Well, we'll have to wait and see when it comes to actually the devil being in the details here. But the idea of sustainability and Shane Jones is like fossil fuels and climate action, the two do not mix. And I think New Zealanders need to understand why this has been so controversial for so long, because ultimately our fitting industry is not run in a sustainable way. And Shane Jones wants to take the shackles off and see more of our oceans exploit it.
You've been accused of being out of touch and favoring private or corporate interests while downplaying environmental concerns in favor of economic development.
You must get sick of that, Shane.
Why do you think it's such a bugbear and why do you think that you're accused of it so often?
I just think it's the blood sport of politics. I think there's a new generation coming forward who've forgotten that milk comes from cows, that fish is a wildlife industry. I just accept it for the political mix. It's got more ubiquitous with social media. But for every person that's complaining, I can tell you there's ten other Kiwis who applaud and barracked me for being one of the plain, candid, articulate men in politics who says it as it is.
It's like I said, I know that triggers responses, but then that's what politics is about. And I say to all my critics, meet me at the ballot box.
So you're not a puppet for private interests.
I'm a great supporter and promoter for investment, for jobs for economic growth. And I say to the viewers who are many and listeners to your program, we are going through some severe economic challenges. We have to become familiar and comfortable with making trade offs. And because our society has become so metropolitanized, far too many of my critics have forgotten that the wildlife industries, the farming industry, the growing industry, they represent the bulk of our export earnings.
And New Zealand will never be self sufficient unless it can use its natural resources boost its income internationally. Because, to the best of my ability of sought to convince my critics living in Auckland, you don't grow rich by doing each other's laundry.
Shame.
Lastly, what does the future look like for you?
Are you already thinking about campaign, you know for election twenty twenty six?
Is now all go? Or do you get to wait a few months till next year?
Well, obviously I've got my constitutional responsibilities as a cabinet minister, and most of those decisions, not all, are made under the law, so I can be held legally accountable for a number of my fisheries decisions and expansion of mining. As you know, New Zealand is now regarded as a consequence of the Fraser Institute analysis of mining destinations, New Zealand has gone from last to number fifteen in the whole world in terms of a desirable investment destination for mining.
But that's what I was asked to do by the Prime Minister. That's what I was asked to do by our government. And I'm going to continue to expand footprint of jobs investment. I've got no time for that duo perched two hundred and fifty meters up in the sky on top of a coal mine down in the West Coast.
I think that their beliefs have turned into a statement of personal arrogance and conceit, and now they're endangering all those jobs and that coal mine, and I just think that it's reckless and it's as indefensible that their personal luxury beliefs are now regarded as of such importance that it would wipe out hundreds of jobs on the West Coast.
You can see where they're coming from, though. I mean, when we do talk about oil and gas and coal burning, etc. Then you've got a planet that's heating, You've got kids worried about their future due to climate change.
We're getting bigger, scarier storms. We have a tsunami warning the other week. I mean, we do understand people's concerns when we talk about oil and gas and everything.
I mean, do you think that there's a toss up to be had between saying, look, we need this in order to have energy and be able to turn the lights on in the future. But here we do concede and say, look, we are looking at other options.
I think often I get a bad rap. I'm the politician that's spent over two hundred million dollars dedicated to protecting our stock banks, to stop rivers from flooding, and I've been told by various regional councils if that money hadn't been allocated and spent my my good self areas
such a Taradale would have been wiped out. I'm the guy at a time of fiscal hardship dedicated sixty odd million dollars to exploring for supercritical energy and if we can pull it off, it'll completely invert the price equation of New Zealand's energy. Also the guy funding the moment small communities from Stuart Island, Chatham Islands, the East Cape, Northland Community Renewable energy projects, but it's easier to focus on Shane Jones as someone who backs fossil fuels that's
going to fry the planet. And look, you can't fight that level of emotional virtue signaling with facts, and that's what brings me out with my own brand of hyperbleon rhetoric. And all those bloodites that met their match and much to a Shane.
Thanks for joining us, Shane, thanks.
For having me. Bye.
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzidherld dot co dot MZD. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sells and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to The Front Page on Iheartrate or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.