Defending GJ

Asher Emanuel writes:

The government lobbyist who served for several months as chief of staff to the prime minister as the new government took office says he didn’t do any work for the lobbying firm of which he is part-owner while working at the Beehive. Nor, he says, was he paid by the business.

In response to questions on potential conflicts of interest, GJ Thompson, who advised the prime minister for five months ending last Friday, told The Spinoff he “declared the potential conflict at the very outset” and that it was for the Department of Internal Affairs to manage any conflict.

Thompson did not directly respond, however, to questions put to him on why his name and personal telephone number remained on the front page of the lobbying firm’s website while he was in service at the apex of the new government, or what steps were taken to address any conflicts of interest.

When Labour’s previous chief of staff, Neale Jones, left to become a lobbyist late last year, questions arose about conflicts of interest and the potential for disclosure of inside information.

But concerns over Jones’ move are dwarfed by those surrounding his replacement, GJ Thompson. Last Friday, Thompson concluded a five-month stint as Labour’s chief of staff. Before taking on the leading Labour position he was a partner at Thompson Lewis, the lobbying firm he founded in 2016. Having left the role, he has returned to Auckland and his firm to continue as a lobbyist.

It is quite legitimate to ask questions about someone being an Acting Chief of Staff for five months, while still being part of a lobbying firm. It is fair to say that it isn’t best practice as he will then be dealing with staff in the PMs Office and Ministerial offices that he himself hired.

But this overlooks why Thompson was appointed Acting Chief of Staff. The person appointed as Chief of Staff was not able to take up the role for several months as he was undergoing treatment for a life threatening illness.

Thompson I am sure did not want to do the job for five months. I suspect he was pleaded with to do it on the basis that they need an experienced hand for the initial few months. From his point of view, he was doing a favour to help out his own party.

It may have even harmed his firm’s lobbying ability. The greater scrutiny of any decisions that favour their clients make make it harder for them, not easier.