The Auditor-General has announced an inquiry into how conflicts of interest were managed when Ministers were selecting projects to be included in the Fast-track Approvals Bill.
Almost 150 infrastructure and development projects are listed in the proposed legislation and will automatically be referred to a panel for a resource consent decision, if passed into law.
More than 380 projects applied to be included in the bill and ministers selected 149 from a long list compiled by an advisory group.
Several successful applicants had made political donations to the coalition parties which prompted allegations of cronyism from opposition parties.
Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, who is responsible for the Bill, said conflicts of interest had been carefully managed and Cabinet Office advice had been followed.
Relevant ministers assessed projects within their sectors and made recommendations to Cabinet about which should be included. If a conflict of interest was identified, the decision about that specific project was handed to another minister.
For example, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones was responsible for mining, quarrying, aquaculture, and farming projects.
He identified six conflicts of interest and his associate minister, Tama Potaka, made the decision to include four of these projects. Matamata Metal Supplies and James Murray Aquaculture both missed out.
Bishop himself handed off the decision to approve Winton Land Limited’s Sunfield development in Auckland to his colleague Simeon Brown, as he had advocated for the project while in opposition.
People associated with Winton donated significant amounts of money to the National Party during the campaign, however Bishop said this was not considered a conflict.
Closer look
In a statement on Thursday the Office of the Auditor-General said it would begin an inquiry into how Ministerial conflicts of interest were identified and managed in the process.
“We have decided to examine how any conflicts of interest were identified and managed by Ministers with support from the Cabinet Office when Ministers were making decisions about the projects recently announced for inclusion in the Fast-track Approvals Bill,” it said.
The Auditor-General said he was interested in this because maintaining New Zealand’s reputation for a trusted public sector relies on clear systems to identify and manage conflicts of interest, particularly for high-level government decisions involving public resources.
He also noted there had been “significant public interest in the Fast-track process” which contributed to the decision to carry out an inquiry.
The inquiry will examine how conflicts of interest were identified and managed in relation to Ministerial decisions about which projects to include in the Fast-track Approvals Bill.
It will not look at the underlying policy decisions, the merits of individual projects, or even the decisions to include a particular project. No public comment will be made until the final report is published.
9 Comments
Winton Land Limited’s Sunfield development in Auckland was rejected by the council because it is flood prone land and the buffer zone for ardmore airport. (noise)
how this even made it on the list smells, and as for CB giving to SB is it a smokescreen and not even a good one
it should have been handed to a non national minister as Winton was a big doner to the national party last election
if it gets the go ahead we will have another western springs in 20 years where the airport is now in the wrong place, to close to housing and council will have a big clean up job when it floods a couple of times
I'm getting very skeptical of Council's flood prone land designations. If it's based on NIWAs RCP6.5 scenario then it's only likely to happen sometime 2050+ Also there are mitigation methods and unless someone, usually a consulting firm at the behest of the council, has painted such a bleak picture that simple methods of raising a house 750mm-1m are insufficient.
Noise can quite easily be put on LIM and its buyer beware. Far less of an issue than flooding.
I'm investigating a section that's right on a stream and the LTP shows a flood line. The question is who supplied that flood line and what's elevation, flood AEP etc. My guess at the moment is a meter high off the ground will be sufficient but needs a more in depth investigation
While we're rinsing out the shuffling of taxpayer money/favour to matey corporate interests, let's consider Seymour's new provider of meals for kids:
- In 2006, Compass settled up to £40 million out of court after it was accused of attempting to bribe a UN official to award the company catering contracts worth in excess of $350 million (£188m).
- In 2012, Compass Group subsidiary Chartwells was forced to pay $18 million to New York state, as well as $19.4 million to Washington DC in 2015, for financial mismanagement and late, spoiled and poor quality school catering.
- In 2021, the same Chartwells was embroiled in the infamous school meals scandal in the UK where it was revealed that it cashed in whilst providing meagre sub-standard food boxes to schoolchildren.
- Unite, one of the biggest trade unions in the UK, christened ESS – another Compass subsidiary – as “Britain’s most heartless employer” in a dispute where outsourced cleaners and catering staff at the Ministry of Defence faced false redundancy in a “fire and rehire” manoeuvre.
- In 2008, Eurest Dining Services, a Compass catering subsidiary in Canada, served food with traces of the listeria bacteria in seven prisons in Ontario province in Canada.
- Between 2008-2009, Compass was linked to regular outbreaks of Clostridium difficile in Canadian hospitals.
- Investigations also revealed that Compass employees lacked proper training and protective equipment.
Plenty more:
https://corporatewatch.org/broken-compass-the-scandals-of-compass-group/
Hopefully more robust than this.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/10/23/survivors-call-for-removal-of-solicit…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.