Image source: Martin Lopatka
The government’s Fast-Track Approvals Bill, which aims to expedite critical infrastructure and development projects across the country, has come under intense scrutiny over the management of conflicts of interest. The government faced criticism last week for not being transparent about potential or actual conflicts of interest when green-lighting projects under the bill. RNZ reported last week that “companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects gave more than $500,000 in political donations to National, Act and New Zealand First and their candidates.” Chris Bishop, Infrastructure Minister, has responded by releasing the list of projects that proposed a conflict of interest and how these conflicts were managed.
The Fast-Track Approvals Bill
The Fast-Track Approvals Bill is part of the government’s strategy to accelerate New Zealand’s economic recovery. The bill enables the swift approval of key projects in housing, transport, regional development, and infrastructure by bypassing standard consent processes under the Resource Management Act (RMA).
An independent Advisory Group was tasked with assessing 384 project applications, recommending 342 for inclusion in the bill. 149 of those projects were ultimately approved by the Cabinet.
The Ministers Responsible for Selection
Responsibility for assessing and selecting projects was delegated to three key ministers based on their respective areas of expertise. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, Transport Minister Simeon Brown, and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones oversaw projects related to housing, transport, energy, mining, and aquaculture.
However, the process hit a stumbling block when it was reported last week that a number of the projects chosen for the fast-track process had been given to companies that donated large sums of money to the parties involved in the selection process. This prompted the government to disclose its process for managing conflicts of interest, through which it was revealed that Bishop and Jones had disclosed conflicts of interest relating to several projects. Shane Jones identified conflicts with eight projects, while Chris Bishop disclosed one, leading to those ministers’ removal from any decision-making on those specific applications.
Disclosed Conflicts of Interests
Shane Jones’s conflicts spanned multiple projects, particularly in the aquaculture and quarrying sectors. These included Te Aupouri Fisheries Management Ltd, James Murray Aquaculture Ltd, and Taharoa Ironsands Ltd. As a result, Tama Potaka was appointed to take over Jones’s responsibilities for these projects.
Chris Bishop’s conflict involved Winton Land Limited’s Sunfield development in Auckland. Winton Land, a donor to the National Party, raised concerns about potential favouritism, though Bishop clarified that his conflict stemmed from his previous public advocacy for the project, not financial ties. In a statement, he said the conflict was disclosed “out of an abundance of caution.”
Both ministers left Cabinet meetings whenever discussions related to their conflicts took place, and the decisions were handled by other ministers.
The Conflict Management Process
The government was keen to highlight the thoroughness of its conflict management system. Bishop explained that ministers adhered strictly to protocols set by the Cabinet Office, which required ministers to step aside from projects where a conflict was identified. Additionally, responsibilities for affected projects were transferred to another minister, ensuring that decision-making was insulated from any personal or pecuniary interests.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon defended the government’s handling of the situation, stressing that the ministers involved had followed all necessary protocols. He praised the use of the independent Advisory Group and expert panels in the project selection process. Bishop described the management of conflicts as “robust.”
Criticism and Calls for Greater Transparency
Despite assurances from the government, opposition parties and critics have voiced concerns. The delayed disclosure of conflicts, particularly the initial reluctance to provide details about which ministers had conflicts, has drawn criticism. Political analysts argue that withholding information risks eroding public trust in the bill’s integrity, particularly given the high stakes of the fast-tracked projects.
The Green Party’s environment spokesperson, Lan Pham, criticised the government for not revealing conflicts of interest for all ministers, especially those in Cabinet. Pham stressed that greater transparency is necessary, particularly when large sums in political donations are at play. Greenpeace Aotearoa also weighed in, with executive director Russel Norman calling the conflict management process “a big mess,” pointing out how projects were repeatedly passed between ministers.
Public Perception
The handling of these conflicts has opened up broader discussions about governance and ethics. The disclosure by Chris Bishop, following his initial hesitation, appeared to have been a strategic move, as political observers noted that failing to disclose conflicts early could have led to deeper issues later on.
Shane Jones, meanwhile, faced intense scrutiny as he is responsible for environmentally sensitive projects, namely mining. His transparency, declaring conflicts relating to his iwi and personal connections, contrasted with the initial reluctance of some of his colleagues.
Lessons and Looking Ahead
The controversy surrounding the Fast-Track Approvals Bill sheds light on the importance of transparency when managing conflicts of interest in government decision-making. The government maintains that the bill is a key tool for stimulating economic growth, but the risk of political fallout from the conflict of interest revelations threatens to cast a shadow over its implementation.