The disclosure of the 149 projects that could be granted swift approval under the Government’s contentious fast-track regime has thrown the spotlight on how ministers dealt with potential conflicts of interest.

While an independent group described by Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop as “completely insulated from ministers” considered project applications and produced a report with recommendations, it was up to ministers to select which projects got included.

In making those decisions, Bishop said a “really thorough and robust process” was followed with regard to potential conflicts of interest.

“We were mindful of the need to manage actual or perceived conflicts of interest, so with the Prime Minister’s agreement, transfers of responsibility were put in place to ensure that no minister took part in considering a project for inclusion in relation to where they had a conflict of interest.”

In a written statement on Monday, Bishop said ministers who declared an interest with a particular project “left the room for any discussion at Cabinet Committee or Cabinet relating to that project”.

“Details regarding conflicts of interest are not generally disclosed in order to ensure the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings, to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs and, in some cases, to protect personal privacy. This has been the approach of successive administrations.”

The Herald asked the Cabinet Office if it could provide a list of which ministers transferred responsibility for which projects. In a response on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said details of transfers would be “released in due course”.

The Cabinet office produces a table of actual or potential conflicts of interest ministers may have. The latest publicly available register covers the period of November 27 (when the Government was formed) to April 30.

Judith Collins is listed as having a “potential conflict between personal interest regarding the fast-track consenting legislation and law officer functions as Attorney-General”.

A personal conflict of interest relates to a minister’s “non-financial personal interests”, like family, close associates, former employment, and involvement with specific organisations.

In response to this, Paul Goldsmith was appointed as acting Attorney-General in February to deal with any relevant matters concerning the fast-track legislation. A number of additional measures were said to be in place, like Collins declaring her interest if the matter is raised at Cabinet or other meetings and either withdrawing or seeking the agreement of colleagues to take part. Collins’ office didn’t provide any further comment.

The Greens’ environment spokeswoman Lan Pham said she was glad a conflict of interest process was put in place but she believes the Government should release the specific advice it received about dealing with them, as well as what ministers had conflicts with which projects.

“That seems like the bare minimum that you would think this Government would be undertaking to actually give credibility to the process,” she said.

Pham said she wanted the Environment Select Committee to be able to take public submissions on the projects before it reports the legislation back to the House later this month. The projects won’t be officially tabled as part of the legislation until the committee has reported back, which it must do by October 18.

Regional Development Minister Shane Jones (Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto) confirmed to the Herald he had recused himself from decision-making around projects “where I felt there may be an iwi connection”.

“There were some associated in the Far North because that is where my tribal roots are,” he said. “I went out of my way to make sure there was a process followed.”

Ngāi Takoto has a project “to enhance the economic, environmental, social and cultural interests of Ngāi Tatoko” with the development of sites for 140 residential housing units, water storage and campsite redevelopment in the Far North.

Te Aupōuri Fisheries Management Ltd has its Muriwhenua Aquaculture project, which will see the development of nine marine farms. Jones’ son Penetaui Kleskovic is the general manager of the organisation.

Another project selected for inclusion with links to New Zealand First’s Jones is the Kings Quarry expansion in Auckland. As was previously reported by the Herald, Andrew Ritchie, whose company AJR Finance has donated to both New Zealand First and Jones, is also a part-owner and former director of Kings Quarry. Another part-owner and director is Jones’ relation Stan Semenoff. Jones recused himself from decisions around that project.

Shane Jones, Cabinet Minister and NZ First No 2, in his Beehive office. Photo / Mark Mitchell

National also received donations from Fletcher Building and individuals associated with Winton Land Limited, National Green Steel and Carter Group. Those companies had projects listed.

Bishop said advice he had received showed donations to parties didn’t create a conflict of interest for ministers.

He wouldn’t go into the specifics of how each minister interacted with each decision about each project and repeated the process ministers went through.

Bishop said he felt ethically comfortable with how the process had played out.

“We have been extremely thorough and robust in following that process as laid out by the Cabinet Office. I’m very comfortable with the way things have gone.”

The Cabinet Manual – a type of rule book for ministers – lays out how ministers are expected to approach conflicts of interest.

“Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no conflict exists or appears to exist between their personal interests and their public duty,” it says.

“Ministers must conduct themselves at all times in the knowledge that their role is a public one; appearances and propriety can be as important as actual conflicts of interest. Ministers should avoid situations in which they or those close to them gain remuneration or other advantage from information acquired only by reason of their office.”

They can be managed in a number of ways, such as not receiving papers on a particular issue and transferring responsibility to another minister.

Both Opposition parties and environmental groups have criticised the fast-track process as being too secretive, with decisions about projects being made behind closed doors.

Forest & Bird said it wanted Parliament’s Environment Select Committee to allow for public submissions on the projects before it reported back to the House on the legislation.

“Because developments referred to or on the schedule are almost certain to go ahead, it’s absolutely critical that proper scrutiny happens now so that people can understand the ways existing environmental protections are being breached and the harm that will be caused,” Forest and Bird’s advocacy general manager Richard Capie said.

- NZ Herald