A statement said identifying and managing conflicts of interest was important to maintaining trust and confidence in how public resources are used and to maintaining New Zealand’s global reputation for transparency, accountability and integrity.

“It is essential that appropriate systems and processes are in place to support decision makers to identify any relevant interests they may have and to help them manage any conflicts that may arise,” it said.

“This is especially so when decisions are made at the highest level of government (ie by ministers) or in relation to significant decisions about how public resources are used.”

Given this and the “significant public interest” in the fast-track approvals policy, the auditor general said an inquiry would be carried out to understand and “provide assurance” how well existing systems were used to identify and manage conflicts .

This will include examining what systems and processes are in place, how they have worked in practice during the selection of projects for legislation, where there are potential areas for improvement and what those improvements could be.

“The focus of the investigation is to gain a better understanding of and provide assurance on the overall systems and processes in place,” the statement said.

“We will not review or comment on the policy decisions underlying the Fast-track process, or the merits of individual projects, or the decisions to include an individual project in the fast-track bill.”

He said a report would be released once the investigation was complete.

Bishop told him Herald that ministers “carefully followed Cabinet advice on the proper management of real, perceived or potential conflicts of interest”.

“With the agreement of the Prime Minister, devolutions were put in place to ensure that no minister took part in the consideration of an inclusion project where they had a conflict of interest.”

He previously went into detail about this process. Following the announcement of the 149 projects, Bishop explained that in the first instancethe ministers of infrastructure, transport and regional development have been delegated the authority to determine which projects will be included, with each minister evaluating projects from their own sectors.

Arrangements were made that if one of the three ministers decided there was a conflict, that minister did not take part in examining it and instead transferred responsibility to another.

For example, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones identified conflicts with eight projects and as a result Tama Potaka considered including them. Bishop said there was one project where he identified a potential conflict of interest, so he transferred the decisions to Simeon Brown.

“It is important to note that these transfers only applied to the decision-making responsibilities of the relevant ministers highlighted above. Transfers were not required if conflicts of interest were identified in relation to projects for which that minister did not have sectoral responsibility.

“Once delegated, the ministers had made decisions. The final list of projects was considered by the Cabinet Committee and the Cabinet. Prior to these meetings, ministers reviewed their interests and declared any conflicts of interest in relation to any of the listed projects.”

Bishop said ministers who had expressed an interest in a project here had left the room for any discussion about it. The minister’s statement did not outline which ministers had identified conflicts at this point in the process.

He previously told reporters he was ethically comfortable with the way the trial was conducted.

“We have been extremely thorough and robust following this process as set out by the Cabinet Office. I’m very comfortable with the way things went.”

Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in NZ Herald The Press Gallery team based at the Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub Press Gallery office.