Process to manage conflict of interests in fast-track approvals process 'sound'
Photo:
RNZ / Angus Dreaver
The Auditor General says the process to manage conflict of interests in the fast-track approvals process was "sound", but also saw opportunities to "further strengthen conflict management".
A report released today showed the findings by the Auditor General from an inquiry that looked at the overall systems and processes used to identify and manage the potential and actual conflicts of interests of the ministers involved in the Fast-track Bill.
The process was investigated by the office after it became aware of "concerns about the transparency" of the decision making processes for which projects would be included in the Bill.
Conflicts of interest was described as "perceptions of bias, predetermination, and undue influence".
The report said those concerns can be heightened when a " decision-making process gives Ministers a broad margin of discretion and the decisions benefit private businesses".
"This was the case with the fast-track approvals process."
It did not look at the merits of the Bill, the design of the fast-track approvals process or decisions about projects.
The report stated ministers and the Cabinet Office considered a broad range of potential conflicts, including family and close associates. Campaign donations were also clearly documented as conflicts and had a management plan.
While the process was considered "sound" by the Auditor General, it noted a range of options to strengthen conflict management.
Those included having ministers declare their conflicts of interest earlier in the process - ideally before receiving officials' advice on the applications and before they determined the list of projects to take to Cabinet.
It also suggested considering whether it was appropriate for ministers to participate in Cabinet discussions given they had a conflict - even if they were not the minister responsible for the final decision.
Minister Chris Bishop - one the of the key ministers in charge of fast-track - said he welcomed the findings, and thanked the Cabinet Office for its ongoing advice and support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
29 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Home build dream shattered after Waikato business hacked and woman launders couple's $150k
By Belinda Feek, Open Justice reporter of Sophie Winchester-Krishan outside the Hamilton District Court after being sentenced on three charges of money laundering. Photo: NZME / Open Justice / Belinda Feek A woman's bank account went from a balance of 5c to almost $150,000 overnight - but it was not her money. Instead, it was the money of a couple who were in the process of building their dream home and had fallen prey to hackers. Sophie Mareta Moerangi Winchester-Krishan was the middleman in the scam, where her bank account was used to deposit the funds and she then transferred them to offshore accounts. The 66-year-old, who was charged with three counts of money-laundering as a result, was paid $5000 for her role in the scam. She was recently sentenced in Hamilton District Court, where the couple spoke of their building dream being shattered and how they had been left with "a lifetime of loss and heartache". It wasn't made clear in court exactly how Winchester-Krishan and the scammers first connected. Her defence lawyer argued Winchester-Krishan had been so keen to get back into work that she ignored what might have been red flags. Those red flags included queries by Kiwibank about the suspicious transactions and her account being briefly frozen. Despite this, she assured the bank that the transactions were legitimate. Now, the case has earned caution from Netsafe, which warned it was difficult to recover money in these events and urged people to be sceptical when being told a company's invoice details had changed. The court heard that in August 2021, the email account of a Waikato-based building firm was hacked. The hackers were able to access the company's client database and then created an email with a similar domain name. They then sent the couple an email stating the company was having difficulty with its regular bank and asked them to direct their next payment into a Kiwibank account. The victims later discovered the account belonged to Winchester-Krishan and, before the transfer, it had a balance of 5c. The money was transferred over two days. One payment was $100,000 - the ASB Bank's daily transfer limit - followed by a second transfer of $54,263.01. By the morning of 16 August 2021, the full amount had made its way into Winchester-Krishan's account. She then sent some of the funds to an account in Australia, after receiving payment instructions from an "almost certainly fictitious overseas doctor", the court heard. Kiwibank then contacted her to alert her to a "suspicious transaction" and froze her bank account. Winchester-Krishan later told Kiwibank the transaction was genuine and the money was released. She then transferred almost $30,000 to an account in the US. Kiwibank contacted her about the suspicious account and, again, Winchester-Krishan confirmed it was genuine. Later that same day, she transferred $66,280.77 to a different US bank account. Over two days, Winchester-Krishan transferred just under $150,000 of the couple's money into offshore bank accounts. She kept $5000 as payment. In a statement to the court, the woman said she and her husband bought a piece of land to build their dream home in September 2020. Filled with excitement, they visited the section with their newborn baby in July 2021, after the concrete had been poured. A month later, she received the fake email from the "building company", asking for the $154,263.01 instalment. She duly paid it into what she was told was the company's Kiwibank account. Shortly afterwards, she was informed that the company's computer system had been hacked and their money was gone. "In a matter of seconds, our whole world changed," she told the court. She said their plan to build their dream home had been shattered. Their excitement turned to stress and worry, which was compounded by the fact that she had worked in IT for 17 years. She was left asking herself, "How could I let this happen to us?" The woman said she was so stressed that she was no longer able to produce milk to breastfeed her daughter. "The opportunity to bond [with her] was taken away from me," she said. The woman then developed a chronic illness that she would never fully recover from. She and her husband ended up having to walk away from the building project. "It's hard to believe all this happened for the offender to gain $5000, and it has left us with a lifetime of loss and heartache." Crown solicitor James Lewis characterised Winchester-Krishan's offending as "a sequence of reckless acts carried out by the defendant for financial gain". "The devastating impacts on the victim and their family include life-altering consequences," Lewis said. "The defendant should have heard and seen the alarm bells. "She was being asked to transfer large sums of money to offshore accounts by people she hardly knew. "She was being questioned by the bank about their concerns... but nevertheless, it still happened." He urged the judge not to issue any discount for Winchester-Krishan's previous good character, given her previous dishonesty convictions, and pushed for a jail term or at least home detention. Defence counsel Martin Dillon said his client's remorse was genuine. While she had defended the charge at trial, he said she had only wanted to challenge whether she was reckless in transferring the money overseas. Sophie Winchester-Krishan transferred the couple's money to a number of offshore accounts in August 2021. Photo: NZME / Open Justice / Belinda Feek "She accepts that she was essentially blinded by the opportunity of an online job being given to her," Dillon said. "She did close her mind or eyes to what might have been red flags... she was not motivated by financial gain... but instead of getting back into the workforce and working again, albeit remotely from home." He suggested Winchester-Krishan moved the money within 24 hours, but Judge Arthur Tompkins disagreed. "That's not quite right," the judge said. "The money arrived and then there were about three days' worth of interactions with the bank. "This is not money-laundering where money arrives and it's flicked on immediately. "Winchester-Krishan had to visit the bank in person and then field inquiries from the bank as to the suspicious transaction, which she confirmed was a genuine payment." The judge said the transaction was clearly suspicious, as it was for a "fictitious orphanage in Turkey" with a different "tale" about where the money was going. Dillon also submitted that Winchester-Krishan had co-operated with police in their investigation and was assessed as a low risk of re-offending. He suggested that an end sentence of community detention and supervision was appropriate. Judge Tompkins said, while Winchester-Krishan's offending was not premeditated, she made "minimal" inquiries about where the money had come from, when it landed in her account. "Particularly, when the bank alerted her to suspicious transactions, she took some trouble to satisfy the bank that the transactions she sought to make were not suspicious." After considering all of the submissions, Judge Tompkins found that home detention was the most appropriate sentence and imposed a term of 10 months. Winchester-Krishan has spent some of the $5000 she was paid, but police were about to claw back $1400 of it. However, the full amount the couple lost was not being sought through the court. NZME understood the victims were trying to recover it through other avenues. Netsafe chief online safety officer Sean Lyons said business email compromise (BEC) scams were "a quiet kind of attack". "That's part of what makes it effective. "The email might come from a familiar name. The invoice might match work that's genuinely been done - it lands in the inbox at just the right time. "All of that lowers the chances anyone will pause and question it." However, BEC scams can hit from both sides, he said. A business might unknowingly send a doctored invoice from a compromised account or a customer might receive what looks like a routine bill from a supplier they trust. "Either way, the money ends up in the hands of criminals and it's often very difficult to recover." Lyons said, for businesses, email security was key, while for customers it paid to be "sceptical". "If payment details suddenly change or something feels slightly off, don't reply to the email. "Instead, contact the business directly, using a phone number or address you already know." * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Formula E, FIA poised for long-term contract extension
New Zealand Formula E drivers Mitch Evans and Nick Cassidy. Photo: Paulo Maria / AFP Formula E is poised to extend an exclusive deal with motorsport's world governing body that will ensure it remains the only all-electric racing series sanctioned by the FIA for decades to come. Majority owned since last year by telecoms company Liberty Global, Formula E began in 2014 with a 25-year licence. FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem let slip to reporters during last weekend's British Formula One Grand Prix that an extension to the Formula E contract was done and "would come up soon". Before the season's penultimate round in Berlin, Formula E chief executive Jeff Dodds told Reuters on Friday there was nothing official, but to expect various announcements at the London season-ender this month. Formula One will start a new engine era next year, with a 50/50 split between combustion and electric, but Ben Sulayem has said the Liberty Media-owned sport could go back to noisy V8 engines by 2029. "If they [F1] choose to keep using it [the 2026 engine], we'll choose to keep talking about the fact that they like the [electric] technology so much, they integrate it into their race cars," Dodds said. "If they choose to go back to V8s, then we would absolutely leverage the fact that we would then be the only electric championship and everything that that means." Formula E will likely be reduced from 11 to 10 teams next season, after the withdrawal of Formula One champions McLaren to focus on endurance racing. McLaren had sought a new owner for the team, but Dodds said the timeframe was too tight for interested parties and it would revert to Formula E, barring a late twist. "As it stand, unless something changes - and I never say never in Formula E or motorsport - their last race would be London," he added. "The team slot would vacate, which means the licence would revert to us, and then we have a lot of other interest in joining the championship. "The chance of somebody joining for one year of Gen3 is unlikely, but the chance of somebody coming in and starting to develop with a future coming in for Gen4 is much more likely." Formula E will be in the last year of its Gen3 era next season, with the more powerful and faster Gen4 car then coming in for 2026/27. Nissan's British driver Oliver Rowland can clinch the 2024/25 championship in the Berlin doubleheader this weekend and would be the series' 10th different champion in 11 seasons. New Zealand's Nick Cassidy is currently eighth in the championship standings, while fellow Kiwi Mitch Evans is 18th. Both drivers are in the Jaguar TCS Racing Team. - Reuters
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
No need for bill protecting campus free speech, unis and legal experts say
Paul Rishworth KC says academic freedom is already protected in the Education Act, and the Bill of Rights protects free speech. Photo: RNZ / Alexander Robertson Universities and legal experts say there is no need for a bill protecting free speech on campus . But the legislation's supporters say universities can't be trusted to uphold freedom of expression. Parliament's Education and Workforce Select Committee has been hearing submissions on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No. 2). If passed, it would require universities to develop a freedom of expression statement and complaints procedure, and report annually on it. The Law Society told the committee the bill created "needless complexity" because freedom of expression was already protected by law. Paul Rishworth KC said freedom of expression was of the utmost importance, but the bill was not necessary. He said academic freedom was already protected in the Education Act and the Bill of Rights protected free speech. "So, to add in to the Education Act a requirement that there be a statement on freedom of expression, introduces a needless complexity," he said. University staff warned the bill would force universities to host speakers spreading misinformation and hate speech. Tertiary Education Union co-president Julie Douglas told the committee there was a lack of evidence that universities were limiting free speech. "What we have now is a functioning model which does not need this level of monitoring," she said. Douglas said universities were special places but were being undermined "with a disregard for science, with a disregard for evidence , with a disregard for expert opinion". "I fear that this sort of move by the government with this sort of clause is meddling in a place where it's just not required," she said. University of Otago vice-chancellor Grant Robertson and Universities New Zealand chief executive Chris Whelan appeared before the committee together. They said the law was unnecessary, but if it was to go ahead universities wanted to reduce the associated compliance requirements. "We don't think it's either necessary nor a proportionate response to the issues that are there," Robertson said. Whelan said a similar complaints system in the UK had been "weaponised". New Zealand Initiative senior fellow Dr James Kierstead said staff and student surveys and 21 separate cases proved that universities were not protecting freedom of expression. Kierstead said the problem included staff fearful of losing their jobs if they voiced unpopular opinions and speakers refused the right to appear on campus. "It suggests that university senior management cannot be relied upon to uphold their obligations to academic freedom. If we have plentiful evidence that ordinary academics and students feel stifled and no evidence that senior management is going to solve the problem, then legislation is the only solution." Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said the organisation was sad the legislation was needed. Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith He said students could cope with hearing challenging ideas and opinions. "We should not let a small group of students use their vulnerability... and work with university managers to stop other students hearing views that they think are dangerous," he said. "Free debate, free and open to ideas is part of being an academic, it is part of being a student and universities need to allow that." Canterbury University biological sciences professor Tammy Steeves told the committee should not be required to host any event or speaker . She said academics could judge whether ideas were robust and evidence-based. Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said the legislation was likely to backfire. "It will actually make it worse for free speech on campus, it will politicise it, it will mean that opposing speech on campus will become a political act because it will be seen as opposing the government and I think it will be bad." Geddis said he was on a committee that drew up the university's free speech statement and statement of institutional neutrality. He said translating those statements into legal requirements would be a mistake. "I don't think actually it's the role of government to be trying to impose views on how universities as institutions ought to work. I think that's a dangerous imposition into the autonomy of them as institutions." Geddis said maintaining a culture of free speech would be more effective than making laws. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
