4. Question No. 4—InfrastructureGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister for InfrastructureQuestion No. 4—Infrastructure4. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent reports has he seen on decision-making processes for Government infrastructure investments?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): I've seen a deeply concerning report from the Auditor-General into the shovel-ready and New Zealand Upgrade programmes. The Auditor-General found that Ministers did not have enough information to be sure that decisions supported value for money and that the Government carried out due diligence after announcements were made. He also has reported to Parliament that as part of putting together the report some of the so-called shovel-ready projects were not actually shovel-ready at all. Like many who have read this report I was shocked to learn of these findings and see how badly the schemes were managed. Grant McCallum: Were Ministers provided advice which raised concerns about their proposed plans for these Government infrastructure investments?CHRIS BISHOP: Yes they were indeed. The Auditor-General found that at several points officials advised Ministers of risks to value for money for both the Upgrade programme and the shovel-ready programme. What's more Ministers were explicitly advised there was a real risk of cost overruns as well as delays. The Ministry of Health advised a number of health projects were not ready to be announced yet despite all these warnings Ministers pushed on with the announcements anyway.Grant McCallum: Did the Auditor-General raise any additional concerns about ministerial decision-making?CHRIS BISHOP: Unfortunately he did. He found that Ministers made their decision to progress some of these projects despite the projects not being fully scoped or even planned. Business cases were not always available or up to date. In the case of Auckland Transport announcements were made about Auckland Transport projects and Auckland Transport were not even asked for the business cases or for information about the projects they were responsible for. It is clear Ministers were too worried about hitting send" on press releases rather than ensuring value for money for taxpayers.Grant McCallum: Supplementary—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Just a moment. Just stay standing—we'll just have a bit of quiet while people are asking their question.Grant McCallum: Thank you Mr Speaker. Did the Auditor-General raise any specific concerns about transparency and integrity as part of these infrastructure investments?CHRIS BISHOP: Yes he did and this is very worrying—the House should listen to this. The Auditor-General stated and I quote "A lack of transparency in documentation about how and why decision-makers made significant decisions can … create the perception that processes lack integrity." To quote the report itself "During the process of longlisting shortlisting and Ministers making final decisions … many changes were made to the list of projects under consideration. There were frequent discussions between Ministers' offices and officials during this time and some projects were added from outside of the Infrastructure Reference Group process … My staff found it difficult to determine how or why these changes were made."Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does he agree with the comments made by the Hon Shane Jones in the Northern Advocate on 22 May 2021 I quote "We had a pretty good lick of the cherry in the last three years and as far as Northland is concerned I've learnt the hard way in that the challenge to getting things done is timeliness and execution. Now the acid is on the system to get the projects running and to get the money out. For a small country with a very modest population we spend an inordinate amount of time ticking boxes."Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That is a seriously true statement except it is not the Minister's responsibility to answer it.SPEAKER: Thank you. The question was "Had he seen …"—Hon Members: "Did he agree …"SPEAKER: Well it's a bit like assumption; you're allowed to speculate occasionally and in this case it's not unreasonable.Hon Members: Do you agree?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I agree with a lot of what Shane Jones says particularly about the need for speed when it comes to consenting about which the Government will have more to say very soon.Grant McCallum: Were the stakeholders to these impacted projects well consulted as part of this process?CHRIS BISHOP: Well it won't surprise the House to learn that the answer is no. In one of the most surprising findings of this deeply troubling report key stakeholders like the Infrastructure Commission and Auckland Transport had to find out about the New Zealand Upgrade programme through media coverage—and if that isn't reflective of the priorities of the last Government I'm not sure what is. We are a coalition Government who knows that high-quality infrastructure boosts our economy and benefits all New Zealanders. We are committed to multi-generational infrastructure up and down this country but we also know that proper process and respect for taxpayer money should be at the forefront of our decisions and it will be under this coalition Government."