Integrity Briefing: “Anti-Corruption Taskforce Pilot” – A Welcome Step, But Too Little, Too Late?

Note to media, journalists, and editors: Below is my analysis of the Government’s just-announced “Anti-Corruption Taskforce Pilot.” This column is, as always, available in various abridged formats for publication — just get in contact. Likewise, I am available for interviews on the subject, on behalf of The Integrity Institute - Bryce

---

In a move that signals growing unease at the top levels of government about New Zealand's vulnerability to corruption, the coalition has today announced an “Anti-Corruption Taskforce Pilot.” Led by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), with support from New Zealand Police and the Public Service Commission, this six-month initiative aims to map out fraud and corruption risks across the public sector. Six agencies — Inland Revenue, ACC, Corrections, MSD, LINZ, and Sport New Zealand — will undergo self-assessments, data sharing, and scrutiny to baseline threats like insider risks, foreign interference, and AI-enabled fraud. You can read more about the initiative here on the Serious Fraud Office website: Anti-Corruption Taskforce Pilot.

As Director of The Integrity Institute, I welcome this development. For too long, New Zealand's perception as one of the least corrupt nations has bred complacency. We've rested on laurels, but as myself and The Integrity Institute have long argued, that era is ending.

In line with this, today’s announcement acknowledges that corruption isn't just a distant threat in “banana republics” or Trump's America; it's a creeping reality here at home. Yet, while the Government’s announcement is a positive first step, this initiative feels like “too little, too late”.

New Zealand’s laissez-faire approach to integrity has left gaping vulnerabilities which require a more serious fix than what is being offered. The new Taskforce’s narrow scope – focusing only on public service agencies – pointedly excludes Parliament, ministers, and the political executive, where some of the gravest integrity risks reside. Its limited six-month timeframe and pilot status raise concerns that this could become more of a public relations exercise than the beginning of real reform.

So, as The Integrity Institute congratulates the Government for finally acting, we must also candidly critique the pilot’s shortcomings and urge that it be used as a launch pad for a far more ambitious anti-corruption agenda.

A Belated acknowledgement of real risks

There is no question that today’s Taskforce Pilot represents a significant shift in tone. Successive governments invoked our top-tier Transparency International rankings to dismiss calls for new anti-corruption measures.

Yet today, the SFO-led Taskforce explicitly says that we “cannot be complacent” in the face of “emerging threats” like insider deals and foreign bribery. This language could have been ripped from briefings by The Integrity Institute, which has long warned that our “comfortable assumption” of Kiwi incorruptibility is a delusion.

The Anti-Corruption Taskforce Pilot is therefore a positive signal that the Government is finally listening. Its mandate – to gather intelligence across a representative set of agencies (IRD, ACC, Corrections, MSD, LINZ, Sport NZ) – is aimed at establishing a baseline of risks. By December, the Taskforce will report on “trends, gaps and recommended actions” and advise Ministers on how to strengthen system integrity.

This exercise could yield valuable data on where fraud and corruption vulnerabilities lie, after years of flying blind. It will also test new cross-agency coordination: a team of investigators, analysts and data specialists from across government has been assembled, reflecting a welcome “all-of-government” approach. The Public Service Commissioner, Police Commissioner, and SFO Chief Executive are all on board, underscoring the seriousness of purpose.

As Police Minister Mark Mitchell says, this is about being proactive so that our prevention and response systems remain “resilient and fit for purpose”. Public Service Minister Judith Collins frames the pilot as supporting a “broader public integrity agenda”, emphasising transparency, risk identification and ethical conduct to maintain trust. Such rhetoric is encouraging – it shows this Government is keen to “keep New Zealand widely respected” for integrity and is starting to exercise real leadership against corruption.

However, the Integrity Institute’s role is to look beyond the rhetoric to the reality of what this pilot does and doesn’t do. Unfortunately, the fine print reveals major shortcomings that could blunt the pilot’s impact. We applaud the Government for taking this step, and now we implore them to treat it not as a one-off PR box-tick, but as the beginning of a genuine, far-reaching anti-corruption reform programme encompassing all of government.

Too narrow: Politicians exempt from scrutiny

The most glaring flaw in the Taskforce Pilot is its limited focus on the core public service, to the exclusion of elected officials and government ministers. Corruption does not only (or even primarily) occur in back-office bureaucracies. It often emanates from the pinnacles of power – the politicians and political insiders who set the rules and make the decisions.

By design, the Taskforce will scrutinise six departments for their fraud controls and any detected wrongdoing, which is fine as far as it goes. But it will not be examining the conduct, systems or vulnerabilities of Parliament, Cabinet Ministers, ministerial staff, or local government, nor the interfaces between money and politics – party financing, lobbying, contracting, and favouritism in appointments. These political arenas are exactly where recent New Zealand corruption scandals have erupted, and where oversight is weakest. Any serious anti-corruption strategy must include politicians, not just public servants.

Consider the litany of incidents in recent years that have undermined public confidence in our “good governance” reputation: the Stuart Nash affair, in which a Cabinet Minister was sacked for privately briefing donors on confidential Cabinet discussions; the persistent political donation scandals involving multiple parties; the “wild west” lobbying industry that thrives with zero regulation; the revolving door of officials becoming lobbyists; and allegations of ministerial cronyism in public appointments. None of these problems will be touched by a one-off survey of a few agencies’ internal fraud frameworks.

Unfortunately, the new Taskforce stays within the comfortable confines of the public service proper. It will tell us if agencies like ACC or MSD have adequate fraud risk controls, which is useful — but it won’t tell us whether Ministers are abusing power or whether political influence is corruptly skewing decisions. Those domains remain essentially self-policed under the honour system, via the Cabinet Manual and MPs’ ethics code, with little independent oversight.

This narrow scope may reflect political sensitivities. It is always more convenient for politicians to shine the spotlight on bureaucrats rather than themselves. But if the Government is serious about combating corruption, it cannot leave Parliament and ministers as a blind spot. Other countries have recognized this: Australia’s new federal Anti-Corruption Commission explicitly covers ministers, MPs and officials alike.

By contrast, New Zealand remains an outlier with no such body. The Taskforce Pilot, as conceived, does nothing to change that. At best, if the pilot eventually expands “to other public sector entities” as hinted, it might bring in more agencies or perhaps local government. But there is no indication it will ever scrutinise the executive and legislative branches. That is a major missed opportunity. Corruption is a systemic problem; an integrity system that pointedly excludes the people at the top is, by definition, inadequate.

Too Little: A Six-Month Window & Risk of PR Tokenism

The second major concern is the limited scale and timeframe of the pilot. This is a six-month exercise set to conclude by the end of 2025. After the participating agencies file self-assessments this quarter, the Taskforce will spend October–December analysing the data and writing a public report and ministerial advice.

By design, this is a short, sharp project – understandable as a proof of concept, but hardly the sustained effort needed to counter entrenched corruption risks. There is a real danger that once the pilot report is published, ministers will declare “job done” and move on, without any structural change. A one-off stocktake is not the same as an ongoing strategy. The Government needs to convincingly show that this pilot will feed into continuous improvements, not just produce a glossy report that gathers dust.

The language from officials is promising but non-committal: the findings “will set a baseline” and “inform advice” on potentially extending the assessment to more entities. It’s good to establish a baseline, but what comes next? Without a clear commitment to Phase 2 – implementation of reforms – the pilot could easily become another report that confirms what we already suspect (that there are gaps and vulnerabilities) without leading to concrete action.

We have seen this pattern before. New Zealand has no shortage of well-intentioned strategies and plans that never quite materialise. The National Anti-Corruption Strategy itself, promised in our OGP Action Plan, stalled due to “resourcing issues” and a lack of ministerial direction. The Integrity Institute worries that the Taskforce Pilot could meet a similar fate if there is not high-level political will to carry its recommendations forward.

One red flag is that the pilot was announced with considerable fanfare and ministerial press releases, suggesting a strong element of public relations. Police Minister Mark Mitchell and Public Service Minister Judith Collins issued a joint statement highlighting how this shows the Government takes corruption seriously. Their messaging—“every dollar of public funding counts,” “we intend to keep [NZ’s reputation] that way,” and “fighting corruption is about leadership and culture” — is hard to fault.

Yet one cannot ignore that these words come from a Government that, until very recently, was on the verge of withdrawing from the Open Government Partnership altogether. This context fuels cynicism: is the Taskforce Pilot a genuine turning point, or a convenient way to claim progress without tackling the tougher issues like political finance reform or a fully empowered anti-corruption agency?

The short duration also means the pilot will barely scratch the surface. True, the SFO will gain a snapshot of fraud and corruption incidents in those six agencies, and an overview of their controls. However, sophisticated corruption often takes years to detect; a hurried review may not reveal much beyond what honest managers already report. There is also a risk of self-assessment bias – agencies might paint a rosy picture of their integrity frameworks.

The pilot’s reliance on agencies “lifting the hood and sharing data” voluntarily is novel, and SFO Chief Executive Karen Chang praises the “tone-from-the-top commitment to integrity” shown by those agencies’ leaders. That’s encouraging – but again, it presumes the participating agencies are proactively candid. Will any chief executive readily admit, for example, that they have serious corruption problems? Unlikely. Which means the Taskforce could conclude “all is mostly well, just a few gaps to tweak” – an outcome that would conveniently support the status quo.

We sincerely hope the Taskforce team will dig deeper and ask uncomfortable questions, rather than accept superficial assurances. Otherwise, the pilot’s public report may end up reinforcing a complacent narrative that “there’s not much corruption, just a few process improvements needed,” which would defeat its purpose.

The Taskforce Pilot could be a chance to redeem successive governments’ broken promises on integrity issues – if it leads to real action. But if it ends up a half-hearted report with no teeth, it will only reinforce perceptions that the Government treats integrity as a box-ticking exercise for international optics. The Integrity Institute firmly believes New Zealand cannot afford any more “lacklustre” gestures. The risks are too grave, as the organised crime briefing showed – once corruption takes hold, it spreads quickly and quietly. We must move from complacency to proactivity in a systemic way.

Beyond the pilot: A Launch pad for systemic reform

For the Anti-Corruption Taskforce Pilot to avoid the fate of past initiatives, the Government needs to treat it as the beginning of a comprehensive anti-corruption reform agenda. This pilot will succeed only if it is the first step toward building permanent, robust integrity systems covering all of government. In the Integrity Institute’s view, and as outlined in our previous briefings, New Zealand must urgently implement a suite of measures to shore up our defences. These include:

• Developing a National Anti-Corruption Strategy

• Establishing an Independent Anti-Corruption Commission

• Modernising and Strengthening Laws

• Closing Political Integrity Loopholes

• Resourcing and Empowering Oversight Bodies

The Integrity Institute is heartened to see the Government echoing some of the language used in our research and communications. Minister Collins rightly said, “fighting corruption is not just about prosecution, it’s about leadership, accountability and promoting a culture of integrity”. We could not agree more.

But cultivating that culture of integrity will require structural change, not just exhortation. It means leadership by example – ministers and MPs adhering to the highest standards – and accountability through independent checks. The old “Good Chaps” model of trust us, we’re decent blokes, is dead. Our governance needs to be brought into the modern era of transparency and external oversight.

New Zealand stands at a crossroads. We can continue to cling to the myth of exceptionalism, insisting that our public sector is magically immune to corruption, and do the bare minimum – or we can confront reality and undertake the difficult but necessary reforms to protect our democracy. The Taskforce Pilot, limited as it is, offers a chance to pivot in the right direction. It is a small first step that acknowledges the problem; now it must be followed by bigger steps that address the problem at its roots.

The launch of the Anti-Corruption Taskforce Pilot should be welcomed as a positive development – New Zealand is finally waking up from its “she’ll be right” slumber on corruption risks. But it is only waking up to half the problem if it confines itself to public servants and leaves the political class untouched. A corruption risk assessment that ignores where political power and money intersect is, frankly, half-blind. Likewise, a six-month pilot can only scratch the surface of issues that require long-term commitment. The integrity challenges New Zealand faces will not be solved in a single report, nor by one Taskforce working part-time for six months.

The Integrity Institute will be closely monitoring the Taskforce Pilot’s progress and the Government’s next steps. We will continue to advocate for the urgent measures needed to strengthen New Zealand’s defences against corruption. This pilot must not be allowed to fade into a symbolic footnote. Instead, let it be the catalyst for New Zealand to finally join other advanced democracies in building an integrity system that is fit for purpose in the 21st century – one that holds everyone accountable, from the Beehive to the smallest provincial office. The Government has lit a spark with this Taskforce; it must now fuel it into a lasting flame of reform. Too much is at stake to do otherwise.

Dr Bryce Edwards

Director of The Integrity Institute

Further reading:

John Weekes (Herald): Anti‑corruption taskforce launched, but what will it actually do? (paywalled)

RNZ: SFO launches pilot programme to tackle public sector corruption risks

Gareth Vaughan (Interest): SFO to lead Anti‑Corruption Taskforce aimed at strengthening public sector resilience to corruption and fraud