Integrity Briefing: End of Week Wrap-up for 2 August 2025 – extra edition

Welcome to an extra “Saturday end-of-the-week wrap-up" for The Integrity Institute. Although I sent out my “end-of-the-week Wrap-up” yesterday, I didn’t include the usual summary of the integrity-related media articles. So please find these below.

Dr Bryce Edwards

Director of The Integrity Institute

Integrity-related media articles this week

Lobbying & Influence

Guyon Espiner (RNZ): A tobacco product tax cut slated for one year has been extended by two

If you needed more evidence of Big Tobacco’s political clout, here it is. Espiner reveals that a tax break on tobacco products (originally pitched as a one-year temporary measure) was quietly prolonged for an extra two years by the government. This little gift to cigarette makers – effectively a tobacco tax holiday – has public health advocates fuming. It undermines New Zealand’s Smokefree 2025 ambitions and benefits Philip Morris’ bottom line, coincidentally aligning with NZ First’s policy preferences. Funny how that works. Officials had claimed the initial tax cut on new heated tobacco products was just to give smokers time to adjust, but instead of reinstating the higher tax, the government let the clock run on and on. The extension was so under-the-radar you’d think they didn’t want voters to notice. Espiner’s piece strongly hints that political influence won out over public health, again. As one health expert points out, every extra year of cheaper tobacco is more teens hooked and more profits banked, all thanks to friends in high places. It shouldn’t be a “privilege to have power” or to breathe smoke-free air, but decisions like this make one wonder if industry wishes are trumping the public good behind closed doors.

John Lewis (ODT): Peters challenged on tobacco links

Public health academics are calling on PM Luxon to strip NZ First of the tobacco control portfolio after documents showed Peters’ party promised to push Philip Morris’s drafted policies. Peters’ instinctive response has been to attack the messengers and cry “fake news,” but critics note he’s failed to disprove the core concern – that a politician entrusted with public health was taking policy dictation from a cigarette company. “There’s a real question about the integrity of the political process here,” says Prof. Janet Hoek, highlighting that Kiwis want leaders acting “in the best interest of the country, not the best interest of the tobacco company.” This saga raises the spectre of tobacco lobbyists operating in the shadows, and it’s decreasing trust in government by the day. When a public health law designed to save lives gets repealed under suspicious circumstances (95% nicotine reductions scrapped, a Smokefree generation ban tossed out), you have to wonder whose interests were really served – and it sure wasn’t the public’s.

Andrea Vance (The Post): Beehive staffers exit for lobbying jobs (paywalled)

The revolving door between government and lobbying spins again. Vance reports that several of PM Chris Luxon’s senior Beehive staffers have abruptly resigned, only to resurface at high-powered lobbying firms. It’s a lobbyist’s dream come true: well-connected insiders who until yesterday were writing ministers’ briefs, now selling access and influence back to those same ministers. One former staffer is joining Capital Government Relations, which surely values having a mate from the ninth floor on speed dial. Another has headed to a PR firm, presumably armed with all the latest political intel to help corporate clients navigate (or nudge) policy. This parade of aides-turned-lobbyists underscores how entwined private influence and public service have become. The sharp critique here is that political staff are effectively cashing in on their taxpayer-funded experience to help corporations get a louder voice. It’s a bipartisan problem, but under the current government, which campaigned on cleaner politics, it’s particularly rich. (In the integrity biz, we call this regulatory capture by career path).

Tom Pullar-Strecker (The Post): Senior lawyer calls for investigation into MBIE’s “poor advice” on banking law (paywalled)

In a twist on lobbying, here we see potential corporate capture from the inside. Top lawyer Rachael Reed KC has blown the whistle on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), accusing officials of spooking ministers with “fantastical” exaggerations to get a bank-friendly law change. Reed’s clients are suing ANZ and ASB for overcharging, but MBIE advised the government that a court win for borrowers could cost banks an eye-watering $12.9 billion – a figure Reed says is wildly overcooked. The government duly moved to retroactively weaken consumers’ legal rights, saving the banks’ bacon. Reed’s letter to the Attorney-General alleges MBIE’s advice was incomplete, untested, and tilted toward the banks’ worst-case scenario (one bank turned down a $300 million settlement as “too high,” so how credible is $12.9b across the sector?). She essentially accuses MBIE of doing the Banking Association’s bidding by scare-mongering Parliament into an “extraordinary” retrospective law change. The ministry denies wrongdoing, of course, but the optics are awful: officials “failed to meet the civil service standards” of objectivity, according to Reed, and ministers were misled into kneecapping consumer protections. This is a highly technical saga, but at its heart is a simple integrity issue – did our public service serve the public, or was it captured by corporate interests? Reed wants the Auditor-General to find out, because if bureaucrats cried wolf on behalf of the big banks, New Zealand’s reputation for independent, principled policy advice just took a hammering.

Corporate Power & Competition

Andrew Bevin (Newsroom): Grocery code crackdown is ‘globally unprecedented intrusion’, supermarkets warn

New Zealand’s supermarket duopoly is throwing a tantrum over proposed rules to protect their suppliers. Bevin reports that Foodstuffs and Woolworths are lobbying hard against a tougher Grocery Supply Code of Conduct, bleating that the changes “intrude into commercial relationships and are unprecedented globally.” (Translation: How dare the government meddle with our ability to squeeze suppliers and dominate shelves!). The Commerce Commission’s draft rules would curb egregious tactics, like charging suppliers for prime shelf placement or pushing punitive fees for unsold stock. Consumer advocates say the code changes are a welcome start but don’t go far enough to fix the huge power imbalance between the big chains and everyone else. In fact, both Consumer NZ and the Grocery Action Group submit that real change may require breaking up the duopoly, such as forcing the sale of some stores or distribution centres, to allow new competitors in. The supermarkets, predictably, claim any robust regulation will backfire into higher prices and less choice for shoppers (the same tired scare tactic every monopolist uses). Foodstuffs even had the audacity to argue that New Zealand’s proposed code would be stricter than any in the world – as if being a world leader in fair trading is a bad thing! The sharp irony here is rich: after decades of unregulated market power, our supermarket giants are allergic to oversight and trying to shield their cosy duopoly under the guise of caring for consumers. Bevin’s piece makes it plain – meaningful grocery reform is a battle between public interest and entrenched corporate power, and the duopoly will fight dirty to keep its perch.

Luke Malpass (Sunday Star-Times): Where will Willis end up on supermarkets reform? (paywalled)

Malpass examines whether Finance Minister Nicola Willis will actually tackle the supermarket duopoly, or quietly let it off the hook. The previous government talked tough about breaking Foodstuffs and Woolworths’ stranglehold (remember the Commerce Commission’s finding of excess profits and the plan for a new state-backed “KiwiGrocer”?). Now Willis faces a choice: pick up the baton on competition reforms or cosy up to the powerful grocery lobby. Malpass notes that so far Willis’ signals have been mixed at best – she recently insisted Kiwis aren’t getting a “raw deal” on things like butter prices, sounding oddly sympathetic to the supermarkets’ line. With National traditionally friendly to big business, the cynical bet is that Willis might water down or stall any meaningful changes. The question in the title hints at doubt that she’ll be a champion for consumers. Will she, for example, force the duopoly to divest stores or accept price controls? Or will she settle for half-measures and voluntary codes that leave the status quo intact? Malpass’ analysis suggests the political will may be lacking to truly confront the corporate grocery powers. If Willis sides with caution (or with her donor base) and shelves the harder reforms, consumers can expect continued high prices and supplier abuse. In short, this is a key test of whether the new government’s rhetoric about helping struggling households is genuine – or if, when push comes to shove, Big Grocery’s wish-list will trump the public interest. Don’t hold your breath.

Jon Duffy (The Post): The energy sector is broken and (nearly) all of us are suffering (paywalled)

Consumer NZ’s chief executive delivers a blistering critique of New Zealand’s electricity market – and he’s not alone. Duffy describes an almost surreal scene: consumer advocates, major industrial companies, and even some politicians all nodding in agreement that our power system is failing both people and the economy. When rivals as unlikely as Greenpeace and BusinessNZ (or householders and aluminum smelters) find common cause, you know something’s seriously wrong. Duffy blasts the “blind faith in 1980s economics” that created the current gentailer-dominated market, noting that electricity prices have soared ~30% in real terms since the market’s inception – which some insiders perversely celebrate as a feature, not a bug. Meanwhile, one in five Kiwi households struggled to pay their power bill in the last year, and businesses are being forced to shut down production due to exorbitant energy costs. Short-term profits are trumping long-term investment: gentailers have little incentive to build new generation when they can rake in cash by keeping supply tight. Duffy’s piece calls out this engineered scarcity and the lack of political courage to overhaul the system. “Tinkering at the edges is not solving the problem,” he writes, imploring the government to stop treating the 30-year-old market design as sacrosanct. He notes bitterly that the system has been “engineered” to serve incumbent interests – delivering fat returns to shareholders (the biggest of which is the government itself) while ordinary consumers get hammered. The urgency in his tone is palpable: we need to restructure the electricity sector for the public good, not just hope gentle persuasion will make gentailers suddenly grow a conscience. In short, Duffy is issuing a wake-up call – if even Consumer NZ is practically shouting that the market is broken and putting lives at risk (cold homes, anyone?), will our leaders finally listen?

Raphael Franks (NZ Herald): As Kiwis battle rising electricity bills, campaigners call for change – Power to the People, part 1

Kicking off the Herald’s series, this piece focuses on the human impact of our broken power market and the mounting calls to reform it. The article catalogues practical fixes being floated: things like a mandatory “best price” guarantee (so loyal customers aren’t fleeced), banning disconnection fees, and stronger protections for vulnerable consumers. But many advocates argue these tweaks won’t be enough – they’re pushing for structural change (hinting at the breakup debate explored later in the series). The campaign has even seen unusual alliances forming: when you have business lobbyists, unions, and consumer watchdogs all signing joint letters to the PM calling for reform, it’s clear the status quo has few friends left outside the boardrooms. Franks also points out that while the energy giants insist everything’s fine, one in five Kiwi households had difficulty paying their power bill in the last year – an absurd situation in a developed nation with abundant generation resources. This opening salvo sets the tone: New Zealanders are fed up with electricity being treated as a luxury. “Power to the People” isn’t just a catchy title – it’s a demand that political power be used to rein in corporate power, and ensure essential services like electricity serve the public, not just shareholders. By framing the issue around everyday struggle and community voices, Franks underlines that reform isn’t about abstract markets – it’s about fairness, dignity, and even health (cold, damp homes kill, after all).

Raphael Franks (NZ Herald): Why our biggest power companies should be broken up (and why they shouldn’t) – Power to the People, part 4

The final instalment of the Herald’s series on electricity lays out the case for smashing the gentailers’ oligopoly – and the counterpoints. Franks reports that a growing chorus of influential voices (from former Energy Minister Simon Bridges to business leaders to small retailers) argue the “big four” power companies have too much power over prices. Controlling 85% of generation and retail, these firms have been posting eye-watering profits (a combined $7.8 million per day last year) while customers struggle with 10%+ price spikes. Critics say the gentailers’ vertical integration lets them game the market – selling to themselves at favourable rates and keeping competitors out. An open letter to PM Luxon, co-signed by industry and consumer groups alike, calls for serious reforms, even splitting the giants in two (separating generation from retail) to restore true competition. One smaller power company slams the current structure as “a cynical tactic that is harming New Zealand,” accusing the big players of keeping wholesale prices “artificially high” by leveraging their dominance. On the flip side, gentailers (and some officials) claim there’s no clear evidence of market abuse – though the Electricity Authority concedes the status quo “may be stifling competition.” Franks doesn’t shy from highlighting examples of suspected bad behaviour: commentator Shane Te Pou alleges the gentailers deliberately dragged their feet on building new renewables to maintain an electricity shortage and justify high spot prices. If true, that’s corporate sabotage of our climate goals and economy for profit. The balanced part of the article notes potential downsides of break-ups (execution risks, investor confidence, etc.), but the thrust is clear: when even pro-market politicians like Bridges are saying it’s breakup time, the gentailers should be sweating. This series – aptly titled “Power to the People” – has thrown the gentailers’ practices into the spotlight. The question now is whether the government will actually act on these recommendations or remain, as Duffy put it, “too timid or too convinced by the current market structure” to contemplate real change. Because if nothing is done, we’ll keep lurching from power crisis to crisis – and the big four will keep laughing all the way to the bank.

Energy & Environment

Charlie Mitchell (The Press): No coherent strategy behind freshwater ‘tinkering’, watchdog says (paywalled)

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) – New Zealand’s top environmental watchdog – has essentially accused the government of making a hash of freshwater policy. Mitchell reports that the PCE found the flurry of changes to water regulations to be piecemeal “tinkering” with no overarching strategy. In the past year, ministers have tweaked nutrient limits here, delayed farm regs there, and generally fiddled with the rules meant to protect rivers and aquifers. The result? Confusion and, according to the watchdog, a likely step backwards for water quality. The commissioner outlined clear priorities in his last report (e.g. devolving decisions to local catchments, improving data, phasing out exotic forests in the ETS) – but those appear to be ignored in favour of ad hoc adjustments. This editorial-like piece points out that such inconsistency usually isn’t born of expert advice – it smacks of political expediency and pressure from agricultural lobbyists. Essentially, the government is accused of lacking the courage to follow a science-based plan, opting instead to appease various interest groups with one-off concessions. The integrity issue here is subtle but crucial: environmental governance is being driven by short-term politics rather than long-term stewardship. Even the term “tinkering” suggests a kind of unserious meddling in place of the comprehensive action we need to halt freshwater degradation. Mitchell likely gives examples, perhaps the recent softening of winter grazing rules or the U-turn on wetlands protection. For a government that campaigned on cleaning up rivers, this incoherence is damning. The takeaway is that without a strategy, we’re treating our waterways to a death by a thousand cuts – and the public watchdog is sounding the alarm that New Zealand’s vaunted clean-green reputation is at risk in the mire of policy flip-flops. If only someone would listen.

Rod Carr (Sunday Star-Times): Farmers should be careful what they wish for (paywalled)

Climate Change Commission chair Dr. Rod Carr delivers a pointed message to the agricultural sector: in their zealous lobbying to weaken climate policy, farmers might end up shooting themselves in the foot. Carr’s op-ed warns that the government’s moves to appease farming interests – such as watering down emissions pricing for methane, delaying regs, and defunding climate programs – could backfire badly. Farmers may cheer in the short term that they’ve avoided costs, but Carr argues this is a Pyrrhic victory. Why? Because global markets and foreign governments are increasingly intolerant of high-emissions products. If NZ agriculture doesn’t clean up its act, our exporters risk getting hit with carbon border tariffs or losing access to premium markets as overseas consumers demand climate-friendly produce. In essence, Carr is saying: be careful – the “free pass” on emissions you’re clamouring for might lead to trade retaliation or brand damage that hurts your bottom line even more. He likely points to Europe’s incoming carbon border adjustments or Fonterra’s customers asking for emissions data. There’s also the reality that climate change itself will hurt farmers (droughts, floods – we’ve seen enough examples recently). Carr’s tone is admonishing but also a bit of dark humour: the sector that thinks it’s being clever by torpedoing NZ’s own climate policies might soon face much harsher diktats from beyond our shores. Politically, this is a swipe at the government’s capitulation to anti-climate voices. Integrity-wise, it highlights how short-term populism (or cronyism) can undermine long-term national interest. Carr essentially calls for farmers to take a broader view: wishing away climate policy is like wishing away a storm – futile and dangerous. In a climate-constrained future, those who adapt and innovate will thrive; those who lobby to maintain “business as usual” will find the world moving on without them. The subtext for the government: grow a backbone on agricultural emissions, for the sake of both the planet and the sector’s future, because indulging climate delayers now will only make the reckoning harder later. As Carr dryly notes, sometimes you get exactly what you wish for, and it’s not a happy ending.

Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Govt rolls back clean-up liabilities for offshore drillers

In a boon to the oil industry, the government has quietly gutted a key environmental safeguard put in place after the Tui oil field fiasco. Daalder reports that ministers rolled back the “trailing liability” rules that forced oil companies (including past permit owners) to cover the full cost of decommissioning wells. Those rules existed for good reason: when Tamarind Taranaki went bust in 2019, taxpayers got stuck with a $400 million tab to plug and clean up its offshore wells. Now, under pressure to entice more drilling, the government’s amendments give the Resources Minister broad discretion to let companies off the hook for clean-up obligations. Megan Woods – the former energy minister who tightened the law in response to Tamarind – blasted the change, saying the minister has “seized discretionary powers” and questioning what role lobbyists played in weakening the policy. Indeed, industry lobbyists have been whispering that relaxing decommissioning rules could “make the difference” in bringing back drilling. It appears they got their wish. This rollback undermines the “polluter pays” principle and potentially leaves the public holding the bag if/when another cowboy operator skips town. The integrity issue is twofold: not only is the government prioritising fossil fuel interests over environmental and fiscal responsibility, but they did it at the eleventh hour during the bill’s final stages, minimising scrutiny. In Daalder’s telling, the whole thing smacks of regulatory backsliding: a short-sighted bid to “not deny ourselves access to fossil fuels,” as Minister Shane Jones boasted while justifying the move. Coming from a government that also declared a climate emergency (with fingers crossed behind back, apparently), this policy U-turn reeks of hypocrisy. It’s a stark reminder that, amid talk of a clean energy transition, old-school oil politics are alive and well – and taxpayers may yet again pay the price for that cosiness.

Tom Pullar-Strecker (The Post): Bill lifting oil and gas exploration ban altered before final stages (paywalled)

Pullar-Strecker exposes the last-minute machinations behind the government’s reversal of New Zealand’s offshore drilling ban. The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, which re-opens our seas to new oil and gas exploration, was tweaked in the dead of night during its final parliamentary stage. The original plan was bad enough – effectively overturning the previous government’s landmark ban on new permits – but these late changes shift how decommissioning liabilities are handled. Instead of a clear, statutory regime forcing companies to guarantee clean-ups, the amended bill hands broad discretion to the minister to manage (or waive) a driller’s obligations. Opposition MPs rightly grilled Resources Minister Shane Jones: are we creating loopholes that let polluters escape, and doing so with virtually no public consultation? Jones’ response was to insist there are “guard rails” and to wax lyrical about not trussing up the economy by denying fossil fuels – even declaring he is “hailed and feted by all four corners of our motu” for championing this bill (a claim that might surprise the actual corners of the motu dealing with climate change). The Post piece highlights that potential loopholes were identified in the new trailing liability approach, yet rather than pause for careful redesign, the government ploughed ahead with a half-baked fix that essentially says “trust the minister.” This is the same government that loves to rush laws under urgency; here we see urgency used to favour extractive industry. The integrity concern is clear: policy made on the fly, seemingly at the behest of oil lobbyists, leaving future governments (and taxpayers) exposed if things go wrong. Labour’s Damien O’Connor wryly noted that today’s ministerial discretion could be tomorrow’s headache if a Green Minister inherits it – “what goes around comes around,” he warned. Indeed. Overall, Pullar-Strecker paints a picture of a government hell-bent on undoing environmental protections in record time, even if it means slipping in last-minute amendments that dodge proper scrutiny. If this is how we make energy policy now – by gut feeling and industry backroom chats – it’s a black mark on New Zealand’s legislative integrity, not to mention a disaster for our climate credentials.

Public Spending & Governance

Jamie Ensor (NZ Herald): Govt to increase Crown body board members’ fee ranges by up to 80% (paywalled)

In a move that raised more than a few eyebrows, the government is dramatically hiking the pay bands for members of public boards – some by as much as 80%. Ensor reports that hundreds of positions across Crown entities, agencies and committees will be eligible for hefty fee increases, ostensibly to attract talent and acknowledge workloads. The integrity concern is that this could become a gravy train for loyalists – a way to reward friends of the government under the guise of policy. It’s worth recalling that National castigated the previous government for public sector “extravagance”; now in power, they’re writing big checks to their own. The sharp critique practically writes itself: when nurses, teachers, and ordinary civil servants are told to tighten belts, how do you justify doubling the fees for boardroom gigs (many of which are part-time sinecures for former politicians and business pals)? Ensor likely points out some egregious examples – e.g. a board chair’s max fee going from, say, $50k to $90k, etc. The humour here is darkly comic: apparently the era of austerity does not apply in the boardroom. Perhaps the government believes in trickle-down integrity – pay the top figures more and hope good governance trickles down? More likely, it’s trickle-down cronyism, and it stinks. Ultimately, this story highlights a classic integrity gap: politicians preaching restraint in public spending, then quietly feathering the nests of the powerful. It’s a bad look, and Kiwi voters aren’t blind to the double standard.

ODT: Editorial: Med School business case unconvincing (paywalled)

The Otago Daily Times unloads on the government’s plan for a new medical school at Waikato University, calling the business case highly questionable. This editorial reflects the widespread suspicion that the Waikato med school isn’t being driven by genuine need, but by political back-scratching – a pet project National promised during the election. The editors note that the business case (released only after the decision was already made) seems “written with an outcome in mind” – namely, to justify the Waikato proposal at all costs. Inconvenient facts were glossed over: the enormous $9+ billion price tag over 16 years, the strain of setting up an entirely new school from scratch, and the duplication of what Otago and Auckland already do well. The ODT points out that independent experts (including Otago Uni’s own leaders and even the University of Auckland’s dean) have identified “obvious flaws” and “significant analysis gaps” in the case. For example, the cost comparisons magically made Waikato look cheapest by assuming a shorter graduate program, but ignored the cost of students’ prior undergraduate degrees, making it an apples-to-oranges trick. The editorial likely questions whether politics blinded the government, determined to tick off an election promise to appease Waikato (and maybe a certain influential former National minister championing the project) despite evidence that the money could be better spent expanding existing med schools. There’s also an integrity angle in how the announcement was handled: the business case was released late on a Friday, after Cabinet approval – hardly transparency at work. The ODT’s verdict is that the case for the Waikato med school is at best unconvincing and at worst a predetermined fig leaf. If the government charges ahead regardless, it suggests pork-barrel politics trumping prudent policy. In a country that prides itself on well-reasoned public investment, this has the whiff of a boondoggle – and the ODT isn’t having it.

Matthew Littlewood (ODT): ‘Flaws’ in Waikato med school business case (paywalled)

Littlewood digs into the details of the controversial business case for Waikato’s proposed third medical school, and the findings are damning. The University of Otago (which operates one of the two existing med schools) and other critics outline numerous flaws in the analysis that conveniently favour the new Waikato school. For instance, the business case claims the Waikato model would cost $9.1 billion through 2042, slightly less than expanding the existing schools – but Otago’s pro-vice-chancellor of health sciences, Prof. Megan Gibbons, says those numbers are skewed. The case assumes a shorter graduate program (four years) with lower operating costs, but ignores the fact that all those Waikato students need prior degrees funded by the government. Auckland’s medical dean, Prof. Warwick Bagg, called the comparison “not a fair comparison” – essentially, Waikato’s option hides three years of cost per student by excluding undergrad education. Littlewood reports that Prof. Bagg was “deeply concerned” the business case had “a number of obvious flaws” and appeared “predetermined to favour the Waikato proposal the National Party took to the last election.” In plain terms, it looks like the figures were cherry-picked to rubber-stamp a political promise. The integrity issue here is with evidence-based policy – this business case seems more like a sales pitch. Littlewood’s piece reinforces a growing consensus that the Waikato med school is a solution in search of a problem, driven by politics rather than a careful assessment of NZ’s healthcare needs.

Conflicts of Interest & Ethics

Brent Edwards (NBR): Treasury raised conflict of interest concerns on KiwiRail board (paywalled)

Brent Edwards reveals that even Treasury – the government’s chief financial adviser – flagged serious conflicts of interest among appointees to the KiwiRail board, yet those individuals were appointed anyway. KiwiRail has undergone big board churn this year, and official documents show Treasury was uneasy about some candidates’ other roles or business interests overlapping with KiwiRail’s operations. The fact that Treasury’s warnings were overridden suggests a lapse in the appointments process – or a conscious decision by ministers to prioritise political/industry connections over clean governance. Edwards likely implies that the government’s rush to “refresh” boards with its preferred people led to corners being cut on integrity vetting. It’s a classic case of “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know” – but if who you know presents a conflict, someone should hit the brakes. That someone (Treasury) tried, and was ignored. The result: a board now sitting under a cloud of potential bias.

Todd Niall (Newsroom): Top adviser to leave Wayne Brown’s office after undeclared liquidation

In Auckland Council’s corner of the world, Mayor Wayne Brown’s chief advisor has resigned in disgrace for failing to disclose a rather important tidbit: he’d been involved in a company liquidation and didn’t tell anyone. Niall reports that the advisor (a close confidant of Brown) was obliged to declare conflicts and financial baggage when taking the role, and a collapsed business certainly counts. Brown, who swept into office on a promise to fix incompetence at Council, now has egg on his face as his right-hand man departs under an integrity cloud. The episode is a microcosm of why full transparency matters. An undeclared liquidation could mean creditors left out of pocket, possibly even the taxman – something the public deserves to know about someone in power. Critics of Brown (never in short supply) are having a field day, noting that the mayor who loves calling others “useless” didn’t do basic due diligence on his own staff.

Democracy & Electoral Integrity

The Post: An open letter to the auditor general (paywalled)

In a climate of weakening government oversight and increasing concern about the use of public funds and power, the role of independent watchdogs becomes more critical than ever. This open letter to the Auditor-General represents a citizen-led demand for accountability. It underscores the public's reliance on institutions like the Office of the Auditor-General to act as a bulwark against waste, misconduct, and the erosion of integrity. As other avenues of accountability—from parliamentary scrutiny to robust media investigation—come under pressure, the work of the Auditor-General, and by extension the civic mission of organisations like The Integrity Institute, is essential. It is a reminder that when governments fail to police themselves, the public and its independent advocates must step in to demand transparency and hold power to account.

The Press: Editorial: A step backwards for democracy (paywalled)

This editorial could not be more blunt: the government’s recent actions on electoral law and governance amount to democratic backsliding. The Press (a traditionally moderate voice) sounds the alarm that changes like the rushed Electoral Amendment Act will make it harder for thousands of Kiwis to vote, especially the young, elderly, and marginalized. The Press also undoubtedly criticizes the abuse of parliamentary urgency – ramming through fundamental electoral changes without public input is simply not how we’ve done things in NZ, and it reeks of a government trying to game the system.

Anne Salmond (Newsroom): The ‘war’ on NZ values

Anne Salmond delivers a scathing overview of the current government’s agenda, framing it as nothing less than a war on fundamental New Zealand values, both democratic and environmental. Salmond methodically catalogues a blitz of legislative and policy changes: the so-called “War on Nature” – scrapping or diluting protections on freshwater, forests, and oceans, opening the floodgates to unchecked mining and development – and parallel attacks on democratic institutions – undermining local government, fast-tracking laws with little transparency, and defunding voices that speak for the environment or civil society. She notes how “deliberately opaque” the process has been: multiple amendments tucked into omnibus bills, public consultation treated as a nuisance, and power centralised in a few hands. One striking point she raises: initiatives like the Regulatory Standards Bill couch themselves in the language of “freedom,” but that freedom is as much for corporations as for citizens, effectively elevating corporate rights to do as they please, at the expense of community and environmental well-being. Salmond doesn’t pull punches – she essentially accuses the government of selling out New Zealand’s birthright (“100% Pure” and a proud democratic tradition) for short-term gain and ideological zeal.