Integrity Briefing: End of Week Wrap-up for 26 July 2025
Welcome to the Saturday "end of the week wrap-up" at The Integrity Institute.
Newsroom partnership with The Integrity Institute
The biggest news of our week was the launch of a media partnership with the Newsroom website. The Integrity Institute has granted funding to Newsroom to enable their journalists to carry out in-depth investigations into lobbying and politically influential entities. This is an attempt to get more scrutiny of the lobbying companies, interest groups, and wealthy vested interests that have entries on our “NZ Lobbying and Influence Register”.
Newsroom announced the commissioning partnership on Wednesday – see David Williams’ Introducing the Who Benefits project – a spotlight on lobbying, influence and power. Here’s the key part from his explanation: “the institute partnership has provided funding, has suggested some places to look, but Newsroom has developed the subject areas, will be led by what we uncover and will retain full editorial control. Our team – Fox Meyer and me, David Williams – are reporting to Newsroom’s co-editors, not the institute, and we aim to show influence from all sides of policies.”
Then on Thursday and Friday Newsroom published Williams’ two-part deep-dive into farmer lobbying – especially about the power of Federated Farmers – in influencing the current Government on its freshwater reforms, essentially trying to weaken the regulations that are meant to protect the environment and water quality – see:
Pushback from vested interests
Both Newsroom and I have been getting amazing feedback on this initiative and the first investigation. Not everyone is happy, however. There will always be parts of the Establishment who squeal loudly when wealthy vested interests are scrutinised and challenged.
First up was Cameron Slater, of “Dirty Politics” fame, who essentially accused The Integrity Institute of being guilty of what he had been caught out for in Nicky Hager’s landmark book of 2014. Slater’s complaints were then published in a more extensive form on David Farrar’s Kiwiblog, arguing that business interests would be in trouble if they funded media outlets to do journalism – you can read this here: Pay for play media
Of course, none of this is true. When Slater first commented on social media, I responded: “I'm glad you are enjoying any ironies in this. But we have set up our arrangement with Newsroom with the greatest possible integrity. We don't tell them what to write. I have zero contact with the journalists involved. They have complete editorial control. We don't even get to see what they are doing until its published.”
The pro-business media outlet BusinessDesk also published a hostile opinion piece this week, in an attempt to tarnish The Integrity Institute. The column, full of inaccuracies and twisted interpretations, written by Ian Llewellyn and Pattrick Smellie labelled our work “inflammatory blogging” and the authors lampooned that we are trying to work with other media to expose vested interests and lobbyists.
The main point of their piece was to defend the conservative local chapter of Transparency International – especially defending their championing of the notion that New Zealand doesn’t have a corruption and integrity problem – see: Business of Government: The two-headed beast (paywalled)
Waikato University Med School lobbyists win
Over the past year, Guyon Espiner of RNZ has been doing fantastic journalism uncovering the power plays behind the scenes of Waikato University’s attempt to get government funding to set up a third medical school. In conjunction with this, I’ve been providing analysis of the role of lobbyists, and especially Steven Joyce, in progressing this agenda.
When the Government finally announced on Monday that it was proceeding with the plans to fund Waikato for a new med school, I wrote an overview of why this was such a problem – see: Waikato Medical School – A Costly case study in policy capture. I was also quoted the next day in the Otago Daily Times, saying that "It's a stark contrast to have the new Dunedin hospital really restrained in its build and essentially funds cut back, producing a less than optimal new hospital at the same time that $83m is going to be spent elsewhere in the health system that, frankly, very few experts believe is a good spend of money… The people of Dunedin and Otago should feel aggrieved” – see Matthew Littlewood’s ‘Otago is being overlooked’ (paywalled).
I also gave a 20-minute interview about the issue, with RNZ’s Emile Donovan – see: RNZ: The role of lobbying in NZ's new medical school. Other interviews included: Radio Rhema: Will a New Medical School Heal Our Ailing Health Sector? and: The Platform: Bryce Edwards On Political Lobbying Behind Waikato’s Medical School
On RNZ’s Morning Report, Corin Dann also brought up my critique in his interview with Health Minister Simeon Brown, who gave the response: “That sounds more like a conspiracy theory… If you look back in ten years time, I don’t think that there will be anyone – except maybe Bryce Edwards – who will go back and say it’s the wrong decision”” – see RNZ’s Health Minister on govt contribution to third medical school.
Interestingly, the political editor of the Post, Luke Malpass, used the same Government talking point about my critique: “Yet there seem to be a bunch of weird conspiracy theories going around that because somehow because Steven Joyce was involved and the university lobbied the then National opposition to support the plan (when it was obvious they would be the next government) that it is somehow evidence of poor policy or shadowy corruption. That is complete nonsense. This is a public institution which, in common with other public institutions, tries to get government and would-be governments to spend money on its projects. It is a credit to the Government and to Shane Reti and Simeon Brown that even in a tight fiscal environment, this plan has been persevered with” – see: Waikato med school breaks decades-long duopoly (paywalled).
Finally, this week I gave an interview with Newsroom’s Andrew Bevin about a new Government proposal to loosen rules on conflicts of interest for local government politicians. I’m recorded as strongly opposing these attempts, arguing that such “reform” is a big step backwards. You can read more about this below in my summaries of some of the most essential integrity-related stories of the week, especially highlighting material from behind the paywalls.
Dr Bryce Edwards
Director of The Integrity Institute
Integrity-related media articles this week
Andrea Vance (The Post): Public Service Commission scrapped integrity board to save money (paywalled)
The Public Service Commission quietly disbanded its Integrity and Ethics Advisory Board last year, citing budget pressures. Because nothing says “commitment to integrity” like axing your ethics watchdog to save a few bucks. The board’s 18-month term ended in 2024 and wasn’t renewed, leaving no dedicated body to monitor ethical risks across the public service. PSC officials insist that transparency tools like OIA requests and whistle-blower policies can fill the void, but experts are alarmed. Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston warns this move undermines public trust in an impartial public sector, and opposition MP Duncan Webb accuses the Government of “tilting the playing field in favour of big corporate interests” by removing a vital check – even calling it “creeping corruption and illegitimate influence”. The PSC claims the public service is “sufficiently protected” without the board, but skeptics see a cost-cutting exercise that conveniently neuters independent oversight.
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): Nicotine lobbyists said Winston Peters was 'very powerful' and 'very industry friendly'
Newly released documents from a US lawsuit reveal that NZ First leader Winston Peters was seen as a secret weapon by tobacco lobbyists. In 2019, Philip Morris’ agents identified Peters as “positively disposed” to their heated tobacco product and even handed draft pro-tobacco regulations to his party. (Nothing to see here, just a tobacco giant writing laws for a political party – totally normal democracy stuff.) The papers show NZ First undertook to push Philip Morris’s draft into the policy mix and describe Peters as “very powerful… likely to be very industry friendly and highly geared towards commercial interests”. Lo and behold, in 2024 NZ First’s associate health minister Casey Costello slashed the excise tax on heated tobacco by 50% – a move Treasury said would chiefly benefit Philip Morris. Peters’ response? Dismissing the revelations as “baseless accusations” and attacking the media. Public health experts are calling for the PM to strip NZ First of the tobacco control portfolio, as this saga perfectly illustrates the corrosive effect of behind-closed-doors lobbying and industry “consultation” shaping public policy.
Mandy Te (Interest): Research sheds light on how New Zealand's uber rich achieve offshore secrecy
A new study suggests New Zealand’s wealthiest make even greater use of offshore tax havens and secrecy tricks than elites in other big economies – yes, our rich listers are apparently world-class when it comes to hiding wealth. Researchers compared 65 countries and found New Zealand’s uber rich are more secretive than their counterparts in Australia, the US, UK, China, even Russia. Kiwis with means are more likely to funnel assets into blacklisted offshore financial centres and obscure their identities through trusts, shell companies, and other James Bond-esque financial manoeuvres. Why? Weak rules and light enforcement at home make it easy, and even “good governance” (like public transparency of tax records) can spur the wealthy to seek shadows abroad. This is a wake-up call about offshore finance being a playground for NZ’s elites – undermining tax fairness and transparency. When a country known for low corruption scores ends up outdoing oligarchies in secret wealth stashing, you know the system’s got cracks. Perhaps it’s time to shine a light on these dark corners instead of pretending all our millionaires got rich on clean, above-board unicorn farms.
Tom Hunt (The Post): Mayoral field could grow again, donation declarations divide candidates (paywalled)
The looming Wellington mayoral race exposes a critical flaw in our local election finance laws: transparency is effectively voluntary. The article highlights a clear divide between candidates willing to declare large donations before voting begins and those who will only "comply with legal requirements" by declaring them months after the election is over. The stark example of former mayor Andy Foster, who failed to disclose a $20,000 donation from the Chow brothers until after he lost, underscores the stakes. The current legal framework is set at a bare minimum that serves to obscure, rather than illuminate, who is funding whom during the crucial period when voters are making their decisions. This forces the electorate to judge candidates not just on their policies, but on their willingness to be transparent—a burden that a robust integrity system would remove by making pre-election disclosure mandatory. It reveals that genuine transparency is not a structural feature of our local democracy, but an optional act of goodwill.
Giles Dexter and Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira (RNZ): Enrolment changes could have 'significant' impact on democratic participation - Ministry of Justice
The Government is overhauling electoral laws in ways that might make voting more exclusive – apparently, democracy was getting too accessible. A new bill will scrap same-day voter enrolment and even stop updates during the 12-day advance voting period, meaning if you move house or forget to enrol by then, your vote might not count. Officials warn this could lower turnout and erode trust, but Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith argues it’s about speeding up the vote count. (He’s essentially saying efficiency first, voters second.) The irony? We usually know the election night result anyway – one expert notes these changes won’t really prevent uncertainty, since preliminary results give a good indication. Act’s David Seymour went full charm offensive, calling people who enrol late “dropkicks” who don’t deserve to vote[8]. Nothing like a bit of voter-bashing to inspire civic engagement! Critics see these changes as a cynical ploy, likely to disenfranchise tens of thousands (especially young, Māori, and transient voters) under the guise of administrative streamlining.
Ruth Hill (RNZ): Risks identified with Gumboot Friday's 'fee-for-service' model
The Government’s decision last year to give significant funding to Mike King’s unorthodox charity was extremely contentious, prompting the Auditor General to speak out. This year, the Government’s renewed of its $6 million annual contract with the youth counselling charity Gumboot Friday comes with a significant caveat. A Health Ministry briefing, released under the OIA, notes an "ongoing risk" with the "fee-for-service" model, whereby practitioners could potentially invoice for services that are of poor quality or not delivered at all. The fact that the charity has already had to remove two practitioners for "unusual invoicing" demonstrates this is not a theoretical risk. This case illustrates a critical vulnerability in public contracting. The immense public goodwill and positive mission of an organization like Gumboot Friday can create a "halo effect," potentially leading to weaker scrutiny of its financial and operational models. The integrity issue here is not the charity's laudable goal, but the inherent structural risk in its payment system. It is a crucial reminder that robust, independent oversight is essential for all public expenditure, regardless of the popularity of the recipient, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations and models susceptible to exploitation.
Blayne Slabbert and Kelly Dennett (The Post): Wealthy foreign investors may soon be able to buy property here (paywalled)
The narrative being spun around relaxing the foreign buyer ban is a case study in reframing policy to suit elite interests. The ban is now painted by proponents like Trade Minister Todd McClay and real estate industry figures as "culturally insensitive and a turn-off" for "super wealthy" investors. Just as with the tobacco issue, the political fulcrum appears to be New Zealand First. The very party that championed the ban in 2018 is now the one publicly negotiating its reversal, with Winston Peters signalling an openness to the change for the "right investor". This dynamic reveals a clear pattern: in an MMP government, the most effective path for vested interests is often to target the junior coalition partner, whose policy stances can be more transactional and flexible. The process is cloaked in the euphemistic language of "ongoing conversations" and "coalition politics," which in practice means policy is being horse-traded behind closed doors, far from public scrutiny.
Adam Pearse (Herald): Neil Quigley denies conflict of interest as Reserve Bank chairman amid Waikato medical school deal (paywalled)
The case of Neil Quigley, who holds the dual roles of Reserve Bank (RBNZ) chairman and University of Waikato vice-chancellor, presents a textbook example of how our conflict-of-interest rules can miss the forest for the trees. Quigley has successfully lobbied the government to secure $82.85 million for a new medical school at his university, a project he personally championed. He and the Prime Minister insist there is no conflict, with Quigley noting his board role is separate from the committee that sets monetary policy. This is a classic "no technical conflict" defence, and it completely misunderstands the nature of institutional integrity. The RBNZ's most valuable asset is public trust in its independence. The Chairman's primary duty is to be the guardian of that trust. By acting as a high-profile supplicant for tens of millions of dollars from the very government the RBNZ must hold to account, the Chairman creates a powerful perception of mutual obligation and compromised independence. Labour's Ayesha Verrall rightly questions if it's a "'you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours' arrangement". Whether it is or not is almost beside the point; the perception alone inflicts damage. Our rules are designed to catch a direct quid pro quo, but they are blind to this more subtle, and arguably more dangerous, erosion of institutional legitimacy.
Jane Kelsey (The Conversation): Why has a bill to relax foreign investment rules had so little scrutiny?
While everyone was distracted with other issues, the government has been rushing through a law to make foreign investment approvals a breeze – because who needs scrutiny when selling off the farm? Associate Finance Minister David Seymour’s pet project, the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, would fast-track approvals and limit ministerial oversight to only “national security” concerns, effectively giving most overseas investors a free pass. If officials don’t flag a deal as a security risk within 15 days, it’s automatically approved. Talk about red carpet service. The bill “would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments,” according to critics, and removes requirements like proving a “benefit to New Zealand.” It even repeals the special vetting for sensitive land and forestry, conveniently just as overseas logging companies eye our forests. Legal analyst Jane Kelsey warns this looks like a political payoff (NZ First’s Shane Jones gets a win for his forestry pals) and a huge risk for communities. Weakening oversight and conditions will intensify the already devastating impacts of foreign corporates – profits offshored, messes left for Kiwi taxpayers to clean up. The real question: why the rush and hush? Perhaps because an open debate would reveal that this “open for business” policy mostly opens us up to exploitation.
Tom Pullar-Strecker (The Post): Government cools supermarket competition expectations amid crosswinds (paywalled)
Just a few months ago, ministers were hyping the idea of breaking the supermarket duopoly to tame food prices. Now, they’ve suddenly gotten cold feet – or as The Post quips, a cooling breeze has swept through their rhetoric. Economic Development Minister Nicola Willis, who earlier talked up prospects for a new major grocery player (even an Aussie chain riding in to save us from $10 butter), now admits “we have to be realistic” about attracting a third supermarket chain. Translation: none of the big international players are keen to enter our tiny market, and the government is quietly shelving the bold talk. This U-turn conveniently coincided with two things: the Commerce Commission announcing a cartel case against Foodstuffs (one of the duopoly), and Act’s David Seymour pitching a loopy idea to fast-track resource consents for new supermarkets (as if red tape is what’s stopping Costco). The government’s bold plan to consider breaking up the supermarket oligopoly seems to be evaporating in favour of “working with what we have” – enforce existing rules, maybe trim a regulation here or there, but no drastic intervention. It’s a classic case of big corporates outlasting the political heat. After all the bluster, it looks like the two big supermarket chains can breathe easy knowing that talk of smashing their empire was just that – talk. Consumers hoping for real relief from supermarket profiteering will have to keep waiting (and clipping coupons), while the government finds a face-saving way to say never mind.
Andrew Bevin (Newsroom): Local bodies to sign off $100k contracts with councillors, before independent scrutiny (paywalled)
Ever worry your local councillors might be too restrained in awarding themselves public money? Worry no more – a new bill will quadruple the threshold for council members’ business deals with their own councils before any independent vetting is needed. Currently, a councillor’s own private company can’t score more than $25,000 in contracts with their council without sign-off from the Auditor-General. The government wants to bump that to $100,000, ostensibly because the old cap (set in 1982) is outdated once you adjust for inflation. Sure, let’s call it a minor “administrative efficiency.” Local Government NZ and others back the change, claiming it might help more businesspeople serve in local office without financial sacrifice. I’m quoted in the article as blasting the move as “a significant and dangerous retreat in our public integrity framework,” saying now is not the time to loosen conflict-of-interest rules. I point out that the $25k cap wasn’t arbitrary – it’s a safeguard against officials lining their pockets. In an era of eroding trust, even the perception of self-dealing can be as damaging as real corruption. I’m quoted as saying: “Ratepayers will reasonably ask: ‘Is our councillor awarding themselves our money?’” I argued that instead of loosening the rules, we should be tightening them. Raising the limit to $100k (plus GST, mind you) sends a pretty dubious message: if you’re a councillor-business owner, feel free to feed a bit more at the public trough before anyone questions it. It’s a boon for “legal corruption,” and it risks normalising a good old boys’ club vibe in local governance – something that definitely won’t help councils’ reputation with the public.
Tremendous to see this Newsroom partnership with The Integrity Institute. It gives us hope for cleaning up this government’s act and encourage future politicians to bring in the necessary legislation to permanently do same.
The CPI has increased by a factor of nearly 5 since 1982. On that basis the increase to $100,000 of the threshold at which council payments to one of its members requires Audit Office approval appears to be justified. But is this just a case of "catching up with inflation"?
Eight years ago I bought shares in a farming retail cooperative. Three years later the cooperative introduced a member account fee of $25 p.a. This year it increased the account fee to $65 p.a., with management claiming that it was a necessary "catch up" because there had been no increase over the past five years. On the basis of inflation, the fee should increase to something less than $50. But what is really happening is that the cooperative is changing its business model. It is looking to change the source of its revenue stream, from profits on sales to fixed charges on customer/shareholders.
A similar phenomenon is seen in local government. The model has changed. Prior to 1982 local government service was seen as a civic duty. It was something that worthy citizens took on later in life and after more or less retiring from their business pursuits.
Now government is regarded as a business like any other, and there is a widely shared presumption that business people are by definition best equipped to manage the state, the government and the economy.
Therefore those who govern must be paid what a business person would expect in the way of income, and must not be discouraged from going into politics by a potential loss of income to their outside business interests.
Before the $25,000 threshold for audit was introduced there was a presumption that Councilors should not financially benefit from their position on council apart from their meeting fees, which in those days were quite modest. The introduction of the threshold sent the message that we don't really need to worry about "small" sums of council funds being directed towards the business interests of councilors. Thus the threshold represented a loosening rather than a tightening of inhibitions on combining political and personal business interests.
The large increase in that threshold, albeit justified by "inflation" is a sign that government is doubling down on the "politics as business" model. One can only assume that many councils do in fact direct spending to the businesses of their members and that it is becoming more of an issue and hence a cost to the Audit Office. That gives government another reason to raise the threshold. It is necessary in order to spare the Audit Office time and money. Presumably that has not been a problem till now, which suggests that the initial $25,000 threshold was set high.
But can we safely assume that the business model of politics, and the concomitant business capture of the political system is right and correct? An alternative theory is that non-business people should manage the political system so as to keep the business sector honest. The main objection to this alternative theory is the inference that non-business people must, by definition, be less intelligent and less capable than their counterparts in business. That is a myth. It is the same myth that propelled Donald Trump and Elon Musk to the pinnacle of power in the United States of America, and its false nature is being demonstrated by the day in Washington DC, just as it is in Wellington NZ.