Integrity Briefing: End of week wrap-up for 11 July 2025

Welcome to the end of the week wrap-up at The Integrity Institute.

Our analysis outputs this week

We’ve published two Integrity Briefings this week on substantive issues:

I’ve also done a few media interviews this week about political donations, politician pay, and local government problems:

Farah Hancock (RNZ): New KiwiRail director Scott O'Donnell linked to NZ First donation, government loan

Radio Rhema: When political donations raise questions about public trust

Matthew Martin (Waikato Times): How much do your mayors and councillors get paid? (paywalled)

Matthew Martin (Waikato Times): Regional council dumps Local Government NZ (paywalled)

In response to the political donations issue, cartoonist Sharon Murdoch has drawn a great cartoon for Stuff newspapers today, which you can view here: Cartoon: July 11

I’ve also recently seen a “Letter to the Editor” in The Press, responding to the recent Stuff profile that was written up about The Integrity Institute (see more here: The Post Profile – Why Lobbyists Are Running Scared). Here’s the letter:

“Disquieting read”

I found the article The academic ruffling feathers in the political lobbying world (June 13), by Kelly Dennett, disquieting reading, where our politicians are being lobbied by big business and rich listers for personal financial gain.

We have recently seen the consequences of lobbyists on the political system in the USA, eg Elon Musk’s financial input on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Our present Government has opened the way for rich listers from overseas to settle in New Zealand, offering easy accessibility to citizenship.

The article states that Australia presently has a lobbying code of conduct and register, making it illegal for a government to engage with a lobbyist unless the lobbyist is on a register. New Zealand has no rules, leaving open the possibility of our country following in the path of the USA and its present plight where democracy is being eroded.

Thank goodness for individuals like Bryce Edwards and philanthropists Margaret and Grant Nelson, who are challenging the status quo.

Bronwyn Jones, St Albans [abridged]

UK ethics commentary

Keir Starmer’s Labour Government came to power in the UK with strong commitments to restoring ethics and integrity, notably promising a new independent ethics and integrity commission to enforce robust restrictions on lobbying and conflicts of interest. A year into its tenure, however, the government’s approach appears significantly diluted, threatening to undermine public trust and failing to deliver meaningful integrity reforms – see Rowena Mason’s Guardian report, Starmer’s promised ethics commission may repackage existing regulators and Peter Geoghegan’s Starmer has broken his promise to end sleaze.

Rather than establishing a distinct and powerful oversight body, the Labour administration is reportedly contemplating merely repackaging existing watchdogs under a new “umbrella” structure. This would consolidate existing regulators without necessarily enhancing their powers or effectiveness. Plans to abolish some regulators, like the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) —widely criticised as toothless — and reallocate their duties among existing entities could create more confusion and potentially weaken oversight further.

These developments come despite Labour’s explicit manifesto promise of an ethics commission with the authority to independently investigate and sanction misconduct. The current situation raises critical questions about Labour’s commitment to genuinely addressing integrity issues or simply appearing to do so.

Other signals from Starmer’s government on integrity issues are equally troubling. Initial bold promises to ban foreign political donations and tighten regulations around corporate contributions appear stalled, reportedly due to donor influence within the Labour Party itself. Labour’s hesitation to implement caps on political donations, despite overwhelming public support for such measures, demonstrates a worrying capitulation to vested interests. Additionally, inaction on bolstering transparency through Freedom of Information and failures to deliver reforms promised for electoral law underscore broader stagnation on integrity reforms.

For New Zealand, where The Integrity Institute is advocating similar integrity reforms, these UK developments offer a stark lesson. The compromised UK effort highlights the risk of political commitments to integrity becoming symbolic rather than substantive, particularly when party financing and donor interests are involved. For integrity reforms to be effective, as The Integrity Institute proposes for New Zealand, they must be genuinely independent, possess real enforcement capabilities, and not be undermined by political self-interest or donor influence. Without these elements, the integrity agenda risks becoming empty rhetoric rather than a meaningful step toward enhancing democracy and accountability.

Job advertisement: Executive Assistant/Office Manager

We are currently processing applicants for the job of “Executive Assistant/Office Manager”. But we have also opened up the advertisement to a wider pool, on job websites Seek and Trade Me. And I can still be contacted about the job directly: bryce@theintegrityinstitute.org.nz

Finally, I’m keen to use this “End-of-week” Integrity Briefing to highlight some of the more important integrity-related stories of the week. You can see a list of these below, which I’ve tried to give a short summary of.

Dr Bryce Edwards

Director of The Integrity Institute

Integrity-related media articles this week

Public Service and Accountability:

Alice Peacock (The Spinoff): Treasury warned barring union from Budget lock-up ‘looks politically motivated’

Emails released under the OIA reveal Treasury officials were uneasy about excluding the Council of Trade Unions from pre-Budget briefings, suspecting it would “look politically motivated”. Nicola Willis’ office initially barred several groups (including the CTU) from the lock-ups, then awkwardly U-turned after public pressure. In an apparent blame dodge, the Minister’s office insisted final attendee decisions “now sit with the department rather than the minister” – effectively volunteering Treasury as the fall guy. The whole saga lays bare a government happy to sideline critics and warp normal process, so long as bureaucrats take the rap for it.

Tim Murphy (Newsroom): A limit at last on how unreasonable public agencies can be with media

In a significant victory for media freedom and public accountability, the Chief Ombudsman has ruled that the drug-buying agency Pharmac "acted unreasonably" in its treatment of journalist Rachel Smalley. Pharmac had banned the journalist after her critical reporting, a move the Ombudsman found "fell below the standard expected of a public sector agency." The case, which took two years to resolve, sets an important precedent against public bodies attempting to punish or exclude journalists for doing their job, reinforcing the media's essential role as a watchdog on power. (Also in Murphy’s column: Auckland’s mayor canned a $740,000 city promo video purely because he hated it – a masterclass in how to burn public money out of personal pique. Accountability, what’s that?)

Misuse of Public Money:

Claire Robinson (The Post): Political attack ads: we’re paying for them (paywalled)

Think those nasty political attack posts flooding social media are just harmless fun? Think again – they’re funded by your taxes. Claire Robinson exposes how parties of all stripes exploit parliamentary service budgets to churn out partisan propaganda under the fig leaf of “public information.” Act’s social media team, for example, used official funds to label critics “deranged” and “victims of the day”, complete with Parliamentary logo. Technically it’s not “electioneering” until the writs drop, so MPs have turned the intervening 2 years and 9 months into a free-for-all of 24/7 campaigning. The Speaker polices insults inside the House, but online it’s the Wild West. Robinson’s verdict is scathing: taxpayers are effectively “condoning [their] elected representatives” to troll and bully on the public dime – behaviour that “our precious tax money should [not] be paying for”. It’s an abuse of power that chips away at democratic norms, one Facebook sh*tpost at a time.

Kate MacNamara (NZ Herald): Lease termination for unused Three Waters Auckland office costs taxpayers $2.2m (paywalled)

The political whiplash over water reform has left taxpayers with a hefty $2.2 million bill to terminate the lease on an empty Auckland office. The premium inner-city space was leased by the last government for its Three Waters programme, only to be abandoned when the new coalition scrapped the policy. This is a tangible, multi-million-dollar consequence of “wrecking ball” politics, where major reforms that have little public or political buy-in are reversed at great expense, demonstrating a profound lack of fiscal accountability and respect for public money. $2.2m could have funded a lot of pipes.

David Fisher (Herald): The $81m question: Does the Ministry of Health’s plan to stop problem gambling work? The answer: ‘We don’t know’ (paywalled)

In a damning indictment of public sector accountability, the Gambling Commission has castigated the Ministry of Health for trying to hike a levy on the gambling industry to $92 million without any evidence its programmes actually work. The Commission's report stated it was "impossible to judge whether the services actually reduced gambling harm" and called the Ministry's approach "unacceptable." This is a spectacular failure of evidence-based policy, where a government agency appears more focused on increasing its own budget than on proving it can deliver results for the public.

Lobbying and Vested Interests:

Matt Nippert (NZ Herald): Waipareira Trust goes to court to block charity deregistration. (paywalled)

A major Māori charity is in a showdown with regulators after funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars into its CEO’s political campaigns. Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust – led by John Tamihere (also Te Pati Māori president) – was caught out funding Tamihere’s 2019 mayoral bid and the party’s 2020 election run, to the tune of $385,000. When charities regulators cried foul, the Trust hastily reclassified the spending as “no-interest loans” to Tamihere, which were only repaid years later under pressure. Now the Charities Registration Board intends to deregister Waipareira for serious wrongdoing. Tamihere’s response? Lawyer up and sue. The Trust argues the regulators are overreaching; the regulators say political donations by a charity betray donor and taxpayer trust. With deregistration looming (meaning loss of tax-exempt status and disruption of services), Waipareira is throwing the kitchen sink of appeals and judicial reviews to stave off judgment day. It’s a messy test of whether charity laws have real teeth – or whether a savvy operator can blur the lines between public good and personal political machine indefinitely.

Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): Reforms could give too much power to banks. (paywalled)

New Zealand's move towards an open banking regime is at risk of becoming a textbook case of policy capture. The government's "hands-off" approach has left the big banks, which own 88% of the central payments system, to design the new rules. The result? Proposed access fees that one KiwiSaver provider warns could "kill NZ's fledgling fintech sector" and simply create "yet another revenue source for the banks." This story is a critical look at how a lack of strong, independent regulation can allow powerful vested interests to shape policy in their favour, stifling competition and innovation at the public's expense.

Peter Adams (Newsroom): Alcohol lobbying is a wild west of influence

This expert opinion piece argues that New Zealand's approach to lobbying is a "wild west," particularly concerning the alcohol industry. Professor Peter Adams explains how industry-funded harm-reduction levies become a tool of influence, giving the industry a "say in how these levies (their profits) are used." This allows them to promote ineffective initiatives while blocking meaningful public health policies that might actually hurt their bottom line. It's a sobering look at how a lack of regulation around lobbying and conflicts of interest allows corporate interests to subtly capture and neutralise public policy.

Political Misconduct and Dirty Politics:

Andrea Vance (Sunday Star-Times): Campaign group’s dossier on Labour candidates labelled ‘dirty tactics’ (paywalled)

In Wellington’s local elections, things just went full conspiracy-theory crazy. A group linked to the centre-right Independent Together ticket compiled a bizarre opposition research dossier smearing left-leaning candidates with every dog-whistle in the book. The document dubiously labels candidates who wore Covid masks as “Covidians”, calls one Māori candidate “brazenly pro-Māori” (as if that’s heinous), mocks a candidate’s husband for liking trains, and snidely attacks others for union ties and even Facebook posts from their student days. It reads like some feverish culture-war manifesto: refugee-background candidates are painted as suspicious, and using te reo or supporting Palestine is framed as extremist. Even hobbies aren’t spared – enjoying fantasy novels or Japanese culture is apparently a red flag in this clown-show report. After journalists exposed the dossier, the Independent Together crew disowned it, blaming a “rogue” researcher who “went mad” with personal attacks beyond his brief. (Conveniently, they had already paid him a pittance for this hit job.) Wellingtonians are now treated to the spectacle of candidates running for office on an anti-“dirty politics” platform while literally shovelling dirt. It’s a textbook case of projection – and it sure isn’t doing democracy any favours.

Tom Hunt (The Post): Revealed: What police say happened the night of Kiri Allan’s crash arrest (paywalled)

New police documents shed ugly new light on former Justice Minister Kiri Allan’s dramatic downfall. The night Allan drunkenly crashed her car in July 2023, she allegedly berated officers and tried to pull rank in spectacular fashion – declaring the charges against her a “political stunt” and insisting a court summons should magically “disappear”. Allan even barked that “she wrote the law” as if DUI statutes didn’t apply to their author. The police account reads like a checklist of “How Not to Act Ministerial”: she refused to get in the patrol car, had to be handcuffed after clinging to a bush to avoid arrest, delayed her breath test for over an hour while demanding a lawyer, and then yelled at officers and higher-ups to void her charges. (They did not oblige.) Ultimately Allan blew 0.14% – over the legal alcohol limit but not high enough for a criminal charge – and resigned in disgrace. It’s a sobering reminder that no one is above the law, and that arrogance and intoxication are a terrible mix. The whole sorry episode dented the last government’s credibility on Justice issues, and only now do we see just how badly a senior politician behaved when the cameras were off. It took an Ombudsman's intervention for these details to become public, highlighting a concerning lack of transparency and revealing a politician's alleged belief that their status placed them above the very laws they are responsible for upholding.

David Fisher (NZ Herald): Wellington mayoral candidate Ray Chung’s sex and drugs gossip about Tory Whanau (paywalled)

File under “You can’t make this up (and neither could he).” Wellington City Councillor Ray Chung – now a mayoral hopeful – was caught spreading a salacious rumour that Mayor Tory Whanau had an obscene New Year’s Eve romp. In an email to colleagues, Chung breathlessly relayed a tall tale of Whanau allegedly engaging in a drug-fuelled group sex orgy, complete with “tempestuous sex” and “pendulous soft breasts” (yep, he went there). Whanau unequivocally denies the story, noting she spent that New Year’s with diplomats and at a rainbow community party – and reality backs her up. Chung admits he did zero fact-checking on the gossip; he heard it from a neighbour’s dog-walk, thought it was “interesting,” and forwarded it as idle scandal fodder. Now he’s very sorry (of course) and insists he’ll apologise to Whanau – though only after being caught. Fellow candidates and councillors are appalled, calling his behaviour “creepy,” “gross,” and unfit for office. The whole episode reads like a bad satire of dirty politics: a wannabe mayor trafficking in puerile sex rumours about an incumbent, then claiming it’s no big deal. If this is a preview of Chung’s campaign style, Wellingtonians can expect a race straight into the gutter. Democracy deserves better than gossip and innuendo – and voters will likely deliver Chung the reality check he so richly deserves.

Environment and Regulation:

Sheridan Waitai (The Post): Aotearoa’s silence on ocean protection is deafening (paywalled)

New Zealand likes to brag about its “100% Pure” image, but when it comes to ocean protection, our government is all quiet on the watery front – and it’s becoming an embarrassment. Sheridan Waitai, fresh from a UN Ocean Conference, calls out NZ’s leaders for offering “nothing new” beyond a stale 3-year-old reef fund while other nations boldly expand marine reserves. More than a decade after the promised Kermadec Sanctuary, it’s still languishing in limbo. In fact, less than 1% of NZ’s vast ocean territory is highly protected, and we remain the only country in the South Pacific still allowing bottom trawling – a destructive fishing method our government twice blocked global efforts to curb. The international community could easily think Kiwis don’t care about the moana, if not for Māori, NGOs, and community groups heroically filling the leadership void. Waitai’s piece drips with justified shame: an “ocean nation” that preaches guardianship (kaitiakitanga) is neglecting its greatest resource. Without serious action – banning practices like seabed mining and protecting at least 30% of our waters – NZ risks becoming the climate hypocrite of the Pacific. The ocean defines our past and future, Waitai warns, and “the silence has been deafening” from those in power. It’s time to either walk the talk on marine protection, or accept that our blue halo might fade to grey.

Andrew Bevin (Newsroom): Study finds NZ’s largest orange roughy fishery facing collapse

The consequences of failed environmental stewardship are laid bare in a scientific report showing New Zealand's largest orange roughy fishery is on the brink of collapse. The fish population is estimated to be as low as 8% of its original biomass due to a "perfect storm of poor fishery management," including overfishing and the destruction of seamount habitats by bottom trawlers. This is a catastrophic failure of regulation and a stark example of what happens when short-term commercial interests are allowed to override scientific evidence and the long-term health of a public resource.

Dileepa Fonseka (BusinessDesk): Critic says Government showing signs of ‘missing the point’ on AML/CFT reform (paywalled)

New Zealand’s much-needed AML/CFT law reforms may be hitting the wrong target, according to Uddhav Kirtikar, a former FMA regulator turned compliance consultant. He warns that ministers are touting tweaks (like easing ID checks for kids and elders) that “miss the point” of the problem. The real issue isn’t the law itself – it’s how banks and regulators enforce it. The current Act already lets banks skip redundant re-verifications (you don’t actually have to show your passport to the same bank manager every year), yet everyday customers keep getting hassled while actual “dirty money” can still slip through. Kirtikar suggests government officials have been taking advice from the very supervisors who created the mess, risking a cycle of cosmetic changes. Indeed, David Seymour and Nicole McKee’s press conference focused on cutting red tape for “long-standing clients,” which sounds nice but doesn’t address whether all this AML bureaucracy is catching crooks or just drowning ordinary Kiwis in paperwork. In short, if the reform doesn’t shift focus to smarter enforcement (and holding banks accountable when they turn a blind eye), we’ll end up with the same ineffective system – just with a bit less form-filling for grandma. True integrity in financial regulation means not just lightening the load, but sharpening the teeth.

International Perspectives:

Mark Townsend (The Guardian): Lobbyists linked to Donald Trump paid millions by world’s poorest countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/jul/10/lobbyists-linked-donald-trump-poorest-countries-mineral-resources-trade-deals-for-us-aid-military-support

This international investigation reveals the brutal reality of policy capture on a global scale. Some of the world's poorest nations, including Somalia and the DRC, are paying millions to Trump-linked lobbyists to secure aid or military support, often by bartering away their precious natural resources. The report exposes a transactional and exploitative system where political access is a commodity, and the most vulnerable are forced to trade their sovereign wealth for a seat at the table in Washington. It's a stark reminder of the power of unregulated influence peddling. It’s a sobering international mirror to our own issues with lobby influence – only on a scale that could cost vulnerable populations their livelihoods and minerals. As one expert put it, aid should not be a quid pro quo commodity – but in the MAGAverse, everything’s for sale.

Lucia Motolinia, Marko Klašnja, Simon Weschle (American Journal of Political Science): “The super rich and the rest: Campaign finance pressures and the wealth of politicians.” (2025 study) (paywalled)

Ever suspect that only the wealthy can afford to run for office these days? Political scientists have now crunched the numbers to prove it. This global study of 23,000 legislators across 41 countries finds that when campaign fundraising becomes an arms race, the very rich gain a huge advantage. Basically, the more money politicians need to raise, the more politics fills up with millionaires – creating parliaments that look less like the people and more like private clubs. The research exploited reforms in places like Brazil and Chile and consistently showed that “greater financing pressures lead to greater shares of wealthy (especially very wealthy) legislators.” In other words, big-money politics crowds out candidates of modest means. This has dire implications for integrity: policies may skew toward the interests of those footing the campaign bill (or those who can self-fund), leaving ordinary citizens under-represented. It’s a scholarly confirmation that money talks in politics, and when the volume gets too loud, only the rich get heard. For a country like New Zealand, which is debating donation rules and spending caps, the message is clear: keep the cost of campaigning down, or prepare for a Parliament of plutocrats.

Democratic Norms and Populism:

Matthew Martin (Waikato Times): How much do your mayors and councillors get paid? (paywalled)

This article peels back the curtain on the opaque system for setting local government pay, revealing vast disparities and a lack of public input. While a Hamilton City councillor earns a respectable $83,527, their counterpart in nearby Ōtorohanga receives just $25,777, despite potentially similar workloads. I’m reported as arguing the system, ultimately set by politicians via the Remuneration Authority, lacks transparency and that pay rates should be debated publicly before elections. The piece highlights an accountability gap at the heart of local democracy, where voters have no say on what their representatives are paid.

Andrea Vance (Sunday Star-Times): There are no rules any more. The political pendulum is now a wrecking ball (paywalled)

Vance delivers a searing commentary on New Zealand’s lurch toward tit-for-tat governance and erosion of democratic norms. Since the 2023 election, Christopher Luxon’s coalition has governed like a wrecking crew, repealing or gutting 20+ laws and reforms in rapid-fire – from Māori health and environmental protections to fair pay and hate speech laws. Parliamentary urgency has become the norm, shutting out public input and bulldozing the unwritten rules of consensus. Minor parties (Act and NZ First) wield outsized influence to push pet policies (like scrapping Treaty principles from law and giving tax breaks to smokers), dragging the government far from the centre. The result? Legislative whiplash. Each side vows to undo everything the other did as soon as they’re back in power, creating a vicious cycle of instability. Even the basic etiquette of politics has rotted – ministers snipe on social media instead of debating, and opposition leaders indulge in Trump-style media bashing (looking at you, Chris Hipkins and your NZME conspiracy theory). Vance warns that when “tyranny of 61 votes” replaces consensus, and every three years brings a scorched-earth policy reset, public trust is the casualty. Voters see a game where no rules apply and no decision holds, so why engage at all? It’s a sobering call to remember that durable democracy depends on restraint and respect – qualities in short supply among today’s victors.