New Zealand prides itself on being one of the world’s least corrupt countries. Politicians love to boast about our high rankings on the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index. The media regularly celebrates our supposedly “clean” perceived reputation. But what if this feel-good story is actually a dangerous myth that’s making your life harder and more expensive?
The uncomfortable truth is that corruption in New Zealand isn’t just real – it’s getting worse. And it’s not happening in back alleys with brown envelopes full of cash. It’s happening in plain sight, in the corridors of power, where wealthy interests buy influence through legal loopholes while ordinary New Zealanders pay the price through higher costs, lower wages, and a rigged economic system.
This isn’t about petty bribery or officials stealing from the till. This is about a sophisticated system of “legal corruption” that allows the wealthy and well-connected to capture the political process, rig the rules in their favour, and extract wealth from the rest of us. And the most dangerous part? We refuse to call it corruption.
Why Corruption is Devastating Your Family Budget
Before we dive into New Zealand’s specific problems, let’s be clear about what corruption actually costs you. This isn’t an abstract political science concept – it’s reaching into your wallet every single day.
When wealthy property developers secretly donate to political parties and then get favourable zoning decisions, that drives up house prices. When telecommunications companies lobby against competitive reforms, you pay more for internet and mobile services. When supermarket chains use their political connections to block competition, your grocery bill stays high. When oil companies influence climate policy, you bear the costs of delayed action through extreme weather and higher insurance premiums.
Corruption creates a vicious cycle: money buys political influence, which creates policies that generate more money for those who already have it, while everyone else gets squeezed. This is why so many New Zealanders feel like they’re working harder but getting nowhere – because the system is literally rigged against them.
Think about the major economic problems facing New Zealand families today. Housing unaffordability. Low wages compared to other developed countries. High prices for basic goods and services. Lack of real competition in key industries. Climate change costs. These aren’t natural disasters or inevitable outcomes – they’re the predictable results of a political system captured by vested interests.
When banks lobby against tougher lending standards, families get trapped in debt bubbles. When foreign corporations avoid proper tax obligations through political influence, ordinary taxpayers have to make up the difference. When pharmaceutical companies shape health policy, patients pay inflated prices for medicines. This is corruption’s real cost: a systematic transfer of wealth from working families to corporate elites.
The wealthy don’t just get richer in this system – they get richer at your expense. Every dollar that flows to connected insiders through corrupt practices is a dollar that doesn’t go to better schools, hospitals, infrastructure, or tax relief for working families. Corruption isn’t a victimless crime – you’re the victim.
Is New Zealand Really Corruption-Free? The Evidence Says No
Despite our Transparency international low corruption perception, the evidence of corruption in New Zealand is overwhelming. We’ve simply refused to recognise it as such.
Start with political donations. In most developed democracies, this would be recognised as a clear corruption risk. Yet in New Zealand, wealthy individuals and corporations can funnel unlimited money to political parties through secret trusts and foundations. They can literally buy access to ministers at auction fundraisers. They can hide foreign donations through legal loopholes. And when they want policy changes, they get them.
The National Party’s recent Fast-Track legislation is a perfect example. Companies that donated tens of thousands to the governing parties are now getting streamlined approval for profitable projects, often bypassing environmental protections that would have stopped them. This isn’t coincidence – it’s exactly how corruption works in a perceived “clean” country.
Or consider the revolving door between politics and business. Former Cabinet ministers routinely walk into lucrative lobbying roles, monetising their government connections and inside knowledge. Unlike most developed countries, New Zealand has no “cooling off” periods to prevent this obvious conflict of interest. When politicians know they can cash in their public service, how can we trust their decisions while in office?
Regulatory capture is endemic across government agencies. The alcohol industry writes its own regulations through embedded lobbyists. The banking sector shapes financial policy through former politicians on their payrolls. The telecommunications duopoly blocks competition through sustained political pressure. This isn’t good governance – it’s corporate control of the state apparatus.
The COVID-19 response revealed corruption at industrial scale. The wage subsidy scheme quicky transferred insert $19 billion to businesses with no follow up. This allowed businesses to wrongly obtain or retain up to $10 billion of taxpayer money. The tourism “slush fund” distributed hundreds of millions of dollars with some being the result of political connections end rather than merit. Emergency powers became opportunities for cronyism and corporate welfare.
The Auditor-General frequently claims to be the watchdog and guardian of public money and to be concerned about good stewardship of it. However, he failed to do anything about getting up to $10 billion of wage subsidy money repaid by businesses but at the same time he came down hard on some people who had been overpaid $115 in a cost of living payment and said that they should be made to repay.
Even our judicial system shows corruption risks. Wealth and power can influence even our highest courts. When justice becomes a matter of who you know and what you can afford, the rule of law itself is corrupted. Most people cannot afford access to justice and those who try are stripped of their available assets by lawyers who “burn off” the weaker party and reward large organisations that keep creating money making disputes. Those lawyers go on to become judges and research shows that they go easy on white collar criminals.
The Dangerous Complacency Problem
The biggest obstacle to fighting corruption in New Zealand isn’t the corruption itself – it’s our refusal to acknowledge it exists. This complacency operates at every level of society and creates a perfect breeding ground for corrupt practices.
At the political level, both major parties benefit from the current system and have no incentive to change it. Labour and National compete for the same corporate donors and business support. When in government they both employ the same lobbyists and hire from the same pool of connected insiders. When corruption scandals break, they’re treated as isolated incidents rather than symptoms of systemic failure.
Politicians love to point to our international perception rankings as proof that corruption isn’t a problem. “We’re ranked 3rd in the world,” they say, “so clearly we don’t need reform.” This circular logic prevents any serious discussion of strengthening integrity systems. It’s like arguing that because you haven’t been caught speeding, speed limits are unnecessary.
The media largely reinforces this complacency. Political journalists who depend on access to politicians are reluctant to ask hard questions about corruption. Business media celebrates our “investment-friendly” environment without examining who it’s friendly to and at what cost. When corruption stories break, they’re often framed as personality conflicts or political point-scoring rather than fundamental governance failures.
Public complacency is perhaps the most dangerous. Many New Zealanders genuinely believe our informal, high-trust culture naturally prevents corruption. They think that because politicians seem like “ordinary blokes” who you might have a beer with, they must be honest. This cultural naivety ignores how modern corruption works through personal relationships, networking, and favour-trading.
The “she’ll be right” attitude that New Zealanders pride themselves on becomes a liability when it comes to corruption. Problems that should trigger alarm bells are dismissed as “just how things work.” When ministers text lobbyists as “mates,” when donations flow through secret trusts, when former politicians immediately become paid advocates for big business – these are corruption red flags that get ignored because they don’t fit our mental image of what corruption looks like.
This complacency has created an environment where corrupt practices are not just tolerated but normalised. Young politicians learn that success comes from building relationships with wealthy donors and business interests. Public servants understand that challenging powerful corporate interests is career-limiting. Journalists know that asking too many awkward questions about money and influence will cost them access.
The result is a self-reinforcing system where corruption becomes so normalised that it’s invisible. We don’t see it because we’ve been trained not to look for it. And because we don’t see it, we don’t build defences against it.
The Transparency International Index: A False Comfort
New Zealand’s high ranking on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has become both a source of national pride and a shield against accountability. Politicians regularly cite our position – currently 3rd out of 180 countries – as definitive proof that corruption isn’t a problem here. But this reliance on the CPI reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what it actually measures and misses.
The CPI measures perceptions of corruption, not corruption itself. It’s based on surveys asking overseas business executives and country experts whether they perceive public sector corruption in their country. In a place like New Zealand, where corruption has been legalised and normalised, it may not be perceived as corruption at all. If wealthy donors buying policy influence is seen as “just how business is done,” it won’t register as corruption in perception surveys.
More fundamentally, the CPI was designed to measure old-fashioned corruption – bribery, embezzlement, and kickbacks – that was common in developing countries decades ago. It’s poorly equipped to detect the sophisticated “legal corruption” that characterises modern developed democracies. A country can score brilliantly on the CPI while suffering from severe democratic capture by wealthy interests.
The index completely misses the forms of corruption that matter most in countries like New Zealand. It doesn’t measure the influence of political donations on policy outcomes. It doesn’t assess the effectiveness of lobbying regulations or the prevalence of revolving door appointments. It doesn’t evaluate transparency in government contracting or the independence of regulatory agencies. These are precisely the areas where New Zealand performs poorly compared to other developed democracies.
International perceptions often lag behind reality by years or even decades. New Zealand’s high CPI ranking may be coasting on historical reputation while actual integrity standards decline. The steady stream of political scandals, donation controversies, and conflicts of interest over the past decade should have damaged our ranking, but international perceptions are slow to change.
The CPI also reflects the perspectives of business elites who may benefit from the very corruption it’s supposed to measure. If wealthy executives can reliably get policy outcomes they want through donations and lobbying, they may perceive the system as “non-corrupt” because it works for them. The index doesn’t capture the experiences of ordinary citizens who bear the costs of this captured system.
Most dangerously, the CPI has become a tool for preventing reform rather than encouraging it. When civil society groups call for stronger integrity systems, politicians can simply point to the ranking and declare victory. “Why do we need anti-corruption reforms when we’re already ranked 3rd in the world?” This circular logic has stalled progress on essential reforms for years.
Countries that have recognised the limitations of the CPI have moved beyond it to more sophisticated measures of democratic integrity. Australia’s new federal integrity commission isn’t justified by CPI rankings – it’s justified by recognition that modern corruption requires modern responses. New Zealand remains trapped by its own success on an outdated measure.
The Real-World Impact: How Corruption Rigs Your Economy
To understand why corruption matters, follow the money. Every corrupt transaction distorts the economy in ways that eventually hit your household budget.
Take housing, New Zealand’s most pressing economic crisis. The property development industry has systematically captured local and central government through donations, lobbying, and the revolving door. Councils regularly approve developments that benefit connected developers while ignoring community concerns. Central government housing policies consistently favour property investors over first-home buyers. This isn’t coincidence – it’s corruption delivering outcomes for those who pay for political access.
The result? House prices that have inflated far beyond what wages can support, locking an entire generation out of home ownership while generating massive profits for politically connected property interests. Your rent keeps rising not because of natural market forces, but because the market has been rigged by those with political influence.
Competition policy shows the same pattern. New Zealand has one of the most concentrated economies in the OECD, with a few large companies dominating most sectors. This didn’t happen naturally – it happened because these companies used political influence to prevent competition. The banking duopoly blocks new entrants through regulatory capture. The supermarket duopoly uses political connections to prevent real competition. The telecommunications companies lobby against infrastructure that would enable competition.
You pay monopoly prices for banking, groceries, and telecommunications not because the market demands it, but because these companies have corrupted the political process to eliminate competition. Every time you pay $12 for a block of cheese that costs $8 overseas, you’re experiencing the direct cost of regulatory capture.
Climate change represents corruption on a global scale. Fossil fuel companies have spent decades using political donations and lobbying to delay and weaken climate action. In New Zealand, oil and gas companies regularly donate to political parties and employ former politicians as lobbyists. The result is climate policies that consistently fall short of what’s needed, leaving ordinary families to bear the escalating costs of extreme weather, rising sea levels, and economic disruption.
Tax policy reveals perhaps the starkest example of how corruption redistributes wealth upward. Multinational corporations use political influence to maintain tax structures that allow them to shift profits offshore while local businesses pay full rates. Wealthy individuals employ former politicians as advisors to minimise their tax obligations through complex structures. The result is a tax system where working families bear a disproportionate burden while corporate profits and capital gains remain lightly taxed.
This isn’t abstract policy failure – it’s theft. When corporations avoid their fair share of taxes through political influence, working families have to make up the difference through higher taxes, reduced services, or growing deficits. Every dollar of tax avoided by politically connected interests is a dollar that doesn’t go to schools, hospitals, or infrastructure that benefits everyone.
What The Integrity Institute is Doing: Fighting Back Against Capture
The Integrity Institute was founded on the recognition that New Zealand’s democracy is under threat from sophisticated corruption that operates behind a facade of legality and respectability. We’re working to expose this corruption, educate the public about its costs, and advocate for the systemic reforms needed to restore democratic accountability.
Research and Investigation
Our research programme is building the evidence base that complacent politicians and media have refused to compile. We’re documenting the networks of influence that connect corporate donors, lobbyists, and politicians. Our Lobbying and Influence Register tracks who’s lobbying whom and what outcomes they’re achieving. This growing database reveals the systematic patterns of influence that corrupt democratic decision-making.
We investigate specific cases of corruption, from political donation scandals to conflicts of interest to regulatory capture. Our analysis goes beyond individual incidents to show how these represent systemic failures. We’re also conducting comparative research, showing how New Zealand’s integrity systems stack up against international best practice and where we’re falling dangerously behind.
Recent investigations have exposed how companies that donated to the governing parties received fast-track consents for controversial projects. We’ve documented the revolving door between politics and lobbying, showing how former ministers monetise their government connections. We’ve analysed the flow of money through political trusts and foundations, revealing how wealthy interests hide their political spending.
Public Education and Awareness
Too many New Zealanders don’t understand how corruption works in a modern democracy or how it affects their daily lives. We’re working to change that through accessible analysis, case studies, and commentary that shows the direct connections between political corruption and household economics.
Our regular briefings break down complex influence operations into understandable terms. We explain how seemingly technical policy decisions about tax, regulation, and spending actually represent victories for well-connected interests at public expense. We’re building public literacy about corruption so citizens can recognise it when they see it and demand accountability from their representatives.
We’re also building coalitions with other civil society organisations, unions, and community groups that represent ordinary New Zealanders’ interests. Corruption thrives in isolation – by building broad-based opposition to corrupt practices, we can create the political pressure needed for reform.
Advocacy for Comprehensive Reform
The Integrity Institute is advocating for a comprehensive package of anti-corruption reforms that would bring New Zealand’s integrity systems into the 21st century:
An Independent Anti-Corruption Commission: New Zealand needs a dedicated agency with real powers to investigate corruption, maintain public registers of interests and lobbying activities, and prosecute corrupt officials. This commission would fill the massive gaps in our current system, where corruption often goes undetected and unpunished.
Political Donation Reform: We need real-time disclosure of all political donations above $500, strict limits on donation amounts, partial public funding of political parties, and complete closure of the trust and foundation loopholes that enable secret donations. Democracy can’t function when policy is for sale to the highest bidder.
Lobbying Regulation: A mandatory public register of all lobbyists and their activities, “cooling off” periods preventing politicians from immediately becoming lobbyists, and transparency requirements for all lobbying contacts with decision-makers. The influence industry must operate in sunlight, not shadows.
Stronger Conflict of Interest Rules: Clear, enforceable rules about conflicts of interest for all politicians and public servants, with real consequences for breaches. This includes financial interests, personal relationships, and future employment prospects that could compromise decision-making.
Transparency Improvements: Major reform of the Official Information Act to restore its original purpose, proactive release of government information, and open data standards that enable public scrutiny of government decisions.
Corporate Governance Reforms: Requirements for beneficial ownership disclosure, restrictions on corporate political participation, and stronger penalties for corporate corruption.
Building the Movement for Change
Real reform won’t come from politicians who benefit from the current system. It will come from sustained public pressure that makes the political costs of corruption higher than the benefits. We’re working to build that pressure through:
- Exposing specific cases of corruption and their costs to ordinary families
- Building media literacy so journalists ask tougher questions about money and influence
- Supporting political candidates who commit to integrity reforms
- Working with international anti-corruption organisations to increase external pressure
- Building business support for clean governance that levels the playing field
The Choice We Face
New Zealand stands at a crossroads. We can continue to hide behind our international perception while corruption eats away at our democracy from within. We can keep pretending that legal corruption isn’t real corruption while wealthy interests capture more of our political system. We can maintain the comfortable myth that we’re different while our living standards decline relative to other developed countries.
Or we can face the uncomfortable truth that our democracy is under threat from sophisticated corruption that operates behind a veneer of respectability. We can acknowledge that money has corrupted our political process and demand the systemic reforms needed to restore democratic accountability. We can choose to build integrity systems worthy of a modern democracy rather than coasting on outdated reputation.
The costs of inaction are mounting every day. Every year we delay reform is another year that wealthy interests entrench their capture of the political system. Every election cycle that passes without proper donation transparency is another cycle where policy is sold to the highest bidder. Every month that lobbyists operate without regulation is another month that corporate interests shape government decisions in secret.
But the opportunity for change has never been greater. Public awareness of corruption is rising. International pressure is mounting. The gap between New Zealand’s perceived reputation and reality is becoming too obvious to ignore. Civil society is organising. Alternative political voices are emerging.
The choice is ours: continue the dangerous myth of New Zealand’s purity, or build the corruption-resistant democracy our children deserve. The Integrity Institute is committed to ensuring we make the right choice – before it’s too late.
What You Can Do
- Support organisations working for transparency and accountability
- Demand answers from politicians about their donations and conflicts of interest
- Vote for candidates who commit to integrity reforms
- Stay informed about how money and influence shape political decisions
- Recognise that corruption is not someone else’s problem – it’s reaching into your wallet every day
New Zealand’s perceived reputation for being corruption-free has become a dangerous liability. It’s time to trade comfortable myths for uncomfortable truths, and start building the integrity systems that a modern democracy requires. The cost of corruption is too high, and the time for action is now.
A Bibliography of Resources on Corruption in New Zealand
This bibliography provides a curated list of resources on the issue of corruption and integrity in New Zealand. It encompasses academic analysis, investigative journalism, official reports, and reform proposals. The materials cover various facets of corruption, including political finance, conflicts of interest, cronyism, corporate welfare, the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, and calls for systemic reform.
Each entry below includes bibliographic details and a brief description of the item. The bibliography is in four parts: Part One lists selected works by The Integrity Institute’s Bryce Edwards; Part Two details key official reports and inquiries; Part Three highlights other significant media commentary and academic resources; and Part Four lists key reports from other organisations. Each part is in chronological date order where possible.
Part One: Works by Dr Bryce Edwards
Bryce Edwards: “Political corruption in New Zealand.” 29 October 2010.
URL: https://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2010/10/political-corruption-in-new-zealand.html
Summary: An earlier academic discussion on the paradox of New Zealand’s high TI CPI ranking alongside a growing number of political finance scandals. It explores definitions of corruption beyond bribery and calls for more serious study of its prevalence in various institutions.
Bryce Edwards: “Questions over ‘corruption’” NZ Herald, 22 March 2012
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-political-round-up-questions-over-corruption/XIBBQIIX5TWJRVML72EHSD3WSM/
Summary: Examines the Nick Smith ACC scandal and questions of corruption, cronyism, and Prime Minister John Key’s involvement. Argues that serious questions remain about whether an independent inquiry is needed and highlights how political fights over corruption issues were escalating.
Bryce Edwards: “Is NZ really the least corrupt country?” NZ Herald, 5 December 2013
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-political-roundup-is-nz-really-the-least-corrupt-country/FYY2M3UDAA7QNOGG7NSZTF2ZQQ/
Summary: This column points out an apparent paradox: New Zealand experienced an “explosion of political finance scandals” in recent years, yet Transparency International’s CPI continued to rank NZ at the top. Edwards explores reasons for this discrepancy, suggesting that New Zealand’s clean image belies growing concerns – such as the John Banks donation trial and other controversies – and that the use of the term “corruption” in media and public discourse was increasing.
Bryce Edwards: “The democratic deficit of Dirty Politics”, NZ Herald, 27 November 2014
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-the-democratic-deficit-of-dirty-politics/M2MGESZT7APIFV3AQAH66E4MBE/
Summary: Examines the democratic implications of the revelations in Nicky Hager’s “Dirty Politics” book, analysing how attack politics and hidden influence networks undermine democratic processes and public trust.
Bryce Edwards: “Is New Zealand becoming more corrupt?”, NZ Herald, 3 December 2014
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-is-new-zealand-becoming-more-corrupt/KGRH6NGLSAGYTUO4V3Z5QA25IY/
Summary: In the wake of New Zealand being knocked off its perch as the world’s least corrupt country, Edwards examines whether corruption is on the rise. He notes that New Zealand’s score in the CPI slipped slightly (from 91 to 88) and cites Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer findings that a segment of New Zealanders perceive political parties as corrupt. The article discusses how recent political scandals – including Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics revelations (2014) – have eroded confidence, and it questions the assumption that NZ’s public and private sectors are immune to corruption.
Bryce Edwards: “The struggle for integrity”, NZ Herald, 15 December 2015
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/political-roundup-the-struggle-for-integrity/HV2EMMTPFCRAADD5R673UMQ5F4/
Summary: A year-in-review column looking at challenges to political integrity in 2015. Edwards argues that several pillars of New Zealand’s democracy showed signs of erosion that year. In particular, he points to a “decline of transparency” in government – noting failings in the Official Information Act (OIA) regime and “murky deals” that escaped accountability. He cites a strongly worded Otago Daily Times editorial listing instances of opacity (“secrets, redacted documents… shutting down of discussion”) and warning of a “slow, steady and insidious eroding of transparency” in New Zealand. High-profile examples, such as the controversial Saudi sheep farm deal by Minister Murray McCully, are given as evidence of an ongoing struggle to maintain integrity in public decision-making.
Bryce Edwards: “New Zealand tumbles down the political corruption table.” NZ Herald, 27 January 2016.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-new-zealand-tumbles-down-the-political-corruption-table/LCVUNFVFU4473KUILUPC23GQBE/
Summary: An analysis of New Zealand’s drop in the latest CPI rankings (falling from 2nd to 4th place). Edwards discusses the perception versus reality of corruption, noting this was the first significant fall for NZ in the CPI. He surveys commentary on why NZ’s score declined and whether it indicates rising corruption or merely stricter global measures. Citing recent controversies (such as struggles with transparency and political donations), he suggests the country’s “corruption-free” reputation has been dented, and warns against complacency.
Bryce Edwards: “The Government’s problem with transparency”, NZ Herald, 22 February 2016
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/political-roundup-the-governments-problem-with-transparency/P7ICCGGLMZ5JQ3OJL5BW72TMKQ/
Summary: This piece contends that the National-led government’s handling of information and decision-making was undermining New Zealand’s anti-corruption image. Edwards notes that after the CPI report showed NZ slipping, further stories emerged that “contribute to the idea that New Zealand has a less than perfect anti-corruption environment”. The column highlights an independent Open Government Partnership report that “told off” the Government for failing its transparency commitments – a “black mark” against NZ – and points to concerns about opaque government deals and inadequate accountability in public agencies. Overall, it suggests the Government’s lack of openness was harming the country’s corruption-free status.
Bryce Edwards: “Avoiding complacency about corruption”, NZ Herald, 13 February 2017
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/political-roundup-avoiding-complacency-about-corruption/ACDD7R7CNAMHESAJTTZHUKMCCQ/
Summary: Written just after NZ was again ranked the least corrupt nation (tied for first in CPI 2016), this column warns New Zealanders and officials not to be complacent. Edwards argues that being No.1 on the CPI does not mean NZ is free of corruption risks. He catalogs recent incidents that illustrate vulnerability – for example, political finance scandals, the Panama Papers’ exposure of NZ’s foreign trust regime, and lax oversight of lobbying and cronyism. The article’s message is that a clean international image can mask “small-scale” or subtler forms of corruption, and continuous vigilance and reforms are needed to maintain integrity.
Bryce Edwards: “Can the Auditor-General be trusted to combat corruption?”, NZ Herald, 22 May 2017
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/political-roundup-can-the-auditor-general-be-trusted-to-combat-corruption/WU2TU2MZWI3OEFQQE522EL3CTE/
Summary: This piece, appearing amid a scandal involving the newly appointed Auditor-General, questions whether New Zealand’s top watchdog agency is equipped to root out corruption. Edwards discusses the case of Auditor-General Martin Matthews, who had previously led the Ministry of Transport during a major fraud (the Joanne Harrison case). He outlines how serious fraud went undetected and whistleblowers were ignored, leading to concerns that “managers [failed] to prevent serious fraud in a government department”. The column suggests a culture of elite unaccountability: when officials responsible for oversight are implicated in lapses, it undermines trust that corruption will be exposed. Edwards ultimately argues that stronger mechanisms are needed to hold powerful people to account, so that watchdog institutions themselves remain above reproach.
Bryce Edwards: “Bouquets and brickbats for the Government’s move against corruption”, NZ Herald, 23 March 2022
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-political-roundup-bouquets-and-brickbats-for-the-governments-move-against-corruption/HANYHJOZ2N65EOT65LT4DJZLRY/
Summary: Assesses a new Government initiative to improve transparency around company ownership (an effort to combat money laundering and corruption). Edwards gives “bouquets” for the positive steps – applauding moves to set up a public beneficial ownership register for companies – but also delivers “brickbats” for the plan’s weaknesses, such as the continued exemption of trusts from disclosure requirements. He places these reforms in context with NZ’s CPI performance, arguing that while overdue transparency measures are welcome, half-measures could limit their effectiveness in improving New Zealand’s corruption ranking.
Bryce Edwards: “Questions around the Govt’s tourism ‘slush fund’”, NZ Herald, 5 April 2022
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-bryce-edwards-questions-of-integrity-surround-governments-tourism-slush-fund/XO4MTEFQDKG6OG3FZQT4AWV434/
Summary: An in-depth look at the Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme (STAPP) and the Auditor-General’s findings. Edwards asks whether political corruption was involved in ministers dishing out millions to selected tourism businesses, noting that poor processes and lack of records make it “almost impossible to know” if favouritism played a role. Highlights the soft corruption risk in how Covid funds were allocated.
Bryce Edwards: “If the NZ First Foundation accused are not guilty, then who is?” NZ Herald 22 July 2022
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-if-the-nz-first-foundation-accused-are-not-guilty-then-who-is/I6Y2SHBPL5RNZC4ILD7LVWEBBE/
Summary: In the wake of the trial over the New Zealand First Foundation, Edwards reflects on what the outcome means for corruption in political donations. (Two party operatives were acquitted on a technicality, despite evidence the Foundation was used to channel political donations.) Edwards argues that the case reveals serious flaws in donation laws – effectively, if no one is “guilty,” it suggests the system allows large sums of money to influence politics with impunity. He calls for clarity on accountability: if certain funding arrangements aren’t illegal, then the law must be changed to prevent abuses that amount to corruption in spirit, if not in letter.
Bryce Edwards: “Time to take political donations law seriously.” 3 August 2022
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2022/08/03/bryce-edwards-time-to-take-political-donations-law-seriously/
Summary: Edwards urges comprehensive reform of political finance rules to combat corruption. Spurred by high-profile donation scandals (such as the NZ First Foundation and cases involving other major parties), the article outlines how current laws are “porous” and easily circumvented. It calls for measures including lowering disclosure thresholds, banning secret trusts and foundations, and creating an independent enforcement agency. Overall, Edwards contends that without serious reform, New Zealand’s reputation and democracy will suffer from ongoing hidden cash influences.
Bryce Edwards: “Time for the Auditor General to investigate Mahuta contracts.” NZ Herald 21 September 2022
Summary: Argues for an Auditor-General investigation into government contracts awarded to family members of Minister Nanaia Mahuta, highlighting concerns about cronyism, conflicts of interest, and inadequate procedural safeguards.
Bryce Edwards: “Stuart Nash’s resignation shows our leaders need a lesson in civics.” NZ Herald, 16 March 2023
Summary: Draws lessons from Minister Stuart Nash’s resignation over inappropriate communication with the Police Commissioner, highlighting a lack of understanding of constitutional principles, ministerial conduct, and the “mateship problem” in NZ politics.
Bryce Edwards: “Nash’s sacking means a deeper probe into Cabinet ‘insider trading’ is required.” NZ Herald, 29 March 2023
Summary: Following additional revelations in the Stuart Nash affair (that Nash had shared sensitive Cabinet information about a commercial rent relief program with donors), Edwards argues that a deeper investigation is needed into how ministers handle insider information. He likens the situation to “insider trading” – where privileged information is misused to benefit friends or supporters – and suggests the Nash case may be the tip of an iceberg. The article calls for an inquiry or stronger oversight into Cabinet confidentiality and the influence of donors, warning that without it, a culture of casual favouritism could enable a form of corruption-by-insider-information in Wellington.
Bryce Edwards: “Is it time for an anti-corruption commission?” 30 March 2023
Summary: In the aftermath of the Nash scandal and other ethics crises, Edwards makes the case for establishing an independent Anti-Corruption Commission in New Zealand. He notes that many comparable democracies (including Australia, with its new federal ICAC) have permanent watchdogs to investigate political corruption. The article suggests that New Zealand’s traditional approach – relying on ad-hoc inquiries, the Auditor-General, and the police for serious fraud – may no longer be sufficient in an era of increasingly complex lobbying and political finance issues. An anti-corruption commission, Edwards argues, could fill the gaps by proactively investigating misconduct and restoring public confidence that wrongdoing at high levels will be exposed and addressed.
Bryce Edwards: “The Troubling report into Stuart Nash’s conflicts of interest.” 19 June 2023.
Summary: Details the findings of the Cabinet Office review into Stuart Nash’s conduct, including deleted communications with donors and further undisclosed conflicts, underscoring systemic integrity problems and the need for greater accountability.
Bryce Edwards: “The Era of complacency over political conflicts of interest is over.” NZ Herald, 22 June 2023.
Summary: Argues that a series of integrity scandals, including those involving Michael Wood and Meng Foon, signals an end to New Zealand’s complacency regarding conflicts of interest and corruption, with public and media scrutiny intensifying.
Bryce Edwards: “Court ruling shows big political donations can be given secretly.” 23 November 2023.
URL: https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/court-ruling-shows-big-political Summary: Examines how legal loopholes enable secret political donations that corrupt democratic processes, analysing court decisions that have highlighted gaps in New Zealand’s political finance laws.
Bryce Edwards: “Christopher Luxon needs to raise standards in the Beehive” NZ Herald, 31 January 2024
Summary: Analyses New Zealand’s continued decline in the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index, calling on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to address integrity problems in the political system as part of fixing broader national challenges.
Bryce Edwards: “NZ elections are being Americanised with ‘dark money’ flowing into campaign groups.” 27 February 2024.
URL: https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/nz-elections-are-being-americanised Summary: Investigates the rise of untraceable political spending through advocacy groups and its corruption of electoral processes, drawing parallels with American “dark money” influence campaigns.
Bryce Edwards: “The Government’s new fast-track invitation to corruption.” 8 March 2024.
URL: https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/the-governments-new-fast-track-invitation
Summary: Critiques the Fast-Track Approvals Bill, arguing that by centralising power in a few ministers and reducing scrutiny, it creates significant risks of corruption, undue influence from lobbying and political donations, and prioritisation of private profit over public good.
Bryce Edwards: “The Political corruption report that politicians need to read.” 18 August 2024
URL: https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/the-political-corruption-report-that Summary: Reviews key findings about corruption in New Zealand and the reforms needed to address it. Argues that New Zealand’s complacent approach to corruption enables its growth.
Bryce Edwards: “Political corruption in NZ can’t be tackled with a softly, softly approach.” 13 September 2024.
URL: https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/political-corruption-in-nz-cant-be
Summary: A column arguing that NZ’s cautious, conservative approach to corruption has fostered dangerous complacency, as evidenced by a recent TI-NZ report that itself downplayed specific scandals. Edwards critiques the Wellington establishment’s tendency to celebrate NZ’s clean image while ignoring revolving-door lobbying, donation scandals, and other corruption red flags.
Bryce Edwards: “Auditor-General damns the Govt’s charity funding processes”, NZ Herald, 12 Oct 2024
Summary: Covers the Auditor-General’s “landmark condemnation” of how a Minister (Matt Doocey) allocated $24m to a mental health charity (Gumboot Friday) without proper process. Highlights issues of favouritism and bypassing rules in public funding – an example of integrity breakdown even with good intentions, reinforcing calls for clearer guidelines and oversight in grant funding.
Bryce Edwards: “Kiwis are waking up with alarm to NZ’s tarnished democracy.” 21 February 2025.
URL: https://theintegrityinstitute.substack.com/p/integrity-briefing-kiwis-are-waking
Summary: Discusses New Zealand’s slippage in the latest Corruption Perceptions Index and the resulting public debate. Notes that TI’s report identified unregulated lobbying as a key factor tarnishing NZ’s democracy, and that there is now talk of urgent reforms to restore public trust.
Bryce Edwards: “NZ’s trust crisis – A Revolt against oligarchy.” 30 March 2025.
URL: https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/integrity-briefing-nzs-trust-crisis Summary: Discusses New Zealand’s slippage in the latest Corruption Perceptions Index and the Connects declining public trust to corruption and capture by wealthy interests, arguing that New Zealand faces a crisis of democratic legitimacy as citizens increasingly see the system as rigged in favour of elites.
Bryce Edwards: “Do political donations influence which businesses get fast-tracked?” 13 May 2025.
URL: https://theintegrityinstitute.substack.com/p/integrity-briefing-do-political-donations
Summary: An analysis revealing that numerous companies who donated to parties in government also applied for fast-track resource consents under the Covid-19 recovery law. Raises the serious conflict of interest of politicians taking $50k donations from a business and then granting it special exemptions, citing data from 2024 donation disclosures.
Bryce Edwards: “NZ’s ‘Chumocracy’ and the suppression of Prof Robert MacCulloch.” May 2025
URL: https://theintegrityinstitute.substack.com/p/integrity-briefing-nzs-chumocracy
Summary: Professor MacCulloch’s work highlights how political and business elites in New Zealand may maintain a dysfunctional hold on power through patronage, suppression of dissent, and networks of influence, contributing to “soft corruption” and a “chumocracy” that can harm the economy and political processes.
Part Two: Investigative Journalism and Media Commentary
Nicky Hager: “Dirty Politics: How attack politics is poisoning New Zealand’s political environment”, Craig Potton Publishing, August 2014
ISBN: 9781927213360
URL: https://nickyhager.info/dirty-politics/
Summary: Based on leaked emails from Cameron Slater’s Whale Oil blog, this groundbreaking book revealed a secret network of attack politics involving the Prime Minister’s office, Cabinet ministers, right-wing bloggers, and corporate interests. The book exposed how John Key’s government worked with Slater to conduct personal attacks against political enemies while maintaining a public image of clean politics. It documented how commercial interests, particularly tobacco and food industry lobbyists, used attack bloggers to undermine public health experts and policies.
Laura Walters: “Growing calls for independent watchdog to keep politicians honest”, Newsroom, 15 April 2025
URL: https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/04/15/growing-calls-for-independent-watchdog-to-keep-politicians-honest/
Summary: Reports on increasing calls for an independent anti-corruption commission in New Zealand following a series of integrity scandals and the country’s declining performance in international corruption indices.
Part Three: Academic and Research Resources
Jeremy Pope: “Confronting Corruption: The Elements of a National Integrity System”
Summary: The foundational manual for anti-corruption practitioners worldwide, written by New Zealand lawyer and Transparency International co-founder Jeremy Pope. Translated into more than 20 languages, this work established the National Integrity System framework that became the basis for corruption assessments globally. Pope co-created the Corruption Perceptions Index and was the founding Managing Director of Transparency International from 1994-1998.
Transparency International New Zealand: “Integrity Plus 2013: New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment”, December 2013
Summary: A comprehensive 370-page assessment of New Zealand’s integrity system across 12 key “pillars” including legislature, executive, judiciary, public sector, law enforcement, electoral management, ombudsman, audit institutions, political parties, media, civil society and business. With over 50 contributors, this foundational report provided a definitive roadmap for creating a corruption-intolerant New Zealand and made numerous recommendations for systemic reform.
OECD Working Group on Bribery: Phase 4 Report on New Zealand’s Implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. (OECD Report, October 2021).
URL: https://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/new-zealand-phase-4-report.pdf
Summary: This is an evaluation by an international body rather than a domestic organisation, but it’s a crucial external assessment of New Zealand’s anti-corruption framework, especially regarding foreign bribery. The OECD Working Group’s Phase 4 Report praised New Zealand for maintaining a generally low-corruption environment, but it also delivered some blunt criticisms. Chief among them was that New Zealand had not prosecuted a single foreign bribery case since ratifying the convention (2001), suggesting a lack of enforcement rather than a lack of bribery. The report pointed to gaps in New Zealand’s capacity – for instance, no dedicated anti-corruption agency and an absence of whistleblower protections robust enough to encourage reporting of international corruption. It also highlighted that New Zealand’s “lack of an anti-corruption commission” could be a blind spot in coordinating efforts against complex corruption and bribery cases. The OECD recommended that New Zealand prioritize passing pending legislation to strengthen corporate liability for foreign bribery (which NZ did in 2022), increase training for investigators, and consider structural changes to better detect and investigate corruption. This report served as a wake-up call that even on the global stage, expectations of NZ are higher than simply “having a clean reputation” – the country is expected to actively police and punish corruption, both at home and abroad.
Transparency International New Zealand: “An assessment of the effectiveness of anti-corruption institutions in New Zealand in deterring, detecting and exposing corruption”, August 2024
Summary: Research by Dr Simon Chapple commissioned by TINZ finding that New Zealand’s historically low levels of corruption have encouraged complacency and a reactive approach to policy making. The report calls for a “zeitgeist shift” toward positive prevention and recommends a single well-funded government agency with primary responsibility for anti-corruption monitoring, coordination, research and strategic operations.
Helen Clark Foundation: “Shining a Light: Improving Transparency in New Zealand’s Political and Governance Systems”, August 2024
URL: https://helenclark.foundation/publications-and-medias/shining-a-light/
Summary: This report examines perceived corruption risks and transparency deficits in New Zealand, focusing on five key areas: political lobbying, political donations and election funding, access to official information, foreign bribery, and beneficial ownership. It recommends a suite of reforms to strengthen transparency and safeguard democracy.
