Why do so many former politicians land cushy top jobs – while ordinary Kiwis struggle to get a fair go? Political cronyism is the reason, and it’s alive and well in New Zealand. The harsh truth is that our political system often serves vested interests rather than the public good. The result? A system rigged in favour of insiders, leaving the rest of us worse off.
It undermines trust, weakens public services, and entrenches inequality. This explainer breaks down what cronyism is, how it manifests in New Zealand (the notorious “jobs for mates” culture), and why it matters to you. We’ll also expose recent examples – from blatant political appointments to the revolving door between government and big business – that show how merit gets sidelined by loyalty.
Finally, we’ll outline how The Integrity Institute is fighting back, and what can be done to clean up this rigged system.
What is Political Cronyism?
Political cronyism is favouritism by those in power toward their friends, allies, or “mates.” Instead of choosing people based on merit or qualifications, politicians give out jobs, public appointments, contracts or perks to those in their inner circle. In plain terms, it’s the “jobs for the boys” syndrome – or in New Zealand parlance, “jobs for mates.” It means who you know matters more than what you know. Cronyism can involve appointing a minister’s buddy to a well-paid board position, creating a role just to reward a loyal supporter, or giving a government contract to a friend’s company. This kind of patronage puts political loyalty ahead of the public interest.
Cronyism isn’t new – in fact, New Zealand tried to stamp it out over a century ago. Back in 1912, the government created an independent Public Service Commissioner specifically “to end ‘political cronyism’ and ‘jobs for the boys’” in the hiring of public servants. That reform was meant to ensure neutral, merit-based hiring in the core public service, taking hiring power out of politicians’ hands. And for everyday civil service jobs, it largely worked.
But outside the core bureaucracy, the tradition of political appointments and back-scratching never really went away. Successive governments have found ways to exploit their powers of appointment – from diplomatic postings to the boards of public agencies – to place their people in plum roles. This often happens behind closed doors, without open advertising or fair competition. As The Integrity Institute’s Director Bryce Edwards noted in a recent case, such appointments “go against the ethos” of New Zealand’s impartial public service, because appointees are selected “based on… political connections” rather than professionalism. In short, cronyism puts pals before the public.
Cronyism in New Zealand: A ‘Jobs for Mates’ Culture
New Zealand likes to think of itself as relatively corruption-free. But scratch the surface, and a ‘jobs for mates’ culture is clearly at work in our politics. Both major parties have been guilty of doling out lucrative positions to their friends and former colleagues – creating a bipartisan club of insiders helping each other out. These political appointments span everything from ambassadorships and board directorships to ad-hoc “working group” gigs, often with hefty pay packets attached. The common theme: merit and transparency take a back seat to political loyalty.
Just look at some recent appointments under the current government. Within months of taking office, the National/Act coalition found top jobs for a who’s who of former National Party ministers. Ex-National leader Simon Bridges was appointed as the new Chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) in March 2024, and former Deputy PM Paula Bennett was installed as Chair of Pharmac (the drug-buying agency) in April 2024. These are extremely influential public roles – overseeing billions in roading projects and medicine funding – now in the hands of National Party alumni.
Not to be left out, former National Finance Minister Steven Joyce was handed a high-paying role chairing an “expert advisory panel” on infrastructure, at a staggering $4,000 per day fee. (His contract was short-term, capped at $40,000 total, but the rate is more than double what the Prime Minister earns.) And who did the new government tap to conduct a major review of the troubled public housing agency Kāinga Ora? Not a housing policy expert or neutral figure – they picked Sir Bill English, the former National Prime Minister. Likewise, National stalwarts Roger Sowry and Murray McCully have also popped up on the receiving end of new appointments and working group roles. It’s an insider club taking care of its own.
To be clear, this isn’t just a National Party phenomenon – Labour does it too when they’re in power. Under the previous Labour-led government, there were plenty of examples of “jobs for mates.” Perhaps the most brazen was Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern appointing her close friend and embattled colleague Trevor Mallard as New Zealand’s Ambassador to Ireland in 2022. Mallard was widely regarded as a disastrous Speaker of the House (only 17% of the public approved of his performance) and had become a major liability. Ardern needed him gone from Parliament – but instead of showing him the door, she kicked him upstairs to a cushy diplomatic post. As Bryce Edwards observed at the time, “Mallard’s new job is a crony political appointment… he’s been selected because of his political connections”. In other words, loyalty was rewarded over competence – a classic case of cronyism.
Labour also had its share of partisan board appointments. In 2018, for example, Labour’s Health Minister appointed Steve Maharey (a former Labour Cabinet minister) as Chair of Pharmac without even advertising the role, and against official advice to reappoint the existing chair. The Taxpayers’ Union slammed this “dangerous display of cronyism,” pointing out that Pharmac was meant to be apolitical and merit-based.
Fast-forward to 2024 and ironically a former National minister (Bennett) now occupies that same post – illustrating that each side hands out the goodies to their own when the wheel turns. And it’s not just boardrooms and embassies: political allies often get spots on influential working groups, commissions, and consultancy contracts when their friends are in government. No wonder critics talk about a permanent political class rotating in and out of power – scratching each other’s backs along the way.
One infamous example often cited is how former National PM John Key literally phoned a childhood friend about a top government job. In 2012, Key personally shoulder-tapped his old schoolmate Ian Fletcher to head the GCSB (the spy agency), bypassing the usual hiring process after the official shortlist didn’t suit him. The State Services Commissioner was “surprised” by Key’s direct intervention, and opposition parties cried foul about cronyism and lack of transparency. It showed how a determined leader can put a mate into a critical role in secret. The pattern is clear: time and again, politicians from both major parties have exploited public appointments to reward friends.
These appointments often happen behind closed doors, with minimal public scrutiny. Jobs aren’t advertised, insiders get the inside track, and Kiwis are left wondering why the same revolving cast of political figures always seem to land on their feet.
The Revolving Door and Conflicts of Interest
Cronyism isn’t only about jobs for the boys in government agencies – it’s also about the “revolving door” between public office and the private sector. This is another way the system is tilted in favour of insiders. The “revolving door” refers to politicians and officials leaving their public roles and quickly sliding into lucrative roles where they exploit their insider knowledge and connections. Often they become lobbyists, consultants or industry executives who can wield undue influence over their former colleagues. It’s cronyism in reverse – instead of the government giving them a job, they cash in on their government service by getting a private-sector job that trades on their political ties.
New Zealand has no cooling-off period to slow down this revolving door – which is out of step with most other developed countries. That means a Cabinet Minister could resign one day and start lobbying their former Cabinet colleagues the next. That’s exactly what happened last year: former Labour minister Kris Faafoi quit Parliament and immediately became a lobbyist, going to work trying to influence the very government he had just been part of. In many countries, that would be illegal – they enforce a stand-down period (often 1–2 years) before ex-ministers can lobby or take certain jobs, specifically to prevent this kind of conflict of interest. Kiwis are waking up to the problem: 62% of New Zealanders support a two-year “cooling-off” law for politicians becoming lobbyists, according to a recent poll. Yet currently, nothing stops an MP or senior official from walking out the Beehive’s door straight into a plush lobbying gig.
Why is this a problem? Because it blurs the line between public duty and private gain. A minister with an eye on a future industry job might go soft on that industry while in office. A recently departed MP-turned-lobbyist can call up former colleagues and get the red carpet treatment – access ordinary citizens can only dream of. This inside track for insiders means big corporations and vested interests get listened to, while the public interest is drowned out. RNZ’s recent investigative series on lobbying revealed how former MPs and senior Beehive staff enjoy extraordinary access and influence with those in power. When policymaking becomes a cosy conversation among mates – some still in government, some cashing in outside – who speaks for the ordinary New Zealander? It’s a blatant conflict of interest that erodes fair decision-making.
Conflicts of interest arise in other ways too. Many of these political appointees have business ties or personal connections that overlap with their new roles. For instance, if a former minister is appointed to regulate an industry where they have friends or prospective employers, can we trust they’ll be tough when needed? Or consider a politically appointed board chair who owes their job to the Cabinet – will they challenge government policy if it’s failing, or stay loyal to the hand that feeds them? When public officials are beholden to political patrons or private networks, the risk is that they serve those interests, not the public. That’s why traditional public service values demand neutrality and impartiality – values undermined by cronyism. As it stands, New Zealand’s loose rules and old-boy networks practically invite these conflicts. And the outcomes, as we’ll see next, hurt everyone except the insiders.
Why Cronyism Hurts Ordinary Kiwis
Why should you care if politicians give jobs to their mates? Because you end up paying the price. Cronyism is not a victimless quirk of politics – it has real consequences for New Zealand’s economy, public services, and democracy. Here are some of the key ways this rigged system hurts us all:
- Broken Public Services: When key public roles are filled based on who you know, not what you know, performance suffers. Incompetent or unqualified appointees can mismanage agencies that deliver essential services. For example, if a health board or transport agency is chaired by a political loyalist rather than an expert, don’t be surprised when it fails to deliver for the public. Cronyism also breeds a culture of yes-men – appointees who won’t speak truth to power. That means critical problems go unchecked and opportunities to improve are missed. Ultimately, you get poorer service – longer hospital wait times, potholed roads, unaffordable housing – because merit was sidelined.
- Rigged Economy and Inequality: Cronyism and its cousin crony capitalism help entrench an elite class. Government contracts and cushy jobs go to the well-connected, not necessarily the most efficient or deserving. That wastes taxpayer money and distorts the market. Small businesses and talented individuals without political connections are shut out of opportunities – why innovate or compete if the game is rigged? Over time, wealth and power concentrate among a few insiders. Ordinary people miss out on jobs and resources as the spoils get passed around a closed circle. This exacerbates inequality, with the politically-connected getting richer or more influential, while everyone else is left with crumbs. It’s the opposite of the fair go Kiwis expect.
- Regulatory Capture and Corruption Risks: Crony appointments can lead to regulatory capture, where watchdog agencies end up serving the industries or political masters they’re supposed to oversee. If a minister’s mate is running a regulatory body, will they crack down on wrongdoing by friends? Will a politically appointed diplomat blow the whistle on corruption in an ally’s dealings? Cronyism blunts the sharp edges of oversight and accountability, creating a fertile ground for corruption to take hold. New Zealand’s reputation for being corruption-free is at stake – and indeed, we are already seeing warning signs. Our ranking on the global Corruption Perceptions Index has slipped in recent years. The latest report flagged concerns about opaque lobbying and favoritism, noting “lack of transparency” in our system and dropping New Zealand to 4th place worldwide (after decades of being first). Cronyism is a big part of that story. If we don’t tackle it, we risk a slow slide into a more corrupt, less accountable state.
- Loss of Trust in Democracy: Perhaps most importantly, political cronyism shatters the public’s trust. People see a government of insiders, by insiders, for insiders – and conclude that democracy doesn’t work for them. Why bother voting or engaging in politics, if the outcomes seem predetermined by a clique of mates trading favors? This cynicism is toxic. It leads to disengagement, low voter turnout, and a sense of powerlessness that can fray the fabric of society. When citizens believe the system is “rigged” against them (and evidence suggests it often is), they can lose faith not just in whichever party is in charge, but in democratic institutions as a whole. That’s a dangerous path. Trust in Parliament and politicians is already low, and every scandalous appointment or conflict of interest makes it lower. Cronyism is essentially a form of corruption, and New Zealanders rightly feel angry when they see it. We expect a fair go and a clean government – not a VIP club scratching each other’s backs.
In short, cronyism has a very real impact on your life. It’s harder to get quality healthcare or education if those systems are led by cronies instead of experts. It’s harder to afford a home if housing policy is guided by political agendas rather than public need. It’s harder to get ahead in business if you’re not part of the insiders’ network. And it’s hard to trust that your taxpayer dollars are well spent when you constantly see favoritism and waste. The system is supposed to work for all New Zealanders, but political cronyism twists it to serve a select few.
Cleaning Up the Mess: How to End ‘Jobs for Mates’
It’s clear that New Zealand needs to confront political cronyism head-on. The good news is that there are solutions on the table – and The Integrity Institute is helping lead the charge. We refuse to accept a rigged system, and we’re pushing for reforms to make public appointments fair, transparent, and merit-based. In fact, the Institute has a forthcoming report on political appointments in New Zealand that lays out a plan to fix this broken system. Here are some of the key recommendations for reform that would put a stop to the worst ‘jobs for mates’ abuses:
- Independent Appointments Commissioner: Take the hiring of top public officials out of the smoky backroom. We propose establishing an Independent Public Appointments Commissioner (or empowering an existing body with this role) to oversee major appointments. This commissioner would ensure roles are advertised, candidates are vetted on merit, and any hint of political bias or cronyism is called out. An independent watchdog like this would shine a light on the appointments process and keep ministers honest.
- Merit-Based, Open Recruitment: All significant public positions – from board chairs to agency CEOs to diplomatic posts – should use transparent and competitive recruitment. That means clear job criteria, public advertising of vacancies, independent selection panels, and appointment on proven competence. No more secret soundings among the “old boys’ network.” If someone is the best person for the job, they should be able to win it in open competition – even if they aren’t a political insider. Conversely, being a minister’s mate should not count as a qualification. We need robust processes to ensure skills and experience trump cronyism every time.
- Cooling-Off Periods (Close the Revolving Door): It’s time to slam the brakes on the revolving door. We recommend legislating mandatory stand-down periods – for example, 12 to 24 months – before former ministers, MPs and senior officials can take up roles as lobbyists or directors in sectors they used to regulate. This cooling-off period would apply as well to prevent outgoing politicians from immediately walking into government-appointed gigs that could present conflicts. Such rules are common overseas and help protect the integrity of decision-making. They ensure that public servants focus on the public good, not lining up their next plush job. New Zealand should catch up by shutting the revolving door that undermines our democracy.
- Strong Conflict of Interest Rules: We need to put teeth into our conflict of interest policies. That means clearer, stricter rules so that anyone in a public role must fully disclose any personal, financial, or political ties that could influence their decisions. And it means enforcing those rules – if someone is too tangled up in private interests, they shouldn’t be in that public position, period. For political appointments, there should be zero tolerance for appointing close friends or family without an exceptionally compelling rationale and transparency. Strengthening these rules will help restore trust that officials are working for New Zealanders at large, not for their own mates or future prospects.
These are just some of the changes The Integrity Institute is advocating. Our upcoming report dives deeper – including ideas like a public register of lobbyists, tougher political donation transparency, and empowering Parliament to scrutinise appointments. The bottom line is we need a culture change. Public roles should never be treated as the spoils of office or personal gifts to distribute. They belong to the people of New Zealand, and must be filled by the best people for the job, regardless of politics.
New Zealanders deserve a government that works for us, not a clique of politicians feathering each other’s nests. Political cronyism has been quietly undermining our democracy and public services, but the public is waking up to it. The anger and backlash over recent “jobs for mates” stories show that Kiwis won’t tolerate a rigged system. It’s time to end the revolving doors and old boys’ clubs.
The Integrity Institute is committed to shining a light on these abuses and pushing for change. By implementing common-sense reforms – independent oversight, merit-based hiring, cooling-off periods, and stricter integrity rules – we can build a political system that genuinely serves the public good. Breaking the cronyism culture will help make our economy fairer, our government more effective, and our democracy more worthy of the name. It’s about putting people before pals, merit before mates. New Zealand has cleaned up political messes before, and we can do it again. Let’s demand a system where public appointments are earned, not given as favours – and where ordinary New Zealanders can trust that the government is working for them, not just the insiders.
The message to the political class should be clear: No more jobs for your mates – New Zealand is watching.
Political Cronyism in New Zealand: An Annotated Bibliography
Part One: Works by Dr Bryce Edwards
Bryce Edwards: “Political round-up: February 10.” NZ Herald, 10 February 2012.
Summary: This end-of-week political roundup likely synthesizes key political debates from early February 2012. During this period, themes of public sector austerity and proposed state asset sales were prominent. The piece may touch upon early discussions or public sentiment regarding appointments and government deals that could be perceived as cronyism, especially in the context of rising opposition to such practices, as noted by Edwards later in the month. It provides a snapshot of the political climate where scrutiny of government advantages was increasing.
Relevance to Cronyism: Provides context to the political environment in which concerns about cronyism (like the SkyCity deal, which became prominent shortly after) were beginning to surface or intensify. Early indicators of public and cross-party concern over government dealings and appointments can be crucial for tracing the development of the cronyism discourse.
Bryce Edwards: “Political round-up: February 17.” NZ Herald, 17 February 2012.
Summary: In this roundup, Edwards explicitly notes a rare convergence: “left and right unite against SkyCity ‘crony capitalism’.” This refers to widespread cross-political criticism of a deal between the Government and SkyCity casino operator for a convention centre in exchange for gambling law concessions. Edwards highlights how commentators from diverse political standpoints viewed this as a prime example of cronyism, illustrating an unusual cross-party agreement in condemning a government policy. This piece directly captures a significant contemporary example of perceived cronyism. Relevance to Cronyism: This is a key early article from Dr. Edwards directly labelling a major government deal as “crony capitalism,” reflecting a significant public and political backlash. It exemplifies the type of government-corporate dealings that fall under the definition of cronyism (awarding advantages to trusted allies/associates). The SkyCity deal became a touchstone for discussions on cronyism, illustrating how large-scale projects benefiting specific commercial interests, especially when involving regulatory concessions, can fuel perceptions of improper favouritism.
Bryce Edwards: “Left and right unite against SkyCity ‘crony capitalism’.” NZ Herald, 15 September 2013.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-left-and-right-unite-against-skycity-crony-capitalism/N4PUMZSDEYYFRU2OY33ZTOQRSQ/
Summary: This comprehensive analysis examines the SkyCity convention centre deal as a case study in cronyism. Edwards details how rightwing political commentator Matthew Hooton described the development as “as close to corruption as we ever see in New Zealand.” The piece exposes how Prime Minister John Key’s righthand man, Wayne Eagleson, worked behind the scenes to arrange the unorthodox deal, with Eagleson’s personal relationships with SkyCity lobbyists creating clear conflicts of interest. Edwards documents widespread opposition across the political spectrum to what many saw as classic crony capitalism.
Bryce Edwards: “The National Government is looking sleazy.” NZ Herald – 14 March 2014.
Summary: This opinion column examines a series of ethical scandals plaguing John Key’s second-term National Government (such as Justice Minister Judith Collins’ Oravida conflict-of-interest scandal). Edwards argues that accumulating allegations of cronyism and poor judgment were giving the government a “sleazy” reputation. The piece highlights how perceived favouritism (for example, ministers associating with personal or donor interests) can rapidly erode public trust in government integrity.
Bryce Edwards: “Political round-up: March 20.” NZ Herald, 20 March 2012.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-political-round-up-march-20/Y2J2Z6Y2M4F4E7Q2Y4S4YJZEB5/
Summary: This roundup likely covers events of mid-March 2012, including the immediate fallout from the Nick Smith ACC scandal shortly before his resignation. Edwards might detail how media and opposition were increasingly critical of perceived cronyism or ethical lapses within the government. It could also touch on the growing influence of bloggers in driving political scandals related to integrity. The piece provides a snapshot of a government under pressure regarding ethical conduct and potential cronyism. Relevance to Cronyism: Discusses a period of heightened scrutiny on ministerial conduct and ethical lapses, where accusations of cronyism (improperly helping associates) were part of the broader political discourse surrounding scandals like the Nick Smith ACC affair. Such scandals often serve to highlight the potential for abuse of office for the benefit of friends or allies.
Bryce Edwards: “Questions over ‘corruption’.” NZ Herald, 22 March 2012.
Summary: This article examines the Nick Smith ACC scandal, focusing on questions of corruption and cronyism, and Prime Minister John Key’s handling of the situation. Edwards argues that serious questions remained regarding the need for an independent inquiry and highlights how political battles over corruption and integrity issues, including the misuse of ministerial position to help a friend (a form of cronyism), were escalating. Relevance to Cronyism: Directly addresses a scandal involving a minister allegedly using their position to benefit a friend, a core aspect of cronyism. It explores the political and ethical fallout, and the definition of “corruption” to include such acts of favoritism. The article underscores how individual actions can spark wider debates about systemic integrity and the adequacy of oversight mechanisms.
Bryce Edwards: “Political round-up: June 15.” NZ Herald, 15 June 2012.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-political-round-up-june-15/YXWILQJU7R56EL3J7QJ63SDKHQ/
Summary: This political roundup includes David Cunliffe attacking National’s “crony capitalism.” While the main focus might be broader political events, the inclusion of this specific critique indicates that accusations of cronyism and favoritism towards corporate or allied interests were a recurring theme in political discourse during this period. Relevance to Cronyism: Captures opposition rhetoric specifically using the term “crony capitalism” against the government, showing the term was actively used in political debate to describe perceived favoritism in economic and policy decisions. This highlights the partisan dimension of cronyism accusations, where political opponents use the label to critique government actions they deem unfair or biased towards certain interests.
Bryce Edwards: “Dunne’s GCSB flip-flops under scrutiny.” NZ Herald, 23 July 2013.
Summary: While primarily about Peter Dunne and the GCSB reforms, this article notes: “The National Government has been appointing National Party stalwarts to a variety of quangos lately, drawing numerous allegations of ‘cronyism’ – see Isaac Davison’s It’s jobs for the mates – Labour slams Nats.” Edwards discusses the Green Party’s criticism of Glenda Hughes’ appointment to the racing board and David Farrar’s defence by listing Labour’s past political appointments. This highlights the partisan nature of cronyism accusations and the practice of appointing political allies to public roles. Relevance to Cronyism: Directly reports on and discusses allegations of cronyism in relation to government appointments to quangos, specifically the appointment of “National Party stalwarts.” It illustrates the common practice of political appointments and the ensuing accusations of favouritism, often met with counter-claims about past administrations, suggesting a systemic rather than party-specific pattern.
Bryce Edwards: “The National Government is looking sleazy.” NZ Herald, 14 March 2014.
Summary: Edwards argues that by early 2014, John Key’s National Government had accumulated a series of minor scandals and ethical compromises, giving it a “sleazy” image. He explicitly states: “Perceptions of corruption, cronyism and conflicts of interest can be incredibly damaging to any government.” He cites issues like ministerial conflicts of interest (e.g., Judith Collins/Oravida), the fallout from the GCSB and Peter Dunne saga, and broader cronyism (SkyCity deal, John Banks scandal context) as eroding the government’s previously clean reputation. This piece sets the scene of a government vulnerable on integrity. Relevance to Cronyism: This article directly links the accumulation of various scandals, including those with elements of cronyism (special treatment for associates, questionable deals), to a growing perception of government “sleaze” and ethical compromise. It highlights how cronyism contributes to a broader negative image of a government, eroding public trust.
Bryce Edwards: “Govt vulnerable on allegations of corruption and cronyism.” NZ Herald – 2 May 2014.
Summary: Following the Maurice Williamson scandal, Edwards notes the public takes “allegations about corruption and cronyism very seriously.” He quotes a commentator saying the “overarching impression plays directly into the opposition’s primary line of attack: cronyism, special treatment for special friends.” The article argues that the accumulation of such allegations (Williamson, Collins/Oravida) suggests a “troubling cosiness between National and its funding sources,” creating a “bad look” and damaging public trust in a low-corruption country. Relevance to Cronyism: Directly discusses how specific scandals involving ministerial interference and special treatment for associates contribute to broader allegations of cronyism, making the government vulnerable. It emphasizes the theme of “special treatment for special friends,” a core element of cronyism.
Bryce Edwards: “Left and right unite against SkyCity ‘crony capitalism’.” NZ Herald – 13 February 2015.
Summary: This piece analyses the political backlash to the Government’s deal with SkyCity to build an Auckland convention centre in exchange for gambling concessions. Edwards highlights how commentators across the political spectrum labelled the deal “as close to corruption as we ever see” in NZ, i.e. a form of crony capitalism benefiting a private company with public money. He documents public outrage (such as a 97% “no” poll on the TV3 Campbell Live show) and notes that even right-wing voices saw the arrangement as “what cronyism looks like”. The column underscores how unusual it was to see both left and right unite in condemning a perceived favouritist deal, illustrating broad concern over cronyism in policymaking.
Bryce Edwards: “Avoiding complacency about corruption.” NZ Herald, 13 February 2017.
Summary: Written after New Zealand was again ranked least corrupt (CPI 2016), this column warns against complacency. Edwards argues that a top CPI ranking doesn’t mean NZ is free of corruption risks. He catalogues recent incidents illustrating vulnerability, including political finance scandals, the Panama Papers’ exposure of NZ’s foreign trust regime, and significantly, “lax oversight of lobbying and cronyism.” The article’s message is that a clean international image can mask subtler forms of corruption, including cronyism, requiring continuous vigilance. Relevance to Cronyism: Explicitly identifies “lax oversight of… cronyism” as a vulnerability that can be masked by a high international anti-corruption ranking, emphasizing that cronyism is a subtle but present risk requiring ongoing attention and reform.
Bryce Edwards: “An unprotected and risky revolving door.” Newsroom, 1 April 2018.
URL: https://newsroom.co.nz/2018/04/01/an-unprotected-and-risky-revolving-door/
Summary: Edwards explores the “revolving door” phenomenon between government/public service roles and subsequent lobbying positions, labelling it “unprotected and risky.” The article delves into the lack of regulation or mandatory cooling-off periods for former ministers, political staffers, and public servants transitioning into lobbying. It emphasizes the inherent potential for cronyism, privileged access for former colleagues now representing special interests, and policy capture. This unregulated environment is argued to pose significant risks to New Zealand’s political integrity by creating pathways for favored access and influence based on past associations. Relevance to Cronyism: Directly addresses a key mechanism (“revolving door”) that facilitates cronyism by allowing former insiders to leverage their connections and knowledge for private or partisan gain, potentially leading to biased decision-making and appointments. The absence of cooling-off periods is highlighted as a critical vulnerability.
Bryce Edwards: “Government appointments under scrutiny.” 6 July 2022.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2022/07/06/bryce-edwards-government-appointments-under-scrutiny/
Summary: Examines recent controversies surrounding government appointments, focusing on Matthew Tukaki (Oranga Tamariki advisory panel, Suicide Prevention Office) and allegations of nepotism concerning Minister Nanaia Mahuta and her family members receiving government contracts and appointments. Discusses the importance of scrutinizing potential conflicts of interest and upholding ethical standards, even if no unlawful activity is alleged, to maintain public trust. It highlights the Cabinet Manual’s requirements regarding perceived conflicts of interest, arguing that blurry lines around appointments of family and associates can be as damaging as actual misconduct. Relevance to Cronyism: Directly addresses specific cases of government appointments and contracts awarded to family members and associates, which are central to the definition of cronyism and nepotism. It underscores the importance of perception and the management of conflicts of interest in such appointments, particularly how the public views the fairness and impartiality of these decisions.
Bryce Edwards: “Mallard’s diplomatic appointment lacks integrity.” NZ Herald, 26 August 2022.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/bryce-edwards-mallards-diplomatic-appointment-lacks-integrity/7CDJCCKY2ZD43KNU7Y4OUAA7RM/
Summary: This article critically examines Trevor Mallard’s appointment as New Zealand’s Ambassador to Ireland, characterizing it as a crony political appointment that goes against public service values requiring political neutrality and professionalism. Edwards traces the historical development of diplomatic patronage, noting how it has become increasingly common for governments to reward former politicians with plum diplomatic postings. He documents examples including Mike Moore, Jim Bolger, Jonathan Hunt, Lockwood Smith, Annette King, and others who received diplomatic appointments based on political connections rather than merit-based selection processes.
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. Edwards highlights concerns about cronyism, conflicts of interest (actual and perceived), and inadequate procedural safeguards in the awarding of these contracts, some on a sole-source basis. He points to admissions of deficient processes by agencies like Kāinga Ora and calls for independent scrutiny to clear the air and ensure public funds are managed appropriately, preventing corruption and maintaining public trust. Relevance to Cronyism: Focuses on a high-profile case involving contracts awarded to a minister’s family, directly raising questions of cronyism and the need for robust, independent oversight of such appointments and contractual arrangements to ensure propriety and public confidence. The call for an Auditor-General investigation emphasizes the seriousness of the allegations.
Bryce Edwards: “Who will drain Wellington’s lobbying swamp?” 22 March 2023.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2023/03/22/bryce-edwards-who-will-drain-wellingtons-lobbying-swamp/
Summary: This commentary poses the critical question of which political leaders will take on the task of reforming lobbying practices and addressing associated issues like cronyism in the capital. It outlines proposed reforms, including mandatory cooling-off periods for political insiders before they become lobbyists (to address the “revolving door”), a public lobbying register, codes of conduct for officials and lobbyists, and the establishment of an independent Integrity Commissioner. Edwards emphasizes the need for political will and external pressure for meaningful change to curb the influence of vested interests facilitated by current unregulated practices. Relevance to Cronyism: While focused on lobbying, this piece directly links lobbying reform to tackling cronyism. The “revolving door” is a key mechanism for cronyism, and the proposed Integrity Commissioner would likely address crony appointments and favoritism. The article suggests that without systemic reforms, cronyistic practices enabled by unregulated lobbying will persist.
Bryce Edwards: Christopher Luxon needs to raise standards in the Beehive.” NZ Herald – 31 January 2024.
Summary: Writing as the new government took office, Edwards argues that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon must break with past habits and “declare war on corruption, cronyism and low standards”. The column reviews integrity problems under the outgoing Labour administration – from lobbying influence to lapses like outgoing minister Stuart Nash’s misconduct – suggesting these issues have eroded public trust. Edwards contends that to restore confidence, Luxon should aggressively clamp down on nepotistic appointments and tighten ethical rules (for example, around lobbyists and conflicts of interest) rather than continue “business as usual” tolerating sloppy standards. This piece is a call for raising the ethical bar in Wellington to prevent a culture of cronyism from taking hold in the new government.
Bryce Edwards: “Is Simon Bridges’ NZTA appointment a conflict of interest?” 17 March 2024.
URL: https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/is-simon-bridges-nzta-appointment
Summary: This article scrutinizes the appointment of former National Party leader Simon Bridges as Chair of the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA). Edwards questions whether Bridges’ past political roles, connections, and potential allegiances create a conflict of interest, or at least a perception of one, in leading a crucial public agency. The piece likely explores the implications of such a high-profile political appointment to a supposedly apolitical role, and whether it constitutes a form of cronyism or political patronage that could compromise the agency’s independence or decision-making. Relevance to Cronyism: Directly examines a specific high-profile political appointment to a public board, raising questions about whether it is an example of cronyism (appointing a partisan ally) and the potential for conflicts of interest that could undermine public trust and the agency’s neutrality. Such appointments are often seen as rewards for political loyalty.
Bryce Edwards: “Steven Joyce’s revolving door entry into a $4000/day govt appointment.” 1 April 2024.
URL: https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/steven-joyces-revolving-door-entry
Summary: This piece critiques the appointment of former National minister Steven Joyce to a government role with a reported remuneration of $4000 per day. Edwards frames this as an example of the “revolving door,” where a former high-ranking politician leverages their past status and connections for a lucrative public sector appointment. The article questions the value-for-money aspect, the selection process, and whether such appointments represent a form of cronyism or reward for political allies, potentially at the expense of other qualified candidates or public perception of fairness. Relevance to Cronyism: Highlights a specific instance of a former minister receiving a well-paid government appointment, raising questions about the “revolving door” and whether this is a form of cronyism or political patronage, where past political affiliation leads to advantageous public sector roles. The high remuneration often attracts additional scrutiny.
Bryce Edwards: “Paula Bennett’s political appointment will challenge public confidence.” 30 April 2024.
URL: https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/paula-bennetts-political-appointment
Summary: This article discusses the political appointment of former National Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett, to a public board or significant role. Edwards argues that such an appointment will challenge public confidence, due to perceptions of cronyism, political favoritism, or potential conflicts of interest given her high-profile political past. The piece examines how appointing prominent ex-politicians to such roles can undermine trust in the impartiality and merit-based nature of public appointments. Relevance to Cronyism: Focuses on another political appointment of a former senior politician, analyzing its potential to be seen as cronyism and to erode public trust in the appointments process due to partisan connections. This reinforces the pattern of politically-aligned individuals receiving public sector roles.
Bryce Edwards: “Is it time for an Integrity Commission to monitor conflicts of interest?” 28 May 2024.
URL: https://democracyproject.nz/2024/05/28/bryce-edwards-is-it-time-for-an-integrity-commission-to-monitor-conflicts-of-interest/
Summary: Following integrity issues with the National-led government, Edwards argues for creating an Integrity Commission to monitor conflicts of interest and cronyism. He highlights the case of Murray McCully’s appointment by Education Minister Erica Stanford, who calls McCully her “political mentor,” to review school buildings at $2,200 per day. Edwards describes this and other appointments (Roger Sowry, Bill English) as “petty cronyism,” noting how all governments make crony appointments but the National government was doing so with unusual rapidity and lack of subtlety.
Bryce Edwards: “Does the NZ Government have a cronyism problem?” 8 September 2024.
URL: https://theintegrityinstitute.substack.com/p/does-the-nz-government-have-a-cronyism
Summary: In this in-depth analysis, Edwards examines the extent of political cronyism in recent New Zealand governments. He documents how the outgoing Labour administration made a raft of political appointments to boards and agencies, many of which flew under the radar. The briefing discusses specific cases of apparent patronage – from former politicians being placed in public roles to party-affiliated figures winning posts – and argues that these practices undermine merit-based governance. Edwards concludes that New Zealand “absolutely” has a cronyism problem and urges the new government to avoid repeating the spoils-system tendency of installing mates in powerful positions. The article’s detailed overview of appointments suggests systemic issues in how public-sector roles are filled.
Bryce Edwards: “Auditor-General damns the Govt’s charity funding processes.” NZ Herald, 12 October 2024
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auditor-general-damns-govts-charity-funding-processes-bryce-edwards-political-roundup/MJPG43ZVFRASDEZP7C6W4VWOGM/
Summary: Covers the Auditor-General’s “landmark condemnation” of how Minister Matt Doocey allocated $24 million to Mike King’s mental health charity (Gumboot Friday) without proper process. Edwards highlights this as an example of favoritism and bypassing rules in public funding, noting that historically “public money wasn’t just dished out to the mates of politicians” and that the public service was designed to prevent such abuse of office. The case illustrates how personal relationships between politicians and beneficiaries can lead to improper allocation of taxpayer funds.
Bryce Edwards: “NZ’s ‘Chumocracy’ and the suppression of Prof Robert MacCulloch.” 20 May 2025.
URL: https://open.substack.com/pub/theintegrityinstitute/p/integrity-briefing-nzs-chumocracy
Summary: This piece shines a light on what Edwards – echoing economist Robert MacCulloch – calls New Zealand’s emerging “chumocracy,” a form of soft corruption where a tight network of insiders (political and business elites) dominate decision-making. He recounts how Prof MacCulloch publicly criticized the country’s leadership for being an old boys’ network of mates and was met with institutional pushback for speaking out. Edwards discusses examples of how “cosy” relationships among government, bureaucracy, and big business can lead to nepotism and complacency, contributing to national decline. The briefing argues that New Zealand’s reputation for low corruption masks growing cronyistic dynamics, and it applauds MacCulloch’s whistle-blowing while warning that silencing such voices only entrenches the problem further.
Part Two: Investigative Journalism and Media Commentary
Benedict Collins: “National accused of cronyism over ‘loopy rules’ report.” RNZ, 28 September 2016.
URL: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/314438/national-accused-of-cronyism-over-‘loopy-rules’-report
Summary: This investigation reveals that the National government’s Rules Reduction Taskforce, costing $750,000, was stacked with former National MPs and party supporters. Half the taskforce members had clear ties to the National Party, including former MPs Tau Henare and John Carter, former party candidate Mark Thomas, and Ian Tulloch who helped fund a National MP’s campaign. Green Party MP Julie-Anne Genter criticized this as “a clear case of cronyism,” arguing that the government was paying former MPs, candidates and donors to undertake what was essentially a PR exercise rather than genuine policy work.
Newsroom: “David Clark accused of cronyism over Pharmac appointment.” Newsroom – 31 August 2018.
URL: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/08/31/clark-accused-of-cronyism/
Summary: This news article reports on criticism faced by then-Health Minister David Clark for appointing former Labour MP Steve Maharey as chair of Pharmac (the government drug-buying agency) against officials’ advice. The piece explains that an independent selection panel had actually recommended someone else, but Clark hand-picked Maharey, a veteran of Clark’s own party. Opposition figures and commentators described the move as political patronage and “cronyism,” noting it bypassed the usual merit-based process. The article highlights concerns that such appointments of party affiliates to public positions undermine confidence in the fairness and neutrality of public sector governance. (Maharey eventually stepped down from several roles in 2023 amid related conflict-of-interest questions, underscoring the lasting impact of the controversy.)
Kate MacNamara: “Government contracts to husband and family of Minister Nanaia Mahuta ‘managed for conflict’.” NZ Herald – 27 May 2022.
URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/government-contracts-to-husband-and-family-of-minister-nanaia-mahuta-managed-for-conflict/H6FTGFEJH3VVGUVIZGARDUISQU/
This investigative report broke the story that firms owned by relatives of Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta had received about $90,000 in government contracts from the Ministry for the Environment while Mahuta was an Associate Minister. MacNamara details documents (obtained under the OIA) showing that Mahuta’s husband and other family members were hired for advisory work, raising questions about how conflicts of interest were handled. Officials asserted proper processes were followed and that any potential conflict was “managed,” and Mahuta’s office said she had no involvement in the appointments. Nevertheless, the article underscores the perception of nepotism and prompted further scrutiny by watchdog agencies. It was a catalyst for a wider public discussion in New Zealand about transparency and ethics in the awarding of government contracts to ministers’ family members.
Jem Traylen: “Does cronyism exist in our public service?” BusinessDesk – 1 December 2022.
URL: https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/policy/does-cronyism-exist-in-our-public-service
Summary: This article (produced in conjunction with the Institute of Public Administration NZ) analyses the results of the Working in the Public Service Survey 2022 to gauge perceptions of meritocracy in government employment. Traylen reports that, while a majority of public servants believed hiring is based on merit, a significant minority – especially lower-level staff – perceived favoritism, “shoulder-tapping,” and cronyism as common in their agencies. Nearly half of frontline respondents disagreed that promotions are merit-based, citing instances of unadvertised jobs and leaders appointing friends. The piece discusses how such perceptions of nepotism or political influence in hiring can damage morale and public trust. It also notes efforts by the Public Service Commission to reinforce values of impartiality. This research-driven commentary provides empirical evidence that concerns about cronyism are present even within NZ’s public sector, thereby underscoring the importance of continual vigilance and reform.
Kate MacNamara: “Why Mahuta family contracts warrant scrutiny.” NZ Herald – 4 January 2023.
Summary: In this opinion piece, MacNamara reflects on the Nanaia Mahuta nepotism allegations and argues that these revelations demand serious scrutiny. The column recaps how several government contracts and appointments were awarded to Mahuta’s whānau (family) and notes that, even if no rules were technically broken, “perceptions of nepotism” can be as damaging as actual conflicts. MacNamara broadens the context by pointing out New Zealand’s tradition of low corruption and how complacency can set in – with media and officials sometimes slow to call out such problems. She contends that stronger safeguards are needed to ensure merit-based decisions, recommending reforms in how public contracts are tendered and how officials declare conflicts. This commentary, coming from a senior journalist, reinforced the view that safeguarding integrity (and avoiding even the appearance of cronyism) is essential for public trust.
Jonathan Milne: “Businesses asked to prove honest dealings with politicians.” Newsroom – 4 October 2023.
URL: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2023/10/04/businesses-asked-to-prove-honest-dealings-with-politicians/
Summary: This article investigates a new integrity measure introduced amid heightened concern over political lobbying and cosy relationships. Milne reports that a coalition of businesses signed a voluntary code pledging “honest dealings” with public officials – essentially a promise not to seek undue influence or corrupt advantage. The backdrop is the public outcry after Stuart Nash, a recently sacked Cabinet minister, jumped straight into a corporate lobbying role, which many saw as emblematic of the “revolving door” problem. The story notes that former ministers taking up private sector posts (for example, Nash and also figures like Paula Bennett, who moved into a lobbying/consulting role after leaving Parliament) has led to perceptions of unfair access and insider advantage. Milne discusses how the new code (and proposed regulations such as “cooling-off” periods) aim to curb any cronyism by increasing transparency when businesses interact with current or former politicians. The piece highlights a growing consensus that New Zealand needs to shore up its political ethics regime to keep pace with public expectations.
Part Three: Academic and Research Resources
Transparency International New Zealand: “Integrity Plus 2013: New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment.” (Research report, December 2013).
URL: https://www.transparency.org.nz/docs/Integrity-Plus-2013-NIS-NZ-Full-Report.pdf
Summary: This comprehensive report by Transparency International NZ evaluates the strength of the country’s institutions in preventing corruption and upholding integrity. While it finds New Zealand generally strong on formal anti-corruption measures, it raises concerns about gaps – including risks of nepotism and political patronage in the public sector. The assessment examines pillars like the executive, legislature, public service, and civil society, and it highlights that even in a low-corruption environment, informal networks and “old boys’ clubs” can influence appointments and decisions. Notably, the report recommends improving transparency in public appointments and strengthening the conflicts-of-interest framework. Its findings and recommendations (e.g. establishing a register of interests and an independent watchdog) have informed much of the recent discourse on combatting soft corruption and cronyism in New Zealand.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer: “Government Appointments to Statutory Positions – Merits or Spoils?” (Public Law Forum presentation, 2002; published as VUW Legal Research Paper No. 31/2022).
URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4111736
Summary: In this seminal analysis, former Prime Minister and legal scholar Geoffrey Palmer examines the history of New Zealand’s public service appointments and questions whether the country ever fully abandoned the “spoils system.” Palmer recounts how a 1912 commission helped entrench merit-based hiring in the core public service, supposedly ending the era when incoming governments would routinely install their own supporters in jobs. However, he notes the later proliferation of quasi-autonomous agencies (“quangos”) and boards has provided new avenues for patronage appointments. The paper weighs proposals for a centralized appointments unit or stricter processes, ultimately cautioning against over-bureaucratization while still acknowledging the need for fairness. Palmer’s work is highly relevant as it frames the long-running tension between meritocratic ideals and political patronage in NZ’s governance, providing historical context for contemporary cronyism debates.
