Dear Subscribers
This is just a brief message (before my column in response to criticism from Richard Prebble).
As I have recently indicated, I am back to running this Substack newsletter on behalf of the Democracy Project, which I established in 2020 as an independent vehicle hosted at Victoria University of Wellington. This follows on from the decision of the Integrity Institute’s funders to wind up that organisation, in which I was employed part-time for most of the year.
Journalist Andrea Vance of The Post continues to pursue me with questions that I’m not at liberty to answer about the Integrity Institute and the University. I have just provided her with the following brief statement in relation to an intended story she has written. I’m not able to comment further on these matters, unfortunately.
Thank you all for your continued support.
Kind regards
Bryce
------------
Statement to Andrea Vance
Andrea,
I confirm that I was employed by the Integrity Institute. My employment was ended abruptly and without any proper process. I had no involvement in, and no influence over, the decision to wind up the Institute or the dissolution of its charitable trust board. Any suggestion that I caused that outcome is false.
I also reject any implication of improper conduct on my part. I carried out my role to the best of my ability and within the limits of the situation I was placed in.
You have asked me for comment that would require me to breach legal obligations arising from my employment. Doing so would have serious consequences under employment law. It would also require me to expose private and confidential matters relating to other employees and individuals. For obvious reasons, I cannot and will not do that.
If others choose to bypass proper processes by feeding material to journalists, that is their decision. It puts me in an unfair position, but I will not abandon my own legal and ethical obligations simply because others decide to.
I stand by my conduct throughout my time at the Institute. I have acted honourably and as properly as the circumstances allowed. I understand that you want further comment, but I am bound by the same duties that apply to any employee. Just as journalists must follow the employment processes of their own workplaces, so must I.
I’m as committed as ever to genuine transparency and integrity in our political life. Those principles mattered to me before any of this and they matter to me now. I intend to keep contributing to that work under my own steam, in my own voice and on my own terms, without being pushed or pulled by anyone else’s agenda.
-----------
Democracy Briefing: Replying to Richard Prebble’s critique of me
Former Labour Cabinet Minister and Act Party leader Richard Prebble has written a blog post today responding to my recent work on political integrity. I always welcome critique, and Prebble’s column is a thoughtful, good-faith engagement with the issues I’ve been raising. In a media landscape often defined by shouting matches, it’s refreshing to have a substantive debate about the health of our democracy.
Prebble begins his column with some generous comments, for which I am grateful:
“I admire Dr Bryce Edwards. Our universities like to proclaim themselves the ‘critic and conscience of society’ while remaining silent on almost everything. In contrast, Dr Edwards is industrious. His daily email round-up of commentary often alerts me to articles I would otherwise have missed.”
He then proceeds to dismantle what he sees as my central thesis. His argument is that by labelling too many aspects of ordinary political horse-trading as “corrupt,” I risk devaluing the term and fuelling public cynicism. He writes: “When you label normal democratic behaviour as ‘corrupt’, you corrode the very democracy you claim to defend.”
I think Prebble makes some valid points. He concedes that “Donation laws can be clearer, lobbying rules are light, and conflict-of-interest standards can be improved.” This is common ground worth celebrating. However, much of his critique relies on a straw man: the idea that I view all political interaction as corrupt.
The Definition of corruption
Prebble argues that I am crying wolf. He suggests that because New Zealand isn’t awash in cash bribes in brown paper bags, my focus on “grey corruption” is overblown. But this misses the point of modern integrity analysis. Corruption in advanced democracies rarely looks like a scene from a narco-thriller. It looks like privileged access, the revolving door between the Beehive and lobbying firms, and the quiet tilting of the playing field in favour of vested interests.
When I critique these structures, I am not saying that every MP is on the take. I am saying that the system allows for influence to be bought and sold in ways that undermine the principle of one person, one vote. If we only call it corruption when a law is broken, we let a vast amount of unethical behaviour off the hook.
The Bishop bridge: Pork or pragmatism?
Prebble specifically takes aim at my analysis of Chris Bishop’s decision to fund a bridge in his Hutt South electorate. He writes: “A minister listening to constituents who need a footbridge is not corrupt.”
Put like that, of course it sounds innocent. But this ignores the specific details I raised in my column. The issue wasn’t that a bridge was built; it was how it was funded. Bishop, holding three conflicting portfolios, directed money from a housing fund that was explicitly meant to unlock new housing developments to pay for a transport project that officials had advised against.
This wasn’t just “listening to constituents.” It was a Minister overriding official advice to raid a specific bucket of money for a pet project in his own electorate, bypassing the standard allocation processes. If we dismiss this as just “ordinary democratic engagement”, we essentially give Ministers carte blanche to treat public funds as a slush fund for their re-election campaigns.
The Question of bias
Prebble also suggests I have a blind spot, arguing that I disproportionately target business lobbying while ignoring others: “Curiously, he never objects to lobbying by unions, environmental groups, churches, Māori entities, or advocacy campaigns.”
I’ll plead guilty to a focus on business. But that’s for a reason. Business groups and corporate lobbyists hold a structural power advantage in our system that churches and environmental groups simply do not. There is no “formula” that requires me to balance every critique of a banking lobbyist with a critique of a trade union just for symmetry’s sake.
However, the idea that I give Māori entities a free pass is simply incorrect. Just last week, I published a comprehensive critique of John Tamihere and the opaque financial structures involving the Waipareira Trust and Te Pāti Māori. That analysis, which scrutinised the intersection of charity status, public funding, and political campaigning, was widely read, racking up over 155,000 views on Facebook alone.
Furthermore, my “NZ Lobbying and Influence Register” explicitly includes numerous Māori entities. I believe all power requires scrutiny, regardless of its cultural or political origin.
Bureaucracy vs Democracy
Perhaps the most surprising claim Prebble makes is that I favour rule by unelected bureaucrats over elected politicians. He suggests I want “independent authorities” to override Ministers.
In reality, my orientation is almost exactly the opposite. My work consistently argues for more democracy, not less. I have been a vocal critic of the trend towards depoliticisation, where tough decisions are outsourced to consultants and unaccountable working groups.
When I criticise a Minister for ignoring official advice, it isn’t because I think officials are infallible gods. It’s because when a Minister overrides expert advice to make a decision that benefits their own political fortunes, they need to have a very good, transparent reason for doing so. The demand is for accountability, not technocracy.
The Danger of cynicism
Prebble concludes with a warning: “It is a path to cynicism, disillusionment, and disengagement.”
This is the classic “don’t scare the horses” argument. The implication is that by shining a light on the cracks in our system, we might cause the public to lose faith in it.
I take the opposite view. Disillusionment doesn’t come from the critics who point out the rot; it comes from the rot itself. When voters see politicians breaking rules with impunity, or corporate lobbyists writing legislation, that is what breeds cynicism. Trying to sweep these issues under the carpet in the name of “protecting faith in democracy” ultimately does more harm than good. Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.
A Non-partisan critic
Finally, there is an irony in being painted as a leftwing academic attacking the right. For the last two years, I have faced accusations from the right that I am biased against the Coalition Government. Yet, during the six years of the Labour-led government, I was constantly accused of aiding the right because I scrutinised Jacinda Ardern’s administration just as vigorously.
For what it’s worth, despite claims made to the contrary, I was highly critical of the Three Waters reforms, the Public Interest Journalism Fund, and the opaque lobbying practices around the Labour Cabinet and PM. My job is to scrutinise power, whoever holds it. Currently, that happens to be a National-led government. When the tables turn, so will the focus.
So I’ll keep doing what I do: investigating, scrutinising, and yes, sometimes ruffling feathers by using the C-word (corruption) when it’s warranted.
I’m glad Richard Prebble is reading, and I’m glad he’s engaging. We might disagree on the definitions, but we agree that the integrity of our political system matters. And that is a debate worth having.
Dr Bryce Edwards
Director of the Democracy Project
Further Reading: