Integrity Briefing: End of week wrap-up for 19 July 2025

Welcome to the "end of the week wrap-up" at The Integrity Institute. Apologies – this week's wrap-up is one day late.

What we've been up to this week

This week we've been working on three investigations on the following topics:

1. Tobacco company influence on politics

2. Political appointments (or "cronyism")

3. Political donations.

The reports on these investigations will be coming out soon. But given my focus on that research this week, I've only put together one Integrity Briefing – yesterday's analysis of the Government's announcement on fighting corruption: "Anti-Corruption Taskforce Pilot" – A Welcome Step, But Too Little, Too Late?

We're still working hard to get out our "News Briefing" email, Monday-to-Friday around 8am. Quite a few subscribers have asked why we are no longer including an aggregation of political cartoons. We've always included these on the understanding that the media outlets that publish the cartoons are happy for them to be distributed and promoted. However, a few weeks ago I was contacted by a lawyer for Stuff media, who asked for their cartoons not to be republished, which I immediately stopped doing. My understanding is that they are also cracking down on other newsletters that use their images. So, I'm not sure whether to continue publishing the cartoons from other outlets. In the meantime, I've wanted to just focus News Briefing newsletters on political and current affairs content. I'm happy to receive any feedback on this.

International issue: UK reform of election rules

The big democracy reform news from the UK this week is the Government's announcement that they will drop the voting age from 18 years to 16. This is part of a broader election rules reform package that they are planning to put into law before the next British election. You can read their policy paper here: Restoring trust in our democracy: Our strategy for modern and secure elections. These reforms are meant to restore public trust in democracy, which means there are also some reforms planned for money in politics.

This is best covered in the Guardian article: Voting age to be lowered to 16 across UK by next general election. Here are the main two points:

1. "On election financing, ministers will close loopholes that could allow foreign money to influence UK elections and there will be a crackdown on illegitimate donations through shell companies and new tests on political donors."

2. "There will be stronger fines of up to £500,000 for those who break the rules"

The response from integrity campaigners has been lukewarm. Academic Sam Power says the Labour Government is taking "about the least ambitious approach one could take" – see: Reform spent just £5.5m on the 2024 election, while Labour's majority cost £30m – new data. And the British branch of Transparency International says the proposed reforms on money in politics are "in no way sufficient". Their spokesperson warns that "We stand at the beginning of a new and dangerous era, where big money dominates in a way that has corroded US politics across the Atlantic" – see: Protecting democracy from big money: Why the UK's new elections strategy doesn't go far enough

One of the biggest concerns is that the reforms have little to say about how the rising problem of cryptocurrency will be regulated. Ireland and Brazil have recently banned politicians from receiving donations via this digital currency. A British Labour MP, Liam Byrne, is calling on his government to do the same, explaining: “In Britain, Reform UK has already declared that it plans to accept crypto donations. This is the new frontier of campaign financing. Cryptocurrencies give people plenty of ways to hide, obscuring who is funding political parties and what they might want in return” – see: Crypto donations could entirely corrupt British politics. Labour must act quickly

Come and work with us!

We are still advertising the "Executive Assistant/Office Manager" job. See the advertisement on job websites Seek and Trade Me Jobs. And I can be contacted about the job directly: bryce@theintegrityinstitute.org.nz

Finally, I'm still experimenting with the idea of providing summaries of some of the most essential integrity-related stories of the week, especially highlighting material from behind the paywalls. You can see this week's list below.

As always, feedback on anything in this email is very welcome. And although I can't always reply to every email, I do read everything.

Dr Bryce Edwards

Director of The Integrity Institute

Integrity-related media articles this week

Andrea Vance (The Post): The unpaid lobbyist steering the Government's regulatory overhaul (paywalled)

Meet Bryce Wilkinson – an ideologue with a quarter-century crusade against "red tape" – who has effectively been ghost writing New Zealand's regulatory policy from the shadows. Vance reveals that Wilkinson, a senior fellow at the right-wing NZ Initiative think tank, has been an "unpaid advisor" embedded in the new Ministry for Regulation since its 2024 inception. Emails obtained via OIA show he influenced everything from the Ministry's founding philosophy to hiring its chief economist – even sitting on interview panels for key staff. Wilkinson had direct access to ministers and officials, peppering them with his libertarian ideas and disparaging anyone who disagreed as "deeply illiberal… Pavlov's dogs" who foam at trigger words. He boasts of countering misinformation by critics and providing balance – but the upshot is one unelected advocate wielding outsized sway over public policy. This behind-closed-doors influence – no salary, no title, but plenty of power – is lobbying in all but name, and it circumvents the transparency and balance we expect in policymaking. It's a case study in how a determined vested interest can slip inside the halls of power to reshape the rules to its liking, without the public even knowing.

Rob Stock (The Post): Poll shows public oppose law change to protect ANZ and ASB banks (paywalled)

Big banks have friends in high places – to the point of trying to rewrite the law to dodge accountability. In this article Rob Stock covers the outcry over a hastily proposed law that would shield ANZ and ASB from a massive class-action compensation payout, by retroactively limiting their liability for years-old loan disclosure violations. Such retroactive, corporate-friendly lawmaking is extraordinary – even the Minister, Scott Simpson, admitted it's "unusual" to pass a bill to benefit two named parties in an ongoing court case. A Curia poll now shows 79% of Kiwis oppose Parliament riding to the banks' rescue like this. As the class-action lawyer put it, "Changing the law at this stage only serves to protect the Aussie banks and sends a dangerous message that big corporates can get a 'get out of jail free' card when things get tough." The government insists it's about protecting small lenders and "simplifying compliance," but given that ANZ and ASB are the only ones affected, that excuse smells fishy. This saga highlights a pernicious form of lobbying influence – where years of bank pressure culminate in a law seemingly custom-built to let them off the hook, undermining the rule of law and public trust in the process.

Jamie Ensor (NZ Herald): Te Pāti Māori fails again to file financial documents on time despite police warning (paywalled)

Political parties demand our trust at election time – but are they meeting their own basic legal obligations? Ensor reports that Te Pāti Māori has, for the second year running, blown the deadline to file its annual financial statements. This, despite getting formally warned by Police after last year's late filing. (That statement, when it finally arrived, was missing an audit report to boot.) As of mid-July, TPM still hadn't submitted this year's audited accounts, and the Electoral Commission is "following up" (again). Labour, meanwhile, filed theirs on time but without the required audit report – an offence technically punishable by police referral. The Commission seems lenient for now, but the law is clear: filing late or not at all is an offence unless you have a "reasonable excuse." The real issue is one of transparency and compliance. If a party can't get its financial house in order – even after the cops gave a yellow card – what message does that send about adhering to the integrity rules that bind everyone else? Parties flouting reporting laws undermines the integrity of our political finance system and public confidence in it.

Jonathan Boston (The Post): The Regulatory Standards Bill and how not to govern a country (paywalled)

Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston serves up a scathing (and at times darkly amusing) thought experiment to expose the folly of the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB). He asks us to imagine government officials dutifully applying the RSB's rigid principles to real laws. The result is a bureaucratic Twilight Zone: Health Ministry advisors conclude that laws protecting public health are invalid (since the RSB oddly doesn't think safeguarding citizens' health is a legitimate goal). Transport officials report that even the rule requiring drivers to keep left might violate the RSB's libertarian ideals – after all, the Act's "principles" don't mention safety or the common good, so why not let people drive on whatever side they fancy? Education mandarins realise compulsory schooling could be struck down too, because the RSB doesn't cotton to "paternalistic" notions like requiring things for one's own good. Through these reductio ad absurdum cases, Boston lays bare that the RSB's principles are extreme, narrow, and unworkable – a recipe for legal chaos that would pit the RSB against huge swathes of existing law. Ultimately, he concludes the problem isn't that all our laws are bad – it's that the RSB itself is the problem. His piece brilliantly highlights how this supposedly "world-leading benchmark" of regulation would actually undermine decades of well-established protections and norms. It's a masterclass in showing that governing by ideology over evidence and common sense is a path to policy paralysis and public harm.

Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Regulatory Standards Bill: Minister considers compensation for owners of banned crypto ATMs (paywalled)

This news report provides a real-world case study that illustrates the practical consequences of the philosophy embedded in the Regulatory Standards Bill. It reveals that Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee is already acting in the spirit of the yet-to-be-passed Bill by seeking advice on whether to compensate the owners of cryptocurrency ATMs, which she plans to ban. The ban was recommended by the Ministerial Advisory Group on Transnational, Serious and Organised Crime due to concerns that the machines are used for money laundering. The Bill contains a principle that "fair compensation" should be paid when property is impaired by regulatory changes. Even though the Bill is not yet law and would not force the government to pay, Minister McKee has proactively asked officials to analyse the implications for compensation. This development provides concrete evidence for the abstract concerns raised by critics like Jonathan Boston. It demonstrates a direct causal link between the Bill's ideology and ministerial decision-making.

Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Supermarkets impervious to bad headlines and court fines

This opinion piece catalogues a decade of regulatory action and public condemnation against New Zealand's supermarket duopoly, Foodstuffs and Woolworths, concluding that the companies seem "impervious" to these pressures. The author recounts a litany of issues, including allegations of blackmailing suppliers, anti-competitive land covenants, illegal alcohol discounting, and misleading pricing, which have resulted in Commerce Commission investigations, court cases, and fines. Most recently, the Commission announced it would be filing civil proceedings against Foodstuffs North Island for alleged cartel conduct. Despite this sustained scrutiny from regulators, politicians, and the media, the fundamental problem remains. Consumer NZ's Jon Duffy suggests a potential "culture issue" within the duopoly, a belief it can act without consequence. The article's central thesis is that in a market with such limited choice, the supermarkets can absorb the bad publicity and financial penalties without it seriously harming their business, because suppliers and consumers have nowhere else to go. The integrity issue at the core of this piece is the apparent failure of the entire regulatory system to effect meaningful change in a concentrated market. When repeated enforcement actions—from warnings and fines to court proceedings—fail to alter the behaviour of dominant firms, it points to a systemic breakdown.

Ernie Newman (The Post): The 'unbundled grocer' is a serious opportunity (paywalled)

Responding directly to the market failure described in other reports, this opinion piece by a consultant with a background in the telecommunications breakup proposes a radical, structural solution to the grocery crisis: the "unbundled grocer." Drawing a direct parallel to the "local loop unbundling" that introduced competition into the telecoms sector, the author suggests forcing the supermarket duopoly to rent out an aisle in every store to an independent, competing discount supplier. This "store within a store" would operate under regulated terms overseen by the Commerce Commission. The author points to a working precedent at a Pak'nSave in West Auckland, where quirky local liquor laws have led to a separate trust-owned liquor outlet operating within the main supermarket. Potential "unbundled grocers" could include The Warehouse, an international chain like Aldi, or a supplier cooperative. The proposal signifies a loss of faith in incremental, market-led solutions and a turn towards a more aggressive regulatory posture. It suggests that to restore integrity and fairness to the grocery market, the government must fundamentally alter its structure, even if it means employing highly interventionist policies that challenge conventional free-market orthodoxy.

Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk: Regulators dip toes into electricity market reforms before potentially bigger wave of change (paywalled)

This article mirrors the narrative of the grocery sector within the context of New Zealand's electricity market. It reports on regulators taking initial, tentative steps towards reform—such as requiring large retailers to offer time-of-use charging—while a much larger and more fundamental debate about the market's structure looms. The market is dominated by four major generator-retailers ("gentailers"), who face accusations of using their market power to artificially inflate wholesale prices and disadvantage independent retailers. The piece highlights a growing crisis of confidence, evidenced by an open letter from a powerful group of major businesses and consumer advocates to the Prime Minister, declaring the market "broken" and calling for "urgent comprehensive reform." This group argues that the concentration of market power suppresses competition, deters investment in new generation, and drives up the cost of living. The ultimate, most radical solution being debated is the forced structural separation of the gentailers' generation and retail arms.

Shane Te Pou (Herald): Time for a fair deal from retirement villages (paywalled)

This column identifies another market characterized by a severe power imbalance: the retirement village sector. The author critiques the prevalent "licence to occupy" business model, arguing it is "heavily weighted in favour of village operators" and fails to protect a vulnerable demographic. Under this model, residents pay a large upfront capital sum (from $200,000 to over a million dollars) but do not own their unit. This capital can be leveraged by the operator to fund new developments. When a resident leaves or dies, their estate receives the capital back, minus a "deferred management fee" of 20-30%, but only after the operator has sold the licence to a new resident. The operator controls the sale process, pockets any capital gains, and bears no risk, while the departing resident or their family must wait months for their money, which they may urgently need for ongoing care costs. The author frames this not just as a financial issue, but as a matter of "dignity and respect for our elders." The integrity failure lies in a market structure that appears inherently exploitative. The government has also committed to a review of the Retirement Villages Act. This article adds another dimension to the theme of market failure, showing how a problematic market structure can lead to outcomes that are not only economically inefficient but also ethically questionable, prompting calls for government intervention to restore fairness and protect the vulnerable.

Neil Sands (Law News): Minister adopts Uber's wish-list when drafting employment law changes, rejects official advice

This article provides a stark example of corporate influence directly shaping legislation, detailing how Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden ignored official advice to instead adopt legislative text drafted by the rideshare company Uber. Government documents show that the flagship reform of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill—a "gateway test" to determine if a worker is a contractor or an employee—was taken almost verbatim from a proposal supplied by Uber. This occurred after Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials had prepared a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) that considered six options for changing contracting arrangements and ultimately recommended maintaining the status quo. The report demonstrates a case where a minister has bypassed the formal, evidence-based advice of her own department in favour of a legislative solution provided by a corporate entity with a clear and powerful commercial interest in the outcome. The context is a landmark legal battle in which Uber is appealing a court decision that classified four of its drivers as employees, a ruling that threatens its entire business model. The side-by-side comparison included in the article illustrates the remarkable similarity between Uber's draft and the bill's final text. This moves beyond lobbying to a form of legislative capture, where a private company effectively writes its own regulations. This action undermines the principles of due process, the role of a neutral public service, and the expectation that laws are drafted in the public interest, not to serve the specific objectives of a single, powerful corporation facing legal challenges.