Integrity Briefing: End of Week Wrap-up for 8 August 2025

Welcome to the Friday "end of the week wrap-up" for The Integrity Institute.

I published just one Integrity Briefing this week – about the relationship between fishing industry donors and the reforms that the Minister of Fisheries announced this week – see: Fishy Influence – How the fishing industry captured Shane Jones

I also gave interviews on this topic to Newstalk ZB and Radio Rhema – see: Stewarding Primary Industry: Economics vs Environment

I was also interviewed by the Otago Daily Times about the University of Otago’s lack of transparency of its financial operations. Otago has decided that providing less information somehow equals more transparency, and people aren’t buying it. In recent months the cash-strapped university stopped publishing its detailed financial reports, replacing them with a one-page glossy summary. When questioned, the university’s finance chief Brian Trott insisted the change was intended “to increase transparency – not reduce it.”

That Orwellian logic earned my condemnation _ labelled it “outrageous” and “troubling.” Indeed, stripping out department-level breakdowns and spending details at precisely the time the university is in financial crisis is the opposite of accountability. The change, implemented under the new leadership of former Finance Minister Grant Robertson, prevents the public, media, and university community from scrutinising departmental-level finances. See Matthew Littlewood’s article here: Transparency claim by uni ‘outrageous’ – reports replaced with summary (paywalled)

A Win in the campaign for lobbying regulation reform

In a watershed moment for New Zealand’s democracy, the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand (PRINZ) has broken ranks with the PR and lobbying industry’s past complacency and joined the call to close the revolving door between the Beehive and lobbying. This week they published their new declaration in favour of reform – see: Why New Zealand needs a lobbying stand-down period – By the PRINZ Executive Committee

They want legal “stand-down” periods to stop politicians and their staff from moving directly into lobbying roles. This bold stance – a first for NZ’s public relations profession – marks a major shift in the lobbying reform agenda, and a victory for democratic integrity.

PRINZ has declared that immediate post-politics lobbying weakens public confidence and invites undue influence. This represents a remarkable evolution for PRINZ – from a historically cautious approach on lobbying regulation to an assertive call for reform in 2025.

Just last year, many in the industry were sceptical about introducing new lobbying rules. Some argued there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing, and that PRINZ’s own voluntary Code of Ethics was sufficient as guidance for members.

The Institute is now urging Parliament to legislate a stand-down for “all former Ministers and Beehive employees”, saying it’s time to ensure policy decisions serve “public interest, not private gain.” This about-face signals that even PR professionals recognise the damage the unchecked revolving door can do to public trust.

When even the PR profession’s own body is saying this, it’s a sign that safeguarding integrity has become a higher priority than protecting an easy career jump. This is a sea change in attitude – and one worth celebrating.

PRINZ’s call for a “one to two-year” stand-down would finally put NZ in the same ballpark as its peers. Even a one-year ban for all ex-ministers and top staff would be a huge improvement – a timeframe long enough to blunt the immediate advantage of insider ties, reduce conflicts, and let sensitive information go stale.

Crucially, PRINZ notes, a 12–24 month stand-down strikes a balance: it protects the public interest “without unnecessarily penalising future career opportunities” for the individuals involved. In other words, former officials wouldn’t be barred from all work – just from selling their influence for a reasonable cooling-off period. From The Integrity Institute’s perspective, PRINZ’s stance is a welcome embrace of global best practice and democratic integrity.

With PRINZ now on board, New Zealand has an opportunity to craft meaningful lobbying reforms that strengthen public trust. Endorsing the stand-down principle is a huge step, but it should be part of a broader package of changes to shine a light on lobbying.

More on this in a future column.

Dr Bryce Edwards

Director of The Integrity Institute

Integrity-related media articles this week

Infrastructure privatisation

Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Infrastructure leaders push Govt to deliver ‘the great privatisation’

A powerful lobbying effort is underway to convince the government to embark on what even its champions call "the great privatisation". Reporting from the Building Nations conference, this article captures how infrastructure leaders and consultancy firms like KPMG and WSP are pushing the concept of "asset recycling"—a modern, palatable euphemism for selling public assets like ports, airports, and energy networks to fund new projects. The argument is being framed not as ideology, but as pragmatism. One KPMG partner states, "This is not about going back to 1980s privatisations... This is about recycling of capital." This rebranding is key to the strategy. "Asset recycling" sounds responsible and efficient, unlike a "fire sale." The narrative being presented to ministers is that New Zealand has an unfunded infrastructure pipeline and that selling existing assets is the most sensible way to bridge the gap. With Auckland having already sold its airport shares and Tauranga looking to follow suit, the idea is being actively normalised. This sets the stage for a major ideological battle over the future of public ownership, with powerful commercial interests framing privatisation as an unavoidable necessity. The pitch is wrapped in pragmatism (“unsustainable public debt”, “$100 trillion in global capital looking for projects”), but critics point out this “great privatisation” could leave Kiwis with less control and potentially higher costs for essential services.

Sam Stubbs (Sunday Star Times): Who should own our infrastructure? (paywalled)

Providing a powerful and essential rebuttal to the privatisation narrative, KiwiSaver fund manager Sam Stubbs demolishes the premise that selling assets is a necessity.1 He argues that New Zealand possesses more than enough domestic capital to fund its entire $210 billion 30-year infrastructure deficit. The source of this capital is the rapidly growing pool of KiwiSaver funds, which he projects will have another $295 billion to invest in New Zealand by 2050. This is more than enough to cover all infrastructure needs with billions left over for other sectors. Stubbs reframes the debate from "how do we find the money?" to "who should own our future?". He presents a compelling third way: long-term, domestic ownership of critical infrastructure by the very public that uses it, via their KiwiSaver funds. This would keep returns in the country and provide stable, reliable investments for millions of New Zealanders. His frustration that politicians from all parties have not yet woken up to this possibility suggests that the relentless push for privatisation is being driven by ideology and entrenched lobbying interests, not by financial reality. The capital is here; the political will to use it for public benefit is what's missing.

Transparency, secrecy, and access to information

ODT: Editorial: The govt’s capacity for opacity (paywalled)

In a scathing editorial, the Otago Daily Times accuses the government of needing some metaphorical window-cleaners – because almost everything going on inside the Beehive these days is happening behind grimy, closed windows. The piece catalogues the coalition’s penchant for secrecy: key decisions made behind closed doors, documents dropped at inconvenient late-Friday moments (hello, Waikato medical school business case at 6.45pm), and even ministers instructing officials to yank digital access to Cabinet papers and hand-deliver hard copies to prevent leaks. The editorial notes this “stage management” of information – epitomised by the stealthy handling of pay equity changes under the codename Project 10 – smacks of a cynical playbook and perhaps a guilty conscience. It pointedly reminds readers that Labour wasn’t innocent on transparency either, but anyone who hoped the new government would usher in sunlight must be sorely disappointed. In the end, the ODT delivers a simple plea with a side of dry wit: could someone please clean those Beehive windows? Because in a democracy, what we can’t see can definitely hurt us. It notes that the previous Labour government, despite appointing a minister for open government, was "hardly... a shining example of how to be transparent," thus framing the issue as a systemic decline in governance standards rather than a purely partisan failing.

Anna Whyte (The Post): Changes to Ombudsman’s complaints procedures labelled ‘self-serving appeasement’ (paywalled)

New Zealand’s official information watchdog is quietly easing off a hard line on government agencies – and critics are livid. Under previous Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier, any complaint about agencies dragging their feet on OIA requests would trigger a formal investigation (to enforce the 20-day response rule). But current Chief Ombudsman John Allen just announced he’s ditching that automatic hard stance, saying endless formal inquiries haven’t fixed the chronic delays. Instead, his office will focus on “remedying delay” more informally. To an outside observer, that might sound benign, but OIA experts like Andrew Ecclestone call it what it is: “a self-serving appeasement of agencies and ministers.” In blunt terms, easing up means fewer official rulings against agencies – making the Ombudsman’s stats look rosier while letting serial offenders off the hook. Allen insists it’s about efficiency, not going soft, but the critique is sharp: the Ombudsman’s job is to hold the government to account, not to accommodate its tardiness. By effectively cutting slack for habitual offenders, this move risks emboldening agencies to treat OIA deadlines as optional – a step backward for transparency that has raised alarms among open-government advocates.

Market regulation and vested interests

Tom Pullar-Strecker (The Post): Supermarket reforms – five options in front of Nicola Willis (paywalled)

Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis has been talking tough about breaking the supermarket duopoly, but with private investors lukewarm on starting a new chain, the ball is back in the government’s court. Pullar-Strecker lays out five possible moves – from the “nuclear option” of forced divestment (splitting Foodstuffs or Woolworths in two) to the meek “do-nothing” and the more likely “appear to do something” tweaks. Each option comes with odds: forced break-up (virtually zero chance, though competition advocates call it merely cleaning up “nuclear waste” left by past policy), a gentle nudge for a voluntary split (also unlikely – government lacks the carrots or sticks), an “unbundling” scheme to let rival retailers lease shelf space in existing supermarkets (innovative but a long shot), outright inaction (politically risky amid public anger over grocery prices), or cosmetic measures like fast-tracking consents for new stores and banning predatory pricing (the most probable path, giving ministers something to announce without rocking the boat). The subtext is clear: despite inquiries and a dedicated Grocery Commissioner, the duopoly still calls the shots, and meaningful change is elusive. Willis may soon pick the safest option – doing just enough to claim progress, which, as this piece wryly notes, amounts to looking busy while essentially maintaining the status quo.

Rob Stock (The Post): The Big Seven grocery suppliers dominating the weekly Kiwi shop (paywalled)

If you’ve ever wondered why supermarket prices in NZ seem immune to gravity, this might shed some light: just seven giant suppliers pocket $15 of every $100 Kiwis spend on groceries. The Commerce Commission’s latest annual grocery sector report reveals five multinational behemoths and two large local players (Fonterra and Goodman Fielder) have outsized clout when dealing with our supermarket duopoly. These Big Seven control a huge portfolio of “must-have” brands – 36 of the top 100 products – giving them the muscle to dictate terms. In fact, their profit margins dwarf those of smaller NZ suppliers, and they’ve even been invoking the new Grocery Code to refuse to explain their hefty price hikes. Stock’s rundown on each titan (Coca-Cola to Nestlé to Unilever, etc.) underscores their sheer scale – e.g. Nestlé’s global revenue is around NZ$192b, far eclipsing the entire Woolworths NZ operation. The integrity issue here is subtle but significant: a tightly held market means less competition and less transparency. Supermarkets point to these mega-suppliers as part of the pricing problem (and indeed the ComCom notes global giants often enjoy fat returns), but it’s a mutually beneficial dance – and Kiwi consumers are stuck paying the band. Until either the duopoly or its favourite suppliers face real competition, expect groceries to remain a costlier feast than necessary.

Dita De Boni (The Post): Foodstuffs posts world-leading profits as Kiwi grocery costs stay high (paywalled)

New Zealand’s supermarket duopoly isn’t just making healthy profits – it’s basically in a league of its own. De Boni reports that Foodstuffs (which owns Pak’nSave and New World) achieved pre-tax profit margins in 2024 higher than almost any grocery retailer on Earth, beating out the likes of Walmart, Tesco and Carrefour. This, despite a slight dip in margins from the previous year, and despite years of political noise about increasing competition. The Commerce Commission’s grocery market report (source of these figures) makes plain that not much has changed: Foodstuffs and Woolworths still control 82% of the market, exactly as they did last year, and Kiwi consumers are paying well above OECD-average prices for their food. The Grocery Commissioner notes a few positive signs (like a proposed ban on those sneaky supplier rebates that lock out competitors), but he admits it’s “not enough” – hinting that Nicola Willis may need to consider bolder moves like breaking up the chains. In the meantime, the duopoly’s grip remains vice-like. For all the government’s talk of cost-of-living relief, our two supermarket groups continue to enjoy near-monopoly rent, and Kiwi shoppers continue to fork out for world-beating grocery bills. It’s a textbook case of market power: great for shareholders, rough on everyone else.

Deregulation Crusade

Peter de Graaf (RNZ): Could Northland’s Marsden Point be NZ’s first “Special Economic Zone”?

Regional Development Minister Shane Jones is floating an “unorthodox” idea to supercharge Northland’s economy: turn Marsden Point (site of the closed oil refinery) into a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) with its own turbocharged rules. On a visit with NZ First leader Winston Peters, Jones touted the zone’s deep-water port and available land – and suggested it could come with juicy perks like tax holidays, accelerated depreciation, and what amounts to a parallel consenting regime. In Jones’ vision, pesky resource consent processes wouldn’t slow things down – he imagines a couple of engineers in a tin shed signing off projects at lightning speed. It’s a brazen pitch that implicitly waives some environmental and planning safeguards to lure big investment (Jones name-dropped existing SEZs in Ireland and Singapore as inspiration). The integrity question: is this cutting red tape or cutting ethical corners? Critics haven’t yet weighed in here, but one can already foresee concerns about sidestepping environmental scrutiny and local input. Jones admits the idea might not have full coalition buy-in yet, but he’s bullish that without bold moves like this, NZ will stay stuck with low growth. Special Economic Zones can indeed attract business, but the trade-off is often less oversight and special treatment for the chosen zone. Northlanders may welcome the jobs, but the rest of the country will need convincing that “bespoke” rules for one area won’t mean a race to the bottom on standards. Expect this proposal to spark heated debate about how far we’ll bend our rules in the name of regional development.

Oliver Lewis (BusinessDesk) Shane Jones floats law change to make fast-track fast again (paywalled)

Not content with Special Economic Zones, Shane Jones is also eyeing a fix for New Zealand’s sluggish infrastructure consent process – by revamping the “fast-track” law to actually be fast. The current fast-track legislation (brought in to speed up projects post-Covid) hasn’t lived up to its name, in Jones’ view, so he’s suggesting legislative tweaks to cut through what he calls the “constipated” Resource Management processes. While details are scant in this brief report, the implication is Jones wants to strip back consultation or appeal steps that have slowed down even fast-track designated projects. It’s a classic development-vs-environment tension: planners and communities say due process is vital for good outcomes, but Jones, ever the bulldozer enthusiast, argues that in a $420b economy, a few hold-ups on a $500m project are absurd. Calling the current situation a handbrake on growth, he’s signalling that the government (or at least NZ First) might legislate to eliminate some of the red tape tangles. The integrity angle here is about balance: speeding up infrastructure is great for economic momentum, but the devil is in the details. If “making fast-track faster” means sidelining environmental considerations or public input even further, it raises concerns about accountability and whose interests get prioritised. Jones’ push will test how far the coalition is willing to go to please developers – and whether they can do it without gutting important safeguards.

Political behaviour and policymaking

Guyon Espiner (RNZ): Cabinet paper leak suggests Minister Nicole McKee's U-turn on alcohol sales reform

A leaked Cabinet paper shows Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee initially planned to restrict late-night alcohol sales to curb violent crime – a move projected to prevent 2,400 violent incidents a year – before abruptly scrapping it in favour of “reducing red tape” for the alcohol industry. The U-turn, apparently made under pressure to prioritise liquor business interests, highlights a policymaking process where evidence-based harm reduction was quietly shelved to keep alcohol lobbyists happy. McKee publicly lamented the leak as undermining public service integrity, but the real erosion of integrity here is the secret kowtowing to industry over public health. It’s a sharp reminder of how quickly a promised focus on reducing alcohol harm can evaporate once the booze barons flex their influence. The item is also a stark case of lobbying influence: a minister’s bold stance to limit alcohol harms was watered down after industry pressure, illustrating how corporate interests can derail public-interest policy behind closed doors.

Laura Walters (Newsroom): Hush and rush of Govt lawmaking undermines trust and quality

This analysis shines a light on the coalition government’s penchant for ramming through legislation at breakneck speed and with minimal transparency. It notes that Chris Luxon’s administration has broken records in its use of urgency and curtailed public consultation – an ironic turn after campaign promises of openness. From deliberately hiding contentious moves like the pay equity rollback until the last minute (code-named “Project 10”) to instructing ministers not to release their diaries, the government’s “hush and rush” approach is in full swing. While being the “fastest lawmakers in the West” might get laws passed quickly, it does so at the cost of public trust and thorough scrutiny. The piece delivers a sharp warning: the more this government behaves like everything is an emergency (to avoid debate and dissent), the more it erodes confidence in its decision-making, and sets the stage for unintended consequences in the laws that result.

Electoral processes and reform

Janet Hoek, Calvin Cochran & Jude Ball (Public Health Communication Centre): “#JUULGATE” – Nicotine industry documents highlight need for greater transparency in public health policy

Researchers delving into thousands of internal documents from e-cigarette maker JUUL have uncovered disturbing evidence of Big Tobacco’s reach into New Zealand politics. The briefing details how tobacco and vaping companies identified NZ First – Winston Peters’ party – as a handy ally, noting instances where Peters (as Acting PM in 2018) parroted tobacco industry talking points against tax hikes, and even alleging that a draft pro-vaping law from Philip Morris was secretly handed to NZ First to push into the policy mix. It’s basically a smoking gun (no pun intended) showing how the nicotine lobby sought to co-opt our policymaking. The authors call for an independent inquiry and stronger lobbying rules, warning that despite NZ’s decent track record under global tobacco interference indices, these revelations suggest the cigarette (and vape) giants have been getting their hooks into our political system more than anyone knew. It’s a stark reminder that in public health policy, the foxes will always try to guard the henhouse unless we shine a light and slam the door.

Kate MacNamara (NZ Herald): NZ Government allocates $25m for referendum on four-year parliamentary terms (paywalled)

The Government has quietly earmarked $25 million to hold a referendum on extending the parliamentary term from three to four years, pencilling it in alongside the 2026 general election. Cabinet has agreed in principle, but final sign-off awaits a select committee report – and insiders suggest the vote may never happen. With the Electoral Commission already stretched by other major electoral changes and Finance Minister Nicola Willis insisting on a shoestring budget (slashed from an originally estimated $33m), the whole plan looks shaky. Officials explicitly warned that this reduced funding could compromise the integrity of the process, resulting in "lower awareness, lower participation and lower confidence in the referendum."