I reported last week on the launch of The Integrity Institute’s independent NZ Lobbying & Influence Register, an “unofficial” public registry shining light on who is influencing our politics. That project is now well underway, detailing the political activities of lobbying firms, corporates, industry groups, unions and NGOs. And the sunlight is already provoking reactions. Readers have begun contributing useful tips and additions to the register.
But The Integrity Institute isn’t alone in pushing for lobbying reform. In a development that shows just how salient the issue has become, a coalition of more establishment figures has jumped into the fray with their own initiative, albeit with a different approach.
“Let’s Level the Playing Field” – An insider campaign
Last week a group of prominent organisations launched “Let’s Level the Playing Field,” a campaign billed as a non-partisan call to end hidden lobbying and “restore fairness to government decision-making”. It’s led by Health Coalition Aotearoa (HCA) in partnership with the Helen Clark Foundation and Transparency International NZ, groups that are chaired or fronted by veteran insiders like former National Cabinet minister Anne Tolley, ex-Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, and former Prime Minister Helen Clark.
The campaign’s five-point reform plan covers the familiar wishlist: a public lobbying register with a mandatory code of conduct and an Integrity Commission to enforce it, a “cooling off” period to slow the revolving door, tougher conflict-of-interest rules, a stronger Official Information Act, and tighter political donation limits. In other words, it closely mirrors what transparency advocates (including myself) have been demanding for a long time. It’s a great initiative.
At the launch, HCA co-chair Prof. Boyd Swinburn struck an optimistic tone: “In Aotearoa New Zealand, policy must serve the public, not just those with money and access,” he said, warning that when lobbying goes unchecked, “powerful interests override public good”. HCA pointed to recent policy U-turns – like the scrapping of world-leading smokefree laws and the watering down of infant formula regulations – as examples where government “favoured industry over public health,” catering to “wealthy lobbyists” at the expense of ordinary people. The message: these failures of integrity wouldn’t happen if stronger rules were in place.
It’s heartening to see cross-party veterans acknowledge that New Zealand’s “lobbying free-for-all” needs fixing. However, the approach so far is notably Establishment-friendly, as they seem particularly keen to get National and coalition partners onboard.
The campaign carefully avoids naming and shaming any current lobbyists or politicians; instead it speaks in generalities about “fairness” and “transparency.” This polite strategy is designed to win broad support.
In a column championing the campaign, Max Rashbrooke’s IDEA think tank highlighted that the National Party’s previous pledge to regulate lobbying and suggested there is “a reasonable chance” of such measures being adopted by the Coalition Government. It’s a hopeful framing, implying that the new government might simply do the right thing if asked nicely – see: A major campaign to protect democracy gets underway (paywalled)
The question is whether a gentler, deferential tone can overcome the vested interests that have thwarted reform for so long. The history here isn’t reassuring. As yesterday’s Otago Daily Times’ editorial dryly noted, past flurries of concern about lobbying were met by “much hot air and an unspoken resolve to do as little as possible” by successive governments – see: Editorial – Lobbying for lobbying controls (paywalled)
A voluntary lobbyists’ code of conduct – the last government’s token gesture – is “widely regarded as pointless,” and even the Justice Ministry’s policy work on lobbying has stalled with no decisions since mid-2024. The newspaper scoffs: “Given that, it is hard to take Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith seriously when he says the government is actively considering the best way forward on lobbying”. In short, polite nudges from esteemed former statespersons may not be enough to budge a political class that prefers the status quo.
Praise for Watchdogs, and warnings of complacency
If nothing else, the new campaign has helped put lobbying transparency back on the public agenda – and drawn attention to the work of independent watchdogs. The Otago Daily Times published not only that strongly-worded editorial in support of lobbying controls, but also an important column by its pseudonymous contributor “Civis” on the fragility of New Zealand democracy – see: Orange is a warning light for NZ democracy (paywalled)
In that piece, the ODT’s Civis name-checking our work: “The efforts of commentator Bryce Edwards are welcome. He has established the Integrity Institute to scrutinise vested interests in the political process. The institute’s unofficial lobbying and influence registrar was launched this week.”
Civis also rightly praised the unveiling of the “Let’s Level the Playing Field” reform campaign, observing that figures like Clark are “far from complacent about our democracy”. The column concluded with a stark reminder that we, the public, must not be complacent either.
It’s significant that a mainstream regional newspaper is ringing alarm bells about lobbying and giving a nod to independent initiatives. The ODT editorial, for instance, explicitly noted that “the Integrity Institute launched an ‘unauthorised’ lobbying and influence register” even as the more insider lobbying reform campaign kicked off.
The editors went on to endorse many of the reforms on the table – from a register and code of conduct to closing the revolving door – and even expressed hope that the “gravitas” of respected figures like Clark, Tolley and Finlayson might sway current leaders. Their final warning: “Continuing to ignore these issues risks chipping away at trust in our democratic process and government, something which is already a little shaky.” In other words, even the media can see that public trust is eroding and that more transparency is urgently needed to shore up our democracy.
Backlash and deflection from Winston Peters
Not everyone is applauding these lobbying reform efforts. The push for transparency has provoked a defensive backlash from some of the very political insiders who benefit from the opaque status quo. Winston Peters, Deputy Prime Minister and NZ First leader, wasted no time in pouring scorn on the “Let’s Level the Playing Field” campaign.
He dismissed HCA as a “leftwing” outfit and called it ironic that they preach about “‘transparency’, ‘accountability’, ‘integrity’” given the company they keep. Peters went so far as to accuse HCA of boundless hypocrisy, citing a personal grievance with one of its board members as evidence. He’s referring to an incident in which an HCA-affiliated doctor publicly criticised Peters at a private club event – a tangent that Peters is only too happy to fixate on, rather than address the substance of HCA’s concerns.
The upshot is that Peters has effectively signalled the Government’s hostility to the campaign, framing its advocates as partisan enemies and deflecting attention to their supposed sins. It’s an attempt to shoot the messenger rather than engage with the message.
Peters was joined by National Party-aligned blogger David Farrar, who ridiculed the reform push as “lobbyists campaigning against other lobbyists.” In his view, HCA itself is “one of the biggest lobbyists in New Zealand”, arguing that the health advocates “see lobbying as noble and great when they do it, and evil when anyone else does it” – see: Lobbyists campaign against other lobbyists
Farrar pointedly asked whether the proposed “cooling off” period for ex-officials becoming lobbyists would apply to “Green Party co-leaders leaving Parliament to head up one of the largest lobbying organisations in New Zealand.” This was a swipe at people like former Green MP Russel Norman, who went on to lead Greenpeace – a classic case of whataboutism.
Farrar’s implication is that left-leaning advocates are just as much “lobbyists” as any corporate gun-for-hire. It’s a false equivalence, of course. There’s a world of difference between lobbying for public health or environmental protection and lobbying against those protections on behalf of industry. But by conflating the two, such critics probably hope to muddy the waters and blunt the momentum for reform. If everyone is a lobbyist and everyone is hypocritical, why bother doing anything? That cynicism is exactly what the old guard is peddling.
Even Reformers face scrutiny: Tex Edwards vs Transparency International NZ
Interestingly, some of the most scathing criticism of the new campaign has come from within the broad church of transparency advocates. Tex Edwards – the founder of 2Degrees Mobile and a well-known crusader against corporate monopolies – has applauded the need for lobbying reform but is deeply sceptical of certain Establishment players now leading the charge. In public comments, Tex Edwards (no relation!) has accused Transparency International New Zealand (one of the campaign’s partner organisations) of essentially falling asleep at the wheel.
He argues that over the past 30 years, “lobbyist control of government policy in NZ” has run rampant, contributing to the cost-of-living and monopoly problems we face. Efforts to introduce “basic lobbyist control legislation” have failed three times, Edwards says, each time “lobbied out of Parliament by the power of lobbyists.” And where was Transparency International NZ during these battles? “Not doing their job,” according to Edwards. Only now, after an OECD report flagged New Zealand’s lack of lobbying rules, has TINZ jumped into action – but “the horse has bolted!” in his view.
Edwards doesn’t mince words. He suggests TINZ needs a clean-out at the top, saying “it’s time [they] reconsidered their leadership… They have failed the NZ public”. He even warns that an upcoming international review will expose how far behind New Zealand is on lobbying transparency (hinting at some uncomfortable revelations about who funds TINZ).
This is explosive stuff – essentially a charge that an anti-corruption NGO became too cozy with the Establishment to effectively call it to account. Whether one fully agrees or not, Edwards’ critique underscores a tension in the current reform movement: the insiders who are now campaigning for change are the same insiders who failed to prevent the problem in the first place. Their approach is necessarily constrained by politeness and political relationships.
By contrast, outsiders like Edwards (or indeed The Integrity Institute) have no qualms about naming names and ruffling feathers. His commentary serves as a reminder that genuine accountability often requires making people uncomfortable – even those who claim to be fixing things. The success of lobbying reform may hinge on whether the effort remains a polite insider talk-fest, or evolves into a more hard-hitting, broad-based public campaign that isn’t afraid to offend the powerful.
Banks, Lies and Government Favours – A Case Study in why it matters
If anyone needs a reminder of why New Zealand urgently needs to get a handle on lobbying, look no further than the current Government’s actions. Even as public pressure for reform mounts, entrenched corporate influence is still busy at work behind closed doors. A jaw-dropping example came to light this month involving two of the country’s biggest banks. I covered this with my Integrity Briefing on Friday (Banking lobbyists 1, Justice 0).
Since then, columnist Ryan Ward detailed in a column titled “Banks, lies, and government favours,” what has happened: “banks get sued, banks lobby the government to change the law, government changes the law and makes it cover the period… the banks are getting sued [for], lawsuit disappears.” In other words, the banks stand to be let “off the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars” they would potentially owe to customers in that class-action case.
As Ward tartly observes, if anyone still thinks our government isn’t swayed by big private interests, “consider the recent proposed change to banking law” – it certainly gives the impression that “our government is for sale to wealthy interests.”
This kind of manoeuvre is the clearest indictment of a system that allows lobbying to operate in the shadows. It’s exactly the sort of thing anti-corruption watchdogs warn about: well-resourced companies quietly securing “government favours” that ordinary citizens could never dream of, all out of public view until the damage is done.
The timing is almost too perfect: as one part of Wellington rolls out voluntary codes and worthy campaigns, elsewhere lobbyists are cutting backroom deals to enrich powerful clients at the public’s expense. It underlines why real transparency measures (like a mandatory public register of lobbying contacts, plus strict rules and enforcement) are so vital – and why mere reassurances of good intentions from politicians won’t cut it. Until the system changes, the default will be more of the same: decisions that benefit the well-connected few at the expense of the many.
New Investigations shine light on conflicts of interest
One cannot survey the current lobbying landscape without acknowledging the stellar investigative journalism that is finally bringing some of these secret dealings to light. In particular, RNZ’s Anusha Bradley has, in the last couple of weeks, produced eye-opening reports on lobbying in the dairy and infant formula industry – a case study in how corporate influence can sway policy at the highest levels of government.
Bradley’s reporting revealed earlier this month that senior ministers had been intensively lobbied by a handful of infant formula companies to reject new stricter standards for baby formula – and that the Government ultimately dropped the proposed regulations under this pressure. Most concerning was the situation of Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard (of the Act Party). I covered all of this in two Integrity Briefings (How Dairy lobbyists get their way in the Beehive; Andrew Hoggard’s Conflicts of Interest and NZ’s culture of complacency).
But RNZ’s revelations didn’t stop there. Since then, there have been two further updates from Bradley:
Government considers u-turn on baby formula rules after industry shift
Formula firms fight against expanded online ad ban despite WHO warnings
Auckland University health academic Gergely Toldi has also analysed the scandal – see: Government lobbying the same old formula
The infant formula lobbying saga perfectly illustrates why New Zealand urgently needs the kind of transparency measures we and others are proposing. When policy decisions are made in the shadows, with no public oversight of lobbying, bad things happen. Consumers lose, public trust erodes, and the only winners are those with money and access.
In fact, this saga, brought to light by Anusha Bradley and RNZ, is precisely the sort of content we’ll be adding to our NZ Lobbying & Influence Register. The dairy companies, the lobbying firms (like Blackland PR), and even the specific lobbyists involved will all have entries on the register, with links to evidence of their influence efforts. Our register will catalogue these details so that the next time a lobbyist tries to quietly gut a regulation, there’s a public record we can point to and say: we see you.
The Public weighs in: “Enough is Enough” vs Scepticism
Amid these developments, New Zealanders are not sitting quietly. There’s been an increasing amount of public commentary – some of it hopeful, much of it angry or jaded – about the state of lobbying and the prospects for reform. On social media and our own Substack website, people are voicing a mix of support and scepticism.
On the supportive side, many welcome the focus on transparency and are eager to help. The engagement with our Lobbying & Influence Register is proof of that thirst for openness, with individuals crowdsourcing information to broaden the public record. Likewise, prominent voices outside politics are reinforcing the call for change.
Sam Stubbs, a leading KiwiSaver fund manager, echoed the alarm about excessive behind-the-scenes influence. Citing Tex Edwards, Stubbs warned that “too many lobbyists with unfettered access to Parliament, politicians and policy makers” are causing New Zealand’s competitive edge to slip away, pushing us into “low competition and low growth mode.” Politicians, he says, need to “wake up” to how lobbying is warping our economy. When a figure from the business world is essentially saying unchecked lobbying is undermining the free market, you know the concern is cutting across ideological lines.
At the same time, public frustration and cynicism are running high. In the comment threads on The Integrity Institute Substack website, one reader captured the mood of many, confessing that they feel “outraged at the blatant corruption, but have no idea what to do about it.” “So much seems to be fait accompli and there’s nothing we can do to change it,” they wrote, “I’d love to know I’m wrong…” This speaks to a real danger: a populace so disillusioned by repeated lobbying scandals and lack of accountability that they start to give up on the political process altogether. Restoring faith will require not just new rules but visible proof that things are changing – that sunlight is indeed disinfecting the dirty corners of policy-making.
There are also sceptics who question the reformers’ narrative. Some commentators – including those with industry ties – argue that influence isn’t all nefarious and that officials still must listen to business voices. In response to our recent work on an agriculture minister’s conflicts of interest, one reader accused us of “hyperbole” and pointed out that public health bureaucrats can act like lobbyists for their own agendas too. He noted that ultimately ministers have to “canvass all alternative views” and not just obey experts.
This perspective essentially defends the status quo by saying not all lobbying is bad. Certainly, the act of people advocating to government is a normal part of democracy. But New Zealanders have seen too many examples of imbalanced lobbying: where only the wealthy and connected get a hearing, and the public interest gets lost. As another ODT letter-writer put it, “We should know who the lobbyists are and whether they have ease of access not offered [to] those who might have a contrary view.” Fairness isn’t about eliminating input, it’s about levelling the playing field so that a high-paid consultant’s whisper doesn’t count more than the voter’s voice.
Conclusion: Shining a light – how you can help
The past few weeks might have marked a turning point in New Zealand’s long-simmering lobbying debate. The issue is now firmly in the spotlight – thanks to both grassroots scrutiny and a belated push from political insiders – and there’s a sense that momentum is building for change. Yet it’s equally clear that transparency won’t be handed to us on a silver platter. Power never concedes without pressure. As this briefing has shown, insiders may acknowledge the problem, but they’ll do so on comfortable terms; meanwhile, those benefiting from the current opaque system will fight tooth and nail (or simply try to distract us) to keep things as they are.
One thing is certain: public vigilance will make the difference. We at The Integrity Institute will continue our watchdog role – independent, non-partisan and unafraid to call out whoever needs calling out, in government or outside it. Our NZ Lobbying & Influence Register is live and growing, and we intend it to be a living tool for democracy.
This is where you come in. We urge readers to check out the register (link below) and help us improve it. If you have information about lobbying firms, industry groups, consultants, or any other influential entities that are not yet listed, or if you spot errors in our data, please reach out. Drop us a line in the comments or via email. We’ve already seen how crowd-sourced information can unveil connections that might otherwise slip under the radar.
Time and again, New Zealand’s political leaders have proven content with secrecy and ad hoc self-regulation – and time and again, that has failed the public. Real change will only come from persistent public pressure and engagement. By refusing to be complacent, by asking the hard questions, and by pooling our knowledge, we can help level the playing field from the outside, no matter what happens in the halls of power.
Check out the register here: NZ Lobbying & Influence Register. We welcome your help in crowd-sourcing corrections, feedback, and suggestions for any additional entities that ought to be included. The more eyes on this, the better. In the battle against undue influence, an informed and involved public is our greatest asset. Together, let’s push for the transparent, fair government New Zealand deserves.
Dr Bryce Edwards
Director of The Integrity Institute
I would argue that Curia Research (David Farrar's company) is more of a lobbying organisation than a legitimate research company, particularly since they resigned from the Research Association of New Zealand for being called out for not abiding by their very moderate Code of Practice
Sorry Bryce, I usually champion you crusades but your allies in this fight are absolutely lobbyists with their own agendas.
The Health Coalition, Helen Clarke foundation , and WHO are all publicly funded, anti free speech, and distinctly left wing
It's a bit like the hate speech debate, everyone agrees it exists, the problem is who sets and enforces the new rules?