Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards.

Maybe we’ve all got scandal fatigue. This is the best explanation for why there’s not more public and media concern in the wake of the disturbing report into former Minister Stuart Nash’s relationship with donors. There have been so many integrity violations lately from Government politicians and officials – including Michael Wood, Kiri Allan, Jan Tinetti, and Meng Foon – that it seems hearing about a minister’s dodgy communications with donors barely registers.

The results of the investigation released on Friday morning – in what seems to be something of a calculated government news dump (along with news of Meng Foon’s forced resignation) have largely been ignored or downplayed.

The investigation was undertaken by the Cabinet Office following Nash’s most recent integrity violation, in which he had breached ethical standards, including the Cabinet Manual, by providing sensitive Cabinet information to wealthy businessmen. The leaking was bad enough, but it was made worse because the recipients of Nash’s information had also donated money to the Minister to help him get re-elected. An inquiry was launched to see if other conflicts of interest had occurred.

Minister deletes text messages to donors

The investigation came up against a major problem, contributing to the delay in the report being completed. It found that the Minister had made a habit of deleting his communications with his financial donors, making it impossible for the Cabinet Office to do its job investigating any wrongdoing. Cabinet Secretary Rachel Haywood protested about the deletions in the report, stating “I am not able to give an assurance that I have seen all information relevant to the review”.

The Herald’s Adam Pearse explained what had occurred: “there were some time periods when there were no text message exchanges with some donors. Nash had told those coordinating the review that he did, at times, delete messages from his phone – a protocol he said he developed well before his career as a minister.”

On this, Hayward also states, “I have drawn no conclusions, adverse or otherwise, about the presence or absence of texts on Hon Nash’s phone”. But the clear conclusion to be drawn is that the investigation was undermined by the Minister’s actions. The public should be troubled about such practices by Ministers and MPs. Similarly, the use by Nash of a personal Gmail account as well as Whatsapp to correspond with donors is also suspicious and hardly best practice, especially in terms of the need to abide by the Official Information Act.

Another limitation dogged the Cabinet Office’s attempts to uncover what had gone on. In initiating the investigation, the Prime Minister said he hoped the process would give the public confidence in the integrity of the political system, but he decided not to give the Cabinet Office any real powers of investigation. Therefore, the Cabinet Secretary simply had to accept that there was nothing she could do about the destroyed evidence, as she was not empowered to do anything to dig deeper or recover the material.

Furthermore, the investigation was limited by the PM’s decision to reduce its scope. The Cabinet Office was asked not to look at the donors themselves, or the lobbying that they carried out, meaning the original lobbying and exchanges of Cabinet information were deemed outside the terms of reference.

A Further conflict of interest discovered

Although it has been glossed over, the investigation discovered that Nash had been guilty of another breach of the Cabinet Manual – once again involving one of his major business donors. Phil McCaw is a “close friend” of the politician, having gone to school with him. He’s worth an estimated $180m, and was appointed by the Cabinet to chair the Startup Advisors Council, which had the job of supporting Nash as Minister for Regional Economic Development.

Nash had recommended to officials that McCaw be appointed. But then, because of the donations and their friendship, Nash put some separation between him and the appointment. The investigation found that the measures taken were entirely insufficient, and Nash breached the Cabinet Manual by not following four crucial aspects of “good practice in managing this conflict”.

The minimal efforts that Nash made to separate himself from the appointment, such as getting another minister (Megan Woods) to make the decision, were not nearly enough. The biggest problem was that, once another minister made the decision to appoint McCaw, Nash effectively took back responsibility for managing his friend.

The Cabinet Office report explained: “The relationship between the chair and Nash as minister was an ongoing one, and the terms of reference stated that Nash continued to have responsibility for further decisions around McCaw’s reappointment or dismissal. Nash’s friendship with, and the donation from, Mr McCaw conflicted with this ongoing responsibility.”

To make matters worse, the report uncovered that Nash’s friend and donor also lobbied government ministers to be removed from the scrutiny of an IRD study into New Zealand’s mega-wealthy. The businessman sent an email to Nash’s ministerial email address last year saying that, although he was willing to commit his time to Nash’s business group, he was also having his time taken up by IRD questions about his assets. He made it clear what he wanted: “In order for your project to have my full attention, I kindly request that you arrange for me to be removed from this project.”

Rather than entirely rebuff the donor or tell him this wouldn’t be ethical, Nash’s ministerial adviser, Andrea Black, informed the businessman that Nash didn’t have the capacity to deliver his request, and she then passed it on to David Parker, the Minister of Revenue, who was apparently the more appropriate minister to lobby for the favour. Ultimately the lobbying was unsuccessful, and McCaw continued to be part of the IRD study.

The Prime Minister has batted away concerns about the donor seeking favours, saying simply that “everyone has the right to make representations to ministers on matters that concern them, and second, ministers cannot control the communications others send to them.” But this ignores the fact that Minister Nash had put himself in this situation by accepting donations from the businessman, and continued to cultivate a close relationship and communications with the donor about policy. While it might be true that Nash hadn’t broken the law or even breached the Cabinet Manual, many voters might well feel that such an ongoing relationship of lobbying and donations stinks and that Hipkins is minimising the problem.

Hipkins has also sought to minimise the failure of the Beehive to release Nash’s communications with the donor when requested under the Official Information Act. He has tried to explain the obfuscation was just a “cock up” and not “a conspiracy”, downplaying that a significant breach of public trust occurred which advantaged the Government by keeping (at least initially) embarrassing information from the public.

In fact, Nash himself continues to say that he has done nothing wrong. Even after he was fired from Cabinet, he gave a radio interview saying that his donors didn’t benefit from being given Cabinet information, and he would do it again.

What happens now?

The investigation into Nash’s communications with his donors was meant, according to the PM, to help restore public confidence in Government MPs and processes. And although headlines such as “Stuart Nash cleared in cabinet report” have helped assuage the public, a more careful reading of the report reinforces the big problems of integrity in the system.

Political donors still have special access to decision-makers, and there are not sufficient safeguards in the system to prevent corruption and abuse. Unfortunately, this doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon.

Even though Labour’s Independent Electoral Review has been set up to look at donations to politicians, it won’t deal with any of these problems. The terms of reference established for it by the politicians have pushed the panel away from dealing with donation scandals like the Nash one. And the panel has accordingly provided no significant recommendations that might usefully deal with these conflicts of interest with donors. This is a real missed opportunity.

We need better rules and procedures for when wealthy donors are being promoted by their friends for appointments. And although the Cabinet report doesn’t criticise Nash for putting forward his donor for appointment, most people will see a problem with that. Yes, the decision to appoint the donor may have been made by people other than Nash, but the Minister’s recommendation for appointment would have carried a lot of weight, and officials understandably feel the need to back up the Minister on such issues.

A proper overhaul of appointments and donation rules required

The appointment of cronies and donors by governments, therefore, needs an overhaul quickly. And those Labour supporters who see this as no big deal should ask how happy they would be if the same thing occurs once a National government is back in power.

Progress also needs to be made on the record-keeping of ministerial communications. Ministers deleting messages to and from donors, or in fact from anyone, should be highly suspicious, if not illegal. This is an OIA issue. Even though Nash has previously said that when he was discussing Cabinet issues with his donors he was doing this while wearing his parliamentary hat rather than in his ministerial role, such cynical absurdity can’t be allowed to continue.

In fact, we are still waiting for the Ombudsman to report on whether or not the Beehive and Nash were legally able to withhold communications with donors under the Official Information Act. If it turns out that Ministers get a free pass – or indeed just a smack over the hand with a wet bus ticket – then calls for a major reform of the OIA should escalate quickly.

Major issues of the integrity of our political system now deserve urgent attention. Commenting on the Nash report, as well as other scandals – the Meng Foon conflict of interest resignation in particular – Stuff political editor Luke Malpass said in the weekend, “It is now the time to ask – if it wasn’t before – whether there is something a bit rotten in the political system where falling short of the highest levels of probity are treated with a shrug. Or, where they are treated seriously, those who fall foul of the rules don’t see what is wrong.”

Malpass is right. And he’s also correct in saying that these episodes are giving the Labour Government and its appointees “an entitled, arrogant and slightly smelly vibe”. However, he’s probably far too kind about that whiff – the troubling Nash report shows that the whole system really stinks.

Two weeks ago Prime Minister Chris Hipkins was pooh-poohing questions about the need for reform lobbying rules, claiming lobbyists have the same access to MPs as any other member of the public. But yesterday he announced a crackdown on lobbyists, claiming he wanted to end the special access lobbyists have to decision-makers.

Hipkins announced three immediate minor reforms, and one big longer-term review of lobbying rules. The immediate tweaks won’t change much, but the review to be carried out by the Ministry of Justice could result in exactly the sort of reforms that are necessary to clean up the industry. Transparency campaigners therefore have reason to tentatively celebrate. It’s worth considering what the merits of the four reforms are.

Reform #1: A big review of lobbying

The Prime Minister has ordered the Ministry of Justice to embark on a review of lobbying in New Zealand, and come up with options for reform. At the top of the list will inevitably be a register of lobbyists and legal stand-down periods for insiders going backward and forwards through the “revolving door” of politics and lobbying.

Hipkins called this a “major piece of work” that will “draw on international best practice”. Quite sensibly the investigation will not be rushed, and so will not report back until next year. This is because many of the issues of regulating lobbying are, as Hipkins said yesterday, “complex to work through”.

He pointed to the need for the review to learn from former Green MP Holly Walker’s 2012 lobbying disclosure bill. This failed because it didn’t grasp the complexities of what is required to regulate political activity. And that’s one of the biggest lessons for those studying lobbying regulations – there’s a need for careful consideration of the regulations, especially to avoid unintended consequences such as regulations having a chilling impact on ordinary citizens who want to lobby politicians.

Hipkins appears to be setting up the review in a way that is likely to obtain multi-partisan support, saying “I want, as much as possible, for this to be a bi-partisan issue and I call on other political parties to support this measure”. National has immediately come out in support. And the party that has been pushing hardest on these issues lately – TOP – gave its endorsement of the review yesterday. Outside interest groups seemed to be in favour too – such as the Taxpayers Union.

Of course, the devil could yet be in the detail. New Zealand Herald political reporter Thomas Coughlan rightly says: “With no detail on what this might look like, it’s impossible to make a fair assessment of whether it’s worthwhile or not.” And journalist Max Rashbrooke told the Spinoff yesterday the review was an “insufficient response”, and “kicking it out for at least a year raises the possibility that nothing substantive will change.”

Reform #2: Abolition of swipe cards

At the moment, Parliament provides swipe cards to lobbyists so that they have the ability to get access to the buildings without having to go through security or book appointments with politicians. As Guyon Espiner explained in his series on lobbying for RNZ, to receive the special accreditation at Parliament lobbyists don’t even have to disclose who they are working for. All they need is the sponsorship of an MP or a party’s chief of staff. Espiner points out this means, for example, the new Chief of Staff for Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, “Andrew Kirton, fresh from his lobbying firm, can now grant access to other lobbyists if he wishes.”

It’s therefore a no-brainer for Hipkins to get rid of this very symbolic part of the lobbying industry. He has written to the Speaker of Parliament to request that the access cards be revoked.

There is a consensus that this won’t change anything substantially. Rashbrooke says he’s “underwhelmed” by the change. And Coughlan says: The real work of lobbying happens over the phone, at dinner, and in meetings with ministers – or in the dully transparent grunt work of preparing complicated select committee submissions.”

Reform #3: A voluntary code of conduct for lobbyists

It is common overseas for lobbyists to have a code of conduct for how they operate. Hipkins says he wants one established here, and suggests it could be voluntary for lobbyists. He has asked the Ministry of Justice to help the industry establish one. According to Hipkins, the code of conduct “would enhance transparency by, for example, including the names of the clients they represent on their websites”.

The fact that the code will be voluntary makes this a particularly questionable reform, and commentary has therefore been derisive. For instance, Thomas Coughlan questions how it can possibly be effective: “If the lobbying industry is scary and influential enough to warrant additional regulation, it probably isn’t appropriate to ask them how they want to be regulated.”

The Taxpayers Union has also protested that the government is funding an initiative that might not be taken up by all lobbyists: “Taxpayers should not be footing the bill for an unenforceable attempt to get lobbyists to behave. Any rules for lobbying should be determined following consultation and should apply equally across the sector.”

Coughlan is even more scathing on this: “The fact that lobbying firms will be given free government support for their code of conduct is laughable. If scarce public resources are to be expended on creating the code, it should be mandatory – if firms have no obligation to sign up to this code of conduct, then why should the public be on the hook for resourcing it?”

Reform #4: Changes to the Cabinet Manual about the revolving door

Hipkins has announced that the “Bible of Government”, the Cabinet Manual, will be refreshed to give greater guidance to Ministers about not allowing future employment as lobbyists to impact on their ministerial decisions. The Prime Minister says the Cabinet Manual will “make it clear that, while in office, ministers’ conduct and decisions should not be influenced by the prospect or expectation of future employment with a particular organisation or sector”.

This is the weakest of the four reforms and is being derided by commentators as almost meaningless. Policing the rules will be up to the Prime Minister, but enormously difficult to enforce. There will still be nothing to stop Ministers from taking up lobbying roles soon after leaving office – like Kris Faafoi did last year.

The Government yielded to pressure

There is no doubt that the Labour Government has yielded to growing public pressure to tighten up on the access lobbyists and vested interests have to decision-makers.

It was only last year that Faafoi left the Beehive, moving almost straight into lobbying. The Government denied this was a problem, or that lobbying needed further regulation. And then two weeks ago the Prime Minister said he didn’t believe that “lobbyists necessarily get preferred access” compared to members of the public.

So what changed? The Faafoi scandal got the ball rolling, and then more recently Guyon Espiner’s RNZ series on the role of lobbyists close to Government started to change the public’s perception of the problem.

But it was the Stuart Nash scandal that really moved the dial. A Minister was seemingly lobbied on an issue going through Cabinet by his political donors, and he gave them privileged information about what was going on, as well as an indication that he was fighting in Cabinet for a policy change that would benefit their industry.

Despite the fact that the Nash scandal wasn’t about traditional consultant lobbyists, it fed into growing public concerns about wealthy vested interests having special access to Cabinet. Hence, according to Thomas Coughlan, Espiner’s lobbying revelations in combination with Nash scandal, “created an inescapable momentum around the issue” leading to a “belated crackdown”.

Similarly, Newshub political editor Jenna Lynch says, “The Stuart Nash story compounded the concerns that were raised a couple of weeks back around lobbying and those two things combined were painting a murky picture about the movings and shakings in Wellington.” Therefore, according to Lynch, the Nash scandal meant Labour “needed to reclaim the transparency narrative.”

She says that the move yesterday was about rescuing Hipkins’ brand: “So much of Hipkins’ likeability is linked to trust. Nash and lobbyist access were threatening to chip away at Chippy’s honest Kiwi brand. They had to move quickly.”

There will be questions about the Labour Government’s sincerity in reforming lobbying. After all, it’s a very rapid change of heart on the matter after years of ignoring it. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t lead to big progressive changes – especially because the Ministry of Justice will carry out a proper review. It seems inevitable that the Justice Ministry will identify some serious democratic deficits in the current system, and be forced to recommend some major remedies.

But for the moment, the immediate reforms proposed by the Government are largely inconsequential. In order to appreciate the degree to which this is true, we need only look at Hipkins’ own relationship to lobbying and how little this will change.

Hipkins recently hired lobbyist Andrew Kirton to be his Chief of Staff. Kirton reportedly left his lobbying job the day before starting his new job running the Beehive. There are some major issues with such lobbyists being invited to the highest jobs in politics.

It’s become part of the culture of a revolving door at the top of the Beehive – four out of five of Labour’s Chiefs of Staff since they came to power in 2017 have been lobbyists. And if Labour loses power on 14 October, there will be nothing to stop Hipkins’ righthand man from shifting straight back into lobbying, taking all his connections and privileged information to help private sector clients have an advantage in politics. Sadly, there was nothing in yesterday’s announcement to suggest that this reliance on lobbyists at the top of the Beehive might be about to stop.

Lobbyists have never been under such intense pressure and scrutiny. There is currently a real momentum building to rein in New Zealand’s wild west lobbying environment.

Politicians challenged to clampdown on lobbying

Political parties are now being challenged to say how they would gain control of New Zealand’s runaway lobbying train. Yesterday, TVNZ’s Q+A published the results of their survey of political parties. The seven main parties were asked whether, in principle, they supported the establishment of 1) an anti-corruption commission, 2) a register of lobbyists, and 3) a lobbying stand-down period.

In response, the Greens, TOP, and Te Pāti Māori said they agreed with all three. Act opposed all three. National opposed an anti-corruption commission but agreed with the other two. And there was no comment from both Labour and NZ First.

Jack Tame also interviewed Australian Professor of political ethics Charles Sampford, who warned New Zealand faced complacency about corruption. As well as recommending an anti-corruption agency for New Zealand, he suggests the establishment of an Ethics Commissioner who could guide Cabinet and the Prime Minister on potential conflicts of interest.

Further support for reform of lobbying

Some lobbyists can clearly see which way the wind is blowing, and are now joining the calls for reform. In his RNZ series on lobbying, Guyon Espiner details how lobbyist Holly Bennett, who used to work for National in the Beehive and now runs the lobbying firm Awhi, has written a letter to other lobbyists calling for them to support things like a code of conduct, an industry oversight body, a stand-down period for senior officials and politicians before they move into lobbying, and a public register of lobbyists.

Others are joining the call for reform. On Friday former Cabinet minister Peter Dunne came out in favour of greater lobbying laws, saying that the current lobbying environment too often has an “unsavoury air of mates helping mates”. He says that reforms such as a register of lobbying and a stand-down period “are matters the next Parliament should address with priority.”

But ultimately Dunne thinks the businesses that employ lobbyists need to realise they just don’t need them. He paints a picture of lobbyists as confidence tricksters who claim special powers due to “their imagined intimate knowledge of the way government works”. His own experience as a minister being lobbied was that they are “little more than professional whingers”.

A similar point was put last week by former press gallery journalist Henry Cooke who says, “a key part of the profession is mystification, reselling what is essentially public information as incredible insider knowledge”. He says he has lobbying acquaintances, and that he thinks that New Zealand isn’t particularly corrupt.

Nonetheless, Cooke says that a judge-led inquiry is now required, to give certainty to the integrity of New Zealand’s political system. After all, there is now a public sense “that some Kiwis seem to be able to get answers out of Government far easier than others – whether it be because they donated big money to a party, paid big money for a lobbyist, or just move in the right circles.”

In contrast, public law specialist Graeme Edgeler believes that a different reform route could be used by government to fix lobbying – he has tweeted that “Lobbying regulation seems like a matter that could be usefully considered by the Law Commission, instead of an Inquiries Act type public inquiry.”

Case study on lobbying

The very nature of the lobbying industry’s subterfuge means that the public knows very little about how much influence any of the lobbying firms have on government decision-making. Fortunately, Guyon Espiner’s RNZ five-part series of articles on lobbying has helped illuminate how the process works.

For example, in his final article last week, Espiner documented how in 2021 lobbyist Neale Jones lobbied Stuart Nash, then the Minister of Forestry, to allow pine trees to be included in the carbon credits of the Emission Trading Scheme. Nash made the change, affording Jones’ client, New Zealand Carbon Farming – one of the biggest landowners in the country – millions of dollars in carbon credits from the Government.

Espiner uncovered communications showing Jones and Nash were on “familiar terms”. Similarly, Espiner found other communications from Jones that showed how close he is to Cabinet ministers: “ministers are addressed on a first name basis and are only a text message away.” According to Espiner, Jones even invited Andrew Little to his birthday party, and the two are “close friends”. He texts other ministerial staff addressing them as “comrade”.

Commenting on his difficulty finding out any details of what lobbyists like Jones do and how they operate, Espiner complains “There are no rules to follow, no laws to break and no watchdog to bark.” He says, in this regard, “New Zealand, is far less transparent than in the US.”

The Lobbyists strike back

Although Neale Jones is refusing to engage any of Espiner’s allegations, back in late 2021 he wrote a defence of lobbying in reply to a column I had written. Writing in an op-ed for the Herald, he said analyses about his work are just “conspiratorial” and “as with any conspiracy theory, the reality is far less exciting.”

Jones sought to paint his lobbying firm’s work as being about the common good, preferring the terms “advocacy” and “campaigning” instead of “lobbying”, and emphased the type of work that they do being for progressive causes: “The reasons clients come to us vary: It could be the global green energy company that wants to operate in New Zealand but needs help on the ground to give them some local context and make sure they’re talking to the right people. It could be the Māori health provider urgently seeking funding to get its community vaccinated but coming up against the brick wall of bureaucracy. It could be the Kiwi business facing unintended consequences from poorly drafted legislation. Or the trade union that wants some help sharpening its messaging and telling its members’ stories.”

Rather than serving corporate clients, Jones said his work is simply “a vital part of our democracy”. Replying to my analysis of lobbying, Jones protests: “The world that Bryce describes, of quiet winks and nods and corrupt backroom deals to undermine the democratic will, simply doesn’t reflect the New Zealand reality.” Instead, “When we achieve results, it’s not because someone has done their old mate Neale a favour. It is because we have engaged constructively, presented effective arguments and understood how a client’s ask aligns with the Government’s priorities.”

Jones also argued that those with worries about the influence of lobbyists should be assuaged by the existence in New Zealand of “a strong, independent public service”, an effective Official Information Act, “regular proactive release of all Ministerial diaries” and parliamentary Press Gallery that is focused on exposing “improper behaviour”.

Last week, another lobbyist defended of his profession and his quick exit through the revolving door. Former Cabinet Minister Kris Faafoi penned a justification for his shift into lobbying, arguing that his work in corporate lobbying is simply an extension of his lifelong attempts to progress social justice, especially for those at the bottom of society.

In a column about his achievements, the world leaders he has met, and the people he has helped, Faafoi points out that he’s just “humble Tokelauan” who likes to “stick it to the man” and “swim against the flow”.

As to those that have questioned the ethics of shifting straight from Cabinet to a lucrative career in lobbying, Faafoi says: “People residing in supposedly mighty places telling me what I can or cannot do, and being generally judgy. I’d like to thank them for living their faultless lives and trying to lecture me about what I can and can’t do.”

Faafoi explains that he simply wants to help people with his talents, as “by virtue of living and working in the capital I have learned to speak fluent Wellington and happily translate it for others.”

Will the pleas of lobbyists convince the public? Do their claims that there’s “nothing to see here” really stand up?

Unfortunately for the lobbyists, calls for reform are growing. And increasingly the public can see that there’s a blatant distortion in the political process where the wealthy can influence government policies to protect and increase their wealth – this grates against New Zealanders’ egalitarian impulses.

It’s now going to take the very best spin efforts of the lobbyists to convince their politician friends not to step in and do the right thing. For the sake of democracy and fairness, let’s hope the politicians can withstand that lobbying.

Political Roundup: Momentum growing to reform lobbying laws

This week global anti-corruption agency Transparency International released a report on lobbying, which described New Zealand’s lack of regulation as “glaring”.

Transparency International New Zealand has developed an international comparison of New Zealand’s lobbying regulations so that MPs here can decide whether to reform this sector. Currently, a group of MPs who are members of the Global Organisation for Parliamentarians Against Corruption, are reportedly weighing up the pros and cons of regulating lobbying in New Zealand.

Transparency International compared New Zealand’s lobbying rules with ten other similar countries, including the US and Canada, and found that New Zealand is at the unregulated end of the spectrum. In contrast, US lobbyists can face prison sentences of up to five years for the activities that are carried out in New Zealand.

The report looked at the seven areas of lobbying regulation that typically occur and found that New Zealand only had two of these: the publishing of Government Ministers’ diaries and MPs’ personal, financial, and business interests. The anti-corruption report says that “the absence of independent oversight of, and personal gains from lobbying in New Zealand is glaring.”

Even lobbyists see that something is wrong

With Transparency International joining the voices highlighting the way that lobbyists have carte blanche ability to assist vested interests and corporates to get their way in New Zealand, will there now be a stronger chance of reform of corporate lobbying?

Revelations that former Cabinet Minister Kris Faafoi recently moved almost straight from the highest levels of government to be a lobbyist highlighted the lack of rules. And Transparency International’s report shows that New Zealand is an outlier in not having any enforced “cooling off” period for politicians before they move into roles with conflicts of interest.

This has become embarrassing even for those working in the lobbying industry. Former journalist Jonathan Hill wrote last month about his own experiences in the area, saying a “stand-down” period for ministers and their staff before they move into lobbying is necessary, and such a rule would help improve public confidence in the industry.

Hill says the industry has been growing very quickly recently, “and there are large sums to be made in it”, but it’s made him feel “uneasy”. Hill writes: “My personal view is that lobbying – or government relations (GR) as it is termed – is a bit of a fraudulent industry.” He goes on to explain how easy it is to lobby politicians in New Zealand.

The fact that political insiders can come into lobbying with no regulation of their conflicts of interests clearly needs attention according to Hill. He points out: “The private sector has restraint of trade, gardening leave and the principle of continuous disclosure to prevent trading on inside information. But our democracy has nothing.”

Hill also suggests that the media is enabling the lucrative lobbying model: “Media should stop using lobbyists as political commentators. This has become common, for no good reason, and serves only to raise the profile of the lobbyist. That’s why they do it.”

Hill isn’t the only one involved in lobbying with doubts about the lack of controls on conflicts of interest. Lobbyist Holly Bennett, who runs the government relations firm Awhi, told RNZ last month that she was able to go straight from working as a ministerial and policy adviser in Parliament to lobbying MPs five years ago. She bluntly states: “I think it’s entirely inappropriate. I shouldn’t have been able to do that.”

Bennett is arguing that the lobbying industry should now proactively set the rules for themselves, arguing in favour of “a code of conduct; a register; and the establishment of an industry regulatory body, similar to the Media Council.”

Politicians arguing over lobbying reform

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is under pressure to do something about the lack of lobbying regulation, especially in light of the Faafoi scandal. Last month she faced strong questions from Guyon Espiner on Morning Report about why Faafoi should be allowed to take insider information from his role as a Cabinet Minister to help private businesses.

Ardern’s response to this was that regulation of ministers becoming lobbyists was unnecessary because: “Every New Zealander knows our intentions and policy from our manifesto”. Espiner was incredulous: “Come on. Are you really making a comparison between a member of the public and a cabinet minister?”

Rightwing political commentator David Farrar responded to Ardern’s argument saying: “Is the Prime Minister really suggesting that a member of her Cabinet knows no more about what the Government will do than a member of the public? It’s ludicrous and insulting to our intelligence. The only way this could not be misinformation is if the Cabinet doesn’t actually discuss policies or legislation when they meet.”

Farrar, who claims to know most lobbyists in New Zealand, says that the information that comes to Ministers from sitting around the Cabinet and ministerial tables is invaluable to corporate clients: “Cabinet debates and decides on every major piece of government legislation. They decide on what options to proceed with, and when to backtrack (as with KiwiSaver Funds GST). They debate pros and cons in great detail. At Cabinet Committees they receive detailed advice from officials. And within their own portfolios Minister receive the most valuable info of all – oral briefings. This is the stuff so sensitive that it is never put in writing so it can’t be discovered under the OIA.”

Farrar uses the example of insider information that Ministers get on an array of commercial decisions: “There is also great commercial impact from decisions. They can decide on share sales, on regulatory regimes, on proposed taxes. The criteria for being a default KiwiSaver fund can be worth a billion dollars to a KiwiSaver fund manager.”

Former Cabinet Minister Peter Dunne has joined the chorus of those demanding reform in this area, labelling it “urgent”. He explains that “the adequacy of the rules regarding conflicts of interest for ministers and former ministers” has arisen out of the tradition in Parliament that politicians should be self-regulating: “When it comes to conflicts of interest, MPs have been largely left to manage them themselves.”

Dunne argues that the “time has surely come to formalise general conflict of interest rules for all MPs, and for the Cabinet Manual to address the specific issues raised by the Faafoi case.” He calls for “the Cabinet Office, the Speaker and the Standing Orders Committee to prioritise over the next few months updating the rules and practices regarding managing conflicts of interests for ministers and MPs.”

Perhaps Jacinda Ardern needs to talk to Labour’s last prime minister about lobbying reform. Helen Clark has now entered the debate, tweeting to Justice Minister Kiri Allan to point out that Transparency International “recommends 2 years” of a “cooling off period for political insiders after leaving taxpayer-funded positions before becoming lobbyists”.

An array of voices from across the political spectrum, including a former Labour prime minister, are now calling for reform on how vested interests can trade on inside information and connections. Will the Labour Government rise to the occasion?

Other items of interest and importance today

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Dave Armstrong (Stuff): Don’t mess with NZ – if that’s OK with everyone
Thomas Manch (Stuff): A day of pomp and pageantry in Vietnam, as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern shakes communist leaders’ hands
Claire Trevett (Herald): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s fruitful day talking trade, China and fruit with Vietnam’s highest-ranked leaders
Jo Moir (Newsroom): From elbowing into summits to Hanoi garden tours
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Ardern arrives in Vietnam to sell brand New Zealand
Claire Trevett (Herald): PM Jacinda Ardern arrives in Vietnam for business charm offensive and political meetings
Claire Trevett (Herald): PM Jacinda Ardern at the East Asia Summit: A call to do more in Myanmar, flags concern about China
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern, world leaders leave Southeast Asia summit without achieving much resolution
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): New Zealand extends Defence Force deployment in UK training Ukrainian soldiers
RNZ: Government extends Ukraine deployments, aid funding

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
Thomas Couglan (Herald): Resource Management Act replacement coming today
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Everybody hates the RMA, but will we be happy now? (paywalled)
Richard Harman (Politik): Parker’s big RMA changes (paywalled)

PARLIAMENT
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): The Facts don’t always tell the truth
Jonah Franke (Stuff): National candidate’s past support for ’50:50′ co-governance at odds with party line
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Te Pāti Māori slams government, opposition MPs for not backing voting reform bill
Duncan Garner (NBR): Is it possible to be all ‘Ruby Tui’ when NZ is going belly up? (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Waatea News): Labour and Te Pāti need to work together this election
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Beehive diaries: Which minister is in trouble for unparliamentary language
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Grappling with Governmental gobbledygook

POWER COMPANY PROFITS
1News: Calls for Govt intervention over excess power dividends
Herald: Big power companies delivering excess dividends in the billions, new study claims
No Right Turn: Privatisation screws the future

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT
RNZ: Inflation risks behaviour changes that make it harder to contain – economist
Liam Dann (Herald): Golden age for youth employment is being lost in storm of inflation fear (paywalled)
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): House price spikes of 2020/21 should’ve come as a warning (paywalled)
David Hargreaves (Interest): ANZ economists: It will take a ‘concerted effort’ to squash wage-price spiral dynamics ‘that are becoming ever more established’ in NZ
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Wave of sectors preparing for fair pay start date as unions gather momentum to launch bids
George Heagney (Stuff): Workers welcome lift in conditions due to Fair Pay Agreement
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Pay rise winners and losers: The industries where wages are soaring or stalling
Kiwiblog: Number of People On Benefits Over Time
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Hospital technicians fed up with less pay than admin staff
Adam Pearse (Herald): Nurse unions take Te Whatu Ora to court over pay equity settlement
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): House prices expected to drop another 10% by end of 2024, Westpac says
David Hargreaves (Interest): Wholesale interest rate prices may determine size of next RBNZ OCR hike, BNZ economists say
Michael Reddell: Reviewing monetary policy
Will Mace (NBR): Climate coalition or cartel collusion? (paywalled)

HOUSING
Anne Gibson (Herald): Kāinga Ora gets $2.75b extra borrowing capacity for state house building programme
Stephen Ward (Local Democracy Reporting): Housing Minister Megan Woods and Kāinga Ora concerned Hamilton heritage areas could curb intensification
Michael Neilson (Herald): Public housing waitlist drops for only second quarter since June 2015
Greg Ninness (Interest): The number of people on the waiting list for social housing has fallen for two consecutive quarters
Rachel Moore (Stuff): The deflating morning ritual of a school caretaker near emergency housing motels in central Hamilton
Kelly Makiha (Rotorua Daily Post): Fighting for Rotorua: Mayor calls for more police to deal with emergency housing crime
Kelvin McDonald (Te Ao – Māori News): Ngāti Whakaue celebrates new whānau homes

HEALTH
Murray Jones (BusinessDesk): Are we getting what we pay for in the health system?
Cécile Meier and Murray Jones (BusinessDesk): ‘When I got covid, all I got was two text messages’: Little on GPs
Jonty Dine (RNZ): Nearly half of NZers cannot afford dental care – new report
RNZ: Dental care: 40 percent New Zealanders can’t afford it – report
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Hundreds spending 24 hours in busy EDs: ‘Disaster waiting to happen’
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Bottle shops harder to open in rich areas – research
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Māori in rural New Zealand further from good healthcare – researcher
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Māori disproportionately impacted by drug overdoses – report
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Health inequities: Rōpū claimants meet on underfunding grievances with Crown
Kelvin McDonald (Te Ao –  Māori News): Wai 2575 claimants move step closer to resolving health underfunding grievances
Herald: ‘They are choosing to go to other places’: Overseas nurses applying for NZ work visas drops by 60 per cent

COVID-19
Herald Editorial: Three years of Covid, new study suggests caution (paywalled)
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Plan to restore MIQ if needed
Nikki Macdonald (Stuff): Covid-19 NZ: How to control a pandemic without a lockdown
RNZ: Cruise ship Covid-19 ‘no cause for alarm’

TRANSPORT
Simon Wilson (Herald): Why is a new harbour crossing back in the news? (paywalled)
Thomas Coughan (Herald): Bridge or tunnel? Government asks Aucklanders what they want for next crossing
Finn Blackwell (RNZ): New Auckland harbour crossing debate rolls on as government asks public for views
David Skipwith (Stuff): Aucklanders to have their say on harbour crossing options, including a tunnel
RNZ: Waka Kotahi’s $8b upgrade programme considers toll charges
1News: NZTA proposes sweeping state highway speed limit decreases
Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): MPs and rail activists clash on protest tactics (paywalled)

THREE WATERS
Graham Adams (The Platform): Hey presto… Three Waters becomes Five Waters!
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Explainer: MPs propose fixes to Government’s controversial water reforms (paywalled)
Andrew Dickens (Newstalk ZB): Co-governance should be the least of your worries

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Craig Ashworth (Local Democracy Reporting): Māori wards did not inspire voters: What next to boost democracy?
The Facts: Alpha-bias- surnames in the top 3 won >50% of elections*
Felix Desmarais (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua cycleway to be removed for car parks

EDUCATION
John Gerritsen (RNZ): Covid-19: Students embrace ‘bare minimum’ approach to learning after disrupted years
Alex Penk: Will today’s students still have the opportunity to learn critical thinking?
RNZ: Checkpoint: Nursing students call for paid placements – Shane Reti responds
Ella Henry (Spinoff): Busting the myths about mātauranga Māori

SPY AGENCIES, NATIONAL SECURITY
Chris Trotter: The “Us versus Them” worldview
Tom Peters: New Zealand national security briefing promotes war and censorship
RNZ: Spy agency uses ‘computer network exploitation’ to take digital information

ENVIRONMENT
Thomas Cranmer: ‘We made a National Park disappear’
Jeremy Wilkinson (Open Justice Reporting): Kiribati refugee claims climate change crisis prevents him from returning home
Mildred Armah (Stuff): Climate change a ‘fundamental’ threat to livelihood of Pacific people – report
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Māori get climate say after Shaw gaffes
Tom Powell (Stuff): Did the Government get agricultural emissions levy plan right?
Rod Oram (Newsroom): Climate summit clogged by indecision
Rod Oram (Newsroom): NZ absent on COP27 agriculture day
Gillian Blythe (Newsroom): Climate change threatens drinking water, crops, infrastructure – Water NZ
Will Harvie (Stuff): Cabinet to consider proposed refund scheme for bottles, cans before end of year
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Protestors pay $400 for bypass whenua; government says not for sale

MEDIA
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): The end of a golden era at TVNZ – and the mystery of what comes next
Gavin Ellis: Back to the future to train the next generation of journalists
Damien Venuto and Isaac Davison (Stuff): Strike action possible as Stuff and union grapple over pay (paywalled)

SPORT
Imogen Wells (Newshub): Newshub-Reid Research poll: Where New Zealanders stand on banning alcohol advertising and sponsorship in sport
Stuff: Acting PM says Black Ferns may not get a parade but ‘an event’ after World Cup win
James Perry (Te Ao – Māori News): Government mulls Black Ferns celebration
Martin Devlin (NBR): Can women’s rugby be financially sustainable? (paywalled)
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: Has Fifa learned anything from its Qatar fiasco?

OTHER
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): Productivity Commission Chairman Ganesh Nana argues that New Zealand needs a major reset of immigration policy
Sasha Borissenko (Herald): Legal aid pay rise a drop in the ocean (paywalled)
Waatea News: Judges challenged to fix bias in system
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Camera rollout an opportunity lost, says fishing industry (paywalled)
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Police investigate assaults on Auckland prisoners
Samuel Wat (RNZ): Cost of living troubles stretch animal shelters

Talks among Vanuatu political parties have started for the formation of a coalition government following Thursday’s snap election.

The talks have started as it appears that none of the political parties which contested the ballot won a simple majority in the 52-seat Parliament.

Sources from former government, and former opposition members have revealed that leaders of political parties who have won seats in Parliament following unofficial results have begun negotiations for the formation of a new government.

They said that so far both sides wanted to form a new government, but it would depend very much on the numbers that they have secured.

Ballot boxes from isolated areas in Vanuatu had not yet reached the main centres to be shipped to the capital, Port Vila.

A helicopter was yesterday still collecting the ballot boxes from isolated areas in the constituency of Santo.

According to political analysts, the lobby for the formation of a new government would not be easy because — according to the unofficial results — four former prime ministers had managed to be re-elected as members of Parliament.

They said that all four would want to be prime minister again.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

People’s National Congress party leader Peter O’Neill has blown the race for the Papua New Guinea prime minister’s job wide open by declaring he will not run for the country’s top post.

As the national election winds down and lobbying intensifies among Pangu Pati, People’s National Congress (PNC), United Resources Party (URP), People’s Progress Party (PPP) and the National Alliance (NA), the one-time prime minister O’Neill said his party would support an alternative prime minister candidate.

The bombshell from O’Neill is likely to shake up the Pangu camp on Loloata Island which contains several aspiring PM-minded politicians.

O’Neill also appealed to the elected leaders to choose a prime minister who could heal the nation from the chaos that has plunged the country into election-related violence.

He wants to focus on Ialibu-Pangia and Southern Highlands and wants to give an opportunity to those who have been elected the right way to put their hands up.

“You will have my 100 percent support and I ask nothing special in return,” the former PM said yesterday.

O’Neill had gone to the election, vying to form government but the dismal performance of his PNC party may have forced his change of heart for the top job.

Not just about O’Neill or Marape
He said that the position of prime minister should not just be about O’Neill or Marape.

“Let me make it clear. I do not believe that I have a right to be the only alternative to Marape for the prime minister position.

“It was my greatest privilege to lead Papua New Guinea, but I recognise that we need to heal and move forward, and that the restoration may move faster when leaders listen to the will of the people,” he said.

“I encourage leaders who have been elected properly and who are genuinely interested in rescuing PNG from the economic and social chaos Marape has plunged the country into over the past three years, to consider putting their hand up for the top job.

“The role of prime minister should be filled by a person who has firstly been elected with integrity — who has been mandated by the people honestly.

“It is a critical junction for our young nation, and we urgently need a Papua New Guinean who has a vision for our country and who can pull the nation together and lead us forward.

He said there was a very worrying “fake government” which had fostered deep hatred under the Marape leadership that was tearing at the cohesion that had kept the country peaceful.

‘No celebrations’
“There are no celebrations around the country despite the apparently overwhelming election of Pangu candidates,” he said.

“Very strange, no one at all seems proud of their apparent chosen leaders, rather people are scared with no one to turn to with all avenues for justice closed off to the regular person.

“The national general election has magnified the level of violence, hatred, and unfairness in society and it is time for a leader to step forward who can bring peace and execute on clear policies.

“I am prepared to support alternative prime minister candidates as I and my party are prepared to do whatever it takes to rescue PNG,” he declared in Port Moresby.

“I can assure those who may contemplate being the next prime minister, that the propaganda coming from the locked and guarded at Kalabus Pangu (Loloata Resort) is not true.

“Leaders are worried the economy is in tatters. They are asking why our economy is performing so badly that the IMF has announced that they are opening a dedicated office in Port Moresby to monitor more closely the Treasury functions.”

O’Neill said the closure of the Porgera mine and the failure to move ahead in three years with any new major investments such as Wafi Golpu, along with massive borrowings and wastage had “shredded our financial position”.

He said genuine leaders did not want another five years like the last three.

“Our children are growing up thinking this violent society is normal,” he said.

“We now seem to be in freefall economically and socially and need to use this moment in time to reset ourselves and move forward with new leadership.”

Gorethy Kenneth is a PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

That’s why we absolutely need to know who has the ear of decision-makers. And why, throughout the world at the moment, there is an increased interest in the power of corporate interests in democracies and, in particular, on the oversized influence of lobbyists in the political process.

Here in New Zealand there is a staggering example of corporate lobbying power happening – the employment by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of lobbyist GJ Thompson. It’s been an extreme case study in which a lobbyist has been given extraordinary power within a government, access to privileged information and networks, and allowed to continue to utilise this all for the vested interests who pay Thompson’s firm handsomely to get the sort of influence that a lobbyist close to the Prime Minister has.

In the case of GJ Thompson, he was literally a “corporate lobbyist running the government”. As I explained in columns last year, Thompson runs a lobbying firm, and was “seconded” by Jacinda Ardern to come into the Beehive to be her Chief of Staff and help set up the new government – see: The Government’s revolving door for lobbyists and Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics.

The problem was that Ardern hired this corporate lobbyist to come in and run the Beehive, knowing that this would involve choosing the new staff, choosing Cabinet ministers, getting access to all Cabinet papers, and then immediately returning to his lobbying firm where it would be his job to lobby these very same people and try to give corporates the inside advantage on how to influence the new Government.

This would not happen in other parts of the world – certainly not in proper liberal democracies. Such practices are normally outlawed. A conflict of interest of this kind would be labelled “corrupt”.

At the time that the Prime Minister chose to make a corporate lobbyist one of the most powerful figures in the Beehive, the public was told that the conflicts of interest would be appropriately managed. We now know that this wasn’t the case, and you can read about this in yesterday’s expose on the Spinoff website by journalist Asher Emanuel – see: Nothing to declare: new questions in lobbyist-turned-chief-of-staff saga.

This piece of investigative journalism is based on Official Information Act requests which have yielded documents about the details of the lobbyist’s employment in the Beehive and which suggest that no adequate procedures were followed to ensure lobbing conflicts of interest didn’t occur. Yes, some sort of basic contracts to try ensure probity were signed, but they appear lax, and were seemingly not followed in practice.

Emanuel says his investigation shows Thompson “appears to have failed to comply with commitments he made to disclose conflicts of interest on an ongoing basis”. This, he says, raises “questions about a breach of government rules around conduct in the public service.”

Furthermore, the official documents show that Thompson failed to reveal his lobbying clients while running the Beehive: “Neither the prime minister nor Ministerial Services were provided with a list of Thompson’s firm’s clients.”

He comments that: “Without having seen a list of the firm’s clients, and in the absence of Thompson alerting Ministerial Services to any real or potential conflicts related to clients as they arose, it is difficult to see how the prime minister’s office or Ministerial Services could identify or manage any conflict between the interests of his firm’s clients and the interests of the government.”

Not knowing what corporates Thompson was representing while working as the PM’s Chief of Staff, it’s hard to now know if there was a lobbying problem. But Emanuel says: “At least two of the firm’s known clients — Huawei and property developer Darby Partners — seem likely to have had interests affected by government policy.”

Is this a problem? Well, as the article points out, Thompson “had some involvement in the appointment over 100 staff to ministerial offices and access to all Cabinet papers, which range from mundane to critical, and from the essentially public to the literally Top Secret.” And, “After returning to his firm, Thompson’s work would include lobbying the same people he had helped hire.”

Furthermore, the article clarifies that, despite assurances from the Prime Minister that Thompson had resigned from his lobbying firm, the reality was quite different: “Companies Office records show that he did not resign his role as director. A company law expert told the Spinoff it is not possible to take a “leave of absence” from a directorship and that Thompson’s legal duty to act in the best interests of his company would have persisted during his employment as chief of staff.”

Reaction to this story in the blogosphere has been interesting. Leftwing blogger No Right Turn discusses the arrangement and labels it An invitation to corruption. This is not to suggest that anything has been untoward, but that the arrangements mean we won’t know: “While there’s no evidence he behaved corruptly in the role (because we don’t know who his clients were), ignorance isn’t a good enough standard. Our government must not only be honest – it must be seen to be so. And Thompson’s appointment and behaviour simply fails that test.”

The blogger says the Prime Minister and government officials have erred in not protecting the integrity of the political process: “Effectively Ardern and Ministerial Services left it entirely up to Thompson to identify any problems, and he didn’t. Which simply isn’t good enough. With the integrity of our government and political system on the line, I’d expect something a little more proactive – like forcing him to identify his clients, and then firewalling him from anything to do with anything they might be interested in (such as appointments to agencies they lobby).”

The Spinoff’s Alex Braae makes the case that this ongoing controversy should be taken seriously, because although “it could be seen as a minor technical matter”, “it could also be seen as symptomatic of something much wider and more concerning” – see: More questions around lobbyist’s role with Ardern admin.

He points out that Thompson’s privileged position makes him powerful, and asks: “is this how a democratic government should work?” And he’s got a good question for many of those complaining that this is a non-story: “for supporters of the government who don’t see anything to be concerned about with this – would you feel the same way if the PM in question was John Key?”

On Twitter, others have debated whether this should be taken seriously as a scandal. Morgan Godfery (@MorganGodfery) has said: “Usually when people say ‘if John Key did it the left would be outraged’ I shrug but in this case I really do think if John Key did it we’d be calling it corruption. Now we’re just shrugging (including myself, a hypocrite, btw).”

Continuing this point, National Party blogger David Farrar blogs to say: “think if the situation was reversed. Say Simon Bridges became Prime Minister and appointed Matthew Hooton as his Acting Chief of Staff for six months, with Matthew remaining a Director of Exceltium while hiring all the Beehive staff and seeing all Cabinet papers. There would be non-stop media coverage” – see: Imagine the outcry if this was a National PM’s Office.

Today in the Herald, Claire Trevett agrees with this sort of argument: “National-aligned commentators have argued that had National employed one of its friendly lobbyists in the same circumstances, there would have been a riot of raised eyebrows. They are not wrong. Key rode through such criticisms untouched, as Ardern is now doing. Such issues rarely get resonance with the wider public. That does not mean they should be ignored. Nor should they be overstated. All governments have mixed records when it comes to transparency” – see: Labour’s transparency drive falters in dance of many hats.

Trevett is also dismissive of the Prime Minister’s defence of her role in this scandal so far: “The general gist of Ardern’s defence was that Thompson was a mate of hers and so could be trusted. It highlights the difficulty politicians have in applying the ‘if the shoe was on the other foot’ test. They tend to take the assumption everybody will see the ‘other side’ as a bit dodgy, while they can get away with the same thing because they are beyond reproach.”

Jacinda Ardern and authorities are still dodging questions about their role in the arrangements. But Ardern’s main response on the issue is akin to that of John Key’s classic response to scandals, in which he would express that he was “relaxed” about the controversy – it was reported yesterday that she is “comfortable” with the arrangements – see Henry Cooke’s PM Jacinda Ardern says lobbyist chief of staff matter handled appropriately.

The article reports that “Ardern and Thompson are known to be friends.” And Ardern gives her defence about employing a lobbyist friend to run her government: “It’s not easy to find someone who has the level of knowledge and experience, of course Gordon Jon Thompson had worked in this building before and was able to take a short period of leave.”

Cooke also reports on National’s low-key response to the ongoing scandal, saying that Simon Bridges “was quite restrained in his criticism of the matter.” He justifies not campaigning on this issue by saying “National is not going to wade into every situation we see, but it does seem wrong”. Perhaps more importantly, however, the same article points out that “Wayne Eagleson, the former chief of staff to John Key and Bill English, joined the [Thompson Lewis] company after National left government.”

Yesterday, Thompson himself responded to the controversy, putting out a statement to suggest that “any potential conflicts of interests were declared and managed at the time” and that “I took a leave of absence from the firm. The arrangements made reflected the short-term nature of the role” – see Jason Walls’ PM Jacinda Ardern confident a potential conflict of interest with former chief of staff managed appropriately.

This article also reports that “He told The Herald the idea that he hadn’t done everything by the book was ‘erroneous’. Asked if he had declared his clients to Ministerial Services, Thompson did not directly answer the question, only saying: ‘I did what was required by Ministerial Services to manage the conflict’.”

Although the Green Party used to be much stronger on lobbying issues, now that they are part of the Government they have gone quiet. Instead, it’s now Act Party leader David Seymour who is alone in pushing this lobbying issue. He has been asking questions in Parliament – see Zane Small’s Jacinda Ardern facing questions over former chief of staff’s lobbyist role.

Here’s the main point: “Seymour raised the conflict of interest issue in Parliament on Thursday. He asked Ardern why she said Thompson took a leave of absence from his company during his tenure as interim chief of staff, when there’s no record of it. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, standing in for Ardern, replied: ‘On behalf of the Prime Minister, because it was and is a fact’.” Seymour has replied to this, saying “What’s really offensive here, is that the Prime Minister has said, actually he stepped down from those roles, when very clearly he didn’t”.

You can also watch Seymour’s exchange with both Winston Peters and Speaker Trevor Mallard: Question 4 – David Seymour to the Prime Minister.

This article above also cites the Cabinet Manual stating that care should be taken “to avoid creating a perception that representatives or lobbyists from any one organisation or group enjoy an unfair advantage with the government”. It points to the website of the Thompson Lewis lobbying company, which describes the firm as having “considerable understanding of Wellington and its processes, having spent significant time in senior roles in Government and Opposition, and working with the public sector”.

Finally, there’s another side to the story, from someone else with close connections to politicians and lobbyists. Bill Ralston says the “notion that the Government is being led astray by lobbyists insults its intelligence” and that as someone close to “three previous prime ministers” he can report that “there was little evidence that they listened to the well-meaning advice I gave them” – see: Stop kidding yourself, the Govt isn’t falling for spin doctors.

The most important case study of the New Zealand lobbying-politician nexus has become that of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s relationship with lobbyist GJ Thompson, who she hired for five months last year as her Chief of Staff. They are friends, she has huge trust in him, and she continues to use him as a confidante.

Her trust in Thompson is so great that Ardern reportedly involved him in choosing who to give ministerial roles to. That’s right, a lobbyist was involved in choosing who became ministers in this government and what portfolios they got. And he got paid for it. Months later he went straight back to his role as a director of his lobbying firm, free to lobby those very same ministers.

In other countries – even in Trump’s Washington – this would almost certainly result in jail time. If you think that’s hyperbole, consider the scandal if we were suddenly to learn that Trump’s first Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, had been a director and shareholder of a lobbying company drawing income from foreign and domestic clients, not disclosed to the President, while working in that role.

In contrast, here in New Zealand, anything goes. Most of the media turns a blind eye to it all, or even gives their stamp of approval to the existence of these relationships, often because the individuals involved are likable and “trustworthy”.

The particularly brazen relationship between lobbyist GJ Thompson and the Prime Minister has been examined in a new article by Newsroom’s Laura Walters, published a few days ago. It raises some important new information about the continued power of that lobbyist, by virtue of his close links with Ardern – see: Questions over relationship between PM and lobbyist.

The most important revelation to come out of this article is that when Thompson came in to help run Ardern’s government, management of his potential conflicts of interest didn’t seem to occur, despite him remaining a director of his firm Thompson Lewis.

Normally, the most basic attempt at managing these conflicts is for full disclosure to be made of any clients a lobbyist might have. But the PM’s Office confirms that the opposite actually took place: “The Prime Minister and Mr Thompson apply their rule strictly to never discuss his clients or his business”.

As an example of this, Walters reports: “it’s understood the Prime Minister did not know Huawei was a client of Thompson Lewis until her office was approached by Newsroom.”

On Friday, 1News reported Ardern’s explanation of her relationship with Thompson. The PM confirmed the lobbyist is a friend and that she doesn’t check who his clients are: “This just happens to be a case of New Zealand being small and I have an old friend who works in his own company… I already know that GJ works alongside companies external to Government. I don’t know, by in large, what those companies are” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s links with high-powered lobbyist ‘a case of New Zealand being small’.

Ardern also says Huawei is “not even a company I had any familiarity he was working with”, and “New Zealand is a small country, there will from time to time be overlap. The important thing is that we manage ourselves those conflicts. I do not discuss… nor does he discuss with me, his clients’ issues. That would be totally inappropriate.”

This is an even less convincing assurance than at the time I last covered Thompson’s controversial role in the PM’s Office in my Political Roundups last year – see: The Government’s revolving door for lobbyists and Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics. Then, the public was told that the conflicts were being “managed”. But we are now told the PM has never known who Thompson’s clients were and are, which makes this impossible. So, for example, the public might now wonder if the Prime Minister discussed relations with China, and whether Thompson passed those details onto Huawei.

Although at the time the Prime Minister’s Office claimed Thompson had temporarily stepped aside from his lobbying firm to help run the government, crucially he remained a director and shareholder of Thompson Lewis when he was Chief of Staff, with a legal obligation to act in the best interests of the company and with a legal claim on its profits.

The decision by Ardern to use a lobbyist as her most important paid adviser was always a massive problem, even with him claiming he would stand aside from his lobbying roles. You simply cannot take “leave” from these roles. And he and his mobile number remained advertised on his firm’s website as a lobbyist, while he was also Chief of Staff.

So while the Chief of Staff was apparently advising on the appointment of the Cabinet and staff, and possibly had access to all government documents from the likes of Treasury, DPMC, MFAT, SIS etc, his firm retained and profited from private clients, including foreign ones such as Huawei.

Responding to these latest revelations, senior investigative Herald journalist Matt Nippert (@MattNippert) has tweeted that “This is honestly jaw-dropping”. He asks if the Prime Minister’s Office is “really saying ignorance is a defence when handling conflicts of interest? The lines need to be clear if you don’t the Prime Minister wandering over them.”

Furthermore, Nippert complains that the Cabinet Manual, in terms of conflicts of interests, “now doesn’t seem to apply to the PM for some reason.”

Laura Walters, has also gone on RNZ to talk about why issues around lobbyists should be taken seriously: “When you’ve got your firm taking on a really sensitive client that is actively courting meetings with ministers and trying to make some big moves in there, trying to influence decisions of those ministers of the government, it does really raise some questions – especially around the disclosure of clients” – you can listen to her 10-minute discussion with Emile Donovan: PM’s connection to lobbyist raises flags.

Donovan suggests that “Someone who has worked closely in terms of actually setting up a government would be a lobbying company’s golden goose”, to which Walters says, “Absolutely”.

Walters’ article also reports on what others in the lobbying industry say about Thompson’s ongoing close relationship with the Prime Minister, with one lobbyist labelling it “totally unprecedented”. Walters reports that “Those in the industry say he is open about the influential role he played in helping pick cabinet ministers and their staff.”

She says that “in reference to the ongoing relationship, and Thompson’s movements between the Beehive and his Auckland office” other lobbyists are uneasy. Although others seem to like and trust Thompson, the lack of rules and procedure in these types of close lobbyist-politician relationships weren’t enough, “especially when it came to transparency and avoiding unwanted accusations of corruption.”

The Prime Minister’s Office responded to concerns raised by Walters about Thompson, saying that “Mr Thompson does not offer any professional advice to the Prime Minister, however like many of her long-term acquaintances, the Prime Minister seeks out Mr Thompson as a sounding board from time to time”.

Herald political editor Audrey Young included Thompson in her profile of “the special crew that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern turns to most often” – see: Meet Jacinda Ardern’s inner circle – the people she relies on most (paywalled).

Here’s Young’s entry about Thompson: “Gordonjon (GJ) Thompson was a press secretary for Helen Clark at the same time that Ardern worked for Clark, but their relationship was forged in Opposition when Ardern was a first-term MP.  Thompson had moved with Labour to Opposition in 2008, first as Phil Goff’s chief press secretary and later his chief of staff.  He left to take up public relations roles with Fonterra and Sky City then set up his own PR company with David Lewis, another former press secretary to Helen Clark, and later Wayne Eagleson, the long-serving chief of staff to former Prime Minister John Key. Thompson spent five months as Ardern’s chief of staff in the early days of Government, helping with the transition to Government before deciding to return to Auckland to run Thompson Lewis.”

Some in the media agree with the Prime Minister that there is no need for questions to be asked about Thompson and the unregulated nature of New Zealand’s lobbying industry in general. For example, on Saturday the Dominion Post published an editorial in support of Ardern and Thompson – see: Lobbying – trust in the system, but maintain a close watch. The editorial says Thompson’s relationship is on a par with “almost five million lobbyists in this country” and we are all free to see MPs and “chew their ears” on issues we feel passionate about.

However, there is likely to be ongoing concern about the precedent set by Ardern in the various ways she has utilised her lobbyist friend. As an example, on the Reddit social media site, one person with apparent expertise in handling potential conflicts of interest discusses the Walters article, and argues that it should be investigated by the Auditor General – see: Questions over relationship between PM Jacinda Ardern and high-powered lobbyist.

That person also explains what measures should have been taken when the lobbyist was employed by Ardern: “As a minimum I would expect to see: A list of all clients he represents; A risk assessment of where those clients deliver to government and to what portfolios; A review of the work he was doing; A management plan; A deed of confidentiality for him and his company; A plan detailing how he could firewall information (which in reality he couldn’t). The acid test for COI is really is there a fiduciary interest and since he is being paid by his clients to lobby there is one.”

Finally, there is some good news about lobbying transparency, with the release last week of the first batch of records of who ministers have been meeting with. For the best coverage of this, see Tim Watkin and Kate Newton’s Ministerial diaries: Who influences those in power? It’s worth noting that one of the lobbyists who “stands out” as meeting with Ministers more than most is “former press secretary for Helen Clark, David Lewis”, who is the business partner of GJ Thompson.

Debate about the role of corporate lobbying in New Zealand’s political process continues in 2019. Political commentator and newly-declared lobbyist Mike Williams was at the centre of a minor dispute over the influence of lobbyists in New Zealand last week.

The debate arose out of story on RNZ’s Checkpoint about the battle over Lime scooters on the streets of Auckland, in which it was revealed that Williams, who is a former Labour Party president, now mostly known as a political commentator, had been hired by the US-scooter company to help negotiate with the New Zealand politicians and officials regulating transport issues in this country. You can see this here: Lime told to prove safety of e-scooters, or remove them.

According to RNZ, “former Labour Party president and lobbyist Mike Williams had smoothed the way for the Lime roll out. Mr Williams confirmed to Checkpoint that he was paid by Lime to introduce their representatives to Auckland Transport staff and another key contact – Transport Minister Phil Twyford.” The chair of the Auckland Transport Agency, Lester Levy, is interviewed about this, responding that “I’m quite uncomfortable with many aspects of this”.

Subsequently, the Herald’s Chris Keall asked for comment on Williams lobbying role, and I responded that it should “alarm anyone with an interest in defending democracy and good political processes in New Zealand” – see: Mike Williams’ lobbying work for Lime alarming: academic.

My argument is this: “It seems that Williams has many different roles in New Zealand politics, and we now know that one of these roles involves working for corporate interests – and that company has clearly benefitted from Williams’ insider knowledge and contacts, which it now appears he is using to make money out of”.

I outline how this type of activity is seriously frowned upon in other parts of the world, as unfair and bad for the political process: “In many democracies, they call this the ‘revolving door’ of influence – whereby political insiders shift easily between government jobs or positions and lobbying work in the private sector. It’s seen to cause serious inequalities of power – because lobbyists and their clients are able to get more influence and power due to their connections and backgrounds. They can easily get ‘behind the scenes’ in ways that ordinary people can’t.”

On Thursday Newstalk ZB broadcaster Mike Hosking responded in one of his “Mike’s minute” videos, colourfully suggesting that I was over-reacting: “settle down Bryce, you sound like you have a sieve on your head, and you think the aliens are coming” – see: Supposed conflicts of interest in the limelight.

Hosking argues that New Zealand is “one of the most clean, clear, and uncorrupted economies in the world” and that “What we really need to be worried about is the quality of decision-making. No matter who rings who, who sets up meetings with whoever, the real issue is: are the decisions good, honest and sensible?”

For Hosking, arguments over conflicts of interest are too esoteric, and we must accept there will always be powerful political players shifting between roles: “Bryce has been reading too many conspiracy theories, he’s too wrapped up in the cloistered world of academia, and its many weird and wonder fantastical theories about how life is supposed to be operating versus how it really operates. There are Mike Williams type figures all over business and politics – and always have been. Politicians who go to the private sector, do they have a conflict of interest? Former prime ministers on boards, from Jim Bolger, to Sir Michael Cullen, to Dame Jenny Shipley, to Sir John Key – do they have a conflict of interest?  Former government press secretaries who move into the corporate world with their contacts and knowledge – do they have a conflict of interest?”

Well, yes, they do have potential conflicts of interests, actually. And I’ve written extensively about problems with former politicians, political commentators and journalists being involved in lobbying. Columns over the last year include: Vested interests in political commentary, The Government’s revolving door for lobbyists, Unfettered lobbyists under suspicion, and The stealthy power of lobbying in New Zealand.

One of the main points of these columns is how conflicts of interest are not fleeting, but enduring – just because an individual leaves one position of influence before going onto another doesn’t mean that conflicts of interest suddenly dissolve. And, furthermore, the lobbying problems can be worse when they involve opinion leaders in the media, and especially if these aren’t thoroughly declared.

Of course, Hosking is no stranger to complaints about conflicts of interest, and it’s likely this has influenced his view on lobbying. Back in 2012 Hosking was revealed to have received $48,000 from Auckland’s SkyCity Casino, during which time he wrote articles defending the company. And in 2013 he was the master of ceremonies for Prime Minister John Key’s state of the nation speech, which he strongly endorsed.

Hosking’s 2019 views on lobbying are reminiscent of those expressed last year by the Herald’s John Roughan in the wake of the controversy over then-Broadcasting Minister Clare Curran holding an undeclared and inappropriate meeting with RNZ’s Carol Hirschfeld, both of whom lost their jobs over the matter because of concerns about political process. Roughan responded to the controversy by declaring this an example of “intimate democracy” working well – see: Lobbying today oils the wheels of power for the better.

Roughan argues that politicians “in this country they are not corrupt” and the intimate working relationship of business, politicians and lobbyists “means people in powerful or influential roles get to know each other and can work with those whose professionalism, skills and judgment they respect”.

He argues that such an intimate and efficient democracy “could be undermined by” those arguing for “monastic purity”, especially “political academics who work in just such a rarefied environment, dealing with written research and theoretical propositions rather than people outside their bubble”. He worries that this “feeds the crude suspicion that any confidential meeting with a minister must be a conspiracy against the public interest.”

Roughan and Hosking’s worries about the public becoming suspicious of lobbyists is probably far too late. There is clearly a public discomfort building about inequality of power in politics, and about insiders having their fingers in too many pies.
Many countries (Australia, Canada, France, US, Denmark, Austria, France, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Taiwan and Hungary) have compulsory registers of lobbyists, while others (UK, Germany and the EU) have voluntary registers and are under pressure to make them compulsory. New Zealand simply has no formal mechanisms for transparency.

It doesn’t mean that the likes of Mike Williams can’t be both paid lobbyists and political commentators, but unless they declare these roles or are outed by other media, the public simply never knows. Do listeners know when they listen to Williams on RNZ’s Nine-to-Noon programme that he is also a corporate lobbyist? Would they benefit from knowing this and who he is lobbying on behalf of?

It’s the conflicts of interests we don’t find out about that are the bigger problem, and if he and RNZ won’t declare these sorts of interests, then New Zealand, like many other countries, needs to make sure that information is available.

Of course, there will always be political insiders who have crucial positions inside the democratic establishment, who then leverage their former positions, knowledge and contacts in the future as lobbyists. This shouldn’t necessarily be prevented. But some transparency wouldn’t go amiss. Knowing more about how central some lobbyist-commentators are to the political process is useful to understanding how modern democracy works.

It also worth noting that the politician who is responsible for providing lobbyists with free access to Parliament, Speaker Trevor Mallard, also climbed into the Mike Williams controversy a few days ago. Mallard, who is a former colleague of Williams, published a number of aggressive tweets defending Williams and strongly admonishing my position.

This earned a rebuke from Tau Henare that in his role as Speaker Mallard ought to stand above the fray. And the Herald’s Chris Keall, who wrote the original piece covering the controversy said: “Our of order, Mr Speaker. More transparency is always better. @bryce_edwards’ reference to a register of lobbying activity (as in the US and many other countries) will appeal to anyone who wants to know who’s greasing govt wheels for Lime, big pharma, Fonterra etc etc”.

Continued doubts about the role of lobby groups and corporates in the public process have been raised in a number of recent media articles. On Friday, for example, it was revealed that the New Zealand China Council, which is mostly funded by government departments, also receives resources from the national airline: “A lobby group focused on keeping New Zealand onside with China has received more than $1.5 million in taxpayer funding since 2016 and gets ‘travel funding’ from Air New Zealand to fly regularly to China” – see: John Anthony’s Air New Zealand gives handouts to taxpayer funded lobby group New Zealand China Council.

In terms of the current debate over capital gains tax proposals, there is also a suspicion that wealthy lobby groups have an unfair advantage in defeating the ideas – see Damien Venuto’s How lobby groups stole the capital gains tax debate.

In this article, Massey University public relations specialist Chris Galloway is quoted: “A problem with public relations more generally is that the people who can afford to pay for its services tend to be the business elite… Your average community group might use PR techniques but doesn’t have the money to pay for expert advice. The danger of it is that the people with the deepest pockets get the most say.”

There are ongoing suspicions, too, about the influence of “film heavyweight Sir Peter Jackson” on the political process. Last year Jackson managed to get the Government “to reject official advice recommending surging taxpayer support for the sector be curbed” – see Matt Nippert’s recent article: PM Jacinda Ardern canned film subsidy curbs after meeting Peter Jackson.

And a prominent lobby group has also been in the news because it’s partially funded by British American Tobacco: “A right-wing lobbying group which has railed against cigarette tax increases and plain packaging laws in New Zealand counts a tobacco giant among its corporate funders. The NZ Taxpayers’ Union has not disclosed its financial support from tobacco companies in its reports or press releases, with one public health academic calling on it to be more transparent about its donors” – see Sam Sachdeva’s Taxpayers’ Union backed by tobacco giant.

Sachdeva labels it an “egregious lack of transparency”, especially for an organisation whose motto is “lower taxes, less waste, more transparency” – see: Tobacco ties undermine Taxpayers’ Union. But he believes that the revelation will damage the organisation: “With the Taxpayers’ Union digging in over the secrecy of its donors, media and the public will struggle to take its work at face value when there could be industry money funding (at least in part) any piece of research. While only time will tell, its credibility may have suffered fatal damage.”

Earlier this year, the NBR ran a three-part series on lobbyists by journalist Nathan Smith, involving interviews with three leading participants in the industry. The most interesting was former Labour Party Chief of Staff, Neale Jones who now works as a lobbyist helping business deal with the Labour-led Government – see: Lobbying is a key ingredient in democracy, Hawker Britton says (paywalled). See my Political Roundup outlining the problems with Jones working at a very senior level in Labour one week and for a lobbying firm the next here: The rise of the hyper-partisan lobbyists in Wellington.

As to the “revolving door” issue of whether there needs to be a “cooling down” period for politicians and senior officials like Jones before they take up lobbying jobs in the private sector, Jones isn’t keen, because “people need to make a living and have jobs and, when you’ve worked in Parliament, there are only so many places you can work afterward.” The article comments that this is “because the status quo seems to be working for him”.

Overall, Jones speaks very favourably about the role of the lobbying business in democracy, and points out: “lobbying represents a crucial gear in the machinery of democracy as it improves access to lawmakers for those hoping to both keep them honest and offer their opinion on proposed regulations or legislation. The government doesn’t always understand business and business doesn’t always understand the government”. And the role is crucial, because “Often, a small change in legislation will have millions of dollars of impact on a business.”

According to another new lobbyist, Holly Bennett, who has shifted from working under the previous National Government to advising business interests, the power of her contacts are vital, and business shouldn’t “under-rate personal contact” with politicians. The article reports: “Bennett says without her time spent working in the Ministry of Justice and other ministerial services, she wouldn’t have the access to MPs her clients need” – see: Lobbying is about navigating a ‘vast bureaucracy,’ says Holly Bennett (paywalled).

Finally, for the latest academic research into lobbying and its regulation in New Zealand, see: Grease or sand in the wheels of democracy? The market for lobbying in New Zealand by Thomas Anderson and Simon Chapple of Victoria University of Wellington. They examine who currently is doing the lobbying, and conclude that there is a need “to shine a brighter light on a currently shadowy industry which has significant long-term potential to corrode the integrity of the democratic process.”