Transparency Times January 2020

From the Chair

Suzanne Snively Transparency International New Zealand

Suzanne Snively
Transparency International New Zealand

Good news to start the year 2020! The New Zealand public sector and judiciary are again ranked at Number 1 on the Transparency International Corruptions Perceptions Index (TI-CPI). (See next article)

The TI-CPI was established in 1995 and New Zealand has always been one of the Top 4 countries. It is important to acknowledge the role of the public sector and judiciary in maintaining New Zealand’s top TI-CPI score.

Consider the impact on other sectors of the economy. For example:

  • The absence of corruption is reflected in lower prices and greater disposable income for households

  • A reputation for a trusted public sector eases access to international trading opportunities, in this way developing bigger export markets

  • Bigger export markets increase business returns resulting in a larger tax base. This, in turn, assists New Zealand’s economy to deliver well-being to the wider population.

The Trade for All Advisory Board (TFAAB) circulated a report for comment before Christmas. They recommend specific policies to advance the Government’s objective of making trade policy work for all New Zealanders.

TFABB members agree on the need for our country to lift its trade performance. While exports as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) have been growing rapidly in the rest of the world, exports have been in long-term decline in New Zealand since early in the 21st century.

According to the TFAAB Report, “New Zealand’s productivity ultimately depends on having the right policy settings domestically in order to deliver higher, more sustainable, standards of living and better jobs…”. Addressing export decline is a key component.

There are important interconnections between transparency, productivity, sustainability and inclusiveness.

Improved export returns will assist the great transformation requirements of the 21st century, especially climate change and rapid technological change.

The TFABB is unanimous that the Government’s objective of maximising the opportunities and minimising the risks around trade agreements will produce a virtuous cycle: “better engagement with stakeholders leading to better information; better information leading to better analysis; better analysis leading both to better policy and a firmer basis for future communication and…better overall outcomes”.

Building the number of export capable companies of all sizes is the primary challenge to improving New Zealand’s export performance.

The Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council has recommended that the Government take a serious review of its offshore investment models. Increasing trade and export returns requires stronger strategic initiatives led by Government. A more proactive approach is needed to the identification of sectors with comparative advantage and working to create scale.

Our public sector’s top TI-CPI ranking provides a clear signal that New Zealand is good to do business with. In a modern globalised world, an authentic and demonstrated reputation for integrity is a primary success factor, and a competitive advantage.

A Government serious about increasing trade returns as a means of improving prosperity and well-being, can get started right now on promoting New Zealand exporters and tourism companies. Our world leading reputation for public sector integrity is a key benefit to promote.

Suzanne Snively, ONZM


Transparency International New Zealand Inc.

New Zealand tops the 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index

The New Zealand public sector and judiciary has again been ranked the least corrupt in the world.

The Corruption Perceptions Index released today by Transparency International (a global anti-corruption organisation), ranks New Zealand first equal with Denmark, with a score of 87 out of 100.

Compiled annually, this index ranks countries worldwide by perceived levels of public sector corruption.

Over the past eight years New Zealand has vied with Denmark and Finland to be the first-ranked country with the least corrupt public sector.

Last year New Zealand came second to Denmark. Its score stayed at 87 out of 100 while Denmark dropped from 88 to 87.

The Chair of Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ), Suzanne Snively says there is much to celebrate about our trustworthy public service high ranking.

“We know fraud and bribery exists in New Zealand, and we see instances of this happening in central and local government. But we also know that when it is found out, serious wrongdoing is investigated and prosecuted. That is one of our strengths.

“Another strength is our multiple ways of deterring and detecting public sector wrongdoing. Our score would further improve if more resources were provided to oversight organisations like the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and local government, for their promotion of good conduct, and detection and prevention of corruption.”

The global focus of the Corruption Perceptions Index this year is political integrity. Snively says that the 2020 national election provides a good opportunity to shine light on political integrity in New Zealand. “We must have high expectations of our national and local politicians. Any behaviour that tries to circumvent the electoral rules undermines the public’s trust in politicians. It is also important to actively oppose the cynical manipulation of social media, as recently seen in the United Kingdom and the United States. A healthy democracy needs active public awareness and involvement.”

TINZ has been arguing for a parliamentary code of conduct. “We expect more transparency around lobbying of MPs. And we think there is more that can be done to reduce the influence of funding from vested interests on political outcomes.”

Internationally there are many examples of grand corruption involving senior parliamentarians or government officials. Recently corruption in Malaysia, Brazil, Sudan, the Republic of Congo and Mozambique has been exposed. Such corruption results in large scale deprivation for the population. Avoiding this requires both good integrity systems and strong-willed citizens.

“New Zealand has a number of good checks and balances on those who hold power. We have an independent and effective judiciary and we uphold the rule of law. We have strong interest in national elections. A country that has strong integrity systems and active participation of citizens is much more likely to be able to prevent and detect political corruption,” notes Snively.

The Corruption Perceptions Index is an excellent tool for raising visibility to issues of international corruption. It is used worldwide for supporting trade and business decisions, directly helping New Zealand business’ bottom line. New Zealand’s businesses benefit from reduced corruption risk for better market access and ease of doing business.

New Zealanders as a whole, benefit because our high Corruption Perceptions Index ranking, endorses our values of integrity and fairness.

It is imperative that we continue to improve our public sector integrity, and not let our score slip. We know the value of integrity to our business and our social wellbeing. All New Zealanders will experience enduring benefits of enhanced wellbeing if our government can avoid complacency by continuing to improve on our top of world anti-corruption performance.

For additional information and links visit the TINZ Corruption Perceptions Index page.

2019 Corruption Perceptions Index World Map highlighting New Zealand
2019 Corruption Perceptions Index World Map highlighting New Zealand

Money in Politics

The 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index: highlights

This year Transparency International (TI), the global anti-corruption organisation, analysed the relationship between politics, money and corruption, including the impact of campaign finance regulations and how money influences political power and elections.

Keeping big money out of politics is essential to ensure political decision-making serves the public interest and curbs opportunities for corrupt deals. TI’s research highlights the relationship between politics, money and corruption. Unregulated flows of big money in politics also make public policy vulnerable to undue influence.

  • “When policy-makers listen only to wealthy or politically connected individuals and groups, they often do so at the expense of the citizens they serve.”

  • Within the Asia-Pacific region “Even in democracies, such as Australia and India, unfair and opaque political financing and undue influence in decision-making and lobbying by powerful corporate interest groups, result in stagnation or decline in control of corruption.”

  • Countries in which elections and political party financing are open to undue influence from vested interests are less able to combat corruption, analysis of the results finds.

  • The outsized roles that some companies play in their national economies gives them political support that too often triumphs over real accountability.

“Frustration with government corruption and lack of trust in institutions speaks to a need for greater political integrity,” said Delia Ferreira Rubio, Chair of TI. “Governments must urgently address the corrupting role of big money in political party financing and the undue influence it exerts on our political systems.”

New Zealand and political integrity

Transparency of political party funding is essential to provide clarity about who is influencing decision making.

The lack of transparency in political party and campaign funding is putting New Zealand’s reputation for strong integrity at serious risk. It erodes trust in our elected representatives, degrades our financial well-being, and impacts on our society and how it works together.

Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ)’s recent report Building accountability: Summary of the National Integrity System Assessment 2018 Update found evidence of serious accumulating threats to the integrity of political party funding. It notes that recently there has been little progress towards more transparency in Parliament and its administration (a key recommendation in 2013) and that the problem of political party funding has grown more acute rather than being addressed.

“Make no mistake about it: despite New Zealand’s reputation for low corruption and high quality civil service, the country is surprisingly vulnerable to capture by monied interests”, conclude guest authors Maria Armoudian and Timothy Kuhner,  refer to Is New Zealand becoming a plutocracy? (November 2019 Transparency Times).

They note generally:

“Research has shown that the great majority of funds available to campaigns, parties, and interest groups are provided by a tiny sliver of the population. Approximately 0.5% of the adult population controls the market for campaign funds. About 0.0001% of the adult population controls superPAC (Political Action Committee) spending. The great majority of lobbying activity favours big business interests.”

“This oligarchy denigrates and corrupts democracy by its insidious influence, degrading core values — such as political equality, citizen participation and trust, government representation, responsiveness and integrity. The resulting laws and policies — as political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page have shown — serve the rich, often to the detriment of the rest of the country, creating a downward spiral toward plutocracy and climate crisis.”

“Researchers who wish to document the fundraising base and economic backers of the major parties, can’t even get a foothold because of the incredibly weak disclosure rules. Under such conditions, it’s all too predictable that this country’s reputation as one of the least corrupt in the world is poised to decline. More important than our reputation for high quality civil service and integrity, we risk losing the actual reality of good government.”

Political financing is a national and local issue in New Zealand

Our recent general election cycle highlighted that the issue of political financing is a local issue as well as a national issue.

Local body political candidates appear to think that the public is only interested in local body services and rates that directly impact on their households and communities. Only due to media coverage did candidates become aware that there was public interest in their sources of campaign funding.

The Auckland Transport case is a recent example of the negative way corruption can impact local communities. This case was prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office.

Strong integrity systems that inspect, detect, prevent and protect against corruption are essential if our local communities are to thrive. Strong local government integrity systems lead to better public services and attract population growth that results in lower rates per household.

Transparency International’s recommendations

To reduce corruption and restore trust in politics, TI recommends that governments:

  • Reinforce checks and balances and promote separation of powers

  • Tackle preferential treatment to ensure budgets and public services aren’t driven by personal connections or biassed towards special interests

  • Control political financing to prevent excessive money and influence in politics

  • Manage conflicts of interest and address “revolving doors”

  • Regulate lobbying activities by promoting open and meaningful access to decision-making

  • Strengthen electoral integrity and prevent and sanction misinformation campaigns

  • Empower citizens and protect activists, whistleblowers and journalists.

TINZ’s recommendations

In its report Building accountability: Summary of the National Integrity System Assessment 2018 Update TINZ recommends that  priority be given to:

  1. Strengthening the transparency, integrity and accountability systems of Parliament. Particular attention to be paid to: extending the coverage of the Official Information Act; introducing a code of conduct for members of Parliament; requiring publication of all members’ appointment diaries; and providing greater transparency around lobbying of members of Parliament and ministers.

  2. Achieving greater transparency in the appointment process for statutory boards.

  3. Reviewing public funding of political parties, including: (i) allocation of broadcasting time to political parties and the restrictions on parties purchasing their own broadcast election advertising; and (ii) requiring greater transparency of the finances of political parties, including donations.

True democratic governance for New Zealand

Maria Armoudian and Timothy Kuhner offer options to improve New Zealand’s democratic governance.

“New Zealand has a number of options to correct its course.  Whether New Zealand takes a cue from more successful models or blazes a trail of its own, true democratic governance requires a few features:

  1. At the most fundamental level, New Zealanders need access to greater transparency. With much more rigorous reporting requirements and publicly available political funding information, voters would have vital information they need to make decisions. Reports with detailed campaign contributions from $100 upwards and lobbying information, can be placed real-time, when received, into a user-friendly searchable website at the Electoral Commission

  2. An outright ban on foreign contributions to candidates and parties prevents improper influence from interest groups outside our borders, or skewing our policies to favour another country 

  3. Hard limits on contributions to candidates and parties or other politically active groups, help to level the playing field as do outright bans on contributions from organisations such as corporations

  4. Ethical requirements for lobbying including prohibitions on gifts and limitations on revolving doors help prevent access inequalities and more fair representation within our own borders.”

Trouble at the top

Top scoring countries on the CPI are not immune to corruption. While the CPI shows these public sectors to be among the cleanest in the world, corruption still exists, particularly in cases of money laundering and other private sector corruption.

However, integrity at home does not always translate into integrity abroad, and multiple scandals in 2019 demonstrated that transnational corruption is often facilitated, enabled and perpetuated by seemingly clean countries.

Despite some high-profile fines and prosecutions, our research shows that enforcement of foreign bribery laws among OECD countries is shockingly low. The outsized roles that some companies play in their national economies gives them political support that too often triumphs over real accountability. Some banks and businesses aren’t just too big to fail – they’re also too powerful to pay fines. Anti-money laundering supervision and sanctions for breaches are often disjointed and ineffective.

The CPI highlights where stronger anti-corruption efforts are needed across the globe. It emphasises where businesses should show the greatest responsibility to promote integrity and accountability, and where governments must eliminate undue influence from private interests that can have a devastating impact on sustainable development.

Multiple scandals in 2019 demonstrated that transnational corruption is often facilitated, enabled and perpetuated by seemingly clean Nordic countries.

For example in Iceland (78), one of the largest fishing conglomerates, Samherji, allegedly bribed government officials in Namibia for rights to massive fishing quotas. Many of the funds ended up in accounts of a Norwegian state-owned bank, DNB.

In Sweden (85) telecoms giant, Ericsson, agreed to pay more than US$1 billion to settle a foreign bribery case over its sixteen-year-long cash-for-contracts campaign.

In Denmark (87) following the Danske Bank scandal, major banks like Swedbank in Sweden and Deutsche Bank in Germany (80) were investigated for their role in handling suspicious payments from high-risk non-resident clients.

The outsized roles that some companies play in their national economies gives them political support that too often triumphs over real accountability.

While the CPI highlights where stronger anti-corruption efforts are needed in the public sector, it also emphasises where businesses should show greater responsibility to promote integrity and accountability and where governments should eliminate undue influence.

For additional information and links visit the TINZ Corruption Perceptions Index page.

New Zealand’s CPI score

Corruption Perceptions Index Top Ranking Countries 2019-2012
Corruption Perceptions Index Top Ranking Countries 2019-2012

New Zealand’s historic CPI performance

As the chart above shows, since 2012 New Zealand and Denmark have consistently ranked as the least corrupt public sectors in the world.

The current top countries have continued to be in the leading group year after year. This points to advantages in managing corruption for small industrial states with fewer than ten million people. A common feature is that these are without state or provincial governments.

What is special for New Zealand is that we continue to be at or close to the head of this group.

While maintaining top rankings, these countries have experienced generally declining scores. The slight downward trend in CPIs score is statistically insignificant. It is as likely to be a variation in the methodology as it is a real or perceived increase in corruption.

A score under 90, however, is a warning for public officials to remain diligent in resisting corruption and strive to strengthen our protections against it. 

A high CPI score correlates with economic growth

Studies published in 2007 and 2008 in The European Physical Journal found that countries and territories with higher CPI rankings were more likely to experience increased long-term economic growth, and that they experienced GDP increases of 1.7% for every point added to their CPI score. The higher a country or territory’s CPI ranking, the higher that state’s rates of foreign investment. Therefore, corruption has been found to have a negative impact on a nation or territory’s economy.

The CPI World Wide

Trade economics

The CPI is rigorously reported on and relied upon by investors and international financial traders. Examples include:

  • Trading
  • weforum
  • OECD

Trade relationships

Corruption has been identified as a major impediment to free trade and investment. European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade is now seeking anti corruption provisions in trade agreements.

Measuring wellbeing and culture

The CPI also fits well within our wellbeing framework, and is a measure under the Social capital domain of the framework. Knowing that we have a high reputation for low corruption in the public service has a positive social effect:

  • Reinforces social values of integrity and fairness
  • Important evidence for value of democracy
  • Important tool to counterbalance growing mistrust of public services
  • Sets a benchmark for business and NGO
  • Trustworthy annual external benchmark for Is a mark of pride for public sector

CPI and our trading partners

The table below shows New Zealand’s major trading partners ordered by trading volume. It further highlights the need for diligence on the part of New Zealand in our trade relationships. Whilst some are making efforts to control corruption, many are well below half of our score, and some like The United Kingdom, United States of America and Canada have dropped down in rank and score.

For additional information and links visit the TINZ Corruption Perceptions Index page.

2019 Corruption Perceptions Index infographics

This article contains a number of infographics that highlight the results and findings of the 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index, both internationally and as it relates to New Zealand.

These infographics are free to use unmodified under a creative commons licence. Please credit Transparency International or Transparency International New Zealand depending on item.

Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 Summary - Reducing money in politics and inclusive decision-making are essential to curbing corruption
Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 Summary – Reducing money in politics and inclusive decision-making are essential to curbing corruption.
2019 Corruption Perceptions Index World Map and Scores
2019 Corruption Perceptions Index Asia Pacific Region Map
2019 Corruption Perceptions Index Asia Pacific Region Map
Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 What can you do infographic
Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 What can you do infographic
Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 top and bottom infographic
Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 top and bottom infographic
Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 recommendations to stop corruption
Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 recommendations to stop corruption

Video – Corruption Perceptions Index Explained

Featured Video Play Icon

Video Produced by Transparency International

“The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) was established in 1995 as a composite indicator used to measure perceptions of corruption in the public sector in different countries around the world. During the past 20 years, both the sources used to compile the index and the methodology have been adjusted and refined. In 2012, important changes were made to the methodology to allow for score comparison across time, which was not possible prior to 2012.

The methodology follows four basic steps: selection of source data, rescaling source data, aggregating the rescaled data and then reporting a measure for uncertainty. The calculation process also incorporates a strict quality control mechanism which consists of parallel independent data collection and calculations conducted by two inhouse researchers and two academic advisors with no affiliation to Transparency International.”

From Transparency International’s YouTube Channel. #TransparencyInternational #Corruption #CPI2019

Learn more:

Can political corruption be averted in New Zealand?

TINZ Staff

New Zealand’s political party funding rules and governance need an overhaul, as is further evidenced by recent revelations about political parties’ funding. Legal, but ethically questionable examples exist. One is the $150,000 donation to the National Party from a New Zealand-domiciled but entirely foreign-owned company (note: the Serious Fraud Office has been investigating that and will make an announcement about its investigation in the coming weeks). Another example is the New Zealand First Foundation backed by wealthy investors which funds the political party.

Less questionable but still relevant is the tradition of political fundraising by successive governments, involving high-fee functions for businesspeople to meet the Prime Minister of the day and their colleagues. 

Valued fourth estate

New Zealanders have been regularly reminded of the need for this overhaul due to New Zealand having one of the freest media in the world.  Allegations of fund splitting and at-risk sources of funding, including overseas billionaires and possible foreign governments, have plagued our political process. We are fortunate to have an active and courageous fourth estate that challenges irregularities and helps us to avoid cases of grand corruption. 

A challenge with the media, though, is that it lacks resources. As a result, the media can be quick to cover a headline story. The deeper series of articles required to bring about real change are harder to maintain in a resource-limited media business. Any serious review of political party funding needs to include a media policy.

Legal reform needed for political party funding

Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ)’s Integrity Plus 2013 New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment  strongly recommended a complete review of the funding of political parties and candidates’ campaigns. TINZ has re-emphasised this need in its Building Accountability: National Integrity System Assessment 2018 Update.”

Political parties claim nothing illegal has been done. While this may be the case, there are plenty of factors to suggest investigation is needed if only to confirm the legality of what was done. In progressing its investigation, the Electoral Commission has found it has limited powers for collecting the evidence required for an investigation (and hence for enforcement).

Current practices challenged by the media and public, may prove to be legal. This confirms that a review of the laws is very timely. While particular funding practices are claimed to be perfectly legal under current laws, they beg the question as to why the public continues to be perturbed when such issues emerge.   

Legal or not, we expect higher standards from our leaders

In the spirit of “Noblesse Oblige”, the test of what is required and expected from those who lead a country sets higher thresholds than simply complying with the law.  It is reasonable to expect that those who lead should have the understanding and sense to act morally beyond the laws of the land, and lead by example.

These current examples raise pertinent questions about the thresholds of duties that should be expected, especially where one of the key actors is an appointed judicial professional. “Tone at the top” is recognised to be a major driver and indicator of behaviours throughout an organisation. Leaders, whether political or public sector, are expected to set the ethical direction for others to emulate and aspire to. 

It may be timely for political parties to start emulating the same governance standards they have collectively demanded from the private sector, as enshrined in increasingly stringent legislation globally and in New Zealand. For example, procurement splitting – analogous to split party funding – and excessive entertainment expenses in return for favours, can lead to charges of fraud, corruption or other misconduct. These would certainly lead to heavy sanctions in a corporate environment.

Codes for guidance

If all political parties had a Code of Ethics, their stated commitments to higher moral standards would build public trust (as well as political support). Furthermore, formal Codes of Conduct would guide the behaviour of their party members, including rules around accepting funds, gifts and invitations to social events and entertainment. And once political parties have these codes, they can provide assurance that these are adhered to and regularly reviewed.

It may also be an opportunity for private sector donors to not only provide funding to influence the direction of political debate and decision making, but also to influence the standards to which our political parties and officers should aspire to rise.

Recent political expediency

Parliament took urgency on 4 December 2019 to reform party donations laws. The Electoral Amendment Act (No.2) lowers the threshold of disclosure for foreign donations from $1,500 to $50.

Most regrettably, it has been widely condemned across the political spectrum as being ineffective for ignoring many loopholes. For example, opaque political funding sourced from companies, trusts or foundations, has not been addressed to make more transparent.

Furthermore, the anti-democratic urgency accorded this legislation is poorly justified. It was argued, if this is to meet the convention whereby changes to election rules should not be made in the actual year of an election.  

For broad commentary on the Electoral Amendment Act (No.2), refer to Political Roundup: What’s driving the urgent clamp down on foreign donations? (Bryce Edwards, 4 Dec 2019)

Promise to Practice: Anti-corruption global pledge tracker

In November, Transparency International UK launched the updated Anti-Corruption Pledge Tracker. This global Tracker monitors the progress of the commitments made by governments at the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit held in London.

It is common for country leaders to move on to their next challenge, even when the last has not yet been completed. The global body, Transparency International (TI), makes a strong case for the pledges to continue to be a focus of governments. TI regularly scrutinises governments to ensure accountability in their fulfilment of those promises, suitably maintained for relevance. 

For the past three years, TI has been tracking progress of anti-corruption commitments made at the Summit through Transparency International UK (TIUK)’s Promise to Practice Project

Civil society’s role in picking up the baton and ensuring countries are held accountable has proven to be vital. This is because governments that attended the London Summit at then Prime Minister David Cameron’s invitation, did not adopt any formal mechanism for implementation of the Summit commitments.

Three years of pledge tracking have identified big trends in the progress of commitments related to certain themes such as beneficial ownership or asset recovery, as well as identifying specific country case studies and lessons learned.  This is written up in a report Advocacy in Action”

Together with 21 countries worldwide, Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) supported TIUK in collecting data for their innovative and interactive global pledge tracker. Monitoring 170 commitments towards #anticorruption and compiling the data, provides informative stories of #AdvocacyInAction!  

Of the countries whose pledges are being tracked, 45% of commitments to whistleblower protection are completed and overall, 31% of all commitments are completed.

TI UK have also provided a new thematic infographic:

TINZ Submissions activity

Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) continues to encourage its readers to exercise their democratic responsibilities by making submissions and responding to government consultation processes with your opinions on future direction-setting and legislation.

The following two centralised websites invite and facilitate public submissions on a variety of legislation, policies, levies, plans and projects currently being processed, together with updates about progress for recently closed submissions:

Not all government agencies utilise one or both of these facilities. Many government agencies conduct their own publicity when seeking submissions.

In the spirit of the new and joined-up open government, TINZ’s recommendations are that:

  • There be a single submissions website link where all central and local government requests for submissions are listed 
  • This same website location is administered with constantly improving frameworks for the making of submissions and for following-up on submissions.
  • The process would ideally:  
    • provide analyses of the responses to submissions, by key population indicators including geographical spread, and of the individuals and organisations that make submissions 
    • summarise the content of submissions and how the content becomes included in policy development and legislation 
    • provide timelines/milestones to track the progress of submissions passing through the submissions/legislative processes.

Submissions currently being sought

The following invitations to submissions known to, and of potential relevance to TINZ, are currently open for public comment by their stated deadline. We encourage our readers to take the time to draft a submission, even if it is a short one. The submission process is an opportunity to exercise your democratic rights. 

Public Service Legislation Bill

  • Deadline: Friday 31 January 2020
  • Public submissions are invited by the Governance and Administration Committee of Parliament
  • This bill proposes a modern legislative framework for achieving a more adaptive and collaborative Public Service, by repeal of the State Sector Act 1988. 

Racing Industry Bill

  • Deadline: Tues 11 February 2020
  • Public submissions are invited by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee of Parliament
  • This bill provides a post-transition governance structure for the racing industry and an approval mechanism for new racing and sports betting products, without requiring legislative changes. 

Education and Training Bill

  • Deadline: Friday 14 February 2020
  • Public submissions are invited by the Education and Workforce Committee of Parliament
  • This bill seeks to establish and regulate an education system to provide New Zealanders with lifelong learning opportunities so that they engage fully in society.

Secondary Legislation Bill

  • Deadline: Friday 14 February 2020
  • Public submissions are invited by the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament
  • This bill would amend over 2,500 existing provisions, in more than 550 Acts, which delegate power to make secondary legislation.
  • It would improve the framework used to access and ensure Parliamentary oversight of secondary legislation. It would also create a limited number of new exemptions from disallowance, publication, presentation, and listing requirements for some secondary legislation. 

Inquiry into the 2019 Local Elections

  • Deadline: Saturday 29 February 2020
  • Public submissions are invited by the Justice Committee of Parliament
  • The terms of reference for this inquiry include:
    • 1(e) any irregularities or problems that could have compromised the fairness of elections, and
    • 3(c) consulting with stakeholders and the wider public about the recommendations in the Justice Committee’s report on the 2016 local elections, with particular reference to feedback on the committee’s recommendations on foreign interference.

Recent TINZ submissions


TINZ engages New Zealand and New Zealanders in a broad range of issues related to building stronger integrity systems to mitigate the impact of bribery and corruption. TINZ Directors, Members with Delegated Authority and staff provide subject matter expertise in the topic areas of interest.

TINZ Subject Matter Experts, current at the time of this newsletter publication, can be can be found at TINZ Team January 2020. To view by topic, visit the category page which lists TINZ topics and respective current subject matter experts.