"The Post Profile" – Why Lobbyists Are Running Scared

Today, The Post published an extensive profile of The Integrity Institute, written by politics reporter Kelly Dennett. The article, titled "The academic ruffling feathers in the political lobbying world," provides valuable insights into our work and mission, while also giving voice to some of our most vocal critics from the lobbying industry.

The publication of this piece in a major news outlet represents another important step forward for our campaign to bring transparency and accountability to New Zealand's political system. While the article is behind a paywall, I want to share some key highlights and provide important context and rebuttals to the criticisms raised by various lobbyists quoted in the piece.

The Article’s key findings

Dennett's article opens by highlighting our recent work examining the Government's "Investment Boost" policy, quoting from our Integrity Briefing: "Investment Boost may indeed boost investment, but at what cost to fairness and integrity? The Government has chosen to prioritise wealth over work, capital over labour, donors and lobbyists over citizens." 

The piece goes on to describe our recent commentary on the NBR Rich List, where we characterized it as "Like a glossy brochure for extreme wealth concentration" and "a roadmap of oligarchic power in New Zealand, complete with policy wishlists, political connections, and breathtaking displays of luxury that would make a Gilded Age robber baron blush."

As Dennett notes, there's a common theme in our work: "A select few in NZ, usually businesses, hold outsized political sway. By default, politicians hold no or little belief or agency themselves, but are run by big money lobbyists." 

Our origins and mission

The article provides valuable background on how The Integrity Institute came to be. It notes that Marilyn and Grant Nelson first tried to establish the Institute with Victoria University of Wellington in 2012, but the focus on vested interests never occurred. Eventually, they approached me to turn it "into a sort of bona fide research and advocacy organisation."

The Nelsons, who made their wealth through selling their building supplies company in the 1990s, are described by me as having "a very strong social orientation." Grant Nelson has previously stated they've donated $50 million of their wealth to various causes, including conservation, research and education.

What makes the Nelsons unique among wealthy donors is their lifestyle and approach. As I told The Post: "Their Christchurch house is probably worth less than the average price of a house in Christchurch. They drive an old Toyota Corolla. As far as I'm aware they've never been overseas. I go there in winter and they've got a two bar heater going in their lounge."

Our core mission is to scrutinise and challenge vested interests in the political process, driven by a belief that political inequality and New Zealand's political process is "somewhat dysfunctional or somewhat in deficit" because of the influence of business and wealthy individuals. 

The Lobbying Register and law reform

A key initiative mentioned in the article is our creation of an informal register of New Zealand lobbyists, with prominent constitutional expert Graeme Edgeler drafting law that could potentially become a member's bill. This is significant because while Australia has a lobbying code of conduct and register – where it's illegal for government to engage with unregistered lobbyists – New Zealand has no such rules.

The article notes that I've been meeting with MPs to advocate for change. Labour's justice spokesperson Duncan Webb has met with me, and Labour "doesn't currently have a Members Bill in the ballot on this issue but is open to hearing a range of views and ideas on the topic." Green Party democracy and electoral reform spokesperson Celia Wade-Brown has also met with me, noting that "New Zealanders are right to be concerned about the influence of corporate lobbyists in our political system. Aotearoa has some of the least transparent lobbying regulation in the OECD."

The Critics respond

The article gives considerable space to critics from the lobbying industry, and their responses are quite revealing. Let me address each in turn.

Jordan Williams and the Taxpayers' Union

Jordan Williams, executive director of the Taxpayers' Union, confirms in the article that he sent us a legal threat. This relates to our earlier Integrity Briefing examining his organisation and The Campaign Company's business model. While Williams claims to agree with many of our points on transparency, he describes our recent work as "a bit more fringe" and suggests I've become "conspiratorial" and "moralistic."

Williams even makes the extraordinary claim that there might be "ghost writing going on" because my writing style has changed. This accusation is possibly malicious, but perhaps understandable given that I have indeed shifted my style since moving from being an academic political scientist to a transparency advocate. I no longer write analytical "Political Roundups" but rather "Integrity Briefings" that advance particular campaigning points.

What's particularly interesting is Williams' complaint that our register identified some non-public facing employees of his organisation. He claims this is "quite unfair," yet transparency about who works for and influences political campaign groups is exactly the kind of information the public needs to understand how political influence operates in New Zealand.

Holly Bennett's complaints 

Holly Bennett, founder of lobbing firm Awhi, has publicly criticised our register for containing what she claims were errors about her firm. She wrote that "accuracy goes hand in hand with integrity" and suggested she hadn't received responses to her concerns.

Let me be clear: we are upfront about the register being a work in progress that we adjust as we get further information to verify or correct anything. It's intrinsic to the whole issue that we're trying to shine light on what many influential groups and entities aren't open about – we're researching areas where details are deliberately hard to obtain. Lobbying firms are deliberately opaque, and that's precisely why we need a lobbying register.

Right at the start of the lobbying register, we declare that these first entries are "just drafts, which will naturally contain information that still needs to be verified and tested" and that "any errors from this process will naturally need fixing." On each entry page, we provide my direct email address for corrections.

Notably, when Bennett spotted mistakes, she didn't contact me directly but instead decided to use them to publish an attack on the register. As soon as she conveyed the mistakes to me, I made the necessary changes – which were minor – within minutes.

Her main beef appears to be that I have listed her as “previously a National Party staffer” because she had worked for four years in the Beehive as a ministerial advisor to National Governments, working to Murray McCully and Paul Goldsmith. Notably, she describes her politics as “centre-right” and as an “ardent fiscal conservative”, so it seems unlikely that an association with National should be too troubling. 

Mark Unsworth's self-serving arguments

Mark Unsworth, who calls himself "New Zealand's most experienced lobbyist," provides perhaps the most revealing quotes in the article. He complains that I never reached out to work with him on the issue, yet simultaneously argues against any reform whatsoever.

Most tellingly, Unsworth states that New Zealand's lack of lobbying rules "need not be tinkered with" and that "Just because other countries have [rules] doesn't mean NZ needs to have them." This is an extraordinarily self-serving position from someone who profits from the current lack of transparency and regulation.

Unsworth tries to muddy the waters by suggesting that everyone from kindergartens to environmental groups are lobbyists too. While it's true that many groups advocate for their interests, this deliberately obscures the fundamental differences in resources, access, and influence between well-funded corporate lobbyists and community groups. 

The False equivalence fallacy

All three critics attempt to paint The Integrity Institute as just another lobbying group, suggesting we're hypocrites for criticising lobbying while engaging in advocacy ourselves. This is a classic deflection tactic that deserves a thorough rebuttal.

Grant Nelson addresses this directly in his comments to The Post, stating that the Institute "will not be paying to get access to ministers and officials and will not donate to or assist political parties ... it is acting in the public interest and is not trying to advance private interests."

This last point is crucial: whereas corporate lobbyists and business groups like the Taxpayers' Union are pushing for policies that will benefit their own members and donors, The Integrity Institute doesn't have business interests or any pecuniary interest impacted by what we're advocating for. It's a fundamental difference.

Access and Influence Are Not Equal: The idea that lobbying is a free-for-all marketplace of ideas is disingenuous. Yes, any citizen can try to influence their MP – but who actually gets access and influence? Largely, those with money, connections, or professional advocates. 

Corporate lobbyists have the contacts and resources required to get privileged access to political decision-makers. They operate behind closed doors, often representing clients whose identities and interests remain hidden from public view. They push for policies that directly benefit their bottom lines or those of their clients. 

In contrast, we operate transparently, publishing our research and advocacy positions openly. We're not seeking private meetings to advance hidden agendas – we're calling for systemic reforms that would benefit democratic participation and accountability for all New Zealanders. 

The Public Interest vs Private Interest Distinction 

There is a fundamental difference between advocating for collective interests that benefit society broadly and pushing for policies that directly benefit your own paying clients or members.

Corporate Lobbyists: Represent private interests, often working behind closed doors to secure regulatory changes, tax breaks, or policy positions that directly benefit their clients' bottom lines. They are paid specifically to advance private interests, often at the expense of broader public welfare. 

Public Interest Advocacy: Groups like environmental organizations, unions, or charities advocate for policies that benefit broader constituencies – cleaner air, worker protections, poverty reduction. Crucially, these advocates often work against their own narrow self-interest (environmental groups pushing for regulations that might cost them donors, for example).

The Integrity Institute: We operate transparently, publishing our research and positions openly. We’re not about private meetings to advance hidden agendas – we're calling for systemic reforms that would benefit democratic participation and accountability for all New Zealanders.

Why they're running scared

 The hostile response from lobbyists quoted in The Post article is quite revealing. We are clearly hitting a nerve with lobbyists and the powerful campaigners who represent business interests. They have a vested interest in opposing what we're doing, and they're skilled in trying to frame us as being wrong, crazy, lacking credibility, or hypocritical.

The fact that we've received two legal threats already shows how seriously these groups take our work as a threat to their operations. Jordan Williams brought in a specialist defamation lawyer rather than simply contacting us with corrections. This aggressive response suggests we're onto something significant.

As I told The Post, one of our first orders of business is to build up a large defamation fund. Yes, I'm going to have to grow a thick skin, but I strongly believe in our work and am not worried about criticism from those who profit from the current opaque system.

Moving forward

The Post article notes that we're currently operating with a few contracted researchers and former journalists, but we expect to scale up significantly. We're putting substantial resources into following up the lobbying and influence entity entries with in-depth research.

For example, his week we signed up Professor Bruce Curtis, a sociologist who just finished at Waikato University, to work full-time researching entities relating to business and farming.

We're also entering partnerships with mainstream media outlets. Our first commercial agreement is with Newsroom, commissioning them to independently research different entities on our register and publish results monthly on different lobbying or campaign groups. 

Conclusion

The Post article represents another step in our campaign for transparency and accountability in New Zealand politics. While it gives voice to our critics, their responses only reinforce why our work is so necessary. When lobbyists argue that the current system of zero transparency and no rules "need not be tinkered with," they're essentially defending their right to operate in the shadows while influencing decisions that affect all New Zealanders.

We're not deterred by legal threats or attacks on our credibility. The crowdsourcing approach to our lobbying register is working, with dozens of people providing information and corrections. Almost all corrections have been minor details, and generally, people connected to these entities have been confirming that we've got our information right.

The interest from MPs like Duncan Webb and Celia Wade-Brown shows there's political appetite for reform. New Zealand deserves the same or better regulations on lobbying and political influence as other similar democracies. Those with money should not be able to buy privileged access to ministers and officials to get what they want at the expense of everyone else.

We'll continue shining a light on the cosy relationships and hidden influences that shape our political system. If lobbyists are feeling nervous, it's because sunlight is finally shining on their activities - and we welcome that debate.

The defensive reactions from the lobbying industry only confirm that this work is both necessary and effective. As Grant Nelson wrote, we want New Zealand to have proper regulations "to control lobbying and the other means by which those with money get the decisions they want at the expense of everyone else."

The journey ahead won't be easy, but with continued public support and engagement, we can build a more transparent and equitable political system that serves all New Zealanders, not just those with the deepest pockets and best connections.