logo

Bryce Edwards on 'soft-corruption' in New Zealand – especially re Robert MacCullouch.

Kiwiblog26-05-2025
Early last year I married, for the second time, and my new wife came from Brazil 16 years ago. When we visited her country and family, last year, we talked a lot about corruption there (the series The Mechanism is an outstanding watch). I told her that I believe that there is a MASSIVE amount of 'soft corruption in NZ' – where power (a big budget, lots of staff, influence, re-election) is the currency – as opposed to monetary bribes.
Professor Robert MacCullouch is a very highly qualified economist with a chair at the University of Auckland. I read his work often (as a person qualified in economics and education) and appreciate that he has, until now, fearlessly supported positive actions from government and the business community – and challenged those he sees as negatives.
Bryce Edwards has written in this recently: (I have point-form summarised somewhat):
'Chumocracy' and the Suppression of Prof MacCulloch
– NZ needs more people like Robert MacCulloch willing to speak out. But if the price of dissent is this high, how many will choose to do so? His story is a good example of what happens when you dare to speak truth to power in a small country where the elites are all too interconnected.
– MacCulloch {has] launched some heavy broadsides at the way that political and business elites in this country are ruining the economy and the political process by their dysfunctional hold on power in which dissent and debate are suppressed using patronage and threats.
– MacCulloch announced this week that he is closing his long-running blog, explaining that 'National, Labour and Big Business NZ have begun to complain and threaten me at the highest levels about my writings'.
– MacCulloch has outlined how the attempts of himself and others to hold powerful interests to account have been met, not with reasoned rebuttal, but with threats, blacklisting, and institutional pressure designed to silence dissent. His experience provides a rare insider's account of how New Zealand's political and business elite police the boundaries of acceptable debate. MacCulloch explicitly claims to be closing his website after receiving 'threats from current and former cabinet ministers'. 'You get excommunicated from the little cosy group of inbred Wellington officials and high-ranking boards.' He says he has become 'persona non grata'.
– MacCulloch's core accusation is that New Zealand operates on a system of 'soft corruption'… Corruption in New Zealand takes the form of you scratch my back, I scratch yours.'
– The message conveyed to him, particularly from figures associated with the current National-led government, was that positive political commentary would be rewarded with political appointments. MacCulloch argues that this patronage system is how the 'inbred club' maintains control over appointments to high public and private offices. MacCulloch said he was essentially excommunicated by New Zealand's political establishment for criticising government economic policy and elite appointments.
– A central theme in MacCulloch's recent and past analysis is the existence of a 'cosy inbred club' running New Zealand. This … he argues, comprises interconnected individuals across politics, the corporate sector, and the civil service, who are often 'promoted way beyond their abilities'. 'Every high-status job in the country is just a job for mates', and appointments are 'so corrupt it's beyond belief – now it's just a group of people going from one big job to the next even when they're not qualified and don't deserve the job'. He argues that the last Labour government entrenched a culture of ideological appointments, and the National-led government is continuing the same pattern – just swapping in their own preferred cronies [Or not appointing anyone – re the Ministry of Education.]
– MacCulloch describes corporate New Zealand, particularly the NZX50 companies, as a 'disaster', run by 'accountants and lawyers' who 'all know each other', with many boards forming an 'inbred club'. He notes the poor performance of many top companies.
– MacCulloch says elite capture of high-status jobs blocks talented young people from progressing: 'They can't get promoted because you've got these bums occupying these big positions of power.' Hence, young New Zealanders are leaving the country.
– [And] MacCulloch is lamenting the 'inbred culture of the civil service in Wellington' where 'the same old types in charge – being career bureaucrats with law, accounting, communications, or vague 'management' backgrounds'.
Why all this matters.
– MacCulloch's experience should serve as a warning for anyone who believes in open debate, academic freedom, and political diversity. He is an Oxford-trained economist, a respected professor, and someone who engaged constructively across the political spectrum. Moreover, he holds the highly prestigious 'Matthew S Abel Chair of Macroeconomics' at the University of Auckland.
– This about defending the public sphere from being captured by a narrow set of insiders. It is about meritocracy, open debate, and resisting the cartelisation of ideas.
– New Zealand needs more people like Robert MacCulloch willing to speak out. But if the price of dissent continues to be this high, how many will choose to do so?
– As MacCulloch points out, this is a 'soft corruption' of jobs for the boys and girls – New Zealand political and economic system has become one where entry to the upper echelons is extraordinary closed, with political appointments being reserved for mates, or the 'chumocracy'.
I responded to Bryce Edwards on this:
Hello Bryce
Your piece on the Prof is outstanding.
Although I am not in the same class as Robert – having an economics and education background at least allows me to understand.
In terms of speaking out on the education system. National/ACT loved me with the original Charter Schools (a MUCH better programme than this time around) and my critique of Labour and the MoE when National was in opposition. Indeed – I organised an outstanding education summit for Erica Stanford in Cambridge when she was the opposition spokesperson for education. I also presented to the NZ Economic Forum at Waikato Uni 2023.
When I have critiqued NACT's education work (or lack of it) – I have heard from all sorts of people telling me to be quiet (Taxpayer's Union, NZ Initiative, former MPs x 3, etc). Despite being in frequent contact with Erica Stanford when she was in opposition – I have heard nothing from her when she has been in government (except having a third party tell me she was 'devastated' by my critique).
When Labour was in power – Oliver Hartwich told media that TNT was a solution for the Ministry. NZ Initiative is silent on such things when National are in. Michael Johnston of the Initiative is one of Stanford's close advisors.
Seymour has also spoken negatively of me in the media as I have criticised the pathetic Charter School roll-out – even bringing up my divorce from my first wife while on Hosking (in the same conversation where he blasted Jenny Shipley). The Charter School roll-out has been dominated by telling lies about the level of funding (just $10m until June 30th 2025) and spending $30million (of $123million until the end of 2026) on the Charter School Agency (an entirely incompetent mini-bureaucracy who have also done as much as they can – some of it clearly illegally – to discredit me).
I am sure others could share similar experiences and are beginning to do so.
I will not stop speaking out on the continued decline of the NZ system – or the broken promises and lack of action the Stanford/Seymour/MOE. It is highly unusual that a new Sec for Ed has not been appointed and that the Ministry of Ed is still at a 'head-count' of over 4,200 despite the promise to bring it back to the pre-Hipkins of 2,700.
In the current environment the people that most need to challenge the current government are those that supported them into office. The need to ask them to keep their promises! – in the same way that a great sport club's fans ask the team to actually perform.
The education changes are incremental – at best. If the boat is already sinking fast then putting your fingers in a few holes is just not going to work.
And … shutting down dissent is an awful way to go about anything.
Alwyn Poole
[email protected]
alwynpoole.substack.com/
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Covid-19 pandemic handling returns to headlines, with Labour under scrutiny
Covid-19 pandemic handling returns to headlines, with Labour under scrutiny

NZ Herald

time16 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Covid-19 pandemic handling returns to headlines, with Labour under scrutiny

What truly put the wind at the Government's back this week was the unexpected exhumation of half-buried relics from the Covid era – a period Labour may prefer was left entombed in the sediment of public amnesia. The first, was last Thursday's Treasury Long Term Insights Briefing (LTIB). The report was actually into how best to manage economic shocks: should the Government spend up, or leave it to the Reserve Bank? Treasury reckoned managing shocks was mostly best left to the Reserve Bank – a conclusion it published in a draft report some months ago. What was new were details of Treasury's advice to the former Government of its advice during the pandemic. Two short sections in particular noted that Treasury advised the last Government to ease up on the stimulus in 2022, and another section detailed the consequences of this: a large structural deficit and risks of inflation. With Finance Minister Nicola Willis off in London, exchanging knowing grimaces with Chancellor Rachel Reeves over their mutually dreadful fiscal headaches – left-right ideological niceties be damned – it was Bishop's opportunity to don the acting finance minister cap and have lobbed at him volley after volley of low patsy questions on the report, giving him ample opportunity to sermonise on Labour's alleged fiscal sins. Bishop first cleared his blocked throat during the very first question of the week on Tuesday, Labour leader Chris Hipkins, pointedly interjecting that this was clearly 'audition number one' for Luxon's job. Hipkins wasn't wrong about it being 'number one'. Come Wednesday, it was Nancy Lu's turn to take to her feet and ask Bishop what economic reports he'd been reading, to which he replied he was not yet done with Treasury's gripping LTIB. On Thursday, the lucky backbencher was Catherine Wedd, who asked the same question: what reports had the minister (officially Willis, but in practice, Bishop) been reading on the state of the economy. Bishop replied, 'Oh, I haven't been able to stop reading Treasury's long-term insights briefing.' Another MP, Tom Rutherford piped up, 'What did it say?' Bishop replied, testing the limits of MPs' obligation to be truthful in the House, 'it's a great read'. It's not a bad parliamentary tactic: Grant Robertson often used it to highlight his successes and the Opposition's shortcomings. Bishop's effort this week worked wonders in cheering an otherwise gloomy backbench. In Question Time this week Chris Bishop revealed a passion for reading Treasury documents. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis and Bishop have done a clever job in giving the impression Treasury's LTIB was mostly about slamming Labour for the Covid response – it's true, that's what's new in the final version vis-a-vis the earlier draft, but overall, the backward-looking part of the report is a small part of the whole. Labour's responses are as interesting as the report itself. Leader Chris Hipkins dismissed it as 'spin', former Robertson staffers Craig Renney and Toby Moore had more detailed critiques. Renney, posting to his Substack, quoted Michael Cullen to describe report as an 'ideological burp' and decided to skewer the conclusion that managing economic cycles was primarily the job of the Reserve Bank. In Renney's view, the whole government is responsible for managing the economic cycle. If this is left to just the Reserve Bank, its focus on inflation would mean that other, distributional impacts become neglected. Hammering inflation somewhere means hammering the economy everywhere. To be fair to Treasury, its report does briefly touch on fiscal policy's ability and obligation to smooth the bluntness of monetary policy. That's worth pursuing in more detail, particularly given the experience New Zealand had during the pandemic, in which the Reserve Bank's money-printing played arsonist to the housing market, before the bank guiltily and belatedly doused the inferno in a series of rate rises so blunt in their asphyxiating cruelty they cast thousands on to the dole queue, and shunted thousands more into the airport departure lounge. Moore's piece, published in the Herald, was more of a right of reply to Treasury. He resurfaced papers he first received as a staffer in Robertson's office and which were subsequently published in the Herald to note that as late as Budget 2023, Treasury was still advising Robertson to spend yet more money – not on Covid stimulus, but via his operating allowance, the pot of money to fund ongoing cost increases in departments and to pay for new things, like removing the $5 prescription charge in that Budget. In that Budget, Robertson actually spent slightly less than Treasury told him, not more. In that Budget, as for all of Robertson's Covid Budgets, the advice to spend more was consistent with the economic forecasts continually being revised in the right direction. This meant more money flowing in, allowing the Government to spend more money while returning to surplus in a creditable timeframe. The trouble with these forecasts is that they were wrong – and badly wrong. The economy did not grow nearly as much as hoped, tax revenue fell – and the effect was compounded, tax revenue as a share of the smaller economy was smaller than forecast too. The spending still happened, but we're still waiting on the money to pay for it. There were, then, two obvious flaws, given just passing detail in Treasury's report: the first is that Treasury's forecasts were badly wrong, the second was that Robertson did not show enough caution when he relied upon Treasury to put his Budgets together. That telling of the story is no less interesting to either side, but it has a different moral lesson: the solution to the fiscal problem really is, as Willis says, growth. If the economy had grown to where Treasury earlier forecast it would grow to, we'd be in surplus and reducing the debt ratio by now. A Treasury graph plotting which fiscal years have run counter- and pro-cyclically. Graph / Treasury Treasury quietly dropped another paper this week – this time by one of its economists, with the usual disclaimer that it does not necessarily represent the views of Treasury as an organisation. It pondered whether governments were running pro-cyclical or counter-cyclical fiscal policies, with the latter generally preferred because it allows the Government to moderate the economic cycle. Cullen gets the biscuit for running the most counter-cyclical budgets, Bill English and Steven Joyce get good marks too. Robertson's first term gets a pass, but not the second. The report only goes up to the fiscal year 2024, which was the year of a Labour Budget and National mini-Budget, but some back-of-the-envelope maths from the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update would suggest the Budgets for the last and the current fiscal years will be counter-cyclical – the first since 2019, a cautious vote of confidence in approval to Willis' economic management. The week ended on another blast from the past. The Covid-19 Royal Commission announced Labour ministers would not be appearing before the inquiry in person. Labour itself only found out the commission was going to announce this change a few minutes before it did so – the coalition seemed to have more warning, with each of the three parties putting out damning press releases shortly afterwards. Polling shows the public is clearly on the coalition's side and wants the ministers to appear, but they won't. The refusal led the news for 24 hours and is a good reminder to Labour the public haven't put the pandemic to bed quite as much as the party would like. Labour is proud of its Covid record but the fact the ministers won't appear in public allows the Opposition to argue, with some conviction, that perhaps Labour actually isn't – and its Covid record, particularly on economic matters, is really as embarrassing as the Opposition would like the public to believe. It's a dilemma for the Labour ministers, some of whom probably wouldn't mind appearing and defending themselves. One of the ex-ministers probably will be appearing in public in the near future – and, unlike Jacinda Ardern, will probably spend a lot of that time talking about Covid and money: Robertson's memoir Anything Could Happen is out later this month. There's a good chance some of these questions will get an airing in any promotional tour, and the book itself.

Amend away, amend away
Amend away, amend away

Otago Daily Times

time17 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Amend away, amend away

Dunedin Labour MP Rachel Brooking has run a few marathons in her time, and she put in another long-distance effort in the House this week. She wasn't keeping count, but by my tally she delivered 31 speeches this week — and it would have been 32 but for her having to leave for the airport on Thursday afternoon to catch the last convenient flight home. As would be expected, it was the Resource Management Act which dominated Brooking's week, although she also found the time to delve into the inner workings of the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, and the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill as well. It was the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill which kept Brooking going for most of the week though. The relevant minister, Chris Bishop, has been labouring with a heavy cold all week and his heart must have sunk as Brooking — armed with pens, post-it notes and slabs of drafts and amendment papers — rose to her feet on Tuesday afternoon. Parliament is blessed with many MPs who can pick the minutest bone with any word or sentence — the Greens' Lawrence Xu-Nan and Bishop himself when in Opposition spring to mind — but few are as forensic and diligent as Brooking when it comes to working through clauses and sub-clauses. And she had plenty of material, the minister having just that morning tabled a substantial amendment paper. So substantial, in fact, that what Brooking suspected had happened was that the version of the Bill reported back from select committee — and not as yet agreed to by Parliament — had been used as the template for the soon to be amended again Bill. "This is a terrible way to make laws," Brooking lamented. "It's very frustrating, when you have been through a select committee process and have asked about the wording of different phrases and made amendments in the select committee process, to see that all upended on the day of the committee stage of the Bill." Bishop, to his credit, was somewhat repentant about that: "In mitigation, most of the changes in the Amendment Paper have been publicly announced, in some cases, a couple of months, if not earlier, than today. So members have had a good opportunity to kick those issues around." As it turned out, they were about to do a lot more kicking ... and not without good reason, as the Bill — now an Act — attempted to achieve a heck of a lot within its many pages. The much-criticised RMA is due to be axed next year: in the meantime the Amendment Act makes a many short-term changes to time frames for consent processing in areas such as infrastructure, renewable energy, farming and consenting after natural disaster. It is very broad in some places and narrowly specific in others — such as allowing the demolition of Wellington's Gordon Wilson flats and allowing Auckland to develop land around its railway stations. A lot of this is reasonable, Brooking agreed, in her third reading speech. "Labour was supporting this Bill when it was introduced and even at the second reading, despite having concerns about some of the changes that were made at select committee," she said. "But something happened on Tuesday morning. That was that a very large Amendment Paper was dropped and it made significant changes to the Bill. Changes that we were not even able to debate in this House because government members chose to stand up and close the debate on these very important aspects." Brooking then proceeded to give the government a stern and emotional telling off for its terrible law making ... none of which was enough to stop it being passed by lunchtime Thursday. Best supporting actor Taieri Green list MP Scott Willis also deserves an honorable mention in despatches for his efforts this week. Not only did he put his shoulder to the wheel with a succession of interventions on the aforementioned RMA Bill, he also had a crack at Science minister Shane Reti during Question Time on Thursday concerning job losses in the sector. Answering Willis' question about how many jobs had been lost in the sector since the formation of the government, Reti conceded that 134 jobs were to go with the disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation — the point that Willis was trying to make — but Reti also highlighted a Stats NZ survey which suggested a recent increase of people working in the sector. Which is not the same as jobs being lost, a point Willis soon made ... as well as pointedly asking if those laid-off scientists would be heading to the airport departure lounge post-haste. "I think that scientists who have been disestablished through part of the reforms will have a skill set that will be able to be applied in other parts of the science sector," Reti replied — which is true, but which also side-stepped the question of in which country's science sector that might be.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store