8 July 2025
Reader comment from Bryce Edwards Integrity Institute substack
New Zealand is in the grip of systemic corruption. Not the casual corruption where regulators get "taken out to lunch" in the manner that most of us have seen all too often in our working lives, but of the systemic type where the institutions of government openly collaborate with powerful financial interests without being subject to any moral inhibitions or legal restrictions.
The NZDF scandal (which no one seems to see as a scandal, not even "the perception of impropriety" which is the regime's normal way of characterizing these things) is further evidence of the systemic character of the corruption. Defence Force personnel seem to have no clue that they should be acting in the interests of the New Zealand public. Why is that? Because no one has ever suggested to them that they should. Britain controlled New Zealand's foreign policy in law and in fact until 1947, and with that right to control foreign policy went the right to direct New Zealand military forces. Since 1947 control over New Zealand foreign policy has been the de facto joint prerogative of the UK and US governments. That is why New Zealand parliamentarians can and must hold to a "bipartisan" foreign and military policy. There is no point in arguing about something over which you have no control. Consequently the NZDF recognizes no allegiance to the New Zealand public which funds its activities through taxation. In any theatre of operations it takes its orders from US commanders. In matters of logistics and supply it does whatever suits the interests of its own personnel, which includes relationships with military suppliers that would, in a normal state, be judged corrupt.
It is not too hard to see that the Realm of New Zealand is corrupt precisely because it is a colonialist entity. Its political "leaders" give allegiance to a foreign head of state. The machinery of state has no sense of moral obligation and responsibility to the people, because objectively it does not have such a responsibility.
The state as a colonialist entity exists in a moral limbo, where anything goes.
Despite that New Zealand is still ranked by Transparency International as one of the less corrupt states on the planet, causing many New Zealanders to cynically ask one other "I wonder how much we had to pay for that ranking?". The answer is actually hidden away somewhere in the government accounts, because Transparency International NZ is funded by the NZSIS.
It is a problem that won't go away until the entire apparatus of colonialism is destroyed.
Scott Pearson:
Geoff the only option to replace colonialism is tribalism. And few would want that.
Geoff Fischer:
"Tribalism" is an option to replace colonialism, and, as you say, a few would choose that. A larger number would choose national independence for Aotearoa and a genuine democracy, which should also be their right. If a free choice was offered to the people of Aotearoa, I believe that only a small number would wish to continue with the present colonialist system. You could put that to the test, and you could start by not requiring all members of parliament to swear allegiance to the British sovereign. But to date the regime has demonstrated a singular reluctance to allow any constitutional challenge to colonialist rule.
Scott Pearson:
Geoff I'm not sure what you mean re NZ not being a "genuine democracy"
Are you saying NZ should move from being a constitutional monarchy to becoming a Republic?
Geoff Fischer:
Having an unelected head of state is not consistent with being a genuine democracy, but it goes deeper than that. Democracy is meant to be "government by the people" yet there is a huge and growing divide between the electors and their supposed representatives. In a genuine democracy leaders will be truly answerable to the people, not through the blunt and ineffective instrument of triennial elections, but through radical reform of the electoral system, two key elements of which would be the open ballot and continuous election.
Scott Pearson:
My neighbours son who is studying politics at university told me that the point of democracy is to prevent oppression. And that until we decolonise and end the tyranny of the majority NZ will never have true democracy.
It didn't make much sense to me then and after looking up "decolonisation" still doesn't. I think the American Constitution is a magnificent document and the best example of men attempting to draft permanent rules for a great society. It says that all people are born equal and have unalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness.
Democracy is going nowhere because IMHO we keep telling people that they have a vast and increasing array of rights without any discussion of whose obligation it is to deliver those rights.
Geoff Fischer:
In theory democracy as "the rule of the majority" can morph into "the tyranny of the majority". However I believe that Rawiri is mistaken if he thinks that the "tyranny of the majority" is a serious practical danger in the New Zealand context. Despite the perversity of successive New Zealand governments, the majority of ordinary folk in Aotearoa are politically benign. The danger comes from a privileged minority of unscrupulous large property owners who have captured the political system by the means outlined in many Integrity Institute studies. We need more democracy, not less.
Rangatiratanga will provide that in the form of self-determined non-uniform constituencies, the open ballot and continuous election.
Scott Pearson:
I think that the reason we came up with democracy was because the tyranny of the majority was far preferable to the tyranny of the minority.
Most people just want to be free to live their lives in the way that they choose. They appreciate a government that enforces the rule of law to keep them safe and is free from corruption.
I'm not sure what you mean by "continuous election"
AI says it may refer to having a Swiss style referendum of all major issues.
I'm also unsure of the meaning of Rangatiratanga.
It means chiefly authority but seems to refer to the right of a people to rule themselves - in a political context.
Is this right just for Maori in NZ or for everyone?
If it is for all of us we pretty much already have it.
Geoff Fischer:
AI sometimes gets it wrong, and this is a case in point. Continuous election is a system under which people may change their choice of leader or representative at any moment of their choosing. It happens to be the system that applies within the New Zealand parliament (where a government can be brought down on any sitting day by the tabling of a motion of "no confidence") and is the rule in any natural system of social organization, such as rangatiratanga. It is an important democratic right which is denied to the public of New Zealand by the current Westminster system.
Scott Pearson:
Geoff you write that the continuous election system enables electors to change their (elected) representative at any time they choose. Have I got this correct?
Are you saying that there could be numerous electorate representatives within the 3 year electoral term?
I have never heard any group advocate for this.
It could be chaotic and I suggest the average voter would have little interest in continuous voting.
I could be wrong but I have never heard of a NZ government falling to a vote of no confidence. Possible but exceptional.
Geoff Fischer:
Scott, if you stop to think about it you will understand that continuous election with the open ballot does not mean there will be frequent changes of representation. In fact, the opposite is the case. Representatives who see their support ebbing away take heed and change their ways. Constituents only change their mandate when they see a need. That is as it should be. That is as democracy should be. New Zealand governments did fall to votes of no confidence in the House of Representatives in the days before the party machines gained a choke hold over the people's representatives. Rob Muldoon admitted that his government had lost the confidence of the House when he called the snap election in 1984. This was the result of a rare case of an elected representative taking a stand on principle against the party hierarchy. If we have seen no such cases in the decades since it is because the people's representatives have now become mere minions to the political power brokers. So New Zealand democracy is not working as it should, and we need radical reform.