Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: New Zealand
Table of contents
The New Zealand Fifth National Action Plan 2026-2027 (NAP5) is the country’s primary strategic framework for anticorruption and integrity. The Strategy operates within a broader system shared across multiple agencies and system leads, with nationally significant objectives often approved by individual Ministers through specific strategies, reflecting the fact that anticorruption objectives are pursued through a range of complementary policy instruments (an example is the Action Plan to Strengthen Integrity). NAP5 was endorsed by the Cabinet, which delegated approval of the final plan to the Minister for the Public Service. The Cabinet provided clear direction on the scope and focus areas of the plan, reaffirming Government’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and public participation through four core commitments. The Public Service Commission leads the development and coordination of NAP5, and is responsible for its implementation, monitoring, reporting, and evaluation.
The Ombudsman oversees the administrative conduct of public sector agencies, including supervising public information matters. The Government Chief Data Steward is responsible for open data policy and coordinates the acceleration of open data release in collaboration with the Government Chief Digital Officer and the Government Chief Information Security Officer. The Electoral Commission, as an independent Crown entity, oversees the financing of political parties and election campaigns. The Cabinet Office, on behalf of the Prime Minister, supports Ministers in identifying and managing conflicts of interest. For Members of Parliament, the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests is maintained, and the Registrar is required to provide the Controller and Auditor-General with a copy of every return. The Public Service Commission receives and assesses declarations of interest for top-tier civil servants, as part of the employment relationship.
Note: 2025 and 2020 data or latest year available. Data for judicial integrity, prosecutorial integrity and disciplinary system are not available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Data on where New Zealand’s integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
New Zealand fulfils 53% of criteria related to the strength of its strategic framework, and 67% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 38% and 32%, respectively.
The New Zealand Fifth National Action Plan 2026–2027 (NAP5) simultaneously functions as a strategy and an action plan, with four commitment areas outlining detailed planning with milestones, expected outputs, completion timelines, and the stakeholders involved, including both lead and supporting agencies. Each commitment area includes a Problem Definition providing a situation analysis and identifying existing public integrity risks and their causes. They also include a description of the proposed solution, the intended results, as well as commitment and co-creation analyses. However, the outcome level indicators specified for each commitment area do not specify baseline targets. The strategy underwent inter-institutional and public consultation, and at least one key integrity body provided input through established consultation mechanisms. Nevertheless, no statutory minimum duration for consultations on the strategy is prescribed, non-state actors were not members of formal working groups to develop the strategy, and while the Long-term Insights Briefing on the Future of Public Service Integrity identifies major integrity trends and risks, it does not clearly assess their likelihood, or potential impact should they materialise.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
New Zealand does not have a regulatory framework or implementing measures for managing risks around lobbying. New Zealand therefore does not have a regulatory definition of lobbying or lobbyists, or a designated supervisory authority within the central government responsible for monitoring lobbying practices. Tools for registering lobbying activities are not available, and there is no system in place for disclosing lobbying-related information or investigating cases of non-compliance.
New Zealand does not have a beneficial ownership regulation requiring companies to provide information on the identity of their real owners or to set up a publicly accessible central register.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
New Zealand fulfils 67% of criteria on regulatory safeguards for conflict of interest and 56% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 80% and 45%, respectively.
The primary legislation governing conflicts of interest includes the Public Service Act 2020 and the Crown Entities Act 2004. In addition, the Public Service Commission has issued Conflict of Interest Model Standards (under section 19 of the Public Service Act 2020), which applies to public officials in the State services, including core Public Service departments and Crown entities.
These standards define circumstances and relationships that may give rise to conflicts of interest and establish obligations to identify, disclose, and manage them. The standards also set responsibilities and procedures for the submission, compliance, and verification of interest declarations. Members of government, parliament, and public employees in high-risk positions are required to submit interest declarations at least upon entry into office and upon any renewal or change in their position, with most required to submit a declaration annually. However, there is no legislative requirement for members of the judiciary, for whom the framework relies on general principles rather than mandatory declarations. In addition, a comprehensive sanctioning system for breaches of conflict-of-interest provisions is not established as these are primarily managed through employment relationships.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
New Zealand fulfils 80% of criteria on regulatory safeguards on political finance, and 71% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
The primary legal framework for political finance is the Electoral Act 1993, which establishes proportionate sanctions for breaches of political finance and election campaign rules. The Electoral Commission, an independent Crown Entity established under section 4B of the Act, is the oversight body for political finance. Political parties and candidates are legally required to report all income and expenditure, and the use of public funds or resources to support or oppose political parties is prohibited. Since 2023, when the legal requirement came into force, all political parties have submitted their annual accounts within the prescribed timelines, as well as accounts related to elections for the past two election cycles.
The Electoral Commission does not have certified auditors on its payroll, as political parties are required to have their annual financial statements audited. Personal contributions to candidates’ campaigns are capped at NZD1,500 for New Zealand residents and NZD50 for overseas persons. Any amount above these thresholds must be returned or transferred to the Electoral Commission. Political parties must publish financial reports, which are publicly available in a user-friendly format. Anonymous donations below NZD 1,500 are permitted under the Act.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026).
New Zealand fulfils 56% of criteria on regulatory safeguards on access to public information and 81% on practice, compared to the OECD averages of 72% and 62%, respectively.
The Official Information Act 1982 regulates transparency of public information and guarantees the right of access to official information in all available formats for all persons, including non-citizens and legal entities. The Act establishes the grounds for withholding information, sets statutory deadlines for processing requests, and requires information to be provided in the format requested. In cases of refusal or administrative inaction, individuals have the right to appeal to the Office of the Ombudsman, which acts as the main supervisory and oversight authority. At the central government level, responsibility for open data policy is shared among the Government Chief Data Steward, the Government Chief Digital Officer, and the Government Chief Information Security Officer, who jointly support and monitor the implementation of open data initiatives. However, the regulatory framework does not specify a mandatory list of datasets to be disclosed. While the Cabinet has formalised its adherence to the International Open Data Charter, establishing an “open by default” principle, this requirement is not codified in primary legislation.
In practice, New Zealand proactively discloses a wide range of information online, including agendas and minutes of government sessions, consolidated versions of primary legislation, the state budget, ministers’ agendas, and information on public tenders, both announced and awarded. Asset and interest declarations of the top two tiers of public employees in the executive branch and members of the judiciary are not publicly available. Asset declarations of parliament and nationally elected officials are publicly available.
Data not available
Data not available
Data not available
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.