Bryce Edwards
Director of the Integrity Institute
Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard – a former farming lobbyist turned ACT Party MP – is facing intense scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest. Recent revelations show how Hoggard’s own sister, Kimberly Crewther, lobbied his office to oppose tougher infant formula regulations, raising questions about where his loyalties lie. Hoggard insists he has “managed” any conflicts by declaring them through official channels.
The issue has arisen due to some excellent investigative journalism by RNZ’s Anusha Bradley. The story has also crossed over now into other media outlets, with 1News reporting on the controversy.
This episode highlights a systemic integrity problem in New Zealand governance, where declaring conflicts has become a mere box-ticking exercise rather than a genuine safeguard. I’ve written about this before, looking at similar problems in the last Labour Government – see: The era of complacency over political conflicts of interest is over
This analysis (below) examines how Hoggard’s case has been handled (or mishandled), and what it says about the broader culture of complacency around conflicts of interest in our political system.
Family ties and formula rules: a conflict uncovered
The catalyst for the controversy is an RNZ investigation into lobbying against proposed trans-Tasman infant formula standards. It emerged that Hoggard’s sister, Kimberly Crewther, is the executive director of the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ) – a powerful industry group representing dairy processors and exporters – see Anusha Bradley’s RNZ article, Minister Andrew Hoggard’s sister lobbied him opposing tougher baby formula rules
For the first instalment in this investigation, see Bradley’s article from Thursday: How multinational dairy companies convinced ministers to back away from new rules for baby formula
Bradley reports that in mid-2023, as officials in New Zealand and Australia were considering stricter baby formula labelling rules, DCANZ actively intervened. Crewther attended industry meetings with Minister Hoggard’s team and emailed his office advising against the new standards. Essentially, a Cabinet minister’s immediate family member was lobbying him on behalf of industry – a textbook conflict of interest.
Hoggard, a dairy farmer by trade and former president of Federated Farmers, took office after the 2023 election with deep roots in the sector he now regulates. The infant formula saga put those roots to the test. DCANZ and multinational formula companies mounted a concerted lobbying effort to stop the tougher regulations, arguing they would hurt profits and exports. Hoggard met with industry executives and was bombarded with industry arguments: Danone warned of factory closures, the Infant Nutrition Council (INC) emphasized a “one billion dollar export industry” at stake, and DCANZ (via Crewther) claimed the proposed rules went beyond international norms. On the other side, public health experts stressed that all formula is essentially the same and tighter rules would protect consumers from misleading marketing. This was a classic policy showdown between public interest and industry interest – and Hoggard was caught in the middle.
In the end, Hoggard advocated the industry’s position. At a July 2024 meeting of Australasian ministers, he pushed hard for a review to water down the infant formula code (as DCANZ and others wanted), though he was outvoted by Australian counterparts. Back in Wellington, the government ultimately backed away from adopting the new standards, opting out of the tougher rules altogether. For DCANZ and the formula companies, it was a win. But for Hoggard, questions began swirling: had he properly managed his clear conflict of interest, given his sister’s role in the lobbying effort?
Hoggard’s initial response was defensive opacity. When RNZ first asked if he had declared a conflict regarding his sister, he refused to answer and even withheld that information from an Official Information Act (OIA) request. Only weeks later, under direct questioning, did he finally confirm that in December 2023 – shortly after taking office – he had indeed declared conflicts of interest with both his sister and his brother (who works for a dairy company). In other words, Hoggard quietly notified the Cabinet office of these familial ties once he became a minister. On paper, he had ticked the required box. And in his view, that was apparently sufficient – Hoggard said he was confident the conflicts with his siblings were managed appropriately.
Declaring vs managing: Is a private disclosure enough?
Hoggard’s stance – that disclosure alone resolves the issue – should be critiqued. In this regard, I’m quoted in Anusha Bradley’s story arguing that simply declaring a conflict in secret is not an adequate safeguard: “Declaring a conflict of interest isn’t enough. You actually have to manage those and be seen to manage them.” In the case of Hoggard, there is little evidence (at least publicly) that any concrete steps were taken to mitigate the conflict with his sister. He did not recuse himself from decisions on the infant formula standards, nor did he distance himself from industry input – quite the opposite, he engaged actively with the very stakeholders connected to his family.
The contrast with another minister’s approach is telling. When National MP Scott Simpson was appointed consumer affairs minister in 2025, he proactively recused himself from all matters involving the supermarket sector because a close family member owns a supermarket. Simpson immediately handed off those responsibilities to a colleague to avoid any perception of bias.
I’m reported as saying that Hoggard was not held to the same standard: “There seems to be different standards for different ministers.” After all, Hoggard’s conflict (a sibling lobbying on a policy decision in his portfolio) is arguably as direct as Simpson’s, yet Hoggard did not remove himself from the process. He continued to oversee and influence the outcome of the infant formula policy – an outcome that aligned with his sister’s lobbying position. This raises the question: did Hoggard’s private declaration have any real effect, or was it merely procedural cover?
New Zealand’s Cabinet manual does instruct ministers on managing conflicts of interest, typically by declaring them to the prime minister and Cabinet office and sometimes by recusal or delegation of duties. But much of this happens behind closed doors, leaving the public in the dark. Hoggard’s case only became known through persistent digging by a journalist, not through any transparent disclosure.
Boyd Swinburn, co-chair of Health Coalition NZ, argues that this opacity is untenable. According to Bradley’s latest story, Swinburn says there must be “greater transparency around how conflicts of interests [are] managed” in government, because currently “we’re losing trust in… our corruption-free systems. The government actually needs to take special attention to ensure that conflicts of interest are well managed.” In other words, it’s not enough that a minister says they’ve handled a conflict appropriately – the public needs to see how it’s being handled. Otherwise, declarations become little more than a checkbox exercise, with ministers essentially policing themselves out of view.
Hoggard maintains that he followed the rules: he disclosed his family connections to officials. But importantly, he did not disclose it to the public or media when it could have been relevant (for instance, when controversy erupted over the formula decision). This pattern – treating conflict-of-interest disclosures as a private formality rather than a matter for public accountability – is a hallmark of New Zealand’s current system. It reflects a mindset among some politicians and officials that if they file the paperwork, they’ve done their duty, with no need to go further. As long as the conflict is ‘on the record’ internally, they feel free to carry on business as usual, trusting in their own integrity. This complacent attitude is precisely what integrity watchdogs warn against.
A culture of complacency: New Zealand’s loose integrity safeguards
New Zealand has long prided itself on being one of the least corrupt countries in the world. But that pride and myth can breed complacency. As I’ve written before, “the whole country has generally been far too relaxed about conflicts of interest in politics and public life”. We have come to believe corruption and dodgy dealings are problems for other nations, not for us – and so our safeguards are often followed “only as a box-ticking exercise, rather than with real rigour”. The Hoggard saga is a case in point: an important conflict was quietly noted in December, then essentially ignored. There was no proactive management plan announced, no public transparency, and – until RNZ exposed it – no scrutiny. It’s an illustration of how integrity measures in Wellington can devolve into tick-the-box routines divorced from their real purpose.
Recent political history is replete with examples of this complacency. In the last government (Labour, 2017–2023), a series of ministers were caught out by conflicts or ethical lapses that they initially downplayed. Transport Minister Michael Wood failed for years to properly disclose or divest significant shareholdings (such as in Auckland Airport) that posed conflicts with his decisions – in fact, he repeatedly ignored instructions from the Cabinet office until the situation exploded publicly. Police Minister Stuart Nash breached Cabinet confidentiality by emailing private Cabinet discussions to wealthy donors who had a vested interest in the matters – apparently believing this was acceptable behaviour among friends. Justice Minister Kiri Allan became embroiled in allegations of abusing her office (and ultimately resigned after unrelated personal misconduct), while Education Minister Jan Tinetti was censured for misleading parliament over an official announcement. In each case, initial defenses from the ministers suggested they did not grasp the seriousness of their transgressions. Michael Wood, for example, characterised his undisclosed financial conflicts as an “innocent mistake”, seemingly unaware that failing to address such conflicts undermines public trust. It took media exposés and opposition pressure to force accountability.
These episodes collectively shattered the notion that ‘it couldn’t happen here’. Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, upon taking office in early 2023, quickly found himself firefighting multiple integrity scandals left by his predecessor. To his credit, Hipkins responded by tightening the conflict-of-interest rules for ministers. In June 2023 – as Michael Wood finally resigned – Hipkins announced a package of reforms to “tighten up the disclosure regime for ministers”.
These included: quarterly reporting of conflicts of interest to the PM (instead of only annual updates), an in-person annual review with each minister about their interests, a requirement that each minister appoint a dedicated staffer to monitor conflicts, and making conflict disclosures a standing item at every Cabinet meeting. Hipkins also floated a major change: requiring ministers to divest themselves of certain financial interests entirely, similar to Australia’s ministerial code which forces ministers to sell off or blind-trust their investments to avoid conflicts. These were significant steps aimed at jolting ministers out of complacency and ensuring conflicts are actively managed.
However, even Hipkins’ reforms have limitations. Notably, none of the changes required greater public disclosure of ministers’ interests or conflicts. The new measures largely operate within the existing closed system – more frequent reporting to the prime minister, more internal oversight and discussion – but the public still relies on the prime minister’s judgment and the Cabinet office’s discretion. Declarations of interest by ministers are still made privately. There is no public ‘ministerial interests register’ published in New Zealand (unlike in the UK, for instance, where an official list of ministers’ relevant interests is periodically released).
As a result, a conflict like Hoggard’s can remain essentially invisible outside the Beehive until investigative journalists or opposition MPs ferret it out. The process still largely asks voters to trust that conflicts are being managed behind closed doors, which is little comfort in an era of eroding public trust.
‘Their man on the inside’: lobbyists in the Beehive
Andrew Hoggard’s situation exemplifies a broader blurring of lines between industry and government in New Zealand – one that goes beyond a single family connection. Hoggard isn’t just any minister: he was, until very recently, a top lobbyist himself as president of Federated Farmers (the country’s most powerful farming lobby). His move into Cabinet in late 2023 was celebrated by agricultural interest groups. Internal communications obtained by Greenpeace Aotearoa show that industry lobbyists moved swiftly to leverage Hoggard’s insider status.
The day after Hoggard was sworn in as minister, Federated Farmers President Wayne Langford texted him: “Congrats… what a massive honour!! Will see you Wednesday night.” And not even an hour after the new government unveiled its 100-day policy plan, Fed Farmers’ policy head messaged Hoggard pointedly: “Nothing in first hundred days on freshwater?” – a nudge to ensure rolling back water regulations (long opposed by the farm lobby) wasn’t forgotten. Federated Farmers even referred to Hoggard as “their man on the inside” in communications, underscoring that they saw one of their own now in the halls of power.
In Hoggard’s first weeks as minister, he had a stream of meetings and contacts with agricultural industry groups. Official diaries show sit-downs (formal or informal) with DairyNZ, Federated Farmers, dairy company CEOs and others within his first month. DCANZ – through his sister – was in regular communication with the Ministry for Primary Industries on technical issues relevant to its members.
To some extent, consultation with stakeholders is normal for any minister. But the sheer volume and immediacy of access in this case is striking. The dairy lobby didn’t need to hire an outside lobbyist to reach Hoggard – they could text him directly. When a minister is as enmeshed in an industry network as Hoggard is, the risk is that the public interest voice gets drowned out by the constant chatter of vested interests who literally have his number.
This speaks to the danger of regulatory capture – when an industry exerts undue influence over the regulator supposed to oversee it. New Zealand’s small size and close networks make us especially vulnerable to this. The dairy industry, being our biggest export earner, wields extraordinary influence. It’s common here to see a revolving door: people shuffle between roles in industry groups, government agencies, and political office.
Andrew Hoggard’s journey from Federated Farmers to Cabinet is a prime example – as environmental groups warned at the time, it’s like ‘having an industry advocate on the inside’ guiding policy. But he’s hardly the first. Former Agriculture Minister John Luxton went on to chair DairyNZ after leaving politics. Former Fonterra executives have taken up influential roles in government trade advisory boards. The boundaries are porous, and without strong conflict-of-interest management, it’s easy for policy to become biased towards those insiders.
Green Party spokesperson Steve Abel laments this revolving door in Bradley’s latest article, noting that it leads to situations like Hoggard’s case “where the most obvious thing to prioritise – food safety in terms of infant formula – is actually being deprioritised because of the huge influence of a dairy lobbyist”. In short, New Zealand’s laissez-faire approach to conflicts has allowed a cozy culture to persist, in which ministers often trust their own ability to balance interests – but in practice, may give their old mates in industry far more weight than they realize (or will admit).
Towards real accountability: reforming conflict of interest rules
The Hoggard affair and the litany of recent integrity lapses suggest that New Zealand’s framework for managing ministerial conflicts of interest is due for a significant overhaul. It’s no longer enough to rely on honour systems and behind-the-scenes disclosures – public confidence demands more transparency and accountability. Some potential reforms that could strengthen New Zealand’s integrity framework include:
1. Publish a Ministerial Interests Register: Create a publicly available register of ministers’ financial, familial, and organizational interests relevant to their portfolios. This would mirror practices in the UK and Scotland where ministers’ interests are published for scrutiny. Such transparency lets the public and media see at a glance what potential conflicts exist, rather than relying on OIA fishing expeditions.
2. Mandatory Recusal for Direct Conflicts: Require that ministers formally recuse themselves (and be seen to do so) from decisions where they have a major personal connection or stake. For example, if a close family member or former employer stands to benefit, that minister should step aside from related decisions – as Scott Simpson did with supermarkets. This should become standard practice, not a discretionary choice, and the fact of recusal should be announced publicly to remove doubt.
3. Independent Oversight and Verification: Strengthen the role of an independent body or official (e.g., an integrity commissioner or the Cabinet office) to not just collect ministers’ disclosures but actively vet and enforce conflict management plans. This could involve empowering an official to investigate potential conflicts and report breaches. In some countries, independent ethics commissioners can sanction officials for failing to properly manage conflicts – New Zealand could move in that direction to ensure rules have teeth.
4. Stricter Rules on Pecuniary Interests: Consider rules that require ministers to divest certain assets or put them in blind trusts to avoid financial conflicts. When he was prime minister, Chris Hipkins signalled support for an Australian-style approach of barring ministers from holding shares that conflict with their duties. Implementing this would prevent scenarios like the Michael Wood saga and bolster public trust that ministers aren’t secretly profiting from their portfolios.
5. Transparency in Conflict Management: It’s not enough to declare a conflict: the public should know how that conflict is being managed. Government should routinely publish (perhaps alongside Cabinet agendas or in annual reports) notices of when a minister has recused themselves or delegated a decision due to a conflict. If a minister declares a standing conflict (like Hoggard’s with the dairy sector), there should be a public record of what restrictions or oversight have been put in place (e.g., another minister co-signs decisions, particular meetings are attended by an observer, etc). Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant.
6. Regulate Lobbying and the Revolving Door: Managing conflicts also means addressing the environment that creates them. New Zealand should introduce a lobbyist register and transparency rules for lobbying interactions, so that it’s clear who is influencing ministers (and whether personal connections are at play). Cooling-off periods that prevent ministers (and senior officials) from immediately joining industries they used to regulate, and vice versa, would help curb the revolving door effect. This can reduce the likelihood of industries ‘planting’ their people inside government solely to advance private agendas.
By implementing reforms like these, New Zealand can move beyond the ‘trust us, we’ve declared it’ approach that has clearly proven inadequate. The goal is to rebuild a culture of integrity where conflicts of interest are not just logged in a file but actively mitigated in practice – and where the public can be confident of that.
As I’ve noted before, our nation has been riding on its reputation and trusting that ‘good chaps’ will do the right thing. But that era of complacency is ending. In a healthy democracy, integrity must be proven, not assumed. Andrew Hoggard’s case is a wake-up call: it’s time to shift from box-ticking to true accountability, ensuring that our ministers serve the public interest first and foremost – and are seen to do so at all times.
This article was originally published by the Integrity Institute.
