Is slipping a traffic officer $50 not to issue a ticket corruption?
Is paying a local council administrator $10,000 to sign off on a property development that fails to meet guidelines or regulations corruption? Is paying a scientific body $20,000 to falsify a report as to the toxic nature of an industry’s byproducts corruption?
Is paying a political party a large donation in order to have a law changed to suit a specific industry corruption?
Corruption has many definitions but some fundamentals seem to be common — payment, the avoidance of public, transparent means to obtain the desired result, the circumventing of either the law or commonly accepted social norms of behaviours, and the willingness of the recipient to accept the money for their own aggrandisement either financial or otherwise.
It is the last of these possible examples that causes me the most concern.
The current government has dumbed down the regulations relating to cameras on commercial fishing vessels. The government has repealed the smokefree legislation. The government has placed at the top of its agenda the building of a series of highways and roads.
All of these policies could be due to the stand-alone beliefs of the National Party as it then was or the government as it now is, but all political parties are also in receipt of donations.
Occasionally we hear of a person, company or entity that has financially supported any or all political parties receiving a contract to undertake an activity that they have lobbied for, or a change in legislation of benefit to them.
It could be argued that this is natural, that this is normal. After all, if a roading contractor has been lobbying for years to have the government build a local highway, then regardless of whether or not that company had made a substantial donation to the party’s funds, if the government decides to build the highway the contract has to go to someone and that company may be the best company in the area. Fair enough some would say.
There are three crucial problems with this scenario.
Firstly, would the government have decided upon the highway were it not for the lobbying? Secondly, would the government have decided upon the highway were it not for the donation and thirdly should that particular company or person have been the person to get the contract?
Corruption is difficult to define in a way that allows for compartmentalisation: that is to say that, "this is OK but that is not".
We can most likely all agree that paying a local government official $10,000 to approve resource consent is out and out corruption and should not be tolerated.
But what about paying money to politicians or political parties to enact legislation that favours you over other people — is that corruption?
How do you prove that a donation of $200,000 from an industry was not just because they wanted to give a donation and they did not expect anything back in return?
If they give $200,000 and then the government just happens to pass some legislation that is extremely advantageous to that organisation, is it possible to prove that one thing led to the other thing?
Perhaps they both just happened.
This is why corruption is such an insidious monster. It is very hard to decide where to draw the line; it is very hard to prove causality.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves who cares?
Obviously in the case of politics all those people without large amounts of money to pay politicians care. They are effectively being disenfranchised. They may have a vote but their vote won’t count for much if money can buy the policies someone else wants.
People who believe that democracy is a precious gift and that it needs to be constantly cared for to avoid it slipping into all the variety of alternatives to democracy that we see around the world today, they care.
Perhaps surprisingly, so do a very large number of business people, traders, exporters and entrepreneurs. A very large number of these people rely on New Zealand’s international reputation for being corruption free.
People outside of New Zealand want to do business with New Zealand because we are seen as corruption-free. But that is changing. New Zealand has slipped two places in the international transparency index since 2022.
This is the first time since 2012 that New Zealand has not been in one of the two top places.
Much of the change in our status is reflected in the 2023 World Economic Forum survey.
There are two questions in the survey: the second asks "In your country, how common is diversion of public funds to companies, individual or groups due to corrupt practices?".
Transparency International New Zealand suggests that the surveys result may "indicate a reduced business leader confidence in government integrity systems".
All of which takes us back to the first question, "When is corruption not corruption?".
I would suggest never. If it’s a little corrupt, then it is simply corrupt.
— Bill Verrall is a Fiordland writer.
