In the realm of the private individual, the giving and receiving of gifts has almost entirely positive connotations: generosity, altruism, kindness, thoughtfulness, graciousness, gratitude, humility and so on.
Taken into the "public" sphere, however, gifts can prove problematic. When organisations, companies or other groups bestow presents on individuals of another, the question arises as to "why?" and "what for?" It is almost inevitable that such generosity could come to be seen as an expression of gratitude for services rendered; or of services not yet rendered but anticipated.
This in turn can lead to the concern of favouritism or the influencing of contractual arrangements in favour of one party over another. Should the practice become entrenched, it is not too much of a stretch to arrive at a situation whereby the giver and receiver of gifts are entwined to such an extent their relationship might be said to have corrupted the accepted rules of business engagement - and thus tainted the reputations of the involved parties.
Government officials, whether local or national, through the offices of whom great sway can be obtained, are particularly vulnerable to accusations of favouritism, or worse, "graft" - whereby important decisions, the awarding of contracts, the shaping of legislation, the bending of rules, are influenced by individuals who stand to gain from so doing. Ultimately this leads only to the collapse of trust and the undermining of confidence in, particularly, public institutions.
So it must be said that moves by the Dunedin City Council to tighten its rules on acceptance of gifts and "compliance across the board" is to be applauded. Staff will in future be required to register any gift worth more than $50 - lowering the existent threshold from $100. Staff have also been issued with a new "standards of integrity and conduct" guideline. This was revealed by new council chief executive Paul Orders last Friday following inquiries by the Otago Daily Times into the DCC's gifts register.
This revealed that since late 2010, 59 gifts worth a total of $10,500 had been received by council staff. These included free rugby tickets, dinners and a $1000 donation. Mr Orders said that the gifts fell within the accepted rules, but acknowledged those rules were tightening and, as of next year, the council would publish a gifts register online monthly. Without wishing to label the previous regime as rampantly lax in its gift procedures, not only is the DCC now doing the right thing, just as importantly it is being seen to be doing the right thing.
There are, of course, instances in which it is acceptable, even desirable, for public officials to accept gifts from those with whom they interact. In certain cultures the giving and receiving of gifts is de rigueur; for DCC staff to reject proffered offerings while, for instance, hosting a visiting delegation of Chinese local government officials would be tantamount to an unforgivable snub - and likewise while visiting or hosting counterparts from many other countries.
National politicians are well versed in the "etiquette" of such circumstances and have clear rules to cover what is acceptable and what is not. The Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament defines a gift as "something given to, or for the benefit of, a member. This includes gifts received while travelling on official ministerial or parliamentary business". The rules point out that gifts are not limited to tangible objects but can include corporate hospitality or other services to the value of $500 or more.
This is how it should be. There is nothing quite so corrosive of "government" and "public service" than the perception - acquired rightly or wrongly - that the citizens' representatives are being at best influenced and at worst bribed as to their priorities or decisions and that some other people, companies or corporations are profiting as a result. What is required is a set of simple rules around the acceptance and notification of gifts. And when it comes to accusations of undue "generosity", and of purchasing influence, transparency is invariably the best disinfectant. The DCC's new rules will hopefully instil confidence that such matters are in hand in Dunedin.
