Aotearoa New Zealand’s historically low levels of corruption have encouraged complacency and a reactive approach to policymaking at top levels of politics and the public service, according to a research report commissioned by Transparency International New Zealand.
The report was launched by François Valérian, global Chair of Transparency International, at an anti-corruption forum in Wellington.
The New Zealand organisation says that the researcher, Dr Simon Chapple, considered concepts and measures of corruption and whether perceptions match with reality.
He looked at changing threats, as well as progress against past assessments and sought the opinions of experts to be able to comment on the effectiveness of core anti-corruption institutions.
Debbie Gee, Deputy Chair of Transparency International New Zealand, says in a statement, that this is a wake-up call.
“Our low level of corruption in New Zealand is a key asset from which we all benefit. We are not protecting it against rising corruption within and outside New Zealand.”
TINZ says the report considers external threats and ‘imported corruption’ as well as internal weaknesses.
“A greater proportion of our foreign trade is with countries that have high levels of corruption. We are also seeing growth in political polarisation, and a weakening of the general multi-lateral cooperative world. Internally our weaknesses lie in the dominant Executive and a weak Parliament as well as general complacency,” it states.
François Valérian congratulated TINZ for providing thought leadership on this matter.
“It is critical for a collective approach change towards positive prevention. This must come from government, civil society and business. The alternative is a slippery slope where public trust is lost, peaceful and just economies are undermined and the corrupt thrive.”
Major recommendations in the report are:
- We need a zeitgeist shift in thinking about anti-corruption in New Zealand towards positive prevention.
- Government should appropriately fund a single agency with the primary and high-profile responsibility for anti-corruption monitoring, coordination, research and strategic operations.
- That agency should lead development of an overall anti-corruption strategy that is clear and drives action such as monitoring, sharing, early warning systems, institutional systems that are particularly vulnerable.
Other recommendations include a review of the Official Information Act; a public register of beneficial ownership of companies, limited partnerships and trusts and greater transparency of both political financing and lobbying. TINZ says media is also noted as an area of considerable weakness.
It notes that “How Well Do we Counter Corruption National Integrity System Assessment” is available as a research brief with the full report available here.
