But you won’t learn this from the news media or the wingnut blogosphere
New Zealand is the least corrupt country in the entire world. This is official and from an impeccably impartial international source. You have not seen this trumpeted by the mainstream news media, which simply doesn’t want to know about such “good news” because scandal, celebrities and crime are its obsession, so the few outlets to publish it tucked it quietly away.
You certainly won’t hear it from much of the filthy sewer that is the New Zealand blogosphere, whose vilest denizens round the clock hurl allegations of corruption and sleaze against national and local politicians, police, government departments, judges and almost everyone else they claim are conspirators in their fantasy world.
Fortunately, for those who care, there is an independent, international, non-government organisation devoted to exposing corruption wherever it occurs and which publishes a regular table of countries based on their level of corruption as scaled by a variety of scientific, impartial indexes and measurements.
That organisation is the Berlin-based Transparency International, which describes itself thus: “Transparency International is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption. It brings people together in a powerful worldwide coalition to end the devastating impact of corruption on men, women and children around the world. TI’s mission is to create change towards a world free of corruption.”
Transparency International’s 2008 report was published this week and ranks 180 countries, almost all those on Earth.
Top of the list, ranked equal-first as the most corruption-free country in the world, is New Zealand, given the same low-corruption score as Denmark and Sweden. Ranked 180th at the bottom is Somalia.
What is fascinating, given the hysterical tone of our news media and the blogosphere, which do their best to make New Zealand appear some kind of corrupt cesspit, is that Australia is ranked ninth in this list, the UK is 16th, George Bush’s USA (so beloved by the blogosphere’s wingnuts) is 18th, while a modern European country like Italy is 55th, and, for us here in the Pacific more worryingly, Samoa is 62nd, Vanuatu is 109th and Tonga is an appalling 138th, down there with Paraguay, Liberia, Yemen and Cameroon.
You can access the full table here, but here are the top 20, with the least corrupt at the top:
New Zealand
Denmark
Sweden
Singapore
Finland
Switzerland
Iceland
Netherlands
Australia
Canada
Luxembourg
Austria
Hong Kong
Germany
Norway
Ireland
United Kingdom
United States
Japan
Belgium
While I am not some rose-spectacled Pollyanna who neither sees, hears nor speaks any evil, I am proud of the honest, transparent manner in which our state institutions and most New Zealanders conduct their business. While we may not be totally free of corruption, Transparency International shows we are free of it more than virtually every other country. We do not condone it in the slightest. When it is uncovered, its perpetrators are prosecuted to the letter and spirit of the law.
You cannot bribe a New Zealand police officer. Anyone who tried would be arrested on the spot. Everyone knows this, which is why nobody tries to, not even the worst, most desperate or richest criminals. While there have been a few instances of bribery among low-level public servants over the years, the offenders are caught and vigorously prosecuted. We get our share of fraudulent businesspeople, but they are also prosecuted (though some of those who escape prosecution tend to be those most championed by the wingnuts). We have a justice system that is beyond reproach, with our fiercely independent judges selected because of their legal abilities alone, certainly not because of political views (which is the main criteria in, for example, the US). Only a very few of our members of Parliament over the decades have served themselves rather than their electors and the self-serving ones, usually, do not last long.
Unlike much of the world, New Zealand is a nation where corruption is virtually unknown, where it is unheard of to have to bribe public officials to do the jobs they are paid to do, where the judiciary and the public service are independent of the government of the day, where genuine wrongdoing is quickly exposed (usually by law enforcement agencies but also, in the best traditions of journalism, by the media) and offenders dealt with in open court under fair and transparent laws.
Let me emphasise this: You can’t possibly do better than be the least-corrupt country in the world in Transparency International’s list. We are not number two, we are not number three, four, five, six or seven. We are at the very top. No country scores better than New Zealand for being less corrupt. Not one.
Many people reading this will not want to hear this message and will take extreme exception to it. Some will claim Transparency International is wrong and itself part of the conspiracy they find at every traffic light, but they are deluded. Whatever the failings of New Zealand, corruption is very much not one of them and we are all the winners from this. May it ever be so.
But yet, yet, yet… so poisonous has been the growth this past few years of the wingnut blogosphere, whose cave-dwellers’ most bizarre rantings are often echoed with naive enthusiasm by the overworked, no-time-to-check-the-facts journalists of the mainstream media, that even the mainstream media is now spreading that cynicism widely.
In the interests of the remarkably good country New Zealand is, as proven by measures such as Transparency International’s regular reports, our mainstream news media needs to get back to the basics of reporting the actual news, not just the celebrity, scandal and crime, and reporting it factually, without the hysteria, egging and repetition of blogosphere rantings.
How this might happen is problematical now that most of New Zealand’s mainstream media political journalists have blogs of their own and their massive egos are daily stroked by the wingnuts quoting them on first-name terms for supporting and quoting the wingnut point of view, in circles ad infinitum in the fatuous echo chamber that is the blogosphere.
If we get to the point where the cynicism and constant baseless allegations of corruption and scandal are all that reach the surface of the sewer and become the only public discourse, the risk is that New Zealanders will come to believe the fantasy is the reality, and thus make it so.
- Footnote: It doesn’t take much to make elements of the blogosphere foam at the mouth, does it? Cactus Kate has no time for Transparency International (“anything but transparent”), rubbishes the fact New Zealand is the least corrupt nation on Earth (apparently having to pay 50c more for Fastpost is blatant corruption) and urges the news media to continue to ignore the story. The Hive says New Zealand is beset with “blatant corruption” but all will be well on November 8 when, he predicts, heaven will be established in Godzone. Ian Wishart remains convinced the New Zealand police are riddled with corruption and Transparency International’s methodology must be wrong. Peter Burns, aka Dad4Injustice promises to supply “more than enough evidence to prove extensive of [sic] sinister corruption throughout the NZ police,” doubtless mistressminded by a lesbian conspiracy. The Inquiring Mind read about the Transparency International report in the Straits Times in Singapore, and even, good lord, on Stuff! At the local blogosphere’s second-most extreme home of hate-filled, misogynist poison, Falsefacts Media froths rabidly at any suggestion New Zealand is not the most corrupt nation in the entire universe and he has emailed Transparency International to object to its findings. But not every blogger is convinced New Zealand is wallowing in corruption. Bren at Food Fight in the War Room says “New Zealand has also achieved the highest score possible for political freedom, are the sixth most economically free country in the world (should also be noted that we are tied for first with Denmark for Business Freedom) and came fifth in the Legatum Prosperity Index. Nice job fucking up the country Labour. Sigh.”
100 Comments
September 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Here, here,
And after the appaling stunt pulled over the past few days by certain members of the blogsphere, I’m glad you didn’t give them any extra oxgen by actually linking to them.
September 27, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Heh. I have given up reading the blogs that annoy me most, so I don’t know what exexpat’s referring to, but I knew as soon as I saw that report in the paper that the “Liarbour” crowd would go apeshit.
Well-said, Poneke.
September 27, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Poneke,
I agree that we should be thankful that we live in such a corruption-free country.
However I disagree with your negative analysis over the reaction of the media and blogosphere to any hint of a corruption scandal. I think that a major reason NZ is so free from corruption is because our media (including blogs) do such a good job at both revealing any potential corruption, but also in stirring up the public.
Sure, some of the “scandals” that are a huge deal in NZ probably wouldn’t make the newspapers in Italy. But do we really want our government or public service to look anything like Italy’s?
September 27, 2008 at 2:40 pm
And after the appaling stunt pulled over the past few days by certain members of the blogsphere, I’m glad you didn’t give them any extra oxgen by actually linking to them.
It was so appalling, and so designed to destroy a blameless public figure, that I considered devoting a post to it. But as those behind it were in the end forced to admit it was a hoax, before it erupted into the mainstream media, whose journalists were salivating over it, I chose not to. So far. I continue to collect information of what they tried to do and may yet write about the sordid details.
September 27, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Poneke,
I agree with you that New Zealand’s place on the TI ranking is to be warmly welcomed. It is noticeable that the UK has slipped down the table this year after the government there frankly admitted that political/security considerations were stronger than upholding the rule of law when they forced the Serious Fraud Office to abandon its enquiries into corruption by British Aerospace and the Saudis. The OECD has been investigating the UK’s abandonment of its commitments to fighting corruption since then.
I also agree with you about the abysmal state of reporting of public affairs in New Zealand. I used to think it was poor in the UK, but frankly that is a well-informed paradise of quality analysis and debate compared to the risible junk that passes for that here. However politicians and government officials also share some blame in this – I have not seen any serious attempt by them (in the 4 years I have been here) to encourage higher standards. There’s a whole other debate to be had about the issues wrapped up that previous sentence, but I won’t go into them here.
However, there are a couple of caveats I have to the rosy picture the TI ranking paints – and you yourself say that we should not be pollyanna-ish about this.
First, this is not an index of countries according to actual corruption. It is a corruption perceptions index. As the FAQ on the index says, “It is a composite index, a poll of polls, drawing on corruption-related date from expert and business surveys carried out by a variety of independent and reputable institutions. The CPI reflects views from the world, including those of experts who are living in the countries evaluated.”
TI also publish the Global Corruption Barometer, which actually asks ordinary people living the country what their experiences of corruption are. The press release on last year’s GCB describes the relationship between the Barometer and the Index thus:
“The findings of the 2007 Global Corruption Barometer show a strong correlation (0.66) between the experience of bribery among ordinary citizens and the perceptions of corruption by experts, which are the basis for the Corruption Perceptions Index, TI’s flagship measurement tool. Those countries where business people, country analysts and experts perceive corruption to be widespread are the same ones where, on average, a higher proportion of citizens pay bribes for access to services .”
So, it’s quite likely that NZ would score highly on the Barometer too – but sadly, this country was not surveyed for inclusion in the most recent Barometer, so it cannot tell us if ordinary members of the public have a different perception about the possible level of corruption here. It might just differ from experts and businessmen surveyed as part of the CPI.
My second caveat relates to the definition of corruption. I agree with you that it is extremely unlikely that people in New Zealand are going to be asked for a bribe or would expect to have to pay one to get any kind of public service – or that they could avoid some kind of penalty through payment of a bribe.
However, corruption is not solely synonymous with payment of bribes. Corruption can also come in other forms, such as appointments processes and failures to avoid conflicts of interest by those taking public policy decisons.
Since arriving in the country, I have been surprised by the ubiquity of the phrase ’shoulder-tapped’, where someone is appointed to a job without it being advertised, or where the appointments process is a sham because the employer is going through the motions because they have a preferred candidate from the outset. I’m not naive enough to think this doesn’t happen elsewhere, and it may simply be a function of being a small country, but I have been struck with the lack of systems and procedures for ensuring the integrity of (especially) public appointments. The Mary Anne Thompson case is just the most glaring example of these failings – although that was complicated by her lack of candour (to put it mildly) regarding her qualifications. I suspect that shoulder-tapping for public sector jobs and contracts goes on frequently, and thus who you know might well be more important that what you know. As a recent immigrant, this can obviously have a direct effect on my employment prospects and it can mean the the New Zealand public doesn’t get the service it deserves because the best person for the job/the best service provider for the contract was not appointed.
Conflicts of interest by decision makers (both elected politician and public service official) is also an issue that should be given greater scrutiny by a media that wants to live up to its watchdog role. The Auditor General has previously highlighted the gaps in the system of preventing this at local government level(http://www.oag.govt.nz/2005/members/), but I think the report has simply been languishing on a Department of Internal Affairs shelf since then. I have heard tales of mayors and councillors involving themselves in planning decisions about the development of their districts when they have a personal economic stake in the decision to be taken through effect it will have on land prices. Also that councillors do not remove themselves from meetings that involve a person complaining about the actions of the council or an individual in the area, and the councillor has non-pecuniary interests such as friendship, or living adjacent to, either the person complaining or the person complained about.
The Standards Board for England came under fierce attack from councillors and others for its work in investigating complaints about this kind of problem, but one might argue that this is because it had stirred up a nest of complacent hornets. Perhaps a similar body here might serve some useful purpose? Does New Zealand need tougher requirements for registering and publishing the interests not just of politicians but also of some officials?
The entire concept of non-notified consents under the RMA is also something worth re-examining. There’s too much scope for difference between what is approved ‘in principle’ when the district plan is being consulted upon and the reality of what is then erected following a non-notified consent. What has happened at Athletic Park in Wellington is one example of this. Whether you call it corruption or poor application of planning procedures or bad legislative design, it seems to me that non-notified consents have the potential for misuse.
There are other issues to do with inappropriate closure of meetings to the press and public under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, but those will only be resolved through people complaining about it more and creating the pressure for legislative reform.
Finally, how is it that political parties can shield the source of a donation by laundering it through a trust? How would we have known that people with a direct financial stake in the racing industry had donated money, via a trust, to the party behind the minister for that industry if it hadn’t been for the recent hoo-ha?
Overall, I think you’re right – New Zealand should be celebrating its CPI rankings. But equally, there are things it should not be complacent about, even if people are very rarely asked to pay a bribe.
[Poneke adds: What a thorough and thoughtful response, Andrew. Than you very much putting so much into it.]
September 27, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“those behind it were in the end forced to admit it was a hoax, before it erupted into the mainstream media, whose journalists were salivating over it,”
For the record Poneke.
As a mainstream media journalist I most definitely wasn’t salivating over this issue. And while I can’t speak for my colleagues in the gallery I am pretty damn sure none of them were either.
I just wanted to make the point.
September 27, 2008 at 3:23 pm
OOoo I feel like I missed something by being busy this week!
I felt that I should object that mainstream media didn’t cover this, because I knew of it, and totally read it online. But now, I can’t find it. So I must conclude it was through Google news I found it, and the Sydney Morning Herald that reported the article I read (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/somalia-the-worlds-most-corrupt-country-new-zealand-the-least/2008/09/24/1222193835181.html)
That’s kind of sad. I agree, New Zealand media is depressing and so negative. Someone lend them some happy pills?
September 27, 2008 at 4:21 pm
You’ve nailed it Poneke- an excellent post. And Andrew’s comments are thought-provoking – my perception of local body politicians (I’ve spent nearly 40 years in one area and family have much experience in several other rural areas) is that all kinds of bounty come to them who vote for the right people…and dont try and upset the bounty-cart…
I’d never quite thought of it as corruption per se – more as a weird favouritism, but now it’s come to be mentioned-
September 27, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Who paid you to write this? Was it a lesbian?
September 27, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Who paid you to write this? Was it a lesbian?
Shut up Danyl you will destroy my veil of studied independence.
September 27, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“We have a justice system that is beyond reproach …” Do we? You might like to let Peter Ellis know that, I think he’s still waiting for justice.
September 27, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Andrew’s mention of “shoulder tapping” has a resonance to me. I was once “asked”, told really, not to apply for a position advertised in the national papers as they had a “favoured” candidate. I’m not actually against people setting up jobs for particular people in one sense, in that they’re going to choose a particular person in the end and often there is a person they want to recruit. But I’m against presenting a vacancy as open to all applicants when in practice it is open primarily, or exclusively, to a favoured candidate. If nothing else, its misleading to the applicants. (You can sometimes overturn a favoured candidate, but usually only if you’re much, much better to the point that those hiring lose loyality to their candidate!)
September 27, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Karen: You might like to let Peter Ellis know that, I think he’s still waiting for justice.
Yeah, but that’s pig-headedness and stupidity, not corruption.
September 27, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Yes, Andrew has a fair point. The ties of mateship lead to some dodgy deals in this country. In particular we have problems where regulatory agencies. In order to meet the requirement to hire people with appropriate expertise, they end up with a staff who often are ex-colleagues and friends with the people they are meant to treat objectively and at arms’ length.
I do think we’re free of bribes and gifts and capricious rule enforcement though.
September 27, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Yes, I also object to the idea the gallery were “salivating” over that story. I ignored it as long as possible, but it took only a couple of phone calls for it to be proven not true.
I thought that might be considered good journalim, not yet another chance for a cheap shot from those in blogland who should know better.
What was sadder was when the defamers were caught out, they then twisted and tried to lie a little bit more by then defaming again by blaming someone else.
This is just another step down the path to the point that someone will sue bloggers who maliciously defame.
Most people have thought up to now such idiots should be just ignored because the audience is so limited.
I can think of a few MPs who have been horribly defamed in recent months and if they loose their jobs in the election, would have nothing to lose from a few court actions.
All those cached blog pages, so much material for so many lawyers
September 27, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Stories like that are one of the reasons that I so rarely visit the right wing blogs. Kiwiblog is about as far as I go.
September 27, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I/S: Call it what you will (and I call it corruption), the Ellis case is a black stain on our justice system; therefore, in all honesty our justice system cannot be said to be “beyond reproach”.
September 27, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“We have a justice system that is beyond reproach”
No it isn’t. It is flawed in many areas. It just isn’t is bad as many overseas systems.
“with our fiercely independent judges selected because of their legal abilities alone”
Bullshit. Judges are not appointed on the basis of their legal abilities alone. Quite a number were only average lawyers at best. Some were quite appalling lawyers. Ask around about many of our judges. I suggest you start with Manakau. Many of our best lawyers never become judges. Becoming a judge is just as much about who you know as how good a lawyer you are.
Also, many judges are not “fiercely independent” at all. Many are only too happy to toe the ‘party line’ but are able to do it easily because most the day to day decisions of the courts are a mystery, even to the court reporters. And the Court of Appeal is a waste of space.
“However, corruption is not solely synonymous with payment of bribes. ”
What a great post, Andrew. This is especially true of the Police, the Courts and local government. I won’t repeat what you say about the latter of those, because you put it well and my stories would take too long. However, there has been bribery in the New Zealand Police, although my knowledge of it is from many years past now. It just is not as apparent (or, thankfully, as common) as in Australia. However, the Police are very happy to commit perjury when they need to, fit up suspects and withhold vital evidence. They also cover for each other on a regular basis, including (or especially) with the Police Complaints Authority.
Karen: You might like to let Peter Ellis know that, I think he’s still waiting for justice.
I/S: Yeah, but that’s pig-headedness and stupidity, not corruption.
But where does the unwillingness to hold a commission of inquiry fall into this? About the same area of greyness that saw Val Sim, who has never achieved anything of note (compare her career to those of her fellow law commissioners) being appointed to the law commission, perhaps?
September 27, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Thankyou, Poneke.
That we need to be reminded of our position as a basically decent society says much about the diet of outrage and denigration that some political commentators in the media and the blogosphere constantly try to feed us.
All sorts of minor omissions and peccadilloes are readily painted as “corruption” by people burning with a sort of crusading hatred. Where on earth does that come from?
September 27, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Karen.
In terms of the judicial system the Ellis case illustrates that the judicial system was, and remains, flawed in three main areas.
1) It was allowed to be hijacked my agenda-driven ideologues and by doing so permitted the convictions to occur in the first place. The case ought never to have survived depositions. It is chilling to realise that many others may also have fallen victim to similar circumstances.
2) The system has spectacularly failed to be able to address it’s own errors, in particular it refuses to revisit a jury’s decision despite it being patently obvious, to almost all who examine it, that the trial result was unjustifiable.
3) There is reasonable suspicion that individuals in positions of influence manoeuvred to allow the situation described by the second point.
I agree, the case is riddled with corruption, some of it petty some of it gross.
September 27, 2008 at 10:54 pm
also object to the idea the gallery were “salivating” over that story. I ignored it as long as possible, but it took only a couple of phone calls for it to be proven not true. I thought that might be considered good journalim, not yet another chance for a cheap shot from those in blogland who should know better.
Why didn’t NZPA expose it, though, rather than let the creep and his mates continue to promote it, which they are still doing, now claiming it is some government plot?
I’d get into it myself except I don’t want to give oxygen to these loons.
September 27, 2008 at 11:06 pm
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2008/09/corruption.html
There you go P.
About time we had another “blog off”
September 27, 2008 at 11:20 pm
“Peter’s case is a stain on our justice system, yes, but I can safely say it is not as a result of any corruption, just closed minds.”
Poneke, in case my last comment is misconstrued I think that you are right in terms of the Bench and Bar.
But I’m not so sure of the conduct of many others involved in the case.
September 27, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Perhaps the story needs to be pitched to the media in terms that they will understand: “New Zealand has world-class levels of coruptlessness!”
Though the “world class” angle could backfire. Some may look to America, Australian and/or England’s levels of corruption as ideal and may decide that New Zealand needs to be more corrupt in order to be a “world class”, “robust” and “first world” country.
Right, I’m off to bribe a world-class parking warden.
September 27, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Poneke, what is this all about and who is the poor unfortunate sod who is getting got at by the nutters?
September 28, 2008 at 1:36 am
Yet the Labour Government is the most corrupt government New Zealand has ever had. Are you a Labour supporter?
Gimme a break…you are starting to sound like Chris Trotter with about as much credibility
September 28, 2008 at 8:51 am
With due respect Poneke, I can supply you with more than enough evidence to prove extensive of sinister corruption throughout the NZ police. It’s sad that our police force has never been properly scrutinized by a neutral investigation looking into corruption. It has got that bad, a psycho cop who murdered a Canterbury man had all matters swept under the carpet and is still on the force with his unstable hand on the gun.
The NZ police are a rotten bunch of corrupt pigs.
September 28, 2008 at 9:26 am
Frankly I think we are an insufferably smug people with some of the worst corruption of all.. the corruption of low expectations, of spurious virtue, close to the worst total crime statistics in the world and the second highest diaspora of a people in the world.
So we are the least corrupt but the biggest criminals, the least corrupt and people are fleeing the country faster than Iraq or Afghanistan, the least corrupt and we’ve slipped from 1st in the world for wealth and life quality to 22nd, the least corrupt and we’ve got two politicians and the Solicitor General up on criminal charges, we’ve retrospectively approved illegal party expenditure, brought in the most repulsive electoral laws of countries our type, called West Coasters “feral inbreds”, preferred a sheep over Maori protesters, cuddled a fat corpse in Sth Auckland but couldn’t make it to a murdered cop’s funeral, said that 85% are child beaters but actual child murderers are victims of colonialism, excused gangs on the same basis and on and on and on.
But at least we’re not corrupt because an international agency says the “we” “perceive” we aren’t.
Great.
JC
September 28, 2008 at 9:34 am
“Why didn’t NZPA expose it… I’d get into it myself except I don’t want to give oxygen to these loons.”
I think you explained why yourself
September 28, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Pfffft, I suggest Poneke that you look a little closer to home in regards to that nasty little incident last week. I am glad it drew attention as it shows how nasty some people really are – and how desperate people are to smear one of their own.
September 28, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Rubbish. You and your mates led by the Auckland Bigot set out to smear a Labour cabinet minister by posting titilating “clues” to your “scandal” on your blogs, with the usual wingnuts of the Echo Chamber egging each other on and with some of you trying to get the news media to run with this farce.
Now you’ve been exposed, you’re trying to claim it was the government setting up its own minister, rather than your lot.
What utter hypocrisy.
September 28, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“New Zealand has world-class levels of coruptlessness!”
Nah… you gotta get the term ‘per capita’ in there somewhere.
September 28, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Thing is, I may have some mixed views about the story referred to and the way it panned out but the clear inference I have taken from it is that the government might have colluded to cover up something that would damage them. Now, that is what has happened all the term of this administration, especially the last term when it’s largely been about how the powerful can corrupt the lawmaking process to stay in power at all costs. That came with all kinds of machinations, the latest being the attempt to subvert the Privileges Committee process.
I would like someone to explain to me why, except for one or two very minor cases, police have decided time and time again that charges will not be pressed against Labour MPs or Ministers. The process by which these situations have panned out makes them look pretty corrupt, certainly not transparent.
September 28, 2008 at 1:29 pm
And “in the Southern Hemisphere”.
September 28, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Poneke,
Whilst in one respect it is pleasant to be referred to in your blog, I am not entirely happy with the context, given that it was in your update above where you seemed to imply that I was foaming at the mouth and you wrote:-
“The inquiring Mind read about the Transparency International report in the Straits Times in Singapore, and even, good lord, on Stuff! ”
My comment there was in respect of your comment at the start of your post:-
“You would not exactly see this trumpeted by the mainstream news media, which simply doesn’t want to know about such “good news” because scandal, celebrities and crime are its obsession, so the few outlets to publish it tucked it quietly away.”
I just pointed out that it was in the MSM, I did not have to search for it on Stuff, I was not attacking you, merely making a comment.
The reference to the Straits Times was simply because I happen to be in Singapore this week and the media here did mention the TPI report, which perhaps reinforces your thesis.
My full reference in my blog to your post was as follows:-
Poneke posts on the recent report by Transparency International where NZ along with Denmark and Sweden are named the least corrupt nations in the World, closely followed by Singapore. Though yet again he vents some bile on what he calls the wingnut blogosphere – it is unclear whether all NZ blogs which comment on current affairs are in that category or just some. Adam suspects the spleen is directed at every one. Poneke says that you would not learn about the report from the news media, well Adam read it online at Stuff, as well as in The Straits Times here in Singapore. The post is worth reading – Adam has some sympathy with Poneke’s final comment:-
If we get to the point where the cynicism and constant baseless allegations of corruption and scandal are all that reach the surface of the sewer and become the public discourse, the risk is that New Zealanders will come to believe the fantasy is the reality, and thus make it so.
Though Adam does not take such a negative view as Poneke. Further, part of the issue may well be the lack of diverse media and comment in NZ, plus varying world views of blog readers and commentators.’
Quite clearly I was supportive of your post. I was making a comment about what appears to be your generalisation that essentially all bloggers are sewers. I assume that covers both left and right.
I did not attack your post or you. I made a comment about what appeared to me to be somewhat barbed comments by your good self on the blogosphere. I was not personal or hateful.
I cannot see how my comment encouraging people to read your post and my sympathy with, indeed endorsement of your closing comment can in anyway be taken as ‘foaming at the mouth’.
Thank you for allowing me to comment.
[Poneke adds: You are very welcome Adam, and additionally, the footnote is, transparently I hope, written wryly in good humour. The actual article is in complete seriousness.]
September 28, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Right on Poneke. Superb post backed up by a good defense in the comments section. Keep up the fight for sanity!
September 28, 2008 at 3:53 pm
A few points – (these are questions more than answers)
1. The genesis of corruption is human moral weakness, and I don’t think NZers are any less susceptible to that than people anywhere else;
2. For corruption to flourish, you need two things: a culture which tolerates it/encourages it, and a legal system which does likewise.
3. The question I then have is, what aspects of NZ culture encourage or discourage corruption? Bribery – the example cited in the post – is a bit of a no-no here.
NZers don’t even tip, let alone bribe.
The aspects of our culture which do encourage or at least allow corruption are aspects which in other contexts we pride ourselves on.
The biggie is we stick up for our mates. It seemed to me to be a big driver in a number of the publicly known recently scandals affecting the police force.
September 28, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Poneke…you misread the significance and methodology of Transparency International’s findings. I’ve laid out a more realistic appraisal at http://www.tbr.cc (fisking Poneke)
September 28, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I think the fact that we all know each other, and know each other’s business, creates a degree of transparency that’s not possible in larger societies. There’s just two degrees of separation in NZ, and not even that, sometimes.
Good call on sticking up for your mates, Rob.
September 28, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“I think the fact that we all know each other, and know each other’s business, creates a degree of transparency that’s not possible in larger societies.”
But unfortunately Deborah, the ‘fact’ that we know each other’s business (which I would question anyway) doesn’t translate into systems which prevent the abuse of ’sticking up for your mates’ (trans. ‘doing them favours’). It just enables gossip.
It is also not sustainable into the future as New Zealand’s population grows and the country has a large number of immigrants who are less likely to fall into that ‘two degrees of separation’ category.
September 28, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Poneke
Thank you.
Turning to the subject of the post, I regard the report as good. I think in terms of what one might regard as the most common instance of corruption – bribery- New Zealand is indeed blessedly free of that, so far as I am aware.
However, I tend to the view that we are not so free from another, less commonly perceived ‘corruption’ or ‘taint’ call it what you will. – that identified by Andrew in his posts in this thread.
Given that New Zealand is such as small society the ability to influence through patronage and ‘old boy’ networks is very strong. Obviously in other countries these are present also, but there tend to be more networks and greater population size possibly renders the patronage less prevalent.
Examples include the large number of ‘crony’ appointees by all parties, when in power to government boards and quangos.
In my opinion such appointments should be made by an independent appointments commission, which itself should be established in such a way as to minimize the ability of any one government to stack the board and thus skew the process.
Criteria for appointment should be clear and include competence and relevant skills – these would not include such as ‘coming from the Waikato’ as has been at least one case recently.
Appointments such as those are to my mind evidence of at least a tainted process.
It could be argued that the form of ‘corruption’ noted is in fact more insidious and damaging in the long term than that of bribery, as it may become the norm.
September 28, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Rob Hosking: The genesis of corruption is human moral weakness, and I don’t think NZers are any less susceptible to that than people anywhere else; For corruption to flourish, you need two things: a culture which tolerates it/encourages it, and a legal system which does likewise.
Yes, I believe you make very good points here, Rob. I also believe we do not have a culture or legal system that tolerates or encourages corruption, quite the opposite and the court cases over the years where the comparatively few corrupt ones are prosecuted to the full extent of the law are evidence of this, I would argue.
There is even a current MP from the governing party (till he resigned from it) before the courts charged with corruption. I do not believe this means that our system is corrupt, I believe it means our system works (I also make no judgement on the merits of the case against him; that will be for our independent courts, as it should be).
Rob Hosking: The question I then have is, what aspects of NZ culture encourage or discourage corruption? Bribery – the example cited in the post – is a bit of a no-no here. NZers don’t even tip, let alone bribe. The aspects of our culture which do encourage or at least allow corruption are aspects which in other contexts we pride ourselves on. The biggie is we stick up for our mates. It seemed to me to be a big driver in a number of the publicly known recently scandals affecting the police force.
But are these corruption? A number of police officers were charged with rapes allegedly committed decades ago, and were promptly charged in court, tried, and acquitted by juries that heard the evidence. This is the system working, not a sign of a corrupt system, I would argue very strongly. The fact that most of the media and the blogosphere wanted those officers to be convicted and rail against their acquittal doesn’t make the system corrupt, it means it works. The rare exception such as Peter Ellis aside (and that was back in 1993), you actually get a fair trial in New Zealand despite the baying for your blood from the media and the Net.
The police case that worries me the most is the Whakatane officers who were videoed beating up and repeatedly pepper-spraying a helpless inmate in a cell. They were charged and prosecuted, but a jury acquitted them, despite the very clear video evidence. This case IMO was our Rodney King and just as scandalous.
But it was not corruption. Those police officers were charged and tried. It was a jury that acquitted them. That makes this case little different from the rape ones where juries also acquitted.
If we had a corrupt police force those cases would never have even come to court. The fact they did and that the police prosecuted their own is, I argue, a fairly strong sign that we have a non-corrupt police force that does not “stick up for our mates,” even if indivdual officers do in court cases such as the Nicholas and Whakatane ones.
Adam Smith: Examples include the large number of ‘crony’ appointees by all parties, when in power to government boards and quangos. In my opinion such appointments should be made by an independent appointments commission, which itself should be established in such a way as to minimize the ability of any one government to stack the board and thus skew the process.
I strongly agree with your proposal for an independent appointments commission. I don’t believe there is anything corrupt about the present appointments process, especially at the higher level such as with judges, where the Cabinet ministers (of whatever party is in government) who appoint them demonstrably appoint senior lawyers of good standing. But many of the minor appointments to minor boards and quangos have appeared to me from my observation of them over the past two decades or so at times been based on patronage rather than ability.
The system should be seen to be above reproach and having an independent appointments commission that would select appointees based solely on ability and suitability for the job would be a very worthwhile development.
An independent commission would not rule out appointing former politicians as a good number of these have extensive experience that make them suitable for such jobs — for example former National prime minister Jim Bolger in the various diplomatic and director positions he has been appointed to, and former Labour prime minister and attorney general, justice minister and long-time constitutional law professor Geoffrey Palmer as head of the Law Commission.
September 28, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Poneke, in your comments you seem to think that it was me that dreamed up the scurrilous smear.
It was not. I was sent an email, followed by several others, The IP address has been recorded. The content of all the emails has not been released and for good reason.
The items I posted on to flush out the hoax could easily have applied to any number of MP’s and no one MP was named.
I have now laid a complaint with the police and handed all records to them for investigation. I would hardly do that if I was the architect of this appalling smear.
Several from your “team” are now claiming victory over me, interestingly you also seem to know more than what has been posted suggesting that you may be involved.
[Poneke says: In your dreams, Whale, unless you provide me with the incontrovertable evidence.]
September 28, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Whale Oil,
You got that excited just from a few emails??
There’s some Nigerian blokes who would just love to get in touch with you…
Poneke
What I had in mind was those who covered up for those cops. Dewar etc.
In fact, I’m not actually arguing with you about whether we have a corrupt system or not because I think, broadly speaking, we don’t.
What itnerested me was the question of whether, given we’re no less suspeptible to moral weakness than any other group of human beings, where the weak points in our culture or system might be which could open a wedge to a greater level of corruption.
The sticking up for mates is one thing. That’s part of a broader of ‘we all know each other, we don’t need to get too hung up about the rules here’ attitude you get at times.
One thing I want to emphasise is these are the downsides of some of the great things about New Zealand. We’re an ‘intimate democracy’ as someone once said, and we’re a fairly easygoing people. They’re fantastic things to be, but everything has its drawbacks.
Apart from the police, the occasions I’ve seen things get kind of fudged was as a small town reporter covering local councils. One occasion where a councillor had an interest in a planning matter being discussed: she initially wanted to remain but was told she could not take part in the discussion.
She went to sit away from the council table but still in the room – something which had been allowed in similar instances previously. The clerk of the committee, who had only been in the job a few months and who wasn’t from the town, pointed out she actually had to leave the room. She said not. The clerk started citing the relevant laws: at this point the committee chairman ordered the room to be cleared of members of the public, which amounted to the two reporters.
As we went out I said to the chairman ‘if she doesn’t come out, you do realise I’ll be writing about it.’
She came out a few minutes later. The clerk really felt the heat after that, simply because it wasn’t the way things were normally done.
September 28, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Not my dreams Poneke, I have passed the incontrovertible evidence to the Police.
September 28, 2008 at 7:02 pm
She came out a few minutes later. The clerk really felt the heat after that, simply because it wasn’t the way things were normally done.
I’ve been to a number of local body meetings like that in my time too. Sigh.
September 28, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Poneke
On appointments I agree that in the main they appear to be appropriate for senior ones. Nor would I automatically exclude former politicians such as Jim Bolger or Geoffrey Palmer – but others smack of cronyism and patronage used to persuade people to move on from other positions. At which point I would suggest there is a very thin line being walked.
September 28, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Show me the evidence, Whale oil and I will get your story on the front page of every newspaper in the country, leading every radio bulletin and the TV news.
It would be a great story, but I have doubts about your credibility. I suspect you made it up from beginning to end, but I can accept your claim you have evidence. Why would you trust the police, I understand you believe they are totally corrupt.
I am humble journalist, if your story stacks up I will write it.
September 29, 2008 at 3:56 am
I never urged the news media to ignore the story Poneke. They don’t need any urging. a) it’s rather a boring topic and b) TI is actually not transparently funded. Sounds like a group of marketeers and unemployable statistical wonks getting together and having their lifestyles funded under the guise of a semi-charitable organisation.
You can’t be transparent when you don’t announce who your funders are other than “government” and “foundations” that I explained are a civil law tool far more secret than even the Spencer Trust will be.
As for the fastpost example, mock it as you like but it was used to show how for one fee to a government owned organisation (SOE) something happens at a certain speed and for an extra fee it goes a little quicker. Not corruption in the west as it’s enshrined in law but try telling that to the rest.
Your colonialism is shining through in dismissing how the little people in the world see these examples.
September 29, 2008 at 7:37 am
Another – serious – question for Whale Oil.
What did the police say when you gave them the info? Did they give you any indication as to which part of the criminal law may have been breached?
We don’t have a law of criminal libel now (and – from memory – it wasn’t a police matter when we did).
Fraud? No pecuniary gain. It could be argued the actions are prejudicial to public welfare but this would be a real stretch, I think.
I’m prepared to be proved wrong on this, but at the moment this looks like more bullshit.
September 29, 2008 at 8:06 am
Cactus Kate is either being disingenuous or lazy with regard to her analysis of the funding of Transparency International. Given her posting frequency and job she seems not to be lazy, so sadly we should probably chalk it up to disingenuousness. Maybe it stems from what seems to be her general bias against anyone who does not work for a private sector company, and what seems to be her scepticism towards anyone creating value that is not a $ value on a company’s bottom line.
I can’t believe she would not be able to find the information were she conducting due diligence for work purposes, because I found it in two minutes.
Transparency International provide a break down of which governments and foundations have given them money in their 2007 Audited Financial Report. This can be downloaded here:
http://transparency.org/about_us/annual
The details are on page 8.
September 29, 2008 at 8:50 am
Whale Oil,
You got that excited just from a few emails??
He did, and so did Hooten and others. They postured, dropped hints and cracked on as if they had deep Beehive contacts.
They were played like suckers.
September 29, 2008 at 9:01 am
Poneke…. maybe you can tell us all what you actually know? You have read more into it than even we did. I would *love* to see where I have spoken rubbish about it…. I await the crippling evidence proving me wrong.
Unless you have seen the emails I do suggest you refrain on passing judgement on something you are getting information from 3rd hand.
September 29, 2008 at 9:02 am
I would have some doubt about a survey that has Singapore, where the judiciary cravenly serves the dictator Lee family, as being the fourth least corrupt.
[Poneke says: I realise you have lived there, while I have only visited, but Singapore has long struck me as one of the least corrupt places in the world. It's one of the few places in Asia that I haven't had bribes demanded and the rule of law is very, um, strong there. Singapore is a prime example (well, perhaps the only one) of how a strongly undemocratic country can still be run in a benign way for the good of its people, while vigorous democracies such as Italy and India are highly corrupt and rate well down the TI list. That said I'd prefer Italy's or India's democratic corruption to Singapore's undemocratic rule of law -- though the food in all three places is damned good.]
September 29, 2008 at 10:25 am
I have some sympathy for Cactus Kate’s argument. Switzerland is apparently one of the least corrupt countries on earth, despite being Money Launderer’s to the world, and bankers of choice for the Depraved and Evil. Eh? Clearly, it’s a very specific definition of corruption.
Nonetheless, New Zealand clearly has very little corruption. Who do we have to thank for it? In part, those ‘wingnuts’ who make the accusations. They are the first line of defence against corruption, because they are prepared to stand up and shout about it. It may be rude, but a polite society tends not to be a free society.
Or would you rather still have Don Brash and Taito Philip Field in positions of power?
September 29, 2008 at 10:28 am
I can’t believe she would not be able to find the information were she conducting due diligence for work purposes, because I found it in two minutes.
Andrew, don’t you know the big joke behind Cactus Kate’s blog?
Kate is not really a highly paid corporate lawyer based in Hong Kong. She’s a single mother of three working part time as a petrol station attendant in Otahuhu.
Her blog does not represent her true views, it’s a brilliant parody of the sort of self-satisfied, champagne-swilling, poor-hating Auckland Tory.
Haven’t you noticed how she simultaneously brags about her high-faluting university education and then decries academics as socialists? Or how she bags Labour for not doing anything to help ordinary workers with its tax packages, and then condemns ordinary workers for being violent slobs?
Surely the times when she brags about hassling waitresses for not serving her booze sufficiently cooled would give it away?
A real corporate lawyer would feel the need to point out how much money they make or how awesome it is to be posted overseas every third post.
It’s really quite excellent stuff and the fact that you (and not only you) fell for it just goes to show what a masterful satirist ‘Kate’ is.
Kate, my hat’s off to you. Keep up the good work.
September 29, 2008 at 1:57 pm
… but aren’t we lucky that we live in New Zealand and not Somalia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, East Timor, Iraq etc. etc?
September 29, 2008 at 4:44 pm
NZ is not only not corrupt, it is the 3rd in the world in economic freedom.
The propaganda to the contrary from the Hollow Men is once again shown to be………hollow.
The problem is…….most people have no idea what the truth is and lack the educational foundation to know it if it bit them on the arse.
September 29, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Ahhh yes the catch call of the truely desperate, how many times can the left use the word “hollow” in the campaign?
Just like the oxymoron about Labour and Trust, which will bite them in the ass as well
September 30, 2008 at 12:26 am
I notice, as usual when I publish something you disagree with but you can’t counter, that you pointedly ignore the police corruption examples I gave you Poneke.
It is a little tiring dealing with the selective deconstructions you attempt. They lack objectivity.
- A jeweller sees a senior cop pocketing rings from the pavement after a robbery. A local fence then offers to return same rings for a ‘reward’ a few months later.
- A Dunedin woman with no criminal history confirms that her criminal boyfriend arranged for her to personally pay $1,500 in small bills to a senior Dunedin cop at a remote location
- Former drug dealers confirm they were picked up with 13 ounces of marijuana by a CIB boss in Dunedin, but charged with possession of only 10
- A former escort, now a teacher, confirms that Dunedin Police effectively ran the brothels in the city in the 80s and nineties, taking a portion of the profits and obtaining free sex in return for turning a blind eye
Etc, etc.
Have you refuted any of this, beyond empty sniping from the sidelines? Not one.
If this is not “corruption”, Poneke, in the traditionally understood concept as it applies to law enforcement, perhaps you can enlighten all your readers as to what it actually is?
September 30, 2008 at 9:21 am
Arguing with Ian:
Poneke: Statistics show that Blenheim is the sunniest place in New Zealand!
Ian: Sunniest? You don’t know what you’re talking about! I drove through Blenheim a few days ago and it was overcast. What do you say to that?
Poneke: But it’s usually sunny. Its sunnier than most places.
Ian: I’ve just spoken to a private detective who does extensive work in Blenheim. He will sign an affidavit to the effect that it rained all last week in Blenheim.
Poneke: Well . . . it is winter.
Ian: Ah! So you admit that you were wrong!
Poneke: I’m not saying it never rains in Blenheim, I’m saying it rains there less than most other places.
Ian: So now you’re twisting your words to try and change your argument.
Poneke: I’m not . . .
Ian: I have sworn testimony from deep cover intelligence operatives working as prostitutes in the Hawkes Bay. They have proof that the sun shone for three consecutive weeks in Hastings and Napier during late February and early March. Poneke has said that these places have no sunshine at any time. How do you explain their testimony? Are they liars?
Poneke: Obviously it shone there in February. But in Blenheim . . .
Ian: Furthermore deep in the rainforests of the Otago plains live a lost tribe of immortal Maoris – who have taught me their language which pre-dates the Tower of Babel – and they have records stretching back over five thousand years; they record over one hundred solar eclipses during that time in which no sunlight fell on Blenheim whatsoever.
Poneke: But that’s insane – a solar eclipse doesn’t. . .
Ian: Poneke you have changed your story five times now in a desperate attempt to cover up your profound ignorance of these facts. You have failed to refute my evidence and have resorted to gross character assassination instead of rational debate.
Poneke: I am late for my bus.
[And Poneke adds: Danyl how do you come up with this stuff? It's fantastic.]
September 30, 2008 at 10:02 am
Danyl, your comment proves (yet again) why you will not win a debate with yours truly: it was entertaining but entirely without substance or relevance. You skitter around like a cat getting traction on ice – a master of obfuscation, diversion and desperation, tempered only with a sense of humour.
The Left continually scrapes for the ad hominem when it doesn’t have an argument.
If you want to rescue Poneke from his own sweet naivete, then deal with the documented examples I raised.
Just those. Not Babel, not pixies, not diddly-squat else. Just the ones I raised.
Sigh.
September 30, 2008 at 10:29 am
Danyl – LOL (as usual).
PS. Clint – I like this Hollow Mean stuff too. Just to get this right, as you saying Transparency International proved New Zealand isn’t corrupt – except for the Opposition?
September 30, 2008 at 10:33 am
Ian, you make satire redundant.
September 30, 2008 at 10:35 am
Danyl how do you come up with this stuff?
Ian is my muse.
September 30, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Danyl you know you shouldn’t steal identities. You surely wrote this…
“Danyl, your comment proves (yet again) why you will not win a debate with yours truly: it was entertaining but entirely without substance or relevance. You skitter around like a cat getting traction on ice – a master of obfuscation, diversion and desperation, tempered only with a sense of humour.
The Left continually scrapes for the ad hominem when it doesn’t have an argument.
If you want to rescue Poneke from his own sweet naivete, then deal with the documented examples I raised.
Just those. Not Babel, not pixies, not diddly-squat else. Just the ones I raised.
Sigh.”
September 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Carol et al, more evidence of why the Left will lose this election…your written comprehension skills are appalling, such that the writing on the wall escapes you.
It was Poneke who spoke in definitive terms about NZ being corruption free: “You cannot bribe a New Zealand police officer. Anyone who tried would be arrested on the spot. Everyone knows this, which is why nobody tries to, not even the worst, most desperate or richest criminals.”
It wasn’t, “you are unlikely to be able to bribe…” it was a definite assurance that such was impossible.
Intelligent New Zealanders know Poneke is wrong, and being Pollyanna-ish in his ode to Godzone.
I laid out some specific examples. I could name names here if required. I could name more examples if required. But you guys can’t give an intelligent answer even to the limited examples I’ve provided.
Yet you sit in the self-congratulatory stupor that passes for debate on the Left these days, amid back-slapping and hi-fives for Dim, without seeing for a moment how hollow your words are.
Nicky Hager could make a fortune repackaging Poneke and Danyl’s empty wit and selling it, perhaps with the title, “The Hollow Pen”.
[Poneke adds: "The Hollow Pen." I like it! Nice one Ian.]
September 30, 2008 at 4:43 pm
“I laid out some specific examples. I could name names here if required. I could name more examples if required. But you guys can’t give an intelligent answer even to the limited examples I’ve provided.”
Mr Wishart, are you really oblivious to the fact that you’ve only provided unsubstantiated anecdotes yourself? Danyl put the point to you brilliantly (made my day) but it seems you’re not agile enough to grasp it.
September 30, 2008 at 4:51 pm
No Matty, like I said, your comprehension has failed you.
Direct eyewitness testimony, recorded on tape and in some cases in affidavit form, is not “unsubstantiated anecdotes”.
Between yourself and Dim, you illuminate my point beautifully, albeit with the style of a dodgy CFL bulb.
Of course, if either you or Danyl had bothered to read the article I linked to in my fisking of Poneke (referred to above), you’d have seen the article laid out chapter and verse testimony, names, dates places, court records, official documents, etc, to support various contentions.
Last weekend’s IPCA report was a direct result of the documentary evidence we pulled together, and left the IPCA with no option but to confirm the facts behind our allegation re Gibbons dodgy search warrants.
Does anybody on the Left actually read these days, or are you products of NZ’s own Look-say reading programmes?
September 30, 2008 at 6:25 pm
We read, Ian: we just dont take your very dodgy articles as any kind of truth.
September 30, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Carol, you’re right: Ian does make satire redundant!
Ian: re: “Direct eyewitness testimony, recorded on tape and in some cases in affidavit form, is not “unsubstantiated anecdotes”.”—how a statement is recorded does not move their words from anecdote to something more substantial, surely. I’m puzzled as to why a journalist would think that it would.
Additional evidence, as opposed to their words alone (however recorded), might.
(Before you complain about not reading your article, etc.: I’m referring to the words in your comment, as you wrote them. The statement made doesn’t seem correct to me.)
September 30, 2008 at 8:11 pm
[...] loathsome corners of the wingnut blogosphere – I say that if you have Ian Wishart and Keri Hulme squaring off in your comments threads you must be doing something [...]
September 30, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Heraclides…people go to jail every day in NZ on the basis of verbal evidence…as it is I have documentary evidence as well. Of course, if you’d read the story I alluded to you wouldn’t have now been forced to blush in front of your friends.
It is a little silly to restrict yourself to what I wrote in the comments section of someone else’s blog – and further to claim to restrict it to a particular comment rather than my comments in totality (and thus in context). I’m not laying out chapter and verse of police corruption here. I’ve done it elsewhere.
Keri, with the greatest of respect, you’re a novelist. When did ‘truth’ feature in fiction, except as a wan, allegorical reflection of itself?
September 30, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I quite like this. In Ian Wishart’s world, if I tape-record myself saying ‘Tea cures the common cold’, that then becomes a statement of fact.
September 30, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Matty, I’ve tried to save you from yourself…evidently I failed. See my previous comment.
September 30, 2008 at 8:59 pm
#13 baby
You missed the memo. I am actually an unemployed homosexual pseudo-intellectual who lives in the basement of his grandmother’s house in Masterton.
Which is why I can relate so well to readers like yourself.
September 30, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Sorry Ian, I did go, I did re-read your links. I’m just not certain you’ve substantiated anything in them. I can certainly see that they might *seem* substantial, provided you filter the anecdotes and hearsay through several layers of paranoia and presumptuousness.
I guess there is just no saving anyone from theirself.
September 30, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Nah Ian, I’m a makyr- sorry, truth is only within the purvey of journalists? Is that what you were trying to say?
September 30, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I wrote about the statement you made in your comment, and in reply I get excuses? It seemed to me that the statement as written was not correct. I still think that. Why not just say so and put it right? Its only a blog comment.
“if you’d read the story I alluded to” I told you I wrote only — not relevant: I wrote about the statement in your comment, in and of itself, and made that clear at the time.
“wouldn’t have now been forced to blush in front of your friends” — instead of accepting you erred, you try throw a silly smear at me?
“It is a little silly to restrict yourself to what I wrote in the comments section” — of course not, people do it all the time. Your statement as it stood made no sense to me. I’ve every right to point that out if I want to. I’d read this as you trying to “write me off” instead of addressing what I wrote.
Its not a big deal. I make mistakes every day, like most people do. But I’d like to think that when I goof, I reply along the lines of “thanks for pointing that out” and put it right. (Well, most of the time!)
September 30, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Apologies if I seemed testy, Heraclides. A perusal of this thread would reveal somewhat of an attempted open season. I misread you as joining in the duck-hunt for the sheer fun of it.
September 30, 2008 at 10:42 pm
O dear. The Wishart cant read/interpret/understand
-context. Which explains rather a lot.
September 30, 2008 at 11:01 pm
“I told you I wrote only” should be omitted from my previous post. (Self-editing error, missed that one…)
Ian: I’m not worried if you’re “testy” or not, I was worried about the statement. I may not have joined “for the mere fun of it”, but I was expecting you “‘fess up”! Of course, I’m having a wee dig at the fact you haven’t yet
October 1, 2008 at 12:53 am
Makyr or kaipurakau?, Keri.
No, truth is not confined to journalists in the slightest (especially given the numerous errors that can be found in any media on a given day).
Nonetheless, as a general rule I’m liable to have my backside sued if I defame someone, so regardless of shifting liberal definitions of ‘truth’, I’m quite partial to a version that transcends the balance of probabilities, and even beyond reasonable doubt if possible, and hits as close to absolute as I can make it.
And Heraclides, you have difficulty with my statement. I thought it was fairly clear, and that my follow-up comments were even more so, but apparently not. An ‘anecdote’ has connotations of something trivial, or light and amusing. Testimony about criminal behaviour is generally not ‘anecdotal’.
Perhaps your confusion was over whether the claims were substantiated or verified. In a number of cases I had multiple witnesses.
Like I said, I’m not laying out chapter and verse here, because days after pointing out the weakness of Poneke’s argument, no one has actually dealt with the substance in any way.
If your objection ultimately boils down to pedantry – solely over the artificial out-of-context reading of my comment that you made – that’s hardly my problem.
Within the context of your post, precisely what should I ‘fess up’ to?
Matty, I suspect you’ve never read a police investigation file or covered court cases, or had your work gone through with a fine tooth comb by defamation lawyers.
I doubt that a corporate giant has ever paid private investigators to steal your work, and I doubt your house has been broken into on a number of occasions by people looking for unpublished manuscripts and files.
I doubt your car has ever had silicon pumped into its brake system, or that your employers have been threatened because of the work you do.
I doubt that you’ve recieved death threats from organised crime syndicates, or etc, etc. (I could go on but it gets tedious).
My point simply is this: there was no paranoia or presumptuousness in the feature article. Both it, and the feature on police corruption the month prior, were solidly based – often on sworn testimony.
These things only seem like paranoia to the poor sheltered flowers who frequent this blog.
Human nature is the same the world over. We live in a globalised world. Corruption exists here like it exists in every other country. We are certainly not the worst, but we’re nowhere near as clean as Poneke’s idealistic post makes out.
October 1, 2008 at 6:48 am
Human nature is the same the world over. We live in a globalised world. Corruption exists here like it exists in every other country. We are certainly not the worst, but we’re nowhere near as clean as Poneke’s idealistic post makes out.
Ian, we are the least corrupt country in the world, as measured impartially by the independent agency Transparency International. You can’t get any better than the best.
Nothing you, the Whale, the Prawn or Falsefacts Media say can alter that fact.
Truth hurts.
October 1, 2008 at 9:24 am
Poneke, we might be the least corrupt country in the world as measured by TI…but YOU made a categorical statement that the police were squeaky clean.
And YOU were wrong.
Truth hurts.
October 1, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Ian,
You’re still trying to wriggle out of it instead of just correcting it!
I don’t have “difficulty” with your statement (I’ve seen this putdown/windup line before, but usually from trolls). Its obviously flatly wrong to me: I wrote tentatively just to give you a chance to put it right, giving you the benefit of the doubt as it were.
Let’s quote what I’m referring to:
Direct eyewitness testimony, recorded on tape and in some cases in affidavit form, is not “unsubstantiated anecdotes”.
First, you try make anecdotes about brevity, but they’re not, they’re about the statement being “hearsay”, i.e. “by someone’s words alone” (regardless of how they are recorded).
(To be fair, I meant to write ‘anecdotal’ in my first reply, but its doesn’t chance this point or those below.)
No matter how you record a statement, it does not move from anecdotal to something more substantial. (I’d also note that the word ‘unsubstantiated’ is redundant: by definition anecdotes are unsubstantiated.)
“Testimony about criminal behaviour is generally not ‘anecdotal’.” is a contradiction in terms. All personal accounts taken on their own are anecdotal by definition. ‘Anecdotal’ does not refer to how (or where) its recorded, it refers to the fact that the statement is based on a personal account. A testimony is a personal account. Taken on its own it is anecdotal by definition.
“If your objection ultimately boils down to pedantry – solely over the artificial out-of-context reading of my comment that you made – that’s hardly my problem.”
And there you go again, trying to make excuses to dismiss my comment out of hand. Its not artificial. Nor pedentic given that you are apparently an experienced journalist covering serious issues. You could have written a correct statement, but you didn’t. I gave you a chance to put it right, but you didn’t.
The reason I posted in the first place was that I couldn’t believe an experienced journalist would write such a thing. It seemed to me that the difference between anecdotal accounts and corrobated evidence is Journalism 101, class 1! Surely. So I wrote tentatively to give you a chance to correct yourself. But instead I’ve gotten bluster and hand waving.
“Within the context of your post, precisely what should I ‘fess up’ to?”
You know the answer: this is just game playing (and, I think, childish). You also took out the wink, changing the tone of my words.
I think you’d have been wiser to take the chance to correct it in the first opportunity, really. You just dug yourself a hole. Either way given your response, I think I’m now well and truly justified in joining the Ian Wishart open season. I was quite prepared you to just put it right and be it the end of it. But I’m well past that now. Don’t blame me for that: look to your responses, not me.
October 1, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Sigh. Heraclides:
“First, you try make anecdotes about brevity, but they’re not, they’re about the statement being “hearsay”, i.e. “by someone’s words alone” (regardless of how they are recorded).”
OK, Collins English Dictionary: “a short amusing account of an incident” from the Greek anekdotos (not published).”
Once published, an anecdote becomes part of the historical record (subject to weighting).
Not convinced?
Merriam-Webster: ” a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident”…” from Greek anekdota unpublished items, from neuter plural of anekdotos unpublished…”
So it’s official. Anecdotes are short, and verbal statements only (not officially published).
Then you conflate hearsay into your misguided definition of anecdote. ‘Hearsay’ is a legal term referring to testimony about what a third party (not in court) said.
If A tells B about something C said, and C is outside the reach of the court, A can’t testify about it without the permission of the court (Family courts generally permit hearsay evidence in many cases).
If neither A nor C are within reach of the court, B can’t testify about it either.
The statements made to Investigate by witnesses to police corruption were made on the understanding that they could be called as witnesses before a Royal Commission, and as such the testimony was not anecdotal (intended to remain verbal) but a matter of record (a witness account).
Your protest about my comment (and this is probably reaching boredom stage for others) is ill-founded upon an incorrect understanding of what is anecdotal, what is hearsay etc.
Remind me again, what am I fessing up for?
October 1, 2008 at 2:24 pm
All trolls will cease and desist. Now.
Thank you.
October 1, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Oh dear… I find myself entering this debate on the side of people with whom I sincerely doubt I’d agree about anything else.
But I do have to take you to task on your blanket assertion that there’s no corruption in the NZ Police, poneke.
If you’re defining corruption (as you seem to be at one point) purely as “not taking bribes” then perhaps so.
But that’s ignoring their “investigative” methods – the most public failings of which are the cases we can all name, like Ellis. But beneath that tip is a very large iceberg.
One day we shall have to have a beer and I’ll regale you with a few stories… like the detective who admitted to my then business partner that they didn’t really believe I was guilty of all the stuff they charged me with (specially since he had co-signed every cheque and was charged with nothing) but that I “had it coming”.
Given all that, NZ is indeed mercifully free of the type of corruption that infests many countries and probably deserves a place at or near the top of that list. But we mustn’t ignore corruption – in any form – where it does exist.
October 1, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I was a corrupt policeman and people went to prison following trials at which I told lies to obtain their convictions
October 3, 2008 at 3:21 am
The “no if’s, no buts, no maybes” line may have to be changed Poneke……. the waters are getting very murky now!
October 3, 2008 at 7:07 am
The “no if’s, no buts, no maybes” line may have to be changed Poneke……. the waters are getting very murky now!
Speaking of corruption, you and your equally sleazy cronies Slater and Co have been totally exposed on Hard News today for your attempts to get the media (including — and this is fascinating — Phil Kitchen) to run malicious lies about a member of Parliament.
http://www.publicaddress.net/hardnews#post5384
It barely needs stating that your mates Falsefacts, the Hive and the Prawn were also up to their eyeballs in this sickening stuff, though Hard News doesn’t mention them by name.
You are a bunch of sick psychopaths, the lot of you.
October 3, 2008 at 3:42 pm
[...] Posted on 3 October, 2008 by Ari Poneke and The Standard are both trumpeting our international ratings as the least corrupt country in the [...]
October 3, 2008 at 10:17 pm
“exposed” on Hard news? I am quivering in fear. I am surprised that you are not pissed off at the “prankster” who sent out the email?
I suspect you decided who to support before you read any “facts” on this….. top work Sherlock!
October 5, 2008 at 10:03 am
Did you know that NOBODY IN NZ has the job of auditing for corruption risk? Whow!!
This is a wake up call for all and explains a lot for those who have been asking questions and not getting answers from government watchdogs who are meant to protect its citizens.
It’s not easy to find stories about corruption in the “corporate-owned” media of today. Corruption is often covered by news anchors as a break in between “important” news such as entertainment and sports, so the topic of corruption is rarely given in-depth quality and quantity reporting. Reporters rarely offer us insight into the negative effects of corruption.
Corruption is a term with many meanings, but generally it entails misusing one’s office for a private gain or unofficial end. It involves both a monetary and “non-monetary” benefit. Bribery, extortion, influence peddling, nepotism, cronyism, scams, fraud, ‘grease money’, and opportunism readily spring to mind.
Usually, the very work environment and culture either foster or discourage corrupt practices.
Corruption and power are closely intertwined and their links had long been recognized. In the 4th century BC, the Greek philosopher, Plato, argued in The Republic that only politicians who gain no personal advantage from the policies they pursued would be fit to govern. This is recognized also in the aphorism that those who want to hold power are most likely those least fit to do so. In the latter half of the 18th century, William Pitt, in a speech before the House of Lords said, “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.”
Over a hundred years later, Lord Acton wrote a letter to Bishop Creighton with a sentence set to become one of the world’s most famous quotations: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The most obvious effect of political corruption is a loss of public esteem for politicians and political life. The cynical view that ‘politics is a dirty business’ becomes a reality -– people enter politics not from a sense of public service but in pursuit of personal power and advancement.
Once it infects an organization, it spreads uncontrollably, and economic costs rise. Corruption is not an absolute condition. It can range from acts of violence to rules being bent and a blind eye turned to acts that a completely moral society would consider offensive.
The range of variations of corruption is as wide as the criminal minds that conceive them in today’s ever-changing world. Corruption undermines the legitimacy of central and local government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance’
If left unchecked, corruption weakens the very structures of an organized society as it undermines the forces of law and order, and reduces public morale. In the long run, both economic and political developments become crippled.
NEW ZEALAND DEFINITELY NEEDS ITS OWN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION!
November 7, 2008 at 4:44 pm
[...] (1) In the 2005 election, they used parliamentary funds to pay for a pledge card. The move was extraordinarily cynical. The card was clearly election expenditure, but they claimed it was just informing people about their policies, which is a legitimate use of parliamentary money. But anyone with any nous would just reply, “Bullsh*t.” Moreover, because they regarded it as parliamentary expenditure, they didn’t count the cost towards their election campaign limit. They spent up to the limit on other campaign material. In effect, by using parliamentary funds for the pledge card, they not only helped themselves to taxpayers’ funds, but they also spent far more than the allowable amount on their campaign. Notoriously, one of their defenders claimed it was “courageous corruption” but that was not well received in a country that prides itself on being unusually corruption free. [...]
August 2, 2009 at 6:19 pm
how can anyone honestly say nz cops arnt corrupt when they investigate themselves through police complaints
August 2, 2009 at 10:25 pm
how can anyone honestly say nz cops arnt corrupt when they investigate themselves through police complaints
That ended years ago.
November 21, 2009 at 11:38 am
As a swindler and con-artist I find lists such as these helpful in my professional activities. It is useful to have a compiliation of locations of the most guillible marks.
November 23, 2009 at 7:05 am
The reason NZ has the least corruption is because those who question corruption are annihilated.
I am a Private Investigator ex police Prosecutor I questioned the existence of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) an “organisation” founded on lies and has law enforcement powers, It also gave a false accreditation to Lord of the rings see http://live.hollywoodjesus.com/?p=4233
AWINZ contracts to central and local government in a situation which the OECD defines as corruption. Effectively it is a private SPCA which uses council premises, resources ,staff, vehicles for free and collects donations on top of using publicly funded resources. There is no transparency or accountability.
I like others have been sued to keep Quite to Question sees your life is devastated your family destroyed. That is how we silence those who question corruption because out nil sttaus is worth preserving.
Criminals never face the extreme penalties that are imposed on whistle blowers .
In New Zealand you cannot afford to Question corruption , that is how we protect our corruption free status. See http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/77852/animal-welfare-institute-new-zealand