Index showing NZ as least corrupt is ‘biased, problematic’

An academic says the index that ranks New Zealand as the least visibly corrupt country is biased and problematic.

Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, released on Thursday, ranked New Zealand first-equal with Denmark as the country with the least visible corruption.

This was celebrated by Justice Minister Andrew Little.

‘‘New Zealanders can be proud that our reputation as one of the least corrupt countries in the world has been restored,’’ Little said.

But University of Waikato political scientist Olli Hellmann told Stuff the survey was biased towards Western nations and it was impossible to really know which country was the ‘‘least’’ corrupt.

‘‘I don’t think anyone can really make that call. Just because New Zealand comes out on top, doesn’t meant there isn’t any corruption in New Zealand.’’

The index is largely based on surveys of experts and business executives from around the world that ask about perceived corruption in the public sector and judiciaries of various jurisdictions.

Hellmann said the survey recipients generally relied on common assumptions about poorer countries being poor because of corruption.

‘‘The risk here is that they rely on common assumptions about corruption. No surprise poor countries come out as very corrupt,’’ he said.

Hellmann said Switzerland, for example, ranked very highly but was also a tax haven that was sure to house funds extorted through corruption.

While cash-based corruption did appear to be rare in New Zealand, he said the ‘‘revolving door’’ in Wellington where lobbyists bounced in and out of public service roles could be seen as a form of corruption.

‘‘The index is biased towards more obvious forms of corruption – bribery, extortion, corruption, where money changes hands. It doesn’t really exist in New Zealand – fair enough, but other types of corruption do.’’

He also pointed to the allegation that the National Party split up a $100,000 donation from a wealthy Chinese donor into smaller parts, which is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.

This criticism echoed one made by University of Canterbury academic Anne-Marie Brady, who wrote in The Guardian that New Zealand needed to do more to defend its corruption-free image in the face of negative headlines about alleged Chinese interference in politics.

‘‘New Zealand’s damaged political reputation persists, in part because neither the present coalition government nor the main opposition party, National, have given a clear signal that they are serious about addressing China’s political interference activities,’’ Brady wrote.

Transparency International New

Zealand chairwoman Suzanne Snively said the index was not perfect and criticisms of it were valid, but it was the best international measure available at present.

She said the United Nations’ more fulsome measure of corruption being developed as part of the Sustainable Development Goals would be useful in future.

The index was started after two lawyers realised how much HIV funding was not getting to the right place, she said. ‘‘It was a way of getting people to be aware about how serious corruption is.’’

She noted that Transparency International NZ also completed a more granular report on New Zealand’s processes for corruption, and found major improvement between 2013 and 2018 that she thought the public sector deserved to be applauded for.

‘‘We do have something special here. If we don’t acknowledge that you have something special you can lose it overnight, you can have politicians blame the public service. When you win a rugby game you need a period of time to celebrate winning.’’

She agreed with Brady that New Zealand’s electoral law needed serious beefing up, as did the funding for the Serious Fraud Office.

The Government banned foreign donations to political parties last year, but not donations from companies.

‘‘Just because New Zealand comes out on top, doesn’t meant there isn’t any corruption in New Zealand.’’ Olli Hellmann