Donation, gift rules — there for a good reason
The unseemly shambles surrounding the proper declaration of donations to the National Party and New Zealand First and the objections of Waipa¯ Mayor Jim Mylchreest to declaring gifts of over $50 could put New Zealand’s status as one of the least corrupt countries in the world in jeopardy.
The recently released Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, in a survey of 180 countries, shows New Zealand and Denmark tied for first place with a score of 87 out of 100.
The result, assessed by business people and legal experts, is based on the perceived levels of corruption in the public sector such as bribery, money laundering, and fraud.
There is also a ban on foreign donations to New Zealand political parties. The index does not say there is no corruption in our public sector, just that we have less than other countries. The authors of the report have also issued a caution that recent events may well change that ranking.
No one is suggesting the donations to the two political parties were bribes or anything approaching that level of criminality and there is nothing wrong or improper about people making donations, beyond the regular membership subscriptions, to political parties.
In the interests of transparency however all donations above $15,000 have to be declared and the allegation is that some of the donations, which had exceeded the $15,000 threshold, had not been properly declared or had been broken into smaller amounts to avoid the declaration requirement.
The Serious Fraud Office has brought prosecutions against three donors and one MP associated with National Party donations and New Zealand First is currently under investigation.
There has also been a rare prosecution of someone who attempted to bribe a local body official, such is the importance we put on freedom from corruption or anything which could remotely be perceived as possible corruption.
The same general rules apply to local authorities but that has brought an objection from Waipa¯ mayor Jim Mylchreest who can’t see the need to declare gifts above $50 to councillors. The rule has been applied to council staff for a long time but councillors have only now been asked to follow suit.
At a recent meeting of the council’s finance and corporate committee deputy chief executive Ken Morris said, if elected members receive a gift or hospitality valued at $50 or greater it should be declared. The rule would apply to councillors attending events in an official capacity.
A range of reasons were reportedly presented as to why the rule would be unworkable, from the difficulty of deciding what was a gift and what wasn’t to making a distinction between invitations to official openings and invitations to social events. None of them were particularly convincing. Any system will work if the people involved want it to and no system will work if they don’t; it is relatively easy to find ways to avoid such obligations but therein lies a trap for the unwary.
Subtle political entrapment by gift or favour, with no spoken or written expectation of reciprocity, is a very sticky web and all elected representatives need protection often from their own innocent gullibility.
Ask any Justice of the Peace how they deal with offers of gifts, no matter how trivial, for services rendered and the answer is simple and unambiguous.
They accept absolutely nothing in any form. Failing that, the Office of the Auditor General provides a little book of guidelines for elected members on exactly those distinctions.
Mylchreest said he knew the rule was to prevent people getting perks or backhanders, be they elected members or staff, but he still did not think it was a good idea regardless of what the Audit Office had to say. He also said an invitation to an event was not work but a social request. He was wrong on both counts.
An elected councillor, particularly in rural communities, is much like the local policeman, doctor or school teacher.
They are never really off duty in the eyes of the community.
Invitations to official events are usually extended with their status in the community in mind. Invitations to social events are a little less straightforward but ‘‘paying your own way’’ avoids any doubt.
The rule is not simply to prevent perks and backhanders in exchange for favours, it is more importantly to protect councillors and staff from any suggestion of perceived impropriety or accusations from disaffected ratepayers of such conduct.
All mayors have, or should have, someone to keep their diaries of events and functions to attend. It would be a very simple addition to that role to record any and all donations or gifts.
Mylchreest has suggested the rule was stupid and questioned the need for it but the glaring reality is that it would be unforgivably stupid not to have such a rule.