Perceptions
Of Corruption Damaging To New Zealand’s International Reputation -
The
cache of evidential material underlying claims that corruption exists
at the heart of New Zealand’s Government suggests the scope of the
Prime Minister’s initiated inquiry is too narrow – Especially as
New Zealand’s international reputation must now be considered
Selwyn Manning
8 September, 2014
The
cache of evidential material underlying claims that corruption exists
at the heart of New Zealand’s Government suggests the scope of the
Prime Minister’s initiated inquiry is too narrow – Especially as
New Zealand’s international reputation must now be considered.
The
two inquiries (the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security and
the Prime Minister’s initiated inquiry) are too narrow and convey a
realisation that the Government has not faced up to a glaring fact,
that under its watch a culture of perceived corruption was allowed to
fester at the very heart of power.
The
PM’s inquiry only looks at whether the former Minister of Justice
Judith Collins provided information to Cameron Slater to fuel ‘hits’
against the Serious Fraud Office director. And the Inspector General
of Intelligence and Security inquiry only looks at whether Government
process was properly observed when the Security Intelligence Service
released redacted documents to Cameron Slater in August 2011.
Clearly,
if the allegations on multiple fronts are true, this issue of
perceived dirty politics is much larger and broader than the
Government intends to admit to.
The
allegations distill down to a perception that corrupt practice in the
pursuit of political gain had been used by officers/staff and (in at
least one case) an elected member of New Zealand’s Executive
Government.
It
is important to point out that these allegations are exactly that:
are officially unproven but derived from evidence that is now
reasonable to consider legitimate, raw data that has been tabled in
the public domain, that the High Court’s Justice John Fogerty
deemed worthy of publication in the public interest. The raw data
that when considered in isolation, and brought together as a sum,
leads to a persuasive conclusion that the entire matter ought to be
tested by a broad-based independent judicial forum. (Ref. NZHerald).
It
is in consideration of the public interest that we document a summary
of the allegations in this report to demonstrate why a Royal
Commission of Inquiry must be established, not only in the public
interest but also in the National Interest.
The
allegations primarily focus on:
The
perception that elected members of the Executive Wing of Government
have overseen (and in at least one case were likely directly involved
in) the manipulation of the public’s understanding of the good
governance principles of government;
A
Minister of the Crown had allegedly encouraged clandestine attacks on
the investigative elements of government (the Serious Fraud Office);
A
Minister of the Crown allegedly provided the identity of a public
servant to a notorious attack-blogger/friend… that the information
contained the identity, title, and contact details of the public
servant, an official of the government, who the Minister believed had
leaked official information;
Additionally
it is alleged that that Minister remained silent while the public
servant was vilified publicly;
It
is also alleged that that Minister failed to attempt to stop the
attacks, or to front on the issue, or use her considerable influence
to curb the vilification of the public servant even once the degree
of loathing for the public servant intensified to the point where
death threats were made;
It
is also alleged that a member/s of the Office of the Prime Minister
was/were involved in an ongoing task to clandestinely pass
information damaging to the National-led Government’s opponents to
the attack-blogger and that the practice was an abuse of the power
assumed by such high office, and was of a clandestine nature so as to
protect the Prime Minister and other elected members of Government
from any negative public perceptions against their character.
As
mentioned above, the public interest is cited as justification for
listing the allegations.
THE
INQUIRIES:
To
date, is mentioned above, two inquiries have been announced:
the
Prime Minister’s initiated inquiry into former Justice Minister
Judith Collins’ activities (scoped down to investigate solely
allegations that she wrongfully sought to undermine Adam Feeley, the
director of the Serious Fraud Office in 2011),and
the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security’s inquiry into
the release of declassified intelligence information to Whaleoil
blogger Cameron Slater.
But
neither inquiry will broadly investigate the raft of claims that, if
true, cumulatively point to a culture of corruption within New
Zealand’s Executive Government. As such, neither inquiry cited
above will satisfy the public interest.
While
both inquiries are important elements, in their isolation and in a
state of disconnect, each fails to assure an outcome that will
engender a public confidence in the good and professional governance
of this country’s affairs.
As
such, the Prime Minister risks undermining the public interest should
he continue to refuse a Royal Commission of Inquiry and neglects that
most essential measure of a democratic economy’s character, the
National Interest.
Let’s
consider the National Interest.
AN
HONOURABLE NATIONAL IDENTITY IS A PRIZED JEWEL INDEED:
The
rationale goes that New Zealand must now be seen to actively repair a
perception that its good governance principles have been damaged.
New
Zealand’s international reputation as an honest broker on the trade
circuit is at risk. This is a vulnerability where opportunistic
trading economies currently competing against this Nation (in
produce, agriculture commodity markets) may be quick to exploit.
Already,
New Zealand’s reputation on the diplo-circuit has been dented. It
is now clear members of New Zealand’s diplomatic corp, serving
abroad, have fielded inquisitions on the validity of the alleged
dirty politics scandal.
Add
to this a surety of how embassies, high commissions, and consulates
based in New Zealand, representing the world’s most powerful
states, will have been cabling back to Washington, Beijing, London,
Paris, Canberra documents that consider the quality of the
allegations, an assessment of the raw data, and an analysis of what
this means for the Government of New Zealand, the election, the
degree of public interest, the public’s confidence factor and
quotient, and a recommendation on how their respective countries
should handle the affair – the strengths, the weaknesses of their
own policy positions with respect to New Zealand.
Consider
also, right at this time, the sensitivities involving New Zealand’s
very costly pitch to be appointed non-permanent membership of the
United Nations Security Council.
To
be successful, the New Zealand Government’s credentials must be
beyond question. It must be perceived by the United Nations General
Assembly to be beyond corruptible on matters of national and
international importance.
This
is a serious matter.
United
Nations secretary general Ban Ki-Moon’s visit to New Zealand last
week was made at an opportune time. Officially he visited this
country to receive an Honourary Doctorate from the University of
Auckland. He also met with Prime Minister John Key. (Ref.
ForeignAffairs.co.nz).
As
Fairfax reported:
Key,
who has been campaigning around the world for New Zealand’s seat at
the Security Council, took the chance to emphasise the country’s
commitment to the UN since it was established in 1945. And despite
New Zealand’s size, its contribution to the international community
has always been recognised. “We are a small country but we have
held an independent foreign policy and a strong voice for a very long
period,” Key said. “We are consistent in what we do and I think
people respect the views of New Zealand. “We want to thank you for
your friendship to New Zealand,” he said to Ban. (Ref. Fairfax).
But
the UN secretary general would not be drawn on it.
The
secretary-general would not comment on the potential success of New
Zealand’s push for a seat the Security Council, which will be
decided in October. But he acknowledged New Zealand’s long support
for the UN.
“I
am aware that New Zealand is very enthusiastic to serve in the
Security Council. As you may appreciate as the secretary-general I am
not in a position to say anything.
“This
is a matter to be decided by the member states themselves,” he
said. (Ref. Fairfax).
Prior
to his arrival here, as all leaders are, Ban Ki-Moon will have been
thoroughly briefed by his officials on the most important issues
confronting the host-government. The briefing would also have
included the significant elements of public discourse surrounding
those issues.
The
UN secretary general would have become well aware of the dominant
narrative of the early election campaign – the claims and
allegations underscored within investigative journalist Nicky Hager’s
book Dirty Politics.
Add
to this the fact that raw data had been publicly released
(information that supported the founding premise in Dirty Politics);
additional to this it is reasonable to believe Ban Ki-Moon will have
been informed of how the Prime Minister had denied the validity of
the information, attacked the messenger, smeared it as a left-wing
conspiracy, and only accepted the Minister of Justice’s resignation
after raw information was passed directly to his office under dubious
circumstances. It is also reasonable to suggest, on fathoming this
backstory, the briefing will have raised unanswered questions for the
secretary general about the appropriateness of New Zealand being
appointed to the United Nations Security Council.
TRADE
PARTNER SENSITIVITIES:
In
March, when the Oravida scandal erupted, what was generally not
considered by New Zealand’s press was the embarrassment caused to
the People’s Republic of China.
As
was reported at the time: the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins,
was accused by her political opponents of committing a conflict of
interest during an overseas trip to China where she ‘dropped in’
and ‘endorsed’ the milk product produced by Oravida – a company
which exports dairy products from New Zealand to China. Collins’
husband, it was discovered, was a director of the company.
At
first the Prime Minister defended Collins, and, Collins received a
fairly soft reprimand for allowing a perception of a conflict of
interest to occur. As the Prime Minister quipped at the time, it was
“unwise” of her.
But
what was most damning for Collins and the Government were subsequent
reports that revealed while in China a Chinese government official
had attended a dinner-meeting with Collins and a small gathering of
Oravida executives.
Collins
insisted there was nothing to it, but the small gathering, with a
border official in attendance, added a further dimension to an
already highly charged issue. The meeting also underscored a
sensitivity among Chinese diplomats who felt Collins’ actions in
China fueled rumours in the west that a culture of favoritism,
bribery, and corruption was in evidence among its border officials.
For
the opposition parties, the Prime Minister was said to be lenient (at
best), weak (at worst) over his handling of Collins.
When
members of the opposition demanded in Parliament that Collins name
the Chinese official, the Prime Minister, members of his office and
department staff, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT)
officials, all knew that if they did name the official it would cause
a diplomatic incident. The reason? Because it was a particularly
sensitive point considering China had been preparing to expand the
number of Free Trade Agreements among western trading partners. And
as such China needed to ensure it was beyond tolerating a culture of
sleaze among its border and trade officials. In recent years China
has crushed the livelihoods and in some cases the lives of corrupt
officials. It was determined to demonstrate the People’s Republic
had advanced a framework founded on good professional governance.
Collins’
actions, and the Prime Minister’s soft handling of the issue,
offered the perception of corruption to breathe.
To
be clear, the perception was: that a Minister in the New Zealand
Government was alleged to have facilitated the betterment of her
husband’s business interests through the association of her sworn
Ministerial title at a meeting with a Chinese border control
official.
Additionally,
prior to this, New Zealand Government had also become a problematic
trade partner exporting child milk formula brands marketed by
Fonterra to China and elsewhere that was at first believed to be
contaminated with botulism bacteria. PRC diplomats had already warned
New Zealand that a repeat of such unsatisfactory safety/quality
standards would see access to the Chinese market blocked for New
Zealand dairy products.
The
latter issue saw the Prime Minister John Key travel to China in an
attempt, aided and prepared by New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Trade officials, to ease tensions and advance PRC-New
Zealand trade relations – a feat Key certainly achieved.
Inter-economy
trade relations are like marriages, they require constant attention.
And the above paragraphs underscore the kind of work New Zealand’s
diplomatic corp does, often in silence, on issues of major National
Interest.
It
is understood that MFAT officials right now are working to ensure no
hostile or competitive trading nation makes a move to exploit renewed
claims that the New Zealand Government is loathed to address the
perception of alleged corruption.
IN
CONCLUSION
NZ-FlagFor
a progressive democracy, the most destructive allegation a government
can face is one of institutionalised corruption.
Long
has New Zealand enjoyed a reputation on the world stage as an honest
broker on issues of human rights and good governance. In our name
successive governments have exported our rationale and legislative
frameworks for other states to also embrace. It is important work on
a global stage.
So
when allegations of corruption surface, and information is presented
to the public domain, when that information appears to justify the
claims, the Government must act in a manner equal to the severity and
seriousness of what it is accused of. To permit ignorance to take
hold is as bad as a cover-up.
In
this case of dirty politics, and all the elements that this issue
entails, the Government must initiate a broad-based Royal Commission
of Inquiry. And depending on its findings, it may well be necessary
for a body to be established that asserts a purpose to eradicate a
culture that fails to meet the good governance standards required of
all developed and developing states.
What a stunningly good appraisal from Selwyn Manning.One thing to consider when the election result comes out and we have won is that we will have access to the GCSB and government departments to expose crimes that have been committed by national and their apparatchiks in government departments. Anyone living in Wellington keep an eye out for smoke coming from the beehive where the crooks will be burning files.I wonder is the NSA will be standing by to clean up the files before David Cunliffe and Russel Norman get to have a look.
ReplyDeleteIt is not beyond the realm of possibility that these people could one day be charged for criminal behaviour.