Transparency Times April 2018

From the Chair

Suzanne Snively ONZM Chair Transparency International New Zealand

Suzanne Snively ONZM
Transparency International New Zealand

The movie, “The Armstrong Lie”, should have better prepared me for the Australia cricket scandal. Lance Armstrong’s cheating behaviour was so disturbing that I kept shaking myself during the film, hoping to wake up and find that it was a nightmare.  

Here was a man so determined to win that he followed the innovative, interventionist and illegal prescription of his Italian specialist doctor for years. Armstrong’s performance as a cyclist kept improving while the prescription allowed him to routinely pass the drug tests required at the time. He became an international leader and role model.

While Armstrong wasn’t the only one cheating, he was in a league of his own when it came to rationalising his reasons, lying, and coming out as the leader of the pack – winning race after race.

Last month’s Fraud Film Festival held at Auckland’s ASB Theatre featured a number of the growing genre of movies focussed on bribery and corruption, including “The Armstrong Lie”.  After the screening, former New Zealand ‎cyclist and Armstrong’s teammate, Stephen Swart led an excellent discussion.

Swart had bravely called out Armstrong in the early 1990s but it wasn’t until over 20 years later that the latter finally confessed to the allegations. Armstrong had won year after year over that period – even staging a comeback as a cancer survivor.  

‎In Swart’s view, it’s too late to fully restore integrity in sports. He believes that winning at all costs drives sports people to seek out clinical experts and pharmaceutical solutions that defy testing. There’s a of fallacy of being a victim if they don’t win.

Clinical sophistication was not required for Australian Bowler Cameron ‎Bancroft to cheat at cricket by tampering the ball with a small strip of sandpaper. When captured on camera attempting to hide the evidence down his trousers, he first claimed it was sticky tape.

This cheating went straight to the top with the Australian Cricket captain and his deputy admitting to have been involved in this premeditated‎ act.

The damage to ‎Australia’s reputation was immediate and immense. Commentators called Australia “the country whose early settlers were convicts from England, a country of cheats”.

Although it took some days for the Australian Cricket establishment to recognise the wider implications of the ball tampering, to his credit, the Australian Prime Minister quickly acknowledged the gravity of the situation.

Only time will tell the extent of the reputational damage. The damage that sports cheats cause is powerful motivation to support those agencies, such as World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Drug Free Sport NZ, that are dedicated for sport to be corruption free.

Sporting integrity expert Declan Hill says “the proceeds from sports illegal match fixing is conservatively estimated to be US$1.5 Trillion”. Sports match fixing relies on dishonest athletes like Armstrong and naive players like Bancroft to forget that leadership is about doing the right thing always.

The strengthening of the Police Financial Intelligence Unit and the work of Sport NZ, provides the framework so that New Zealand can remain as good as it is perceived. Both organisations become enabled to call out what is unacceptable activity and then  ensure that there are sanctions exercised once such behaviour is detected.

In the end, though, it’s up to all of us to recognise that it’s individual behaviour that makes up the whole, and the courage of New Zealanders like Stephen Swart that sets us apart.

Suzanne Snively, ONZM


Transparency International New Zealand Inc.

Lyn Provost
Transparency International New Zealand

Introducing our new Patron: Lyn Provost

Ann Webster
Member with delegated authority
Public Sector / NIS Monitoring / Constitution

by Ann Webster

Member with delegated authority

Public Sector / NIS Monitoring / Constitution

“You won’t get cold waiting to hear what she thinks”, someone remarked to me on hearing that I hadn’t met my new boss, Lyn Provost, when her appointment as Auditor-General was announced.

They were right. Lyn’s ability to quickly judge what is right and to lead unwaveringly based from that judgement is one of the things that made the seven years she was Auditor-General so fulfiling for me and many others who have worked with her during her long career. So, it was with real enthusiasm that Transparency International New Zealand’s (TINZ) Board announced Lyn’s acceptance of a three year term as our patron.

Her acceptance follows on from other New Zealand integrity leadership notables – Sir Don McKinnon who completed his term in February this year and Sir Anand Satyanand before him.

As Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, Lyn’s formal biography details are well-known. Originally from Gisborne, she became the Controller and Auditor General of New Zealand from 2009 to 2017. She is a Chartered Accountant (FCA) and holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Administration. She has held positions in private sector auditing firms in London and South Africa, and senior public sector roles in the State Services Commission and Archives New Zealand.  Lyn was also Deputy Commissioner of the New Zealand Police for 8 years.

Lyn was the audit director on the world’s first set of accrual financial statements produced by a government and has devoted herself to improving public management and auditing in the public sector both in New Zealand and internationally. Despite this, my abiding recollection of her interest in financial reporting was her determined focus on reducing clutter and making information meaningful and understandable for readers.

A leader and supporter of integrity and TINZ for many years, Lyn is persistent with inestimable reserves of experience that give her great ability to provide sage advice about ethics, transparency and leadership.

Earlier this year she remarked to me that of her many activities, she was particularly enjoying mentoring. Lyn’s support over the upcoming years will be invaluable as TINZ looks to carry out an assessment of the integrity of New Zealand’s Financial Institutions, and the building of relationships with our new Parliamentarians to meet New Zealand’s commitments to the Open Government Partnership, to the Sustainable Development Goals, and to the Anti-Corruption Pledges.

Modern Slavery

Tod Cooper
Member with delegated authority for
Procurement/ Online Training/ Whistleblowing

by Tod Cooper

Member with delegated authority for

Procurement, Whistleblowing

Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of articles on how we can address modern slavery, in particular in our supply chain, both individually and within organisations. The term relates to exploitation of people, in particular throughout supply chains that provide us with the products and services (imported and local) we benefit from. 


New Zealand is languishing behind in introducing a Modern Slavery Act. This is especially concerning when our primary industries are so susceptible to exploitation.

How many slaves are working for you?

No, this is not a question following on from the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1863, which led to abolishing slavery in the United States. This is a relevant question for you and me and how our everyday lives adversely impact others in the modern global “free market”. 

What is Modern Slavery

Modern slavery is broader than what we traditionally envisage slavery to be. Not only does it include forced labour – 68% of all slavery – but it also denotes human trafficking, slavery-like practices such as debt bondage, and the sale or exploitation of children and immigrants. (See slavery in modern supply chains.)

According to the Global Slavery Index, an estimated 30 million people in the world today live in some form of modern slavery. That’s roughly the combined population of Australia and New Zealand! The International Labour Organisation estimates that the profit generated by forced labour is $US150 billion annually

Awareness – How many slaves do work for me?

Justin Dillon, founder of Slavery Footprint, and his team have developed a simple narrative-based survey to determine your personal slavery footprint and help you understand your connection to modern-day slavery. The goal was simple: engage individuals, groups, and businesses to build awareness for, and create action against, modern-day slavery.

I took the survey, to assess what I eat, how I dress, where I live, and how I get to work. I spent a lot of time refining my categories to get the metrics as accurate as possible (without counting my underwear!).

Imagine my horror to have the results indicate I have 57 slaves in my personal supply chain. To clarify, this number of people is assessed to be involved in growing or producing raw materials, in manufacturing of goods and delivery of the goods and services that I enjoy. 

Acceptance and Action

Yes, we could now argue the representational validity of the survey. Regardless I have accepted this number as factual.

 I have set a goal for myself to ‘tweak’ my lifestyle and purchasing choices over the next 12-months to reduce the number of slaves in my supply chain to below 40 – a 30% reduction. I have three daughters, 7, 11, and 14, so this will be a challenge. It is a challenge worth fighting for because every slave in my supply chain is unacceptable!

If we all reduce slavery in our supply chain by 30% over the next 12-months, collectively we will wipe $US45-Billion off the annual slavery trade. That will have an impact! Try it, go to

Modern Slavery Act

While the United Kingdom leads the way with the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Australian Government in in the process of establishing a Modern Slavery Act this year, New Zealand has yet to take action. Where is the political leadership from the first self-governing country to give women the right to vote in parliamentary elections and more recently, to establish same sex equality? 


If you have specific questions please contact me at

To quote Japanese Poet Ryunosuke Satoro about the value of Unity: “Individually, we are one drop. Together, we are an ocean.”

Green, Greener, Greenest – for a better world

Minister James Shaw presenting 'Green, Greener, Greenest' on 21 March 2018 (Photo by Eva Caprinay)

(Photo by Eva Caprinay)

Minister James Shaw presenting 'Green, Greener, Greenest' on 21 March 2018

Recap by Josephine Serrallach

TINZ Director

Responsible for Sustainable Development Goals

“Net Zero emissions by the year 2050” is the target, and the challenge facing New Zealand.

This was the central thesis presented by the Minister for Climate Change, Hon James Shaw when he shared his in-depth knowledge of climate change and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a presentation at Victoria University of Wellington on 21 March 2018.

The Minister recently experienced the immediate consequences of climate change on a visit to Samoa in March this year where he had to roll-up his trousers to traverse a flooded concrete path connecting two villages through a swamp.

The debate in the Pacific is no longer whether or not people believe in climate change, but is now “what to do about it?” The fears of a distant future are already happening. The “future is now” and there is urgent need to act in response to the gravity of this real situation.

“New Zealand is not immune from climatic change. In December 2017, The Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group stock-take report showed the costs of weather events to the land transport network have increased in the last 10 years from about $20 million per annum to over $90 million per annum.”

The Coastal hazards and climate change: Guidance for local government warns that five airports, 50 km of railway lines, 2,000 km of road and 47,000 houses are at risk from sea level rise.

The Minister emphasised the New Zealand Government’s high level of commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A particular focus is SDG-13 “Climate Action” with associated emissions control through legislation, education and transparent reporting.

He is encouraged that the business community is embracing SDG commitments and many now review their commercial activities in accordance with these goals.

Recap by Josephine Serrallach
TINZ Director Responsible for SDGs

He sees SDG 13 with its five underpinning ‘targets’ as critical for New Zealand’s 2050 net zero emissions goal. New Zealand is one of six Paris Climate Accord countries committed to net zero emissions by 2050. Once again, New Zealand can lead the world as we did with the nuclear-free campaign.

New Zealand will establish a “Climate Commission” to lead and monitor the transition towards net zero greenhouse gas emissions. Irrespective of successive governments in office, the commission’s arrangements will provide long term clarity, predictability and time frames for smooth change in the main sectors affected by the huge scale of societal and economic transformation.

Hon James Shaw is also Minister of Statistics with a key aim to provide transparent measuring and reporting on climate action by gathering comprehensive data into meaningful progress measurements.

The Minister responded in a single word “inertia” when queried as to the greatest impediments to change. He emphasised the importance of yet-to-be-clarified co-ordination between government ministries and departments.

Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) Chair, Suzanne Snively, closed the event by noting TINZ’s values on environmental sustainability and the need for integrity systems in environmental governance.  Caring for the environment is a fundamental pillar of our society.

This event was hosted by The Brian Picot Chair in Ethical Leadership at Victoria University’s Business School in partnership with TINZ. A video of the event is available online at the Victoria University website.

Karen Webster – Member Profile

Dr. Karen Webster
Senior Lecturer, Paramedicine
Auckland University of Technology

by Karen Webster

TINZ Director – Responsible for local government, Auckland events.

Karen was elected Director of TINZ at the 2017 AGM, for a term of three years.

Q: How do you think corruption affects New Zealand?

A: Corruption eats away at our fundamental values of fairness and equity. It undermines our collective pride and destroys hope. The bribery and corruption exposed last year highlights that we do want to uphold honesty and integrity in our local government and communities.

Q: What steps do you think we can take to safeguard us from corruption in New Zealand?

A: The 2013 NZ National Integrity Systems analysis highlighted great opportunities to strengthen our systems within government and the private sector to combat fraud and bribery and corruption. At TINZ we cannot safeguard New Zealand from corruption alone – we will continue working with government and partners in business to promote transparent systems and close the windows of opportunity for undermining our way of life. 

Q: What do you think the focus of Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) should be in New Zealand?

A: TINZ, as part of an international coalition against bribery and corruption, can benefit from the experience of others and share our strengths, especially with our neighbours, in the Pacific and Australia. Collectively, we can help government agencies and corporates and smaller organisations protect their assets and their staff against new and existing threats to our integrity.

Q: How does corruption in other countries impact on New Zealand?

A: Globalisation and migration mean that New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a soft touch in terms of financial and societal regulation. We need to be vigilant to ensure that crimes exploiting women, the financial system and business using traditional and cyber approaches are not easy to perpetrate in New Zealand.

Q: Why am I motivated to be a TINZ Director?

A: My experience in public sector health, defence, and local government, tertiary education and private sector property has shown me the potential for bribery and corrupt practice to flourish, often unchecked, across all sectors. This might not be on scale of grand corruption evident is other parts of the world, but it does undermine the wellbeing and opportunities of many people in New Zealand and the Pacific.

In the late 1990s, I was fortunate to be posted as a New Zealand Army officer to be a Military Observer in Southern Lebanon. It’s fair to say at this time in my life I was relatively naïve as to bribery and corruption in the world. I had witnessed two financial collapses from the security of my home and had observed poverty in New Zealand and the Pacific, but grand corruption and was outside of my experience. Lebanon opened my eyes, not just as to how day to day life was facilitated by those who could offer financial incentives, but to grand corruption in military and civil organisations.

My more recent experience in the local government sector has highlighted that the opacity of large bureaucracies fosters bribery and corruption. The revelations and convictions of Auckland Transport staff and the fraud committed by a senior civil servant just last year are two examples that have come to light

Q: Priority areas of focus for TINZ?

A: My objective is to see the weaknesses in our integrity systems in government and the private sector strengthened to minimise the opportunities for fraud, bribery and corruption to undermine the values of fairness and equity that are fundamental to most New Zealanders.

Local government plays an immense role in the lives of all New Zealanders. We need to ensure that democracy and citizen participation are protected as we strengthen the systems to enhance transparency and combat corruption. This means working with central and local government to ensure that we can all participate and contribute in meaningful ways to the decisions that shape our local communities, whether it be legislation for dogs, gambling, urban development and the support for our vulnerable communities. Protecting local autonomy and decision making by, and for, communities is paramount if our local economies and neighbourhoods are to prosper, in our cities and rural areas.

Q: What TINZ initiatives will you be contributing your time and expertise to?

A: I am looking forward to working with TINZ and the local government sector to understand how our local authorities can be empowered to strengthen local democracy and participation. This will mean taking stock with the help of the sector at what works well and what can be changed for people to see their local council as meaningful in their lives.

It is a privilege to be part of such a highly professional and committed team of people all working towards keeping New Zealand number 1 for transparency in the world.

Open Government Partnership: Progressing New Zealand’s National Action Plans

OGP NAP 2016-2018: IRM mid-term progress report findings (Image provided by OGP)

David Dunsheath

Member with delegated authority on Open Government

Given the successes of populist political movements and misuse of alternative truths, facilitated in part by insidious manipulation of naïve users of social media, there is a compelling need for political mechanisms that reliably engage a broad cross-section of citizens to democratically steer the future of their countries. One such mechanism is the international Open Government Partnership (OGP) initiative to which New Zealand has been a signatory since 2013.

Independent review of current National Action Plan 2016-2018 

Further to progress outlined in the Transparency Times February 2018 issue, New Zealand’s OGP Independent Researcher, Keitha Booth, launched her finalised mid-term (2017) report on the implementation of the current OGP National Action Plan (OGP NAP 2016-18) on 26 March 2018. This report was prepared under international requirements of the OGP Independent Report Mechanism (IRM).

Keitha presented her findings to a full house of civil society representatives. Broad ranging aspects were covered by other speakers in the following order: Ronja Ivers (UNA NZ), Anaru Fraser (Hui E!), Suzanne Snively (TINZ) and Catherine Williams (State Services Commission). 

Within her Progress Report, Booth provides observations and recommendations on progress with each of the seven Commitments in the current plan. Of these, four are considered ‘substantially’ completed and the remaining three to have ‘limited’ completion.

Booth drew on her findings to trigger general recommendations for the Government’s development of its next OGP NAP 2018-2020, including pertinent ‘stakeholder priorities’:

  • Improve access to information legislation and practice
  • Improve public participation in budgetary matters
  • Strengthen whistleblowing legislation
  • Introduce citizen education to increase understanding of democracy
  • Illustrate how open data encourages transparency and openness through business and community involvement in government decision-making
  • Establish ongoing relationship between government, civil society and the public.


From these priorities, stem the following recommendations:

  • Reform of official information laws to publish social, environmental and budget expenditure data
  • Expand the Expert Advisory Panel to include greater civil society representation
  • Develop standards for public consultation on policy issues
  • Reform whistleblowing laws to increase awareness and protections for whistleblowers
  • Establish a public central register of company beneficial ownership.

Process for development of National Action Plan 2018-2020

The process for the development of the National Action Plan (NAP) 2018-2020 was launched on 4 April 2018 by the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government) as outlined here. Included is the opportunity for ideas to be generated, themes to be identified and then discussed, leading to the synthesis of themes into possible commitments for consideration and prioritisation for consideration by the Government. 

TINZ was pleased to accept an invitation from Catherine Williams, Deputy Commissioner Integrity, Ethics & Standards (Acting) of State Services Commission, for a high level OGP discussion held on 14 March, . TINZ was represented by Michael Macaulay, Suzanne Carter and David Dunsheath.

Discussion focussed on options for development of this new plan to be published later this year. The Government’s timeline yet to be made public will incorporate extensive public consultations with community groups throughout New Zealand. This bottom-up approach is to be applauded, following significant shortfall with the rushed, narrow consultation processes undertaken for each of the previous two OGP NAPs.  

IRM Independent Researcher, Keitha Booth, presenting her OGP progress report on 26 March 2018
UNANZ Administrator, Ronja Ivers, speaking at the IRM OGP report launch 26 March 2018


Deputy Secretary, State Services Commission, Catherine-Williams, commenting at the IRM OGP report launch on 26 March 2018
GM-Hui E!, Anaru Fraser, speaking at the IRM OGP report launch 26 March 2018

Internal auditing – is about exercising judgement (Part 2)

by Sylvester Shamy

Chairman of the Institute of Internal Auditors NZ
and 2016 NZ Internal Auditor of the Year

Editor’s note: The Institute of Internal Auditors is a TINZ Affiliate and a regular contributor to the Transparency Times on the subject of internal auditing.

In our February newsletter we explored the difference between “doing things right” and “doing the right thing” from an internal auditor’s perspective. We now continue the article with a simple example that highlights two different approaches an internal auditor can take.

A manager in a company with a reputation for “excellence” and “putting people first” did not complete a staff member’s performance appraisal by the required due date of 30 June. It was completed on 7 July. The requirement was expected practice but not enshrined in policy. This was identified in a test performed by the internal auditor, who also noted that appraisals were nonetheless completed for four other staff who reported to the same manager. The manager had been away due to serious illness for an extended period of time leading up to when the appraisals had to be completed. Interviews and documents corroborated that the manager and staff member had active performance conversations throughout the year. The staff member expressed full confidence in the support and guidance given by the manager during the year. The manager was anxious and stressed about not completing the one performance appraisal on time.

Doing things right would suggest that the internal auditor should raise the matter as a non-compliance issue in the written report, with an elaboration of the expectation, the sample of performance appraisals tested, a description of the one non-compliant appraisal, and concluding with the requisite recommendation to fully comply. 

In contrast, doing the right thing may be to verbally acknowledge the exception with the manager concerned and secure a commitment to ensure full compliance in the future, but to reflect it in the report as a minor matter not warranting further management action except to ensure that the expectation to complete appraisals on time is reflected in a formal policy document that should be communicated to all staff.

By acting in this manner the internal auditor is able to demonstrate the qualities previously exemplified. The internal auditor recognises the context (the expectation and illness), determines the facts (the exception and lack of policy guidance) and balances the mitigations (manager interaction and support throughout the year). Above all, the internal auditor considers the impact of his or her work and arrives at a course of action that addresses the organisation’s drive towards excellence while simultaneously preserving its respect for its people. The internal auditor demonstrates leadership and incentivises good performance, instead of focussing purely on non-performance.  

Internal auditors can and should bring real value through their work. Sometimes, this is about knowing the difference between doing things right and doing the right thing, and taking a leadership approach in helping organisations and their people.

New Zealand Government prioritises Pacifika corruption

Claire Johnstone
Pacific Programme/ Maori Caucus

Claire Johnstone

Member with delegated authority on Pacific programme

We are very pleased to hear the new government is prioritising New Zealand’s involvement in the Pacific.

Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) shares the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerns about the Pacific and in particular, the influence China and Russia are having on the region.

The influence of nations such as China and Russia on these small island nations can’t be underestimated as it puts at risk their integrity systems.

There are numerous examples of new infrastructure such as hospitals and new ports provided by these two countries to buy favour in the Pacific. TINZ is concerned that without a strong anti-corruption movement, this soft diplomacy will go unfettered.

Until two years ago, extremely active and effective Transparency International (TI) chapters existed in Fiji, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.

This was possible because of financial support from the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade (MFAT), the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The aim of the programme they funded was to build capability and capacity of chapters operating in the Pacific so they could fight corruption at both the grassroots and political levels.

Unfortunately the previous government discontinued funding of anti-corruption activities, despite knowing that corruption in the Pacific is a major impediment to good governance. Corruption represents a significant risk to the stability of the South Pacific Region. There are also ramifications for fisheries and the environment.

With no financial help over the past two years, the TI chapters in Fiji and Vanuatu closed, while those in PNG and the Solomon Islands greatly reduced their work.

The Pacific anti-corruption movement was once exceptionally active and fighting assiduously against corruption in their counties. The Fijian chapter helped prosecute 200 cases of corruption. They were also effective watchdogs during the 2014 Fijian election. Regrettably, when the previous New Zealand government withdrew funding, all of the work these chapters were doing was suspended.

TINZ is hopeful, from the renewed interest and awareness of the new government in the importance of the Pacific to our region, that further assistance is forthcoming. We plan to meet in the near future with Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to seek his intentions for addressing corruption in the Pacific including investing in the capacity required to build strong TI Chapters to address bribery and corruption. 

Storm in a coffee cup or significant scandal?

Bryce Edwards
Member with delegated authority on
Political Party Integrity, Media, Anti-corruption policy & legislation

Bryce Edwards

Member with delegated authority on

Political party integrity, Media

From some angles, it seems like a comparatively trivial and pedantic controversy, but New Zealand’s reputation for integrity in the political system is just too important to be tarnished in the way that the Radio New Zealand (RNZ) meeting with Minister of Broadcasting scandal is doing.

Far from being a “storm in a coffee cup”, it encompasses some huge issues, including the independence of the media, the ability of state entities to self-govern, and the executive to make decisions in a proper way. All of that is under threat due to the way the Minister of Broadcasting, Hon Clare Curran, has created this shambles with RNZ’s Head of News, Carol Hirschfeld, who has since resigned.

Their pre-planned, yet initially denied, private meeting in a Wellington café was unknown to the RNZ Board or CEO. The topics discussed might have been innocently private, but also an opportunity to share opinion on the Government’s proposed big expansion plans for the state-broadcaster that the RNZ Board has concerns about.

Apart from the meeting itself, the scandal has been fuelled by the initial, repeated denials that the meeting took place until emails and diary evidence surfaced. It has been further exacerbated by the lack of transparency and confusion about subsequent communications between the Minister and the RNZ Board. 

Read full details and commentary Political Roundup: Should Clare Curran go?

Editor’s note: Meanwhile, RNZ editorial/news staff have been praised for “treating [listeners] to an ongoing master class in both journalistic integrity and impartiality and professional dignity” throughout, as if the scandal involved a separate organisation rather than their own management, refer  When ‘open government’ becomes a joke.

Aussie Cricket Incident

James Brown
Member with Delegated Authority
FISA/Corporate Partnerships/Sporting Integrity

James Brown

Member with delegated authority on

Sporting Integrity

Cricket has been around for awhile, beginning in the late 16th century in south east England. It became a global sport in the 19th century. In the 17th century, it was decreed that cricket would be played in “a gentlemanly manner” with no sledging, cheating, bodyline bowling, or excessive appealing. 

Which brings us to Australian cricket bowler, Cameron Bancroft, who was recently caught tampering with a cricket ball during an international match. The televised video clips of him sanding the ball and then putting the strip of sandpaper down his trousers was seen around the world almost the same instant.

National sports stars are seen in the eyes of millions as role models. What are we to make of the arrogance of Australian Cricket Captain, Steve Smith, openly admitting that “the leadership group” devised a plan to tamper with the ball. When found out, he initially refused to step down “because his leadership was still required!”

Smith thought that it was OK to break the rules as long as he didn’t get caught. What message is that sending to our children in a society? What example is this from a role model – from the leader of a team looked up to because people trusted him to do the right thing?

Where are the sanctions? What are the consequences? Are the rules clear and is the punishment severe enough to avoid temptation? After all, Smith and the leadership team are performing at the highest level in representing their country.

The problem is that as a result of the televised video clip, the impact of the ball tampering went wider than the sport itself with the media extending the behaviour of Smith and his team to reflect the behaviour of all Australians.  

In less than an hour, not only had the Australian Cricket team’s reputation become permanently tarnished, but the whole Australian population were branded as cheats.

Australian Cricket clearly has not understood that the seriousness of this event has extended beyond the game itself. In addition, it seems that cricket rules rank ball tampering as not the highest level of misconduct. 

Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland’s total avoidance of describing the event as cheating along with the mild suspensions of Captain Smith (12 months), the co-caption (12 months) and the bowler (9 months) shows a complete insensitivity to the gravity of the ball tampering.  They just don’t get it.

Some media have been saying that severe sanctions such as a total life ban from playing national cricket, not just for the captain, co-captain and bowler, but also for the team’s CEO and board, are needed to protect the integrity and brand of Cricket Australia and Australia’s reputation.

Sports men and women follow leaders who train them to push the limits of human performance. Integrity of sport assures them of a fair playing field.‎  

National teams who live up to their reputation of fair play contribute to their country’s brand as a good place to live and play.‎  



Leading Thinkers to prevent corruption – TINZ Delegated Authority

Transparency International New Zealand’s (TINZ) working hypothesis is that the best antidote to corruption is transparency. TINZ’s solution is to strive to describe what corrupt practice looks like and then to identify and promote key tools and processes that support good governance and transparency.

TINZ’s members, supporters and associates also contribute to widening the dialogue around the prevention of corruption and the realisation of the benefits of strong integrity systems.

The challenge of preventing corruption is that bribery, corruption and fraud come in so many guises, requiring expertise in a wide range of subject areas. The 2013 New Zealand National Integrity System (NIS) Assessment alone recommended over 60 subjects requiring change.

To address this, TINZ continues to deepen its thought leadership through building a network of experts. Its 12 elected Directors, staff and working Patron each commit to be thought leaders in at least three areas. Given that each activity is covered by two people for quality review, this adds up to around 30 topics or activities, leaving at least another 30 subjects just to be able to monitor the NIS recommendations.

To close this gap, TINZ has another 25 committed subject area experts who have been designated as Members with Delegated Authority. Each Member with Delegated Authority agrees to lead at least one core activity and to take responsibility within two or more other subject areas. Some subject areas relate to activities as well (e.g. contracting) while the majority are thought and leadership topics (e.g. procurement).

Each subject area has at least two accountable subject area experts, one elected Director, and at least one Member with Delegated Authority or staff member. Currently, TINZ has the capacity to cover over 80 transparency activities and topics.

As new key strategic topics arise, an accountable Director will assist to find another expert with the experience and knowledge to address them. If there are gaps in expertise amongst existing Members with Delegated Authority or staff, a new Member with Delegated Authority will be sought.

Given the Kiwi willingness to generously volunteer expertise, experience and networks, TINZ has been able to grow its capability and capacity year after year based on this structure. As a result, its output far exceeds what can be achieved relying only on the funding resources so generously provided by its partners and members.

It takes experience, expertise and knowledge to shed light in the dark places where corruption thrives. Members with Delegated Authority connect TINZ with their networks, which opens up the dialogueue about ways to achieve greater openness and public accountability. This list is updated every month in the TINZ Board papers.

The Table below lists the 25 Members with Delegated Authority as at 12 March 2018.

Members with Delegated Authority

As at 12 March 2018 (listed from earliest Starting Term)




Alexandra Mills

Wellington and National Events

18 Apr 16 – 15 Apr 18

James Bushell

Business and Non-Profit Sectors

20 Dec 16 – 19 Dec 18

Claire Johnstone

Pacific Programme/ Maori Caucus

20 Dec16 – 19 Dec 18

Ferdinand Balfoort

TI Anti-Corruption Pledges/ Corporate Governance/ Fundraising

19 Sept 16 – 18 Sept 18

Liz Brown

National Integrity Assessment Programme (NIS)/ FISA/ Local Government

17 Oct 16 – 16 Oct 18

Karen Coutts

Tiriti – O – Waitangi/ Chair Maori Caucus

17 Oct 16 – 16 Oct 18

Fuimaono Tuiasau

OGP/ Pasifika

1 Dec 16 – 30 Nov 18

Phoebe Myles

Auckland Events/ Fraud Film Festival/ Membership

1 Dec 16 – 30 Nov 18

Declan Mordaunt

Affiliations/ Civil Society Network/ T20 Professional Services Network

20 Dec 16 – 19 Dec 18

Karin Lasthuizen

Chair Ethics/ Business Ethics/ Wellington Events

31 Dec 16 – 1 Jan 18

Mark Nicholas

Taranaki Events/ Membership/ Maori Caucus/ Sporting Integrity

13 Mar 17 – 12 Mar 19

Michael Macaulay

OGP/ Whistleblower/ Protective Disclosure

10 Apr 17 – 9 Apr 19

Nichola Hodge

Youth Membership/ Newsletter Content/ Wellington Events

10 Apr 17 – 9 Apr 19

Daygan Eager

OGP/Palmerston North Events/ Fiscal Transparency

10 Apr 17 – 9 Apr 19

Louise Gregory

Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index/ Membership/ Newsletter

22 May 17–21 May 19

Tod Cooper

Procurement/ Online Training/ Whistleblowing

22 May17-21 May 19

David Dunsheath

Newsletter Co-Editor/ OGP/ Parliamentarian Network/ SGDs/ NIS/ LIF

24 Jul 17 – 23 Jul 19

John Hopkins

Christchurch events/ Corruption measures/ Grand corruption/ OECD Exporting Corruption

21 Aug 17 – 20 Aug 19

Luke Qin

FISA/ AML/ Affiliations

25 Sept 17 – 24 Sept 19

Bryce Edwards

Political Party Integrity/ Media/ Anti-corruption Policy & Legislation

20 Nov 17 – 19 Nov 19

James Brown

FISA/ Corporate Partnerships/ Sporting Integrity

20 Nov 17 – 19 Nov 19

John Hall

Civics/ Migrant Rights and Responsibilities/ OGP

20 Nov 17 – 19 Nov 19

Ann Webster

Public Sector/ NIS Monitoring/ Constitution/ Parliamentary Network

20 Nov 17 – 19 Nov 19

Sarah Mead

Board Secretary/ Constitution/ Official Information

20 Dec 17– 19 Dec 19

Vicki Squires

Christchurch Events/ Parliamentary Liaison/ Anti-Corruption Law

15 Dec 17 – 14 Dec 19

Short Takes

Report on Money Laundering and Financing Terrorism warns against complacency

In its updated assessment the New Zealand Police Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) said $1.35 billion of domestic criminal proceeds is generated for laundering in New Zealand each year.

Earlier this month the FIU released the National Risk Assessment, an updated assessment of the money laundering and terrorism financing risks that the country faces.

FIU Manager Andrew Hill says “Even in a comparably safe country like ours, money laundering and terrorism financing harms communities by enabling organised crime to flourish. Overseas criminals seeking to mask their illicit funds are also attracted by New Zealand’s reputation as a safe and non-corrupt country.”

This report describes the vulnerabilities of the New Zealand financial system to money laundering and terrorism financing and provides an awareness to more successfully prevent and detect illicit financial activity.

For more information, see the TINZ media release, the FIU media release, the National Risk Assessment full report, or additional media coverage in our In case you missed it section

In case you missed it

Money Laundering

National Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Risk Assessment 2018 New Zealand Police Financial Intelligence Unit

Billions in illicit funds filtering through New Zealand Newstalk ZB AudioTuesday, 20 March 2018, 7:39AM

Latest assessment of money laundering and terrorism financing risks published

Police’s Financial Intelligence Unit release report on money laundering, terrorism New Zealand Herald

More than $1 billion is laundered in NZ every year: Police Stuff

Police’s Financial Intelligence Unit release report on money laundering, terrorism Anti-Corruption Digest

Oligarchs hide billions in shell companies. Here’s how we stop them The Guardian

New Zealand transparency, integrity and accountability

Political Roundup: Defence cover-up starts to unravel Bryce Edwards

Expense claims of former Fraser Health boss and top managers exposed in report The newly released 2014 report, obtained by Postmedia through a freedom of information request, shows that ambiguous policies meant Murray and other Fraser Health managers submitted claims for expenses that have since been prohibited.

Former manager convicted of fraud is sentenced to home detention Saul Roberts former Assets Manager for a publicly funded health provider who pleaded guilty to fraud has been sentenced to eight months home detention at the Auckland High Court

The 2018 Acumen Edelman Trust Barometer indicates New Zealand scores for public trust on government and the media have increased compared to a year ago, is unchanged for business, but declining for non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Calls for Government to tackle modern slavery

NZ Reserve Bank may be less of a ‘fiefdom’ with changes

Nigel Murray investigation passed to Serious Fraud Office RNZ


New Zealand’s Pacific sea change


The Asian Development Bank (ADB) remains committed to fighting corruption and money laundering in the Asia-Pacific

Trump’s Washington: Drowning In Conflicts of Interest? Not a single Congressional Committee is looking into the abuse and utter mockery that is being made of official U.S. government ethics rules.


TINZ engages New Zealand and New Zealanders in a broad range of issues related to building stronger integrity systems to mitigate the impact of bribery and corruption. TINZ Directors, Members with Delegated Authority and staff provide subject matter expertise in the topic areas of interest.