Transparency Times September 2018

From the Chair

Kate SheppardLeader of of the women's suffrage movement in New Zealand

Kate Sheppard
Leader of of the women's suffrage movement in New Zealand

This month sees the 125 Anniversary of Women’s Suffrage.

But there is much more still to be done as demonstrated in Transparency International New Zealand’s (TINZ) findings during its update of the 2013 National Integrity System Assessment.

On September 19,1893, a brief Wellington Post editorial titled “The Enfranchisement of Women” said:

“The Electoral Bill, by which, amongst other things, the electoral franchise is extended to women, was assented to by His Excellency the Governor at 11:45 this morning, on its being presented to him by the Clerk of Parliaments.  We heartily congratulate the women of New Zealand on being at last admitted to a direct voice in the government of the colony. The battle has been a long and severe one…To Sir John Hall, Sir Robert Stout and the other members of the Legislature whose advocacy and energy is now crowned with victory, the greatest credit is due…” (See The Dominion Post : 150 years of news Paul Elenio, The Dominion Post/Fairfax Media, 2014.)

New Zealand at the time had an upper chamber of lords.  This group signed a protest on the basis that such an important change to the “constitution” had not been submitted to electors – at that time all men – for their decision on the subject.

The lords protested despite the 31,872 signatures to Kate Sheppard’s petition for this right to vote.  These represented nearly a quarter of all adult women living in New Zealand at that time.

As well as being the first country to give women the vote, New Zealand led the way in giving its first settlers the vote.  Maori male property owners had the vote prior to 1893.

Maori women could vote from 1893 so with the passage of the Electoral Bill, all Maori had the right to vote.

In contrast, It took Australia a year longer than New Zealand to grant European women the vote in 1894. 

The first Australians, the Aborigine people, were only granted the right to vote from 1967. 

Three days after the suffrage legislation was passed in New Zealand,  600 Wellington women had applied to be placed on the electoral role.

It took until 1919 for New Zealand women to win the right to stand for Parliament. Lyttelton’s  Elizabeth McCombs became the first woman elected in 1920.

Even with the vote, it has taken years for policy and practice to become more gender neutral.  Kate Sheppard went to her grave in 1934 campaigning for equal pay and other demonstrations of human rights for women.

Inside this newsletter is an article that gives an early flavour of the 2nd edition of Transparency International New Zealand’s Integrity Plus 2013 New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment. This 2nd edition provides updated evidence to 2018. 

An unexpected finding is, given the passivity and lack of urgency at the time, how much has been achieved since 2013 to increase transparency within government. Amongst other achievements, in 2015 Parliament unanimously ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption after passing comprehensive anti-corruption legislation including anti-money laundering.

One area that hasn’t changed is the weakness of the electoral system because of problems that exist at the interface between political party financing and public funding. 

As was pointed out in the 2013 NIS:

  • “The combination of continuing concerns about the transparency of political party financing and of donations to individual politicians, a long-term decline in party membership, increased party reliance on public funding, and a lack of full transparency of the parliamentary wings of the parties, interacts with the refusal to extend the coverage of the Official Information Act 1982 to include the administration of Parliament.”
  • “In practice, financial oversight of political parties mostly occurs on an ad hoc basis.”
  • “In practice, virtually all decision making in political parties occurs at the elite level – whether it is leadership selection, candidate selection and listing, or policy making, the upper-echelons of the parliamentary party invariably have the most power.”

A political commentator interviewed on CNN on 1 September 2018 reported that  in America 158 donors account for 90% of reported political party funding.

At the recent Institution of Public Administration New Zealand (IPANZ) Public Sector Excellence Awards, the New Zealand Electoral Commission was rightly celebrated for its strategy to increase voting by going to “where the people are” to enable voting.  This resulted in increased voting turnout compared 2014, particularly among younger voters.

Democracy will remain fragile, though, until there are sufficient money and media  resources available to those campaigning to enable diverse perspectives to be heard.

Suzanne Snively, ONZM

Chair

Transparency International New Zealand Inc.

TINZ AGM – 29 October 2018

Save the date

Monday 29 October 2018

TINZ Annual General Meeting

5.30 p.m. – 7.30 p.m.
Wellington at The ANZ Centre
171 Featherston Street (Level 18)

 

This event is for TINZ Members only.
To help us with arrangements register for the event now at TINZ AGM registration.

If you are not a member, consider joining!

Meet the TINZ Board, Patron Lyn Provost and the new CEO Julie Haggie. Network with like minded individuals over refreshments. The TINZ team will highlight our achievements of the 2017/18 year and share TINZ plans for future projects and action in the year ahead.

 

Adrian Orr – Governor, Reserve Bank of New Zealand

 

Guest Speaker: Adrian Orr

Adrian’s speech will encourage discussion about the relevance of transparency, accountability and integrity in the New Zealand financial sector.

 

 

 

 

Call for TINZ Directors

As part of its succession strategy, Transparency International New Zealand Inc. (TINZ) is searching for experienced Directors to fill the vacancies that will arise at this year’s AGM when two of its Directors will be moving on. Also, there is a current vacancy.

TINZ is an incorporated society and a registered charity. It is an accredited chapter of the global body, Transparency International, based in Berlin. The organisation was set up in 1993 with New Zealander Jeremy Pope as its inaugural CEO. TINZ was established in New Zealand in the 1990s and formally set up as an Incorporated Society in April 2001.

Our Vision (what we would like to see as a result of our work)

A world with trusted integrity systems in which government, politics, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption.

Our Mission (what we do to achieve our vision)

To foster a New Zealand culture where transparency, integrity, good governance and ethical standards and practices are the core values of the all New Zealanders.

Our Values

  • Trust
  • Transparency
  • Respect
  • Integrity
  • Courage
  • Cultural & Social Responsibility
  • Environmental Sustainability

The Director Role

We are seeking expressions of interest from people wishing to make a significant contribution at governance and operational levels to New Zealand society, to the Pacific and through this, have global influence.

Key Considerations for a Board Position:

  • Confident team contributor with leadership skills to enable us to prevent corruption and strengthen integrity systems.
  • Ability to communicate and logically outline principled views.
  • Demonstrated understanding of and commitment to integrity, ethical practice and good governance.
  • Fundraising experience
  • Knowledge of and experience with anti-corruption practices and strategies to enhance organisational viability and sustainability through strengthening integrity systems
  • Capability and experience to fully contribute to a principled high-performing board.
  • Demonstrated experience in associated disciplines eg legal, HR, networking and events management.
  • Ability to commit time to advancing the work of TINZ, both through monthly board attendance (and associated preparation and prior contribution) and to projects and initiatives of the organisation – a minimum of 12 hours per month.
  • Access to networks that will support TINZ through membership, partnership or affiliation
  • Must be a financial member of TINZ

How to Apply

You must be a fully-paid, up-to-date member of Transparency International New Zealand Inc. Nominations from two fully-paid TINZ members are required as well as your permission for your nominators to provide references for you.

Your application should cover the information listed below

  • A short bio highlighting areas relevant to this position.
  • An explanation as to why you wish to become a TINZ Director.
  • Details of three special topic areas you would be willing to assist with.
  • Confirmation of your willingness to commit time beyond the monthly board meetings, to lead activities as agreed in areas in which you may be given delegated authority.
  • How you will assist in fundraising to contribute to TINZ sustainability.

2018 Directors nomination form

New Public Service Act: Have your say

Minister of State Services, Hon Chris Hipkins, launching the State Services Act reform consultation

Hon Chris Hipkins, Minister of State Services, announced a substantial review of the State Sector Act (1998), at the Beehive on Tuesday. All New Zealanders, including public servants, are encouraged to provide feedback on the State Sector Act reform proposals. 

This review aims to determine better ways for government agencies and the Public Service as a whole, to work together more flexibly and effectively, to meet modern day challenges and needs of the New Zealand public. It aims to ensure an enduring foundation for the Public Services, clarify expectations that society places on the Public Service and help in promoting and embedding the spirit of service across the system.

The following are a basis for the proposed Aotearoa New Zealand Public Service Act:

  • Purpose: To deliver results and services for citizens, serve the Government effectively and support our democratic process
  • Principles: Political neutrality, free and frank advice, merit selection, openness, stewardship
  • Values: Impartiality, accountability, behave with integrity, respectful.

The public are invited to contribute to this reform by Friday 12 October 2018, via any of the following options:

Transparency International New Zealand intends to make a submission.

2013 National Integrity Assessment Second Edition

Liz Brown
Member with Delegated Authority
Financial Integrity System Assessment, Local Government, National Integrity Assessment Programme

Liz Brown

Member with Delegated Authority for

New Zealand’s National Integrity System

Transparency International New Zealand’s Integrity Plus 2013 New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment (NIS) was published in December 2013, 10 years after a first assessment carried out in 2003. It is a definitive document about the strengths and weaknesses of New Zealand’s integrity systems. Its recommendations are routinely considered in New Zealand anti-corruption discussions.

The 2013 NIS assisted in raising awareness of integrity issues. It is particularly noteworthy that the government undertook to respond to the report and its recommendations. The State Services Commission (SSC) was the lead agency for this response which was made available to TINZ in 2015 and later published on the SSC website. This response has been updated as recently as July of 2018.

The strongest conclusion from this NIS was about complacency and lack of commitment to the work required to prevent corruption.

It identified substantial strengths and some potential weaknesses in our integrity system and made over 60 specific recommendations, grouped under 7 main headings, for strengthening the system.

In 2015, TINZ reviewed the 2013 NIS, adding some additions and corrections that had been identified and agreed immediately after publication in 2013, and editing for consistency and readability.

In June of 2018, Liz Brown, the research team leader for the 2013 NIS, was contracted to project manage a 2nd edition of the NIS. It became apparent that a lot has changed in 5 years and so others were contacted to update sections where they had specialist knowledge. The TINZ Board is playing a key role in the quality of this review to provide comment and feedback, and to be informed and accountable for what it says.

The aim of the 2018 update is to identify changes that have occurred and progress that has been made since 2013, particularly with progress in implementing the 2013 recommendations. It is not a complete review, and is not intended to introduce new themes or to identify new sources of strength or weakness.

Process

The authors and subject matter experts of the various sections of the 2013 assessment have been re-engaged to update their contributions, to comment on progress in implementing the relevant recommendations and to summarise briefly the changes in their field of expertise.

Additional assistance, including a research assistant, has been engaged where the original authors are unavailable.

As of August 2018, most of the core “pillar reports” had been updated, though finding replacements for the original authors means not all are complete and work has only just started on one.

It is intended that the second edition of the 2013 NIS will be reviewed fully by the TINZ board before publication. The form and nature of the external review process is not yet settled.

Emerging findings 2018 2nd Edition

On a very preliminary and partial basis, the following are emerging as key points:

  1. There is a greater awareness of integrity issues, particularly in government and the public sector. It is noteworthy that we now have a Minister for Open Government, a Minister with responsibility for anti-corruption strategy, and a Deputy Commissioner Integrity in the State Services Commission.
  2. There is a lesser increase in awareness of the importance of taking steps to build strong integrity systems in the business sector.
  3. Since 2013, the government has produced two independently reviewed Open Government Partnership (OGP) national action plans. In general, the reviewer has found the plans sound, but implementation slow. Public consultation about, and input into the plans have been insufficient. The OGP is being taken more seriously under the current Coalition Government.
  4. There has been little progress on issues that require Parliament to consider its own processes and practices.
  5. There has been some strengthening of watchdog institutions.

These findings don’t include areas where work has yet to be completed and change is expected, particularly for law enforcement agencies, the media, and the public sector pillar reports.

The 2nd edition of the 2013 New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment will be released late in 2018 or the first quarter of 2019.

Business Ethics: L’Oréal’s Emmanuel Lulin

Debbie Gee: TINZ Member with Delegated Authority for Whistleblowing, Affiliations, and OPG

Debbie Gee: TINZ Member with Delegated Authority for Whistleblowing, Affiliations, and OPG

Debbie Gee

TINZ Member with Delegated Authority for

Open Government, Whistleblowing, Partners and Affiliations

An interactive seminar with Emmanuel Lulin, Global Senior Vice President and Chief Ethics Officer at L’Oréal, provided participants with valuable insights into ‘How to make business ethics work for people, planet and profits’.

L’Oréal has been recognised by the Ethisphere Institute as one of the “World’s Most Ethical Companies” nine times including last year.  It did so whilst growing its business working towards its goal of doubling customer numbers from 1 billion to 2 billion by 2020. The work of Emmanuel – who is universally recognised as a creative force for ethics as a way of life – has been central to this achievement.

Key messages

The invitation-only seminar was hosted jointly by Transparency International New Zealand and Victoria University of Wellington’s Brian Picot Chair in Ethical Leadership. It provided guests with a rare opportunity to converse with Emmanuel in a relatively intimate setting, and ponder and debate some challenging moral dilemmas.

Emmanuel talked about L’Oréal’s four ethical principles of Integrity, Respect, Courage and Transparency and what these mean for people, planet and profits. He outlined why the company’s focus on ethics has made it one of the most attractive employers for new graduates, globally. He also shared his views on business ethics within a global company, and how positive business ethics leads to better workplaces, improves financial performance and drives sustainability.

Emmanuel said business ethics relate to discretionary decisions and behaviours, both individual and corporate, which go beyond mere legal compliance. As an example, he cited L’Oréal’s concerns about images of women in advertising. It decided to only use models over a certain body weight. He also noted that often the law lags behind ethical challenges.

He presentation provided valuable insights and guidance for staff and students, in areas such as human resources, risk management, marketing and legal, and how to make these work to a company’s advantage. A key point was that compared with finance and profit, integrity is under-represented and under-valued as an organisational asset when calculating bottom lines. He also stressed that everyone has a role and responsibility in maintaining organisational integrity by speaking up about ethical concerns. For example, he provided a list of “red flag” comments that often signal something unethical is about to happen. 

Emmanuel also shared the Seven Building Blocks of a Culture of Integrity, namely: Comfort with Speaking Up; Organisational Justice; Openness of Communication; Clarity of Expectation; Tone of the Top; Direct Manager Leadership; and Trust in Colleagues.

Highly regarded

Emmanuel joined L’Oréal in 1999 as Group General Counsel for Human Resources and in 2007, under the leadership of Jean-Paul Agon, he set up the Office of the Group Chief Ethics Officer. He holds many notable memberships and fellowships and in 2015 was awarded the prestigious 2015 Carol R. Marshall Award for Innovation in Corporate Ethics by the Ethics & Compliance Initiative.

TINZ submission to National Archival and Library Institutions Ministerial Group

Newsletter Co-editor
Member with Delegated Authority for Open Government Partnership, Parliamentarian Network and SGDs

David Dunsheath

TINZ Member with Delegated Authority for Open Government Partnership

Transparency Times Newsletter Co-editor

Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) supports the claim that all people of Aotearoa have the right of access to knowledge about our nation. They have the right to do so with confidence that it is accurate and unbiased. Knowledge enhances democratic accountability, cultural life and appreciation of our heritage, for current and future generations of civil society.

The key institutions which provide and safeguard this knowledge are Archives New Zealand, the National Library of New Zealand and Ngā Taonga Sound & Vision. The contributions these three ‘national archival and library institutions’ make to New Zealand’s culture and democracy is currently under review by the National Archival and Library Institutions (NALI) Ministerial Group.

TINZ prepared a submission through the review’s public feedback process that addressed five survey topics. 

Key challenges 

TINZ identified key challenges faced by these institutions, to be:

  • adequacy of resourcing to address on-going technological developments and practices for the capture and secure preservation of knowledge. In particular is the digitisation of records and increasing use of social media platforms for important communications.
  • transparent capture and preservation of reliable and comprehensive, non-partisan knowledge into the future.

TINZ identified the need for restructuring in order to ensure these institutions have the independence and authority necessary to effectively carry out their responsibilities. At present these institutions are embedded within the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). Positioned as such, they lack independence from DIA’s senior management,  and from government-of-the-day Ministerial influences over DIA.

TINZ identifies that the governance, policy setting, and operational resourcing of the national archival and library institutions, must be safeguarded:

  • without potential, compromising influences to achieve effective short and long-term strategic outcomes and stability (such as undesirable influences including government, civil service, other bodies, and individuals), and
  • within appropriate budgets/resourcing.

Restructure for independence 

TINZ recommends the creation of a new Officer of Parliament role under which the three national archival and library institutions are positioned. This role will better:

  • provide the necessary independence and benefit from economies of scale for operational purposes, and
  • ensure the integrity of their outcomes through independence from government and state sector prioritising influences.

Working together

Whereas the three national archival and library institutions have differing roles, their common mission is to provide the public with readily accessible access to reliable, objective and unbiased knowledge of our nation.

Merging these three institutions under the leadership of an Officer of Parliament would strengthen the necessary independence from external influences. The resulting opportunities from their standalone merged structure include:

  • the required integrity of their outcomes through complete independence from government and state sector prioritising influences
  • greater consistency of approach and outcomes, across the institutions
  • shared subject matter expert resources for the digital challenges to be faced
  • beneficial economies of scale overall.

TINZ also recommends that, given the technological challenges faced by these institutions, a public enquiry/review needs to be held. This would be planned to determine the nature and scope of knowledge that civil society wishes to gather and safeguard for future generations.

Long term needs

The public must be given full confidence that these three institutions have authoritative, independent and fully transparent governance, policies, practice. This would require such institutions to have on-going resources sufficient for their timely, reliable capture, preservation and public access to the nation’s records of government, public sector and civil society activities. By earning and gaining public confidence, New Zealand’s democratic processes and transparent, open-functioning of the state, can be safeguarded.

These arrangements require considerable resourcing. They must demonstrate sound value for taxpayers’ money against well-debated objectives, and be subject to periodic review by the Office of Auditor General. Hence, the need to initially review the required scope of knowledge to be captured by such institutions. 

The full submission is available here >> inseert link to website URL<<.

Transparency Times intends to keep you informed of the findings from this important review.

Scientific research – a question of integrity

Josephine Serrallach TINZ Director

Josephine Serrallach

TINZ Director

Corruption Perceptions Index, Global TI Relationships, Sport Integrity

Transparency International New Zealand congratulates the Royal Society for its National Research Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand. This initiative has been developed via a collaborative model with research organisations and funders. It sets out the principles underpinning sound research practice in Aotearoa.

Challenges faced

Internationally, the number of cases of research misconduct has been increasing exponentially over recent years. For the most part, scientists are trustworthy, but today’s scientific world is full of news of scientific misconduct and fraudulent practices. The popular academic world saying, “publish or perish”, reflects the career pressure faced by today’s researchers. Under that pressure, scientists are tempted to publish false data or stay silent on negative results.

Scientific misconduct could mean any the following behaviours:

  • misappropriation of ideas
  • plagiarism
  • impropriety of authorship 
  • falsification of data
  • suppressing results, as well as
  • violation of ethical practices and failure to comply with legislative or regulatory requirements.

Development of a Charter

The National Research Charter is being developed by the group comprising the Royal Society, the major research funding agencies and bodies representing different types of research organisations.

The organisations involved are:

This initiative will provide clarity for researchers and research organisations on expectations for research compliance, best practice nationally and international benchmarking.

Most research organisations and universities in New Zealand have their own code of research practice. The Royal Society has also a Code of Professional Standards and Ethics. The Charter meets the need for a national standard that matches international practice and includes elements specific to the context of Aotearoa, such as setting out how researchers should meet their responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi. 

The new Charter, when adopted, will apply to all researchers employed by or contracted to public funded research organisations. Other private research organisations will be encouraged to adopt the Charter.

The Charter will go further than setting out the principles for good research practice. It will also include responsibilities of researchers to the public interest and the common good, as well as responsibilities to sustainability and guardianship of the environment.

A question of Integrity

Emphasis will be placed on researchers obligations to support the public interest by presenting research results and findings in an honest and unbiased manner and make them available to society.

In New Zealand, the late Sir Paul Callaghan was active in science communication as he was clear on the social contract between science and the society. Key to this social contract, the public should know and benefit from the results of publicly funded research.

At the end “It is all a question of Integrity”.

Is our Governance up to scratch or have we become complacent?

Bernie McKendrey

Bernie McKendrey
Deputy Chair
The Institute of Internal Auditors New Zealand

It’s time for us all to look in the mirror and ask ourselves some tough questions.

As a country we place a lot of trust and confidence in the governing bodies of our financial institutions and social service organisations. We want to trust that they ensure that everything runs as it should, customer and stakeholder needs are met, and our country prospers.

Maintaining our number #1 Corruption Perceptions Index ranking requires us to get the basics right. This ranking is not just about low levels of corruption in our public sector, but reflects our trustworthiness and integrity as a nation. It enables us to trade and compete in the worlds markets and attract capital. It underpins our economy and its growth and is intrinsic to our success, given our size and location.

However, we continue to be the victims of unethical and fraudulent behaviour due to poor governance and mismanagement. Have our integrity and values slipped below acceptable levels for us to see misconduct in our organisations year-on-year?

Whether it is South Canterbury Finance, Milford Asset Management, Ministry of Transport, the Waikato DHB or Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the themes behind these issues of misconduct are the same.

  • Were their Boards and Senior Executives guilty of complacency?
  • Were they too trusting or gullible?
  • Do they lack the necessary skills and capability to provide oversight and monitor, to challenge and question?
  • What role do the regulators, educators, professional bodies and professional advisers play?
  • Where are our assurance and risk management professionals and are they given the mandates to perform their roles?

We are all challenged to consider these questions for our organisations.

The findings in the aftermath of recent cases demonstrate that these questions are still a work in progress. The findings were:

  • Inadequate oversight and challenge by the Board of emerging non-financial risks
  • Unclear accountabilities, starting with a lack of ownership of key risks at the Board and Senior Executive level
  • Weaknesses in how issues, incidents and risks were identified and escalated and a lack of urgency in their subsequent management and resolution
  • A risk management framework that existed on paper but not in practice, and, immature and under-resourced assurance, risk and compliance functions
  • An overreliance on external audit and weak governance practices at the Senior Executive level.

The recommendations include:

  • A risk balanced strategy with equal focus on non-financial risk and outcomes for customers, the economy and New Zealand’s economic wellbeing
  • Cultural change, moving from reactive and complacent to empowered, challenging that builds ethics, integrity and good practice into the organisations DNA
  • More rigorous Board and Executive Committee level governance of non-financial risks
  • Exacting accountability standards reinforced with transparency and disclosure, and
  • A substantial upgrading of the authority and capability of assurance, risk and compliance functions, with the supporting mandate.

Self regulation involves effort

We do not want to be burdened with ever increasing regulation and the compliance cost it imposes. It is in the Kiwi DNA to be self-managing and self-regulating. But self-regulation and self-management are not a ‘given’ or a ‘right’. We must work for them and continually prove and justify why we should have them. We all play a role.

Regulators need to ensure that assurance, risk and compliance functions are mandated, and standards adhered to. There needs to be more disclosure and transparency on misconduct, instead of masking by the veil of confidentiality.

Educators need to provide the courses to grow and develop the skills that organisations require to develop capable and skilled, governance, executive, and risk management professionals.

Professional bodies need to monitor their members and provide ongoing development and training that is fit for purpose, not a one-size fits all. They need to be transparent on any disciplinary processes.

Professional advisers need to increase their assertiveness. They need to not only provide advice but work alongside their clients to promote good conduct and see that best practice is implemented.

Introducing UNA NZ as new Affiliate organisation

John Morgan, Member of the National Council of UNA NZ

John Morgan

Member of the National Council of United Nations Association of New Zealand (UNA NZ)

About the author: From June 2008 to June 2018, John was UNA NZ’s Special Officer for Human Rights. John is a former public servant, and briefly a diplomat in Beijing, a history graduate, and not-quite-law-graduate.

As reported last month, Transparency International New Zealand and United Nations Association New Zealand (UNA NZ) have concluded an affiliation agreement to cooperate, and co-ordinate activities.

UNA NZ has a formal bond with the UN system through its affiliation to the World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA). WFUNA is a people’s movement for joining the world’s peoples in support for the UN and in working with that aim.

Origins

UNA NZ was born on 25 February 1946 when, with a stroke of the pen, the New Zealand League of Nations Union changed itself into UNA NZ. The National Council, the National Executive and the constitution remained the same. At that time there was a mood of idealistic determination to build a new world out of the ashes of the horrifying traumas the world had lived through in the previous three decades – the Great War 1914-18, the great depression from 1929 on, and the just-concluded World War II.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s own Prime Minister, Peter Fraser, played an important role in the formation of the United Nations, the focus of much of the idealism of those years.

UNA NZ was thus regarded as an important body. Prime Minister, Peter Fraser, and Minister of Finance, Walter Nash, had both been active members of the National Executive of the League of Nations Union in the 1930s. In the following decade (1950s) with Syd Holland and (briefly) Keith Holyoake as National Party Prime Ministers, the Foreign Affairs Ministers, Clifton Webb and Tom McDonald would invite the UNA NZ National Council to their office once a year for a chat.

Looking forward

Our two organisations, TINZ and the UNA NZ, today live in a very different world. Decades of prosperity have been accompanied by problems that are less sensational than World War II. These problems are insidiously complicated and difficult to resolve. Climate change and the movement around various regions of great numbers of refugees are outstanding examples. We could all think of other almost-as-serious examples. There are now a plethora of NGO groups seeking to make progress in resolving problems which all reasonable people can see demand global action. This progress is inhibited as NGO organisations struggle against an air of lassitude and indifference.

In this situation, nothing could make better sense than maximal co-operation between TINZ and UNA NZ. Progress in resolving the many critical problems that face the peoples of the world – that is, the UN – depends on higher standards of transparency and accountability, the core concern of TINZ.

Those wanting to find out about UNA NZ activities should check our website www.unanz.org.nz, though you should be warned that our website is currently the focus of an upgrade (true of many NGO organisations – we hope to learn a lot from TINZ in this and other regards). Any queries about UNA NZ, including activities in Auckland, Tauranga, Whanganui, Wellington and Christchurch, should be addressed to office.unanz@gmail.com.

Exporting Corruption Report 2018 to release 12 September

Transparency International – the global anti-corruption organisation – and TINZ umbrella organisation – will be releasing the 2018 edition of its Exporting Corruption report on 12 September, 2018.  This report rates countries based on their enforcement against foreign bribery under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

This is the twelfth Exporting Corruption report from Transparency International. It was produced in the organisation’s Secretariat in Berlin, in collaboration with national chapters and experts in 41 OECD Convention countries, as well as China, Hong Kong SAR, India and Singapore.

The last report was released in 2015.  At that time New Zealand with 0.2% of global exports was credited with limited enforcement. The 2015 New Zealand country report is available online. See also Exporting Corruption report – how does New Zealand perform? in the September 2014 Transparency Times.

 

In case you missed it

New Zealand transparency, integrity and accountability

Jacinda Ardern sacks Clare Curran from Cabinet, removes her from two portfolios after second failure to declare a meeting

Clare Curran: ‘I’ve let myself down’

Brian Gaynor: NZX starting to find its way… finally The NZX pricing structure announcement this week shows the stock exchange is finally travelling down the right road.

Sport

Police investigating suspected corruption in NBL match after player brags about ‘winnings’ The Herald on Sunday also claims that an unnamed player was bragging about his winnings after the match.

FIFA Vice President Quits After Audit Raises Questions The head of the smallest of FIFA’s six global confederations suddenly resigned, surrendering his seat on FIFA’s ruling council and becoming the latest senior soccer executive to depart the sport amid accusations of corruption.

Icarus director: NZ sports’ ‘conflict of interest

Bryan Fogel on how doping documentary ‘Icarus’ changed sport

More money in sport means more corruption – Bryan Fogel

Meet the man who exposed Russia’s state-sponsored doping programme

Racing industry rocked by race-fixing claims, police raids RNZ

Stables raided throughout New Zealand in police sting on alleged race-fixing in harness racing industry

Ten arrested after 17 police raids during probe into race-fixing, drugs offences

Australia

New paper highlights key anti-corruption strategies for Australia

Overwhelming majority of Australians believe federal politicians are corrupt::Australia

Australian supermarkets accused of selling fake honey According to PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates, food fraud, which includes honey fraud, is a $US40 billion a year global industry.

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/365870/nzer-s-behaviour-the-very-embodiment-of-corruption.   Local government CEO, Rodger Kerr-Newell’s behaviour ‘the very embodiment of corruption’ according to Australian court.

Pacific

New database to improve aid transparency in Pacific A director at the Australian think tank the Lowy Institute says a new database will improve aid transparency in the Pacific and hold donors to account.

International

What a difference two years makes: progress since the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit

Can Blockchain Help Bypass the Problem of Corruption in Development Aid? “Blockchain technology would allow donors to transfer money to end users directly (and instantaneously), bypassing the formal financial institutions and corrupt bureaucracies that have often been the source of financial leakage, and preserving a transparent record of all transactions.”

Transparency International

Will the G20 deliver on anti-corruption in 2018?

TINZ Team

TINZ engages New Zealand and the 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. Below is a list of TINZ Subject Matter Experts as of September 2018.

To view by topic, visit the category page which lists the range of issues TINZ is concerned with and respective current subject matter experts.

PersonLocationResponsibilitiesTerm

Patron

Lyn ProvostWellington2018 – 2021

TINZ Elected Directors

Suzanne SnivelyWellingtonCHAIR, Financial Integrity System Assessment (FISA), National Integrity Systems, TINZ Governance2017 – 2020
Tim GoodrickInternationalBusiness Integrity and Ethics2016 – 2019
Charles HettWellingtonCorruption Perceptions Index, Ethics Committee2015 – 2018
John HopkinsChristchurchChristchurch events, Corruption, Indexes and Surveys, OECD2017 – 2020
Henry LynchAucklandBusiness Integrity and EthicsMay 2018 – 2019 (Replacing Mark Sainsbury)
David McNeillAucklandIT Systems2016 – 2019
Josephine SerrallachPalmerston NorthCorruption Perceptions Index, Global TI Relationships, Sport2017 – 2020
Christine StevensonWellingtonTreasurer2017 – 2020
Karen WebsterAucklandDefence and Defence Anti-Corruption Index, Local Government2017 – 2020
Brendon WilsonWellingtonBusiness Integrity and Ethics, Small and medium enterprises2017 – 2020
Gus van de RoerWellingtonInvestments Attraction

TINZ Members with Delegated Authority

Ferdinand BalfoortInternationalAnti-Corruption Pledges, Fundraising, Governance19 Sept 16 – 18 Sept 18
James BrownAucklandCorporate Partnerships, Financial Integrity System Assessment (FISA), Sport20 Nov 17 – 19 Nov 19
Liz BrownWellingtonFinancial Integrity System Assessment (FISA), Local Government, National Integrity Systems17 Oct 16 – 16 Oct 18
James BushellWellingtonBusiness Sector, Civil Society20 Dec 16 – 19 Dec 18
Tod CooperWellingtonProcurement, Training, Whistleblowing22 May17-21 May 19
Karen CouttsAucklandMaori Caucus, Te Tiriti o Waitangi17 Oct 16 – 16 Oct 18
David DunsheathWellingtonDemocracy, Newsletter production, Open Government Partnership (OGP), Parliamentary Liaison, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)24 Jul 17 – 23 Jul 19
Daygan EagerPalmerston NorthOpen Government Partnership (OGP), Palmerston North Events10 Apr 17 – 9 Apr 19
Bryce EdwardsChristchurchAnti-Corruption, Democracy, Legislation, Media20 Nov 17 – 19 Nov 19
Debbie GeeWellingtonOpen Government Partnership (OGP), Partners and Affiliations, Whistleblowing24 July 18 – 23 July 20
John HallAucklandCivics, Human Rights, Open Government Partnership (OGP)20 Nov 17 – 19 Nov 19
Nichola HodgeWellingtonChristchurch events, Newsletter production, Wellington Events, Youth Membership10 Apr 17 – 9 Apr 19
Stephanie HopkinsWellingtonFinancial Integrity System Assessment (FISA), Pacific / Pasifika, Partners and Affiliations7 August 18 – 6 August 20
Claire JohnstoneWellingtonMaori Caucus, Pacific / Pasifika20 Dec16 – 19 Dec 18
Karin LasthuizenWellingtonBusiness Integrity and Ethics, Ethics Committee, Wellington Events2 Jan 18 – 1 Jan 21
Michael MacaulayWellingtonOpen Government Partnership (OGP), Whistleblowing10 Apr 17 – 9 Apr 19
Sarah MeadWellingtonBoard Secretary, Constitution, Official Information Act (OIA)20 Dec 17– 19 Dec 19
Declan MordauntInternationalCivil Society, Partners and Affiliations, T20 Professional Services Network20 Dec 16 – 19 Dec 18
Mark NicholasTaranakiMaori Caucus, Sport, Taranaki Events, TINZ Membership20 Dec16 – 19 Dec 18
Luke QinWellingtonAnti-Money Laundering, Financial Integrity System Assessment (FISA), Partners and Affiliations25 Sept 17 – 24 Sept 19
Vicki SquiresChristchurchChristchurch events, Parliamentary Liaison15 Dec 17 – 14 Dec 19
Fuimaono TuiasauAucklandOpen Government Partnership (OGP), Pacific / Pasifika1 Dec 16 – 30 Nov 18
Ann WebsterWellingtonConstitution, National Integrity Systems, Parliamentary Liaison20 Nov 17 – 19 Nov 19

TINZ Staff

Julie HaggieWellingtonCEO10 Sept 2018 – 9 Sept 2019
Helen BewleyWellingtonAdministration, Financials, TINZ Membership2015 – June 2019
Anne GilbertWellingtonLeaders Integrity Forums (public sector), Local Government, TINZ Project Manager2015 – March 2019
Lucy JonesWellingtonAdministrationUntil Feb 2019
Autumn ProwWellingtonAdministration2018 – Dec 2018
Steve SnivelyInternationalCommunications, Newsletter production, Website2012 – ongoing