NZ Politics

561 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Dave@lemmy.nz

RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz

Tougher rules needed to combat risk of political corruption - Helen Clark Foundation (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 3 months ago by Dave@lemmy.nz to c/politics@lemmy.nz

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Tougher rules are needed to combat the risk of political corruption in New Zealand, according to the Helen Clark Foundation.

In a report for the public policy think-tank, set up by former prime minister Helen Clark, author Philippa Yasbek set out 26 recommendations to strengthen the country's anti-corruption measures.

They included penalties for those who failed to comply with the Official Information Act, capping a person's political donations to $30,000 per electoral cycle, mandatory reporting of all gifts offered to politicians, and a three-year wait before any former politician could become a lobbyist.

"Corruption is an insidious cancer. It is not enough for democracies like ours to pay lip service to principles of transparency and steps which need to be taken against corruption," he said in a foreword to the report.

"New Zealand must critically examine these issues on a regular basis. That is why this article is so important and why it raises very serious questions about New Zealand's current commitment to transparency."

Yasbek said anti-corruption measures in New Zealand were largely governed by social norms, but laws were needed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pkboi@venera.social 1 points 3 months ago

@Dave When I worked as a press secretary in Parliament many years ago, I had an unofficial policy of not supporting lobbyist meeting requests. I would defer to the groups they were representing. For a hypothetical example, when I worked for the Minister of Agriculture (John Falloon - yes, a National MP - don't hate me), and the e.g. Vegetable Growers Federation wanted to have some influence on new regulations, if we got a request from some PR firm to meet with the Minister, I would tell them to send representatives of the group along instead. They could attend as advisors, but the minister would want to hear from real people in the industry about their experiences and reasons for the position. That's much more useful to a minister who doesn't want information filtered through a third party.

From my observations, there is a difference between smaller industries and trade groups that want help with a significant and specific issue and big industries hoping to influence major policies. For example, petrol companies want to influence climate change policies, which will impact much larger parts of society.

Groups confident in their positions and what they want should be bold enough to front up to ministers to state their case. Ministers respect that as long as the groups clearly articulate their wants. They don't need someone else clipping the ticket along the way, although the PR firms and lobbyists can help develop clear messaging. It becomes tricky when they want to hide behind someone else and don't want their influence to be exposed. It seems this is the type of potential corruption this report is pointing out.