Transparency International raking it in to spread propaganda at the taxpayer's expense:

Transparency International New Zealand posted a 'news' story on Voxy yesterday stating its "emergent overall findings" into its "National Integrity Systems review" "found that high standards of independence, integrity and accountability were generally met, although areas for improvements were noted. New Zealand also scores highly for fiscal transparency."  (The fact that they had to resort to Voxy to get this propaganda out speaks volumes in itself.)

 The story states a further report will be provided in July, with the full report concluding August 27th. The public are invited to provide feedback through the local autonomous chapter's website, but the site has been down since the story appeared. The New Zealand government has less of a problem getting TINZ's ear than the public.

The TINZ review's $400,000 budget is being funded by Crown agencies, including the Auditor General. TINZ Review Director Suzanne Snively (pictured) reports biweekly to Solicitor General Michael Heron or Attorney General Chris Finlayson and advises she will be paid $50,000 for her efforts. The story maintains the work is "welcomed by Minister of State Services Jonathan Coleman and Labour spokesperson for State Services Phil Goff". Ms Snively, an American whose most notable achievement could be making a personal fortune off NZ government contracts, currently as Principal of More Media Ltd, advised kiwisfirst (the source of this article, and many others of interest to the public of NZ) last month that she considers New Zealand to be virtually corruption free.

When confronted with survey results which revealed New Zealanders are twice as likely to pay bribes as Australians, she suggested the result was skewed by Australians' ignorance of how corrupt things are across the ditch.

She says she prefers to think positively and claimed much of the dispute with TINZ's findings comes from people focused on the negative - including Kiwisfirst publisher Vince Siemer. Director Snively freely admitted her private company exists on government contracts, but stated this and the Crown's funding of TINZ's review posed no conflict because the review was "objective" and controlled by "22 researchers" independent of the funders. Asked if researchers were paid, Snively responded "some are and some are not". Asked what the methodology was that made the review objective, Ms Snively could only state the review was inclusive of the entire country.

 Transparency International New Zealand has been under a cloud of suspicion for years. Three years ago, Ministry of Transport bureaucrat Claire Johnstone was running the show along with her husband, active police detective Ash Johnstone. On Sinclair Robertson Associates' website - the private consultancy the Johnstones also ran - Mr Johnstone was listed as doing background checks for their private industry clients and the homepage proudly pronounced "We deliver strategic development services for a variety of clients, ranging from iwi groups to central and local government, not-for-profit organizations and small to medium sized enterprise. We have particular expertise in analyzing and presenting an organisation's business case. This has allowed us to raise equity or access grant funding from government for many of our clients." 

According to Snively, the chapter had 52 members at the end of last year and 12 directors. Most members are either public sector bureaucrats or contractors to the NZ government. Membership requests are routinely turned away, although Snively stated she has only turned down two memberships in the last nine months. Media Law Journal blogger Steven Price advised he had to go through an interview to join last year but Ms Snively disputes this, saying it is simply customary for TINZ directors to have coffee with prospective members as a welcome due to most prospects being already known to the members and that Mr Price apparently misconstrued the process.

At least Mr Price was not arrested, as Vince Seimer was when he tried to join.

 Ms Snively does concede the chapter has been run poorly in the past but says she is committed to increasing transparency and membership, declaring it imperative that the chapter increase its funding from memberships and individual donations. She says the non-for-profit's failure to comply with the Incorporated Societies Act and confusion over its Constitution are due to poor administration prior to her becoming involved.

 Last month, within a week of being informed by kiwisfirst that TINZ had failed its statutory obligation to register its rules as an incorporated society, a December 2009 amended version of its rules were filed with the New Zealand Companies Office. The Berlin parent organisation expressed concern about the lapse and said it would investigate.

OURNZ's Kelvyn Alp - South Canterbury Finance Inquiry imperative.

OURNZ party co-leader Kelvyn Alp calls for inquiry into the receivership of South Canterbury Finance:

"There is no justification to refuse to allow any kind of proper transparency into the South Canterbury Finance asset sales program by way of a full inquiry - because taxpayer money is being used to subsidise the losses.

It is simply unacceptable to quote "commercial sensitivity" as a justification for refusing transparency when taxpayer money is at stake.

Evidence is now appearing that indicates South Canterbury Finance's assets have been sold considerably below fair market values, under a cloak of secrecy provided by John Key and Bill English.

Given that no court order has ever been issued to warrant the actions that ultimately led to the South Canterbury Finance receivership, the refusal to allow any kind of transparency is utterly unacceptable.

The refusal to allow any inquiry without question effectively places the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance above the law.

It requires us to take their word for it, that wrongdoing has occurred without any lawfully acceptable or recognisable proof.

Given that most of the assets have already been sold without any form of trial having taken place, this is unacceptable.

I repeat: "NO COURT ORDER CURRENTLY EXISTS TO WARRANT THE SALE OF SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE ASSETS"

THIS WAS AN EXECUTIVE DECISION ONLY AND AS SUCH SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY RESULT IN COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY TRANSPARENCY FOR TAXPAYERS.

Their refusal to allow any inquiry to take place into the asset sales process under these circumstances is completely unacceptable.

There needs to be a public inquiry into the entire asset sales process, with the following terms of reference:

1: Who were the assets sold to and what is/was their relationship (if any) to the decision makers involved?

2: What was the fair market value of each asset when it was sold?

3: Were independent valuations done for each asset prior to sale, and if so, who completed the valuations, and what (if any) relationship do the valuers have to the decision makers involved?

4: If independent valuations did not take place in any instance, why not? What is the justification for overlooking this requirement given the use of taxpayer money to subsidise losses?

5: Why did Treasury allow private sector business interests, which benefited materially from the DGS pay-out triggered by the receivership, to influence Treasury decisions prior to the receivership?

6: To what degree did those private sector business interests benefit from the pay-out, and by what means? Given the Crown oversight automatically occurring due to the renewal of the DGS by the Minister of Finance, who authorised it or had prior knowledge of it?

7: What offers to recapitalise SCF were received prior to the decision to place SCF into receivership? Why are the details of those offers being withheld from NZ taxpayers, given that taxpayer funds are now being used to subsidise the losses?

There are simply too many questions that need to be answered to satisfy NZ taxpayers that this process has been fair and properly handled.

Kelvyn Alp

Party Co-Leader

OURNZ Party"

Second press release regarding Alan Hubbard and South Canterbury Finance:
OURNZ Party demands a real and independent investigation into South Canterbury Finance (SCF) and the death of Allan Hubbard.

In a previous release I provided the details of what needed to be investigated in terms of SCF - and to date the silence has been deafening. I now add the details that need to be investigated in regards to the death of Allan Hubbard.

Facts about Allan Hubbard's death: 

1: Jean Hubbard had already stopped when the other driver hit them at high speed.

2: The only skid-marks were the other driver's.

3: The other driver's skid marks were on the wrong side of the road for the direction he was travelling in - directly into the oncoming Hubbard's car.

4: The other driver claims he was driving from Dunedin to Nelson to visit his children for father's day - towing a cement mixer.

5: The Police did not appear to investigate the accident in a normal fashion - no spray paint, no signs of any forensic investigation, no markers, nothing.

6: The Police have allowed the other driver to keep deferring his court case (3 times now) and have reduced the charges from dangerous driving to careless use.

7: Jean Hubbard has been invited by the Police to appear as a witness against the other driver when his case goes to court on December 3rd. She is upset about this and does not understand why he is defending the charges when he was clearly on the wrong side of the road.

8: It is alleged that the other driver now lives on a farm in Southland, specifically in Bill English's electorate. If this is true, and the farm has any historical tie with South Canterbury Finance, the matter should be thoroughly investigated, and the other driver's bank account and phone records should be seized and investigated.

9: Allan Hubbard's doctor says the autopsy report raises more questions than it answers. He says the report indicates that "the type of tests they ran on him are completely inconsistent with the tests they would normally run on a road accident victim. He says "the family are not qualified enough to understand the implications of the autopsy report". It is possible that Allan was given the wrong blood or injected with something that killed him.

10: Allan survived the "golden hour" at Oamaru ED. He had a fractured pelvis, a broken femur, and a dislocated hip. He was laughing with nurses and was stabilised before being put in the helicopter for the 20 minute ride to Dunedin Hospital.

11: Allan died during the helicopter ride, of causes that have never been publicised. The media keeps reporting that he died in a car accident. He did not. He survived the car accident and died in the back of a helicopter, nearly two hours after the accident occurred, having survived the 'golden hour'.

12: Allan died 3 days before he was due to start a court case against the government, challenging the statutory management and fraud investigation they imposed upon him. This was only a few weeks before the 2011 election.

13: His lawyers were due to submit evidence in the court case which would have caused extreme embarrassment to the following people:

a) The Governor General - for signing the executive order which led to the seizure and sale of Allan's assets without a court order, while he was still 'under investigation'.

b) The Prime Minister - for influencing public opinion against Allan on national television while the matter was still under investigation, more than once - effectively interfering in the course of justice.

c) Simon Power - same as Governor General (see point a) as well as sending an email which was going to be used as evidence against him. The email was timed less than an hour before Simon Power announced to media that he was placing Allan into statutory management and investigating him for fraud. The email asked someone from Treasury to contact Simon Power urgently to explain what statutory management means (despite telling the public that he gave the matter "careful consideration").

d) Bill English - same reasons as the PM (see point b).

e) Adam Feeley - never met Allan Hubbard, never interviewed him, and never got any other SFO staff to interview him either - but still charged him with 50 counts of fraud. Also gave Allan's biography away at an SFO office party, as "booby prizes, while Allan was still "under investigation".

f) Neville Harris - for deceiving Hubbard investors and the government (Google "Kerry Grass Hubbard Regulatory Review).

g) Grant Thornton - for deceiving Hubbard investors and the government (Google "Kerry Grass Hubbard Regulatory Review).

14: The SFO and MED (Feeley and Harris) paid Grant Thornton (a private sector insolvency firm) to write the report accusing Allan of reckless management and fraud, which resulted in their own appointment to the role of statutory managers, from which they have earned more than $51,000 per week in fees since June 2010. 

15: Their (Grant Thornton's) report resulted in the seizure and sale of Allan's assets WITHOUT A COURT ORDER TO THIS DAY as well as the 'fraud investigation' which led to the charges laid against him. 

16: Grant Thornton carried out the entire investigation for the SFO and the "evidence" they produced resulted in Allan being charged with fraud. Allan was effectively stripped of all legal rights and protection by this process and was found "guilty" by evidence that was produced by Thornton's, who were NOT independent, and who clearly had a major conflict of interest.

17: In summary, the evidence due to be put before the courts, starting three days after Allan's death, would have placed John Key in almost PRECISELY the same situation he is now facing with Kim Dotcom. Effectively caught with his pants down, having broken the law in a number of places, as well as having waded into the middle of it on national television to influence public opinion directly himself, while the whole matter was still 'under investigation'.

18: Allan's court case would have proven EXTREMELY embarrassing for the government, weeks before the 2011 election.

It is important to add that John Key allegedly had Dunedin Hospital placed under "lockdown", according to DHB staff, the night Allan died.

It is certainly not hard to see why Allan Hubbard is dead.

Kelvyn Alp
Party Leader
OURNZ Party

Hubbard Grass Report

That's the Grass report, here is another, by Tur Borren of Demi Holdings - Allan Hubbard expressed considerable confidence in Tur Borren, who has extensive experience in financial restructuring in the NZ business sector, and was involved in negotiating an alternative plan to avoid the imposition of statutory management at the time of Allan Hubbard's death:

Hubbard Report
The deconstruction and disposal of South Canterbury Finance bears similarities with concerns raised regarding the receivership of the Crafar Farms.

Kiwisfirst editor Vince Seimer ended up in Mt Eden Prison after exposing Michael Stiassny and Korda Mentha, and was responsible for revealing that the Emperor has no clothes as far as Transparency International New Zealand is concerned. 

Paul Carruthers explains it well:

Transparency International NZ just a front for a few corrupt ex police and their wives by the look of it:

Transparency in New Zealand (Kiwikileaks) began from a realisation that the culture of dealing with complaints in New Zealand has become corrupted, and that corruption and incompetence are rife in the public sector.

I decided, after following the correct channels, writing endless letters to managers and ministers, and the Ombudsmen and the PCA, and politely pointing out that taxpayer funded organisations were blatantly corrupt, only to be fobbed off with even more corrupt responses, that the solution to this was to put the evidence of it on the internet. This is a new investigation service. It operates by putting the evidence of corruption and incompetence on the internet for all to see exactly how our taxes are spent. The last straw was when we discovered the truth about the government funded organisation Transparency International. The following reports are copied from Vince Seimer's website Kiwisfirst.com:

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL INVISIBLE IN NEW ZEALAND

12 February 2009
In a 9 square metre closet next to the elevator shaft on the fourth floor of a former department store in Wellington resides an eight year old 'autonomous chapter' of the Berlin based Transparency International. The office is so obscure that a kiwisfirst staffer searching for the office in November resorted to asking a Courier delivering a package on the same floor where it was. The Courier had no clue. The closet office was finally found but no one was home. The only identification was a A4 letterhead stationary folded in half and taped to the locked red door. A business card was left on the door with a request to call, but no return call came.

A Wellington man first brought the NZ chapter to the attention of kiwisfirst a year ago. He had read on the Ministry of Justice website how TI had rated New Zealand along with Iceland the most transparent of the 180 countries it ranks. This raised questions for the man, so he phoned the office. A former kiwifruit salesman with dubious credentials answered the phone and introduced himself as the Chief Executive Officer. He was so pleased to have a phone call from another Kiwi, saying it was a rare thrill. He spoke effusively of the chapter's mission to bring transparency to the 'Pacific Islands'. It was minutes before the caller could squeeze in a question. Finally, the man asked what the chapter was doing about transparency in New Zealand and CEO Paul Browne haltingly responded that this was not a problem. The call abruptly ended.

Kiwisfirst finally got through in January. CEO Browne again answered the call and quickly went for the sell. TINZ was doing wonderful things, he said. Business corruption was a result of a lack of transparency and TINZ were deeply engaged in spreading religion to the hapless Pacific Island nations which desperately needed this gospel. Déja vu hit the reporter. He played along for a bit, until he found the opportunity during this gospel to ask the enlightened one how the Corruption Perception Index came to rate NZ tops in the world on transparency. Browne matter-of-factly responded the CPI was self evident. This allowed the reporter to ask him whether he was familiar with the October 2006 OECD report which would appear to beg to differ. "Yes", Browne countered defensively, emphatically adding the TI ranking "is a perception index". "New Zealanders believe NZ is highly transparent. My job is focused on Pacific Island nations."

He was asked whether TI's top ranking could be defended when it is actually touted on the NZ Ministry of Justice website as seeming validation why NZ Court judgments need to be trusted without accurate recording of hearings. What others do with TI's opinions was outside their control, he asserted. He insisted TI did not promote the CPI as anything but perception. He was then asked whether the organization was alarmed that the New Zealand Courts were wearing the TI CPI as a badge of honour when the Courts did not allow accurate recording - i.e. transparency - without expressed consent of the Judge. Mr Browne was now uncomfortable. He became suddenly busy. He apologized for having to cut short the call to attend to other pressing business.

The International, not-for-profit Berlin based Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) was founded some 15 years ago to actively work toward reducing corruption by promoting transparency in government and business environments. Since then, some 90 'independent national chapters' have sprung up. The New Zealand chapter has been around for 6 years. In contrast to the potent fight parent TI has waged to keep its official line promoted on websites like Wikipedia, source information for the New Zealand chapter was hard to come by for this story. Information from TINZ's official website www.transparencynz.org.nz was strong on platitudes but light on substance - if not misleading. The website link to "Newsletter and documents" did not work. It was soon discovered several directors were added to the website merely to effuse false credibility. Instead of the nine directors listed, inside information suggested there are actually only four.

Kiwisfirst emailed these four directors, as well as CEO Browne, seeking basic information such as number of NZ staff, sources of funding, a newsletter and an accurate list of directors. Every inquiry went unanswered - even a subsequent detailed request for the above information from New Zealander Jeremy Pope, a former New Zealand Law Journal Editor listed as a 'founding member' of the original Berlin Secretariat NGO. Mr Pope is not listed as connected with the local chapter.

According to the International Secretariat website "TI raises awareness and diminishes apathy and tolerance of corruption, and devises and implements practical actions to address it." Such nobleness has not insulated the Berlin parent from criticism. The organization has achieved some infamy over disclosures its funding has come from notoriously opaque (and corrupt) corporations such as ENRON. Secretariat staffers have responded by obtusely referring to the public bloggers ignorance of its goals, relationships with its 'independent national chapters' and fundraising methods on webpostings.

If transparency is the goal of the New Zealand chapter, one could at least say the organization is as invisible to New Zealanders as its closet office. From most reliable indications, the local chapter is little more than a fundraising and lobbying entity for certain NZ bureaucrats and businessmen.

The "Deputy Chairwoman" of TINZ, Claire Johnstone, is a principal in a consulting company called Sinclair Robertson Associates. SRA's website brags "We deliver strategic development services for a variety of clients, ranging from iwi groups to central and local government, not-for-profit organizations and small to medium sized enterprise. We have particular expertise in analyzing and presenting an organisation's business case. This has allowed us to raise equity or access grant funding from government for many of our clients."

Auspiciously omitted from Ms Johnstone's business profile on the SRA site is her directorship of 'not-for-profit' TINZ, as well as her current position as General Manager Corporate for the New Zealand Ministry of Transport. While such obvious conflicts do not necessarily suggest or lead to corruption, it is safe to say few people would find such conduct "transparent". SRA's website claims to entice new clients, coupled with obvious relevant omissions, do beg questions. Is TINZ a client of SRA and, if so, did TINZ benefit from the government largesse SRA (and government official Claire Johnstone) get for their clients? If so, omissions of information by double-dipping directors raise legitimate concerns. This is all the more worrisome if done by self-professed anti-corruption advocates of transparency.

TINZ Board Members are a snapshot of longstanding government bureaucrats, with Chairman Gerard McGhie touted as a "38 year member of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade". It begins to make sense why a fruit salesman is the chapter's CEO.

For a not-for-profit organisation actively soliciting donations, it is particularly surprising how clandestine the local chapter seems to be. It defies reason that any organisation would seemingly refuse to provide rudimentary information such as an accurate list of directors or newsletter. For this reason, Kiwisfirst will continue to investigate this story. Stay tuned.
BACK TO FRONT PAGE

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL NEW ZEALAND ORDERS ARREST OF ANTI-CORRUPTION ADVOCATE

11 December 2009
In a stinging irony - on United Nations International Anti-Corruption Day no less - Chairman Gerald McGhie of Transparency International's "autonomous" New Zealand chapter ordered Police to arrest public watchdog Penny Bright for trespassing at its Annual General Meeting on Wednesday. This was despite the government-funded group riding her coat-tails as a watchdog front ostensibly focused on increasing transparency and exposing corruption. Attendees were given pamphlets with the bold heading "CORRUPTION RUINS LIVES - FIGHT BACK". Once inside, the local chapter's newsletter on the information table lauded Ms Bright as an "Anti-corruption campaigner".

Bright is due to appear at Wellington District Court on the criminal charge Monday.

Despite Transparency International New Zealand's website encouraging new memberships and guests to attend the AGM, which featured Attorney General Chris Finlayson as speaker, at least five applications for membership were declined and five others were turned away from the meeting. Only 20-25 people did attend. The drama was caught on film by a TV cameraman, including the small protest against the organisation conducted outside the high rise office building.

Ms Bright paid $56 to join the non-profit organisation earlier this month and had travelled down from Auckland to Wellington to attend the AGM at the law offices of Minter Ellison Rudd Watts. CEO Paul Browne met her at the door and announced "You are not welcome (here) Ms Bright". Ms Bright was one of six who initially did not accept this polite rejection.

Ms Bright has been critical this year of Transparency International New Zealand as a "perpetrator of the myth" that New Zealand has low corruption. She has recently alleged the closed-shop and secretive nature of the not-for-profit organisation goes against every principle it supposedly stands for. While her membership was not declined, she asserts that those who have been declined were not given reasons for such declination - and that this failure directly conflicts with TINZ's membership application which states reasons will be provided where an application is declined.

Ms Bright, a self-funded public watchdog who operates on a shoe-string budget, has repeatedly asked TINZ for information as to its financial funding, expenditures and meeting minutes. The response has been silence.

Kiwisfirst has surreptitiously obtained TINZ's 2009 financials, which seem to raise suspicions about their stiff-arm to requests for this information. $544,446 of their 2009 revenue came from an auspicious NZAID grant, while only $5,791 came from membership subscriptions. It appears that TINZ has no employees. Office rent for 2009 was only $3,118. Meanwhile, there are some seemingly un-transparent and rather large expenditures of $281,820 for "core funding", $75,778 for "civics education" and $40,655 for "peer learning network".

As reported earlier this year by kiwisfirst, Transparency International New Zealand's Board of Directors seems comprised of feather-nesting bureaucrats with fingers in businesses that benefit from covering-up corruption. That type of deception might be arguably innocuous if the organisation was not overtly presenting itself to the unsuspecting public as the corruption police - and receiving government aid and preferred tax status as a result. To "raise awareness of corruption" is publicly touted as the Berlin-based parent Transparency International's primary goal. But, it is safe to say, the reality is quite the opposite within the New Zealand chapter. Last month TINZ popped its head up briefly to herald the fact that New Zealand was rated best among the 180 countries surveyed in TI's "Corruption Perception Index" but is itself transparent when it comes to raising actual awareness of corruption in New Zealand.

Add to this the appearance that the local chapter seems rife with conflicts and lacks any diversity. Deputy Chairwoman Claire Johnstone alone works as General Manager Corporate for the New Zealand Governement Ministry of Transport and is also principle of a consulting company (Sinclair Robertson Associates) which boasts success in getting its private sector clients government funding. At the AGM, her husband, NZ Police Constable Ash Johnstone, was running security.

To the public, TINZ lists as " Goal 1" of its workplan "Greater Accountability and Transparency in New Zealand". Yet, CEO Browne admitted in a phone interview earlier this year that TINZ was not generally focused on reducing corruption in New Zealand because it was "perceived" not to exist. When asked to identify an initiative coming from TINZ to promote transparency or expose corruption within New Zealand, he refused to answer on the professed basis TINZ was more effective working within quiet diplomatic channels. Instead, he bragged ethereally about the good works the local chapter was doing among the smaller Pacific islands in furthering transparency and reducing corruption. BACK TO FRONT PAGE
_______________________________________________________________

The following correspondence was then exchanged:

27 January 2010 - From Penny Bright: Latest developments from the (not so) transparent people.

The THOT PLICKENS! FAR OUT! How 'transparent' is TINZ??? hmmmm....not very!

How come Board members could make a decision on my request to attend the TINZ AGM - but not my membership application???

Did we ever get a copy of the minutes of the TINZ Board mtg on 23 November 2009? DUH???

Seems we have affected a 'rule change;' regarding the inclusion of membershoip fees at the time of membership application!!

(You don't have to send in membership fees at the same time now :)

Any thoughts??? Cheers! Penny bloody Bright

_______________________________________________________________

Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Subject: TI(NZ) membership request/ personal information request
To: Penny Bright <waterpressure@gmail.com

Dear Ms Bright

I refer to your email sent 22 January 2010. The Executive Officer is currently overseas and I am responding on his behalf during his absence.

I have considered the points raised in your email and advise:

Application for membership

1. Your application for membership, which was received on 23 November 2009, was too late for inclusion on the Agenda for the November Board meeting.

2. Your application for membership was placed on the Agenda for the Board meeting on 21 January. It was agreed at that meeting that the decision of all Board members on membership applications, including yours, would be sought by email.

a. Your application, therefore, has neither been declined nor accepted. You will be advised of the outcome of your application in due course.

b. Under the rules, decisions on membership applications are within the discretion of individual board members. TI(NZ) has not established criteria for membership. Board members are not required to give explanations for their decisions and TI(NZ) neither seeks nor records information on which individual Board members base their decisions.

Personal information request

3. Information has been withheld from the documents supplied in response to your request for access to personal information only where it falls outside the scope of your request or where disclosure would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual.

Transparency International (New Zealand) has provided all the information it holds that falls within the scope of the personal information request we have received from you. We cannot assist further with this matter. In anticipation of a further request for disclosure of personal information, however, I confirm that you will be provided with copies of the Board members’ decisions on your membership application, when these are available.

I note your concern that your membership fee is being held pending the outcome of your application. While until now the process has been that membership fees are paid at the time of application and held in trust pending the outcome of the Board decision on temporary membership, in future fees will not be required to accompany the application.

Yours sincerely

Julie Browne

pp. Paul Browne

Executive Officer,

Transparency International New Zealand.

P: +64 4 894 9114

M: +64 21 202 6479

E: executive@transparencynz.org.nz

The truth is that there is way more corruption in NZ than we realise, and in the South Pacific in general. Another example can be found here, Barry Grossman has documented his experiences on the site Open Trial in a way that's easy to follow and clearly it's indisputable evidence of blatant corruption. Barry can be contacted through Facebook.

This from National Business Review's Niko Kloeten, 10 December 2010:

"An “alarming” 4% of New Zealanders admit to having paid a bribe in New Zealand in the last 12 months, according to Transparency International’s 2010 Global Corruption Barometer.

Transparency International New Zealand director Alex Tan described it as a “truly alarming” result, but “in some ways not surprising.”

He said, “We have traditionally tended to rest on our laurels and think we are above corruption and bribery practices which are common place in the rest of the world.

“In fact, this can be a naïve assumption and we need to stay on our game and be vigilant about these matters.”

The New Zealand figure was higher than our traditional benchmarks Australia (2%) and the UK (1%), and looked particularly bad next to Denmark’s 0% result.

Mr Tan said this was the first time the survey had included New Zealand so it was impossible to tell whether the bribery figure had increased or not. [Really?]

There was also no way of knowing exactly where people were paying bribes. [Really? You could always just ask them!]

“The questions are relatively simple- what it means is in their mind they have had to pay something extra to a public official to get something done,” he told the National Business Review

“The message is, actually we may still be a very corruption free society but there is corruption going on that we don’t want to admit.” [Really?]

Nearly three-quarters of New Zealanders (73%) felt corruption had increased in this country in the last three years and political parties were rated the most corrupt group, followed by Parliament and the private sector.

Referring to new UK anti-bribery legislation (see NBR, October 15), Mr Tan said it is illegal for New Zealand companies to pay overseas but there has never been a single prosecution for it.

The truth is that there is way more corruption in Australia and NZ than we realise. Another example can be found here, Barry Grossman has documented his experiences on the site Open Trial in a way that's easy to follow and clearly it's indisputable evidence of blatant corruption. Barry can be contacted through Facebook, and would appreciate support, legal advice, etc.

It's not enough to just "measure perception of corruption" - we need to establish effective means of exposing it, legislating against it, and preventing it! The irony is that Transparency International NZ is funded to effectively conceal corruption and has no intention of ever investigating it or doing anything constructive about it, and the organisation itself appears to be corrupt - or at least seriously dysfunctional and redundant.