Although there is no universally agreed definition of corruption, it is widely accepted that it involves the abuse of entrusted power for private gain by individuals or institutions in the public and private sectors.

Without a universally agreed definition, corruption can be several things to some people and different things to others. What some may see as a corrupt act, others may not interpret it the same way. However, there are times when the “wrong” or “very wrong” is crystal clear to all.

When the wrong or very wrong is committed by a Minister of Parliament, it has to be adequately addressed. If the wrong-doing of the Minister involves a breach of law (whether civil or criminal), and if the wrong doing is not adequately addressed, then it can rightly be referred to as an act of “political corruption”.

By countering political corruption, democracy and the rule of law will be strengthened.

Examples of NZ Ministers Behaving Badly without Repercussion

One of the more serious examples of misconduct from a Minister of New Zealand’s Parliament, is the well recorded leak of a public servant’s privacy information to a notorious cyber-bully.

Allegations of the leak first arose in 2014 following the release of a book entitled “Dirty Politics” written by New Zealand’s well known investigative journalist Mr Nicky Hager.

The leak came from Judith Collins in 2009 who at that time was the Minister of Police.

It was revealed whilst she was holding the position as Minister, she leaked the name and personal contact details of a public servant to her friend that held a reputation as a notorious cyber-bully. It is alleged her motivations stemmed from a belief the public servant was giving information to the media that was harming her political party’s reputation.

After the private information was leaked, the cyber bully went to task which escalated to someone in an online forum directing a death threat towards the public servant. The police were forced to intervene.

Ms Collins later acknowledged that she did leak the personal information to her family friend who was running a blog known as Whale Oil.

Defining Corrupt Use of Official Information

In the circumstances of a Minister disclosing any information acquired in their official capacity, to directly or indirectly obtain an advantage or pecuniary gain for themselves or another, New Zealand laws classify this as ‘corrupt use of official information’. The offence is detailed in Section 105A and 105B of the Crimes Act 1961. The penalty is a term not exceeding 7 years imprisonment.

Despite Ms Collins’ acknowledgement that she had indeed sent the privacy information to her family friend who was a notorious cyber-bully - there was no subsequent disciplinary action.

The observations I draw are that had the death threat resulted in physical harm to Simon Pleasants (or to a family member of his), the actions of Ms Collins in initiating the ‘harassment’, would likely have resulted in additional criminal charges of being a party to the assault.

When further and unrelated allegations arose against Ms Collins, she elected to take voluntary resignation but after the waters calmed and the public forgot, she miraculously walked back into Parliament (or some may say, ‘as expected, she walked back into parliament’).

Was Judith Collin’s subsequent admission back into Parliament an indication that New Zealand is complacent to political corruption? From where I stand – “Definitely”.

Where does New Zealand draw the line for wrongdoing by a Government Minister?

It is of relevance that at the time of the leak, Judith Collins was the Minister of Police – a role where the assumption is unquestionable integrity.

Given that the Minister acknowledged she had leaked privacy information and knowing that the leak would likely result in harm to another (psychological or otherwise), there should have been no further opportunity provided to the Minister to govern the public. Instead, New Zealand Parliament has demonstrated complacency to political corruption by allowing the Minister to continue in her political career.

Conflicts with Commercial Interest

When Ministers blatantly promote commercial products in which they have a vested interest, it is a clear conflict of interest. This was the situation that occurred in Oravida – again involving Ms Collins.

On this occasion, in 2014, Ms Collins’ husband was a Board Director of the Chinese company Oravida which specialised in exporting New Zealand resources to China, including meat, seafood, dairy and kauri.

At the time that Ms Collins took part in the promotion of Oravida, her husband was receiving a pecuniary advantage as a Board Director of Oravida. Ms Collins took part in the opening of Oravida’s office premises in New Zealand and had a number of former and current Ministers attend the opening. Later, on a trip to China funded by NZ tax-payers, Ms Collins travelled with her husband and whilst in China, allegedly met with a Chinese customs official for the purpose of improving relationships with Oravida.

The blatant mismanagement of conflicts of interest by Ms Collins was well reported, yet, again, no accountability resulted.

When Ministers promote a commercial product that they have a vested interest in, this should result in instant disqualification from government duties. When the breaches are blatant and transparent, the greater the urgency to disqualify.

The Minister has since held positions as Minister of Justice, Minister of the Secret Intelligence Service, Minister of the Government Communications Services Bureau, Minister of Defence and holds the position of Attorney-General. I am sure the majority of people would agree each of these Ministerial roles should have the assumption that the position holder has unquestionable integrity.

Interpreting Ongoing Conflicts of Interest

It is now well reported that on 5 October 2024, a New Zealand naval vessel sunk whilst carrying out research of the Samoan reefs. As the people of Samoa rely on seafood for local consumption and exports, the people of Samoa are concerned for their economic wellbeing.

On 10 October 2024, Ms Collins addressed New Zealand’s media to explain the event and the actions New Zealand is taking. Her audio commentary can be accessed here.

Turning to the comments made by Ms Collins on 10 October 2024, in the first 4 minutes of her public address, I was left wondering why she concentrated this time to explain that no oil had yet hit the mainland of Samoa when the local people of Samoa had said that oil has hit their mainland. Then Ms Collins spent the remaining introductory minutes speaking to defend women in positions of power and women who represent the defence forces. I am sure women in the defence force have thicker skin and do not need a Minister of Defence defending them.

Thankfully no one was injured in the sinking of the NZ Naval ship. However, what the Minister of Defence needs to address, is that the Samoan people are worried about the potential long-term consequences should 1,000 tonnes of oil pollute their waters. This in turn would harm the livelihood of the Samoan people and the economy of Samoa.

Had the Minister taken her time on the podium to solely focus on explaining how New Zealand is going to prevent such an economic disaster, it would have been more on point. However in the first 4-5 minutes of her public address, she made statements that discredited the Samoan people who claimed they had seen turtles struggling to swim in the oil and then turned her comments to promote women in the defence force. Not wanting to miss an opportunity to promote herself, Ms Collins also commented she was New Zealand’s first woman Minister of Defence and claimed she had obtained her position “on merit”.

Has Minister Collins again overstepped her position of power?

In her public address of the economic disaster facing Samoa, it seems an unusual stance for the Minister of Defence, who is also a Minister of New Zealand’s Government Communications Services Bureau (the GCSB), to advise the media - “I took it upon myself to look up one of the keyboard warriors, or the ‘armchair warriors’ as we now refer to them in my team. He’s from Melbourne, in Australia, commenting in a negative way on our Royal New Zealand Navy. And in particularly, the women.”

She then went on to say, “I looked to see what else I could find out about him. Well he is someone who drives something. He drives a truck. And I think he should keep his comments to someone who drives trucks, rather than to people who drive ships. These are the sort of people I am calling out and I am happy to call them out for as long as it takes to stop this behaviour”.

When the Minister said she is “happy to call them out for as long as it takes to stop this behaviour” – she did not make it clear whether she would be doing so under her powers as Minister of Defence and/or Minister of GCSB? Or did she mean she will keep ‘Googling’ people in her role as Minister of Defence and Minister of GCSB?

Regardless of what powers she intends to use to callout “armchair bandits” or “armchair warriors”, I am left wondering if she used her Ministerial power and the power of the media to try and silence or quieten those who may wish to pass constructive criticism towards her.

Putting “armchair warriors” into context

If the “armchair warriors” are breaching a law, then the Minister should lay a complaint to the enforcement agency that regulates that law.

Using her position on the local and international media podium to make a statement that she defends women in the defence force, seems to be out of context of what she really should be defending as Minister of Defence.

I for one am still waiting to hear the finer detail of how the Minister of Defence is going to deal with this potential catastrophic economic disaster to the people of Samoa.

Perhaps the Minister should spend more time dealing with those issues and dedicate less of her personal or Ministerial time in investigating “armchair warriors” whose comments are not a breach of law or threatening.

Given that integrity is fairly easy to define, and Ms Collins’ has a history of failing to adequately manage conflicts of interest, I am not sure why she thinks anyone should believe her when she made the self-claim that her position was granted “on merit”.

By New Zealand Parliament failing to adequately address political corruption, Parliament fails to ensure a culture of integrity is led from the top.

Human rights will always be better protected in countries that can demonstrate political integrity and transparency.

Kerry Grass, Asia Pacific AML, 14 October 2024

© Scoop Media