Talk:Corruption in New Zealand

New Zealand C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alan Liefting twice deleted whole sections of this article before posting templates suggesting that some sections of this article are off topic. His justification for doing so was that corruption is not the same as fraud and that "As writers of an encyclopedia we should be rigorous with the use of words."

He is right that corruption is not quite the same as fraud. However, they are both forms of economic crime and both often involve an abuse of power - which is the essence of corruption. Note also that the Serious Fraud Office in NZ treats fraud and corruption as white collar crime and does not limit itself solely to the prosecution of "fraud". NZ is seen as a country with very low levels of corruption. To some extent this article challenges that view by showing that there are high levels of fraud in NZ, that tax fraud is widespread compared with welfare fraud, and that New Zealand's entire history in regard to Maori is a form of "grand corruption". Any comments? Offender9000 23:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested a Fraud in New Zealand article for the off-topic information. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual misconduct by the police would obviously not fit into a fraud article. Why do you think that is off topic? Offender9000 18:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You have entitled the page "Corruption in New Zealand". It is therefore irrelevant if corruption and fraud are both economic crimes or both white collar crimes. Fraud is not corruption. This whole page appears to me to be politically motivated and it would be better if it were just deleted. --KwikWikiKiwi (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KwikWikiKiwi: I agree, and have stripped this article back to a stub. Offender9000 created a series of articles like this, and has been trying to maintain and expand them since being blocked a couple of years ago. Their agenda includes pushing a view that NZ suffers from extensive corruption, and discrediting evidence which indicates otherwise. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Good work. --KwikWikiKiwi (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this section is off topic? Why?

Do you think this section is off topic? Why?

Do you think this section is off topic? Why?

Do you think this section is off topic? Why?

I have started a new thread because the one above is too confusing.

I tagged three of the sections since the article was veering off topic. Fraud, corruption and sexual misconduct are three separate topics. As pointed out there is sometimes a connection between fraud and corruption but that does not mean the article should be swamped with specific fraud cases. As suggested, the info could be spun off into a Fraud in New Zealand article. It should be realised that Wikipedia is not paper and if a topic is notable in its own right it is deserving of it own article. Fraud in specific countries is probably always notable. See Category:Fraud by country for example.

Offender9000, sexual misconduct in itself is neither corruption nor is it fraud. Can I suggest that you start a Fraud in New Zealand article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be using very narrow meanings of each of these words. Corruption is derived from the Latin verb rumpere, to break. But its not just the law that gets broken. Trust is also broken in the institutions of government and authority (such as the police) by corrupt practices. There are different kinds of corruption - systemic corruption, sporadic (individual) corruption, political (grand) corruption, petty corruption, legal corruption, moral corruption and police corruption. A broad definition of corruption encompasses undue influence over public policies, institutions, laws and regulations by vested private interests at the expense of the public interest. Finance companies have vested private interests - especially when the directors commit fraud. In fact so many have committed fraud the problem is systemic in New Zealand.

Re your suggestion that fraud in New Zealand should have a separate section, I note that no other country appears to have a wiki article on fraud. It might be easier to condense it a little.

Police corruption also comes in many forms. When police sexually assault women to the extent described by the Bazley report, this is a serious abuse of power for personal gain/gratification. What gets broken is not only the law - but trust in the police - i.e. this is police corruption. Offender9000 06:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Offender9000, Sexual Misconduct in the police is a corruption of the police. It is neither accurate nor desirable to pigeon-hole sexual misconduct as being different from corruption. A simple study will show that the word corruption stems from the notional idea of an infection of body (in this case police). Furthermore the Police are those who uphold the policy or constituted wisdom (law). So sexual misconduct in the police is presents itself as an infection of their purpose and motive, hence "corruption" is a very apt and appropriate term to apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red660 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes of "police corruption", including the KimDotcom case are not matters of corruption. Misapplication of the law by a govvernment agency is not of itself corruption. I am concerned that this list of activities is being used by one editor to push his point of view. VNTrav (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not misapplication of the law. Its deliberate breaking of the law in order to try and secure a conviction. That's corruption. Offender9000 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with previous above comment and have removed the section on Noble Cause Corruption. It was a bunch of different cases which had been drawn together with a thin thread trying to imply that Police have been trying to catch criminals at all costs ignoring due process. None of references I checked said anything about Noble Cause Corruption. Plus there were remarks in that section which breached WP:BLP. Clarke43 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed a large quantity of material from this article which was either not actually about corruption (the sources provided did not mention this or any equivalent words), was presenting the views of opinion articles as fact, or was a major violation of the core policy WP:BLP. Please see my edit summaries for explanations. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]