According to the annual survey of the anti-corruption institution Transparency International New Zealand has become the least corrupt country in the world.

Congratulations! NZ has always been high on the list but this is the first time they top it.

What are your personal views on this? Do you think that the public sector in NZ is really honest beyond belief? Or is this another confirmation of the old adage: A lie, a damned lie, a statistic.

The thing which always strikes my eye about this survey is that most of the top countries are countries such as NZ, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway etc. Ie. small countries. I think the reason why these countries always do so well is because there is not that much money around in those countries to be cheated. You don't believe that people in small countries are more honest than in larger countries, do you?

Yes I think your last paragraph is spot on, there probably isn't the money around in the first place.....there was some tiny European country in the news not long ago which is rife with corruption [ can't remember its name, maybe Liechtenstein in which case its not a country] and they had some large issues regarding corruption but that is a very wealthy place, so it would stand to reason that the wealthier the nation, principality etc the more corruption you will get. Then there are the Indias of this world, seemingly not very rich but contain many wealthy individuals and even more poor people, so no shortage of corrupton in those kinds of countries....

I once had corruption explained to me very well a few years back on R4 by an African, and they should know all about it, what he said made sense although did not excuse it, from what I remember it had to do with a member of the family getting some [political] power and all the extended family coming out of the 'woodwork' to 'claim' their entitlements.
So if your 32nd cousin removed gets to sit next to the local chief at dinner you can hit your 32nd cousin for some 'favours' . This is how people get places.

It happens in NZ too, since being back here I have seen 2 politicians go to prison on corruption charges, maybe there is more I have missed? But I don't feel personally affected by these cases.

I have at times come up against a 'closed shop mentality' but that is not corruption and I have also been able to overcome it by my persistence, charm, personality and good looks!! but mainly persistence I have to add....


I am sure there will be people about this forum who have had personal experiences with corruption in NZ, but I can understand why it is seen as one of the 'least corrupt'.

What is Liechtenstein? OK it's technically a principality, or European micro state or semi-country but no less of a country than say Monaco or Andorra...and more of a country than say Wales.

...and I thought they were hiding money for tax evasion purposes, and not sharing information with other European governments. I didn't read about fraud per se. Maybe I missed that.

Does not mean much to us who lost well over $3 billion in cash to the finance companies who bled us dry and the govt did nothing to stop it. I like living in NZ it suits me well. But I think its the same bucket of shit in NZ as it is in the rest of the world......I just happen to prefer this bucket.

To me that is more a lack of effective investor protection law/poor company law, rather than corruption per se. On that subject I am annoyed to see Key's Government is already making noises about dropping the extension of the newfound protection for investors. If he does I will be keeping only the day to day minimum liquid here...as what happened to you and others like you was simply scandalous....whether it was indeed due to bad law or plain corruption.

I have limited personal experience but some say nepotism is rife here (small country thing maybe)...public servants such as NZIS seem pretty much impenetrable although there was some scandal recently over a senior employee.

I read your title as "NZ - The last corrupt country in the world" !

Do you suppose these smaller countries are less prone to corruption due to population size -does that suggest accountability is more feared within them?
Also, what about wealth- is it a coincidence that the countries you mention have less disparity between the rich and poor? Then there is education to consider - those countries have high literacy rates etc,.

From what I understand, the public sector here has pretty stringent due-process regulation for tenders -consequently I would imagine the opportunity for corruption(in that sector at least) is greatly reduced.

Any chance you could post a link to the article?

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifes...5AH0HA20091118

Kiwi's tend to be very sceptical and like to analyse things a bit more than some I have found, perhaps this has stopped them being caught up in scams.

Being miles away from everything must help lots too.

The other thing is if you have so many people in a population there is more chance to rip someone off, it's law of averages. My Aunt went to prison for fraud, the scheme was very simple a too good to be true but lots of people fell for it, I'm not saying this is right but if you offer something to enough people someone will take it.

Don't worry I haven't spoken to my aunt for over 15 years anyway.

What about Hannover? Incompetence or fraud?

Hanover and others of a similar nature were a combination of lots of contributory factors (like most big disasters).

Hanover was focused on lending to property developers during a property bubble. Property developers were wanting to leverage up as much as possible. Finance company owners were happy to leverage themselves up to the hilt too. Property developers and finance company owners could be the same persons (related party lending). Too many investors thought that 1-2% more than bank rate was a good reason to invest in finance companies - and any one would do. Too many investors put all their eggs in one basket, breaking the first, second and third rules of investment. For those investors who did seek professional advice (and that was not many - so they must have thought they were pretty savvy!), there were plenty of advisors who poorly sold them the wrong products for a commission. Those who warned it was a huge mess, didn't seem to command a lot of attention from the rushing bulls (although they did get some press in the financial pages it must be said). And there was weak regulation (but that goes for the whole global financial system). I could go on.

Lots of greed, and lots of incompetency. That goes for investors as much as investees (sorry Genesis - that may seem a bit blunt - please don't take it personally). I still haven't seen any indication that there was any fraud in the case of Hanover, but happy to be corrected if something comes to light.

I believe we were lied to about the risk of our money being invested. Anyways that is what someone said on the radio. I was told by the company that they were conservative and the like..hence the low interest rates offered...I could have got 13% with Bridgecorp..only 9.2% with Hanover. One very knowledgeable chap said (after the money was invested) 'you need a strong stomach to invest with hanover'. Another said that the 9.2% was TOTALLY out of synch with the risk and we should have been getting 12% plus for the risk..no wonder they skimmed off something like $150 million in something like 2 years. I am amazed that they can look in the mirror of a morn'. How on earth can they live the way they do and feel no remorse??? If they did feel remorse they would have offered a 100% legally binding contract to actually pay back the money rather than 9 months later say "ooopps sorry, bang goes another 30% of your wealth." I cannot type what I think mof them both...............they have single handedly ruined sooooo many people's lives with their 3rd party loans and their unkept promises. They are both users of trusting and niave people..and yes I take some blame for putting my $ in the 1st place.

I take my part of the blame putting my money there in the 1st place. But to use the word greed is rather rich..or a poor choice of words (no puns intended). If I was greedy I would have gone for the 14% being offered all over the place. I went to Hanover as they were paying the LEAST..one assumes that low interest means low risk??????????????????????????????? How stupid was I ??????? STUPID not greedy. What is greedy about wanting to make your money work the hardest?? Finance cos. were VERY respectable in 2005 and a good way to get an extra 1.5-2% over the High Street banks. Please don't assume its greed.

We briefly considered investing with Bridgecorp, Hanover and the like. Fortunately we sought advice from a reputable financial advisor, who strongly advised us to steer well clear.We were looking for good returns, but he felt their rates were too good to be true. Decent financial advice is available but many people balk at the thought of paying for it.

14% IS too good to be true..ergo Bridecorp. 9.2% from Hanover was not 'too good to be true'.....that is utter bollocks. What was true though was that our money was lent to higher risk ventures than we believed and whilst we were paid a relatively sedate 9.2% there were big bucks being made by the bosses. What did they make together in 2 years? Something like $150 million? I wanted a good/better return too. That's why I did not leave it in ASB. How many of us would have put our money with Hanover had we known the real truth about their lending tactics?? I was always told by their slick staff that the owners had waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more to lose than us little investors. We have lost $554 million. Not sure Hotchin and Watkins have lost pretty much anything.