Does the country have an openly stated and effectively implemented anti-corruption policy for the defence sector?
7a. Anti-corruption policy
New Zealand score: 75/100
There is no anti-corruption policy, or there is one but it explicitly does not apply to the defence sector.
There is an openly stated anti-corruption policy, but it is unclear if it applies to the defence sector or the government is in process of developing one that applies to the defence sector.
There is an openly stated anti-corruption policy that applies to the defence sector.
As per the State Sector Act 1988, Section 57, the State Services Commission’s Standards of Integrity and Conducts has information and regulations around integrity, espousing that work conducted must be fair, impartial, responsible and trustworthy . This forms one of the pillars of the broader integrity and conduct programme, which “aims to build trust by supporting the institutional integrity of agencies and trustworthiness of State servants” . More specifically, this encourages public service departments such as the MoD to create positive and safe workplaces, enhanced public trust, identify and minimise conflict of interest, and gifts, benefits, and expenses . There is also a comprehensive guide to the State Services Commissioner’s Standards of Integrity and Conducts, which provides a useful introduction to employees and interested members of the public . However, the NZDF is not covered by the State Services Commissioner’s Standards of Integrity and Conducts as it is deemed to be a Non-Public Service department . Military personnel are also subject to the Armed Force Disciplinary Act 1971. Section 54 of the act specifically relates to official corruption and bribes . Similarly, civilian employees are held to account by Section 60 of the Code of Conduct issued by the Chief of Defence Force . The Controller and Auditor-General release information on managing conflicts of interest. While the Auditor-General has no “explicit statuary role with regard to conflicts of interest”, it is the independent auditor of the MoD and NZDF and as part of that process examines “an organisation’s systems and processes for managing conflicts of interest” and as such it would be an obvious code of conduct to follow for those organisations . Staff in the Intelligence Community are subject to New Zealand law, which includes the Crimes Act and Secret Commissions Act that include bribery and corruption offences.
Employees in public sector agencies, including the GCSB and NZSIS, are also required to adhere to the Public Service Commissioner’s standards of integrity and conduct as a condition of employment. These include: be honest; work to the best of our abilities; ensure our actions are not affected by our personal interests or relationships; never misuse our position for personal gain; decline gifts or benefit that place us under any obligation or perceived influence; and avoid any activities, either work or non-work, that may harm the reputation of our organisation or of the State Services. The Intelligence Community has a range of internal policies that address potential areas for corruption. Similarly, staff are required to gain and maintain security clearance that assesses their trustworthiness and responsibility. Across the New Zealand Government, the Serious Fraud Office have developed an anti-corruption work programme with other Government agencies. This is intended to reduce the risk of corruption in public sector agencies, and has been collaborated on by the NZSIS and GCSB [9, 10, 11, 12]. Agency work is also guided by ministerial policy statements, which set out principles that the NZIC must apply when planning and carrying out activities. The Intelligence and Security Act 2017 requires that the Minister responsible for the intelligence and security agencies issue Ministerial Policy Statements in relation to the lawful activities of the agencies . Despite the comprehensive policies, regulations, and standards which the Government has in place, there is no single anti-corruption policy document, however the NZDF does have a Fraud Control Framework through which it “applies a set of principles and actions to mitigate risks.”  As of early 2021, it appears that this framework has been expanded, or superseded, by a ‘NZDF Fraud and Corruption Framework’ [see question below]. The NZDF has also communicated internally that any references to Fraud within these control frameworks “should be read as references to Fraud and Corruption.” 
1. State Services Commission, Standards of Integrity and Conduct, https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/assets/Legacy/resources/Code-of-conduct-StateServices.pdf.
2. State Services Commission, “Integrity and Conduct”, https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/our-work/integrityandconduct/
3.State Services Commission, “Integrity and Conduct”, https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/our-work/integrityandconduct/; “Agencies covered by the State Services Commissioner’s Standards of Integrity and Conduct”, accessed 23 July 2020, https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/code-organisations/.
4. State Services Commission, “Understanding the code of conduct – Guidance for State servants”, https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/code-guidance-stateservants?e198=action_viewall, accessed 23 July 2020.
5. State Services Commission, “New Zealand’s State sector – the organisations”, https://ssc.govt.nz/our-work/state-sector-organisations/, accessed 27 July 2020.
6. Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, Part 2 – Offences, Section 54, http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1971/0053/latest/DLM402741.html.
7. Defence Act 1990, Part 5 – Terms and conditions of service in the Civil Staff, Section 60, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0028/latest/DLM206423.html.
8. Controller and Auditor-General, Managing Conflicts of Interest: A Guide for the Public Sector (June 2020), p. 6, https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/conflicts/docs/conflicts-of-interest.pdf.
9. Interview with a member of the New Zealand Intelligence Community, 30 September 2020, via email.
10. Serious Fraud Office, “Anti-Corruption Training”, https://www.sfo.govt.nz/anti-corruption-training.
11. Serious Fraud Office, “Legislation”, https://www.sfo.govt.nz/legislation.
12. Office of the Minister of Justice, “An Anti-Corruption Programme for New Zealand”, https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/cab-an-anti-corruption-work-programme-for-new-zealand.pdf.
13. These can be seen at “Legislation”, New Zealand Intelligence Community, https://www.nzic.govt.nz/legislation/
14. NZDF, Fraud Control Framework, via Executive Officer, Office of the Chief of Defence Force, Chief of Staff HQ NZDF, December 2020.
15. NZDF, Fraud and Corruption Control Plan, Attachment Two: Briefing – DRAFT v1.1, 10 March 2021, via Executive Officer, Office of the Chief of Defence Force, Chief of Staff HQ NZDF, 31 March 2021.
7b. Effective implementation
New Zealand score: NEI/100
There is no action plan to implement the policy, nor have any actions been taken.
There is an action plan at the ministry level but it is superficial, and does not address the institutional weaknesses in the system, OR there efforts to implement an action plan at the national level.
There is an action plan at the ministry level that reflects the institutional weaknesses in the system, but no actions have been taken to implement it.
There is an action plan at the ministry level that reflects the institutional weaknesses in the system. While steps have been taken to implement the plan, it is either behind schedule, or implementation is not addressing the priority items in the action plan.
The action plan at the ministry level reflects the institutional weaknesses in the system, and implementation has progressed according to the estimated timeline.
There is not enough evidence to score this indicator. The NZDF recently formed a Counter-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Advisory Group, the terms of reference of which includes assisting “governance oversight of the effective implementation and ongoing operation of NZDF’s Fraud and Corruption Framework.”  . As the Advisory Group and the Fraud and Corruption Control Framework are both relatively new, the level of implementation is unclear.
1. NZDF, Counter-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Advisory Group, Attachment One: Briefing – CFAC Terms of Reference, via Executive Officer, Office of the Chief of Defence Force, Chief of Staff HQ NZDF, 31 March 2021.
2. NZDF, Fraud and Corruption Control Plan, Appendix One, p. 12, Attachment Two: Briefing – DRAFT v1.1, 10 March 2021, via Executive Officer, Office of the Chief of Defence Force, Chief of Staff HQ NZDF, 31 March 2021.
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Country||7a. Anti-corruption policy||7b. Effective implementation|
|Albania||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Algeria||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Angola||0 / 100||NA|
|Argentina||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Armenia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Australia||25 / 100||NA|
|Azerbaijan||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Bahrain||50 / 100||NA|
|Bangladesh||0 / 100||NA|
|Belgium||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Botswana||0 / 100||NA|
|Brazil||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Burkina Faso||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cameroon||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Canada||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Chile||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|China||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Colombia||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cote d'Ivoire||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Denmark||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Egypt||0 / 100||NA|
|Estonia||75 / 100||NA|
|Finland||25 / 100||NA|
|France||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Germany||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Ghana||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Greece||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Hungary||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|India||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Indonesia||50 / 100||NA|
|Iran||50 / 100||NA|
|Iraq||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Israel||50 / 100||75 / 100|
|Italy||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Japan||0 / 100||NA|
|Jordan||50 / 100||NEI|
|Kenya||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Kosovo||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Kuwait||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Latvia||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Lebanon||50 / 100||NA|
|Lithuania||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Malaysia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Mali||0 / 100||NA|
|Mexico||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Montenegro||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Morocco||25 / 100||NA|
|Myanmar||0 / 100||NA|
|Netherlands||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|New Zealand||75 / 100||NEI|
|Niger||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Nigeria||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|North Macedonia||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Norway||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Oman||0 / 100||NA|
|Palestine||0 / 100||NA|
|Philippines||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Poland||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Portugal||0 / 100||NA|
|Qatar||0 / 100||NA|
|Russia||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Saudi Arabia||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Serbia||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Singapore||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|South Africa||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|South Korea||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|South Sudan||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Spain||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Sudan||0 / 100||NA|
|Sweden||25 / 100||NA|
|Switzerland||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Taiwan||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Tanzania||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Thailand||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Tunisia||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Turkey||0 / 100||NA|
|Uganda||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Ukraine||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|United Arab Emirates||50 / 100||NA|
|United Kingdom||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|United States||25 / 100||NA|
|Venezuela||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Zimbabwe||100 / 100||NEI|