![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
It seems clear to me that there are a large number of areas where numerous commentators see "corruption" in New Zealand, and we need to have a framework to discuss this. I'm thinking particularly of "dodgy" decisions in the political or policy area being, allegedly, the result of large , often secret, monetary donations. This sort of thing when proven is clearly corruption. Thought? - Snori ( talk) 23:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Looking through the history I see you removed an enormous amount of material including a section on tax fraud and welfare fraud. The first para of that reads...
A study by tax lecturer Dr Lisa Marriott of Victoria University has found that there is 150 times more tax fraud in New Zealand than welfare fraud [1] – but those who commit welfare fraud are more likely to go to prison. [2] She examined three years of tax evasion and welfare fraud and found that welfare fraud was also significantly more likely to be prosecuted than tax fraud – despite substantially greater losses from the latter. In 2010 alone, tax evaders cheated the country of between $1 billion and $6 billion, while welfare fraud cost only $39 million. In 2012, 714 people were convicted for defrauding taxpayers of $23.4 million. [3]
What was your objection to that? Wikiwoozil ( talk) 15:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be using a very narrow concept of corruption. WP describes three kinds of corruption: petty, grand and systemic corruption. Systemic corruption (or endemic corruption) is described as "corruption which is primarily due to the weaknesses of an organization or process;" and "Factors which encourage systemic corruption include conflicting incentives, discretionary powers".
Welfare fraud and tax evasion are both a form of dishonesty and criminal offences (which is part of WP's definition of corruption). The fact that welfare fraud is prosecuted far more vigorously than tax evasion (as documented by Lisa Marriott) is because the authorities have conflicting incentives and discretionary powers. Those who commit welfare fraud are prosecuted by Work and Income. Those who commit tax evasion should be prosecuted by Inland Revenue. The two agencies have different priorities, conflicting incentives and discretionary powers about who to prosecute - which, in 2010, allowed tax evaders to cheat the country of $1 billion and $6 billion, while welfare fraudsters cheated the country of only $39 million. That's systemic corruption. Isn't that worth a mention? Wikiwoozil ( talk) 07:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
It seems clear to me that there are a large number of areas where numerous commentators see "corruption" in New Zealand, and we need to have a framework to discuss this. I'm thinking particularly of "dodgy" decisions in the political or policy area being, allegedly, the result of large , often secret, monetary donations. This sort of thing when proven is clearly corruption. Thought? - Snori ( talk) 23:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Looking through the history I see you removed an enormous amount of material including a section on tax fraud and welfare fraud. The first para of that reads...
A study by tax lecturer Dr Lisa Marriott of Victoria University has found that there is 150 times more tax fraud in New Zealand than welfare fraud [1] – but those who commit welfare fraud are more likely to go to prison. [2] She examined three years of tax evasion and welfare fraud and found that welfare fraud was also significantly more likely to be prosecuted than tax fraud – despite substantially greater losses from the latter. In 2010 alone, tax evaders cheated the country of between $1 billion and $6 billion, while welfare fraud cost only $39 million. In 2012, 714 people were convicted for defrauding taxpayers of $23.4 million. [3]
What was your objection to that? Wikiwoozil ( talk) 15:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be using a very narrow concept of corruption. WP describes three kinds of corruption: petty, grand and systemic corruption. Systemic corruption (or endemic corruption) is described as "corruption which is primarily due to the weaknesses of an organization or process;" and "Factors which encourage systemic corruption include conflicting incentives, discretionary powers".
Welfare fraud and tax evasion are both a form of dishonesty and criminal offences (which is part of WP's definition of corruption). The fact that welfare fraud is prosecuted far more vigorously than tax evasion (as documented by Lisa Marriott) is because the authorities have conflicting incentives and discretionary powers. Those who commit welfare fraud are prosecuted by Work and Income. Those who commit tax evasion should be prosecuted by Inland Revenue. The two agencies have different priorities, conflicting incentives and discretionary powers about who to prosecute - which, in 2010, allowed tax evaders to cheat the country of $1 billion and $6 billion, while welfare fraudsters cheated the country of only $39 million. That's systemic corruption. Isn't that worth a mention? Wikiwoozil ( talk) 07:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
References