Judicial corruption in NZ affects a lot of people, not "a few" or them. Otherwise, Madame Sian Elias wouldn't have mentioned in her speech "widespread dissatisfaction with the court system" and "a message of alienation and discomfort which is felt by big business as well as by 'ordinary New Zealanders'”.
Of course, MPs, mainstream media and many other people are aware of the corruption. It's just a few that actively complain. The others cannot afford or have no guts to do it, as it is suicidal, at least financially.
Corruption doesn't mean only accepting bribes. Corrupt judges cannot possibly choose to be "honest" or "apply the law", for a simple reason. The same Bangalore quote continues as follows: "Integrity is absolute. In the judiciary, integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity". A judge who lacks the necessary qualities cannot possibly be seen by an informed fair-minded lay observer as one who would apply the law impartially. On the other hand, the law says that upholding the principles of natural justice is "basic to our system" and "far transcends the significance of any particular case".Quote:
on many matters they are honest and apply the law and are not "corrupt" in the finincial sense of accepting bribes
Speaking about bribes, corruption in many cases means exactly taking a bribe for what should be done by a public official anyway pursuant to his/her duties. A judge can take a bribe for being "honest" and "applying the law". So when you say that in many cases NZ judiciary appear to be "honest" or "applying the law", it doesn't mean they weren't bribed. It may mean that bribery is widespread. Also, who determined that a judge was "honest" or "applied the law" in any particular case? The public can only see what is put in the judgment, and we now how NZ judges write their judgments.