I
find it a disgrace that this article appeared, written by a NZ
academic, had to be published in an Australian publication.
This
debate should be happening here but everything is so closed-down one
dare not mention it in certain circles.
I
believe that the government has conspired with the National Party and
the media to close down the conversation that was opened up by
Jami-Lee Ross’ revelations.
New
Zealand politics: foreign donations and political influence
Simon
Chapple, Director, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies,
Victoria University of Wellington
24
October, 2018
New
Zealand’s opposition National Party is embroiled in a rolling
controversy that
erupted last week when former National MP and senior whip Jami-Lee
Ross accused his leader Simon Bridges of corruption. Bridges has
vehemently denied these accusations, and the evidence released does
not support any allegations of illegality.
One
dimension of the controversy that has attracted less attention is the
connected issues of political party donations and foreign influence
on New Zealand’s democratic system.
Foreign influence
The
discussion of foreign influence in New Zealand politics plays out
mostly in terms of the activities of the People’s Republic of
China. The local debate was initiated by Professor Anne-Marie
Brady’s
“Magic
weapons”
paper last year. Despite her warnings that China’s foreign
influence activities have the potential to undermine the sovereignty
and integrity of the political system of targeted states, the
dominant view among New Zealand’s main political parties might best
be described as “nothing to see here, time to move on”.
Reactions
in New Zealand contrast sharply with the situation in Australia,
where there has been a much more open democratic
debate on
the issue of China’s influence, as well as law reform designed to
mitigate foreign interference.
Read
more: Soft
power goes hard: China's economic interest in the Pacific comes with
strings attached
Last
week, Jami-Lee Ross released a recording of a conversation he had
with opposition leader Simon Bridges in June (full
transcript).
The transcript alleges that Zhang Yikun, a wealthy Chinese immigrant
and a former member of the People’s Liberation Army with ongoing
links to the Chinese state, made a donation
to the National Party of $100,000.
The conversation then turned to new candidates for the National party
list, and the possible candidature of Colin
Zheng,
manager of a construction company owned by Zhang.
Keeping track of political donations
At
a national level, there are rules under the Electoral
Act 1993 regarding
political donations to both candidates and to political parties. For
candidates, a donor’s name and address must be reported for
donations of more than $1,500. For party donations, the name and
address of the donor must be reported where donations exceed $15,000.
For
both candidates and parties, foreign donations (defined as from
people who are not citizens or residents on the electoral roll or
from incorporated or unincorporated bodies outside New Zealand)
exceeding $1,500 are forbidden. Each registered political party must
file an annual return of party donations with the Electoral
Commission,
which are then made public. In terms of party donations which hit a
$30,000 threshold, a return must be filed within ten working days, as
opposed to annually.
There
are also restrictions on how much can be spent during a general
election period, which also effectively constrain donations.
Political party spending is capped at just over $1.1 million, plus
$26,200 per electorate contested, for a total election spend of just
under $2.7 million if all 60 electorates are contested.
Spending
limits also apply to persons or groups who are not contesting the
election directly but seek influence. They can spend up to $12,600 on
election advertising during the regulated period without having to
register with the Electoral Commission. A person or group whose
spending exceeds that amount must register and they can spend a
maximum of $315,000 on election advertisements.
Who raises what from whom
In
2017, National raised $4.6 million in party donations, vastly
exceeding Labour’s $1.6 million, as well as busting the limits of
what they could spend in that year’s election. $3.5 million of the
National’s donations (76%) were anonymous under the $15,000
threshold, compared with 0.7 million of Labour’s (44%). The Green
Party raised $0.8 million, with 72% under the disclosure threshold,
and New Zealand First raised $0.5 million, with 84% under the
threshold.
There
is no requirement for political parties to report the amounts of
overseas donations under $1,500. Consequently the public does not
know how many foreign donations come in under that amount.
It
would be easy for a foreign state to funnel money into a political
party from a large number of foreign donors, all under the $1,500
threshold. Equally, if that state had access to local actors, it
could funnel money into the system at amounts above or below the
$15,000 threshold.
What
donors get for their donations is unclear. At its least malign,
donors seek to passively promote a political ideology which they
consider to be beneficial. Where donations are part of developing a
long-term quid pro quo relationship along multiple dimensions,
donors’ and receivers’ motivations and exactly what is traded is
very difficult to pin down from the outside.
Transparency
International reports that
New Zealand political parties are one of the weakest pillars
supporting local transparency and good governance. Within this weak
pillar, one of the weakest strands involves political finance and
donations.
They
argue that with the demise of mass political participation, parties
are increasingly dependent on donations to function. This weakness
means that local politicians are more likely to seek to “supply”
influence, or at least dangle the prospect of influence, in front of
wealthy bidders.
The
“demand” to buy political influence has also risen. With
the increase
in worldwide inequality and
kleptocracy, there are more rich people for whom buying influence is
the norm. Specifically in New Zealand, there has been an influx of
wealthy expatriates from China, where buying influence is an accepted
practice.
They often retain close links to the Chinese Communist
Party, which runs an authoritarian,
anti-democratic and oppressive regime.
It is thus not surprising that issues of donations and foreign
influence are increasingly entering into domestic political debates.
WHAT
DON'T WE KNOW ?
NZ
News, via Facebook
And
why is the Labour party so quiet on this matter?
In
the photo, John Key is standing next to Yikun Zhang.
Mr
Zhang is the gentleman in question regarding the Jami-Lee Ross
'donation' scandal, and it was Mr Zhang who received a Queens Honour
from the National Party.
Mr
Zhang is alleged to have given the Simon Bridges led National party a
$100,000 donation with the criteria that one of his associates be
considered for a job inside the National Party!
But
as the photo shows Mr Zhang was also known to John Key.
So
what has he donated to, or been promised by, National in the past?
Donations are regularly given by the Chinese community in return for
'favours'.
So
what, if anything, have the National Party done for Mr Zhang while
Key and English were in charge of the treasury benches?
And
why is Labour so quiet on this matter, one of the biggest political
bombshells in our history.
What
'dirt' does the National Party have on Labour - if anything, that
makes Jacinda Ardern and the rest of her colleagues so reluctant to
criticise?
And...
*
Why have we allowed foreign investment and ownership of our housing
stock when we have the greatest homeless crisis in our history?
*
Why were the National party so reluctant to stop foreign ownership of
our assets?
*
Why is New Zealand water being sold overseas by Chinese companies who
only pay a few dollars for it in New Zealand?
*
Just what did Judith Collins do for her husband's business?
*
And why are we flooding New Zealand with hundreds of thousands of
people we can neither afford nor have room for?.
The
mind boggles!
CHINA'S
100-YEAR STRATEGY FOR NEW ZEALAND AND THE SOUTH PACIFIC....
NZ
News, via Facebook
While
politicians in Washington may be close to civil war, some economic
and political views are widely accepted across all American political
parties.
Since 1993 the Clinton, Obama and Trump camps have all been in agreement when it comes to their comprehension of China's foreign policy in the South Pacific.
Since 1993 the Clinton, Obama and Trump camps have all been in agreement when it comes to their comprehension of China's foreign policy in the South Pacific.
Earlier this year on a visit to New Zealand Ms Clinton repeated the concerns of Washington regarding China's 'soft invasion' policy of the South Pacific including New Zealand. She cited the case in Vanuatu where a wharf funded by a soft loan from the Chinese government is currently in dispute following Vanuatu's failure to honour debt obligations.
China's soft invasion policy has been operating
for a number of years now to gain influence in the region. The policy
seeks to attain more political influence to get better access to
resources, especially fisheries and is also seen as a means of
helping Chinese nationals into a better standard of living.
On
two occasions between 2010 and 2016, the State Department advised
John Key's National Government of their concerns regarding China's
relationship and growing influence in New Zealand.
According
to foreign policy experts in the US, China has a four-point plan
regarding New Zealand.
1.
Seek political figures whose personal aspirations are stronger than
their nationalistic ones.
2.
Back these Political aspirants with strong trade agreements and
economic help in return for generous concessions on immigration.
3.
Push for political representation by having Chinese nationals run for
Council and Government positions.
4.
Use the political influence to develop better agreements on trade,
land and asset ownership.
In
Helen Clark, China found an ally who was both anti-American and a
career politician. Someone whose desire for the top job meant she
could be relied upon to put the country's interests behind her
own.
So in April of 2008, New Zealand became the first developed
country to sign a free trade agreement with China. But the agreement
was lopsided and contained very beneficial clauses with regard to
immigration. It allowed for complete access to New Zealand's
infrastructure like schools and hospitals without any contribution to
the cost or necessary cost of upgrading.
But it wasn't until
November of the same year when John Key was elected to government
that significant Chinese immigration got going. Key turned out to be
more pliable with a larger personal agenda than Clark.
In
2014 John Kerry US Secretary of State noted Chinese influence in New
Zealand and was concerned about the long-term economic and military
implications.
Knowing of Obama's relationship with the New Zealand Prime Minister he persuaded President Obama to have a private conversation with Key outlining US concerns.
As predicted John Key had no worries about the long-term implications for New Zealand, instead more concerned with his short-term desire for attention and need to retain popularity.
Both
the American and Chinese governments are acutely aware of the
politically and economically insouciant attitude of most New
Zealanders.
While the Americans deem this to be a concern the Chinese view it as something to be taken advantage of.
While the Americans deem this to be a concern the Chinese view it as something to be taken advantage of.
(
One in four Auckland residents now identify with an Asian ethnicity)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.