By Danyl Mclauchlan*
Leaks of NZ First Foundation records raise big questions about the party’s funding, and there’s every chance of more to come. A glance at history suggests the scale of the problem. An early election may not be a bad idea at all, Danyl Mclauchlan writes for The Spinoff.
It’s happening.
During its time in government New Zealand First has fundraised aggressively. They’ve also taken very strong policy stands on behalf of specific industries and companies. But no specific donations have been declared; instead the party has been funded by loans from the New Zealand First Foundation, a mysterious entity run by two of Winston Peters most trusted advisers.
Those advisers are his lawyer Brian Henry, and Doug Woolerton, a former New Zealand First MP who now runs a Hamilton based lobbying company called “The Lobbyist”, which advertises the provision of “all ancillary services such as media strategies, speeches, drafting changes for legislation, submissions to select committees and personal introductions when appropriate”.
And now Taupo Times reporter Matt Shand has what almost every investigative journalist in the country has been sniffing around for: leaked records from the New Zealand First Foundation. His story on Stuff reports that the foundation has been accepting party political donations and paying for electoral expenses in a way that appears designed to avoid transparency or oversight.
Stuff doesn’t name the donors in the document – one source has told me that both Winston Peters and the donors could be horribly embarrassed if identities were made public. But Stuff says the foundation received 26 donations $325,900 in just a five month period, adding: “Donors to the foundation include food manufacturers, racing interests, forestry owners and wealthy property developers.”
Winston Peters is the minister of racing. Shane Jones is the minister of forestry. If the food manufacturers are exporters then they might be impacted by Peters’ decisions as minister of foreign affairs. New Zealand First has publicly, repeatedly announced that they were responsible for killing the Ardern government’s proposed capital gains tax. The public has a right to know that they were being funded by property developers.
We’ve been here before, of course. When Winston Peters was minister of foreign affairs and racing under the previous Labour government it was revealed that he’d taken donations from Sir Bob Jones, Sir Owen Glenn and the Velas, a wealthy family prominent in the racing industry. The donations were made through an organisation called the Spencer Trust, which was run by Peters’ brother. An investigation by Parliament’s Privileges Committee found that Winston Peters had attempted to conceal the donations and then lied about it, and the committee voted to censure him. The scandal dominated the 2008 election. John Key ruled out working with Winston Peters. Helen Clark didn’t. Labour lost, and New Zealand First was voted out of parliament.
There are two separate issues here. The first is whether New Zealand First has broken the electoral law. That’s a matter for the Electoral Commission, and if they decide the law was been broken they can refer the matter on to the police or the Serious Fraud Office. The second is whether senior ministers in the current government could get caught up in accusations of corrupt practices. When you have companies and individuals making secret donations to a party that holds the portfolios in those industries, there is every reason for the public to ask questions about whether their government is corrupt.
New Zealand First’s coalition partners have dreaded this moment for two years. The prime minister’s instinct will be to distance herself from the scandal and hope that it goes away. “We assume that the law has been followed”. “It’s a matter for the Electoral Commission.” “I am not responsible for the New Zealand First Party.” And so on. But the matter of whether or not she presides over a corrupt government is not a matter for another party or office. The integrity of the government is the prime minister’s responsibility.
She could ask the auditor general to find out whether these donations influenced the spending of government funds. She could call for the Privileges Committee to determine how these donations were solicited whether they’ve generated conflicts of interest that were not disclosed, and whether they’ve caused ministers to mislead parliament. And she could suspend ministers from their portfolios while these investigations are being carried out.
It is safe to assume Winston Peters’ reaction will be to try and turn this story into a confrontation between himself and the media. Arguing about whether this is all “fake news” and reporters are “psychos” is a much more profitable story than whether or not political donations have been concealed. Peters knows that media outlets will almost always take this bait and make the story about themselves instead of anything substantive.
Labour’s concern will be that if it came to suspending a senior NZ First minister, or attempting to investigate their fundraising activities, the party is likely to retaliate by withdrawing confidence and supply from the government and forcing a snap election. But this is the latest – and most serious – in a series of leaks from within New Zealand First; a party that seems to be in an advanced state of fragmentation.
One of the things that destroyed the Helen Clark government’s credibility was the endless drip feed. The allegations of secrecy, illegality, deceit and corruption just kept coming. And now this government is trapped in the same political hostage situation, with the same politician, facing accusations of engaging in the exact same practices. An early election might be worth the risk if the alternative is a year of ongoing leaks and allegations resulting in a contest that makes Simon Bridges prime minister.
*Danyl Mclauchlan is a contributor to The Spinoff. This article was first published on The Spinoff and has been republished with permission.
91 Comments
. . if we had an early election there's no way Labour & Greens reach the 61 seat majority to form a new government without NZF ...
But you have to larf at the predicitabilty of the current political crisis ... true to form , once again Winnies antics threaten to pull down the government he supported . ..
.... message to Taxcinda ... even old dogs have fleas ... if you allow them into your bed , don't be surprised if you wake up scratching . . Flee !
Proportion of befuddled geriatrics with failing comprehension of the world has never been higher in NZ's history. And none of mainstream parties appeal to them. So wouldn't be too sure. MMP = let a single spiteful narcissistic 74 year old decide the government and screw the voters.
Agree - its almost as narcissistic as bringing back the archaic honours system and giving yourself and your mates one..
Also he may get votes for purely strategic reasons - although he's a proven royal pan in the ass he is a buffer from the extremes of either party.
He would never allow the peoples National party to increase sales of NZ Inc to China and he stops the crazy lefty BS Labour want to introduce - hey "land rights for gay whales.."
MMP - it is what it is
Well one hopes there is not an early election in which Labour and the Greens win outright ........ because our present Government is snafu and there is no reason to believe that it would be any better without Winston .
In fact it could be a whole lot worse for all of us , at least Winston has reined in some of the more lunatic ideas in the COL
He's lost 3 different electorate seats in his career - a record! but MMP has has turned him into political herpes that NZ is unable to cure itself of. Given his recent bad health (surgery and noticeably labored breathing of late plus occasional nonsensical speech in the house) I doubt he has another election in him, but you never know.
You'd be politically naive to suggest an early election would favour Labour, with the lolly scramble coming new year. If Labour play their cards right, they may get to govern alone.
If you want to talk corruption, why not question Jonkey as chairman of the ANZ; which were the main benefactors to the policies he delivered while running the government.
i agree why would you have an election before the budget you have saved up for so you can spend like a drunken sailor.
i would not be surprised to see tax cuts to rip the carpet from under national like JK did to HC even though we were clearly heading into the GFC
If you want to talk corruption, why not question Jonkey as chairman of the ANZ; which were the main benefactors to the policies he delivered while running the government.
Yep, presided over a huge run up in house prices, then sold out part of his Parnell home for $10m to a Chinese investor at the height of the market... coincidental, me thinks not.
Lets face it, nobody makes large donations without wanting something in return. All parties are donkey deep in it because they have to.
Democracy is at stake here, so time for a shake up. How about state funding, and rules around what gets presented to the voters with an emphasis on policies rather than the shallow stuff we are currently served up.
It might trouble Danyl Mclauchlan (long term politically active Green and known close associate of James Shaw) to point this out, but last time I checked this was a coalition Government of three parties. Why is a senior Green party member suggesting that our Labour PM should go for an early election? Why not just have the Greens exit the coalition, same result?
Could it be that whichever coalition partner chucks it's toys first will be punished by the electorate for making us endure an election, based on what are at this time rumours? And where might disgruntled Labour voters go if the PM calls an early election, maybe to the Greens of that nice Mr Shaw?
Good point. Labour's recent string of massive screwups and ugliness (PM's office abuser) have blotted their copy book sufficiently in recent months that left wing vote has probably drifted greenwards. If Winston is nullified during the next year (bad health or political scandal) the doddery low-information voters he prays on will most likely go to National, so an early election would favour greens, hurt labour, and possibly nullify the dodderers vote with a sub-5% NZF result. Could go either way, but might get Labour-Green majority with 6-7% greens having the power to really screw the country with their zealotry.
Yes we are really going down the tubes with the COL at the helm?
Just how positive the economic situation in New Zealand is, is again illustrated by the OECD 2019 growth update. Year-on-year GDP growth for the OECD area was stable at +1.6% in the third quarter of 2019, and that was only held up by the US at +2.0%. New Zealand however is expected to record +2.4%.
China exports would debunk that.
ast year marked the 10-year anniversary of New Zealand's free trade deal with China.
In that time China has grown to become the largest market for Kiwi goods.
China has overtaken the United States as New Zealand's largest red meat export market by volume and value, accounting for about a third of the market.
our top export earner now is people, ie tourists, and we have to import people to look after those tourists
dairy is still the biggest earner to most countries that is why all our FTA are shaped for fonterra
https://statisticsnz.shinyapps.io/trade_dashboard/
Ardern calling an early election might create unexpected turmoil in the National Party?
Would they want to go to the ballot box with Bridges at the helm? It's clear that leadership is a question for them, and any snap election could bring that forward.
It could be Nationals to lose in advance if they stick with Bridges. That brings Collins' and Luxton's camps into play; perhaps even Muller's.
Interesting times ahead.
It absolutely would. There would be so much horse trading in such a short period of time, there wouldn't be time for a dead cat bounce if Collins or someone else with limited appeal ended up as leader.
Ardern could roll the dice here, but she doesn't have to. Given her extreme reluctance to punish ministers for severe incompetence, I'm unsure there's any reason why she'd throw a snap election when she can just smile and US-talkshow her way out of it. It's not like she's going to get any hard questions from the media on this kind of thing, so why not just wait it out and let NZ First implode on their own terms?
Winnie knows, because he has called it out before, and as noted been slammed for it too, that there is no appetite to tolerate any overt corruption. Between this and Shane Jones antics he may just be sealing the fate of NZF. And this will be of concern to JA as there is no single dominant party in parliament at the moment. JA is hugely popular because of how she presents, but that is neither policy nor results and I wouldn't like to call the next election.
There there - I dont recall Jacinda meeting head of Chinas secret police - gee you blue bloods are has forgetfull as Prince Andrew
"National leader Simon Bridges is rejecting the claim he met with the head of China's "secret police", saying that is an "unfair characterisation" of the man he met."
Also Soyman is not saying names- thats how he pronounces it.
The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders don't want Simon Bridges as their next PM ( which of us does - even those on the right?!).
Given that, it's a matter of alternatives - either a different Leader of the National Party or another Party to garner the votes. Which do you think it will be?
Ardern has proven to be a weak leader. So. Does Labour reinstate a now proven politically courageous Andrew Little in the top spot ( by his actions in the pragmatic way of standing down last time and the way he's conducted himself in Government. Ardern can announce she's off to raise a bigger family etc.) and in that case, who do National stand against him? I reckon a revitalised Little could knock any of them off and have Labour govern on their own.
Shearer was better than Cunliffe who was better than Little. Little was highly off-putting to most personality wise and hasn't distinguished himself in parliament with ridiculous ongoing waste on Pike River posturing and worsening crime stats on his watch. He may have been more diligent worker than the superficial Ardern who did so little in her back-bench years, but that is not enough to make him PM material.
Indeed, elections are won in the middle by swing voters picking the least bad alternative. Simon doesn't appeal to right wing (too wet) but Labour/National have to focus on centre swing voters - not pandering to the extremes (as labour did to their detriment during the Key years). Democrats in US need to re-learn this lesson, as front-running Sanders/Warren are pandering to left and making themselves unelectable.
No Carlos, I think you miss judge many voters - probably a reflection of the feedback loop of your social networks. The latest on landlords will have pushed them up some notches too.
I'd say their biggest risk is immigration. As concerned as I am about NZF, I understand they have been frustrated at not being able to reduce immigration - because of labour. But National of course can't highlight this - they won't shut it down. Which leaves NZF s being a necessary evil.
JA would rather let Winston self destruct and then call the election at the usual time. May be a new NZ First leader would be more controllable in a coalition ? Doing a snap election now would be risky and would give an opportunity to National, which may replace Simon with Luxon for the snap election and win handily.
So, No No Snap election.
Because a 3 year cycle leads to short time-horizons that undermines necessary focus on long term infrastructure and economic development projects
What we really need to do is reduce MP salaries and give them annual bonuses for 10 years after they are in parliament based on measured improvements in average standard of living. That would get them focusing on improving NZ with a much longer time view and less partisan bickering.
France has a 7 year cycle and just look at the monumental stuff up that Micron has created and many years before the French have the opportunity to replace the Rothschild's appointee. With the yellow vests celebrating their first anniversary perhaps and the religion of peace members causing mayhem Micron may have a fortunate fatal accident and start the next French revolution - its about time!
It's still better than the alternative - having an even smaller minority rule over the majority. It's just that some folk have grumpy pants on at the moment because their preferred party forked up their election strategy last time around.
That said, we should have STV and a 3% threshold.
Backbenches are the training ground for Ministers. You need a lot of them to provide sufficient depth of talent pool and generally 3+years experience as a backbencher before they are ready for promotion to Minister. A lot of Labour's problems are due to an insufficiency of talent to draw on. Less MPs would only worsen that, and given the massive cost of bad governance a few extra MP's is worth the price. Better would be to limit MPs to a maximum of 3 or 4 terms as non-ministers. Cull the dead wood
They had the debacle of KBld, but I give them credit for trying, so that's not a game changer. That aside, they have ticked along pretty well with some decent policy changes along the way (foreign buyers, landlords, water etc). A crack down on immigration is all they need and if actioned I believe they would be well placed to increase their position.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.