The New Zealand National Opposition Party is embroiled in a controversy that erupted last week when former national MP and chief whip Jami-Lee Ross accused its leader Simon Bridges of corruption. Bridges has vehemently denied the charges, and the published evidence does not support any allegation of illegality.
One dimension of the controversy that has received less attention is that of the related issues of political party donations and foreign influence on New Zealand’s democratic system.
Read more: New Zealand’s Pacific Reset: Strategic Concerns Over China’s Rise
Foreign influence
The discussion of foreign influence in New Zealand politics is played primarily in terms of the activities of the People’s Republic of China. The local debate was initiated by the article “Magic Weapons” by Professor Anne-Marie Brady last year. Despite its warnings that China’s foreign influence activities have the potential to undermine the sovereignty and integrity of the political system of the targeted states, the dominant opinion among New Zealand’s major political parties could be described as “nothing. to see here, it’s time to move on “.
The reactions in New Zealand are in stark contrast to the situation in Australia, where there has been a much more open democratic debate on the issue of Chinese influence, as well as legislative reform aimed at mitigating foreign interference.
Read more: Soft power goes hard: China’s economic interest in the Pacific comes with conditions
Boris Jancic, CC BY-ND
Last week, Jami-Lee Ross posted 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 former member of the People’s Liberation Army with permanent ties to the Chinese state, donated $ 100,000 to the National Party. The conversation then turned to the new candidates for the National Party list, and the possible candidacy of Colin Zheng, director of a construction company owned by Zhang.
Monitoring of political donations
At the national level, there are rules under the 1993 Election Law regarding political donations to candidates and political parties. For applicants, the name and address of a donor must be declared for donations over $ 1,500. For party donations, the name and address of the donor must be declared when the donation exceeds $ 15,000.
For candidates and parties alike, foreign donations (defined as from persons who are not citizens or residents on the electoral rolls or from incorporated or unincorporated entities outside New Zealand) exceeding $ 1,500 are forbidden. Each registered political party must file an annual report of party donations with the Election Commission, which is then made public. For party donations that reach a threshold of $ 30,000, a return must be filed within ten business days, rather than annually.
There are also restrictions on how much can be spent during a general election period, which also effectively limits donations. Political party expenses are capped at just over $ 1.1 million, plus $ 26,200 per contested electorate, for total election expenses of just under $ 2.7 million if all 60 electorates are contested .
Spending limits also apply to individuals or groups who do not run for office directly but seek to exert influence. They can spend up to $ 12,600 on election advertising during the regulated period without having to register with the Election Commission. A person or group whose expenses exceed this amount must register and can spend a maximum of $ 315,000 on election advertising.
Who is raising what from whom
In 2017, National raised $ 4.6 million in party donations, well in excess of Labor’s $ 1.6 million, while still exceeding the limits of what they could spend in that year’s election. National’s $ 3.5 million (76%) donations were anonymous below the $ 15,000 threshold, compared to Labor’s 0.7 million (44%). The Green Party raised $ 0.8 million, 72% of which was below the disclosure threshold, and New Zealand First raised $ 0.5 million, 84% of which was below the threshold.
Political parties are not required to report amounts of overseas donations less than $ 1,500. Therefore, the public does not know how many foreign donations are less than this amount.
It would be easy for a foreign state to funnel money to a political party from a large number of foreign donors, all under the $ 1,500 threshold. Likewise, 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. Malicious to say the least, donors seek to passively promote a political ideology that they see as beneficial. When giving is part of the development of a long-term matching relationship in multiple dimensions, the motivations of donors and recipients and what exactly is being exchanged are very difficult to pin down from the outside.
Transparency International reports that New Zealand’s political parties are one of the weakest pillars supporting local transparency and good governance. Within this weak pillar, one of the weakest strands is political funding and donations.
They argue that with the demise of mass political participation, parties increasingly depend on donations to function. This weakness means that local politicians are more likely to seek to “provide” influence, or at least to dangle the prospect of influence, in front of wealthy bidders.
The “demand” for buying political influence has also increased. With increasing global inequality and kleptocracy, there are more and more wealthy people for whom buying influence is the norm. Specifically in New Zealand, there has been an influx of wealthy expats from China, where influence buying is an accepted practice. They often maintain close ties to the Chinese Communist Party, which runs an authoritarian, undemocratic and oppressive regime. It is therefore not surprising that issues of donations and foreign influence are increasingly entering national political debates.
