The murkiness of party donations

During one of two very tense media interviews yesterday, National Party deputy leader Paula Bennett was asked by TVNZ’s Jack Tame why leader Simon Bridges was involved in conversations with a Chinese businessman about donations to the party.

‘‘Because that’s his job. We fundraise,’’ Bennett replied. It was a startling and revealing moment. It has been said before the Labour Party exists to make change and National exists to govern. But her comment suggests the party exists only to gather the money it needs to perpetuate itself.

That is a harsh reading. But the fascinating and bruising revelations and claims by maverick National MP Jami-Lee Ross have thrown a spotlight on the operations of the party neither Bridges nor Bennett were at all prepared for. One of the central claims concerns a $100,000 donation to the party by businessman Yikun Zhang, who reportedly owns property in Auckland worth $40 million. Ross has claimed Bridges handled the donation in a corrupt way. Bridges has denied the allegation.

Zhang’s wife confirmed to media that Bridges had been to dinner at their house. There is no suggestion Zhang did anything wrong by offering the donation which was allegedly carved up into smaller, anonymous donations to disguise its origin.

The usual practice is that a party leader keeps well away from conversations with fundraisers. Would-be donors are steered towards the party president or another functionary. The leader should be above knowing where the money comes from, to reduce any potential risk of influence. This is why Bennett’s comment was so surprising.

It has also been revealed Zhang was put forward for a Queen’s Birthday honour by the National Party, with current National MP Jian Yang, former National MP Eric Roy and Auckland Mayor Phil Goff’s names appearing on the nomination. In 2014, in Opposition, Labour MP Chris Hipkins named six individuals honoured with awards by National after donating to the party. He characterised National as ‘‘a Government that is only too happy to promote the interests of its donors and its mates’’.

A sense that National was too cosy with donors lasted until the 2017 election. Questions about Chinese influence were also raised after University of Canterbury China specialist Anne-Marie Brady published an influential paper on China’s ‘‘soft power’’ strategies in New Zealand and elsewhere. She wrote that overseas Chinese are encouraged to become active in politics ‘‘via political donations’’. She has described Zhang as ‘‘a leader in the Chinese government’s United Front work activities’’, referring to the promotion of government interests at home and among Chinese living overseas.

Zhang’s alleged donation was one of three that tripped up Bridges this week, the others from the mysteriously named Cathedral Club, revealed to be Auckland businessman Aaron Bhatnagar, and a Tauranga business owned by members of the Exclusive Brethren. Both originally went to Bridges before being resubmitted to the party.

The public is surely getting sick of the murkiness of political donations. A Stuff investigation in 2017 found 83 per cent ($8.7m over six years) of donations to National were anonymous, as were 80 per cent ($2.8m) of donations to Labour. But it is hard to imagine politicians would vote to change the rules they benefit from.

‘‘The usual practice is that a party leader keeps well away from conversations with fundraisers.’’