Why NZ First is letting its voters down
Political editor
Just as the Government was beginning to gain a bit of political momentum – Zero Carbon Bill, deal with farmers on emissions trading, education reforms – the stinky and complicated issue of political donations is back in the news.
Political donations are a running sore in New Zealand. The Electoral Act is contorted, confusing and opaque. It is written to allow donations to parties under $1500 to be completely anonymous. When donations over this amount are made, party secretaries need to know the identity of the donors.
All donations above $5000 need to be disclosed to the Electoral Commission. The identity of donors giving more than $15,000 cumulatively over a year must be disclosed publicly. Single donations of more than $30,000 need to be disclosed, along with the donor’s name, within 10 days.
At issue in the NZ First donations saga is that money appears to have been pushed through the NZ First Foundation. Reporting by Stuff’s Matt Shand has revealed that the foundation seems to have effectively operated as an off-books political slush fund – paying for all manner of party activities without going through the party’s books.
The questions of legality revolve around what relationship the party has to the foundation. If the foundation has effectively been operating as another bank account for the party, then it appears the donations have not been properly disclosed. The same goes for spending on party activities, for which foundation funds also appear to have been used. If the foundation has been set up for a wholly different purpose, and is totally separate from NZ First, as has been stated in the past, different questions need to be asked.
Those are the legal issues, but the issue here is more moral and ethical and political.
Numerous current and former party members spoken to by Stuff in the course of this investigation simply want their party to be run properly, transparently and with integrity. It is incredible that former NZ First president Colin Forster described how, during the 2017 Northland by-election, NZ First had $23 in the bank and then, mysteriously, a campaign bus has been hired and a big campaign was clearly being paid for from somewhere. Many donors said they thought they were donating to the political party.
What appears to be happening in practical terms is that big-money donors give to the foundation, which is then controlled by Winston Peters’ close advisers: former party president Doug Woolerton, and lawyer Brian Henry. Tauranga-based list MP Clayton Mitchell has acted as bagman, soliciting donations and handing out the foundation’s bank account number.
Peters’ advisers appear to control the flow of money, and how it gets spent. This keeps Peters’ coterie firmly in control, and the party firmly in the dark. Even if that was not the intent, it appears to be the practical result. Peters’ mates, not the party apparatus, run NZ First.
And this would appear to be confirmed by Stuff reports yesterday that Henry – officially only NZ First’s judicial officer – had fronted up to a candidates meeting in 2017 and explained that he was the party’s ‘‘dark shadow’’, from whom they didn’t want to get a phone call.
Even more crucially, according to numerous sources, he said: ‘‘My job is to make sure Winston Peters gets the position he deserves, and none of you are going to get in the way of that.’’
That certainly doesn’t sound like a party based on principles. NZ First voters and party members deserve better than this. A culture of fear permeates the party.
There is clearly between 5 per cent and 8 per cent of the population that broadly agrees with what NZ First says it stands for. Its website says the party was created for ‘‘those New Zealanders concerned about the social and economic direction of our country, and who are seeking pragmatic, common-sense representation in Parliament’’.
That is, Kiwis who err on the socially conservative side, like a bit of a protected economy, and are perhaps wistful for the Kiwi way of life that existed before New Zealand plugged into the tides of globalisation in the 1980s. They want the economy to be run more predictably. A mixture of oldschool Labour and National voters. They don’t like what they see as the wokeness of modern New Zealand, and believe in traditional values.
For many of these people, the values of probity and honesty are important. Deploying secret funds and threatening candidates that they’ll get a call if they mess things up for Winston is at odds with the party’s general pitch.
As is taking money off big interests, and a general suspicion of corporates and the big end of town. Foundation records reveal that big donations were received from racing industry figures, fisheries and Conrad Properties, a big developer in Auckland. The caginess around all of this jars with NZ First’s website, which boasts of its ‘‘Fifteen Fundamental Principles, which emphasise accountable and transparent government’’.
The immediate political problem for NZ First is that, while it is taking cash from secret donors, it also runs the Provincial Growth Fund, a $3 billion fund to spend in the regions. Shane Jones has already come under pressure for the fact that a forestry company that applied for some cash included both Winston Peters’ lawyer and partner at different points. The project didn’t get funding, and Jones flagged his conflict before the decision was made.
In a select committee hearing this week, National started to hone in on connections between the PGF and NZ First’s funding. That means the existence of secret donors to the NZ First Foundation could become a political problem that will not simply go away. If questions keep coming, it will suck oxygen from the Government.
The prime minister has been consistently of the view that improper donations are a matter for NZ First and the Electoral Commission. That’s fine as far as it goes. This isn’t Labour’s problem, and it cannot be for it to clean up. But if more comes out, the ability of Labour to keep it at arm’s length will be steadily diminished.