The head of the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), Bulent Yildirim, has announced that the organisation will head a naval fleet to Gaza to break Israel’s siege of the bombarded Palestinian enclave.

Speaking at a huge public rally in Istanbul last week, Yildirim said: “The time for talking is over. We will go down to the sea, we will reach Gaza, and we will break the siege.”

Yildirim participated in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in 2010. The boat he was on was boarded by Israeli troops and nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed at the time.

Turkish NGO plans to send naval fleet toward Gaza to break siege. Video: Middle East Eye

He is hopeful that this new fleet will be successful in breaking the siege as part of Istael’s genocidal war against Palestinians and helping bring some relief to many Gazans who are starving.

Kia Ora Gaza is a member of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition.

“We hope to include Kiwis on the upcoming flotillas to break the siege of Gaza,” said Roger Fowler, a founder and facilitator of Kia Ora Gaza, who was at the planning meeting in Istanbul.

He appealed for donations to this mission through Kia Ora Gaza.

In September 2016, Kia Ora Gaza facilitated Green MP Marama Davidson in joining the Women’s Boat to Gaza peace flotilla, and in 2018 veteran human rights campaigner and union leader Mike Treen represented New Zealand.

Jordan airdrops aid to Gaza
Meanwhile, the Royal Jordanian Air Force has carried out airdrops of aid off the coast of the Gaza Strip — the biggest airdrop operation so far to deliver much-needed aid to millions of Palestinians amid restrictions by Israeli authorities on aid entering the territory by road.

The aid was dropped at 11 sites along the Gaza coast from its northern edge to the south for civilians to collect, and one French Air Force plane was also involved.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

National is not only winning the race towards the general election finish line, but is also miles ahead in raising money to campaign with. So far, the National Party has picked up $8.2m in big donations since the start of 2021. As RNZ reported this week, that’s seven times more money than the Labour Party.

To alleviate any suspicions of quid pro quo deals, close scrutiny must be applied to these donors, along with any policy and law changes a National government might make that benefit them.

Scrutiny of political donations is always important, of course, regardless of who’s in government. But given the sheer quantum of the donations that are currently going to National, extra vigilance about the influence of this big money is required. Potential conflicts of interest need to be identified and highlighted in order to avoid some of these large donations resulting in private gains for the already-wealthy.

The huge donations going to National

National had a particularly profitable fundraising year in 2022 – taking in $5m in large donations. In 2023, National has already declared $2 million in large donations – four times that of Labour. In this month alone, National has already declared $217,000 in large donations.

National is trumpeting the huge amount of money coming its way. The party’s pollster David Farrar was quoted by RNZ on Wednesday, saying “The amount rolling in is unprecedented”, and “almost exponentially larger than you’ve had in the past”.

Farrar points out that it used to be rare for any party to get anything like donations of $100,000 from a single individual, but now National is regularly getting such amounts. In fact, in June this year building systems and materials supplier, Warren Lewis, gave National $500,000 – the largest donation the party has ever received.

Lewis, who owns FMI Building Innovations, says he’s given the donation with only one condition – a meeting with National leader Christopher Luxon. He says he’s not a National Party member, and has voted for a variety of parties before, including on the left.

Donations from the super-wealthy

New Zealand’s richest man, billionaire Graeme Hart – one of the 200 richest people in the world, worth about $17bn – gave National $250,000 last year. He’s also recently donated to Act ($100,000), and was the biggest financial donor to Wayne Brown’s Auckland mayoralty campaign.

Toy entrepreneur Nick Mowbray also chipped in $250,000 last year. He can afford it – the Mowbray family fortune is about $2.5b.

Former Brierleys chief executive Murray Bolton is worth an estimated $400m. He’s now the CEO of US-based company, Xplor Technologies. He also gave National $250,000 last year. This year he’s given Act $150,000. Bolton hit the news in 2021 because he took MBIE to court over its refusal to allow him to fly his private jet into the country – he claimed it breached the Bill of Rights, and he won.

National’s second-biggest donation in 2023, of $200,000, has come from Buen Holdings, which is owned by Guemsoon Shim and Lian Seng Buen. In previous years, the couple have donated a total of $100,000 through another of their companies, Alpha Laboratories.

This week the couple have been in the news regarding an investigation of allegations of migrant abuse. Newsroom’s Jonathan Milne has outlined how investigations are ongoing by Auckland Council and MBIE Tenancy Services into the couple’s use of their former Auckland home in Shamrock Park to house up to 30 migrant workers.

Jeffrey Douglas, son of the late Sir Graeme Douglas, has given National nearly $104,000 over the last two years. Although he is associated with the family’s Douglas Pharmaceuticals company, Douglas also owns New Zealand’s largest private healthcare and research company. His company has previously been the recipient of government research and development funding.

One transport company has given $100,000 to National. Velocity Freight is owned by Mainstream Group. Recently the company was warned by the Commerce Commission for engaging in “cartel behaviour”. Velocity is a major competitor to Mainfreight, whose owner Bruce Plested has previously given big donations to National, but in recent elections been a major donor to the Māori Party (totalling $360,000).

Maritime businessman James Francis Speedy gave National a $101,000 donation last year. The Aucklander has owned various transport and harbour businesses.

Aviation businessman Hugh Ross Jones has donated $150,000 to National over the last year and a half. Jones made his money in the helicopter business and, according to the NBR, now has “a sizeable residential, commercial and industrial property portfolio”.

Low-profile businessman Gary Lane gave National $100,000 last year. He’s made his money in health and food products – specifically through his company, Antipodean Pharmaceuticals, which is registered in the US.

Business executive Graeme Harrison gave $103,000 to the National Party last year. Harrison is most well-known for his leading role in establishing the ANZCO Foods empire, the country’s fifth-largest exporter. He’s now on the board of the National Party.

Housing industry donors

Former National Cabinet Minister Paula Bennett is the party’s chief fundraiser, and is widely acknowledged as playing a key role in building up the millions in her party’s war chest. Since leaving Parliament Bennett has worked for Bayley’s Real Estate, and that firm has become a major benefactor for the party – giving about $165,000 to National last year.

Rival real estate agency Barfoot and Thompson – the biggest privately owned agency in the country – is owned by the Barfoot family. Patriarch Garth Barfoot is a long-time donor to National. Most recently, he gave $35,000 in 2021

Property developers also feature prominently in National’s donor list. Last month Culum Manson gave $70,000 to the party. His family business, Manson TCLM, is one of the largest private developers in New Zealand.

John and Michael Chow (“The Chow Brothers”) have become big property players, too – including in partnership with John and Max Key in recent years. They have built up a property empire of a billion dollars in assets, and last year alone they built 1,145 properties, valued at $408m. In 2022 their family company Stonewood Group donated $44,000 to National.

National also has a history with property developer the Winton company, partly owned by its CEO Chris Meehan, who has been in the news recently. Through his holding company, Speargrass, Meehan donated $52,000 to National in May 2022. One of Winton’s directors is also former National Cabinet Minister, and now business consultant, Steven Joyce.

Eyebrows were raised when, a few months after Meehan’s donation, National put out a press release supporting Winton in a battle against state housing agency Kāinga Ora. The press release made no mention of National’s financial connection to the property developer it was lobbying in favour of.

The Winton company is now taking legal action against Kāinga Ora, claiming compensation of more than $138 million over alleged anti-competitive behaviour. The state housing agency had rejected a request by Winton to help fast-track one of their projects using special powers under the Urban Development Act.

Racing industry donations

Previously there have been some close connections between racing industry donors and political parties – with large donations made in the past to National and NZ First in particular.

The owners of the famous Cambridge Horse Stud, Brendan and Jocelyn Lindsay, have given National $230,000 over the last two years (and one donation to Act this year of $50,000). The Lindsay family formerly owned the plastic container company Sistema, which they sold in 2016 for $660m.

Another thoroughbred breeder and owner, Sir Peter Vela, has given generously to National – $62,500 last year. Vela owns Pencarrow Stud. He was appointed an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to the horse bloodstock industry. The Vela family wealth was estimated at $245m in the 2019 NBR Rich List. The family business has previously given large donations to both Labour and NZ First, as well as holding fundraising functions for Winston Peters at the Pencarrow Stud farm.

Farmer interests

Property developer Trevor Farmer has given National $200,000 over the last year and a half. He also donated $100,000 to Act last year. His business partner Mark Wyborn has given National $100,000 over the last couple of years, as well as $50,000 to Act in 2021.

Together Farmer and Wyborn are part owners of a 26,000ha dairy farm near Taupō which has had problems getting enough water for their operations – unsuccessfully applying in 2019 for resource consent to take 71 million litres of water a day out of the Waikato River.

Another giant landowner has given $62,000 to National this month. The Oregon Group is owned by the Tiong Family, who normally reside in Malaysia, but are said to be the second largest private land owners in NZ.

The company is also notable for its agricultural and forestry subsidiary, Ernslaw One, which was fined $225,000 for causing forestry slash problems in Tairāwhiti. The group is currently creating a salmon farm in the Cook Strait, working with the ministries for the Environment and Primary Industries.

Another corporate farmer, Chris Reeves, gave National a $100,000 donation, via his Tawata Farms company in 2021. He has previously given more to Act, with known donations totalling $430,000.

Smaller but interesting donations

Some of the smaller donations to National are interesting too. Andrew Kelly donated $25,000 to the party in June. He was one of the three men who had previously donated to Labour politician Stuart Nash and then received confidential Cabinet information, which cost the MP his job. (Another one of Nash’s donor/confidants, Troy Bowker, has given $35,000 to Act).

Auckland commercial landlord Andrew Krukziener donated $22,000 to National in June. This follows on from him being the biggest backer of Auckland mayoral candidate Viv Beck – Krukziener’s company donated $107,000 to the centre-right politician’s failed campaign before falling in behind the successful campaign of Wayne Brown.

The owner of the Scenic Hotel chain, Lani Hagaman, gave National $50,000 last year. She has an estimated worth of about $210m and is the widow of multi-millionaire Earl Hagaman, who was also a large National donor.

One of the wealthiest men in New Zealand, Craig Heatley, gave $100,000 last year. He’s normally more of an Act Party donor (he also gave them $50,000 this year).

Other traditional Act donors shifting more money to National include the private equity firm Christopher & Banks Ltd, run by rich-lister Christopher Huljich. They have given National $200,000 over the last year and a half. But they’ve also given another $100,000 to Act this year.

One of National’s traditional big donors is merchant banker David Richwhite, who extravagantly donated about $350,000 to the party back in 1996. Since then, however, Richwhite has been relatively absent from the donations records. Last month he’s suddenly returned, donating $50,000 to National.

Why we should care about National’s huge donations

Why are wealthy individuals and businesses giving such large amounts of money to National? The most obvious answer is that the party looks like it’s on course to form the next government.

The history of donations shows the wealthy tend to give to parties that are doing well in the polls. Businesspeople back parties who are likely to be in government. In 2020, the big money went to Labour rather than National, with National only declaring $285,000 of big donations. Therefore, it makes more sense to think of the big money following National’s success, rather than causing it.

Business donors are also inclined to reward parties that have policies they like or feel are “good for the economy”. Like most voters, business donors support parties they feel will govern in their interests. Unlike most voters, however, they make this support known with very large sums of money.

It’s always hard to ascribe exact motivations for donors giving to political parties, but influence over politicians who will likely soon have a lot of power would have to be one of them. In the case of a potential incoming National government, thousands of decisions will soon need to be made, and these will have all sorts of impact on businesses. Donations of this magnitude will certainly ensure National sits up and takes notice of the individuals who have made them.

There is increasing public awareness about the impact of political donations and lobbying on the political process. The ball is therefore now in the court of the donors and the parties to assuage public suspicion that it’s not all about undue influence. It is naïve to assume that big money does not wield big influence in New Zealand. So, as National steams towards power, a lot of light will need to be shone on these relationships, so we can be assured that in 2023 the mega-wealthy haven’t been able to buy a big chunk of our democracy.

A man whose personal bank account was used to receive donations for New Zealand’s Parliament protest is bankrupt and has been declared insolvent three times.

The protest lasted for 23 days before ending in a riot on March 2 when police cracked down on the protesters.

Jamie Patrick Mansfield has built a social media following by posting antivax and conspiratorial content as Jae Ratana.

He often livestreamed events from the protest in Wellington, but also posted similarly conspiratorial content for months before the occupation.

However, the 35-year-old, who is also known as Jamie Murray, has a history of unpaid debt.

Mansfield was first declared bankrupt after applying for the process himself in the Rotorua District Court in December 2008, at which time he listed his occupation as unemployed.

Mansfield was automatically discharged as bankrupt in December 2011 but again applied for bankruptcy in July 2012, this time listing his occupation as a student.

He was again automatically discharged three years later and remained solvent for five years until again applying to be declared bankrupt in June 2020.

Mansfield’s latest bankruptcy remains current.

He also had a tenancy terminated in early 2020 after failing to pay rent.

The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the landlord $2770 — $1650 of which was recovered via a bond, but the balance remains outstanding.

Despite Mansfield’s background, his bank account was used to receive donations for Convoy NZ 2022, the group which instigated what became the protest and later occupation at Parliament grounds through February and early March.

RNZ understands Mansfield never disclosed his financial history to the group, and used the name Jae Ratana.

It was by no means the biggest group seeking donations in New Zealand’s antivax and anti-mandate circles, however, RNZ has seen evidence that thousands of dollars of donations to the group came flooding into Mansfield’s bank account by early February.

At least $14,000 had been deposited in just a few days.

How much was ultimately deposited into Mansfield’s bank account, where that money ended up and how it was spent remains unclear.

Mansfield and the organisers of the convoy group fell out, and just a few days into the occupation were not communicating.

Donations ‘signed off, triple checked’
RNZ attempted to contact Mansfield to get his side of the story.

When we first approached him via social media he responded there was “absolutely nothing to discuss”.

When pushed about the money raised and how it was spent, he responded: “There were so many people/groups collecting the pūtea [funds] and there also is a difference between koha and donation and as far as the groups I’m part of have [sic] concerned [sic] they have been signed off and accounted for and it’s been tripled check so as far as I’m concerned there is nothing further to talk about nor will the team be happy me speaking to a reported [sic] but I unfortunately do not trust any reporters either as story’s [sic] love to be twisted.”

When asked what he meant by the groups he was part of having things signed off, accounted for and triple checked, he responded: “No further questions thank u”.

He followed up with: “When u are ready I would love to see the so called information u have got”, “Then we will correct what is needed because I can guarantee you you do not have truthful information” and “I can probably stomp on what Information-hearsay you have”, before subsequently blocking this reporter from contacting him on Facebook.

Rumours have swirled on social media about the whereabouts of the money raised since the early days of the occupation.

Mansfield took to Facebook on March 8 to address the rumours: “Just to clarify and get that story straight, obviously the Convoy and occupation of Parliament I did help fund out of my personal money. For anyone who knows me personally, can back me up there.

“So I did help sponsor and donate to convoy. I did not steal any money. I did not help myself to any money,” he claimed in the livestream.

RNZ spoke to people who had known Mansfield personally and they say he has a long history of leaving people out of pocket.

‘An exceptionally bad tenant’ – landlord
One such person was the landlord who took Mansfield to the Tenancy Tribunal and ultimately had him evicted for unpaid rent and bills, and damage to the property.

He told RNZ he had still not seen the balance of the money he was owed by Mansfield.

“Jamie … was an exceptionally bad tenant who continually made promises he didn’t keep … I hope to never see him again,” the landlord, who RNZ agreed not to name, said.

Problems with the tenancy became clear almost as soon as Mansfield moved in as he was late with his rent for five of the first six weeks he lived in the rental and arrears grew from there, the landlord said.

“I knew he was a bad egg from the start and I was like ‘What the hell have I done letting this guy move into my house’ and then it was just a matter of following due process to get him out.

“He left the place in an absolute state. There was broken furniture and broken beds. I’ve got photos of a mountain full of rubbish that I had to drag out of the house, then get a company . . . come to pick it up to the tune of $300.

“He made no attempt to clean up after himself and just doesn’t give much regard to other people.”

RNZ again tried contacting Mansfield through his back-up accounts on social media to clarify how he came to be the one receiving donations, what aspects of his history he disclosed to the Convoy group and to find out how much money was received and how it was used.

He did not respond to those messages.

Group raises more than $60,000 by early March
The financing of the Parliament protest and occupation remains murky.

Weeks ago RNZ asked Voices For Freedom and The Freedoms and Rights Coalition for information on their finances — they did not respond.

One group that did give a glimpse into the huge sums of money involved was Profest.

Profest NZ Limited was incorporated on February 21 with Paul Currie as its sole director and shareholder.

Profest’s website publicly showed it raised more than $20,000 in online donations in just a few days and had raised more than $66,000 by March 4.

Currie, a Whangārei resident with business and property interests around New Zealand, said Profest was created to try to tie together the disparate and sometimes differing voices and movements at the protest.

He said he set it up because it was necessary to give the occupation “a little bit more of a format”.

Profest did not start collecting donations until over a week after the occupation began.

“Profest was late in the piece, involved more for directing some of the donations that were contributed but was by no means the most significant — financially — donation collector,” Currie told RNZ.

Unlike Voices For Freedom, The Freedoms and Rights Coalition or Jamie Mansfield, Currie spoke to RNZ freely and over a 38-minute conversation offered details about how donations to Profest were spent.

He could not offer a definitive sum on how much money was raised between on-the-ground cash donations, online donations and BitCoin, however, he said the group was committed to providing a financial summary to all who donated and that would occur in “due course”.

Only a “nominal” sum of what was donated remained and accounts were still being settled, Currie said.

Some of the larger infrastructure costs and ongoing food costs of the protest had fallen on Profest to pay, Currie said.

He had not taken any director’s fees or remuneration related to Profest NZ Ltd.

“I’m not in it for any personal financial gain,” Currie said.

When the protest ended Profest stopped calling for donations and closed the donation function on its website, unlike Voices For Freedom and The Freedoms and Rights Coalition which were still collecting donations.

Currie also said he was unaware of who Jae Ratana or Jamie Mansfield was. He did not believe he met him at the protest and he did not believe Mansfield had contributed financially to Profest.

RNZ understands a complaint was made to police regarding the whereabouts of money given to Mansfield.

“While investigations are ongoing we are not in a position to provide any comment relating to particular individuals/ groups,” police said in a statement to RNZ.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Police will not give details about finances and their investigation into the New Zealand protest against covid-19 public health measures which occupied Parliament’s grounds and surrounding streets.

Large sums of money traded hands during and leading up to the 23-day occupation, but it is unclear how it has been spent and who has benefitted.

FACT Aotearoa spokesperson Lee Gingold said groups like Voices For Freedom had been flexing their financial muscle.

“I think it’s a mistake to think they’re unsuccessful in their search for funding or that it’s too ramshackle because Voices For Freedom have splashed a lot of money around,” he said.

“They funded the court case which led to the exemption for the police, which I believe was $90,000 and in Wellington … there are a number of billboards from Voices For Freedom up around town.”

Voices For Freedom is the trading name of TJB 2021 Limited, which Voices For Freedom founders Claire Deeks, Libby Jonson, and Alia Bland served as its sole directors and shareholders.

The anti-vax group admitted they had been behind the distribution of two million flyers, thousands of large rally signs seen at the Parliament protest and other protests around the country, as well as billboards in Wellington, Auckland and Christchurch.

The billboard sites were managed by Jolly Billboards.

Its director, Jonathon Drumm, told RNZ he did not want to comment other than to say the company complied with all the rules of the Advertising Standards Authority.

Drumm said Voices For Freedom were “probably not” one of the company’s larger clients, but he would not comment on whether the group received any kind of discount compared to other customers.

Financial transparency of Voices For Freedom
On their website, Voices For Freedom claim they intend to be transparent about their finances.

“VFF is funded through individual donations from thousands of concerned Kiwis. Funding is put towards the various projects we facilitate and the general running costs and overheads of the organisation,” the website said.

“Like any well run organisation receiving funding we intend to provide basic information on finances such as to provide accountability and transparency at appropriate junctures and at least annually.”

However, no financial statements for the group were available online.

RNZ tried contacting Deeks — who was third on the list for Billy Te Kahika and Jami-Lee Ross’ failed Advance New Zealand Party — but was unsuccessful.

Voices For Freedom did not respond to a set of questions sent to them regarding their finances and promises of transparency.

During a 2020 podcast which guested Deeks, host Pete Evans pushed people to sign up as distributors of dōTERRA, a multi-level marketing company selling essential oils, of which Deeks was apparently a platinum “Wellness Advocate” for.

Early in the pandemic, dōTERRA International was warned by the US Federal Trade Commission for social media posts made by reps claiming essential oils could prevent or treat covid-19.

Gingold said the various groups involved in the protest and the movements surrounding it had a variety of motivations.

“I think an awful lot of it is a grift. I think of Billy TK quite early on in the pandemic asking for money in every single post. You have to question whether or not some of these people actually believe what they’re pushing or whether it’s just another thing for them to push,” he told RNZ.

“It’s pretty hard to know their motivation, but you do start to get a bit of a vibe for it. If someone is just asking for a lot of money and they’re prepared to flip-flop their views pretty easily then it feels like a grift to me.”

A protester from Whangārei told RNZ he had heard there were “big donations” for the occupation.

“But I don’t really know what’s going on … I honestly don’t know where the money is going.”

On the other hand, the protester said he instead had concerns about government spending and transparency of that.

Detailed documents of the budget are published every year.

‘No financial links” to Freedoms and Rights Coalition, says Destiny Church

The Freedoms and Rights Coalition, which was also involved in protests during the pandemic, did not respond to RNZ inquiries about their finances and donations.

Ashleigh Marshall, who is listed as the sole director and shareholder of The Freedoms and Rights Coalition Limited, worked as an administrator for Destiny Church.

Church spokesperson Anne Williamson said there was no relationship between the two.

“Freedoms and Rights had a presence down at Parliament virtually from day one, but there was no financial involvement that I know of. I can check this all up for you.

“And there certainly is no financial or other tie up with Freedoms and Rights and the church.”

She said any further questions should be emailed to the church. But there was no response to further inquiries.

Self-proclaimed Apostle Brian Tamaki had spoken at several events organised by the group and shared many of their posts on his personal social media in the past.

‘They robbed those Māori whānau’ – National Māori Authority chair
National Māori Authority chairperson Matthew Tukaki said such groups were taking advantage of disaffected and vulnerable New Zealanders, particularly Māori.

Protesters link arms in front of police outside Parliament, February 2022. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver

“They were targeting vulnerable Māori. Māori that are more predisposed because of our history, because of colonisation — some of our people are already down that bloody hole,” he said.

“What that group did, those leaders in that coalition, they robbed those Māori whānau not only of what little money they probably had, but also their mana.”

Tukaki said considering the precursor activities to the Parliament protest, there was probably “about tens of thousands of dollars that had already been raised for that first stage”.

He said he suspected there was probably even more involved once the occupation began, with all sorts of supplies being provided on a daily basis.

“Even individual donations by February 22 had hit about $30,000 and so it might’ve been $10 from mum here, $20 from old mate down the road, whatever the case, but to sustain the enterprise for those couple of weeks down in Wellington it would have required hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“For example, we know Wellington City Council was handing out parking fines for vehicles that were illegally parked. We know at its height the police estimated there were roughly 800 vehicles down there. If you do the maths … you’re getting up to a huge amount of money per day.

“What was happening is people were going into one of the tents, they were presenting people in that tent with those parking fines and those parking fines were being paid. So that tells me for just the tens of thousands of dollars per week for just parking fines, there was money ready to go.”

‘Where did the money come from?’
Some businesses had fronted up on their financial involvement, but Tukaki said he believed there was more to it than individual donations.

“We also know those attending were less likely to have oodles of savings and money in their pocket to sustain themselves for a long protest,” Tukaki said.

“That $30,000 raised by February 22 from individual donations, that was probably the sum total of how much you could expect from individuals.

“So that comes down to where did the money come from? Well because we’ve got pretty lax laws in understanding money flow of overseas donations or overseas funds for these sorts of protests we are never going to actually know the true extent of what came in from overseas, but I would argue that a significant amount of money was being raised offshore.”

Social media posts among protesters speculated that some donations, potentially tens of thousands of dollars, had gone missing.

RNZ asked one of its organisers, who fronted up on social media to the issues surrounding the movement, if she would comment on the situation.

She declined, but in a post to Facebook said: “The original [bank] account was someone’s who turned out couldn’t be trusted and him and another organiser for the north took that money”.

She understood it was being investigated.

RNZ asked police whether any theft, fraud or financial crimes formed part of their investigation into the protest.

In a statement, a spokesperson said police were not in a position to comment on specific aspects of their investigation.

“The investigation phase into the criminal activity during the operation is underway,” the spokesperson said.

“Police are appealing for the public’s help to identify anyone involved in criminal activity during the operation and anyone with information is urged to report it to police.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – It’s the prerogative of Cabinet ministers and politicians to be friends with wealthy individuals, and then to accept their generous donations of money, travel, and accommodation. But those relationships and gifts do come at a cost. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, as politicians of the political right used to say – meaning “free” things always have an associated cost.

Those costs are under the microscope at the moment, with a bombshell report by Matt Nippert in the Herald yesterday about a foreign-owned company making a generous donation to the National Party, despite the supposed existence of rules banning foreign donations – see: Former trade minister Todd McClay helped arrange $150,000 donation from Chinese racing industry billionaire Lin Lang to National Party (paywalled).

The basic details are this: Todd McClay became associated with Chinese billionaire Lang Lin in 2016, meeting him in Beijing while on official government business as the Minister of Trade. McClay then worked with then party fundraiser and MP Jami-Lee Ross the next year to facilitate a donation from Lang. $150,000 was deposited into the Rotorua National Party branch bank account – which is McClay’s electorate. The donation came from the company owned by Lang, “Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry NZ”, which is registered in New Zealand. It was declared by National to the Electoral Commission, as per the rules about donations.

McClay has also subsequently accepted other generous gifts from Lang, or his company, such as a fact-finding trip to China in 2018. And McClay says he has had further interactions with Lang “in a social capacity”. Lang’s company has described McClay as a “friend” to the billionaire owner.

The main controversy over the donation to National is that donations from foreign individuals are banned under the current electoral finance rules, however donations from foreign-owned companies are not banned, as long as they’re registered in New Zealand. The question therefore is: was the $150,000 donation from Lang’s company to National a case of exploiting a “loophole” in the law?

The cost to National of the scandal

The potential costs of this particular relationship between McClay and Lang are many and varied. And this connection, along with other similar relationships between politicians and wealthy individuals, also illustrates some significant issues in New Zealand politics at the moment.

There is obvious embarrassment for National from this scandal. It has handed their opponents the opportunity to admonish the party for acting unethically. The Prime Minister has been able to make the point that although no laws appear to have been broken, there’s something untoward going on: “Arguably, what happened here was legal but I would argue that it was equally outside the spirit of what our law intends when it comes to foreign donations” – see Jason Walls and Boris Jancic’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says National’s $150k donation was ‘against the spirit’ of the law.

This article also reports that “National is pushing back, with leader Simon Bridges saying the donation was completely legal and National’s hands are clean.” And McClay has been forced onto the backfoot, having to defend himself about allegations of a conflict of interest. Nippert has reported his claims of innocence: “McClay said a potential donation was not raised in Beijing when he was on official business, was first broached only in the latter meeting in Rotorua and he did not meet Lang again while a minister”.

McClay is using the fashionable “hats” argument, saying that he was essentially wearing a different hat when involved with fundraising, and when he was helping facilitate the money being given to his party he was simply acting in his capacity as a National MP, not as a minister, nor as the MP for Rotorua.

National is already vulnerable on the issue of its connection to wealthy donors. After all, the Serious Fraud Office is still investigating, on Police recommendations, the donation allegations raised last year by Jami-Lee Ross.

The current scandal will dredge up memories of other questionable financial arrangements of the National Party. And Claire Trevett has done just this, going back through other infamous incidents in her column, Political donations – just a quid, or a quid-pro-quo? (paywalled). She also says: “Putting big donors in the public eye made it easier for political rivals to take pot shots at motives, alleged conflicts of interest and fundraising practises, from dinners with ministers to more intimate events.”

The Greens have been able to use the latest scandal to push their own policies of electoral finance reform. Newshub reports: “Green Party Electoral spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman has described the revelation as ‘deeply alarming’ and said it highlights why New Zealand needs stronger and more transparent political donation laws. Ghahraman is calling for a cap on individual donations to $35,000. She also wants to ban overseas donations, and reduce the anonymity threshold to $1000” – see: Jacinda Ardern describes $150,000 donation to National ‘outside spirit of the law’.

Helen Clark, too, has used the opportunity to campaign about the problem, tweeting: “Money politics is a curse the world over. It’s corrosive of the democratic process. In NZ people have long decried it & feasted on whatever compromising information comes to light, but where are the media calls for public funding & tighter donation rules?”

The cost to New Zealand’s governing system

The McClay donation raises questions about what impact such generosity from private individuals and companies might potentially have on New Zealand’s system of government. As reported in Nippert’s original article, Lang’s company made a statement “saying he expected nothing in return for his company’s donation.” The Chinese-owned company stated that the donation was simply in appreciation for National “promoting trade between the two countries”.

However, the possibility of a government gong for the Chinese billionaire was also raised by the company statement: “Lang also considered that he made so much effort to open the China market in exporting NZ horses to China, the NZ Government should award him an honour.”

So, does the involvement of Cabinet ministers in the procurement of such donations raise problems for the integrity of New Zealand’s governing system? Nippert quotes University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis, saying that this, and the rules around it, seemed to be a problem: “Geddis said the involvement of Cabinet members in personal and political fund-raising was a long-standing concern, and he hoped the ‘hat juggling exercise by ministers’ who played multiple roles at different times, would cease. He said the issue of involvement by ministers in party fund-raising was curious as the Cabinet manual was ‘completely silent’ about the matter. ‘I suspect it’s not an oversight. Successive governments have decided maybe the less said about it the better,’ he said.”

The cost to New Zealand’s democracy

Nippert has written about conflicts of interest in the Lang donation, saying that this type of activity is a challenge to the status quo: “New Zealand is rightly proud of its democracy. Our nation has fair and free elections, a vibrant culture of opposition, orderly changes of power, and is regularly ranked among the least-corrupt countries on Earth” – see: $150,000 donation – Money in politics and why it matters (paywalled).

Nippert argues that the episode raises questions about whether “our current legal framework governing donations is fit for purpose”. For him, it shows the laws have been designed to allow foreign donations (via companies registered in New Zealand) despite the apparent ban on foreign individuals donating here: “This is not a loophole – the law was intentionally written this way – but it is worth weighing whether we should really be treating this as a feature of our electoral finance system rather than a bug. Resolving the issue is not straightforward, requiring either a potentially blunt hard-and-fast rule or a complicated test of control or ultimate ownership, and will run into vested interests of its own.”

The cost to New Zealand’s sovereignty

If donations are allowed from foreign sources, is this a problem for New Zealand’s sovereignty? It seems so, according to Security Intelligence Service director-general Rebecca Kitteridge. Yesterday she made an appearance at the Justice Select Committee at Parliament, which is currently examining the electoral laws, including those involving donations.

Kitteridge had earlier voiced alarm about the role of donations to political parties, saying the intelligence services were worried about their impact. She said: “One of the main reasons we become concerned about these activities is because as relationships of influence, or a sense of reciprocity is established, they may be used as leverage to facilitate future interference or espionage activity.” She warned that “grey areas” of the existing laws were being exploited and suggested that “total transparency” for political donations was now required.

Kitteridge spoke yesterday about how it wasn’t simply a case of wealthy individuals having an influence, but also the possibility of foreign states actually being behind those donations. She told MPs: “We’ve seen relationship-building and donation activity by state actors and their proxies that concern us… This activity spans the political spectrum and occurs at a central and local government level” – see Craig McCulloch’s NZ spy agencies call for greater transparency on political donations.

Debates over electoral finance reform 

For Kitteridge, a greater ban on foreign donations – as recommended by the Green Party – isn’t enough, and instead she recommended that more transparency was the answer. Kitteridge said: “You can see how a foreign actor could easily use a New Zealand based proxy to work around such a ban… We know that foreign states are adept at understanding and working around regulatory regimes.” Therefore, “more stringent disclosure requirements” were preferable.

Others are suggesting that donation bans could be implemented – either for companies per se, or for any entity other than an individual in New Zealand.

But don’t necessarily expect any such stringent reforms to be quickly agreed upon and implemented. As Nippert says, both Labour and National dominate the current Justice select committee looking at this issue, and as those parties are reliant on wealthy sources of funds, there will be a temptation “to do nothing in order to keep the taps flowing.”

Claire Trevett has also argued that the “disease of self-interest” is likely to stymie any reform. Furthermore without buy-in from the main players, it’s difficult to push through reform: “Changing the rules can be fraught unless there is consensus, as Labour found out when it pushed through the Electoral Finance Act in 2005. One-sided reforms are easily seen as an attempt to protect one’s own funding sources while drying up a rival’s. Labour would not want a change that would restrict the trade unions donating any more than National would want companies restricted.”

So how well is the current select committee process going in evaluating the electoral finance laws and the risks of foreign interference? Today Sam Sachdeva reports that the committee seems “dogged by dysfunction” and unlikely to fix the numerous problems prior to the next election, which he says “seems unpalatable to say the least” – see: Politicians must pick up pace on donations reform.

But both the Justice Minister, Andrew Little, and National’s spokesperson on electoral matters, Nick Smith, are apparently keen on urgency and might push for faster reform.

Sachdeva also argues that there are questions about Labour’s fundraising too: “its hands are not entirely clean either. As reported by Stuff before the last election, the party has received tens of thousands of dollars through the auction of art at over-inflated prices, naming the artist as the donor rather than the person forking out the money – something which also seems to breach the spirit if not the letter of the law.”

And as an indication that the problem of ministers being used to fundraise isn’t limited to the National Party, there has been another report of the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, taking off his finance hat and asking the wealthy to give to the Labour Party – see Jason Walls’ Minister Grant Robertson was just one of the MPs who spoke at the ‘President’s Dinner’ event (paywalled).

According to this article, those invited had to pay $750 to attend and hear a speech from Robertson, who was speaking in Auckland but wearing his “Wellington Central MP” hat.

Finally, clearly a bigger debate is required about how to fix the problems of money in politics – and for a good discussion of some of the possibilities, written late last year, see Simon Chapple’s New Zealand politics: how political donations could be reformed to reduce potential influence.