Jami-Lee Ross and Simon Bridges. Photo: Facebook

PoliticsMarch 14, 2019

What we don’t know about the Serious Fraud Office probe of National donations

Contributing writer

Jami-Lee Ross and Simon Bridges. Photo: Facebook

The Police have referred their investigation into $100,000 in donations to the National Party to the SFO. It’s plainly a very bad look but can we deduce much else, asks Andrew Geddis

On its face, news that the Police have referred Jami-Lee Ross’ now-five-month old allegations about Simon Bridges, the National Party and $100,000 in donations to the Serious Fraud Office looks like a very big deal. After all, it’s extremely rare for this elite law enforcement agency to be asked to look at an electoral law matter, let alone one allegedly involving the leader of the opposition having some role in illegally funnelling six figures worth of cash to his party.

And it may well turn out that this is a very big deal, in fact. But, as I’m by nature a cautious and careful character (references available on request), let’s just put a few caveats in place before we get too excited.

First of all, we don’t really know why the Police have taken this step, because their statement on the issue doesn’t say anything more than that “[the SFO] hold the appropriate mandate to look further into matters raised by the investigation to date”. This might mean that the Police started investigating, realised any criminal offences they might uncover look like ones the SFO can deal with, and so have sought to hive the whole politically-charged problem off onto someone else’s plate.

Alternatively, it may mean that the Police investigation into the matter has caused them to believe there is evidence of potential offending which the SFO is better placed to investigate, and so are giving them the opportunity to use their expertise (and extensive legislative powers to require cooperation) to take the matter further.

I don’t know which is the case; indeed, no-one outside the investigation ought to know this. All I will say is that I hope the Police haven’t taken five months to decide that they don’t want their fingerprints on this particular trainwreck and so simply are trying to make it someone else’s problem.

That then leads to a second caveat. Some reporting has stated that the SFO is now “investigating” the issue. That isn’t necessarily the case.

The SFO is an independent agency – it isn’t a part of the Police. So, just because the Police refer a matter to it does not mean that it has to take it on and investigate it. That decision is one that the SFO’s director must take independently, after considering if the case meets the organisation’s purposes and if there is sufficient evidence to warrant its attention. All the SFO has said so far is that having “received a referral” from the Police, no further comment on what happens next will be forthcoming.

It may be that in time the SFO politely say “thanks for thinking of us, NZ Police, but we don’t really see anything here that need involve us”.

Which raises the third caveat. Let’s remember what Jami-Lee Ross alleged took place. He told the Police that Simon Bridges was complicit in a $100,000 donation to National being broken down into smaller amounts under $15,000 in order to avoid disclosing the true donor’s identity as required by the Electoral Act 1993. If true, then that’s a quite serious offence.

But as I wrote at the time of Ross’ original accusations, the evidence produced to date does not conclusively prove that any such offending took place. Indeed, that evidence actually appeared to show the National Party’s officials trying to ensure the law was complied with by verifying the identity of the various donors concerned.

Furthermore, if National’s officials didn’t manage to connect each donation to a real, flesh-and-blood donor, then they would have been required to treat it as coming from an “anonymous” source. In that case, they can only retain $1500 of the donation and are required to pass over the rest to the Electoral Commission.

But when a party does that, it must say it has done so in its annual financial return. Meaning that when National’s annual return for 2018 is released in May this year, we’ll be able to see whether or not they regarded these donations as being “anonymous” (from a source they could not identify as being a real flesh-and-blood person). Although, of course, if they did not regard them as being “anonymous”, we won’t see who they came from, as they fall under the $15,000 disclosure threshold – as apparently was intended.

Ultimately, of course, questions about the true source of the donation(s) in question can only be resolved by tracing back to where that money originated. As doing so may involve tracking funds through a complex set of accounts, the SFO’s expertise may have been thought more suitable to deal with the matter. If, that is, they take the matter on.

So, until we hear what the SFO finds (if anything), we’re really no nearer to settling what went on than we were back in October of last year. Which doesn’t help Simon Bridges or his National Party any, given that now they face headlines involving the words “donation” “Serious Fraud” and “investigation” for the foreseeable. Which is, as any political commentator worth their salt will tell you, not a good look. At all.

Keep going!

PoliticsMarch 14, 2019

Sorry but Shane Jones is Chris Finch from The Office

Liam Hehir

Guest writer

The ‘Finchy’ of the UK original sitcom is full of himself, makes vulgar jokes and routinely crosses the line of acceptable decorum. Yet somehow, he never gets in real trouble. Sound familiar, asks Liam Hehir

Shane Jones, the Minister for Regional Economic Development, is embroiled in questions over funding for a Northland tourism venture in which he previously had some level of involvement. Not exactly known for his modesty, Jones explained to RNZ that the problem is that he’s just too darn awesome for his own good. If ever he comes into contact with a project, the organisers will see him as the obvious leader of it.

“Everyone wants Sonny Bill in their team,” he explained to Guyon Espiner. Taking the football player and the minister side by side, this doesn’t seem the most fitting comparison, of course. A more natural similitude can be found in the realm of television instead.

In The Office (the misanthropic British original, not its whimsical American counterpart) there is a salesman called Chris Finch. This man is full of himself, makes vulgar jokes and often blunders over the line of acceptable professional decorum. For all his awfulness, however, Finch never seems to get in trouble. That’s in part because David Brent, his ostensible boss, would rather die than confront his mate’s gross behaviour.

This is despite the fact that Finch’s behaviour is often detrimental to Brent, whose excuse-making serves to illustrate his lack of authority in the very office he is appointed to run.

Can there be any doubt that Jones has become the “Finchy” of the Ardern ministry?

His involvement in a questionable funding decision having been rumbled, the NZ First list MP brought his grandiloquence to bear against Hamish Rutherford, the very good journalist for Stuff who reported the story. Jones accused Rutherford of being a “bunny boiler” – an emotionally unstable woman who has been spurned by her lover. The phrase originates in 1987’s Fatal Attraction and, assuming he actually knew what he was saying, was a bizarre reference for Jones to make.

Jones then threatened to retaliate against Rutherford on the floor of the House. We do not know what he planned to say. Of course, he is free in that forum to allege whatever he wants without fear of legal repercussions. That’s parliamentary privilege for you.

Jacinda Ardern’s response to all this was rather weak. Questioned on the acceptability of the behaviour on Morning Report, the prime minister could only hide behind the convenience of not having heard the comments. “And I wouldn’t necessarily want to try and interpret exactly what Mr Jones meant,” she finished, lamely.

In the end, the best Ardern could manage was a kind of recommendation that her garrulous colleague not put ancient prerogatives in the service of personally attacking reporters who are, after all, only doing their jobs.

This is, on its face, quite curious. It’s not like Jacinda Ardern can’t be tough when she needs to be. Why go so easy on Jones?

Perhaps the prime minister has bought into the media conception of “Jonesy” as some kind of Boris Johnstonian figure whose rough edges endear him to the common folk. But if that view had ever extended beyond the press gallery, you’d think the man might once have come at least somewhat close to personally winning an election. We ought to give Ardern more credit than that.

The more likely answer is that the prime minister simply isn’t Shane Jones’s real boss. Winston Peters is. Which means that, when it comes down to it, the prime minister isn’t responsible for one of her own cabinet ministers.

Which brings us to something else about Chris Finch. Besides Brent, few people in The Office seemed to actually like him. During the series, however, it was revealed that he was close friends with Neil Godwin, who was Brent’s boss. Perhaps that goes some way to explaining the latter’s obsequiousness.

Taking the comparison two steps further, then, that would put Winston Peters in the Godwin position and cast Ardern as Brent. Which I suppose means Phil Twyford is in the role of Gareth. Hardly the most flattering way to put things. If the strained pop culture reference fits, however …