Sam Suchdeva
Newsroom, Wellington, October 18, 2018
Simon Bridges (INL Picture)
Simon Bridges says allegations from former MP Jami-Lee Ross about his involvement in a donation cover-up have been “thoroughly discredited” – but the National Party may have further questions to answer.
After the release of a secret recording which Jami-Lee Ross said would provide proof of Simon Bridges’ guilt regarding a donation cover-up, Bridges was unequivocal in his view of the evidence.
“The reality is today he did his worst and he is thoroughly discredited,” Bridges said of his former MP. He is wrong in every regard around electoral laws, he has defamed me and he has lied – nothing he said has stacked up.”
No smoking gun
Bridges seems right that the tape was no smoking gun: while the pair discussed a donation from Zhang Yikun, there was nothing which explicitly suggested Bridges was aware of, or ordered, his $100,000 to be divided between other members of the Chao Shan General Association of NZ which Zhang founded.
He told media that he had asked Ross to deal with the donation, which he understood to be from Zhang and his supporters, due to his ‘expertise’ regarding electoral matters and fundraising.
Serious allegation
Asked why he had not explained this to media earlier, Bridges said: “I’m a lawyer, I’m a cautious person who takes things seriously…
“It was a very serious allegation of corruption, in relation to someone who’s spent over a decade working in justice and takes these things bloody seriously, and so I wanted to make sure that I’d done my due diligence, that I’d talked to the National Party about things that were in a sense news to me.”
However, with police investigating Ross’ claims, he and other members of the Party are set to face more detailed questions about how the money was handled.
Questions for National officials
Bridges was less categorical about the role of Party officials: asked about Ross’ suggestion that questions had been raised regarding the details of the donors, he said he had been talking to officials in the last 48 hours but it was “fair to say before that there were no concerns raised with me.”
Party sceptic
However, National insiders have expressed scepticism at the suggestion Party Secretary Greg Hamilton, a respected official who has been in the role since 2010, would have been complicit in breaking any laws.
Newsroom asked National a number of questions about its process for verifying the legality of its donations and the identity of its donors, as well as when it was first made aware of concerns about the donations linked to Zhang and what was done to investigate them.
In a written response, Party President Peter Goodfellow said that National’s position had not changed and it could find “no proof of the accusations and assertions made by Jami-Lee Ross in regard to the handling of our political donations.”
“The Party believes it has acted 100% appropriately in relation to the donations in question,” Goodfellow said.
Repeating previous comments that National complied with the Electoral Act and had its donations “comprehensively audited” by a third party every year, he said that National would not comment further while the police investigation ran its course.
Legal obligation
Wellington lawyer and Electoral Law specialist Graeme Edgeler said the legal obligation to declare a donation above the relevant threshold fell on the secretary of a Party, not its leader or any other member.
If the secretary was unsure about the legality of a donation, they could return it to the donor – as National did on two occasions in 2017 according to its annual returns.
However, Edgeler said that any Party member who received a donation had to provide information to the Party secretary “quite quickly” after they received it.
Ross’ allegations, if true, could amount to “effectively conspiring to…launder a donation so it wouldn’t appear to be disclosable”, he said.
Electoral Offences
Edgeler said that the Police had in the past been reluctant to seriously investigate allegations of electoral offences, in part because there were easier crimes to investigate.
After the 2005 election, police decided against charging Labour over the pledge card scandal despite establishing a prima facie case, while John Banks’ 2014 conviction for filing a false electoral return (later overturned on appeal, with Banks subsequently acquitted) came only after a private prosecution was initiated.
Edgeler said it was possible police did not want to be seen to “become political” and interfere in the electoral process – something Edgeler said did not make sense, given the existence of the offences.
“It is a concern [the lack of action], but I’m not sure what do about it.”
If Ross had the documentation he claimed to hold regarding Zhang’s donation, Edgeler said it would be difficult for the police to ignore and there appeared to be enough to merit an investigation.
Clear Lines of Investigation
The release of the recording, coupled with Ross’ comments to media, meant there were “clear lines of investigation” for police to pursue, while banking records and other material could likely shed light on whether any donations had been improperly handed.
Police did not respond to questions from Newsroom about how they approached allegations of electoral offences, but said in a general statement to media that they took all complaints of that nature seriously.
“Decisions regarding the outcome of such investigations are made based on the facts and available evidence, and in accordance with the Solicitor General’s prosecution guidelines.”
Sam Sachdeva is Political Editor of Newsroom covering Foreign Affairs, Trade, Defence and Security Issues based in Wellington. The above article and picture which appeared in the Web Edition of Newsroom today (October 18, 2018) have been reproduced here under a Special Arrangement.
*
