A couple of developments in the past week or so have cast a fresh light on a familiar question – should we be worried about the possibility that agents of foreign governments can buy influence in our politics and government?

The first such development was the news that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating Simon Bridges and the National party over Jami-Lee Ross’s allegations that they were guilty of election law fraud and corruption in their handling of a large donation from a Chinese businessman which they wanted to remain secret.

Whatever the findings may be on that issue (and we can surely rely on the SFO to get to the truth of the matter), the real question arises from what we have learned about the role played by anonymous donations in funding our political parties – and whether that practice (whether handled in accordance with the law or not) allows foreign interests to exert an influence of which we – the New Zealand public – are unaware.

The second development drew the Labour Party into the same morass. A Select Committee asked by the Justice Minister, Andrew Little, to investigate the possibilities of untoward foreign influence in our politics decided that it would not hear a submission from Anne-Marie Brady, a Canterbury University academic who has made the running, both at home and internationally, in warning of the dangers of just such possibilities.

Some readers may recall that Ms Brady has already hit the headlines – not only because of her whistle-blowing – but because of the suspicion that, as a response to her warnings, her house has been burgled, her e-mails hacked, and even that her car has been criminally tampered with by parties unknown.

All the more surprising, then, that an acknowledged expert on the subject should not have been heard by the Select Committee set up for the precise purpose of examining the risks of foreign interference. The Chair of the Select Committee, the Labour MP, Dr Raymond Huo, explained the decision not to hear Ms Brady on “procedural” grounds – she had apparently been out of time – but a Select Committee worth its salt would surely have overcome such a difficulty if it had been focused on collecting the most relevant evidence.

Dr Huo was supported by the Labour members of the Committee, leaving in the air the question of whether the government MPs were fully committed to their task – and the further awkward question as to whether the loyalty of members of the Chinese diaspora in New Zealand is owed to their country of origin or adoption.

What is worrying is that both of these developments surfaced against a backdrop when anxiety is expressed in many quarters about the blow to New Zealand-China trade relations delivered by the security service’s recommendation that the Chinese telecom giant, Hua Wei, should not be involved in the roll-out of our new G5 network.

It cannot be emphasised too often that a trading relationship is best regarded as conducted between two sovereign countries and not between a powerful economy on the one hand and a country on the other hand that is treated as its satellite or colony.

Our trade with China, in other words, does not and should not preclude us from standing up for ourselves, whether on security matters or on issues of internal political interference. Indeed, the reverse is the case; every time we give ground on such issues, we encourage our trading partners to believe that pressure works and to demand that we yield further to that pressure.

And if our trade with China is, as it should be, a trade between equals, we should not only be entitled to maintain our stance on issues that are important to us, but should also be able to ask for changes in the policies of our trading partner. The difficulty we face in respect of Hua Wei is not of our making but is the direct consequence of the Chinese practice of establishing major Chinese companies as arms of the Chinese state.

The supposed disturbance to our relationship occasioned by our decision on Hua Wei could, in other words, be removed by a change in the way China and its agencies do business. The ball is largely in their court – and we should never forget that the ball bounces both sides of the net.

Bryan Gould
13March 2019

In a Westminster-style, parliamentary democracy such as ours – and one that, despite MMP, remains essentially a two-party contest – it is inevitable that many of us will choose a side and then see nothing but good in our preferred party and nothing but bad in their opponents – rather like supporters of a football team.

Such allegiances are often more tribal than individual. My own family, for example, saw themselves as naturally National supporters – it was in their DNA – and they were shocked when I chose not to follow suit.

Political commentators are no different – it would be surprising to find many who had not taken sides and were genuinely free from preconception and prejudice. But, for those who want to be taken seriously, it is important that they are seen to be balanced in their comments and ready to acknowledge merit, when they see it, in the views and policies of the party they don’t support, as well as errors and deficiencies in those of the party they favour.

A political commentator who recognises no such duty and prefers to take on the role of an “attack dog” for a preferred party is in danger of not only losing credibility – on the ground that every statement and opinion is potentially invalidated by bias and must therefore be disregarded – but also runs the risk of doing a disservice to the party whose cause he is trying to serve by linking it to his own unappealing exhibition of inaccuracy, prejudice, bile and aggression.

Why do I make this point? Because I think we currently have instances of precisely this phenomenon in the pages of some of our leading papers and in our broadcast media.

I have in mind one or two commentators whose keenness to promote the cause of a particular party and to denigrate other parties leads them to express themselves with scant regard for differing views or recognition of constraints (such as the law) under which politicians operate, and who exhibit over-the-top and unpleasant attitudes – derision for those who disagree, a lack of compassion for those who look to government or society for help, a readiness to bad-mouth those of our fellow-citizens who are doing it tough.

Not only is the quality of our democracy damaged by the display of such attitudes, (since we should be able to handle our differences without impugning the competence or good faith of those with whom we disagree); but we all suffer if we can no longer trust the accuracy of what we are told and conclude accordingly that no one in public life can be trusted.

The Americans, saddled as they are with a Trump presidency, are in course of discovering just how damaging to a functioning democracy a constant diet of lies and loss of trust in the media can be.

In the New Zealand context, the irony is that it is not just our pubic life in general that will be the casualty; the fortunes of the party favoured by the commentator can also be adversely affected. Many readers and listeners will conclude that the distasteful views and opinions expressed do not just spring unbidden from the mind of the commentator, but faithfully reflect those of the party being supported; and, accordingly, an unfavourable reaction will inevitably rub off on the party which is the intended beneficiary of the “attack dog’s” supposed help.

It may be that the party supposedly “favoured” in this way may have very little to do with what is essentially just a piece of “free enterprise” and self-promotion on the part of a self-appointed champion. The lesson is that political parties should take even more care in selecting their supposed friends than they do in identifying and opposing their enemies.

The proprietors of our media are also in obvious danger of being tarred with the same brush as the commentators to whom they give a platform – a decision that they alone take and for which they must take responsibility. They, too, need to recognise their duty to maintain the health of the public debate. If that debate is damaged, they – as well as their readers, viewers and listeners – will be the losers.

Bryan Gould
12 March 2019

One of the crippling disadvantages suffered by the children of the poor is that they are too often brought up in houses that are cold and damp. The impact on the health of young children is all too apparent – ask any health professional – and the setbacks they endure can all too easily prejudice their life chances, imposing a handicap from which some will never fully recover.

Most thoughtful people will react to the news that rental properties must in future be heated and insulated, so that children will have warm and dry homes, by saying – about time too! Not everyone though; some claim that it is actually bad news for families and their children.

We are offered this surprising opinion by someone who professes to know exactly how landlords will respond to this attempt to give a new generation a chance to grow up fit and healthy. Judith Collins, no less, rubbishes our supposed naivety when we welcome the news.

“It can only mean that landlords, if they are forced to make their rental houses healthy and habitable, will recoup their increased expenditure by putting up rents,” she says. So there we have it. From somewhere in the dark recesses of her mind, she has unerringly put her finger on what she understands to be the true role of the landlord – to make as much money as possible from low-income families who have nowhere else to live but in houses that are a health hazard.

She appears to understand well how some landlords operate – buying cheap properties at mortgagee sales, evicting existing tenants and putting up the rents for new tenants, doing little or no maintenance (let alone improvements) and then selling the property off at a price and healthy profit – (perhaps that should be “unhealthy”) – that reflects the income stream they have been able to screw out of it.

She warns that requiring rented houses to be healthy and habitable could reduce the number of rental properties available, and could lengthen the waiting list for state or social housing – and this from someone whose government sold off large numbers of state houses and stopped building new ones.

Her message seems to be that trying to improve the early years of innocent children is futile because any attempt to improve their health and lives cannot survive the demand by private landlords for ever-rising profits, and should therefore be abandoned.

And this despairing tale of woe is embellished by lamenting the prospect of a capital gains tax which, she says, will further discourage actual and potential landlords from buying rental properties. So, it is fine for landlords to charge high rents that poor families have to pay out of their earned income on which they pay tax, but the huge profits and capital gains the landlords make from their operations must be tax-free?

Any discussion of these issues always calls to my mind a little-known speech made by Winston Churchill in 1909 when he was a budding young Conservative politician. Churchill addressed the issue of those who invested in land or real property, did nothing with it, but pocketed the lion’s share of its increasing development value.

Who creates the development value? Churchill asked. The development value of land and property, he said, is created by the community. It is the community that funds and provides the roads, the railways, the sewers, the water supplies, the communications connections (nowadays electronic) – all the services that allow the property to be developed. It is then the schools and parks and shops and factories that others build around it that enhances the demand for, and therefore the value of, that same land or property.

Churchill concludes by asking the obvious question – why should someone who has done nothing but sit on the land walk off with all the development value? And why should they pay no tax on that great windfall – while others have to pay tax on every penny they earn?

It may be that Judith Collins, in leaping to their defence and professing to know their minds, has unfairly maligned landlords. We must hope that at least some of our leaders have a better and kinder view of human nature.

Bryan Gould
26 February 2019