- Date published:
9:58 pm, November 19th, 2019 - 95 comments
Categories: corruption, democracy under attack, Dirty Politics, politicans, Politics, Simon Bridges, winston peters - Tags: jami-lee ross
It has been ironic looking at the basic hysteria that our media are having about the NZ First foundation and its loans to the NZ First party. I suspect that it is likely to be legal – but that is because our legal structure has been setup for bribing politicians.
After all we still currently have a outstanding Serious Fraud Office investigation into an allegation about the current parliamentary leader of the National party. He is accused of ordering the splitting up a 100k donation into a series of 14k and a 2k donation to deliberately conceal a large bribe / donation from businessman Zhang Yikun.
Basically as far as I can see, it is really hard to see the difference between the mechanism of concealment of the ‘loans’ of the NZ First Foundation and that of the leader of the National party allegedly ordering a split of a ‘donation’ to avoid transparency. The only real difference is that one appears to be unlawful and other does not – but may be unprovable beyond reasonable doubt.
Perhaps some outraged legal wizards can explain to me how they are different? Because I can’t see any frigging difference. Both attempt to conceal the identity of large donors from the public.
The problem is that our laws on donations to politicians and political parties is inherently flawed for the convenience of our makers of legislation.
Perhaps we should just cut the gordian knot and just outlaw large donations concealed in any way. Anyone who makes a largish political donation to a political party must do it transparent – or face prison. Any political party who accepts a donation outside of the legal bounds must be dis-established, their assets seized and their current officers get mandatory prison time without parole.
In other words, treat them like we do for the appointed judges of the legal profession and the senior police.
If only so we don’t have to go through the media frenzy that ultimately and inevitably results in the investigations finding that the ‘donations’ were lawful under our current corrupt legislation. So that means that the legislation needs to be changed, and for the interests of our democracy – retrospectively.
Just to make it more interesting – let start with a presumption of guilt. The accused have to prove the innocence. At the very least it’d make for a more interesting drama than our current repetitive media storyline.
Of course this may lower the quality of our prisoners. But hey – that is a price that I am willing to deal with.