They Never Learn.

datePosted on 12:27, May 23rd, 2012 by Pablo

There is an old rule in politics that states that it is not the original sin that gets politicians in trouble. It is the cover-up or lying about it that does them in. The examples that prove the rule are too numerous to mention and span the globe. This week we have another classic case in point: Shane Jones and his explanation as to why, as Associate Minister of Immigration (the Minister of Immigration at the time, David Cunliffe, had earlier refused to revoke Liu/Yan’s residence visa and for some reason unknown to me was not involved in the granting of citizenship), he ignored expert legal advice and granted a Chinese fraudster expedited citizenship.

According to Jones he did so on humanitarian grounds because he was told by an unnamed Internal Affairs official that the applicant–he of at least three different names and an Interpol warrant out for his arrest–would be executed and his organs harvested if he were sent back to China. Forgive me if I cough. That is up there with Annette King’s claims that no one in the Labour government knew about Operation 8 until the weekend before it began.

Others have already torn Mr. Jone’s supposed rationale to shreds. Beyond the fact that not even the Chinese execute people for common fraud, even if they are members of Falun Gong (a claim supposedly made by but never proven by Mr. Liu/Yan), a legitimate fear of a politically-motivated death sentence would result in an asylum request, not a citizenship application based  upon a business visa. Nor would Mr. Liu/Yan speak of traveling back to China with a delegation of Kiwis in order to explore business opportunities in the PRC (as it is claimed he did in his conversations with immigration officials now testifying at his trial on false declaration charges). But according to Shane Jones, not only was he facing certain death but also certain organ harvesting (which raises the question as to how the unnamed Internal Affairs official could know this in advance given that the Chinese do not harvest organs from all executed prisoners because the health of the condemned varies). Put bluntly, Mr. Jones is simply not credible, and unless that unnamed official comes forward to take responsibility for the bogus claims (which Mr. Jones could have ignored), his justification simply does not wash. Add in the fact that Mr. Liu/Yan had donated considerable sums of money to Labour coffers in the lead-in to his citizenship application, and the smell of something fishy permeates the affair.

What is amazing is that when confronted with the evidence presented in court, David Shearer continued to back Mr. Jones and even allowed him to go public with is ridiculous justification. That violates a second rule of politics, which is that when smoke begins to surround a politician on ethical issues his or her party needs to move swiftly to prevent a full-fledged fire from erupting by distancing the tainted one from the party as a whole. By not doing so immediately and only leaving open the possibility of standing Jones down if an investigation proves him guilty of wrong-doing in the Liu/Yan affair, Mr. Shearer has failed the basic test of leadership that involves saving the party from further uncomfortable scrutiny on the issue of campaign financing and political donations.

Once again, let us remember the iron law of oligarchy that governs all political parties: the first duty of the party is to preserve itself. Individual political fortunes come second. Legalities aside, it is the appearance of unethical behavior on the part of Mr. Jones that is at play here.

What is even more amazing is that this comes on the heels of the John Banks-Kin Dotcom scandal and John Key’s equally egregious mistake in not removing Banks from his ministerial post while the Police investigated whether Banks violated political finance laws in his dealing with Mr. Dotcom. Regardless of whether the press played this sequence of events on purpose, the scenario unfolded as follows: National was on the ropes in the weeks leading up to a dismal budget announcement, beleaguered by policy and personal conflicts and dogged by an increasingly assertive mainstream press. Rather than strike a contrast in approach that would give it the moral high ground that would allow it to score major political points against its weakened rival, Labour’s response to revelations of the dubious ethics of one of its senior members in a past government–dubious ethics that are being aired in court for crikey’s sake–is to bluster and blow more smoke on the matter. Do they never learn?

Just as Mr. Key should have removed Mr. Banks from his ministerial position as soon as his denials and lies about his relationship with Mr. Dotcom were exposed, so Mr. Shearer should have moved quickly to demote Mr. Jones until such a time as an independent investigation exonerated him. Given the passing of a few news cycles and the issue would have faded into the political “bygones be bygones” category. By not doing so Mr. Shearer has allowed the Jones-Liu/Yan relationship to become a distraction away from National’s peccadillos and policy failures. He has, in fact, thrown National a life line in the days before the budget announcement and the decision to demote Banks (who could stay in government but not be a minister pending the resolution of the Police investigation), and I would imagine that the National caucus are high-fiving and back-slapping each other in delight.

Of course there are political calculations in all of this. By-elections are costly, list candidate replacements are unproven or unreliable, internal Party factional disputes run the risk of being aggravated or exposed.  National is clearly waiting for the Budget to be announced before moving on Banks. Labour does not want to lose a senior figure who “ticks the boxes” of important internal constituencies. And yes, there is a difference between illegal and unethical activity.

But in putting these calculations ahead of ethical considerations given the appearance of impropriety, both parties have once again shown their contempt for the NZ public. And on this score, Labour’s contempt is much worse. After all, Mr. Banks was just a greasy-palmed private citizen seeking to be mayor when he approached Mr. Dotcom for support. Mr. Jones, on the other hand, was a Minister of State who apparently used his office to bestow special considerations on an individual in exchange for, uh, party “favors.”  Both actions were slimy, but it is the official nature of Mr. Jones’s intercession that makes his behavior worse. Which is why he should have been stood down straight away, because rightly or wrongly, it is the attempt to downplay or cover up past impropriety, rather than the potentially unethical or illegal behavior itself, that will cling to the Labour Party long after Mr. Liu/Yan’s case is adjudicated.

6 Responses to “They Never Learn.”

  1. Hugh on May 23rd, 2012 at 16:08

    “Once again, let us remember the iron law of oligarchy that governs all political parties: the first duty of the party is to preserve itself”

    I didn’t realise there were multiple iron laws of oligarchy.

  2. Pablo on May 23rd, 2012 at 16:16

    Hugh:

    There is only one “iron law”, coined by Robert Michels, and it applies to all complex organizations but specifically to political parties. You appear to be confusing it with the two rules of politics I have mentioned here.

  3. sammy 2.0 on May 23rd, 2012 at 16:47

    Shearer’s (in)action was entirely predictable.

    He has spent the last six months wasting his best political asset – being the New Guy, cast in the role of the Outsider. An Outsider, with functioning political antennae, would have seen the chance to take the moral high ground (faux or real, it hardly matters), and stand Jones down from his non-job, either to reinstate him a week or two later, or indefinitely (depending on the court case outcome and Jones’ subsequent response). Draw the distinction with the PM and the past, accompanied by a few Bensenesque soundbites (“I’m no John Key” …).

    But Shearer is acting as the classic Insider, protecting another Insider, and ignoring those pesky Outsiders (AKA voters).

    Being an Insider is no crime in politics. Clark was 100% Insider, and very good at it, for six or seven years. Unfortunately Shearer is no good at it, so he ends up being the worst of both worlds: an ineffective Insider, without the public appeal of the Outsider.

    He could still change all this, by ignoring the people who are providing his advice, the masterminds who delivered 28%. He could, and must – but won’t.

  4. sammy 2.0 on May 23rd, 2012 at 17:17

    Update … and immediately after my comment, Jones has now (been) stood down.

    Well done, me.

  5. NeilM on May 23rd, 2012 at 18:32

    It’s truely bizarre, giving citizenship to a con-artist because they got into trouble with the Chinese authorities.

    And by ministerial fiat. At least that other con-artist Dot.com got in under government policy (to let the rich buy their way in). Which was bad enough.

  6. NeilM on May 23rd, 2012 at 18:49

    It’s certainly interesting to comapare this with what happened to Ahmed Zaoui.

    And what to make of all the fuss Labour’s been making about the Chinese buying farms? Just how principled was all that.

Leave a Reply

Name: (required)
Email: (required) (will not be published)
Website:
Comment: