Amy Brooke
New Zealanders discomforted by the fact that two of our former prime ministers, Helen Clark and John Key, were keen to lend their support to the recent military parade in Communist China, might have been less surprised had they followed more closely their actions over the years. As the invited guests of Xi Jinping – presiding over a country whose citizens are tightly controlled with punitive sanctions including arbitrary imprisonment, torture and even execution – their attendance was viewed with disapproval. Xi Jinping’s Government not only oppresses the Uyghurs, but also endorses removing the live organs of Falun Gong members to be used in transplant surgery then leaving them to die.
These facts have apparently not deterred John Key, who has made known his admiration for Xi Jinping, calling him a friend and boasting he is on the Chinese leader’s Christmas card list. He and Clark joined guests who rule over other totalitarian countries, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Masoud Pezeshkian, the Iranian president. There to witness a full-scale military parade supposedly celebrating the Chinese victory over the Japanese 80 years ago, they could well be thought to be lending their support to this occasion.
This may also be regarded as somewhat tactless of our former leaders, given that the Japanese are now our allies – while China represents a growing threat to all Pacific Island countries. What is curious is that while we ourselves celebrate the ending of World War II, it is not specifically the defeat of the Germans that is our focus. Moreover, Japan did not surrender to China, but to the United States.
It is not surprising that Tokyo viewed the military parade as a politically motivated and anti-Japanese show of military force. This was also the perception of Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi, who, having no intention of offending Tokyo, did not attend. On the contrary, he emphasised the strong ties between the two Asian countries, with Japan as crucial for the Indian economy, defence and technology.
Given the very obvious political agenda involved in the staging of this huge parade, it seems very disingenuous for John Key to claim he went “to remember the brave efforts of New Zealanders who fought for the freedom we enjoy today” – which basically had nothing whatsoever to do with this occasion. Moreover, these very same freedoms are denied to the Chinese people. Former Supreme Court judge and historian Jonathan Sumption, as a non-permanent judge on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal from 2019 to 2024, watched horrified as Chinese laws invaded the region, with journalists and others gaoled for sedition. Sumption subsequently resigned, saying he couldn’t bring himself to be part of a system “in which many politicians may rot in gaol for many years for using peaceful and, in my view, lawful constitutional means to advance the course of democracy”.
China is regarded by our security services as the country most actively interfering in New Zealand, with decades of foreign interference in this country. Canterbury University’s Professor Anne-Marie Brady, a respected worldwide as an authority on Chinese affairs – given her meticulous research and analytical findings – has long warned that China’s covert corruption and coercive political influence in New Zealand are at a critical level.
Oddly enough, however, her warnings were dismissed by former National Party minister Chris Finlayson, who was never voted by New Zealanders into parliament but entered as a list MP. Subsequently he was handed important portfolios, where, rightly or wrongly, he was viewed by many as over-partial in some of his decision-making in relation to Treaty of Waitangi issues. With Prime Minister Key he seemingly inadvertently managed to make our country’s valuable foreshore and seabed so available to claims of ownership by those of part-Māori descent that every inch of it is now apparently claimed, with some assistance by an activist judiciary. Our taxpayers have to carry the multimillion-dollar legal costs of these claims against the Crown…i.e., against all other New Zealanders.
Finlayson was in charge of our SIS when a former communist spymaster became a National Party MP: Jian Yang, also a list-only MP, was subsequently revealed to have been a former member of the Chinese Communist Party and admitted to training Chinese spies. About the same time, concern was expressed by our intelligence services about Labour Party MP Raymond Huo.
What also caused concern was that at a pre-election meeting addressed by Chris Finlayson, while he was a high-ranked cabinet minister responsible for our SIS as well as being our Attorney-General, in charge of appointing our judges apparently resented a question put to him by a member of the audience. The substance of this question was whether he thought it was appropriate for a National Party MP who had been a member of the Chinese Communist Party and part of the Chinese intelligence services to be part of our government. This MP, Jian Yang, had never disclosed his past to the public when he stood for parliament – nor even taken the opportunity to denounce the evils of the Chinese régime.
This question was immediately followed up by a second question asking Finlayson to comment on a new paper by Dr Brady raising concerns about the extent of China’s attempts to exert political influence in New Zealand and about the close ties of various senior National Party figures with Chinese interests. There was vigorous applause from the floor.
However, the substance of the reply by this influential minister, even though he was then in charge of the SIS, was to the effect that this was a Newsroom article, timed to damage the man politically, and that he was not going to respond to any of the allegations that had been made about him. Moreover, he added that he thought it disgraceful that a whole class of people had been singled out for racial abuse and that, as for Professor Brady, he didn’t think she liked any foreigners at all.
This extraordinary reply from a highly-placed member of parliament, who, as head of the SIS, should have been well aware of the extent of Communist Chinese activity in this country, was not well received. Moreover, a member of the audience pointed out not only is Dr Brady fluent in Mandarin, but that her husband is Chinese. She is regarded as pre-eminent in her knowledge of foreign interference in our elections.
What one can deduce from Chris Finlayson’s attack on Dr Brady – and the nonsense he spoke about a whole class of people being singled out for racial abuse, which was obviously not the case at all – raises still unanswered questions. Many New Zealanders will also recall the strong support John Key received from the Communist Chinese-backed business community, and his unsuccessful attempt to change our flag, effectively removing the Union Jack .
About the same time, a Labour Party List MP, Raymond Huo, chair of a justice committee, attempted to prevent Dr Brady from presenting material relating to foreign influence in elections. After strong opposition from the National Party’s Dr Nick Smith, who said that parliament should hear from New Zealand’s most published academic about the risks of foreign interference, Huo reversed his decision, saying it had merely been a procedural matter. He has featured in Dr Brady’s writing about Chinese influence in New Zealand.
Dr Brady’s warnings have brought repercussions. Her office at the University of Canterbury was twice broken into, her home burgled, her car tampered with – and she received a threatening letter after she published a paper on the influence of the Chinese Communist Party in this country. In December 2018 an open letter signed by academics, civil rights activists, journalists and politicians was subsequently published on the Czech Sinopsis website, stating, ”We the undersigned concerned scholars and others with an interest in China have been alarmed and appalled by the recent wave of intimidation directed against our colleague, Professor Anne-Marie Brady.”
Subsequently, the lack of protection provided for Dr Brady by the New Zealand Government was criticised. Our former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern later asked to respond to claims from an ABC Four Corners documentary stating that “the Australian intelligence services have identified Chinese spy services as the prime suspect behind the intimidating of University of Canterbury’s Dr Anne-Marie Brady”, replied with a statement that she had seen “nothing – no evidence -to support the claims that were made in that story”.
More recently, Dr Brady, now the first female political scientist to be elected a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand, with her eye on Antarctic policies and China’s polar interests, has also referred to China’s security agreement with the Solomon Islands signed in April 2020. She has called the Solomon Islands “a failed state” governed by a corrupt élite, saying that New Zealand could be cut off and encircled by the People’s Liberation Navy. She has also warned that Chinese naval exercises in the Tasman in 2025 are part of a move showing that China is interested in establishing a permanent military presence in the Pacific and has urged New Zealand to do more to defend itself. Given her undoubted pre-eminence among experts on Chinese affairs and her courage in the face of intimidation, it must strike many as strange indeed that Finlayson, formerly overseeing our SIS, should have so disparagingly dismissed this outstanding scholar.
Meanwhile the puzzle remains as to why these two former prime ministers, John Key and Helen Clark, wanted to show their support for what seemed to be a Chinese military show of force, particularly given China’s ever-increasing encroachment on the Pacific. Equally puzzling is why Helen Clark, when prime minister in 2001, undermined our ability to defend ourselves by dismantling the combat wing of our Royal New Zealand Air Force, our Skyhawk aircraft and cancelling the Aermacchi fighter trainers – a highly controversial and morale-damaging move. Clark’s Government initially projected savings of $870 million over 10 years from disbanding our fighter wing but instead incurred significant expenses for the stored aircraft and the contract cancellation.
Mothballing the aircraft cost us $34 million by 2010 and a $6.8 million cancellation for a related contract. The move was opposed by the Air Force, the opposition party and those who warned we should not rely on bludging off the Australians – concerns rejected by Clark who claimed that “we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment”. Even at that time, this was simply untrue. Clark’s Government also hosted an astonishing number of Chinese military delegations showing them around our own defence installations – which also raised eyebrows at the time, given her anti-American views.
In 1989, the main theme of a book written by Dennis McKenna called The Sellout of New Zealand was the invasive and dangerous introduction of communist policy under the guise of a socialist agenda into unsuspecting countries – with New Zealand one of these countries. He pointed out that there was a group in parliament called the Parliamentarians for Global Action, which was previously called the Parliamentarians for World Governance. The New Zealand group was a sub-group of the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government. This world-federation government would include the following principles and the following precepts. “Membership open to all nations without the right of secession…world laws should be enforceable against individuals…The world government should have direct taxing power independent of national taxation.”
The ability to tax all the individuals in the world was to get the necessary revenues to create large military forces in order to coerce any recalcitrant members out of 100 or so nations. There was talk of an international police force of some 500,000 men and a book called World Peace through World Law was highly praised. A stated aim was to ensure that the laws of immigration and citizenship were abolished and that “that dangerous perversion called patriotism” was to be destroyed.
Dennis McKenna records that information on the New Zealand branch of Parliamentarians for World Order (PWO) first came to light on May 21, 1981, when the New Zealand Herald reported that Richard Prebble, a Labour Party MP, had been appointed one of 12 councillors of the then one-year-old body. The same article said PWO consisted of representatives from 36 countries and only MPs could belong. Former Labour Prime Minister David Lange said at the time that almost all Labour MPs in New Zealand were members, as well as some National MPs. Reportedly Prebble later said that we would not be able to tackle these problems (apparently concerning the survival of our planet) “unless we are prepared to cooperate and give up some of our national sovereignty”.
In a letter dated 4 December, 1986, Helen Clark confirmed that she was the branch secretary of the Parliamentarians for Global Action in New Zealand. Sometime between May and December 1986 this group’s name was changed, with Helen Clark replacing Richard Prebble. As McKenna comments, “to the layperson, Parliamentarians for Global Action is a lot more palatable than Parliamentarians for World Governance”. An MP who raised concerns at the time said that he didn’t believe for a moment that the Parliamentarians for Global Action in New Zealand were sitting down daily to plan a world takeover. He added, however, that “because of their alignment with a worldwide network of groups they were inextricably committed to the world government philosophies of others”.
A similarity with the World Economic Forum springs to mind – this international organisation targets politicians and other influential members worldwide (including our former highly damaging, socialist Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern). Supposedly dedicated to improving the state of the world, it aims to address global challenges and shape agendas for the future. Parliamentarians for Global Action has apparently now involved into a non-partisan, international network of committed legislators described in Wikipedia as informing and mobilising parliamentarians in all regions of the world to advocate for human rights, the rule of law, democracy, human security, non-discrimination, gender equity and climate justice…whatever the latter is.
For those puzzled by many of the actions taken by the Clark Government, the book Absolute Power by Ian Wishart, by far New Zealand’s top investigative journalist, may well be a revelation. Many will recall her urging New Zealand businesses to relocate to China – regardless of the fact that this would result on the loss of jobs in this country. This was in marked contrast to President Donald Trump’s recent veto over shifting US jobs abroad.
One thing that has long been obvious has been her antipathy to the United States, which produced a cooling in our relationship with our probably most important ally – a relationship that has improved following overtures made by Winston Peters, leader of New Zealand First and by far our most experienced politician. Clark’s description of former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s resignation as “devastating for women around the world” would certainly not be endorsed by the majority of New Zealanders. Ardern is regarded by many as probably the worst prime minister we have ever had – and that is saying a lot. Her government’s mis-management of the economy, extravagant spending and pile-up of debt has landed the present coalition Government with the difficult task of trying to fight its way out of a recession. Her promotion of racial divisiveness and attack on our very democracy – epitomised by encouraging racist extremists to clamour for co-governance with the Crown – over all other New Zealanders – has also done considerable damage to the country.
Many might think it would seem at least naïve not to at least raise the question as to whether the damage consistently inflicted upon a formerly far more stable and happy country has been at least partly because of politicians who may possibly be oikophobic, prioritising their own personal agenda.
It is not only to this country that so much damage has been caused by parliamentarians who, having got themselves into positions of power, are regarded by some as having abused it. It is a mystery why, looking for how to contrive the best possible democracy, we have not taken on board the fact that to do so we need to work towards obtaining what the Swiss people fought for: a country where it is the people themselves – not the Swiss government – who make the decisions concerning the issues of the day.
So successfully have they managed this that Swiss MPs are encouraged to hold down day jobs to keep them in touch with the public at large. Although Switzerland has about twice the population of New Zealand, there are only seven cabinet ministers, compared to our 20 – and the Swiss president can hold power for only one year.
If we were sensible enough to follow even the latter practice, the ability of so many of our former prime ministers to cause the damage they have arguably done to this country would be greatly reduced.
However, it is the stop the Swiss have put on all legislation passed by parliament for 100 days, until they have time to scrutinise it, and agree, or say no – via the Facultative Referendum – that makes it possible for the people, not the politicians, to run their country.
The Swiss politicians acknowledge this, referring to the people as ‘sovereign’. And this is what we should be clamouring for here.
What we urgently need are philanthropists who, seeing so much now wrong with our country, are prepared to help with the financial assistance needed to make the potential of the 100 Days for effective political reform far more widely known.
In the end, it is individuals that count... And it is those who could – but don’t do anything – who let us all down.
