Shipley and the China Council

Last week I wrote a post about Jenny Shipley’s position in the wake of the High Court judgment against her and other directors of Mainzeal.

I noted then that her position as chair of the local China Construction Bank was almost certainly untenable.  Even if, for some reason, the owners (the parent bank) had still been happy to have her, the Reserve Bank could not have allowed her to remain in her post and still retained any credibility around its “fit and proper person” regime. The Mainzeal board, chaired by Shipley, had continued trading for years with negative equity, with only the weakest suggestions of possible support from the parent.  Corporate law is designed to protect creditors from that sort of corporate (mis)governance.

Shipley has now announced that she will be leaving the China Construction Bank board.   We don’t know how much of a role the Reserve Bank played in that departure. No doubt they would hide behind the Official Information Act (or worse, section 105 of the Reserve Bank Act) and refuse to tell us.  That is a shame: it is a lost opportunity to demonstrate to the public that the regime has teeth when it comes to seriously problematic individuals. Mind you, I guess it might also leave them open to questions about how it is that they were happy to have Jenny Shipley chairing a New Zealand bank for the last several years, as more and more information about the Mainzeal situation emerged.

The focus now turns to Shipley’s role on the Executive Board of the New Zealand China Council.   In my earlier post I commented on this only briefly

As for Shipley’s membership of the executive board of the China Council……surely that tawdry taxpayer-funded body that sticks up for Beijing at every turn, has Jian Yang on its advisory board, defends Huawei, and won’t stick up for Anne-Marie Brady is just the place for her?  Then again, if the government doesn’t want the last vestiges of any credibility its propaganda body still has to be in shreds, they should probably remove her too. 

Shipley has clearly been very much in the good graces of Beijing over the years.  It wasn’t long ago that she had actually been on the parent board of the China Construction Bank, and she is now on the board of the regime-sponsored Boao Forum.   She has a long history of giving cover (literally in this case) to Beijing, going back to her brief time as Prime Minister.   Even that interview she gave to the People’s Daily back in December suggests a strong (and useful to Beijing) alignment between her public views and the preferred stances of Beijing.

But it isn’t clear whose interests are now really being served if she remains on the Executive Board of the China Council –  except perhaps those like me who poke the stick at this taxpayer-funded pro-Beijing advocacy and propaganda body.

Perhaps it suits Beijing to have such a tainted individual on their tame domestic lobby group.  See, democracy  and ‘doing the right thing’ is so enfeebled in New Zealand that our friend gets to retain her public position despite the very evident systematic poor governance on display at Mainzeal.   Perhaps, but Shipley’s failings are now sufficiently evident –  and will now always be associated with her name – that is doesn’t look as though it would really help the cause of keeping New Zealanders lulled into obliviousness about the nature of the regime.  The China Council is supposed to look like a bunch of decent public-spirited New Zealanders.

For similar reasons it can’t really be in the interests of the China Council itself for Shipley to stay on.  All the other, individually decent, people who sit on the Executive Board will be tarred by association.  You can’t so fundamentally mismanage a major business, resulting in huge losses for many people as a result of choices that were irresponsible and probably illegal, and expect to keep right on in prominent governance roles.    It wasn’t one small mistake early in someone’s career, but a big and very costly mistake for someone with the seniority and experience people should have been able to count on.  Shipley might still be well-connected in China, but there are other people with connections (if not, I’m sure Madame Wu at the PRC Embassy could help with introductions).  And everyone knows that neither corporate governance nor political governance in the PRC operate to the sorts of standards we expect in New Zealand.    If the China Council really wants us to believe that they champion New Zealand standing for New Zealand values, standards, and interests –  not just pre-emptively submitting to Beijing’s preferences – it should be in their interests too to get Jenny Shipley off their board, and quickly.

In a sense who owned Mainzeal shouldn’t be that relevant here –  the failure of the directors was alarming and unacceptable whoever the shareholders had been – but the fact that the firm was owned by someone originally from the PRC, and with extensive interests back there, just strengthens the argument around appearances.   The suspicion has been that, in effect, the China Council serves PRC interests more than those of New Zealanders.  A harsh critic might suggest something similar (perhaps unfairly) about the Mainzeal board.

And it shouldn’t be in the government’s interest for Jenny Shipley to remain on the China Council board either.  I was staggered at the way the Prime Minister the other day sought to avoid any responsibility or any involvement.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was earlier asked whether she had any problem with Shipley being on the New Zealand China Council. She said it was not an appointment the Government had any role in.

The rules of the incorporated society that is the China Council are not readily available, so I’m not sure quite what the formal mechanism is for appointments to the Executive Board.  The China Council’s website also doesn’t say.   But it shouldn’t matter greatly.  The government pays

The Council receives approximately two thirds of its operational funding from the New Zealand Government through an annual grant from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 

[UPDATE: The latest set of accounts suggest just under half now, but with the government clearly the single largest funder.]

and very senior government officials serve on the Executive Board with Shipley.

The Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Chief Executive of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise are both ex officio members of the Executive Board.

It is a creature of the New Zealand government and the Prime Minister simply can’t avoid responsibility.  I wonder what the Foreign Minister –  no fan of Shipley –  thinks?  Is the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade really comfortable serving on an Executive Board with someone like Shipley?

Perhaps there are discussions going on behind the scenes, but after a week since the judgment was handed down, it is quite inappropriate that Jenny Shipley is still on the Executive Board of this prominent government-funded body, and that the Prime Minister won’t express a view on the appropriateness of Shipley’s position.

I was debating this point with someone the other day who argued that if the Prime Minister expressed a view she would open herself to attacks from the National Party (presumably something about inappropriate interference, or upsetting (Todd McClay’s, Jian Yang’s, Peter Goodfellow’s friends in) Beijing).   Well, maybe, but I wouldn’t have thought Jenny Shipley, in her current position, is someone even National would want to touch with a barge pole.  Are those the sorts of business governance practices National wants to defend, in public?  I can’t imagine so.

And so if the Prime Minister won’t express concern about a senior figure, found to have grossly underperformed in a very prominent governance position, it risks looking as though (a) the Prime Minister isn’t bothered by such misconduct (generally) or (b) remains more interested in not upsetting friends of Beijing and Beijing’s sensitivities than about defending acceptable standards of corporate governance and decency here in New Zealand.  She associates herself with all the tawdriness of the China Council –  defences of Huawei, silence on Jian Yang, silence on Anne-Marie Brady, and a general reluctance ever to articulate New Zealand interests when, as inevitably happens, those sometimes clash with those of the PRC. Perhaps it buys her an easier life in the short-term.  In the longer-term it further corrodes whatever reputation for decency she might once have had.  It simply shouldn’t be in her interests, or that of the government, for Shipley to remain on the China Council board.  And no one really doubts that – as the agency holding the purse strings –  if she wanted Shipley gone she would very soon be gone.

Whatever other contributions Jenny Shipley may have made over the years, her record at Mainzeal now means that she diminishes the standing and reputation of any body or individual that continues to use her in governance roles, or which support her in such roles.  Foremost among those now, the Prime Minister and the China Council itself.   As one expert noted in the Dominion-Post this morning, the market has ways of taking care of these issues – Shipley (and her other fellow Mainzeal directors) might now struggle to get directors and officers liability insurance.   But those mechanisms can’t protect us when it comes to public bodies. Only leadership protects us there.  But at present there seems to be a void – an abdication – where leadership on this issue should be.

I did an interview with Morning Report on this issue this morning.  If they put the audio up I will link to it.  [UPDATE: In fact, here it is.]

UPDATE:  A reader has pointed me to where the constitution and rules of the China Council are online (details in a comment).  It appears that the Executive Board is self-selecting and self-perpertuating

CC rules

The point remains that if the Prime Minister, representing by far the largest funder, wanted Shipley off the Executive Board (a) she would almost certainly be gone quite quickly, and (b) even if she wasn’t, the PM would have made clear her refusal to countenance the standards of corporate governance on display in the Mainzeal case.

21 thoughts on “Shipley and the China Council

  1. Well said. The personal damage done to so many individual contractors and other unsecured creditors is inexcusable. The penalty amount incurred by the directors in no way covers that. To my mind it was set too low. I hope if there is an appeal, a full reimbursement of the shortfall will be awarded.

    I’m dismayed that the China Council is two-thirds NZ government funded via MFAT. Surely, there is an accountability framework in place with respect to such funding. Do you know whether we taxpayers fund any other such bi-lateral networking entities; and what the actual cost of the two-thirds operational funding for this entity is? Also, does the PRC part fund a ‘sister’ body to promote NZ’s government in mainland China?

    So many questions – good that light is being shined on all this.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I think the total cost of the China Council is something like $0.8 pa.

    I’m not aware of funding for other such bilateral focused bodies, altho there is a lot of public funding for the Asia Foundation (and for the Contemporary China Research Centre based at VUW, also in effect largely a never-upset-Beijing body).

    A “sister body” in Beijing? As if……

    Liked by 2 people

    • Should be a lose-lose combination for them (less money, and the association with Shipley), but if they were game, I’d happily support it. Genuinely private bodies can have whoever they think fit on their boards.

      Like

  3. The emperors and princelings of the CCP must be getting tired losing out. All around the world their chosen ones are being uncovered. Jenney is definitely not an idiot, it is just that she is no longer useful.

    Under the new normal, devout New Zealand underlings within the China Council may also soon be found to be less useful.

    Still Stephen Jacobi is trying hard:

    “A final thing is important in light of this “new normal”. New Zealand needs to improve its capacity to understand China and to be able to engage at commercial, official and individual levels. As well as te reo, we need more New Zealanders to learn Chinese and other foreign languages. There is a clear need for the Government to step up here as a matter of priority. The Confucius Institutes do a good job, but this should not be left entirely to them. There is plenty of evidence to suggest New Zealanders want to develop greater cultural understanding. We should give them the tools they need.”

    After all, who would want to miss out on being important, being paid and going on fully paid trips to the Middle Kingdom.

    So it is us that needs to try harder Stephen?
    Puke!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Actually I was slightly encouraged by that Jacobi quote when I first saw it. I don’t share his enthusiasm for Confucius Institutes, but I agree that more foreign language learning is generally not a bad idea, and that it should be done with our own resources, just as we do with maths, English, history, science or whatever other school subjects.

      Like

      • Agree with you on learning independently for ourselves and on many fronts, but his intent is definitely to push the idea that New Zealanders and New Zealand needs to embrace China to a greater degree.

        “We should give them the tools they need.”
        “We” in the quote is presumably the China council and the Confucius Institutes and, possibly China as a country.
        Jacobi ‘s article, What is the ‘new normal’ in NZ’s relationship with China? is pure propaganda in my view.

        Like

    • Largely agree. Actually i’d settle for a single MP – from any party – willing to express a view on the PRC not in line with never-upset-Beijing leadership stance. On Confucius institutes, on Brady, on Jian yang , on anything….

      Liked by 3 people

  4. The NZCC is a totally redundant body stacked with China apologists relaying the official position of the Chinese Communist Party. We have a Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have professional diplomats and China experts who should be the primary link between NZ Government and China. Where is the need for a NZCC?
    The fact the board is stacked with former National Party politicians (and one possible spy) needs a lot more scrutiny. Don McKinnon and his brother (a former ambassador to China) seem much too close to China to really be representing New Zealand interests. A third brother I believe is Chancellor of Massey University, where of course there is a Confucius Institute.

    Like

  5. Hi Michael.

    China is not unique in controlling its overseas populations. The Christchurch Migrants Centre was shut down and the Chinese were not the biggest offenders there – although all Asian migrant groups active had contributed to a culture where bringing in students and workers (often illegally) was the norm and prime businesses.

    Well, I am back now, and watching closely. I wouldn’t worry about China or other Asia nations interfering. We are all watching now, and ready to deflect was is egregious to our existing culture.

    Like

  6. The buck stops firmly with Peters as the Minister responsible for MFAT who provide much of the Council’s funding. These councils, foundations etc are for the most part creations of MFAT designed to promote “people to people” exchanges and spread favourable information about key relationships. Some minion in MFAT likely has a servicing role for the Council in their job description. Peters needs to exercise accountability on behalf of the taxpayer.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Michael Reddell Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s