Part 3: Mr and Mrs Wong’s international travel

Summary of the Wongs’ travel

3.1
Between 1996 and the end of 2010, while Mrs Wong was an MP, she and her husband travelled overseas many times. The Parliamentary Service report identified a total of 33 trips. This total includes:

• nine trips by Mrs Wong on ministerial business (paid for by Ministerial Services);
• nine trips by Mr Wong on private business activities (paid for privately);
• two inaugural flights (one of which Mrs Wong paid for personally);
• 13 private trips for which a parliamentary rebate was claimed (five trips together, five trips by Mr Wong, and three trips by Mrs Wong).

3.2
We concentrated on the 13 private trips for which a parliamentary rebate was claimed. From the documentary information and reasons for travel, we were rapidly able to satisfy ourselves that there was no reason to question four of these trips.

3.3
There were nine of these trips where the conclusions in the Parliamentary Service report had been called into question as a result of the later information we had received. We asked Mr and Mrs Wong for detailed explanations of these trips, and analysed their financial records to test those explanations. These trips are summarised in Figure 3.

Figure 3
Overseas trips that we examined

3.4
The remainder of this Part sets out our findings on each of these trips.

Trip A

3.5
In March 2005, Mr Wong travelled to China, where he visited Shanghai, Hubei, and Kunming. The Parliamentary Service report described this trip’s purpose as being to investigate the origins of the Wong clan in Hubei province and to visit friends in China. The visit to Kunming (in the west of China) was to play golf and visit tourist sites.

3.6
Mr Wong told us that he arrived in Shanghai on 15 March 2005, where he stayed with friends. He then visited Huang Cheng, or Wong city, in Hubei province, where he researched the origins and migration history of the Wong clan. This research took him to Fuzhou in Fujian province, where his parents had lived as children. He then visited friends in various locations and concluded by travelling to Kunming, a well-known golfing destination. He returned to New Zealand on 19 April 2010.

3.7
Mr Wong’s credit card statements confirm his movements, and when we met with him he was able to provide a detailed account of his travel and investigation of his family roots. Although one of the book-keeping errors discussed in paragraph 1.20 related to an expense on this trip, we found no other evidence to suggest that there was any business activity on this trip. Nor did we find any evidence of business revenue related to this trip.

3.8
From the information available to us, we have concluded that the parliamentary rebate was appropriately claimed for this trip.

Trip B

3.9
In late June 2005, Mr Wong travelled to Fuzhou and Shenzhen in China. The Parliamentary Service report describes this trip’s purpose as being to trace genealogy and visit family. Mr Wong told us that his parents were both born in Fuzhou and he was continuing his research into the family history, including visiting the Fujian Wong Clan temple in Fuzhou.

3.10
While he was in Fuzhou, Mr Wong attended a ceremony at the premises of Alpha International Biotechnology Group (Alpha Group). Dame Jenny Shipley also attended. Given that Mr Wong and Mrs Shipley had established a company together in 2002 to explore business opportunities in China, we wanted to know whether there was any business connection.

3.11
Mr Wong told us that the founder of the Alpha Group was a long-term friend of his in Auckland, and he was invited to attend the ceremony as a personal friend. Dame Jenny Shipley attended separately. She was invited through a different business connection.

3.12
Mr Wong also told us that, although he had established a company with Dame Jenny Shipley in 2002, they had never established any business activity. On separate trips, he had explored some possible opportunities with her, but they had not come to anything. There was no activity in his financial statements to suggest otherwise.

3.13
Dame Jenny Shipley confirmed to us that she attended and spoke at this ceremony as a representative of another company. Mr Wong’s presence there was not connected to hers. She also confirmed that she and Mr Wong have not carried out any business projects together.

3.14
Through our own research, we were able to confirm that the Alpha Group has strong New Zealand and Chinese connections. The Group’s chairman, Professor Gao, is well known in New Zealand. There are a range of personal and business connections between people involved in the company and people in New Zealand.

3.15
We looked for any evidence that might suggest that there was business activity on this trip or that it resulted in business revenue. The financial information we were given showed that Mr Wong received three payments from Alpha Group in 2010. Mr Wong explained that he began acting as an agent for Alpha Group from November 2010 and the payments were commission. This explanation corroborates other sources. We are satisfied there is no connection between this trip and the payments received more than five years later, in 2010.

3.16
From the information available to us, we have concluded that the parliamentary rebate was appropriately claimed for this trip.

Trip C

3.17
In November 2005, Mr and Mrs Wong travelled to Hong Kong. The Parliamentary Service report described this trip as being for Mrs Wong to attend an overseas Chinese politicians’ forum organised by the Chinese government, and for them to visit friends.

3.18
Mrs Wong had migrated to New Zealand from Hong Kong, and told us that she has many friends there. While Mrs Wong attended the forum, Mr Wong visited friends and went sightseeing in Ningbo and Shenzhen.

3.19
Although one of the book-keeping errors discussed in paragraph 1.20 related to an expense on this trip, we found no other evidence to suggest that there was any business activity on this trip. Nor did we find any evidence of business revenue related to this trip.

3.20
From the information available to us, we have concluded that the parliamentary rebate was appropriately claimed for this trip.

Trip D

3.21
In December 2005 and January 2006, Mr and Mrs Wong travelled to several different places in Asia, including Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Taiwan. The Parliamentary Service report described this trip as being to visit family and have a holiday.

3.22
Mr and Mrs Wong told us that this trip was an extended Christmas holiday. They visited family in Malaysia, and were sightseeing and visiting friends in the other destinations. We found no evidence of business revenue, expenses, or activity relating to this trip.

3.23
From the information available to us, we have concluded that the parliamentary rebate was appropriately claimed for this trip.

Trip E

3.24
In early September 2006, Mr and Mrs Wong flew together to Seoul, through Singapore. The Parliamentary Service report explains that Mrs Wong was attending a conference in Seoul. Mrs Wong returned to Auckland a week later, and places, concluding with Hong Kong. He returned to New Zealand from Hong Kong at the end of September.

3.25
Mr Wong told us that he had wanted to visit Dalian because it is a well known destination and it is near Seoul. He told us that the rest of his travel was a mix of sightseeing and visiting friends.

3.26
We specifically asked whether he had any connection with Dalian Locomotives, or the company China North Rail (CNR), or had visited either while in Dalian. We did so because of the speculation that Mr Wong had a connection with the rail industry and because CNR has done some business in New Zealand. Mr Wong told us that he had no connection with the companies and had not visited them while in Dalian. We note that nothing in his financial information suggested a connection with any of these businesses.

3.27
Although one of the book-keeping errors discussed in paragraph 1.20 related to an expense on this trip, we found no other evidence to suggest that there was any business activity on this trip. Nor did we find any evidence of business revenue related to this trip.

3.28
From the information available to us, we have concluded that the parliamentary rebate was appropriately claimed for this trip.

Trip F

3.29
In November 2006, Mr and Mrs Wong were invited to take part in an Air New Zealand inaugural flight to Shanghai. Mr Wong travelled on the flight as a guest of Air New Zealand, but Mrs Wong chose to travel personally and use her parliamentary rebate rather than accepting a gift. They both travelled in China before returning to New Zealand through Hong Kong.

3.30
We found no evidence of business revenue, expenses, or activity relating to this trip.

3.31
From the information available to us, we have concluded that the parliamentary rebate was appropriately claimed for this trip.

Trip G

3.32
Mr Wong travelled to China in June 2008, flying in and out of Shanghai. He stayed two weeks. The Parliamentary Service report described this trip as being to visit friends in China.

3.33
Mr Wong’s main business activity in China at this time involved a hovercraft factory in Lianyungang. Mr Wong had helped a New Zealander (Mr Preest) establish the factory with a Chinese business partner (Mr Yang) early in 2008. Mr Wong had introduced Mr Preest and Mr Yang to each other. Mr Wong was a minority shareholder and chairman of the board.

3.34
Mr Wong told us that he had no specific recollection of this June 2008 trip. For the Parliamentary Service investigation, he had contacted Mr Yang in China to ask him to confirm when he had visited the factory in Lianyungang. Mr Yang’s emailed reply, on 17 November 2010, listed six trips, in:

• July 2008;
• September 2008;
• December 2008;
• April 2009;
• September 2009; and
• May 2010.

3.35
No parliamentary rebate had been claimed for any of these trips.

3.36
The release of the Parliamentary Service report on 3 December 2010 prompted Mr Preest to contact Mr Wong and others to dispute the conclusion reached on this June 2008 trip. Mr Preest said that Mr Wong had been working with him on this trip.

3.37
Mr Yang then provided an affidavit to the Parliamentary Service investigator, dated 20 December 2010, in which he stated that Mr Wong visited the factory four times – in late July 2008, mid-December 2008, March 2009, and September 2009.

3.38
We have considered the inconsistency between these two lists. We are satisfied that there was no trip in September 2008, based on the information in the Parliamentary Service report on the travel booked through the Service and the investigator’s review of Mr Wong’s passport. We do not regard the inconsistency between the documents relating to the trip in March/April 2009 as significant. We also confirmed that Mr Wong did make a trip to China in May 2010. We do not know why this was not listed in the affidavit.

3.39
We met with Mr Preest and obtained copies of extracts from his personal diaries (which were very detailed), as well as copies of photographs that were dated as having been taken in these two weeks. The information Mr Preest gave us showed that Mr Wong was in or around Lianyungang and involved in detailed business activity for these two weeks.

3.40
We presented Mr Wong with the documentary evidence provided to us by Mr Preest about Mr Wong’s alleged visit to the hovercraft factory in Lianyungang in June 2008. Mr Wong told us that he still had no recollection of specific details of this trip. There was no relevant information in his financial statements about where he was during this period.

3.41
We have concluded from the evidence provided by Mr Preest that Mr Wong did visit the hovercraft factory in Lianyungang in June 2008, and we were able to corroborate Mr Preest’s claims with information on the Supreme Hovercraft website, which referred to Mr Wong’s presence at the factory on 21 June 2008.

3.42
From the information available to us, we have concluded that this trip was for private business purposes and the parliamentary rebate of $1,520.25 should not have been claimed. We recommend that the Parliamentary Service consider what steps it needs to take to correct this situation.

3.43
The next trip to Lianyungang, in late July, is discussed in the Parliamentary Service report. Both Mr and Mrs Wong flew to Beijing as guests of Air New Zealand on an inaugural flight and then travelled to a range of places, including Lianyungang. They went to Lianyungang to visit the factory and for Mr Wong to work with Mr Preest and Mr Yang. No rebate was claimed for this trip.

Trip H

3.44
In late December 2008, Mrs Wong flew from Auckland to Beijing, where she met Mr Wong. Together, they flew to Lianyungang, before going on to travel elsewhere in China, Singapore, Kuching, Sibu, and Kuala Lumpur. The Parliamentary Service report described the purpose of this trip as being to visit family in Sibu, friends in China, and a floral festival in Lianyungang.

3.45
The Parliamentary Service report examined this trip in detail, and concluded that there was a business element to the trip from Beijing to Lianyungang. Mr and Mrs Wong have repaid the relevant part of the rebate that was claimed.

3.46
We also asked about a signing ceremony for a Memorandum of Understanding that Mr and Mrs Wong attended in Lianyungang, for the company New Zealand Pure & Natural Limited. Given that Mr Wong is a shareholder in this company (as is Mr Yang), we asked whether he regarded it as a business activity, and why they had not mentioned it in the Parliamentary Service investigation.

3.47
Mr Wong told us that the company is a shell company only. It does not trade and has no physical office. He explained that a ceremony of the kind they attended, where a Memorandum of Understanding is signed, is a common occurrence in China and is largely a public relations exercise or courtesy. It is in effect a declaration of friendship, and does not create any binding agreement, or indicate any intention to do business together or follow up the relationship. He had not recalled the ceremony or given it any significance until it was raised in this process.

3.48
Other than the matters already discussed in the Parliamentary Service report, we found no evidence of business revenue, expenses, or activity relating to this trip.

3.49
From the information available to us, we have concluded that the parliamentary rebate was appropriately claimed for remainder of this trip.

Trip I

3.50
In November 2009, Mr Wong booked travel to Singapore. A parliamentary rebate was initially claimed for this trip, but the costs were then reimbursed by Sampan Enterprise Limited, which is the company Mr Wong uses for his business activities.

3.51
We asked him about the change in payment arrangements for this trip. Mr Wong explained that he had originally intended to attend a school reunion in Kuching, Malaysia, before visiting family in Sibu. He booked this travel using the parliamentary rebate. After the booking was made, he was contacted by a company he had been working with in Vietnam, to arrange a meeting with him in Singapore. Mr Wong therefore reimbursed the travel between Auckland and Singapore and treated it as a business expense.

3.52
Because of the reimbursement, there was no use of public money for this trip. We have no reason to doubt that what may have begun as a private trip later included a business element, and we are satisfied that Mr Wong responded to the change in circumstances appropriately.

Visits to schools in China

3.53
The Parliamentary Service report referred to Mr Wong’s company, Sampan Enterprise Limited, providing services as an education agent. Sampan Enterprise Limited has held agencies for Massey University, Auckland University of Technology, and Lincoln University, and has worked with ISIC International Student Service Center Corporation Limited (ISIC) in providing potential students with information and advice about studying at universities in New Zealand. The report states that the agency has focused on placing international students who are already in New Zealand.

3.54
We have been provided with information from websites in China documenting Mr Wong’s visits to two schools and one kindergarten. We have established that two of these three visits took place during trips for which no Parliamentary Service rebate was claimed. The date of the third trip, when Mr Wong was accompanied by a member of ISIC, is unknown. However Mr Wong told us that he recalls catching a long-distance bus from Shanghai international airport to Nanjing on that trip. None of the trips for which a parliamentary rebate was claimed involved travel from Shanghai to Nanjing.

Our overall conclusion on international travel

3.55
Our investigation did not reveal any pattern of wrongdoing by Mr or Mrs Wong, or of extensive business activity linked with overseas travel. From the evidence we have been able to gather, we have concluded that the parliamentary travel entitlements were appropriately claimed during Mrs Wong’s years in Parliament, in all but two instances:

• for the December 2008 trip to China (trip H), the position reached in the Parliamentary Service report was appropriate. The parliamentary rebate was paid for most of the trip, but Mr and Mrs Wong repaid the cost for the side trip to Lianyungang ($237.20 each); and
• Mr Wong’s June 2008 trip to Lianyungang (trip G) was for private business purposes and the rebate of $1,520.25 should not have been claimed.