Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The Letter

443 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 18 Newer→ Last

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Joe Wylie,

    Only yesterday Key reminded me of Sir Joh...

    Now there's a born Kiwi Aussie can happily claim...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Dude. You’re the Prime Minister and the Minister with responsibility for the GCSB. Could you please stop pretending you can’t remember anything at all?

    Bloody oath. How hard would it be to follow the script Helen Clark stuck to religiously for her Prime Ministership: “It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on this, so I won’t.” Which you might dislike for many many mostly sound reasons, but it’s terse and avoids being too damn cute for words.

    There are ways that it may be hidden. Elections info

    Yeah, Sofie, I don’t think anyone’s missed there’s many many ways of hiding your big ticket donor list from public scrutiny. (Let's not go crazy and hold our breaths waiting for National and Labour to come together and speed through a campaign finance reform bill with full public first-dollar disclosure. They just can't afford it, or the situation in the UK where both Labour and the Conservatives borrow millions of pounds every election year. Yes, we're talking about political parties literally indebted to donors.) But it just beggars belief that Liu could write out a cheque to any political party without someone knowing about it.

    No matter how much people would like it to be otherwise, it’s not “dirty tricks” to report when politicians and political parties are simply being two-faced. That applies to the New Zealand Labour Party and it’s finances, every bit as much as it does to right-wing sleazebags who preach “family values” and “the sanctity of traditional marriage” while textually harassing interns with dick selfies.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    the Minister with responsibility for the GCSB

    That's the Minister with sole responsibility for the GCSB. And doesn't he look like a know-nothing on foreign policy if it's longer than a 30 second bite?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    And now the Herald gets to the $100k donation to Labour that the PM and half the National Party have been hinting about – because, it turns out, it’s been noted in a written statement by Liu since May 3.

    The fact that the donation can’t be found is alarming -- although Graeme Edgeler is considerably less exercised by it than I figured he'd be.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    I'm waiting to hear what Mike Williams has to say about this as he was a very hands on Party president at the time and knew the wealthier donors (there weren't many) personally. He would have certainly known about Liu if this is true, but has previously said he had never heard of him.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3229 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Liu, Lui?

    now the Herald gets to...

    ...frame the perspective

    And leader David Cunliffe had to fight to keep his job after revelations he wrote a letter for Liu's residency, despite previous denials.

    I thought that baying call only came from media and National, who have no part in Labour's 'employment' decisions.

    It doesn't seem clear who the statement was made to or deposited with?
    Was it The Herald or just at the lawyers office?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    It's not a "revelation". It's an allegation.

    It would be good if the Herald knew the difference. It's kind of important.

    And of course, it can't be un-proven, by any number of bank statements, or accounts, or anything at all. If it's not there, it must be ... somewhere else.

    Proving it is easier, but Mr Liu doesn't seem to want to, and the Herald doesn't seem to care.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1333 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    ...and action!

    Peter Jackson's ... star on Hollywood or john Keys’ foreign policy

    ...which includes giving the Iron Man 3 movie $3 million cash just so Weta gets the work apparently...

    ONE News obtained the amount of the grant from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment using the Official Information Act.
    The figures show the production spent NZ$23.2m in this country.
    But while that's paid into private hands, in exchange, the studios get a cash rebate from the taxpayer of NZ$3.5m (excluding GST) - equating to 15% of the spend.
    That's paid to a shelf company registered here - both directors are linked to Marvel Studios, who made the film in association with Paramount.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Russell Brown,

    The fact that the donation can’t be found is alarming

    looking at the donations for 2007 and other years, I have come up with the same conclusion as Andrew Geddis

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to Russell Brown,

    And now the Herald gets to the $100k donation to Labour that the PM and half the National Party have been hinting about – because, it turns out, it’s been noted in a written statement by Liu since May 3.

    And so now we have something that might actually be somewhat scandalous. Why did we have to waste so much time and energy on the total non-issue that is Cunliffe's letter? Especially if the statement was made on May 3?

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Lolly scramble...
    from The Herald article..

    • That he spent $50-60,000 hosting then-labour minister Rick Barker on a cruise on the Yangtze River in China in 2007; and
    • That Liu visited Barker in Hawke’s Bay in 2006, having dinner with him at an exclusive lodge and then meeting for breakfast the next morning. Liu said he made a donation to Hawke’s Bay Rowing, which Barker was associated with.

    The Rick Barker ‘river cruise’ sounds like a ‘honey trap’ of sorts …
    as Barker professes surprise about the magnitude of it at the time
    naive innocent?
    or cunning blinkers?
    - pictures must exist somewhere, mileage to be made and all that…
    Can the HB rowing club confirm Liu’s ‘strategic’ donation?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    There is also $ 315,000.00 in anonymous donations in 2007. all declared though but some of it or all of it may have come from Liu and Labour would still not have known.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    And so now we have something that might actually be somewhat scandalous.

    How so? As long as it was declared in the 2007 return and there is a $150,000.00 one that is on behalf of Solicitors and there is at least $300,000.00 in donations anonymously, how is that a scandal. The donations are legit and Donghua liu may well have given it to Labour. OToH , $60,000.00 for a trip up the Yangtze? Someone's getting ripped off there. ;)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Andrew Geddis has written a useful blog post in response to the latest news:

    It simply isn't clear that any offence has been committed here at all. Let's say that everything the Herald is reporting is true (an assumption we should be a bit cautious about making - the story is based purely on a "signed statement" from Liu, not even an affadavit). He gave Labour a bunch of money in 2007 in exchange for things like a bottle of wine and a book.

    Well, if you go back to the financial returns from political parties for 2007, there is listed a donation to Labour of $150,000 from "Palmer Theron, Solicitors, on behalf of an undisclosed client" (as well as two other donations of $50,000 and $30,000 from other law firms on behalf of similaraly "undisclosed clients"). For balance, you might also note that in that year National reported $40,000 in anonymous donations, as well as $513,000 from three trusts that it had been using to launder donations previously.

    Now, was Liu the "undisclosed client" who gave Labour this $150,000 donation? Who, aside from Liu, can really tell? And if this was Liu, then no law was breached. If he gave the payment to Labour by way of a cheque from a solicitor's trust fund, then not only did he do nothing legally wrong, but Labour (under the laws at the time) did nothing legally wrong in accepting it or listing the solicitor's undisclosed client as being the source. That was a bad law, as I argued a lot at the time, but it was the law ... and you can't retrospectively rewrite it now.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    $50-60,000 hosting then-labour minister Rick Barker on a cruise on the Yangtze River in China in 2007

    Damn it! you could have bought the whole river for that back in '07. Where do these people go to make up those numbers?

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    How so?

    You're right, I just mean that there is actually something resembling substance here, not like that letter. I like the Andrew Geddis post you and Russell link to, but I'm sure those determined to make a scandal of this issue will, it's just nice for them to actually have some material to work with.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    I don’t doubt that Donghua Liu would have donated to Labour in 2007 if he had the dosh. They were in power then and that seems to be the circles he likes to move in. The old tried and true “but Labour did it too” is bound to cause fuel for the fire.That all of this is being drip fed, via National, Donghua, and the Herald, seems to be just another attack on Labour to me. The donations ,secret trust/ donors/ anonymous situation seems something very much worth discussing as the Greens have been calling for, for sometime now. The fact that Labour may have done their best to compete with the big hitters that National enjoy is no big deal at all, the fact that the OIA requests are releasing anti Labour propaganda and holding back the National equivalent seems suspect to me. If National are not engaging in dirty tricks, I’d eat my hair!

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to ,

    Andrew Geddis has written a useful blog post in response to the latest news:
    Sofie Bribiesca agrees with that.

    ;)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    I certainly don't disagree with you. I just like the fact there is now something to argue about. Arguing over Cunliffe's Letter was getting rather depressing. Now here are some real issues to discuss.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Why did we have to waste so much time and energy on the total non-issue that is Cunliffe's letter?

    so that the whole thing seems his fault.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Sacha,

    Why did we have to waste so much time and energy on the total non-issue that is Cunliffe’s letter?

    so that the whole thing seems his fault.

    Yes. It’s been interesting today that people still seem really keen to pin the new donation story on him too.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    exactly as intended

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Because once Cunliffe was caught out misleading the public on one aspect of the story, he's not going to come across as trustworthy on any other aspect? And likewise with the secret trust thing: he can hardly pose as a staunch defender of transparency in political donations after that. It's entirely predictable political rhetoric by the National Party, and it's effective, and there's no reason Cunliffe needed to leave those openings for them.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    It seems that I am not the only one feeling that Nationals Pamphleteering paid for by Parliamentary Services funds, is out of order.
    I mentioned this a while back but no-one took any notice…
    Josie Pagani points out the Hypocrisy
    Perhaps if you lot were to get off the sensationalist anti Labour bandwagon for five minutes we could take a serious look at what National are doing to destroy democracy on the taxpayers money.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    sensationalist anti Labour bandwagon

    ooh, can we have one of those. sounds purty

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 18 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.