Hard News: The Letter
443 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Only yesterday Key reminded me of Sir Joh...
Now there's a born Kiwi Aussie can happily claim...
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
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.
-
Sacha, in reply to
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
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? -
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.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
...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. -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
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
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
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?
-
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? -
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.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
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. ;)
-
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.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
$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?
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
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.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
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!
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Andrew Geddis has written a useful blog post in response to the latest news:
Sofie Bribiesca agrees with that.;)
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
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.
-
Sacha, in reply to
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.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
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.
-
Sacha, in reply to
exactly as intended
-
Keir Leslie, in reply to
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.
-
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. -
Sacha, in reply to
sensationalist anti Labour bandwagon
ooh, can we have one of those. sounds purty
Post your response…
This topic is closed.