Hard News: The Letter
443 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
full, prompt and public first-dollar disclosure of donations and interactions with lobbyists
yes
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Well, Russell, don’t you think the real takeaway from this is it’s time to give the Register of Pecuniary Interests real teeth and bring in full, prompt and public first-dollar disclosure of donations and interactions with lobbyists?
Yes, I think it might have been helpful if Liu’s lobbying of the Prime Minister and Minister of Immigration for a change in immigration policy was more transparent to the public, but I’m not quite sure how that would be handled.
But to have Liu come up with a number for a cruise that he hasn’t given any details about and then for the Herald to add it to the claimed $100k donation as “a gift to Labour” seems confusing at best.
If this cruise was a free holiday on the Yangtze, then yes, it’s a matter for the register. But if it was, as Barker says, a big dinner on a riverboat one night, what are you reporting to the register?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
So, are you saying The Herald should give up a source, because you think that source is a bad faith actor? Or that Liu is just lying?
No, of course the Herald shouldn't give up a source -- don't put words in my mouth.
What I said was that the Prime Minister and a crowd of National activists seem to have been aware of the contents of the statement for a lot longer than the rest of us.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
But if it was, as Barker says, a big dinner on a riverboat one night, what are you reporting to the register?
Hey, as I understand the rules - nothing. Which is a problem in itself. Something is better than nothing, but I'm just cynical enough to think it's no accident the rules are *cough* all too often strategically ambiguous and MPs and Ministers who "just forget" to declare things don't even get the proverbial slap on the wrist with a moist HOP card.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Liu said he paid “close to $100,000”
Somewhere there must be 'cancelled' cheques or bank statements to verify some of this?
Money doesn't usually move without a trail, unless it is in a paper bag... -
Russell Brown, in reply to
No one now seems to be seriously disputing that Barker took his holiday to China on his own dollar. If he is also correct in saying that the "cruise" was a dinner on a riverboat one night, then presumably the $50,000 cost claimed by Liu relates to all the other people (ie: Liu's company staff) invited along too.
I have serious doubts about the honesty of calling that a $50,000 gift to the Labour Party.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
What I said was that the Prime Minister and a crowd of National activists seem to have been aware of the contents of the statement for a lot longer than the rest of us.
There's no law against being politically savvy enough to save up any dirt until the most opportune time to use it, though?
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
that source is a bad faith actor
IF that source is a bad faith actor it would nice if there some actual journalists around who could identify that and report on it. It might give us a better idea of The Herald's position in all this since they seem to be playing the role of both news organisation and political campaigner.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
There’s no law against being politically savvy enough to save up any dirt until the most opportune time to use it, though?
Certainly not. But it's a bit odd that the PM is now saying he only knew what he read in the papers.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
then presumably the $50,000 cost claimed by Liu relates to all the other people (ie: Liu’s company staff) invited along too.
I have serious doubts about the honesty of calling that a $50,000 gift to the Labour Party.Perception means a lot in China. I think if you take all your staff, you could impress them all with showing your friend in high places then as the old Chinese whispers grows so do you. But also .....
"A bad word whispered will echo a hundred miles.”
–Chinese Proverb -
BenWilson, in reply to
Certainly not. But it’s a bit odd that the PM is now saying he only knew what he read in the papers.
Probably a lie. But he's got the memory defense as a well established routine now.
-
Sacha, in reply to
it’s a bit odd that the PM is now saying he only knew what he read in the papers
Bit odd that 'journalists' never challenge him on his lack of consistency from one day to the next. #slippery
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Perception means a lot in China. I think if you take all your staff, you could impress them all with showing your friend in high places then as the old Chinese whispers grows so do you.
Oh, for sure. I've not doubt Liu regarded the $50,000 he spent on bringing all his staff to a lavish dinner as an investment in the relationship. But The Herald's headline was Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party, depicting that $50,000 as a donation to the Labour Party. That seems really misleading.
-
Here's what I find a bit odd in the article Russell linked to above:
The statement from Liu said the $100,000 bottle was purchased at a fundraiser on "3-6-2007". A Labour press statement said no fundraiser was held on June 3, 2007, but the date could be read as March 6, 2007.
My emphasis added, of course. That date could be read as March 6, but only if you're American, or one of those Chinese people who thinks the world outside China is America or, at least, just like America. Donghua Liu doesn't seem like either. Chinese dates are written year-month-day, so June 3, 2007 would be 2007-6-3, and March 6 would be 2007-3-6. If, as my memory of Williamson's turn in the hot seat suggests, Liu's English is very limited, and he is managing to communicate this well, then there must be a good translator/interpreter involved, and if the interpreter is as good as they seem to be, they must be aware that in NZ, dates are not written American-style. So why the sudden need to obfuscate the date of the disputed fundraiser?
Minor detail, I know, but it's just one of those little details that jars like a roughly-made judder bar, something that doesn't quite ring true.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I’ve not doubt Liu regarded the $50,000 he spent on bringing all his staff to a lavish dinner as an investment in the relationship.
The way I read Barker's description of the Yangtze River cruise it seemed to me like he just happened to be in town at the same time as Liu's company was putting on a big do for all the staff, and Liu, hearing Barker was in town, invited him to join. Purely opportunistic. Such work dos are very common, and surely if the dinner was a planned investment in the relationship, it would've been much smaller, with only a few select, important people.
ETA: So I'm interpreting the $50,000 as an investment in the company, maintaining good relations amongst the staff and between management and workers. Liu heard Barker happened to be in town, and said, "Hey, we're having this big do, why don't you join us?" because it's a good opportunity to also build relations with a government big-wig. $50,000 gets creatively reinterpreted several years later as an investment in Labour. But I've never been to Chongqing and never met any of the players in this sorry little game, I'm just extrapolating from what I've read in the Herald.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I've directly asked Tim Murphy and Jared Savage whether the "cruise" they've been referring to is just the dinner as described by Barker, but they're not replying. I really suspect the Herald has over-egged this one.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
I’ve directly asked Tim Murphy and Jared Savage whether the “cruise” they’ve been referring to is just the dinner as described by Barker, but they’re not replying. I really suspect the Herald has over-egged this one.
If what you say turns out to be true, then is it Press Council-grade over-egged?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
That seems really misleading.
Certainly is. There seems to be one donation in 2007 of 150 thou. Undisclosed. That may be Donghua but Labour still wouldn't know if it was him. So the Herald,the NZ public (with it's stupid poll) The National Party, (with their OIA privilege) and Donghua (who would be the only one to know if he is the undisclosed) has no right to expect Labour to be able to defend against that as some sort of dodgy deal.I suspect National have a nasty Campaign for this Election, what else can they offer? Colin Craig(I don't need National's help but hey if they're offering would be good)?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Certainly is. There seems to be one donation in 2007 of 150 thou. Undisclosed. That may be Donghua but Labour still wouldn’t know if it was him.
No. And confusingly, Liu says it was $100,000, not $150,000.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
“Hey, we’re having this big do, why don’t you join us?”
Barker said he showed up, was surprised to see the whole company and felt like he was intruding. Not really sounding like Barker knew what it was at all.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
I really suspect the Herald has over-egged this one.
Whipped up a cheesy weekend souffle? Delicious, but mostly hot air and prone to collapsing.
I haven't heard Labour 'denying' (or, as heard on RNZ this morning rather embarrasingly 'refuting') the claim. They just say: we can't find any record of it.
Usually this would put the onus on those making the claim to prove it. However again (as with 'Cunliffe lobbied for Donghua Liu) , I'm hearing this reported not as allegation, but as fact.
My ears are biased. I'm not sure I'm able to hear straight. I'd love to see a detailed study comparing the language used in reporting the allegations of lobbying and using her position to help Oravida made against Judith Collins, with the language used about the allegations against Cunliffe and Labour over the last week. (Anyone else get the feeling the careful use of 'alleged' 'he said/she said' has been far less common in media discourse about the latter case?) -
“Listen Mr. Liu” Said john as he smiled and shook hands with several people “There seems to be a bit of a stink about your payments to us over that Immigration thingy”
“That is very saded fot me” said Mr. Liu, for engrish was not his first language “are there things I can do for you now big boy?”
“Well” said John as he flicked an errant hundred dollar bill off his shoulder. “What if you said you also gave to Labour?”
“Well king John sir’ I did, there was that cake stall and I buyed a cup cake”
“No, we need something bigger than that” said John, stroking a white cat made of human hair ” Who’s a cute little Dunnekins then” he said as he talked.
“Bigger? said Liu, gesturing embiggenly “Like wedding cake?”
‘No, I’m thinking really big” said John pensively.
“I can see you are Mr prime mincer, you are going all red”
“You know, like the big donations you gave us” said John with his hand out, shaking, alone, wanting…
“Ah, I see” said Liu “I make some shit up eh?”
“That’s the spirit Liu, I see you are getting the hang of the way we do things round here, cheers Mate”
They parted company and went their separate ways, John looked back and saw Liu waving, it reminded him of that golden cat at the bakery, John loved that cat…. -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Certainly is. There seems to be one donation in 2007 of 150 thou. Undisclosed. That may be Donghua but Labour still wouldn’t know if it was him.
I'm sorry again, Sofie, but... oh, really I just give up. Let's cut through the Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" for legal purposes, I find it impossible to believe anyone could ever have handed over a five or six figure sum to any political party with everyone blissfully unawares. What I do find most plausible is that every party would use every means necessary to keep their more... potentially embarrassing funders well under wraps. Or at least so fog-bound most people lose interest and move on.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
No. And confusingly, Liu says it was $100,000, not $150,000.
And Tim Barnett on MR said, while they'd obviously not had time to look deeply, they'd checked the lawyers behind those sums, and didn't think any of them were Donghua Liu's legal reps.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I find it impossible to believe anyone could ever have handed over a five or six figure sum to any political party with everyone blissfully unawares.
Hey ,you say you wouldn't believe Moira Coatsworth with this Labour Party challenge.
It seems that you ignore Barkers claims also
Barker again at the "Slow Drip" (Am liking Harold's new name RB)"May 3, a price tag Mr Barker called "an extraordinary and eye-watering amount, one that I would recall if it happened and I don't".
Mr Barker, who was Minister of Internal Affairs at the time, added: "Had $100,000 been paid for a bottle of wine at a fundraiser that I was not at, I am certain I would have been told about it and I haven't. That figure for one item is considerably more than most fundraisers got in total."
I'd suggest they are not "blissfully unaware", but trying to see where these claims are coming from and if it's undisclosed ,how is that supposed to be their fault for accepting it? The law is what it is.
I also note Foss is trying to sling dirt What's he trying to do there? Keep up the anti Labour momentum? Distract from some actual news
Post your response…
This topic is closed.