Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Plus Jon had to go out and defend himself when many should of had his back (other than RB who did).
I was quite appalled by the response of some journalists to the position in which Jon was put.
-
Hard News: The Big Chill, in reply to harry hausen,
I know the Privacy Act very well: with all respect to the judge, it’s a fairly nonsensical judgment: being obligated to exercise a right under penalty of contempt of court is a terribly clunky way of enforcing discovery.
Especially when the Crown lawyers could have just gone to the front door and sought third-party discovery from Fisher.
-
Hard News: The Big Chill, in reply to harry hausen,
If the author declines to provide the information, is Dotcom obligated to make a complaint under s67?
Quite. I've had some interesting discussions about this, but won't have time to write it up until tomorrow morning.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
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.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Chris Waugh,
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.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
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.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to BenWilson,
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.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
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.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
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.
-
Hard News: The Letter, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
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?