Posted by Blogger Name. Category:
David Cunliffe
,
Donghua Liu
,
Labour Party
,
Maurice Williamson
,
Moira Coatsworth
,
National Party
,
NZ Herald
,
Political donations
,
Publish and be damned
,
Rick Barker
,
Tim Barnett
The NZ Herald has faced accusations of political bias many times before. Labour List MP Jill Pettis, voted out by the good folk of Whanganui in 2005, described Granny Herald in 2007 as "a Tory rag". Others complain at the paper's left-wing leanings.
This week, it is Labour and its supporters crying "foul". And that has prompted the Herald to tell its side of the story. In ad editorial headed Cries of bias will not stop reporting the Herald's response begins thus:
It is common in election years for political parties under pressure to attempt to shoot the messenger. In 2005, the Herald was stridently criticised and accused of bias by National supporters for our reportage of Dr Don Brash and the Exclusive Brethren. In 2008 it was the turn of Winston Peters and his New Zealand First people to call for resignations of the editor and political editor for the inconvenient revelation of funding from millionaire Owen Glenn, despite his "No" sign. Last election it was National partisans again, livid at the Herald on Sunday and Herald for John Key and John Banks talking openly before a microphone accidentally left on their "cup of tea" table in a cafe.
This year it is the turn of Labour and its leader, David Cunliffe, incensed at reporting on the donations to the party and its MPs by the controversial Chinese migrant Donghua Liu -- and that party's connections to him.
Mr Cunliffe is considering unspecified legal options against the Herald. Party supporters have weighed in with accusations of political bias and complicated right-wing conspiracies.
The noise obscures the validity of the Herald's reporting. Investigations editor Jared Savage began his reports in March on Donghua Liu and the circumstances of his being granted citizenship. The focus then was on Liu's donations to National after his citizenship was approved by a National minister against official advice. Savage then revealed Liu had been charged with domestic violence, followed by the revelation that National's Maurice Williamson intervened in Liu's case by contacting the police -- which led to Williamson's resignation as minister and criticism from some in National of the Herald's story.
Savage then learned Liu had made donations to Labour as well in 2007, the party claiming no record of such funding. Next we revealed Mr Cunliffe, a day after denying any advocacy for Liu during his residency application, had, in fact, sent a letter to the Immigration Service outlining Liu's investment intentions and giving them a hurry-up in making a decision.
This was all very inconvenient for National and then Labour but pertinent to the public interest in an election year.
Maurice Williamson is probably wishing these days he had never heard of Donghua Liu. But so is former Labour Party Minister Rick Barker. Interesting, Mr Barker seems to be recovering his memory with regard to the Chinese businessman; we'll have more on that later today.
But the Herald is right; the public interest is of more importance than the reputation of MP's who may or may not have acted according to Hoyle.
The leader writer concludes:
At the weekend, the Herald on Sunday reported from a signed statement by Liu in which he appeared to claim he spent $100,000 on wine at a Labour fundraiser and $50,000-$60,000 hosting former Labour MP Rick Barker in China. The paper verified the document was from Liu and put its claims to Mr Cunliffe and the Labour Party.
On Wednesday, Liu provided the Herald with another statement, after being pressed for more detail, in which he corrected his previous implication that $100,000 was paid for a bottle of wine and limited his total spend on Labour and its MPs when it was in power to "close to $100,000".
The Herald immediately published his clarification, with prominence on our website, where it remains, and amended the Herald on Sunday story online. The Sunday paper will publish a clarification this weekend.
Liu's mis-statement, however, has been grasped as proof of Herald complicity in a plot against Labour. The claim is risible, across the range of political coverage but also explicitly over the Herald's investigation of National and Labour and their damaging cosiness with Donghua Liu.
We regret having reported inflated and conflated dollar figures.
The core issue remains, however: At a minimum, removing Mr Barker's China trip and a donation to a rowing club the MP's daughter belonged to, Labour faces Liu's claim that he made $38,000 in donations to the party and anonymously through MPs.
We make no apology for seeking the truth behind political parties' donations and possible cronyism. Inevitably, that hits raw nerves in election year.
The Herald did the right thing by publishing Donghua Liu's amended statement as soon as it was received. And Mr Liu is standing by his statement that he donated to the Labour Party.
As the Herald notes, around $38,000 remains unaccounted for and undeclared. That's almost twice as much as National declared having received from Mr Liu. Given the political capital Labour tried to generate from the donation declared by National, the possibility that its own house may not be in order is an obvious issue.
As we noted above, the public interest demands that the Herald publish information it receives on any politicians or parties which may have done something dodgy. New Zealand faces an important decision in twelve weeks' time, and voters need to be informed of anything which may be relevant to the way they cast their votes.
On this occasion it is the Labour Party and its cheerleaders feeling aggrieved. Doubtless at some point the boot will be on the other foot. But that's why we have a free press, which follows the old maxim to "publish and be damned".
Instead of threatening Mr Liu and the Herald with legal action, David Cunliffe, Moira Coatsworth and Tim Barnett should go digging , and find where Mr Liu's money went.
