0 Boom!

The Donghua Liu donations saga seemed to have disappeared from our consciousness. But just as Labour MP's head to Wellington for the party's congress, the Herald has lobbed a bomb in Labour's direction; check this out:

A former Labour Minister intervened three times in the immigration bid of Donghua Liu including waiving the English language requirement for the millionaire businessman.
Damien O'Connor, in his role as the associate Immigration Minister, wrote three letters to Liu's advisor Warren Kyd - the former National Party MP - before deciding to grant residency against the advice of officials the day before the 2005 election.

The Herald goes on to detail Damien O'Connor's interventions, based on letters obtained under the Official Information Act:

The West Coast MP has said he cannot remember why he granted residency to the businessman whose links to both National and Labour have created political waves this year.
But letters released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show Mr O'Connor was being lobbied by Mr Kyd on behalf of Liu in the lead up to the tightly fought election.
The first, dated June 1 2005, stated Mr O'Connor would not intervene on Liu's behalf in regards to an "amended photograph" submitted as part of the immigration application.

"As my previous intervention on Mr Liu's behalf shows, I think Mr Liu has to date had a positive impact in New Zealand, and to this end, I would encourage him to lodge another application for residence.
"Mr Liu should be advised that I have instructed the Immigration Service to receive any such application without prejudice which may have been caused by his previous application."
There is no explanation of the "previous intervention" of Mr O'Connor, who accepted Mr Kyd's explanation that a third party was responsible for the "amended photograph" on the file.
A second letter to Mr Kyd, dated August 9 2005, reveals Mr O'Connor said "it is not my normal practice to intervene in the established immigration application process, however, I have decided to make an exception in this case.
"I have directed the Department of Labour Immigration Service to waive the English language requirements for Donghua Liu for any forthcoming residence application."
Mr O'Connor suggested Liu should enclose a copy of the letter with application, to be lodged within two years.

Somewhere along the line though, Mr O'Connor's position changed; the very day before the 2005 General Election, which was at that point anybody's race; read on:

A third letter to Mr Kyd, dated September 16, 2005 - the day before the election - stated Mr O'Connor had considered the case carefully and "decided to intervene".
"I am therefore instructing the Department of Labour Immigration Service to gran residence to Mr Liu as an exception to policy. The grant of residence will be subject to Mr Liu completing an application form, paying an application fee and meeting health and character requirements".
The residency was granted under the terms of the Investor Category at the time.

You can view the letters from Damien O'Connor here.

This bombshell from Jared Savage at the Herald raises some huge questions. What changed between 1 June 2005 and 16 September 2005 to cause Mr O'Connor to have a significant change in his approach to the Liu case? Was pressure brought on the MP, and if so, from whom. Did pressure come from people within the Labour Party? Why can Damien O'Connor not remember a case in which he had several interventions? And if it was "not my normal practice to intervene" in immigration applications, why did he intervene, not once but thrice in the Liu case?

And why the urgency to decide Donghua Liu's residence application as an exception to policy on the eve of a General Election in which Labour had a very real chance of being voted out? There are possible answers to that question that cut to the heart of the integrity of politics in New Zealand.

David Cunliffe will be seething. Not only has the Herald taken the focus off Labour's election-year congress, but he is now going to be bombarded with questions as to Damian O'Connor's conduct. Those questions will have added validity after the way that Labour attacked National and Maurice Williamson over the latter's phone call to the the police after Liu's arrest on domestic violence charges.

And Damien O'Connor needs to recover his memory, and quickly. He has some very significant questions to answer about Donghua Liu, and the circumstances in which Mr Liu was given New Zealand residence.

0 The latest poll cycle

The most recent poll cycle ended last night with the One News/Colmar Brunton poll. And for the first time for a while, there are either no rogue polls, or there are five of them. 

Colmar Brunton, Roy Morgan, Reid Research, Ipsos and DigiPoll are all saying the same thing; John Key is set to win a third term as prime Minister based on the results in the back half of June. And to make matters even worse for Labour, only the Herald-DigiPoll has Labour ranking in the 30's, and even that's within the margin of error at 30.5%. The other four polls all have Labour with a 2 in front of its number.

Here's the One News-Colmar Brunton result, via TVNZ:

A ONE News poll/Colmar Brunton has found Labour has dropped below 30% support for the first time in two years.
The poll results come after supposed donations from Donghua Liu have dogged Labour leader David Cunliffe this week and taken a toll on the party.
The poll found 29% of respondents supported Labour - the party's lowest polling result since the aftermath of the its disastrous election campaign in March 2012.
"We've had a sustained smear campaign against us for the last couple of weeks. The poll has hardly moved and we're not that concerned about it," says Mr Cunliffe.
The poll also found National dropped one point to 50% popularity and could govern alone with 64 seats.
New Zealand First also dropped one point to 3.8% - below the 5% threshold.
The big winner was Internet-Mana Party on 2.8%.
Internet leader Laila Harre would be likely to return to Parliament on Hone Harawira's coat tails according to the poll.
"We've formed the alliance with Mana that's giving people the confidence to know that their party votes will count and so I think a result over 5% is certainly attainable," says Ms Harre.
The poll also found 10% of respondents choose Mr Cunliffe as their preferred Prime Minister while John Key won 47% of the vote.

David Cunliffe is blaming this result on a "sustained smear campaign" from National. He should not be so quick off the mark, and we'll see who was smearing whom when Donghua Liu gets his financial records from China and passes them to Paul Davidson QC. 

Labour has attacked Mr Liu's credibility, causing him to lose face. The Chinese businessman has every motivation to save face, and prove his allegations now, and David Cunliffe will have only himself to blame for throwing down the gauntlet to him.

The National Party conference at the weekend was a positive affair, with the only negatives being repeated warnings about complacency. With party membership in great heart, we are sure that National will succeed in mobilising its vote on September 20th, and Labour may just find that it does not have a mortgage on the so-called "missing million" on which it seems to be basing its chances.

Now attention shifts to the Labour Party "congress" next weekend, although we will hear little from that because the media has been excluded.

The June polls have been truly dreadful for Labour with less than three months remaining until the General Election. There must be some very nervous backbenchers at the moment, watching their jobs and taxpayer-funded salaries wafting away in the winds of public opinion. 

0 Hide on Labour's risky strategy

Rodney Hide reckons that Labour is walking a tightrope with the Donghua Liu donations saga. In his Herald on Sunday piece, and under the headline Risky response to donor row Hide opines:

Deny, deny, deny. Attack, attack, attack. That's been Labour's response to businessman Donghua Liu claiming he donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Party.
Labour's strategy is risky. It is challenging Liu's honesty and integrity. He's no doubt feeling aggrieved. The danger for Labour is that Liu produces documents, witnesses and photographs confirming his substantial donations.
That's what did it for Winston Peters in 2008. Sir Owen Glenn was able to prove the donations that Peters denied.
Labour also risks drying up its donations. Attacking a donor is hardly encouraging to others. I doubt there will too many Chinese charity auctions for Labour this election.
It's a risky response but Labour's entire attack strategy has been risky. Attacking John Banks for declaring Dotcom's donations as anonymous ran the risk that its own house wasn't in order. Likewise in attacking Maurice Williamson for ringing the police on Liu's behalf.

Cunliffe's letter 11 years ago for Liu wouldn't have mattered except for the hellfire and brimstone he visited on National for similar advocacy. It's true Cunliffe wasn't ringing the police. It's true Liu wasn't facing charges. But such difference matters constitutionally. It doesn't matter politically.
As far as headlines and soundbites go, Cunliffe has been caught doing exactly what he railed against.

Hide is dead right; perception is everything in politics,and the perception is that David Cunliffe has been a hypocrite. He and his MP's attacked National with relish, and made all sorts of accusations towards National MP's.

Had they restricted themselves to simply attacking National MP's, this may have passed without comment. But the likes of Trevor Mallard, aided and abetted by Winston Peters who relishes any opportunity to attack Chinese, made a series of allegation against National's apparent mate. One of those accusations was that he was downright corrupt, offering cash for changes to immigration policy. Like most of the accusations Mr Mallard makes, always under the cover of parliamentary privilege, he has yet to substantiate it.

But Labour took things one step too far, impugning Donghua Liu's reputation. That's when he started talking about his links to the Labour Party, at a time when David Cunliffe was a senior Minister. The rest, as they say, is (or will be) history.

Hide continues:

So where are we now? Confused. Liu said he gave substantial money to the Labour Party. The Labour Party says it has no record of it, and hasn't reported any donations from Liu.
But it's quite possible that everyone is telling the truth. The money could have been stolen. That would mean Liu gave the money but Labour never received it. Charity auctions and the like are often chaotic and it is too easy to have no one properly in charge of recording and receipting all payments and donations. This is especially so in political events. Volunteers are enthusiastic but not necessarily experienced and politicians are anxious to stay well away from money changing hands.
Indeed, a big part of Cunliffe's problem - and Banks' and Williamson's - is that politicians shy away from fundraising details precisely to avoid the perception that cash influences decision-making.

It is indeed possible that no one in Labour actually saw any of the money donated by Liu; possible, but highly improbable, we would say. We base that on information that we have heard in the last week; information which may or may not have got as far as Jared Savage from the NZ Herald. If even some of it is correct, Labour had better hope that no one has broken ranks. 

And Donghua Liu lawyering up, and giving documents to Paul Davidson QC whilst seeking financial records from his homeland ought to be worrying to Labour. What is in the financial records that Mr Liu is so anxious to share with his lawyer?

Hide closes, with a message that might send shivers up David Cunliffe's spine:

The safer course of action for the Labour Party would be to say it was treating the matter seriously. That would mean thanking Liu for coming forward with his information and inviting the police to investigate. The police could try to trace the money, letting Cunliffe off the hook. He would have done everything by the book. He would be open and upfront. It would also kill the story. He couldn't comment while police were investigating.
But Labour didn't do that. It denied and attacked.
There's a reason politicians do the things they do. Cunliffe couldn't be sure what the police would find. Calling in the police runs the risk of finding out more than Cunliffe wants to know.

David Cunliffe ought to remember that a "deny, deny, deny; attack, attack, attack" strategy is akin to poking a stick into a wasp's nest. As leader of the party, David Cunliffe is the one most likely to be stung if the wasps decide to fight back, and he is forced to defend, defend, defend.

There's an old saying in politics; never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. That would appear to be a strategic mistake on the part of Mr Cunliffe, and those who advise him, or who blog on Labour's behalf. It is going to be fascinating to see where this story goes, but a tweet yesterday from Herald editor Tim Murphy provides a clue:

We'd say the Donghua Liu saga still has some surprise twists and turns, and the exhortations to "move on" from the likes of Greg Presland towards the end of the week just gone may have been more in hope than anything else.  

0 Liu lawyers up

Donghua Liu is taking threats of legal action from the Labour Party seriously. Far from backing down and issuing an apology, the Chinese businessman has lawyered up with a high-profile QC. Jared Savage continues to tell the tale in the Herald, which is also showing no signs of backing down to Labour's threats:

Millionaire businessman Donghua Liu has hired a high-profile Queen's Counsel to deal with any legal action from the Labour Party.
Aucklander Paul Davison, QC, is heading a team of advisers for Liu reviewing the property developer's records following the comments of David Cunliffe this week.
The Weekend Herald understands this includes more than 30 photographs taken over 18 months linking Liu to Labour, including a fundraiser at an Auckland restaurant and a trip to China, where he hosted a Cabinet minister in 2007.
Liu is also seeking to retrieve financial records held in China.

The Labour Party seems to have forgotten that reputation is very important in Chinese culture. And by implying that Donghua Liu is corrupt and has told lies, Labour has given the businessman added motivation to prove what he has alleged in his statements. The fact that he has given documentary evidence and photographs to his lawyer, and is seeking to retrieve financial records from his home country is an ominous development.

Despite Labour's cheerleaders at The Standard and the Daily Blog (who include among their number one of David Cunliffe's closest confidantes and other Labour Party staffers) declaring that there is nothing to see here, we reckon there's plenty to see. And if Jared Savage is worth his salt as an investigative journalist, he will continue sniffing around as well.

And all the while, Labour stays in the news for all the wrong reasons...

0 Rick Barker gets his memory back

After a couple of weeks of Liu-induced amnesia, Rick Barker's memory seems to have returned; Hawke's Bay Today reports:

Being in the national spotlight from his time as a Labour cabinet minister makes Rick Barker feel he is part of The Eagles' song Hotel California.
"You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave," the Hawke's Bay regional councillor said.
Millionaire businessman Donghua Liu has been at the centre of political scandals involving contributions to National and Labour, saying he gave "equally to governments of both colours".
Mr Barker was under fire because Mr Liu said he paid "close to $100,000" for wine at a Labour fundraising auction in 2007, at least $50,000 hosting Mr Barker and others on a boat cruise on the Yangtze River in 2007, and visited Mr Barker in Hawke's Bay in 2006, where Mr Liu made a donation to the Hawke's Bay Rowing Club which Mr Barker was associated with.

What is fascinating about this is the way in which Mr Barker has gone from last week saying he was not aware the Liu was a Labour donor, couldn't remember how he came to visit Liu in China and had probably had dinner with him in New Zealand, to now having total recall; read on:

Mr Barker said that in 2006 he was contacted on behalf of Mr Liu, to say he was visiting Hawke's Bay to look at investment opportunities.
"They made the arrangements and close to his arrival I was told he was interested in sport, and could I make some arrangements for him to meet sporting organisations.
"This came as a complete surprise to me. The only sporting organisation that I was close enough to, to ask at such short notice, was the rowing club.
"He met with them and at the finish Donghua Liu, without being asked or prompted to my knowledge, put his hand into his pocket and drew out an envelope and gave it to representatives of the rowing club. It wasn't opened then.
"The rowing club met with Donghua Liu at the airport and presented him with a club T-shirt in appreciation. I was told then what the amount was - I can't recall exactly - but it was less than $5000. A significant personal donation but not over the top."
Duncan Barr, the president of the Hawke's Bay Rowing Club, said Mr Liu donated $2000.
Mr Barker said the donation was accepted as a genuine personal gesture.
"If Donghua Liu is now unhappy at giving an unsolicited donation to the rowing club, let him say and so and I will ensure that the money is returned and he will not be required to give the T-shirt back. The gift of the T-shirt was genuine."
Mr Barker said rules about political donations were different at the time "and eight years later it comes to haunt you".

It has indeed come back to haunt Rick Barker. We hope his memory continues to improve to the point that he can remember when and where Mr Liu donated as much as $38,000 to the Labour Party. Then the party hierarchy might be able to find where the money went, and why it wasn't declared.

0 The Herald gets defiant

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.

0 Cash for access

A new name has emerged in the Donghua Liu saga; the Herald introduces Steven Ching:

The man who hoped to be the first Chinese MP for the Labour Party has emerged as a central figure in the donation claims of Donghua Liu.
Steven Ching was a successful fundraiser for Labour and was No42 on the party list ahead of the 2005 election, but withdrew.

Mr Ching seems to have an interesting history. The Herald reported in 2005 why he was stood down from being a candidate, and amazingly, another man named Liu is involved! Here's the story, from May 2005:

The man on track to become Labour’s first Chinese MP was yesterday forced to stand down while police investigate serious allegations he misused Government connections.
In the latest in a string of embarrassments for the Labour Party, list candidate Steven Ching was asked to stand down over claims that he offered to get a man appointed as a justice of the peace in exchange for a $50,000 loan.
The Herald on Sunday yesterday claimed that Mr Ching told Auckland broadcaster Paul Liu he would get two senior Labour MPs to sign his application form to become a JP.
In exchange, Mr Liu was asked to give a $50,000 loan to Mr Ching.
Mr Ching denied the claims.
Yesterday morning Mr Ching - number 42 on the Labour list - was out on the campaign trail with MPs Dover Samuels and John Tamihere, but by mid-morning he had been asked to stand down as the Labour Party handed the matter over to the police to investigate.
Party president Mike Williams has written to the Herald on Sunday asking that all its affidavits be sent to the police and the Labour Party.
Mr Ching, 63, denied the allegations and said he was confident police would clear his name in time for him to stand in the election.

"I intend to sue the Sunday Herald [sic] because they are reporting rubbish things."
He issued a written statement, signed by Mr Liu, which said the allegations were not true.
"Mr Ching did ask to borrow money from me for a revolving fund," the statement said, "but his request was absolutely no connection with the JP’s application he proposed to me.
"There were totally two different issues, and obviously, the writer had put them together."
It is not Mr Ching’s first brush with controversy. In the past month he was forced to resign as a justice of the peace after Herald on Sunday investigations found he had two undisclosed convictions under the Fisheries Act.
Mr Ching had also pleaded guilty to obstructing a fisheries officer in 2001 and was discharged without conviction.
Despite the revelations, Labour initially stood by Mr Ching, who is highly regarded for his ability to draw donations from Auckland’s Asian community and attract their votes.
Mr Williams said the convictions were minor and the party had accepted that Mr Ching did not know about them because they were handled by his lawyer.

We don't know if Mr Ching ever made good of his threat to sue the Herald on Sunday. But we would suggest that because the story was the very first item on the list when we did a Google search of "steven ching labour party", there was never any requirement for the Herald on Sunday or the weekday Herald to spike the story.

But then today's story about Mr Ching mentions something which Labour has banged on at John Key and his National colleagues for months; cash for access. Have a read of this:

 

The Herald can now reveal that the Auckland businessman, who organised dinners where guests donated $1000 to sit beside former Prime Minister Helen Clark, approached the office of David Cunliffe about Liu's residency bid.
Mr Ching was not home and did not return messages, but Labour sources confirmed he was the "conduit" between Liu and the party.
When the Herald broke the news that Mr Cunliffe wrote a 2003 letter on behalf of Liu's residency bid, the Labour leader said he did not recall having ever met the businessman.
"To the best of my knowledge that letter came through my office and an immigration agent on his behalf."
Mr Cunliffe this week said "to the best of my knowledge" Mr Ching was not that agent. "However he appears to have had some contact at staff level with the New Lynn Electorate Office over the matter."
Labour sources said Mr Ching had links to Liu and became the "conduit" between the party and the millionaire businessman. "Ching was the 'money man' responsible for organising the fundraising dinners and established a good relationship with Liu," said one.

So diners paid a grand a time to sit next to Helen Clark at dinners. If that's not cash for access, we don't know what is. Perhaps Mr Cunliffe will now seek to revise this presser he put out on 8th June:

"There has been more than a whiff of opportunism around Mr Banks since Mr Key infamously sat down with him over a cup of tea and gifted the seat of Epsom to him.
“While Mr Banks has finally stepped down, the spectre of special deals - whether over National's coat-tailing arrangements, their 'cash for access' fundraising activities, Judith Collins' promotion of a company owned by a National donor, and Maurice Williamson's attempt to influence police actions on another wealthy National donor - will follow National. 

Putting aside that there are NO coat-tailing MP's in the current Parliament, a statement that no one seems to want to challenge Mr Cunliffe on, it's clear that Labour made money out of Helen Clark, just as National does out of John Key and other Ministers. We don't have a problem with that, as long as any money earned by the parties is declared in the proper manner, as required by law. 

If people are prepared to part with their hard-earned cash to hob-nob with a senior politician to benefit their party of choice, that's their decision. It's certainly preferable to the long-suffering taxpayer having to pay for every excess of any political party.

We don't have a problem with people paying to meet MP's, Ministers and the Prime Minister socially. What we DO have a problem with is the hypocrisy of the Labour Party in bleating for months about "cash for access" when they do it themselves.

0 Imperator Fish on fishy confusion

Scott at Imperator Fish is confused. In the wake of David Cunliffe's Maui's dolphin flip-flop, IF has posted this plaintive cry:

As a Labour Party member, I’m becoming increasingly confused about the party’s position on the Maui’s Dolphin.

I thought we were for the dolphins, but now I’m wondering if maybe we were against them all along.
I don’t mind either way. I’m a loyal party man and I’ll do what I’m told. If it’s decided that the Maui’s Dolphin must be sacrificed on the altar of progress, then that’s fine. I’ll just tell myself that they’re only glorified fish. But I do need to know one way or the other, in case I’m asked by someone what Labour’s policy is.
Are we for saving the Maui’s Dolphin? Or is our policy, like National’s, to drive those cetacean bastards to extinction?

We understand Scott's frustration, which will doubtless be shared by a league of dolphin-loving aspiring Labour MP's, including Tamati Coffey. Party members and candidates don't deserve to be blind-sided by sudden u-turns from the leader when he holds his finger up to the winds of public opinion. 

Then again, could this be such a cunning plot from Mr Cunliffe and his confidantes in the War Room that you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel? Is this a way of getting Donghua Liu off the front pages of blogs and newspapers?

Perhaps, but we doubt that Mr Cunliffe has the smarts to do something like that. Anyway, could he be sure that Donghua Liu isn't a secret fan of marine mammals?

0 It won't go away...

The Donghua Liu/Labour Party donations row is not going to go away; not when tweets like this appear out of nowhere:

By Mr Liu's standards, a mere two grand probably isn't a lot of money. To most of us though, it's a substantial amount, and to a rowing club, it would have been like manna from heaven. 

And it does seem odd that Mr Liu would make a donation to the sports club of the daughter of a man who claims to barely know him. It certainly doesn't do a lot to authenticate Rick Barker's narrative of events.

Where is this all going to end up?


UPDATE: 3News reports:

Parts of Donghua Liu's claims regarding political donations may be starting to stack up.

Hawke's Bay Rowing Club has confirmed the controversial businessman gave $2,000 to the club because the daughter of then-Labour Party Minister Rick Barker was a member.

The rowing club bought new blades with Mr Liu's cash.

Mr Liu also claims he gave a total of $150,000 to Labour, but that's being disputed by the party.

President Moira Coatsworth says there's no evidence for the claims.

0 Of Cunliffe, petards, and Emmerson

Herald cartoonist Rod Emmerson is in fine form this morning.

The Labour Party made hay while the sun shone with regard to its allegations that National and Donghua Liu were too close. But when David Cunliffe walked into the trap that he himself had set, he has bleated loudly about the unfairness of it all. 

Never mind that Labour has tried its very hardest to paint National as sinners; when the "gotcha" merchants fell victim to a self-induced "gotcha", they didn't like it up 'em, as Lance Corporal Jack Jones was wont to say.

David Cunliffe has been hoist by his own petard; how sad.

0 The return of Curly Sue

Curly Sue e-mailed a while back to tell us she had some commitments which would render her unavailable for a few weeks. But she e-mailed again this morning, and obviously she has discharged those commitments.

Readers of a similar vintage to us will possibly remember Peter Frampton, one of the music heart-throbs of the 1970's. His album Frampton Comes Alive was one of the decade's biggest sellers. And it is from that album that Curly Sue has drawn inspiration today.

But first, check this out, to get the tune into your head:

So here's Curly Sue's take on the song, based around someone in the news at the moment whose name rhymes with Do:

"Do You Remember Liu?"

Well, woke up this morning with a letter in my hand.
Shock, fright, can’t be right, What the hell did I write?
I’m in a bad way, what did I say the other day?

Come on, let’s blame Key again!

Do you...you, Remember Liu?
Not sure I do
Do you...you, Remember Liu?

Look’s like I’m busted, Who else can I blame?
(My) Ego says,"Don't walk, don't walk, don't walk away."
Document retention, blame my staff, ‘play the man’.
No way it’s my fault, like a Teflon pan.

Do you...you, Remember Liu?
Got no clue
Do you...you, Remember Liu?

[1st guitar solo]

Do you...you, Remember Liu?
I’m in the poo
Do you...you, Remember Liu?

Campaign is toast now, even Clark took Liu’s cash. Cash for access, tall tales, now epic fails

This is all a bad dream, the polls are obscene

Hang on..... is Jones at it again?

Do you...you, Remember Liu?
My Trust's legit. too
Do you...you, Remember Liu?

[keyboard solo]
[2nd guitar solo]
[funky piece with mouth ‘talk box’ instrument ensues]

Oh baby Donghua Liu
Oh baby Donghua Liu, what can I do?

Yes I do, Yes I do,
know Donghua Liu

And I did deny Liu

Labour’s plight, any story you'd like,
This is not, a good time.
Campaign’s dead, say good night.
Good night, good night, good night, good night, good night

[3rd guitar solo]

This is more great stuff from our Curly friend Sue. We hope her work commitments don't get in the way too much more between now and September 20th!

0 Common sense from the Southland Times

They're generally very common-sense folk in the deep south of New Zealand, although there are a few exceptions. But we don't believe that editor of the Southland Times is one of those exceptions.

The newspaper published an excellent editorial on Saturday. Under the headline A mess of his own making the editorial opines:

There's a Watergate-era poster of Richard Nixon as a wee boy, looking back over his own shoulder and complaining: Somebody poohed my pants.
David Cunliffe is scarcely more plausible as he tries to represent himself as the victim of a Government smear campaign.
He is conspicuously besmirched, all right, but however much the Government may have benefited from the process, enjoyed it, and perhaps even at prime ministerial level taken Bonaparte's advice not to interrupt an opponent when he's making a mistake, none of this changes the fact the Government's role was, at very worst, peripheral to the self-inflicted damage.
Cunliffe was guilty of the same offences he had loftily criticised. His accusations against Maurice Williamson for meddling with a police investigation into Donghua Liu, a party donor, turned rancid when it emerged that he had himself written in support of Liu on a residency matter, which he initially denied. And Liu had donated to Labour as well as National. 

The Southland Times leader writer is dead right; these wounds to David Cunliffe's credibility are entirely self-inflicted. Having ridden in on his high horse over the links that National MP's had with Mr Liu, he has to suck up the ignominy of Labour being donkey-deep with the Chinese businessman as well.

The editorial continues, dismissing Mr Cunliffe's deflections:

Now he talks darkly of the Government managing the release of this - less face it, entirely accurate - information about his own follies.
This was a case of "playing politics" he said, and people were starting to realise he was the victim of a "political beat-up".
So here we have a politician complaining that rival politicians have been playing politics in response to his own political recriminations. Does he mean to astonish us?
Cunliffe has tried to persuade people about distinction between advocating for Liu's residency and simply doing the MP thing of drumming his fingers to prevent any unnecessarily delays in the way it was processed.
It's debateable whether the public would see the distinction as especially compelling - quite apart from the similarities with the Williamson case. And Williamson lost his Cabinet position over that one. 

David Cunliffe is grasping at straws. Instead of lashing out at National, he should be looking far closer to home as the source of all his woes. Those declarations of undying loyalty he received last week may well have been delivered with forked tongues. That's the difficulty a leader who was picked by less than a third of his caucus has.

Labour has attacked the Government relentlessly over donations from the business community; John Key's rich mates. That Labour has been undone by a businessman around whom their attacks were centred is rich in irony.

The Karma Bus has rolled into town. Even the eminently sensible folk of the deep south (with a few exceptions) can see that. 

0 We can't help but wonder...

This Donghua Liu business raises more questions than have been answered to date. It's an absolute bugger's muddle, and it reflects appallingly on the Labour Party.

So we can't help but wonder; if we were a donor or bought something at a Labour Party fundraiser we'd now be worried the money got pocketed or spent elsewhere and never made it to the party. 

We really think Labour members should be calling for an internal Party inquiry to check the legitimacy and integrity of the donor & fundraising process and this should be underway and completed before the House lifts for the term on 31st July so that the Labour Party can hold their head high as they enter the campaign proper.

0 Where did the money go?

The Herald on Sunday has more revelations this morning in the Donghua Liu case:

Millionaire businessman Donghua Liu spent more than $150,000 on the previous Labour government, including $100,000 on a bottle of wine signed by former prime minister Helen Clark at a party fundraiser.
The embarrassing revelations are contained in a signed statement from Liu, which the Herald on Sunday has obtained.
They come at the end of a horror week for Labour, already under pressure after the New Zealand Herald revealed that Liu paid $15,000 for a book at the same fundraiser in 2007. Labour has said it had no record of any donations from Liu. And leader David Cunliffe had to fight to keep his job after revelations he wrote a letter for Liu's residency, despite previous denials.
The Chinese businessman, who has also donated to National, has been at the centre of a New Zealand political storm in recent weeks.
Maurice Williamson resigned as a minister after an admission he intervened in a police investigation on Liu's behalf.

Labour loudly condemned National for so-called cash-for-access in the wake of the resignation.

If the allegations contained in Mr Liu's statement are true (and why would they not be?), the Labour Party has clearly broken the electoral laws of the day which required donations of greater than $10,000 to be declared. Mr Liu has made at least two donations above that threshhold.But Labour cannot account for them, so where did the money go?

Even supposed friends of Labour's from the Left are now calling for a proper investigation into this issue; read on:

The latest developments have sparked calls for a police inquiry.
"This is scandalous from the public's perspective. There has to be some sort of official investigation, whether it's a police one or a parliamentary one," said political commentator Bryce Edwards. "There must be some sort of official investigation, whether it's a police or parliamentary."
Asked about a potential investigation under electoral finance laws, Liu's lawyer Todd Simmonds indicated that Liu was comfortable with his financial support and would cooperate with any inquiry.

And as the Labour Party hierarchy gathers to finalise Labour's party list today, David Cunliffe is in full retreat, leaving damage control to the party organisation:

Cunliffe last night dodged questions, saying it was a "matter for Labour Party's head office". Labour Party general secretary Tim Barnett said the party had no record of the donation.

Having spent months attacking National over its links with Mr Liu, David Cunliffe simply cannot walk away from this scandal. His hands may not have personally touched Donghua Liu's loot, but unless he withdraws every single allegation he or any of his MPs have made against any National MP who had anything to do with Mr Liu, he is a weapons-grade hypocrite.

Bryce Edwards is especially uncharitable to Mr Cunliffe. Further down in the story Edwards added that although the blame did not lie with Cunliffe personally, he had to deal with egg on his face. "It does create a charge of hypocrisy because he's campaigned strongly against the Government relationship with Donghua Liu and it appears Labour's relationship is just as deep.". 

We disagree with Bryce Edwards here; Labour is in this mess far, far deeper than National, whose donation from Mr Liu was properly declared as required by law. Labour cannot even find the money, let alone have declared the donations!

Labour has tried for months to make political capital out of National's links with big business, and especially with Donghua Liu. We now learn that Labour was only too happy to take Mr Liu's case, and that one of its former MP's faces prima facie evidence of having had a very cosy relationship with the Chinese businessman, which was not declared to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests.

Here's a summary of Mr Liu's donations to Labour, or to those linked to Labour:

Liu's signed statement was dated May 3, two days after Williamson's resignation. It said:
• Liu paid "close to $100,000" for wine at a 2007 Labour Party fundraiser;
• 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.
Barker previously told the Herald that he could barely remember having dinner.
Last night Barker, now a regional councillor, said the revelations came "as a surprise and a complete reversal" of Liu's previous comments.

This whole case now needs to be referred to an independent body such as the Office of the Auditor-General, or the Electoral Commission for investigation. In the meantime, every allegation made by Labour about cronyism, cash for access, cash for policy and other such things stands in tatters, as does the credibility of the Labour Party and its leader.

0 The Dom-Post on Cunliffe

The Dominion-Post took a deep breath and waited for an extra day before penning an editorial on David Cunliffe. But the delay makes it no less condemnatory; under the headline Scratch that itch while you can David the editorial opines:

David Cunliffe itched to be Labour Party leader for years. After losing power in 2008, the party lumbered along under two failing leaders. He barely hid his ambitions to replace them.
Now, 10 months into his tenure, he should take a moment to enjoy the role. Barring a miraculous campaign performance, he'll be finished soon.
Two events this week have pinned Cunliffe to the wall. One is a 23 per cent poll rating - apocalyptic territory for a major party. The other is an 11-year-old letter that contradicted his flat denial that he had ever helped controversial businessman Donghua Liu.
Never mind that the poll may be an outlier. Never mind that the letter is a fairly bland document, the type that MPs send out in droves over the course of a political career. Never mind that dodgy memories are congenital in politicians, as Prime Minister John Key will confirm.
The heart of the problem is Cunliffe's judgment and temperament, which have been found lacking yet again. Under direct questions on a specific matter, about a public figure involved in repeated scandals, the Labour leader got it completely, insistently wrong.

The Donghua Liu situation has certainly harmed David Cunliffe's reputation. But it is the continuing flow of negative polling that is hurting the most. Even yesterday afternoon, the Roy Morgan poll had a yawning gap between National and any Labour/Green alliance. Those MP's towards the bottom end of Labour's list are going to be very nervous at the moment.

The editorial continues, noting an odd decision by the Labour leader to lambast potentially two thirds of his caucus:

He followed up the blunder by issuing veiled threats at caucus colleagues considering disloyalty - all but calling them "scabs".
If Cunliffe was ahead in the polls, or if this was an isolated misstep, he could shrug it off quickly. But his support is so low, and his gaffes so familiar, the impression will linger longer than the incident itself: that he is not up to running the country.
From his secret trust for donations to his leadership bid, to his laughable description of his $2.5 million Herne Bay home as a "doer-upper", Cunliffe has repeatedly made a fool of himself in awkward, revealing ways.
Combine those mistakes with a haughty, serious style, a tendency to preach instead of persuade, a fondness for vague rallying cries (with liberal talk of "Kiwis") instead of insights that speak to people's concerns, and Cunliffe's predicament is not surprising.
Of course, the self-fulfilling nature of bad polling plays a part, too. Watching a party go into freefall is something like a bank run; no-one wants to be the last supporter standing. But Cunliffe has failed to stop the panic. 

The point about the self-fulfilling nature of polling is very valid here. There have been three polls this week. Labour's best result was in the Herald-DigiPoll, which showed the party up marginally to 30.5%. But a party supported by less than a third of voters is not going to be able to lead a coalition government. Roy Morgan had Labour at 28.5%, and of course the nadir was the Stuff-Ipsos poll where Labour garnered just 23.2% support; less than one in four.

After either today or tomorrow, depending on how one interprets the words "the 3 months prior to the announced date of a general election" in Labour's constitution, a no-confidence vote in the leader can be triggered within the Labour caucus, and a new leader can be elected without having to go to the party and the unions. 

Replacing David Cunliffe in this manner would be extreme, and would risk alienating supporters and unions (and their dollars). We think it is an unlikely outcome, but it is one that cannot be ruled out if the next round of TV polls confirms this week's polling.

But the mere fact that this discussion is even taking place suggests Labour is not a happy place at the moment. Momentum plays a big role in politics, and right at the moment Labour has none. There will be a number of Labour MP's looking nervously at their prospects of employment beyond 20 September, and that cannot be good news for David Cunliffe.

0 Grant Robertson rejects "gotcha" politics

TVNZ's Breakfast programme had Grant Robertson and Judith Collins side by side this morning. Unsurprisingly, the main topic of conversation was David Cunliffe; here's the piece:

What interested us the most was Grant Robertson's reinvention as a stringent opponent of "gotcha" politics. It's great that he wants to spend the next three months talking about the things that matter to New Zealanders, like jobs, and the economy.

Unfortunately though, Mr Robertson has been so obsessed with getting Judith Collins' scalp since he first raised the Oravida issue in early March that he hasn't had a lot of time to talk about the things that matter to New Zealanders.

Mr Robertson has asked at least 13 primary questions of Judith Collins or the Prime Minister since he first raised the Oravida issue, plus a number of supplementaries to primary questions asked by other MP's, most notably David Cunliffe and Winston Peters. In addition, the "media centre" on Mr Robertson's page on the Labour Party website has multiple media releases put out by the MP or his media staffers.

Credit to Judith Collins though. She must have been heavily tempted to shred Grant Robertson after all the unpleasant things he has said about her and her husband in the last few months. But she sat serenely and full of grace, although the twinkle in her eye suggested that she may know more about the Donghua Liu donations to Labour than she was letting on; time will tell.

Perhaps Mr Robertson's latter-day conversion to having a strong dislike of "gotcha" politics has more to do with Labour currently being the "gottee" rather than the "gotter", if you'll pardon us inventing new words. Or perhaps it has something to do with the date. After all, after tomorrow, Labour can change its leader without having to ask the party and the trade unions, and this might just have been Grant Robertson trying to differentiate himself from David Cunliffe.

It will be interesting to see how long Grant Robertson's rejection of "gotcha" politics lasts.  

0 A poll sandwich

The two main newspaper groups have released political polls this week. If the Herald-Digi-Poll was bad news for the Labour Party, then they're not going to like this morning's Stuff-Ipsos poll, completing the poll sandwich.

But there's no escaping it; here's the bad news:

Labour's support has slumped to its lowest level since the 2011 election, with leader David Cunliffe battling for survival after it emerged he intervened in a residency application for Chinese businessman Donghua Liu.
In the latest Stuff.co.nz/Ipsos political poll, the party has dropped 6 percentage points to 23 per cent. National is soaring on 56 per cent, which would allow it to govern alone. Click here for full graphics. 
Cunliffe has failed to stop his party's slide in the poll since he took over as leader in September, and is now facing election humiliation. His support as preferred prime minister slipped to 11 per cent, down two points. Prime Minister John Key edged ahead, up three points to 51.4 per cent.
As he faced fire over the Liu allegations, Cunliffe insisted he retained the confidence of his caucus - but admitted he had broached the subject with senior colleagues.
Tomorrow a pre-election window opens, allowing the caucus to dump its leader without triggering the wider vote of the entire party's membership. After a wave of dismal results, the latest poll would leave Labour with 29 seats, meaning five MPs would get the chop if the election were held today. National would score 71 seats.
Our polling took place earlier this week, before the Liu revelations came to light. It shows disillusioned Labour supporters are now undecided where their loyalties lie. Respondents who voted Labour in 2011, and planned to do so in September, fell from 81.6 per cent in February to 61.3 per cent. The drop in support is greatest among 30 to 44-year-olds.
Ipsos managing director Matt Benson said past Labour voters were now unsure who to vote for.
"An increase in alternate party activity on the Left side may have traditional Labour voters weighing up their options and thinking again about Labour. On the other side, as the party options for conservative voters reduce, we are seeing them flock to National." 

This truly is a terrible poll for Labour, and it's not the news they needed this morning after a brutal day in the spotlight yesterday. Here's the poll in graphical form:

Every sandwich needs a filling. For this poll sandwich, the filling has been the revelations that Donghua Liu made donations to the Labour Party, and that Mr Cunliffe wrote to the then New Zealand Immigration Service on behalf of his constituent back in 2003, which was a time when Labour supported business migration from China. The latter revelation came just a day after Mr Cunliffe had denied ever advocating on behalf of Donghua Liu.

If Labour MP's were looking for an excuse to change jockeys in the run-up to the Big Race on September 20th, Mr Cunliffe has obliged. Add to that suggestions from this latest poll that five Labour MP's could be looking for employment after the General Election, and a casual mood for change within the party could become more urgent.

David Cunliffe was in a defiant mood yesterday afternoon; publicly, at least. But he flew to Auckland to appear on Campbell Live last night, and we wonder if there have been any behind-the-scenes discussions in his absence. We wonder if the Campbell Live appearance was a tactical error from Mr Cunliffe, rather than hunkering down in the War Room with his Chief of Staff Matt McCarten, and planning his strategy.

Today will be a very interesting day indeed. We heard whispers last night from a very surprising source not too distant from the Labour Party that two Labour MP's have been counting their numbers, and that one in particular believes they have enough support. This poll may be a catalyst to act, but it may equally be a catalyst not to act, and to wait for the post-election fallout.

Stay tuned; and we hope that Mr Cunliffe doesn't choke on his poll sandwich.

0 Breaking news: David Cunliffe advocated for Donghua Liu

The Herald has just posted this story:

Labour Party leader David Cunliffe - who said this week he had never met Donghua Liu or advocated on his behalf - wrote a letter to immigration officials on behalf of the controversial businessman who was applying for residency in New Zealand.
The 2003 letter was written in his capacity as the MP for New Lynn after he was "approached my constituent Donghua Lui [sic] who is concerned at the time it is taking to process his Investment Category application".
Mr Cunliffe this week denied any involvement with Liu's residency bid after the Herald revealed the property developer paid $15,000 at a Labour Party fundraiser for a book signed by Helen Clark in 2007.
The letter, released to the Herald today under the Official Information Act, dated April 11, 2003 said Liu's application for residency was accepted for processing by the Immigration Service on August 13, 2002.

Mr Cunliffe said Mr Liu wished to set up a joint venture business with his Tianlong Property Development Company - which owns his stalled property development in Newmarket - to export large quantities of agricultural and horticultural products to China.
"It is hoped that products from the company will be available to the market in July 2003," wrote Mr Cunliffe.
"I am aware of the difficulties facing the Business Migration Branch of New Zealand Immigration Services in coping with the overwhelming numbers of applicants that have applied for consideration under these categories and the time taken to verify documents.
"However, it would be very helpful to Mr Liu to be advised of an estimated period of time in which he could expect a decision on his case."
"Yesterday, Mr Cunliffe told reporters questioning him about Liu's financial support for Labour he did not recall meeting him and denied advocating on Liu's behalf in his residency application."
Liu was granted residency under the Investor Category in 2005 by Labour's associate Immigration Minister Damien O'Connor against official advice.

And the Herald has posted this snippet from an interview with Mr Cunliffe yesterday on Twitter:

Wow. Is this ever going to set a cat amongst the pigeons! It's hard to imagine how Mr Cunliffe can survive this.

Even this morning, he told Tim Fookes at Newstalk ZB in Wellington that to the best of his knowledge, he had never met Mr Liu. Just hours later, he is exposed as having written a letter to the Immigration Service where he said that he had been "approached by my constituent Donghua Lui [sic] who is concerned at the time it is taking to process his Investment Category application".

Here, via the Herald, is the letter in question:
 

And John Armstrong has chimed in; he opines:

David Cunliffe is in deep political trouble. So deep that his resignation as Labour's leader may now be very much in order.
It now emerges that - contrary to the point-blank denials that Cunliffe gave to a press conference only yesterday - that he did assist controversial businessman Donghua Liu in the latter's application for New Zealand residency.
At a minimum, the revelation that Cunliffe wrote a letter to immigration officials seeking information on progress regarding the residency application is a massive blow to the Labour leader's personal credibility. How can anyone have any confidence in what he says from hereon?
Cunliffe may argue that the letter was about immigration processes and written on a constituent's behalf - something MPs frequently do - and therefore was not an endorsement of the application.
But that does not wash. Either deliberately or through a lapse of memory, Cunliffe has been economical with the truth.

He has called for National Party ministers' heads to roll for the equivalent or less. Having set the standard required of others, it is incumbent on him to himself follow suit.
The self-ravaging of his credibility means Labour now has to abandon its strategy of trying to paint John Key and National as corrupt. To carry on it that fashion would be the height of hypocrisy.

This is a huge blow to David Cunliffe, and a huge blow to the credibility of the Labour Party.

Parliament sits in just over 40 minutes. It will be unmissable this afternoon.