0 The Liu/Labour saga deepens

Donghua Liu's partner Juan Zhang and Rick Barker at a Labour fundraising auction in 2007. (NZ Herald photo)

The links between Chinese businessman Donghua Liu and the Labour Party are becoming more obvious; the Herald reports:

A Labour Cabinet Minister presented a bottle of wine to the partner of businessman Donghua Liu at a fundraiser for the party.
The Herald has obtained a photograph of Rick Barker with Juan Zhang, who has two children with Liu, after he won an auction for the bottle at an Auckland restaurant in June 2007.
It is not known how much Liu paid for the wine - believed to be signed by then-Prime Minister Helen Clark - and Mr Barker said he presented auction prizes several times at Labour fundraisers.
He was the Minister for Internal Affairs at the time, and visited Liu in his hometown of Chongqing in China earlier that year, although he did not know Liu was a donor to Labour.
Two sources have told the Herald that Liu paid $15,000 at an auction in 2007 for a book signed by Helen Clark.
Labour general secretary Tim Barnett said a check of the party's records showed no donation from Liu under his name.

However, he said it was possible he made donations at the local electorate level and had not been recorded by the party's central administration.
The Labour Party has previously accused the Government of making "cash for access" deals with Donghua Liu, who received citizenship after lobbying from National minister Maurice Williamson and whose hotel was later opened by Prime Minister John Key.

So now, even though Labour cannot find any record of even ONE donation from Mr Liu, there is evidence from more than one source that the Chinese businessman made at least two donations to Labour in 2007. This was AFTER he had been approved for NZ residence by Damien O'Connor.

Rick Barker appears to be the common denominator here, as he was with the other Mr Liu; Dover Samuels' mate Bill Liu, about whom we have commented frequently. The Herald story continues to detail Mr Barker's involvement:

Mr Barker, now a regional councillor in Hawkes Bay, said he was a guest of Liu at the dinner in Chongqing and visited his cement company while on holiday in China. But he had not known Liu was a Labour donor and he was not in China on official business as a minister.
"I went to China to catch up with some friends of mine, see some sights ... and I made a side trip to Chongqing - I had not been to the city before.
"I was in the city a short time. Mr Liu showed me his business and that night, I attended a dinner which seemed to be a dinner he had put on for all his staff."
Mr Barker could not remember how he came to be invited to visit Liu in Chongqing.
He said it was "probable" he also had dinner with Liu in New Zealand.
"I am trying to recall events of over seven years ago, so it's a little challenging.
"But it can't have been a regular event, because if it was I would recall that. In fact, my contact with Liu fell away quite quickly."
At the time of the donation and dinner with Mr Barker, Liu had permanent residency - granted in 2005 by Labour's Associate Immigration Minister, Damien O'Connor, against official advice - but was not yet a New Zealand citizen.

We've heard some numbers bandied around for the price paid for the bottle of wine shown above. The figure of $100,000 has been mentioned by several sources. If that is indeed accurate it is a serious donation, and even an organisation as inept as the Labour Party would have some record of it, you would think.

Mr Barker's "side-trip" to Chongqing is also interesting. We've heard media reports that Chongqing was 1800km from where Mr Barker was holidaying in China; almost the distance from Auckland to Sydney. That's a long way to travel to visit a cement factory and have dinner with a casual contact. It puts Judith Collins' 30km "side-trip" to Oravida for a glass of milk into perspective!

But what is really interesting here is the political background against which these events took place. Labour introduced the insidious Electoral Finance Bill in July 2007, the month after Donghua Liu made a substantial donation to the party at a fundraising dinner. Wikipedia reports this of the Bill:

 

The Electoral Finance Act 2007 was a controversial^[2][3] act in New Zealand. The Electoral Finance Bill was introduced by the Fifth Labour Government partly in response to the 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy, in particular "third-party" campaigns.
The proponents of the bill generally held that it was required to prevent wealthy private parties from "buying elections" anonymously via advertising campaigns or other financially costly lobbying, while the opponents considered it a serious restriction of civil liberties, and further considered that spending private money on political campaigning was a democratic right.

It is already apparent that Donghua Liu made two donations to the Labour Party via items purchased at fundraising auctions. There seems to be no dispute over the value of the first donation; $15,000 for a book signed by Helen Clark. At the time that donation was made, the threshold for donations requiring declaration was $10,000. On that basis, it can be reasonably alleged that Labour, whether at branch or national level has broken the law. If the second donation was also over the threshold, that's two breaches; at a time when Labour was about to introduce a draconian law to restrict political donations.

This looks very bad for the Labour Party, and must be investigated. Labour has railed against National receiving a donation from Donghua Liu (which WAS properly declared), but is Labour's own house in order? It would appear not.

David Cunliffe will continue to distance himself from this scandal, but he cannot do that. He was a senior member of the party's caucus at the time, and now that he is party leader, the buck stops with him. He cannot simply move on as though nothing has happened. He, party general secretary Tim Barnett and president Moira Coatsworth need to provide answers as to whether Labour has broken the law.

But the consequences for Labour do not end there. Labour and Green MP's are fond of saying that certain things don't meet the "sniff test", a phrase that was thrown around with some considerable abandon with regard to Judith Collins.

Having accused Mrs Collins of corruption, and having accused National of accepting cash for access from Mr Liu, Labour now faces a sniff test of its own. And the stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

0 Has Labour learned nothing from the Electoral Finance Bill debacle?

Those who have been hanging around Keeping Stock for a long time will know our history. The blog was started due to our anger at Labour's insidious Electoral Finance Bill, rammed through Parliament in the last sitting days of 2007. It was bad legislation, and the process was even worse.

After its defeat in 2008, many in Labour acknowledged their mistake, and their Act was repealed and replaced. The new law is not perfect, but it sure beats the legislation rammed through by Labour, with the support of the Greens and Winston Peters.

Today, it would appear that Labour has learned nothing from the 2007 fiasco, and two subsequent defeats at the polls; Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has committed to legislation that will remove the "coat-tailing" provisions that allow small parties to get more MPs into Parliament.
The party already has a member's bill before the House, but Cunliffe said legislation would be introduced within the first 100 days of a government he led.
Coat-tailing allows for smaller parties that have not reached the 5 per cent threshold, to bring more MPs into Parliament on the back of one MP who may have won an electorate seat.
It also can allow larger parties to do deals that would help smaller parties into Parliament, which happened with ACT and National in the Epsom seat in Auckland.
The Internet Party and Mana have also merged their list, in the hopes of bringing more MPs into Parliament on the coat-tails of Mana leader Hone Harawira, if he retains his Te Tai Tokerau seat.
Cunliffe said he challenged prime minister John Key to sign up to Labour's bill, but the party would move to change the Electoral Act within its first 100 days in government, regardless.
"We're saying a very principled and consistent thing," he told Firstline this morning.
"We think it's wrong, no matter who does it. 

It's good that Labour is now admitting it was wrong to put up low-profile candidates against Peter Dunne in Ohariu, against Jeanette Fitzsimons in Coromandel and against Jim Anderton in Wigram for all those elections. Even in 2008, when the tide was going out on Labour, they still gave Anderton an armchair ride into Parliament by standing a candidate who got almost 10,000 more party votes than electorate votes.

There is no need for Labour to rush through this legislation under urgency and with either an abbreviated or no select committee process however. The "100 days" target sounds snappy, but the reality is that if Labour was able to form a government, they have to start on the assumption that the coalition will be robust enough to last a full three-year term. That leaves plenty of time for a full select  committee process and a proper parliamentary debate, without the need for urgency.

To trample on the Electoral Act in the cavalier manner which Labour is proposing sets a very dangerous precedent. That alone makes us very suspicious that today's announcement by David Cunliffe is an act of political posturing, possibly influenced by Labour's internal polling showing distaste for the MegaMana dirty deal.

And of course the ultimate irony would be this; Labour forms a coalition with the GIMPs, of whom MegaMana have coat-tailed into Parliament, then outlaws coat-tailing. Hypocrisy much?

0 Espiner (C) on MegaMana

There has been a lot written in the last week about MegaMana, Kim Dotcom, Hone Harawira, Laila Harre et al. 

MegaMana Fatigue Syndrome is fast approaching, and a Dotcom-free day beckons, but it's not here just yet; not whilst people like Colin Espiner are making their voices heard. Under the headline What's behind Dotcom's civil union? Espiner (C) opines:

Say what you like about the sacrifice of conscience for cash - a great big German spanner has just been flung into the machinery of this year's election campaign.
I wasn't going to write about Kim Dotcom's vanity party again this week. It has had far more publicity in its short life than it deserves.
Plus, it seems that everywhere you look Dotcom is there. Giving evidence in the John Banks trial. Breaking up with his wife, Mona (on Twitter, of course). Fighting Hollywood over access to his millions. Calling on Prime Minister John Key to resign (again).
Shortly, it will be Dotcom in the dock as he fights extradition to the United States on fraud and racketeering charges. Forget Banks and buckets of mud - that hearing is going to be the trial of the year. So a bit of Dot-gone seemed like no bad thing.
And then suddenly, there he was in a civil union with the beneficent ghost from socialist Christmases past: Laila Harre.
The media was expecting Dotcom's Internet Party would announce a flake as its new leader. Or a complete moron. Either would have done just fine. We could have ridiculed them, and moved on to more important matters.
But Harre isn't a flake. And she's certainly no moron. She's one of the most driven, persuasive and intelligent politicians I've met. I don't know how Dotcom managed to put a ring on the darling of the Left but on the face of it, it's a major coup.
The question, though, is for who?
Harre is an old-school socialist. She's from a trades union background. She's a former member of the Labour Party, of New Labour, and of the Alliance Party. She's most recently worked for the Green Party.
She's mates with most of New Zealand's remaining old hard Lefties, including Matt McCarten (now Labour leader David Cunliffe's chief of staff), rent-a-protester John Minto (also in the Internet Party tent), ex Green MP and now ex Mana candidate Sue Bradford, broadcaster and former Alliance MP Willie Jackson (who's flying a kite about standing for the Internet Party himself) and radical Maori separatist Annette Sykes (president of Mana and number two on its list).
Harre was one of Jim Anderton's stars when the Alliance Party won 10 per cent of the vote and entered government with Labour in 1999. She quickly rose to Cabinet rank, and was a capable minister.
But when the Alliance imploded three years later, Anderton and Harre fell out. He went on to form the Progressive Party, returning to Parliament on the back of his safe Wigram seat. Harre took over as leader of the Alliance, and lost, badly, in the 2002 election.
On the face of it, then, Harre is likely to appeal to older Lefties who admire her feminist principles and strong trade union credentials. 

And therein lies the problem for Dotcom's "Internet" party; older Lefties are already voting for the parties of the Left, so all that is likely to happen is that the votes of the parties of the Left will get further diluted. MegaMana may get a bigger share of the vote, but it will be at Labour and the Greens' expense, and a few conspiracy theorists may be lured away from Winston First. Will that change the Government? Probably not.

Espiner (C) continues:

It's hard to see her appeal to young, internet-savvy geeks though. Last time Harre was in Parliament the internet was barely out of short pants. And the people she's trying to persuade to vote for her weren't born and certainly wouldn't know her from a 33K dial-up modem.
But does it matter? Probably not. As long as Harre gets votes, neither the Internet Party nor Mana will care where they come from. And she's got $3 million of Dotcom's money to spend - that's more than any other party contesting the election, including Colin Craig's Conservatives. 

It's going to be fun over the next few weeks going through speeches made during the Electoral Finance Bill debate. We've already made reference to Hone Harawira's remarkable transformation from one who hated the influence of money in elections to one who has $500,000 to spend this time around. 

And the Hansard extracts we've saved so far have some really doozies in them that we'll share a little closer to the election as the political landscape takes shape.

Here's the remainder of Espiner's piece, where he gets right to the heart of the issue, and what this obscene display of money-flashing is all about:

On the face of it, the Left has engineered a spectacular reverse takeover of Dotcom's party. It's like a reunion of every failed candidate from every disappeared political party of the past 20 years, funded by an avowed capitalist whose fundamental philosophy - the freedom of movement of capital and people - runs counter to everything his candidates stand for.
But remember, Dotcom doesn't really care. His political aims are pragmatic, not philosophical.
In my opinion, there are two reasons why Dotcom is manipulating the political process. First, he wants rid of Prime Minister John Key. Second, he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life in a United States penitentiary. If the Internet-Mana party is elected with more than a couple of MPs, then Dotcom is likely to achieve the first objective.
There is no possibility the party could side with National. So a vote for Internet-Mana is a vote for a Labour-Green-Internet-Mana-and-possibly-New Zealand First-Government.
On the second objective, it's possible Dotcom could delay any extradition ruling against him long enough for a change of government to take place. The new multi-tentacled administration could overturn a court ruling. It would be foolish and contrary to the rule of law, but it could.
The Internet-Mana party may also either confuse or scare the bejesus out voters and strengthen National's hand. Blue-collar, socially conservative, Labour-leaning voters - who'd only just got their heads around the idea of dealing with the Greens - may not countenance their vote ushering in a potential coalition led by far-Left feminist and Maori radicals.
In her acceptance speech of the Internet Party leadership last week, Harre admitted her party was gaming the MMP system in a bid to get into Parliament. But she said it was "time for New Zealanders to take back MMP".
It was a nice line, with a ring of socialist rhetoric to it. But nothing could be farther from the truth. The Internet-Mana party may be successful or it may fall flat on its face.
But it is Dotcom who is attempting to take over MMP. And it is for no-one but himself. 

Kudos to Colin Espiner for calling the MegaMana marriage for what it is; a cynical piece of manipulation by Dotcom, to his own benefit. And shame on all the supposedly principled Left-wing politicians like Harawira. Laila Harre and John Minto who are standing by and letting it happen.

In this case, the end does NOT justify the means. The largest attempted rort of our political democracy in this country's history is underway, and it needs to be strongly condemned. Roll on July 7th.