0 Hypocrisy of the day.

A post from James Stephenson:

According to Stuff, the President of the NZEI, Julie Nowotarski has labelled ACT's education policy "crackpot nonsense" and her equivalent at the PPTA, Angela Roberts, has said that children could become "political pawns" of the ACT party, under their plan to allow Schools to opt out of Ministry control.

Children as political pawns? Sounds dreadful, I wonder what that would look like? Maybe something like this:

The message to parents, that schools and children are the property of the Unions to control, is very clear. My old Secondary School in the UK went "Grant Maintained" way back in 1993, has gone from strength to strength and is now an Academy (the UK's term for Charter School) with a recently-added Sixth Form.

Far from being "crackpot nonsense" this policy from ACT is tried, tested, successful and popular. More like this please Jamie.

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 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 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 UPDATED: Labour's Liu hypocrisy

The Labour Party has been busted for hypocrisy. After several months of beating up on National over businessman Donghua Liu, look what the Herald reports this morning:

A wealthy Auckland businessman, whose links to the National Party led to a minister's resignation, also made a secret $15,000 donation to the Labour Party - and hosted a Cabinet minister at a lavish dinner in China.
The Labour Party has previously accused the Government of "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.
But the Herald can reveal Liu, 53, also paid $15,000 at a Labour Party auction in 2007 for a book signed by Helen Clark, the Prime Minister at the time, according to a party source.
The source said Liu also hosted Rick Barker, the then Internal Affairs Minister, at a dinner in his hometown of Chongqing.
Mr Barker, who is now a regional councillor in Hawkes Bay, confirmed he was a guest at the dinner and also visited Liu's cement company while on holiday in China.
But he said he was not aware 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."
However, 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."
Political donations made at fundraising auctions or dinners are not recorded individually, but the total amount raised is declared.

Rick Barker was also at the centre of allegations of impropriety over the other Liu, Bill Liu. But this revelation is far more damaging.

Trevor Mallard got ejected from Parliament on 8th May for suggesting that Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse was offered cash by Liu at a meeting on immigration policy. Labour's deputy leader Grant Robertson has accused the Government of cronyism over Donghua Liu. And David Cunliffe himself has accused the Government of a conflict of interest over Liu. 

Now it emerges that Donghua Liu also made a substantial donation to the Labour Party, and befriended the then Internal Affairs Minister. Any moral high ground that Labour had on this issue has just subsided.

There's one more question that must be asked; was Donghua Liu one of the anonymous donors to David Cunliffe's secret trust? Until Mr Cunliffe comes clean and identifies his donors, questions like this are legitimate, and will continue to be asked.

Once again, the Labour Party has been exposed as hypocritical on political donations. Who would have ever thunk it?


UPDATE: Whaleoil comes up with a headline we wish we'd thought of at 5.30am this morning - Labour's credibility "down the Liu"

And DPF notes that Labour appears to have breached the Electoral Act as it stood in 2007 by not having declared this donation. Will Graham McCready prosecute Labour? 

0 Hide on MegaMana

Our favourite commenter Rex made this observation earlier this morning:

Next job, cut and paste Rodney Hide's rant!

At that point, we hadn't made it as far as the Herald on Sunday's website yet; we were still working through e-mails sent to us overnight bringing things to our attention. And the frequency of that has increased in recent weeks.

But naturally, we went straight off in search of Hide's latest opinion-piece. And we found that he does indeed rip in to all those involved in MegaMana; under the headline Hilarious Dotcom drama is riveting Hide opines:

I used to think politics was all about achieving good government. That proved invariably disappointing. These days, politics is no longer my responsibility. I'm happy if it just proves interesting.
That's why I am for the Internet-Mana Party. They're the best entertainment in years. If they were a parody they would be too improbable to be believed.
Maori nationalist Hone Harawira calls Pakeha the rudest of names and the wrong colour to date his daughter. But he's jumped into bed with whiter-than-white Kim Dotcom.
Harawira trumpets Mana and His People but that's not stopping him using his electorate to coat-tail Dotcom's party into Parliament. His price? $3 million.
It's easy to accuse Harawira of hypocrisy but he has a ready reply: it's a lot of money. At $3m his double standard is good and high.
Laila Harre wasn't elected leader of the Internet Party. She was hired. She's been selected and paid for by Dotcom. The former coffee picker for the Sandinistas is New Zealand's first corporate-hire political leader.
A mate rang after Harre's appointment splitting his sides, "All they need now is Pam Corkery". Corkery was appointed press secretary that day.
Willie Jackson considered standing but wanted $250,000. That's his price for standing up for his principles.

We're grateful to Judge Holden, Edward the Confessor, Rex or whatever else he calls himself for pointing us in the direction of Hide's column, although we would have found it at some point in any event. And we make no apologies for copying and pasting a story that tells the truth of the MegaMana rort in the manner that Hide does.

That's because the rort would be funny, almost beyond belief in fact, if it wasn't such an affront to democracy. 

Hide continues, making a mockery of the notion that MegaMana is going to be some kind of new, visionary force:

The recycled 1990s Alliance Party is promising a digital future. But they're technophobes and Luddites. Harre declares herself well-qualified because her children are the internet generation and her husband uses a computer at work.
She also believes Dotcom is funding her to help the poor and downtrodden with 1970s socialism. It's nothing to do with his extradition to face criminal charges. The left don't talk about truth. Rather, it's the narrative. Harre is the only person buying her narrative.
Next up, Annette Sykes. Her driving force? The Treaty and economic equality. Nothing about Dotcom's over-the-top lifestyle and opulence suggests Treaty concerns or a share-the-wealth mentality.
Someone isn't being upfront about their political aims and aspirations. The gulf between Dotcom and his politicians is altogether too yawning.
Then we have veteran campaigner John Minto. His promise? That Mana is coming after the rich. Capital gains taxes, financial transaction taxes, inheritance taxes and a more progressive tax system are all part of his campaign.
He's targeting the "parasites" and their "unearned income". In the meantime, he's more than happy taking the fat cat's money. That's the money the FBI are accusing Dotcom of not earning.

The Occupy movement in 2011 protested about the "1%"; the parasites and fat cats referred to by Hide. If his repeated boasts about his personal wealth are to be believed, Dotcom is not only part of the 1%, but quite likely in the top 0.25%. 

He is the very kind of person that the likes of Laila Harre, Annette Sykes, Hone Harawira and John Minto have spent their lives condemning, yet when the cheque book comes out, they gladly take his money, and climb into bed with him. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Rodney Hide isn't done yet; he has one final go at Dotcom:

 

Dotcom set out to destroy Banks for not rushing to rescue him from Mt Eden Prison. He expected a minister to jump for a $50,000 political donation. That's his character. Imagine what he expects for $3m.
And imagine how he will perform when he doesn't get it. Pure entertainment.

The day is fast approaching when the REAL Kim Dotcom is going to be unmasked. When that happens, watch for those who have taken his filthy lucre to be unmasked with him for selling their principles for the promise of big bucks.

Hide's final two words are right on the money; it will indeed be "pure entertainment". There are going to be some extremely red faces on the left-hand side of the political divide and we can't wait to see the squirming!

0 More Cunliffe hypocrisy

David Cunliffe has declared war on coat-tailing and the Conservative Party; simultaneously. But he's also dug a deep hole for himself; Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has launched an attack on Conservative Party leader Colin Craig amid growing speculation of an electoral deal with National.
Prime Minister John Key told media this week he would be looking to make three deals to give minor-party candidates a chance at winning seats, and would announce them before the September 20 election.
It is widely understood one of those deals would be with Craig, who is set to announce this month the electorate he will be standing in.
Craig has already indicated his preference to stand in one of the northern Auckland electorates - East Coast Bays, which is held by Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully; Upper Harbour, in which National is standing Social Development Minister Paula Bennett; and Rodney, which is held by National back-bench MP Mark Mitchell.
If National gave way for Craig to win a seat and the Conservative's gained more than 1.2 per cent of the vote, an extra two MPs could be brought into Parliament to form a coalition with National.
Cunliffe today said the situation with Craig was a "strange turn of events".
"I wonder whether the people of East Coast Bays like the fact that their choices are being taken away from them, that MMP is being manipulated and they're being told they have to vote for somebody who basically thinks the earth is flat," he said on Firstline.
"That is a very, very strange turn of events and I think it underwhelms public confidence in the MMP system.
"I also think the prime minister should be aware that something like 75 per cent of New Zealanders object to coat-tailing.
"Labour is opposed to coat-tailing, we've got a bill in the House to end it, we've invited the Government to support the bill and so far they've declined. Now we see why - because they want to use coat-tailing to get fringe parties up into Parliament by gifting them a seat, most likely East Coast Bays."

So here's our question to David Cunliffe. If Labour is in a position to form a coalition after the General Election, and if the MegaMana party brought additional MP's into Parliament legally under the current provisions of MMP, would Labour refuse to go into coalition with them?

You see, David Cunliffe has a problem. If coat-tailing is such an urgent problem that legislation must be introduced in the first 100 days of a Labour-led government to outlaw it, surely he cannot accept the votes and support of a party that coat-tails MP's into the House. Or does Mr Cunliffe seriously believe that coat-tailing is only bad when the parties of the Right do it?

So the ball's in your court Mr Cunliffe; you need to categorically rule out any deal or accommodation with the Internet Mana Party including coalition arrangements,  abstaining, and confidence and supply deals. Will you do it?

We reckon the answer to that is self-evident. Labour is all about power at any cost. John Key might be prepared to cut deals, but at least he cuts them out in the open, not in the War Room or the union halls. 

Coat-tailing is either good, or it's bad. But David Cunliffe is being a hypocrite if he thinks he can have a dollar each way.

0 Comment of the Day - 9 June 2014

It's early in the day to be featuring a Comment of the Day. But when we saw this one at Kiwiblog last night, our day was almost done, so it was filed away for use this morning; here 'tis:

Nostradamus (2,842 comments) says: June 8th, 2014 at 8:36 pm

The man who describes himself as the Leader of the Opposition, David Cunliffe, has issued a media release:

John Banks’ resignation was inevitable but should have come a lot sooner, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says.
“The only reason Mr Banks has remained in Parliament for so long is because John Key and National needed his vote.
…
“This government’s mandate has rested on a man found guilty of a serious electoral offence; on Peter Dunne, stripped of his ministerial warrants after he lost the trust of the Prime Minister having allegedly leaked a classified GCSB report; and on a Maori Party cravenly propping up the government.
“The Banks saga has underlined how desperate National is to stay in power. New Zealanders are now asking serious questions about the integrity of this government,” David Cunliffe said.

That media release makes an interesting contrast from this one back in 2009:

Labour acknowledges the jury’s decision today on charges brought against Taito Phillip Field after a long and difficult trial, Labour Chief Whip Darren Hughes said.
“Mr Field was expelled from the Labour Party in 2007. Labour has acted in good faith throughout this process.
“The jury has decided that Mr Field acted illegally.
“The judge is yet to sentence Mr Field. Labour will make no further comment.”

As DPF blogged at the time, Labour could only bring themselves to “acknowledge” the decision. This, as we all know, followed Labour’s prolonged defence of Field between 12 September 2005 and 31 August 2006 – see DPF’s detailed timeline here. And, for good measure, Field was actually expelled from Labour for the cardinal sin of not ruling out standing for another party at the election – nothing to do with his other shady activities.
So, once again, Labour expose themselves as complete hypocrites.

Many commentators have drawn a parallel between Field's conviction and imprisonment and Banks' offending. Apart from the fact that they both involved MPs, the two cases have little in common.

Phillip Field used his position as an MP to offer favours to vulnerable potential immigrants, implying that he could offer them favours in return for free work. That was indeed blatantly corrupt. John Banks however was a private citizen when he filed his campaign return, having lost the Auckland mayoral election to Len Brown. He would not become an MP for another 12 months.

Labour's refusal to denounce Phillip Field, even after he had been found guilty by a jury is telling. As Nostradamus notes above, Field was not expelled from Labour because of the offences he was (at the time) alleged to have committed. He was expelled because he rained on Helen Clark's parade, refusing on the day she was giving her State of the Nation speech to Parliament to rule out that he might be setting up a new political party.

So David Cunliffe's statement about Banks needs to be seen for what it is; political opportunism. Where was his righteous indignation, when day after day Lockwood Smith was grilling Labour over Field's indiscretions and the shonky Ingram Report, which of course reached exactly the conclusion that its Terms of Reference had intended?

Mr Cunliffe is in no position to lecture John Key. If however he was to reveal who the anonymous donors to his Labour's Got Talent campaign were, and admit his hypocrisy in using a secret trust to hide those anonymous donations, he might, like John Banks, be taking the first steps towards redemption. 

0 Sledge of the Day - 7 June 2014

With the General Election now little more than three months away, there's plenty of banter going on around the traps.

Unsurprisingly, David Cunliffe is copping his share of ribbing, given his constantly changing policies (immigration, to name just one), more policy launch glitches, and his general yeah-nah style.

Botany MP Jami-Lee Ross has sledged Mr Cunliffe on Facebook:

David Cunliffe has only himself to blame for these kinds of comments. Surely, as a politician of 14 years' experience, he must have seen the potential danger in setting up a secret trust to receive anonymous donations.

Kudos to Ross for pointing out this apparent hypocrisy on the part of the Labour leader. We have already reflected this week in the naked self-interest in Mr Cunliffe's Road to Damascus conversion with regard to coat-tailing, and we once again thank him for being such an easy target!

0 Quote of the Day - 5 June 2014

John Armstrong helpfully points to the hole that David Cunliffe has dug for himself over his determination to ban coat-tailing:

Of more immediate pertinence, Labour could yet need Internet Mana to secure a majority in the next Parliament. But bringing more MPs into Parliament alongside Hone Harawira will likely require that the new umbrella party's leader hold his Te Tai Tokerau electorate.
If Harawira lost, Internet Mana's party votes would go down the gurgler to the huge disadvantage of the centre-left in what is shaping as a very close contest.
But Cunliffe is now hamstrung. If he drops even the slightest hint - even a coded one - that Labour voters should opt for Internet Maori in Te Tai Tokerau, Cunliffe will be deemed an absolute hypocrite.
Not the kind of label you want to be carrying during an election campaign.

John Armstrong gets this one absolutely right (sorry Rex!), especially with the news this morning that Labour is prepared to do a deal with MegaMana if that is what it takes. To enable coat-tailing when you are promising to do away with it later would be complete and utter hypocrisy. 

It would seem once again that David Cunliffe has managed to seize disaster from the jaws of triumph!

0 Idiot/Savant on Labour's Electoral Act flip-flop

Idiot/Savant from No Right Turn has ripped into the Labour Party over its plans to outlaw coat-tailing:

On Firstline this morning, Labour's David Cunliffe promised to introduce legislation to scrap the "electorate lifeboat" provision of MMP within his first hundred days in office:

“The incoming Labour-led government under my leadership would, within our first 100 days in office, initiate moves to repeal this part of the Electoral Act.
“National has supported a widely discredited electoral rule which skews the democratic process to its own political ends. The New Zealand public can see through that,’’ said David Cunliffe.

I think this is a terrible change. The one MP rule is a vital safeguard which ensures representation of smaller parties. Without it, our Parliament would be much less representative than it is at present (unless it was balanced by a removal of the 5% threshold) - and therefore much less democratic.
It doesn't help that there's the usual enormous helping of hypocrisy from Labour on this.Despite their claims to have been "principled and consistent" on the issue, they quietly gifted Coromandel to the Greens in 1999; their opposition is more recent, and based entirely on a desire to rob National of potential coalition partners. And in order to do that, they're willing to make our Parliament less representative and rob their fellow citizens of a democratic voice. It is immoral and undemocratic - but its what happens when you get professional politicians who view the electoral system as a game to be rigged to their advantage, rather than a framework to maximise democratic representation and responsiveness.

I/S is dead right about Labour's hypocrisy on this issue, even though he downplays it by only mentioning Coromandel. Labour of course gave Jim Anderton a leg-up in Wigram election after election after election by standing a series of Neville Nobodies against the former Labour Party president. Here's a potted summary of how that dirty deal worked:

By the late 1990s, Labour under Helen Clark had largely purged itself of the influence of Roger Douglas. Realising that the cost of a split in the left-wing vote was a continued National government, the two parties agreed to form a coalition for the 1999 elections. Anderton became Deputy Prime Minister after National lost the election. He was also given the newly created post of Minister of Economic Development, which had an emphasis on job creation and regional development initiatives.
Towards the end of the parliamentary term Anderton came into conflict with the Alliance's administrative wing. Party president Matt McCarten and his allies claimed that the Alliance had become too close to Labour, and that it should take a less moderate path; Anderton replied that some moderation was required for the Alliance to accomplish any of its goals. There were complaints that Anderton was too dominant in the party's decision-making and over the fact that he supported the government's stance on the bombing of Afghanistan, while the executive and wider membership opposed it. Eventually, Anderton and three other MPs left the Alliance, establishing the Progressive Coalition, later renamed the Progressive Party. In order to get around the Electoral Integrity Act, which had been passed largely because of Anderton's complaints about waka jumping, Anderton technically remained the Alliance's parliamentary leader until the writ was dropped for the 2002 election.
In the election, Anderton was returned to Parliament, and the Progressives took the Alliance's place as Labour's coalition partner. Although Anderton won his electorate, the small amount of support the Progressives received (1.4% of the party vote) was enough for only one other Progressive – deputy leader Matt Robson – to enter Parliament. Anderton gave up the deputy prime minister's post to Minister of Finance and Labour deputy leader Michael Cullen. He remained Minister of Economic Development, and also held other ministerial portfolios. He ranked third in Cabinet, behind Clark and Cullen.
In the runup to the 2005 election Anderton renamed his party "Jim Anderton's Progressive Party". However, he was the only Progressive returned to Parliament by a narrow margin after many left-wing voters voted for Labour to prevent a National government from being elected due to a split on the left. He became Minister of Agriculture, Minister for Biosecurity, Minister of Fisheries, Minister of Forestry, Minister Responsible for the Public Trust, Associate Minister of Health, and Associate Minister for Tertiary Education.
The 2008 election saw a swing to the right, with National winning approximately 45% of the party vote to Labour's 34%. Anderton retained his seat but the Progressives' share of the party vote remained low, at less than one percent.^[3] In a move described as "unorthodox" by the New Zealand Herald, Anderton announced that he would remain in coalition with Labour in opposition. He said that a priority for the Progressives would be to support better access to dental care.^[4]

Yes; even in Opposition, Labour and Anderton were joined at the hip and were one in everything but name. We remember well the farce in 2002 when the Alliance split (to be led by none other than Laila Harre), and Helen Clark used every excuse in the book plus a few more to justify Anderton's position, and to avoid an early election. It was a farcical time.

But wait; there's more. There was also a time when Peter Dunne was useful to Labour, so Labour's candidates in Ohariu didn't try too hard. Dunne was rewarded with Ministerial roles when he supported Helen Clark and Labour in the post-election wranglings after the 2005 General Election, even though his supporters were expecting him to support National, and have nothing to do with Winston First.

So Labour has been more than happy to deal with coat-tailing MP's in the past, and based on present polling, it will need coat-tailing MP's this year if David Cunliffe is going to form a government. Then, of course, he's going to use the majority accorded to him by the dirty deal with coat-tailing MP's to change the Electoral Act to outlaw coat-tailing.

Idiot/Savant is dead right. This is indeed an "enormous helping of hypocrisy" from Labour and its leader. But why would we expect anything else?

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 First Gower, now Garner

We blogged last night about Patrick Gower's rant about the MegaMana rort.

If you think that was bad, wait until you see what Duncan Garner thinks; Gower's piece was but an entree. In his op-ed this afternoon he has absolutely ripped in to Dotcom, Harawira et al. Under the headline Party for sale - Internet-Mana is a sham and a rort Garner opines:

This Internet-Mana party alliance is a sham and a rort, but MMP allows for it - which is the worst bit. 
I’ve seen nothing like it in the history of NZ politics. It is far less transparent than the dodgy electorate seat deals National has done over the years. New Zealanders have every right to be outraged.

This is about an already convicted criminal - a rich internet tycoon wanted on piracy charges, no less – on the run from the United States and sheltering in New Zealand. He’s a had a run in with the NZ Government and the US authorities, so he’s doing all he can to buy his way out of trouble.
It now includes pulling out his cheque-book and paying for a political party and buying people off – so he can keep his sorry backside out of the clink.
It’s as simple as that: he’s paying big money so he doesn’t turn into some sort of dribbling mess behind bars – some reports suggest he’s pumped $4m into setting up this party. So how much is he paying his people?
I asked new leader Laila Harré yesterday, she said she wasn’t sure yet. But money between the two will change hands at some stands, she’s clear on that.
She will be paid for this role. Is this the New Zealand way? I would argue no way. It’s grubby isn’t it? You only get paid once you get elected don’t you?
I have had a bit to do with Harré over the years. She has been a tireless and effective campaigner for those on the left. However, her former allies think she has sold out; Jim Anderton is far from impressed.
Harré is ambitious. Before all this she had integrity and credibility, but many of us are questioning that now. What does she really have in common with Kim Dotcom? Bugger all. He’s found she has a price after all.

Duncan Garner absolutely nails all the key issues in this sordid rort. Kim Dotcom clearly thinks he can buy people off. New Zealand needs to send him a clear message that that's not how we do things here.

Every man, they say, has his price. We know now that Hone Harawira will dispense with democracy for half a million big ones. We don't know what Laila Harre's price is, but we're guessing it's a darned sight more than the base salary for a back-bench MP.

Garner closes, and rolls out the dreaded "C" word:

Most of all this deal lacks transparency; she will, and should be, hounded by the press about how much she is personally being paid by Kim Dotcom to be the leader. Plus, what sort of deal has been done on Kim Dotcom’s possible extradition?
If there is a change of Government, and a future Minister overturns any extradition, isn’t that corruption? Wouldn’t he have bought his way out of an American jail?
New Zealanders have every right to feel dirty over this deal. It brings our political process into disrepute. Dotcom has contempt for our system, our democracy and our country. To him, everything is for sale and everyone has their price.
I don’t see it lasting. This will, and should, end in tears.

Garner is right; this stinks, far worse than the snapper that got David Shearer's number. The stench of corruption hovers over this dirty, dirty deal. 

And it is especially ironic to consider Hone Harawira's contribution to the Third Reading debate on the Electoral Finance Bill in December 2007, when speaking as a Maori Party MP he said:

HONE HARAWIRA: I want to make the point that if I wish to speak in Māori at any time, I will do so.

We are the Māori Party, with not a bean to our name, but we still turned down $250,000 rather than compromise our independence, and for the same reasons we are opposed to this bill. We are the Māori Party, and we were angry with both the divisive “Iwi/Kiwi” campaign run by National and the nasty “a vote for the Māori Party is a vote for National” campaign run by Labour, because we did not have the wherewithal to counteract either. Yet still we are opposed to this bill. We are the Māori Party, with not a bean to our name, but we stand free in this House, answerable to no one but our own people, uncompromised by shady deals with either of the major parties, and we are proud to say that we are opposed to this electoral finance legislation.

We know Harawira's price now; a price Kim Dotcom willingly paid, with his tainted money. We hope he can live with himself.

0 Cash for access?

The Botany branch of the Labour Party held a fundraiser over the weekend at the Lucky Fortune restaurant.

Interestingly, after all the protestations this week about "cash for access" and dodgy fundraising dinners for wealthy Asian guests, a number of senior Labour MP's attended, as you will see in the photographs below.

David Cunliffe, David Parker, Phil Goff and Jacinda Ardern; the former Labour leader, the current leader and deputy and the woman tipped to be the next Helen Clark were all in attendance at a dinner which by Botany Labour's own admission had the purpose of raising money for the party. We don't know how much it cost, or how much was raised, but that's largely irrelevant.

We need your help here; we can't decide whether the decision by those MP's named above to attend a cash-for-access dinner whilst they are protesting about National's alleged cash-for-access dinners is:

• appalling judgement by Ms Ardern and Messrs Cunliffe, Parker and Goff, or
• absolute arrogance, or
• complete and utter hypocrisy

It may in fact be all three, but you're welcome to leave a comment and indicate your preference. In the meantime though, the true agenda continues to emerge.

At 9am, we heard David Cunliffe say on Newstalk ZB's news that "it's time to have a conversation" about taxpayer funding for political parties. Might the reason for wanting to have that conversation be because donations to the Labour Party have all but dried up since Mr Cunliffe was elected as leader?

Make no mistake Dear Readers; rather than going out and raising money the traditional way, Labour and the Greens want to pick your pocket - again. And we don't know about you, but we can think of plenty of things we'd rather our hard-earned tax dollar was spent on than politicians; especially when David Cunliffe is promising to tax the bejesus out of those who dare to earn reasonable coin if he ever becomes Prime Minister.

0 Hate speech hypocrisy

Not everyone was happy to see Cameron Slater and Whaleoil win the Canon Media Award Best Blog gong last night. You can read a sampling of reaction here, but we urge caution. The Left prides itself on being caring and sensitive, but that trait was lacking last night.

Naturally enough, Whaleoil's arch-enemy, Martyn Bradbury was right to the forefront of the less-than-charitable stuff. Bradbury tweeted thus:

Had Bradbury left it there, it would have been enough. He would have made his point. But making your point is never enough for the bombastic Martyn Bradbury; he had to lay it on thick at The Daily Blog; check this out:

What do you reckon; is accusing someone of being a "hate speech merchant", then posting an image of their face photoshopped on the body of an insect ever so slightly hypocritical? We reckon that it is.

As an aside, Bradbury's condemnation of  "the disgusting Len Brown story" made us laugh out loud. Within a couple of hours of Slater's scoop about the mayor's infidelity, Len Brown publicly admitted the affair. Brown's affair long preceded any political considerations, and the Lame Duck Mayor has only himself to blame for his predicament.

This is a healthy serving of sour grapes from Martyn Bradbury, with lashings of hypocrisy. It's not a pleasant recipe.